# The Unconscious Supercomputer

## Recommended Posts

You seem to be drawing a parallel between the human mind and a Personal computer.

Correct?

You have observed that in some situations, your body does some complicated actions that you are not aware of.

Correct?

You have then concluded that at least some of the control of your body is being operated by parts of your mind that your self awareness is not in touch with.

Correct?

You have picked the 10 % popular illustration to help the point.

I agree with you totally.

I know that at this moment my self awareness is not controlling my fingers as they hit the keyboard.

My awareness is instead performing the more complicated function of hunting through your mass of words for some pure concepts.

And that:

the idea behind “practice” is to shift complicated activates from the ”self aware” part of my mind into the “other” place.

That frees up my mind to strategize.

Question is :

Where is that “other” place

And how much else goes on there.

##### Share on other sites

The best way to describe the other side is based on memory organization. I will start another topic about this in the near future. I will use a geometric analogy to make it easier to understand. There are 1-D memories or memory organization in the brain. These are linear memory, such as letters of an alphabet and hard data that is absolute. The 1-D memory has a one to one relationship that is linear. Statistical data is not 1-D because it is fuzzy data subject to subjective interpretation.

The second basic type of memory organization is 2-D. This is how logic and law are stored in 2-D relationships to each other. When one is reasoning they start with linear data along the axis and go back and forth. Logical analysis can also be memorized and stored directly at 2-D.

The third basic type of memory organization is 3-D. This is the type of memory organization used by the supercomputer. These would be spatially integrated thought organizations. If one rotated the plane of a 2-D data organization in 3-D, it would define 3-D memory organization.

As a practical example, if one was trying to decide to be a demoncrat of republican and was trying to be totally open minded, one who have to learn both lines of reasoning. These are two separate 2-D planes. Since these two platforms define their own type of opposition, these two planes are arranged in 2-D or perpendicular to each other. If one decided that both had good points and tried to combine them, one would have to rotate the planes into intermediate angles. During that process one will begin to fill in the 3-D volume. The supercomputer does this very quickly to create 3-D data organization.

Movement is a little easier to see. If one was to stand with their arms at their sides and then lift one arm. Because the center of gravity was alterred there will be a complex feedack loop to coordinate lifting the arm and fine adjust the whole body to help stabilize balance. The supercomputer starts with a 3-D memory pertubation and adjusts that to a new spatial memory. This adjustment implies a 3-D spectrum of 2-D adjustments to the muscles. It may still do this one plane at a time but with the goal of a new optimized 3-D memory.

There is another range from 0-D to 1-D and from 3-D to 4-D. These are time projections or extrapolations in time. The range from 0-D to 1-D is connected to instinctive potentials. For example, the fight/flight response lasts for maybe 10-20 seconds, after than the animal was caught orit escaped. The supercomputer is anticipating the future and makes system wide adjustments for a positive outcome. The animal might anticipate being out flanked and will make a quick adjustment. During that time the whole body is integrated in 3-D and anticipating or time projectiing to the future.

The range from 3-D to 4-D are longer term time projections that make us of the 3-D memory and are associated with limbic potentials. If one can plan their day they are using faster than 3-D thought processing. One is making use of logic and the supercomputer to anticipate the future. If one can visualize or anticipate their physical death one is using 3.5-D thought. Beyond 3.5-D are time projections that will outlive the person so to speak. Einstein's theories of relativity was something faster than 3.5-D, because they continue beyond his life, still having impact on many generations of scientists to this day.

##### Share on other sites

So…are you telling me ..

That you have developed your own total theory on how the human brain processes information .

Did you do this for a reason?

Have you checked with other more conventional models before you did all this hard work.

Immediately this geometric parallel turns me off.

It seems too limiting and complicated to capture the human dynamic.

##### Share on other sites

Sunspot - you are now spouting drivel. This last post about memory makes no sense at all.

Reverse suggested that you present things clearly - I think this is good advice. Don't just keep posting long, confusing explanations of ideas that you have clearly made up with no regard for current knowledge.

Try reading a few psychology books. You will realise that your ideas so far can be split into two categories : 1) something that someone else has explained better previously, 2) nonsense.

Sorry, but that is how it is.

##### Share on other sites

Sunspot..

I agree.

Can you keep it simple.

OK, so something goes on behind the surface awareness of your mind…

Should we start by looking at what can be held in the aware portion.

As far as I can tell by my own brain…I can only hold one idea at a time. and that idea floats along on a line of time.

Anyone saying they can hold two simultaneous ideas in their awareness.

##### Share on other sites

Sunspot….

