Consciousness

(Conversation about)

 

 

With the topic:

Expanding Consciousness

Complex

world view

Feelings

Control

Condemnation

Freedom / Determinism

SELF, It, Superego

 

 

"You say Consciousness is an amplification of the senses," summarized CP. "And you mean it doesn't make any decisions."

 

"Consciousness is enhanced sensory awareness (taking in environmental stimuli and bodily states and relaying them) using a voluntary or involuntary focus to provide the most accurate information possible to targets in the brain," I nodded.

 

“That’s a description that most people are probably unfamiliar with.”

 

"Because they project into 'consciousness' the entire 'freedom of human beings' without examining them in detail."

 

"You mean, it would ultimately come out that it's just an information transmitter for the brain?" asked GP.

 

   ► “Consciousness (the heightened senses) or normal attention might not interpret the world sufficiently for decision-making because that is the domain of the brain; it neither possesses its information nor can it experience it at the necessary speed to react.

   ► The brain needs the information from consciousness (the senses) in order to possibly correct its interpretation of the world and to decide differently or to change its aims.

 

 

 

 

It is important to know: life always also means: experiencing feelings. And that the brain is their memory, in the respective neural networks. "

 

"But why do you need consciousness at all, because the information from the senses could also be stored in the brain without it?"

 

“That is also done with normal attention. But if something is important and essential, you have to look at it more closely. This is the job of consciousness.

 

Feelings in particular are eminently important because they are of outstanding importance for people with regard to aims.

 

As I said: the brain does not perceive. It just builds the world for us according to its aims. In other words, it takes its attention or consciousness from this perspective, experiences it with this "reality" that is then present and transfers the information to the brain.

 

That is why we must have attention and, in reinforcement, consciousness. "

 

   ► “The world as a whole, in all parts, is not as we see it, but always like our brain, to be more precise; his aims they show us”, recapitulated CP.

 

"Many people don't realize this," I nodded. “For them, the world is as they themselves and others (apparently also) see: the same and unambiguous.

 

The fact that aims in the brain shape the respective world according to our dispositions and experiences, which only human perspectives can evoke, is usually strange and unimaginable to them. So, they ignore it, stick to their old point of view. "

 

"So, we cannot see the world objectively*."

 

"Always from our subjective perspective."

 

 

 

 

 

CP's eyes shone. " I understand that information is not recorded because the brain is not receiving it at the moment - not an aim - because the current network of neurons blocks all others."

 

I nodded. "If it were still necessary to prove that the consciousness is neither free nor can it make decisions, it is obvious here."

 

 

“There is another obstacle to understanding in the form that it is often claimed that the inorganic, i.e., matter, cannot produce anything organic.

 

I would like to say: The first organic compounds arose from inorganic substances billions of years ago. Over time, more and more complex and more complex forms of life with differentiated functions developed from this, including the brain.

 

Here are not only atoms, etc., but in particular also neurons, synapses, and so on, which control the physical and mental functions of humans.

 

The adaptation pressure of life generates aims. The brain forms neural networks to execute them.

 

Many people cannot imagine that only aims in the brain control people. They believe they control themselves (with their free will and consciousness). They cannot prove this, so it remains with a feeling that it is so and has settled.

 

So, they cannot perceive that in this case, the aim of their faith (this midpoint) causes it.

 

And: Not only the perceptions are stored, but, as I said, the resulting feelings. The stronger they are, the more intensively we have experienced them with our consciousness. "

 

"Consciousness is experienced, the brain reacts, controls and decides," recapitulated CP.

 

I nodded. “The brain shows us the world on the basis of its aims - the consciousness initially sees it from these. In the second step, however, it also experiences the possible differences between the old one from the brain and the new one, which it is now also picking up - and sends this information to the brain."

 

"Then, following your argumentation, the world that we see afterwards would also have to change, if it has a corresponding value."

 

“That's exactly how it is; we perceive it differently now.

 

We usually do not notice this because these changes are natural and logical for the brain. "

 

 

Let me briefly outline the process:

 

 

• The brain shows us the world according to its aims.

• Consciousness sees them in this form plus that which the senses then additionally absorb.

• It sends this information to the brain.

• This then shows us the world that may have changed due to the information.

• The consciousness then sees them in this form plus that which the senses now also absorb.

• It sends this information back to the brain.

 

These sequences repeat themselves constantly - in fractions of milliseconds. Depending on the value, with normal attention or with reinforced senses (consciousness).

