09-23-2022, 11:14 AM
(09-23-2022, 10:36 AM)rono Wrote:(09-23-2022, 10:03 AM)Shannon Wrote:(09-22-2022, 12:48 PM)rono Wrote:(09-21-2022, 11:58 AM)Shannon Wrote: Keep in mind that what you think of as being "you" is your so-called "conscious" mind, and it is basically a small sliver of your whole consciousness. There are many different parts, layers and levels of awareness within you, and some of them will have different points of view, desires and levels of understanding from that sliver of consciousness, which is generally among the least conscious of all of them, from what I can tell. So it's entirely possible for "you" you deeply want something, and maybe one or more parts of your subconscious, while other parts may deeply want exactly the reverse. And those parts may simply be too deep for your conscious self to detect in a way that it understands.
This is a very interesting theory and possibly correct as far as I can tell. I have some questions about it I'll include in my update I'm also posting today.
Cheers,
RonO
I wouldn't exactly call it a theory, after doing this since 1992, but take it as you will.
Touché
I'm accustomed to calling anything that I cannot access or test the data a 'theory' it doesn't demean it, it just allows it to be superseded when new info emerges as it almost always does in scientific investigation.
RonO
"Theory" is a word frequently abused by those outside the scientific establishment. In formal hard science circles, a thing is a theory until it becomes a law, as far as I recall, which can take decades or even a century or more. In that sense, certainly it is indeed a theory. But most people don't use the word in that sense, they use it as a way of throwing shade on something, or casting it as doubtful. In the former usage, I have no problem with it being called a theory. The latter rather bothers me. Good to see it is being used in the former sense, not the latter.
I doubt there will ever be 100% certainty concerning the subconscious awareness, but this I have shared with you has indeed been built upon and survived decades of experimentation, testing and every challenge I could find to throw at it. It's not a certainty, but it is a very well supported and very strong and stable conclusion.
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!