Subconcious

[ezekiel7]

Dear PeopleWithTimeOnTheirHands, I've noticed that a lot of people make big assumptions about dreaming techniques, "It's hard." "If you get excited in a lucid dream then you'll wake up." etc etc, but if we are the masters of our minds, then we need to control them and stop putting negative things on this site, in the hopes that they won't be transferred to our subconcious. Some advice i've heard about your subconcious is you don't say, "I will be rich, I will be successful, I will be happy." You say, "I am rich, I am successful, I am happy." Convince your mind of what you are, not what you want to me. Say this ! "I have lucid dreams every night. Lucid dreaming is incredibly easy. I WILD Anytime that I want too." If you keep telling yourself that things are impossible, and that you can't do certain methods, then you are going to convince your subconcious of those beliefs and you won't be able too. Another example: "I don't know why it is, but caffeine keeps me up." If someone drinks caffeine at 6 pm, it would wear off by 8 pm, meaning when they go to bed by 10 pm and are still awake they blame it on the caffeine, when really they have just convinced themselves that they HAVE to stay up. So instead of saying what you can't do, say what you will do as if you can do it! "My dreams are all lucid. I remember every dream. I never wake up when I dont want too." Some of this information is from a book called, "Grow rich while you sleep," by Ben Sweetland. When I finish all of it maybe I will post a tutorial on how to change your subconcious to be Pro-Lucid! Sincerely, Ezekiel

[Seeker]

You have a great point there. Attitude plays a huge part in everything we do, not just lucid dreaming but life in general. I also suggest reading some books by John Maxwell. A positive attitude IS essential!

[Howie]

You have a great point there. Attitude plays a huge part in everything we do, not just lucid dreaming but life in general. I also suggest reading some books by John Maxwell. A positive attitude IS essential! [/b] No doubt. ~actually yaa. you need no doubt! Confidence in my everyday life carries over to my confidence in my lucid dreams.

[becomingagodo]

I've noticed that a lot of people make big assumptions about dreaming techniques [/b] you make the big assumption we have a subconscious so your not as bad as any one else. The goals of Watson’s experiments on Albert was to show that behavior is learned and trained into our minds and to also show that the Freudian thinking was wrong. Freudian thinkers believed that behavior comes from the unconscious. Watson’s experiment of little Albert explained behavior in simple terms.[/b]

[Bonsay]

you make the big assumption we have a subconscious so your not as bad as any one else. [/b] Sorry but you are one of the "bad influences" here. You keep insisting on placebo effects and stuff. I'm not saying that you are wrong or anything, to me everything is possible. The fact is that sometimes people don't want to know the truth. I don't care if MILD works because of the placebo, as long as it works. Sometimes it's better to not know the truth. That's just what I think. Peace!

[becomingagodo]

Sorry but you are one of the "bad influences" here. You keep insisting on placebo effects and stuff. I'm not saying that you are wrong or anything, to me everything is possible. The fact is that sometimes people don't want to know the truth. I don't care if MILD works because of the placebo, as long as it works. Sometimes it's better to not know the truth. That's just what I think. [/b] i was not going to reply to this but then. i guess that the truth is the only thing that matters and when somebody in say you are making big assumption when he has been making a big assumption too it just crazy. since i am fair like the you are all wrong post oneironaut made a good point so i took back what i said. the point is without question yourself you are just a pigeon see their was a experiment to lock a pigeon in a cage and randomly give it food now at the end it was found that the pigeon done strange behavior to get food now then the psychologist argue it wont work for children it did and then they tried to see if adult will fall for this they did. i can get the scientfic paper to prove this. well they concluded that any animal would develope strange or superstitious behavior by the belife in what they do works like the subconscious theory and rem nonsense in this website well if your not above superstition and dont want here truth or sceptism then your no better then pigeons.

[Bonsay]

OK ok, I totaly understand what you are saying and I also usually want to know the truth. But don't look a gift horse in the mouth (lol I hope I used that correctly ). I meant to say that if MILD works for you, why risk doing research on it and then finding out that it was just a placebo, then you would never have MILDs again.