 

This can be verified in experiments: What you see is initially only done by the brain. Then we experience it with our senses. This is sent to the brain which processes it. And then, depending on the deviation, shows the attention a corrected view.

 

Consciousness or normal attention cannot interpret the world because it does not possess all the information of the brain. This cannot experience, it needs this information of the consciousness in order to possibly correct its interpretation of the world."

 

 

"Is that the same when someone wakes up in a completely unfamiliar environment?"

 

"Yes. But the perception of the senses works very quickly - and sends it to the brain so that, when it is important, it adjusts in a flash, accepts this view and takes it into account when making decisions.

 

The central point of all living things is the preservation of life. This works best by experiencing it.

 

And these, in turn, are important information for the brain that couples and stores it with each event. Without consciousness, one could not experience this because, as I said, the brain alone cannot.

 

If a similar situation occurs, then the corresponding feelings are activated again.

 

(The danger here is, if one does not consciously perceive the current situation, that one reacts not to the now, but to the past.)

 

 

"It's about attention," CP considered.

 

I nodded. "Attention" means being at work. 'Consciousness' means to intensify your attention. The latter usually occurs much less.

 

In any case, the consciousness would not be able to conclude judgment without the brain, because the set of factors for it is much too large and variable to make decisions regarding the necessary activities and actions. It would simply be overwhelmed.

 

It would have to generate and control processes that are constantly taking place in the brain. "

 

"That would hardly be possible," agreed CP.

 

“But”, he interjected, “it is sometimes objected that when you operate a machine, you don't have to know its functions down to the last detail. It is enough to press the right buttons. "

 

"Consciousness would have a lot to do there and should know which actions in the brain are to be activated in each case.

 

The brain is neither a device nor a machine, nor is it a computer. All of these comparisons are lagging because brains don't work as rigidly as those just mentioned.

 

The brain is a structure that organizes itself through its aims. In other words, a fabric that works according to organic laws and can change its value at lightning speed if the adaptation makes it necessary.

 

Therefore, these objections make no sense! They are just not properly thought out.

 

It follows”, I continued: “The brain judges. What one takes in by means of the senses can, depending on the value, eventually influence the decision. Because all information can have an impact on the brain – as long as it is open and flexible* – i.e., not blocked by rigid settings or a particularly strong midpoint at the moment.

 
However, the brain decides to what extent they reach according to its aims.

The better one knows its functions, values and possibilities, the more influence one may have with one’s SELF and the will (which is also in the brain).”

 

"So, 'know yourself'?"

 

“Know your aims, so your psyche*.

 

Whoever observes himself, when he consciously picks up something, will find that his senses are strongly activated. Much stronger than if it's just about general attention.

 

You take in life with your senses, and when something special happens, e.g., something interesting, dangerous, emotionally moving, then you also take it up intensely with your consciousness, i.e., with heightened senses.

 

If people are dealing with a special topic, then they need specific information.”

 

"The aim formed in each case may concentrate on the topic, and the consciousness (i.e., the increased perception) thus provides the brain with more precise facts," concluded CP.

 

 

“Thinking, for example,” I explained.

 

GP raised his hand. "May I intervene briefly?"

 

I nodded to him.

 

"How do you define 'thinking?'"

 

“Thinking is a process that seeks to answer questions in the midpoints, i.e. neural networks. – Everything that man has inherited and experienced can be found here.

 

This creates the loop: question>answer>question again>answer, etc.

 

Based on a stimulus or a question, the senses look for information in the outside or inside world and immediately send it to the brain. This looks for experiences or similarities. You become aware of these interim results again, etc. The interplay goes on until you have a coherent feeling or you can't get any further. The end product of thinking is formulated by the brain and only becomes conscious for a fraction of a second or later. "

 

CP considered. "What comes out, is so decided or formulated by the brain?"

 

“Yes, by the aim's neural network formed for this quest, making the final decision. And excludes all other non-relevant neural networks.

 

The reason that people believe that they have made their decision based on their consciousness lies in the very short period of time - often, as I said, it is only milliseconds - between the decision of the brain and becoming conscious (i.e., taking in with the senses).

 

When it comes to important issues, there is always an interplay between the brain and consciousness, because the brain has only a limited amount of current information and relies on the consciousness, as an amplifier of the senses, to add new facts if necessary.”

 

"Only the most important things become so conscious?"

 

 "Yes".

 

 "Who decides what is important?"

 

"The aims with their midpoints."

 

 

"There are many people who claim that you decide everything with your consciousness," CP came back to this topic.

