Thread: Communicate with subconscious?

Haha the fat guy is your subconscious? Mines Russel Brand with super powers :p.

This would have been funnier if you could have remembered it all. Oh well. Congrats on the lucid.

When anyone asks me how i am doing, I always say that I don't know, as I have not got a letter from myself in a long time.

Being conscious of the not conscious, rates right up there with hearing the inaudible, seeing the invisible, and the Emperor's New Clothes.

What can I say, I am no fashion expert.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

When anyone asks me how i am doing, I always say that I don't know, as I have not got a letter from myself in a long time. .

Is it me or it really is something related to Alice in Wonderland? Well i will try to talk to my subconscious but if i know myself right it will be a guy i know answering to questions like "What does a really important thing mean?" with answers like Well hadn't it been for the really important thing cookies will never have existed xD I'll still give it a shot in the LD i'll have this night(hopefully)

Originally Posted by goldenaxel321

Haha the fat guy is your subconscious? Mines Russel Brand with super powers :p.

This would have been funnier if you could have remembered it all. Oh well. Congrats on the lucid.

Hehe, all the other people there were supposedly part of my subconscious too... but he's the only one I remember talking to. I don't really know what to write this dream off as. It's a success in that I got lucid, but who knows if I made an actual connection there. The dream seemed kinda silly... but then, maybe I'm the silly one, for expecting a serious result from a dream. xD

Originally Posted by Klaudyw3

Is it me or it really is something related to Alice in Wonderland? Well i will try to talk to my subconscious but if i know myself right it will be a guy i know answering to questions like "What does a really important thing mean?" with answers like Well hadn't it been for the really important thing cookies will never have existed xD I'll still give it a shot in the LD i'll have this night(hopefully)

Well, this is an interesting world, some people talk to themselves, but others are so impovershed they can only talk to part of themselves. I suppose it all depends on how important the things are one has to discuss with themselves or with part of themselves.

Now I am going for a cup of coffee, well part of the cup, I just think I will pour the coffee and forget the cup.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Now I am going for a cup of coffee, well part of the cup, I just think I will pour the coffee and forget the cup.

Hahahahaha that made me luagh!

Some people learn that A = A. Others learn to say it as "A thing is not different from itself." or like Plato, "Relation to self is altogether inadmisible, others, long ago said "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

But a great many can only repeat the words, having no idea how they guide and direct thought, keeping one from thinking and talking non-sense.

So it does not matter if your cup is half full or half empty when you got no cup at all.

No one has ever set up a race where the runners race against their own feet--or subrunners.

Ah, so you don't believe in the subconscious? Or at least, you think that you are your subconscious, and not separate from it. I can agree to a certain extent. Most people aren't living fully consciously though (myself included of course), so there are parts of us that we are not fully aware of. Hence, what we call the subconscious. In any case, regardless of personal beliefs, I thought this was an interesting experiment.

Originally Posted by Singularity125

Ah, so you don't believe in the subconscious?

Does one address the part as if it were the whole? Do the experiement with anything. Remove the part and try to imagine that you have now two wholes. Can you do it without diminishing the whole? Can you subtract from yourself, and remain yourself?
What is part of conscious other than not conscious?

Part of a thing is not the thing it is part of. Therefore it is not capable of being or doing what the whole does.

Well, don't feel bad. Russell and Whitehead were too stupid to figure it out. A mind falls into a paradox so easily. I guess it is because we are subconsious to begin with, as you said--not fully conscious.

You have me laughing. . . you really do. Not being consious as to the implications of what one is doing or saying is being subconsious. So now we have the subconsious of the subconsious of the , , , , hell. I am getting tired.

The one time I tried talking to my "subconscious", I just got a woman's voice repeating whatever I said.

Originally Posted by Puffin

The one time I tried talking to my "subconscious", I just got a woman's voice repeating whatever I said.

In school we learn by rote how to add and subtract numbers. Now, I ask, how do you add and subtract ideas, so that we do not make two different things the same, or two of the same things different?

Perhaps one is not talking to themselves. Relation to self is inadamissible.

I don't just say this to be funny or rude, I really am working learning how to teach it. There is just so much I have to do. However, if one has any desire to have strength of mind, we have to learn these things, and we have to work at them.

A feeble mind cannot solve the problems we need to sovle in order to survive.