[ezekiel7]

i was not going to reply to this but then. i guess that the truth is the only thing that matters and when somebody in say you are making big assumption when he has been making a big assumption too it just crazy. since i am fair like the you are all wrong post oneironaut made a good point so i took back what i said. the point is without question yourself you are just a pigeon see their was a experiment to lock a pigeon in a cage and randomly give it food now at the end it was found that the pigeon done strange behavior to get food now then the psychologist argue it wont work for children it did and then they tried to see if adult will fall for this they did. i can get the scientfic paper to prove this. well they concluded that any animal would develope strange or superstitious behavior by the belife in what they do works like the subconscious theory and rem nonsense in this website well if your not above superstition and dont want here truth or sceptism then your no better then pigeons. [/b] all I meant by the big assumptions is that maybe it's not hard for everyone and maybe getting excited in a dream won't wake you up. It's possible that people wake up based on the assumption that they will because someone else said so. Thus, as soon as you get excited in a lucid dream, you wake up. Based on you expecting to wake up. You don't need to prove why you think there is no subconcious, a simple, "I don't believe in subconcious' so this post is stupid!" would have done just fine. Why start an argument? If you want to argue subconcious then go to the spirituality section, they're ALWAYS arguing! A lot of people believe in the subconcious and it's very unneccessary and rude of you to call us, "no better then pigeons." Maybe it's true, but you don't need to put us down for our beliefs. -Ezekiel P.S. Thank you for all of the positive feedback!

[Moonbeam]

Some advice i've heard about your subconcious is you don't say, "I will be rich, I will be successful, I will be happy." You say, "I am rich, I am successful, I am happy." Convince your mind of what you are, not what you want to me. Say this ! "I have lucid dreams every night. Lucid dreaming is incredibly easy. I WILD Anytime that I want too." If you keep telling yourself that things are impossible, and that you can't do certain methods, then you are going to convince your subconcious of those beliefs and you won't be able too. Another example: "So instead of saying what you can't do, say what you will do as if you can do it! [/b] I totally believe this too. But I forget sometimes! I get discouraged and think nothing works. I"m glad you reminded me to be positive. I think it is important how to you talk to your subconscious about everything, including and maybe especially lucid dreaming. I'm going to look for that book you mentioned. I'll look up John Maxwell too while I'm at it.

[ezekiel7]

I totally believe this too. But I forget sometimes! I get discouraged and think nothing works. I"m glad you reminded me to be positive. I think it is important how to you talk to your subconscious about everything, including and maybe especially lucid dreaming. I'm going to look for that book you mentioned. I'll look up John Maxwell too while I'm at it. [/b] You're welcome for the reminder! Glad I could help, i'll have to look up John Maxwell also. LOL they have funny names... Max Well... Maximum Good Sweet Land... See if your positive your name will change to something pleasant! -Ezekiel

[becomingagodo]

all I meant by the big assumptions is that maybe it's not hard for everyone and maybe getting excited in a dream won't wake you up. It's possible that people wake up based on the assumption that they will because someone else said so. Thus, as soon as you get excited in a lucid dream, you wake up. Based on you expecting to wake up.[/b] oh your talking about the nocebo or i shall harm i thought you was trying to say you dont believe in lucid dreaming enought like how christian say you have to have faith well then sorry. A lot of people believe in the subconcious and it's very unneccessary and rude of you to call us, "no better then pigeons." Maybe it's true, but you don't need to put us down for our beliefs.[/b] yes your are no better the pigeon however that does not mean you cant see where you are wrong and change your belife.

[Koji]

Becomingagodo, I am not sure where you actually stand on the theories about the mind and how it operates, but your suggesting that there is no subconscious is as bad as one asserting that there is indeed a subconscious. The experiment referenced in your post about Little Albert is a great example of classical conditioning, but it does not refute the existence of the unconscious. Instead, it provides an example of how we associate and learn. Watson did not disprove the unconscious mind. He criticized it, as did many, and focused more on monitoring behavior. Since the unconscious would be extremely difficult to scientifically detect, he focused solely on mounting an alternative as a method to dismantle the theory. This alone, is not quite enough to remove it from application though. Understand that I am not agreeing with Freud. In fact, I think a lot of his ideas, or at least the way he displayed them, were quite inaccurate. I also don’t believe in his model for the mind (the iceberg representation of the ego, superego, and id). Honestly, I am not much of an enthusiast of the psychoanalytic perspective. Instead, I support fragments of each theory that attempts to explain the human psyche and personality. I believe in implicit forces, but not the id, as he suggested. I prefer to think of it as a lot of information accumulated underneath the surface, where the unconscious resides. The information stored accumulates over time, meaning we are constantly growing. Along with that, I believe in the various other perspectives, like the social-cognitive perspective, which continuously shape it.