 

"It's incredible what it's supposed to mean," I said. “Once you look through the definitions, you read: knowing certain facts, remembering certain events, sum of beliefs and points of view, etc.

 

And synonymous words for consciousness should be: intelligence, memory, conviction.

 

The consciousness should also have complete access to the brain, "read out" the relevant data there and evaluate this data in order to be able to make a decision. After the decision, he would have to intervene again in the neural networks of the brain, for example to start movements that are necessary to carry out the action he has chosen.

 

All of this applies exactly to the brain. But once you check the consciousness what it represents of it, you search in vain. Because it was not made to carry this around with you and it cannot do it at all. "

 

“So, people say that they control themselves with their consciousness, because they are not observing themselves closely, because they take these views for granted. They just parrot out of habit what other people say or what they have learned. This also includes using the word consciousness without reflection. "

 

"That hits the nail on the head," I confirmed.

 

"They just take it that way."  

 

“Yes, because they have either not yet heard the statement that man is a being guided by aims of the brain or they do not want to hear it. It interferes with their usual views of the world they want to stay in. Accordingly, they do not investigate this matter either. "

 

If all this is too complicated for them, it would help a lot if they just say perception for consciousness.”

 

"Does that also apply to scientists?"

 

"Mostly, yes. Their feelings do not let you see these facts."

 

"Does that come from the midpoint- mechanics?"

 

"Yes. They are at the midpoint of their feelings.

 

These also generate the opinion that consciousness is something that only humans have and that they control themselves with it.

 

--- Expansion of consciousness ---

 

By the way: The expression 'expansion of consciousness' also comes from this attitude. Without being clear about it, they say: The strengthened senses should absorb more information than usual (which would probably not be wrong)."

 

"People who use this word," remarked CP, "probably mean a kind of spiritual, metaphysical experience."

 

"For sure. When they create such an aim in themself, a midpoint will form that will make them feel that way. Of course, this only happens in their brains.

 

Anyway”, I continued, “the experiments of Libet and others (scientific writings by Benjamin Libet 1983, Keller and Heckhausen 1990, Haggard and Eimer 1999, Miller and Trevena 2002) clearly show that, before a person made a conscious decision, the brain does this decision has already been made. So, you cannot deny that the brain is deciding and not consciousness.

 

One particular difficulty was that in earlier times it could not be precisely defined: Consciousness was something that was not found in the brain but, as people said, controls one's actions. Because the belief in supernatural, in this case a 'consciousness-spirit being' was widespread.”

 

“They took consciousness as a metaphysical spirit, similar to the spirit of God, without questioning it further.”

 

I nodded. “And unfortunately, that is still the case today.

 

The fact that the brain decides has been clearly demonstrated by the experiments of Libet and other scientists.

The so-called "freedom of consciousness" has never been proven."

 

"But why do educated people still cling to their version that this decides everything?"

 

“It fits in well with their worldview and has always been considered a cognitive and decision-making authority. One was and is sure that the entire true world could be recognized with it.

 

In the past, the brain explained that the world was unique - to handle it well - and that it could be perceived and recognized by people with their consciousness. Of course, that lifted the human far beyond the animals. At the latest since the emergence of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics and their experimental confirmation, this belief is over: The world is neither unique nor the same from every perspective.

 

What remains in many people is the idea of the consciousness that the decision is made, because, according to its logic, it recognizes everything. Of course, this logic excludes the brain - as a decision-maker.

 

But consciousness is just an important interface between the brain and the outside world,” I explained. "Only with its senses - and it is an amplification of these - is it possible for the brain to receive specific information from the outside and of course also from the inside."

 

"So, if something is important, then the senses are reinforced and consciousness comes into play," repeated CP.

 

"Imagine that you have the aim of making an important decision, of choosing or pronouncing judgment on the basis of relevant facts, and you should do all of this in every single sequence with just your awareness, like many people accept.

 

Or let's take the language, it runs automatically. One has learned how to speak, articulate and so on. An experienced speaker, of course, does not focus on the individual points of the language, but the focus is on the topic at stake.

 

The speaking, the gestures, the facial expressions that one makes, all this has been learned in the course of life and is, if one speaks, expressed. Consciousness has nothing to do with it, unless you behave wrong, make mistakes, then it usually becomes active immediately and delivers appropriate information to the brain. This then attempts to bring about a correction or change in behaviour.