You are using what is known as inductive reasoning.

Particularly, the form known as “analogous inductive reasoning”.

Example…if the mind is like a computer ( in that both have memory)…then the mind is like a computer in every other way….

As we know that is false…the brain has no copper wires in it for example.

See, that type of reasoning is not that well accepted.

If you were to use “Deductive reasoning” on the other hand…you would get less resistance.

Example, the mind has memory, and a computer has memory, therefore both are able to store data from the past to be retrieved and reconsidered in the present.

See…smaller jumps…less contestable.

##### Share on other sites

I am using the computer analogy not in the complete sense but only to create a feeling for a distinction between what the conscious mind or ego can do, and the different capabilites of the unconscious mind. In other words, as the long as the supercompter is considered a piece of junk and the PC is alone and supreme, one can not make conscious use of it, because this attitude creates a self forfilling prophesy. The connection stays unconscious and the ego thinks it is doing all the work. It is sort of like the child riding a bike with the parent nearby holding it steady. The child may think and say, "I was riding the bike", because he is unconscious of the fact that the parent was supporting their balance. If the parent decided to show the little ego-centric brat a dose of reality, next time they might let them go. Then the child would blame the parent for pushing them causing them to fall. The ego is supported by the unconscious, while the unconscious needs the ego for good data and positive feedback.

With respect to the computer analogy, I think everyone has it backwards. It is more than likely that computer progression is trying to copy how the brain works. This is done at an unconscious level. One of the new things for future production is 3-D storage of computer memory instead of flat or 2-D storage like DVD's. This is indicative of deeper insight into the nature of the 3-D memory within the brain.

The thought dimesionality analogy is just that, an analogy. It does not imply the wiring of the brain. It does, however, offer a conceptual way to explain increasingly complex memory organization and the active use of this memory organization. For example, if logic is on a 2-D plane with cause and affect axis, a logical train of though that paints a rational picture of something is actually making a drawing on the 2-D plane, with the data connected rationally. 3-D memory would be many 2-D planes intersecting a common origin at different angles. It brings together many rational drawing into one sculture.

For example, if I was to describe a new apple species by its color (red with speckled yellow), shape (pear shaped), size (tennis ball), smell (tangerine), taste (sour and spicy), texture (water chestnuts), etc., I would be painting a 3-D picture of this apple in your mind. The picture I am painting is all connected together around this apple origin with many 2-D planes of logic, since I needed to make logical comparisions with different things one already knows to help explain this strange apple.

If one went into a room to look for this new apple with hundreds of apples on a table, one might break the 3-D mental picture into 2-D steps. First I would look for all the red apples with yellow speckles and put them in a separate group. I would next look for pears shaped ones to narrow my search even further, etc.., until I was able to narrow down the new apple with all the 2-D planes of the 3-D memory. Some people might just glance up and down the table and go right to the apple. This is indicative of the unconscious doing the processing. The processing of the many planes happened real fast but led to the same result.

If we change the experiment slightly, this time by not having one of the new apples on the table, but tell people to find the new apple, some may go through the logical steps or planes and conclude there is no such apple present. Another person who makes more unconscious use of the memory might have an internal extrapolation going on, at an unconscious level, that will point them toward one of the apples. In this case, the unconscious did not appear to work through the logical planes, but extrapolated the 3-D memory to draw an erroneous 3-D conclusion.

The gist of this is that the supercomputer part of the brain is as only as good as the data input from the ego, such that even subjectivity can alter its output away from the purely sequenced logical result that a rational ego can obtain. But on the other hand, if the data input is good and not subjective the supercomputer part of the brain is faster but would be unconscious to the purely ego-centric. The ideal is both working together.

##### Share on other sites

I am using the computer analogy not in the complete sense but only to create a feeling for a distinction between what the conscious mind or ego can do' date=' and the different capabilites of the unconscious mind. In other words, as the long as the supercompter is considered a piece of junk and the PC is alone and supreme, one can not make conscious use of it, because this attitude creates a self forfilling prophesy. The connection stays unconscious and the ego thinks it is doing all the work. It is sort of like the child riding a bike with the parent nearby holding it steady. The child may think and say, "I was riding the bike", because he is unconscious of the fact that the parent was supporting their balance. If the parent decided to show the little ego-centric brat a dose of reality, next time they might let them go. Then the child would blame the parent for pushing them causing them to fall. The ego is supported by the unconscious, while the unconscious needs the ego for good data and positive feedback.

[/quote']

I don't think this is a good way to explain brain function at all. I dont see that the term ego is that useful in modern psychology - maybe some people would disagree. The way you are describing this distinstion sounds like you are proposing a homunculus operating a big machine inside your head. This is not a good metaphor.