[becomingagodo]

well their a teacup orbiting jupiter if you cant see the cup then it must be their. see you can see how redundant this argument is without proof you have to use logic like how the teacup going to get their couple with experimental fact. and your comment about being neutral is stupid the person who write this said Some advice i've heard about your subconcious is you don't say, "I will be rich, I will be successful, I will be happy." You say, "I am rich, I am successful, I am happy." Convince your mind of what you are, not what you want to me. Say this ! "I have lucid dreams every night. Lucid dreaming is incredibly easy. I WILD Anytime that I want too." If you keep telling yourself that things are impossible, and that you can't do certain methods, then you are going to convince your subconcious of those beliefs and you won't be able too. Another example:[/b] this is not neutral i a was trying too do is to give the person who read this crap another view so i have to take the other view that their is none which mean i have lots of evidence fore. Instead, I support fragments of each theory that attempts to explain the human psyche and personality. [/b] this is not possible see one say it the subconscious one say their is none and behavior is classically learned. I believe in implicit forces, but not the id, as he suggested. I prefer to think of it as a lot of information accumulated underneath the surface, where the unconscious resides. The information stored accumulates over time, meaning we are constantly growing.[/b] as opposed to what we dont grow and learn see this is what happen when you stay neutral you have paradoxical belife that we grow and stay the same we learn and dont learn your not even neutral yourself I believe in implicit forces, but not the id, as he suggested[/b] sound pretty neutral to me. by the way i was being sarcastic but your suggesting that there is no subconscious is as bad as one asserting that there is indeed a subconscious. [/b] well what the other alternative even thou the theory that say their no subconscious has lots of evidence i have to believe that their is no subconscious and their is subconscious paradox anybody. i a wanted was a little scientific evidence to back claim or just say i believe this is true even thou their no evidence for it and the opposite theory has lots of evidence.

[Koji]