 

Imagine, you have to choose all your words only with your consciousness. For example, at a party. And now ask yourself what you are really aware of. That means: how to use your movements, how you speak, facial expressions, etc. "

 

"That's really impossible, you need the learned routines from the brain," CP agreed.

 

"Yes, the respective midpoints."

 

"You say only the relatively most important things come to your consciousness. But how is it when I am busy with an important topic and concentrate on it. Suddenly, something comes to my consciousness that has nothing to do with the current midpoint? "

 

"Well, the brain jumped from one midpoint to another because it took the attention or because the previous one might just go by itself and no longer need consciousness. Or the other midpoint seemed more important to the brain at the moment, because a question that had been in one for a long time could now be answered. This often happens with creative people. Maybe they just aroused interest in some topic.

 

 

By the way: It also occurs to me that when you've forgotten something that you just wanted, it can help sometimes to ask yourself: 'What was my aim just now?'"

 

"You mean you jumped to another midpoint, and is less shaped by the previous one?"

 

I nodded. “It's like priming*.

 

And in general, the following applies: A very strong concentration is only possible for a limited time, because from a certain point, due to physiological factors, it decreases. "

 

 

"And otherwise, you live without consciousness?" asked CP. "If everything works and no new facts are added?"

 

I smiled. "Most of the time, everything actually goes off automatically, the consciousness is almost in the standby state during this time, but is immediately active again when something important occurs. Usually, this is far less the case than you should think. In addition, the brain learns, and the new usually quickly becomes routine, so that the consciousness is then no longer needed in this intensity.

 

 

If you observe yourself, you will be able to confirm this. In everyday life, you don't usually come across something exciting new or important events.

 

·         So, attention has the task of being 'on the job' at the respective midpoints.

 

·         The consciousness to concentrate, if necessary, in order to convey to the brain, the information that is considered to be very relevant.”

 

"Consciousness always becomes active with intense attention when something is very important," CP repeated.

 

"Yes. Depending on what the attention is focused on, this gets a value that can shape or, in other words, structure man. This is the normal attention. If something is particularly important, then one speaks of a conscious recording.

 

Also, at the risk of repeating myself: the purpose is to provide this strong information to the aims in the brain so that they can immediately absorb them and respond accordingly. So, consciousness is always an enhancement of the senses. "

 

"So, attention and consciousness each deliver information to the brain?"

 

"Yes, the difference is in the different valence."

 

"Consciousness is not active that often."

 

"If you observe yourself, you will be able to confirm this. In everyday life you do not usually encounter something exciting new or important events.

 

But here one should differentiate: Adolescents and especially children have more consciousness than adults. Consciousness in the sense of increased perception. Because the world is still new and they are gathering their experiences. But that does not necessarily mean that its perception corresponds to the facts. (Because the aims in the brain guide the perception).

 

Conversely, it seems that the older you are, the less you usually integrate in yourself. Experience shows that neuronal plasticity is limited. However, this is less the case for areas that have interested people for life.

Many midpoints have become firmer over the years, but also more rigid, and unfortunately often exclude new things that seemingly do not suit them with the midpoint-mechanics.

 

 

Consciousness awakens or generates midpoints because of important values in the brain when they are particularly touched. For example: survival, new orientation, social recognition.

 

Is it overwhelmed or bored, then one comes to dreams.

 

However, the moment you leave your habitual environment, for example, the attention or consciousness becomes more active. Because new facts or impressions are important to the brain to orient itself. Movements and pictures are preferably consciously perceived. "

 

"What mechanism may be behind this if you're stuck with a topic, even though you think you know the solution?" CP asked.

 

"It's a midpoint that blocks. For example, one has gotten bogged, and in this impasse the thoughts circle. The same mechanism works when one is ruled by anger*. Generally speaking, whenever there is a midpoint that severely restricts others. "

 

"That reminds me," CP said, "if you've slept on it, the solution often comes to mind the next day."

 

"That's because the blocking midpoint has lost value or dissolved in the meantime. We have found a distance. In sleep, amongst others the brain has the task to integrate the experiences of the day's events, to learn, and possibly to create a different view through restructuring. For this, the brain prefers to use the creativity that the midpoints of the day's events can not interfere with.”

 

"You see things in a different light," thought CP.

 

"Yes, the attitude changes. In other words, the other midpoints associated with this topic have been re-evaluated or others have been added. Unless this dead-end midpoint acts in the same form. Then you have a complex, so to speak.

 

By the way: We all know that the brain can be mistaken when it comes to recognizing and especially feeling. Therefore, before you decide something important, you should sleep on it for a night. "

--- complexes ---

 

"Please explain 'complex' again."