Trying to make a distinction between what the conscious mind and unconsicous mind can do is not a good way of breaking the problem down. As soon as you start looking for this special place where conscious processing takes place you find it's the same place as the unconscious processing. I don't want to go intp more detail in this post but this is the issue we should still be debating in this thread (in my opinion)

With respect to the computer analogy' date=' I think everyone has it backwards. It is more than likely that computer progression is trying to copy how the brain works. This is done at an unconscious level.

[/quote']

What does this mean? An unconscious level? By whom? There is a very conscious effort by many scientists to copy ideas from the brain in to computer architecture design. The univeristy I'm at just received a grant for this.

One of the new things for future production is 3-D storage of computer memory instead of flat or 2-D storage like DVD's. This is indicative of deeper insight into the nature of the 3-D memory within the brain.

PC memory is accessed by address and the brain appears to be access its memory by content. There is little similarity between these systems. However' date=' is it fair to say that even in toy neural networks that we have today the 'memories' are stored in very high dimensional space, as weight vectors. The importance of 1D , 2D and 3D doesn't make sense to me. there is no way that a humans whole memory is stored in a 3D space. By the way, what kind of memory are you talking about, working memory, episodic memory, declarative memory, procedural memory, etc., etc.?

The thought dimesionality analogy is just that, an analogy. It does not imply the wiring of the brain. It does, however, offer a conceptual way to explain increasingly complex memory organization and the active use of this memory organization. For example, if logic is on a 2-D plane with cause and affect axis, a logical train of though that paints a rational picture of something is actually making a drawing on the 2-D plane, with the data connected rationally.

So one axis is cause and the other is effect? This gives a one to one mapping between causes and effects or do ou allow one-to-many? So how is a logical function represented , e.g. XOR , NOT, AND etc. How can the order of execution be demarked in a logical train of thought that you mention - there seems to be no means of determine which step comes 12t, 2nd.

3-D memory would be many 2-D planes intersecting a common origin at different angles. It brings together many rational drawing into one sculture.

You only need 3 dimensions not many differnt planes to get 3d. This is equivalent to just stacking the planes on top of each other - you gain nothing unless the first two dimensions of each plane have similar meanings.

For example' date=' if I was to describe a new apple species by its color (red with speckled yellow), shape (pear shaped), size (tennis ball), smell (tangerine), taste (sour and spicy), texture (water chestnuts), etc., I would be painting a 3-D picture of this apple in your mind.

[/quote']

Why is this 3D? As far as I can see:

color (red with speckled yellow), 3 dimensions red green blue - justfor one plain colour

shape (pear shaped), 3d or 2d

size (tennis ball), 1d size scale

smell (tangerine), I have no idea howmany dimensions smell has

taste (sour and spicy), 4d I guess

texture (water chestnuts), again don't know

I think I must be missing the point - my use of dimensions like this dosn't make much sense either but why does using 3D?

The gist of this is that the supercomputer part of the brain is as only as good as the data input from the ego' date=' such that even subjectivity can alter its output away from the purely sequenced logical result that a rational ego can obtain. But on the other hand, if the data input is good and not subjective the supercomputer part of the brain is faster but would be unconscious to the purely ego-centric. The ideal is both working together.

[/quote']

Where does sensory info supposedly go - the ego or supercomputer? What is a purely sequenced logical result?

I think part of what you are staying is probably right but your terminology is poor. This has been said before though.

The memory stuff, with 2D and 3D, this makes no sense to me at all. Reverse and I suggested that you explain clearly but instead you added all this momery stuff on top of unconscious/conscious topic. I'm not even sure what the link is between these two. Can you not see that the flow of your ideas is hard to follow? ...No logical steps can be discerned.

##### Share on other sites

The problem may be in my terminology. By ego I am taking about the conscious part of the brain, or that which can process data at a conscious level. It is not located in one place but uses the entire cerebral matter. One can sensory percieve, and/or imagine something by moving around the cerebral matter. Some parts of the brain are better suited to some tasks, while all work together.

The unconscious or supercomputer occupies the same cerebral space plus the central thalamus regions. The ego, as I defined it, can affect these central areas of the brain from the cerebral, but it does not occupy this space. For example, I can think of food and make myself hungry. I used cerebral output to trigger the hypothalamus. The unconscious will take over the processing from there. It will alter the blood and cerebral spinal fluid potentials, thereby narrowing the range of conscious memory, i..e, best working memory for hunger. There are a lot of tones or potentials, each which will alter the firing of all neurons within the cerebral matter narrowing down the cerebral memory grid that is conscious.