well their a teacup orbiting jupiter if you cant see the cup then it must be their. see you can see how redundant this argument is without proof you have to use logic like how the teacup going to get their couple with experimental fact.[/b] That is just silly. A better analogy would be that of a higher being. I bet you can’t show me empirical evidence of God himself, yet I still believe in Him. Another example could be one of philosophical ideas. Let’s take thought. I cannot actually see imagination or a thought process, but “I think, therefore I am”, the first absolute presented by Descartes. I know I think; however, do I know you think? You cannot prove without a doubt that everyone has individual thought. What if I (or you) live in the Matrix? I don’t know about you, but I really doubt that, yet philosophers have argued it. I have been in such arguments before, and there is more to it, where many relativists usually fall apart. You must realize something: not all things are visible to the naked eye. It is foolish to believe that we have a firm understanding over everything about the mind; especially since we don’t (otherwise I wouldn’t be posting here). A good scientist should avoid being biased and exclude possibilities based on “you can’t prove it, so it is not true”. Skepticism is healthy for evaluation, but denial is detrimental to progression. A more appropriate view is to say, “You can’t prove it, but I cannot disprove it.” That doesn’t mean you accept it though. The idea behind this is to neither believe it nor disbelieve it; though, you have made your position quite clear. and your comment about being neutral is stupid the person who write this said QUOTE: Some advice i've heard about your subconcious is you don't say, "I will be rich, I will be successful, I will be happy." You say, "I am rich, I am successful, I am happy." Convince your mind of what you are, not what you want to me. Say this ! "I have lucid dreams every night. Lucid dreaming is incredibly easy. I WILD Anytime that I want too." If you keep telling yourself that things are impossible, and that you can't do certain methods, then you are going to convince your subconcious of those beliefs and you won't be able too. Another example: this is not neutral i a was trying too do is to give the person who read this crap another view so i have to take the other view that their is none which mean i have lots of evidence fore. [/b] Neutrality on the subject is better than proposing unsound arguments that do nothing more than reject a theory and replaced it with a different idea. I am not suggesting you support anything here. You should have your own opinions. However, you not only disagree with the idea, but also supplied “evidence” that does not even appropriately solve the problem. You speak of logic but also appeal to ignorance, pretending that without appropriate proof it simply must not exist. You have not read the studies concerning the subconscious. Instead, you speak in absolutes, offering truths as unquestionable answers for all theories. this is not possible see one say it the subconscious one say their is none and behavior is classically learned.[/b] I am not sure if you are uninformed about the perspectives out there, or if you simply clump all ideas together in a bound set exclusive to each perspective. Perhaps, I just don’t understand what you are saying. Maybe you misunderstood me, I don’t know. It is possible to take from several ideas. For example, the unconscious is not exclusive to the psychodynamic perspective. Many psychologists that believe in it have even strayed from the path Freud paved. I subscribe to a more universal theory. If I took every theory as a whole and meshed them together I would have a confusing mess, as you seem to think I do. That is why I must reiterate, I take FRAGMENTS of each primary theory. For example, I do employ the idea that we have an unconscious self. I also agree that many experiences are learnt and thus affect behavior, on both a conscious and unconscious level. Unlike Watson, I do not denounce other theories based on learning alone. I think that is only a piece of the whole. I take part in a cognitive, humanistic, and neuroscientific point of view, but only emphasizing certain features of them. as opposed to what we dont grow and learn see this is what happen when you stay neutral you have paradoxical belife that we grow and stay the same we learn and dont learn your not even neutral yourself[/b] I don’t see quite how you are insinuating a paradox in my beliefs. Allow me to clarify for you. Examine the general difference between conscious and unconscious. Conscious would be that which we know we know. The conscious includes information that we were aware that we uncovered and the behaviors, perceptions, cognitions that we are made certain within that awareness. This expands over many functions and knowledge. Unconscious, as applied by psychologists, would be those things of which we are not aware. This encompasses a lot of information. Simply put, it would just be something gained when we didn’t know we had gained it. This has shown evident in dreams and in the waking world. They work together as well. There are many ways to describe how this works. They might complement each other on information and functions. Perhaps, the unconscious holds all information and somewhat affects our conscious behavior. Perhaps, you can look at it like a single unit with two different hemispheres, kind of like the brain I suppose. Either way, this provides a form of growth, which we are aware of. That is not to say that this is the only form of growth. We can learn new behaviors, like suggested in classical conditioning or operant conditioning. Thus, I am not saying that these things are not real just because I believe in an unconscious part of the mind. These things are very apparent as one can observe from Pavlov’s, Watson’s, and Skinner’s experiments. It appears you indicated that I said we don’t grow or learn, and yet we do. I would like to specifically declare that we do. I don’t really see the paradox in my line of reasoning. sound pretty neutral to me. by the way i was being sarcastic[/b] It was not intended to be neutral. You fail to realize that I am not arguing with you based on your opinion. I am arguing with you because you made a flimsy argument describing how the subconscious does not exist. If you don’t believe it, that is fine by me. I don’t even mind arguing you about it. When you start passing subjective information as objective, I will take the defense as you challenge it. People are coming to this thread likely because they do believe in the subconscious, so I doubt your behaviorist view realigned anyone. I am sure you know that too. You alternative approach seemed more like an attack on the “assumed” subconscious. well what the other alternative even thou the theory that say their no subconscious has lots of evidence i have to believe that their is no subconscious and their is subconscious paradox anybody. i a wanted was a little scientific evidence to back claim or just say i believe this is true even thou their no evidence for it and the opposite theory has lots of evidence.[/b] Ok, again, you pretend that the lack of proof is evidence that something does not exist. This is a fallacy. That is why it is better, in this situation, to remain relatively indifferent. You can offer an alternative, but do not force it. I cannot offer you empirical evidence that is absolute proof for the unconscious. The fact that we are dealing with the unconscious should be enough to tell you that that it is difficult to observe. The conscious is observable. The unconscious is something we are unaware of in the waking world. So tell me, how easy would it be to observe something that cannot be observed first hand? That is why researchers have to make different approaches to observe it, which is also why the research is not considered compelling. If you think the behavioral model explains it all though, you are quite mistaken. I will give some evidence of signs of the unconscious, but like I said, it is not absolute. In the following experiment concerning implicit learning, it was showed that one could expose subjects to strings of letters which are governed by orderly rules (or a "grammar"), such as DEFKLM and JKLPQR, and others which are not: the subjects are not expected to try to articulate the rules. The subjects are later shown further sets of letters and asked to say which are "grammatical" and which not: they tend to be able to distinguish between them without knowing quite how they do it (Reber, 1967).[/b] As indicated, the subjects were not only able to distinguish between them, but also did not know how they did. There have been other similar experiences where the accuracy is much higher than simple chance would allow. To some researchers, this shows that there is another system processing the information, an unconscious one. Perhaps even more substantial is the analysis of dreams. Dreams have been known to speak volumes to us. Now, I do not believe in the Freudian model that there are some primitive sexual implications that developed from the id. I believe that dreams have information about our unconscious, where it derives some material, but often puts it into a chaotic arrangement, making it hard to analyze. I will give my own experience now. My brother and I were playing a game a long time ago. We were stuck. We played as much as we possibly could in hope that we would accidentally find it, or perhaps figure it out in some way. Then, one night while my brother was sleeping, he had a dream where it showed him this thing we needed to grapple on to which would allow us to move on with the game. He told me about the dream but said it probably wasn’t actually there. We decided to see if the dream was correct, and sure enough the very thing presented in the dream was there. We couldn’t believe our eyes. First, we were surprised that we had missed it. Second, he had dreamt the conclusion. At first, we thought it might be a supernatural issue that was a onetime deal (we were pretty young). Now, it seems more plausible that it was a subliminal piece of information that his dream explained to him, thus solving the problem. This has happened more than once, even in science.