 

"It’s a midpoint, a neural network that is unable to adapt and offers strong resistance to attempts at change."

 

"Has it encapsulated himself?"

 

“Yes, in contrast to the midpoints, which can always be learned.

 

Or to the clusters. These are neural networks that carry out learned or innate processes and are adaptable - such as sucking the baby on the mother's breast, walking or tying shoes. "

 

A cluster is therefore a midpoint, which is responsible among other things for routines, such as movements, recurring actions, learned reactions. Can you give a graphic example? "CP asked.

 

"Well, about a tic - a short and uncontrollable motor contraction of individual muscles in the face - is a complex. By contrast, normal facial expressions are a cluster. "

 

"There are, as you said, many clusters in one - skills, learned procedures, behaviours, attitudes, etc.

 

Can one say: complex means encapsulated?"

 

"Yes, it surrounds himself with walls. His aim is to maintain certain attitudes, postures, reflexes under all circumstances, and to influence other midpoints with his peculiarity of maintaining what he has once learned in a particular situation.

 

There are also among others Life- complex, producer-complex, Complex to follow someone. These lie entirely in the depths of the human being. This is how he is born and they practically cannot be changed.

 

  

    ► The life-complex is the drive to live as long as you can, regardless of the circumstances.

 

    ► The producer-complex is the mainspring to produce offspring, regardless of the environmental conditions.

 

    ► The Complex to follow someone is devotion to a person of importance or authority who has been given special skills and whom one trusts to the point of blindness.

 

 

As with all complexes, there is a risk of not adapting to the changed circumstances. "

 

 

"That means," thought CP, "they are rigid and do not act like other midpoints that are flexible and play along in concert with the aims of the brain."

 

“Yes, they don't act like the healthy midpoints, and don't learn and thus disrupt the flexibility and adaptation of the brain. This is of course unfavourable. The outside world is constantly changing. The central point of life in general and the resulting requirement should be that man adapts to these changes.

 

That's usually the case. Complexities prevent this, as do prejudices*, delusions, stubbornness, intolerance*. And especially fanaticism or dogmatism. "

 

"This is quite common," commented CP.

 

--- worldview ---

 

“I have another question,” he continued. “Apart from the obviously irrefutable fact that everything consists of substances that operate according to laws*: How can one explain that there are people who believe your view of the world is the only true one? "

 

"You can see that very clearly in extremists, fanatics, devout believers, people who are nailed up," I nodded.

 

"But also, the other 'normal' people have fixed midpoints. These are their anchors, their reference points, from which they act and evaluate the world.

 

Anyone who realizes that their perspective is just one of many is less in danger of being torn away from the ground by the abandonment of a midpoint.

 

Unfortunately, here as well, the midpoints act to diminish everything else that does not support them.

 

 

 

Many people refuse to give up a midpoint, even if it dawns on them that it is harmful to themselves. Partly because they are afraid of losing their grip.

 

This fear is more justified for extremists and strict believers than for other people, because they are only made special from one or a few midpoints. This is how their world could actually fall apart.

 

The more midpoints in a person who can play flexibly and communicate with each other, the better it is."

 

"Because other midpoints can intercept the inner system?"

 

"Yes, especially if you have focused on not just a few midpoints in your life, but many."

 

"You mean, if you are not just focusing on your beliefs, your family, a loved one you are fixated on, your job, your hobby, etc. you can be at risk through these midpoints if you are fully immersed in them are not seeing anything else in the long run?"

 

"I think so."

 

"So, you do not have to give up your special midpoints?" CP asked.

 

"You do not need that. But one thing to watch out for is that the midpoints you love will eventually get a place in one that guarantees that others will retain their value more or less. "

 

"Well, that a midpoint does not become a dominant ruler."

 

 "Yes, that's important for inner harmony."

 

 "That reminds me of complexes we just talked about."

 

 "Midpoints that master everything are complexes."

 

 "So, you should try to change or dissolve them," I suggested.

 

"That's usually difficult. If you have recognized a complex and tried to work on it, then this meets with considerable resistance. "

 

"What options are there?"

 

"You can divide the psyche of man, that is, the midpoints in the brain, into accessible and difficult to access.

 

If a complex interferes with healthy behaviour, and you cannot change it yourself, it is the job of a therapist, for example, to give that complex access to change or dissolve it.