For the conscious and unconscious to occupy the same cerebral space, yet allow the the ego to be mostly unaware of the unconscious, implies two separate but overlapping layers of memory. I tried to use an analogy of 3-D and 2-D. By 3-D I do not mean data just being distributed in 3-D space so one can fit more data, but an entirely different way of storing data where 3-D is cause, affect, and something else. 2-D memory is just cause and affect.

The various blood and/or cerebral spinal fuid potentials essentially narrow down the overlapping 2-D and 3-D memory. This occurs because the formation of memory, via the limbic system, assigns potential values to the memory. When that potential occurs, all these memories, throughout the cerebral become the most conscious. If an animal is about to attacked by a preditor, the only memory that is at work is connected to escaping, due to the fear tone of adrenline narrowing its working memory. After it escapes, it might begins to think about thirst, i.e, thirst based potential.

As a visual tool to help describe the something else, beyond cause and affect, which I am not sure how to label, I used the example of a 3-D ball being composed of many planes of logic. If an imaginatary plane began to rotate within the ball, it would, one by one, overlap each inner plane of logic. After one complete rotation, it would essentially have expressed a complete rational analysis that would give depth to all the connected cause and affect relationships. I used the example of the apple for over simplicity; one would compare/rotate one plane at a time, until the full rotation.

Adding more complexity to 3-D memory processing, is the affect of subjectivity, or unconscious processing directly at 3-D. In this case, rather than rotate an imaginary plane like the ego might do, to define an integrated set of logic steps, the unconscious works more directly with the cause, affect, and something else, 3-D memory.

This might be visualized as the 3-D memory ball being alterred, so if one was to rotate their imaginary 2-D plane again and sweep through all the logical planes, some of the logical planes would have changed. It is sort of like when new data appears, it may require changing the way one sees certain things. These changes lead to other logical changes.

Alterations directly at 3-D, might give the ego a gut feeling or creative impulse that may not be easy to define. One might go back to one of the planes and begin to logically shift the data around. This will affect the next plane which may also requiring memory adjustment, etc., until the new 3-D ball of logic planes, is a little closer to the new 3-D .

The ego is limited to one plane at a time to express a 3-D integration of logical planes. In the case of the apple hunt, one does not have to do it in any particular order as long as all the planes are expressed. One can start with taste before color or size before smell. This appears to reflect that 3-D changes by the unconscious can appear anywhere because it is thinking or processing in terms of cause, affect, and something else, which add up to spatial adjustments.

What I call time projection is basically the potential behind a 3-D extrapolation. For example, one can get a new job and begin to extrapolate all the future possiblities both practical and impractical. After having fun, one may get down to reality and see what is physically possbile. The 3-D extrapolation, by the unconscious, sort of projects or extrapolates to the future. It then plays back how it got there and makes adjustments to better reflect the changes needed for the future. That keeps the ego constantly creative trying to keep up with the extrapolated needs of the unconscious.

The time projection appear to be connected to the blood and CSF potentials. For example, the fear tone of an escaping animal will cause it to time project for escape. The thirst potential may cause the unconscious of the animal to time project long term water needs keeping it grazing near the river even though there are preditors there.

The longest time projections, i.e., years, require long term adjustments maybe even at the biochemical level. For example, the stages of life are already in the works before they happen and are being prepared for by intergenerational programming. The DNA is an important part of this wiring. The changes of life are wired into the genetics with the parallel 3-D adjustments being made with unconscious time projection.

Adding to the complexity is the affects of time projection and 3-D memory organization around instinctive potentials. The symbolic devil ,within, exists at both the 3-D level and the extrapolated 3+-D level. Such as these were traditionally called spirits giving inner impulse to the ego. These are different in they are 3-D programmed with memory organization less than 2-D.

In other words, cause and affect defines the modern ego, but this was not always the case. People, in the past based their perception of reality on things that can could not be explained rationally, such as mythology. The 3-D organization still occurs with this data, but the ego does not have a nice full size plane for rotating within the 3-D ball. It is still a plane but one that is too small for the 3-D. One often lost their center, i..e, lost of soul, as the little inner rotating plane, begins to migrate around the 3-D trying to fill in a 3-D volume, which is also being time projected. The result is the living world of mythology.

I hope this is clearer than before. It is very complicated and is not easy to make clear because it does not overlap existing planes of logic. At the same time I am not exactly sure how to describe the cause-affect-something else, of 3-D memory, that is the basis for consciousness.

## Create an account

Register a new account