[ezekiel7]

...why can't we all just get along? Ok, so the thing I wrote about was kind of biased towards subconcious, I agree that it wasn't really neutral. I was just writing on what I was getting from the books I've been reading. What's with the argument? It doesn't matter if you agree with us or not, this isn't debate club, this isn't politics. Why can't you just say, "I disagree and don't believe in subconciouses." ya know? Every single post that says they don't believe in God, I don't start posting about why I believe in God! Just go, "Ok, that's your opinion, I think He's real." and leave it at that. yes your are no better the pigeon however that does not mean you cant see where you are wrong and change your belife. [/b] well if your not above superstition and dont want here truth or sceptism then your no better then pigeons. [/b] How old are you Becoming? I mean saying someone is no better then pigeons is just plain ignorant! We're all better then the frickin birds, especially the pigeons... maybe not the doves, or maybe the parrots, but definately the pigeons! Come on man! Ya know? Maybe we're wrong about subconciouses, I don't think so, but let's say we are? Why do you have to come on here and start bitchin' about it? It's like if some muslim person posted part of a sermon from their temple or church or whatever they go to, you don’t need to log on and tell em why you don’t believe in it! Want an example? (Made up example) Person 1: Wow, The Qu'aran is really cool! [/b] Person 2: Yeah, I think so also. [/b] Person 3: Muslims burn mothafudger! Look at this link that proves that islam is false! (www.ihavenothingbettertodo.annoying.com) [/b] Person 4: Yeah man, there's a lot of wisdom in that book, even though I don't believe in it, some of it really makes sense. [/b] Guess what person you are... *sigh* ...and please re-read your posts before you post them. Spelling/grammar errors make it really hard to take you seriously.

[13redfan]

becomingagod, please, can you, for fuck's sake ADD SOME PUNCTUATION! I cannot understand what you are posting, because your sentences are malformed and hard to read. Add some punctuation so that people can at least understand your nonsensical arguments. Ok, now I don't know much about subconscious and the experiments to determine the likelihood thereof, but I can say that it would be incredibly difficult to disprove it. There is no way you can say "the subconscious doesn't exist" because you cannot prove it, save for the argument of "You can't see it". You can't see the atom, yet we know it exists because eventually a man developed a device for seeing things up close, which led to us seeing atoms. You also cannot see gravity, but we know it is there. We see it's effects. So to disprove it, we would need to prove that it's effects are not really produced by it, but rather by something else. So, to disprove the existence of the subconscious, we would need to disprove the effects of the subconscious. How would we do this? Well, we would first need to establish what the subconscious does, and its effects. Then we have to set about proving that the conscious mind performs all the things the subconscious supposedly does, and that the conscious mind is responsible for the effects of the supposed subconscious. Can we do that? No. Can we prove the existence of the subconscious? No. But can we disprove it? No. In the same vein, can we prove that the conscious mind exists? No. But we cannot disprove it either. So, if there is no subconscious, it must follow that there is no conscious. If there is no conscious, where does lucid dreaming take place? Now don't say lucid dreaming doesn't exist. Because if lucid dreaming doesn't exist, why are you on dreamviews?