 

The work of the brain is usually unconscious. It becomes aware when certain thresholds are exceeded. So, when something important is in the foreground, consciousness comes into action to provide information to the midpoints involved through more intense consciousness. "

 

"And this information does not take the encapsulated complex?"

 

“These can be very resistant to change - like many aims.

 

However, a complex does not necessarily have to be analysed down to the smallest detail, or become aware of it, so that it can be changed. If it is a learned behaviour, it is often enough to unlearn it again.

 

The method, such as the fear of crossing large squares, is to cross very small squares first, which can become larger if the client feels less anxious.

 

With others it makes more sense, as I said, to look for the reason (which always had an aim as the cause why it was formed). In this way one can possibly create an access if the consciousness stimulates a new midpoint that can bring about changes."

 

"You mean," concluded CP, "the one was learned and could be unlearned again. The other has formed at some point in a lifetime and could be worked through by rediscovering or raising consciousness."

 

"In all cases, it's about forming a new midpoint, which is increasingly reinforced by emotions and counterbalances the complex midpoint that narrows, oppresses or torments people. And who weakens or extinguishes this through the natural course of the midpoint mechanics."

 

"And what about the mind or the reason?"

 

"They can say umpteen times: 'It is nonsense what you do or think.' As long as you have not convinced the feeling, it will hardly be of any use.

 

 

--- Feelings ---

 

"How about the feelings when they become aware?" CP jumped to the next topic.

 

"Feelings are powerful controls in humans," I explained. "They arise among other things by achieving or not achieving aims.

 

Reaching the path strengthens the path that one had taken to reach the aim in a similar situation. If an aim is not achieved, negative feelings are triggered, which are intended to dissuade you from taking the same path in the future. At the same time, they more or less urge you to continue pursuing the aim.

 

Consciousness passes this information on to the brain's aims so that they can be processed by their networks. The stronger feelings for something, the more the human being gets in this midpoint. "

 

"Because this midpoint is reinforced by consciousness?"

 

"Yes, when we, for example, hear music.

 

Here the Qualia problem of the philosophers is often addressed.

 

'Qualia' means quality, quality is 'value'. The quality of a value results from the feelings that people feel (especially consciously). "

 

"Qualia means emotional value."

 

“Yes, people are sensitive to music because it creates feelings in them. The more beautiful these are, the more value they have for him. "

 

"That's how the value of music comes from the feelings you feel," said CP. "That's nothing new."

 

I nodded. "That these feelings are triggered by a midpoint is something new.

 

Many philosophers do not understand this, because the midpoint-mechanics are unknown to them. They say that while the brain can perceive all sorts of stimuli, it does not explain the enjoyment of the music we feel.

 

I say that this enjoyment comes from the midpoint in which I am when I listen to music. Of course, this network of neurons not only absorbs the stimuli, but also wholeheartedly arouses feelings that arise in connection with this music. "

 

“The more beautiful you feel music, the more beautiful feelings it develops,” added CP.

 

"Yes, of course the reverse is also true: the worse the music, the less positive feelings will unfold."

 

"And if someone is completely unmusical?"

 

"Then he feels next to nothing in this respect."

 

"So, the extent to which a Qualia can develop depends on the people who receive it," CP concluded. The qualia are mutually determined by the mind and the consciousness: From one midpoint of the receiver, to the other by the quality of the sender."

 

I nodded again. "To feel holistic often means to feel a similarity*. This can be seen very well in the music: You can recognize a melody that has been stored in memory, even if it is played with other instruments. Unless the instruments do not hit the tone, that is the essence of this melody. "

 

 

"Why have so many philosophers struggled to grasp this simple mechanism for over 200 years?" Asked GP.

 

"Because they did not know about midpoint-mechanics, so they did not have that key to the brain, they thought of consciousness as something not ultimately comprehensible, and because feelings in their subjects were often just a minor matter. This applies especially to the followers of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who portrayed the feelings as 'opponents of reason'.

 

Of course, feelings have a very high value for humans - not only in the negative, but of course in a positive sense. They are strong helpers of the aims - the midpoints. They control man and are not always unreasonable. What would a person be without feelings? "

 

"Philosophers can come to strange conclusions," CP shook his head.

 

I weakened. "What happened had to happen as it happened."

 

--- control ---

 

"Why is consciousness so important to many people?" He asked again.

 

“Because they often believe that they would decide everything with it. They need it for the feeling that they can determine absolutely freely. They don't want to realize that the brain's purposes have judged them.

 

They don't even want to be aware of that because they fear that they will no longer have control over themselves."