One build a house without being an architect or an engineer,recognize a liar without being a psychologist and live without breaking one's head over such issues as subconscious and whether it exists or not. It's not a matter of survival as much as it is a matter of improvement and easing problem solving.

Originally Posted by Blacklight

It's not a matter of survival as much as it is a matter of improvement and easing problem solving.

By definition of an evironmental acquisition system of a living organism, it is all about survival--and survival is not measured in terms of just the moment, but in length of time. Search the myths of man, how long does he desire to live? What is immortality?

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Perhaps one is not talking to themselves. Relation to self is inadamissible.

If not ourselves, who are we talking to? Something outside of ourselves, "out there"? Or is it all an illusion?

Originally Posted by Singularity125

If not ourselves, who are we talking to? Something outside of ourselves, "out there"? Or is it all an illusion?

Thought experiment. We have two or more monky's and one of them has learned a little bit about the language of man. can do simple sentences, and follows simple tasks. What would the other monkies say if that one were trying to explain the situation to them?

When the reality is too far to comprehend, this does not justify the cluster frilling of logic. Or again, the inability to make sense of a thing does not justify the talking of non-sense.

Definitely not an illusion.

One thing is for certain, knowing that one does not know, means that one is trying to understand. Demanding that one does know by speaking gibberish, is a fool stuck in their foolishness.

Well, I never assumed for sure that there was a separate subconscious to us, even if I made it seem that way. How can I find out what's really out there without trying some things and making some guesses? This was an experiment of sorts. You seem to have the idea that partial understanding, or flawed reasoning, is worse than admitting ignorance, which may be true in some cases, but... building off of our mistakes and misjudgments is the only way to progress. The intellectual leap is too large to be made all at once. You need those intermediary steps where you're partially right, and partially wrong... with the goal to be "less wrong" in each iteration. I get the feeling we will never reach absolute truth, anyway.

Absolute truth is a tautology. The elements of everything are two, that things form and that things material difference. Absolute is to form as relative is to the material difference. What you are trying to say is that we learn the absolute eventually through the particulars, or again, the relative--this is the fact of the matter. Set Theory, as it is called, is but a shadow--and screw up--of an ancient, and true, two element metaphysics. It determines all linguistic expressions as it is the elements of logic. The One (absolute) and the Many (relative) was just another way of saying it.

When understood, one learns the principles of predication, or what may be said as assertion and denial--what one can and cannot say. Unlearned one does not know when they assert when they should deny, or deny when they should assert. The only two possible primitive judgments. Taking this to the conclusion, logic, even for the human mind, is binary based as "is" is to same, form, etc. as "is not" is to different, or material difference.

How I look at it is, your dreams are in your subconscious, it's all a projection of whats on your mind(aware of it or not), (of course when Lucid this can vary), so any and everything going on(colors, people, etc..) is all your subconscious. But telling yourself something in a dream is comparable to talking to yourself. Just, more elaborately.

Maybe we just consider our dreams to be part of our subconscious, but is it really "ours"? You know the classic question: "Who am I?" How many people can say that they really understand themselves? If you don't, how could you decide what's yours and what's not?

Originally Posted by Lucidreaman

Maybe we just consider our dreams to be part of our subconscious, but is it really "ours"? You know the classic question: "Who am I?" How many people can say that they really understand themselves? If you don't, how could you decide what's yours and what's not?

Whether you can consciously recognize who your are, your subconscious always knows, all attributes of you (personality, reactions, etc..) are all in your subconscious.

Originally Posted by Lucidreaman

Maybe we just consider our dreams to be part of our subconscious, but is it really "ours"? You know the classic question: "Who am I?" How many people can say that they really understand themselves? If you don't, how could you decide what's yours and what's not?

Well, i do have one thing I believe, the definition of sentience. This definition strongly indicates to me that dreams, at least not all of them, originate entirely within. It is a conversation, we do contribute what we can, but we certainly are not carrying the conversation, if you know what I mean.

Now, the whole conception of life outside of man greatly superior in intellect and intentions is harder to comprehend than believing that there are two of us--however, one must resist the temptation to embrace the logically impossible.

actually have a conversation with my subconscious? no. But communicate, maybe. I would call it "planting a seed" or something like that.

I was flying and figured I'll shout out a couple of things to my subconscious, instructions if you will. I think it might of done something because I been feeling a bit different towards certain things. I also been looking at certain situations differently lately. I don't know, maybe it worked maybe it didn't and maybe it's just all in my mind. Wait, wasn't that the point? lol