[becomingagodo]

this post seem to unfair to the original person ezekzial who posted it. so if you got anymore stupid post just write you are wrong becomingagodo in another part of this forum. You can't see the atom, yet we know it exists because eventually a man developed a device for seeing things up close, which led to us seeing atoms.[/b] we have never seen a atom also you dont know anything about quantum physics which says atom our only atom when looked at the rest of the time their 3N waves. Can we do that? No. Can we prove the existence of the subconscious? No. But can we disprove it? No. In the same vein, can we prove that the conscious mind exists? No. But we cannot disprove it either. So, if there is no subconscious, it must follow that there is no conscious[/b] well you look at brain function or neurobiology. somebody said what about breathing and stuff well they our inbuilt nerve cell that keep them always on like your heart. then we have to look at truth by expriement e.g. watson in this case who prove classical condition is the root of all our behavior. because you dont understand quantum physic, computer AI and how the brain work it hard to describe how your wrong oh and the mirror test prove if someone conscious. your wrong on so many levels if you want to bring this up make another topic. p.s. im sorry ezekiel7

[ezekiel7]

p.s. im sorry ezekiel7 [/b] Forgiven... and good luck trying to convince people on another topic =P

[Bonsay]

we have never seen a atom also you dont know anything about quantum physics which says atom our only atom when looked at the rest of the time their 3N waves. [/b] Pic of atoms: 1 2 3 4

[Koji]

I won't dissect the post like last time, but some things I just can't leave alone. then we have to look at truth by expriement e.g. watson in this case who prove classical condition is the root of all our behavior.[/b] Did you read my post? Watson showed that emotions can be associated through the classical conditioning process. He did not believe in the psychodynamic approach, so he focused entirely on the observable workings, too much so even. He did not disprove the unconscious though. Also, classical conditioning is NOT the root of all our behavior. It is one form of learning, there are others. Is it just me, or are you incorporating an opinion based merely on disbelief as your primary support? All you have done in your post is restate inaccuracies and reveal ignorance. You simply disregarded primary focuses and offered essentially nothing as proof that the unconscious does not exist. I apologize if there was more there, but other than denial without substance, I don't see much content. True that this argument should not be carried out here. If you would like to continue down this road, I suggest you follow through with your own idea of making a new topic.

[Wolffe]

To say there is no such thing as REM and the subconscious is blatantly wrong. REM is a state of sleep, 100% irrefutable scientific fact. The subconscious (unconscious, in Freudian terms), though perhaps not in the way Freud envisages it, exists in some shape or form. Again, something you can't escape as a fact. watson in this case who prove classical condition is the root of all our behavior. [/b] There is no 'prove'. There are many theories on the reason behind our behaviour.

[13redfan]

we have never seen a atom also you dont know anything about quantum physics which says atom our only atom when looked at the rest of the time their 3N waves. [/b] Does this make any sense? atom our only atom when looked at the rest of the time their 3N waves. Right. In fact, I know a little about quantum physics and AI, enough to prove that there must be something akin to a subconscious, or conscious. In any case, if you want to argue those points, start another thread. If you have factual proof, or something that is close enough to sound logic, then post it (in good punctuation and grammer might I add)

[ezekiel7]

you guys really missed the point didn't you, lol

[13redfan]

you guys really missed the point didn't you, lol [/b] Hehe you're right on that one, we really did go off on a tangent. In any case, I do believe that what you're saying is valid, and more likely to convince your subconscious than "doubting" statements

[turps]

you have a fair point, alot of people say this alot. I think i will try saying "i do remember all my dreams" ect and see if it helps. I'm sure it will.