 

“But do people actually have control over themselves? According to everything you have explained, the brain is infinitely diverse and decides holistically with the acute goals.

 

"Of course you have more or less control, because the aims of the SELF are, as I have already explained, also in the psyche and play a part in the process.

 

The SELF can control areas of the psyche up to certain limit thresholds and, if necessary, influence them to a greater or lesser extent with its will. In other words, overcoming other aims in his psyche via the midpoint-mechanism.

But the stronger the feelings, the more difficult it becomes.

In general, the more the feelings have the power in the aims, the more difficult it is for the mind when differences arise.

This has to explain itself - not feelings! They run according to the laws within them, which can make it difficult for the mind to influence.

 

This will also have something to do with the fact that people have developed in the course of their evolution through feelings - the mind only much later.

Also because of this - and because it is much easier than trying to reason - the feeling is often preferred.

 

 

And: There are, of course, a number of midpoints that have a certain strength and cannot simply be ruled by the SELF, such as the life instinct.

 

So many people are subject to an exaggerated illusion of control.”

 

"After all, one shouldn't forget: The more important a decision is, the more conscious it becomes," I repeated once more. "So because people are aware of these brain decisions every time, they think they are making decisions with their consciousness.

 

In addition, until the 19th century, people knew little about the brain. That changed in the 20th and especially in the 21st century with the triumph of computers. This has created non-invasive methods such as:

 

EEG (electroencephalography),

 

MRI (magnetic resonance imaging),

 

fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging),

 

PET (positron emission tomography)

 

and CT (computed tomography).

 

These procedures allow insight into the brain, providing facts that were previously unknown.

 

But the old conceptions of consciousness that have been taught for thousands of years are still in people's minds today and are difficult to change. "

 

--- condemnation ---

 

"I have a question about criminal acts," CP said. "The judiciary assumes that humans are responsible for their actions.*."

 

"If someone commits an act, then he is in focus of the aim during this period, and it is usually not possible for the perpetrator to stop: the aim structures people, it wants to be fulfilled."

 

"Can't consciousness experience the effects once the brain made the decision?"

 

"Then of course - but not from the point of view of the aims of the brain that currently prevail."

 

“And he can't watch himself? Can't he be aware of what he's doing? "

 

"At the moment of the crime, the midpoint of the criminal act is usually so strong that it suppresses everything else."

 

"It is really strange that while the brain, more precisely, the midpoint decides, people do not notice this and believe it came from consciousness - that is seen as the SELF with its 'free will'."

 

"This is exactly what the judges believe, because they assume, as you have rightly said, that consciousness decides everything and the will is free, and both could have prevented the act."

 

"But if the brain has made its decision, then the consciousness could use information to signal that this is wrong," CP tried again.

 

“This usually excludes the aim of the midpoint. And if so, this would only work if this information is perceived and accepted by the brain, which does not happen.

 

Because as I said: the perpetrator is in a focus. This mechanism controls him completely, even if only for a short time. In addition, the criminal act has set a certain process in motion that is not so easy to stop. "

 

"So, you couldn't express any criticism at that moment, because all other midpoints - which otherwise influence perception - hardly come into play," concluded CP.

 

"I agree. This possible resistance in one can hardly exist as long as one is in the midpoint of this decision, because it ensures that one practically does not perceive anything else. And, as I said, it sets everything else in value to almost zero. After that you often become aware of what you have done. But then of course you can no longer correct it. "

 

--- Freedom / Determinism ---

 

For a moment it was quiet between us. Then CP continued, "Can one say: Everyone knows he has consciousness, but hardly anyone has been able to define it yet?"

 

I nodded. “Although this is actually easy if you accept the midpoint-mechanics and are not totally absorbed by your fixed ideas: Consciousness is intensive perception with your senses, holistically or in detail.

 

Consciousness is also about the issue of man's spiritual freedom. If it turns out that everything runs according to substances and laws*, then everything would be predetermined, then man would have quasi no freedom and the free will would not be there then - from the legal and philosophical point of view."

 

"And - is that right?" asked CP.

 

"The will is of course still there and plays an important role in the life of man. Will means to form a particularly strong aims for the SELF, which is also in the brain.

 

And human freedom would continue - because he does not know everything. And who does not know everything, is forced to make decisions. This ignorance is his freedom, which man will not lose because he can never know everything.

 

But consciousness and free will in the previous sense would have to be given up.

 

And in the end, the fact is that everything is made up of substances that run according to laws and, as a result, everything is predetermined. "

 

"You do not mean the freedom that comes from nowhere, but the freedom of the possibilities one has. Is that ultimately freedom?"  asked CP.

 

"It's a quasi-freedom," I answered. It is definitely a mistake to believe that there is a freedom that comes from nothing or an incomprehensible mind."

 

 

--- ego, it, superego ---

 

CP thought about it and then said: "There are also a lot of theories about what happens psychologically in people."

 

"You could say so. I would like to give an example: An attempt was made to divide the psyche (that is, the totality of aims and their midpoints in humans, which work via neuronal networks. For example, into SELF, It, Super-SELF, how Sigmund Freud did it.

 

He wrote: "The psychoanalytic" drive "is the basis of all expressions of life - regardless of the differentiated level."

 

If he had said aims instead of instinct, he would have come very close to the truth. Urges also play their part, of course, but are ultimately just aims. And reducing everything to urges does not lead to the reality of the psyche.

 

So, this does not go to the core of reality.

 

This is that the entire brain (which also includes the so-called abdominal brain) is a dynamic system in which the midpoints all communicate with one another more or less - and depending on the respective topic.

 

 

►In this example, the 'ego' should be the consciousness that intervenes regulatively in the processes of the psyche.

 

In addition, it has the task of observing social norms, values, obedience and morality.

One can say that the consciousness only supplies the brain with information that it has received through intensive perception and that is then more or less processed by the respective midpoints - which was not known earlier. The ego is represented with its aims and midpoints in the brain and these can possibly intervene in the processes of the psyche (if it allows it) to regulate.

 

And as I said: Consciousness is not the Self.

 

►The 'it' in this case is intended to represent the unconscious, whose content are the instincts, needs and affects.

 

It can be said that what one is unconscious of involves much more than these three areas, namely, among other things, procedures, communication attitudes, adaptation to the respective environment, etc.

 

It is also not the case that this must necessarily remain unconscious, but all these actions become conscious when they exceed a certain threshold value. 

 

►Finally, the 'super-ego' represents in the model the morality, the social norms and the conscience, which is supposed to intervene in the processes of the id, that is to say the impulses, needs, affects.

 

One can say that morality is stored in aims, as well as social norms, etc. Conscience is a feeling that is triggered by judgments of good or evil that are also generated by aims. "

 

"Pangs of conscience therefore arises when one has not behaved according to the moral ideas that have formed in one," concluded CP.

 

I nodded. "And if, for example, you committed an act that you believe you are guilty of."

 

 “Why were such theories born?” asked CP. "They really don't depict the complicated processes in the brain."

 

"At that time, one did not know otherwise, theories of the time, which, like these, fell on fertile ground, because here the role of the unconscious was presented more clearly for the first time.

 

Until then, one had more or less thought that one dominates himself only with his consciousness. This theory was something new, the time was right and it was very simple.

 

The time was also ripe, because at that time the prudery was driven to the extreme, which led to sexual neurosis. That was a strong focus of this theory building.

 

Such theories can last a long time - like habits. And have been defended for a long time.

 

 

Freud pointed out that people are not always masters of their own houses - because unconscious currents can take control.

 

But with his division of the psyche into three separate areas, he unfortunately did not hit the facts.

Because the psyche arises from aims that form neural networks (midpoints) in order to reach it. Countless of these evolve in order to be able to survive and adapt in the world.

All are more or less connected with each other and act particularly depending on the current aims.

 

And one more word about the dreams:

What one dreams is not the essential; but how you yourself interpret your dreams.

Because then, through the research in your deeper SELF, aims are touched that otherwise can only, unconsciously, play along in the great concert of the psyche. Because, as a rule, they cannot be perceived by the midpoints during wakefulness for a wide variety of reasons.

For example:

In contrast to being awake, where aims of adaptation with the cerebrum dominate, dreams are about topics of the respective living being that are no longer influenced by the midpoints. The cerebrum, among other things, does not play a role here because it has largely been shut down. This is how the fantasies of dreams are perceived as reality.

Sleep is about recovery from wakefulness, in which one can constantly be brought back from the midpoint into structures.

In the dream it is about the continued working of the senses, which are now directed inwards. Since a number of functions of the brain have been shut down, they show topics and processes that are not geared towards a final result - like the aims (although here, too, only substances run according to laws).

 

You shouldn't take your dreams so seriously. They are surreal stimuli, scenes or stories that arise through associations, similarities, etc. Overall, however, they have little to do with reality.