Hi dudes;
rico wrote:

When I lie awake in bed and drift in and out of different mental activity, I wonder if there is a clear line to demarcate the difference in types of thoughts. 

Various states of consciousness are measurable on EEG; as 'brainwave frequencies'.

Re: For example, how much access do I have to sub-conscious processess?

That's up to you. How much access would you like?  :  )  I tend to stick with the term 'unconscious' to avoid confusion with previous models of mind (some of which turned out to be embarrassingly wrong*.)

Re: Is is that the subconscious processess are running parallel all the time but only in certain moments do I have access to them?
 
Unconscious programs are constantly running in us all; controlling circadian rhythms, homeostasis, regulating heartbeats, calling up stuff from memory that has been requested, carrying out self-repair, helping us to walk & talk without having to think about it, blinking our eyes, digesting our food, growing new neurons, etc, etc...  There's no need to be aware of most of what the unconscious does mechanically, in everyday life -in fact that would be very tedious!

Re: If subconscious processess are running all the time in parallel to conscious and unconscious, then this is a sort of bridge between the two extremes, as in Network 3.  As a matter of fact, I read somewhere on NH that Network 3 is the place of subconscious processing. 

Here we have confusion about unconscious/subconscious -they are the same thing. We do not have 3 concepts here; only two. The bridge we 'need' is connection between unconscious & conscious. That connection relies on agreement between unconscious & conscious about what is going on (so  cells that fire together can wire together); that is congruity.
We are gonna have to lose the term 'subconscious' if we're not going to get confused, as it isn't a valid concept in this model.*

Re: I would like to have more access to this subconsious processing.  It seems that it kind of runs perception. 

It only runs perception if we allow everything to run on automatic and fail to develop our conscious minds. Sure, many people do live like that. But the reality appears to be that this is only the foundation for intelligence and that we must develop the conscious mind and become autonomous (TAKE CONTROL) of our own thoughts, behaviors and responses to reach optimal intelligence. That's what free will is all about, and most life on earth doesn't have this option (intelligence remains automatic, even in complex forms like an ants nest.) We on the other hand have this marvelous gift of free choice -if we choose to use it. Much more on this in T12.

As far as we can tell, the only thing that prevents access to unconscious processing (besides physical brain injury) is anxiety. As anxiety drops, our intuition (conscious awareness of unconscious knowledge) sharpens and becomes ever more accurate.

To explore the boundaries between conscious/unconscious thought, explore Lucid Dreaming, Self-hypnosis and Hypnagogic imagery, all covered in tutorials and in Sakiros Hackipedia.

Another, different model of states of consciousness can be found here:
http://www.neurohackers.com/index.php/e … eff-warren

Hope this is helpful!
AR

PS just thought of it this way: The unconscious runs perception in the same way an engine runs a car. -Ideally it still needs a driver  :  )

*For why, see:
http://www.neurohackers.com/index.php/e … ting-freud

Hi dudes
Warning long mail  :  )

Rico wrote:The territory seems terribly complex.

It is. We are studying the most complex thing in the universe apart from the universe itself  :  )

Re: synergy is a better word than synchrony to describe congruent connection.

I feel we have a mix-up here regarding the relationship between 2 issues. Brainwaves are waves; not beats. They sweep across the brain at the frequencies measured for each of them, for example in Alpha, around ten times per second. In tutorials we have looked at wave propagation from population voting and how this begins, plus what sort of processing is associated with each major frequency. In wave propagation individual neurons firing in sync initiate the pattern, but it is noted that synchrony cannot be universally exact (or epilepsy happens) -which is why we get a wave; not a 'beat'. It is close-pacing; not unison -ie it works like a flock of birds; if your neighbor flaps, you do - but very slightly afterwards (hence the wave). Not all writers know this, and will often call this close-pacing 'sync' or synchrony.
Now, congruity (and see other post for why it's not 'congruence'.)
Obviously propagating a wave requires cells to 'fire together' or respond to their neighbors, and obviously they cannot do this unless both areas of network 'agree' -both are aware- that something is going on 'out there' worth firing about.
So when our unconscious mind sees 'a tiger' and our conscious mind sees it's a tiger on television, all is well and we're aware of the truth. Both recognition areas have fired sufficiently coincidentally to make the connection, and the conscious mind is aware of how the two concepts are related -a tiger in the TV context is perfectly appropriate in your living room. It makes sense. The concepts are congruous.

Re: I dare say EEG does not measure congruence.

Brainwaves are the very indicators that network congruity is happening; that cells are 'firing together', we can know what type of processing is going on by their frequency but we cannot tell (with current tech) what details are being processed (that's why brainwaves are not lie-detection guides). We may see 'congruity', but the whole brain could simply be agreeing that nothing makes sense or that it has a hangover this morning.  :  )
So our most practical view of congruity is from the conceptual context; not the sensorimotor one. We can use sensorimotor techniques to detect that something is or isn't happening, but the idea in NH is to learn how to get it happening; by reviewing conscious concepts to match up with unconscious knowledge.

Re:  ALPHA is supposedly efficient and global and synchronized and corresponds also to a relaxed automatic pilot or the Zone. Am I correct?

Alpha has been measured during 'the zone', so has Delta, in long-practiced individuals. But the Zone is not the same as 'automatic pilot'; in the zone one is stretched and relaxed at the same time. This is a very difficult state to explain and I'll be trying to do so in Tutorial 12, so practice is welcome  :  )

Re: BETA, the way it is described, it sounds like unsynchronized activity.

See above. We must have close-paced firing to get any wave at all; it cannot be unsynchronized activity. You say 'the way it is described' -described where? (We will find all these subjects 'described' all over the internet, and most of what we will read is utter nonsense)  :  )  If you mean, the way it is described in tutorials here, let me know what section you refer to and I'll explain what is intended.

Re: Is BETA more arousal?

Beta normally appears when we are more stretched and less relaxed, so not quite sure how to link this with 'arousal' ?


Re: Could EEGs predict hypnogogic states? Or are they purely subjective?

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4684-3731-7_9
(Symbolic Aspects of Hypnagogic Imagery Associated with Theta EEG Feedback)
http://www.theassc.org/files/assc/Kuss% … _study.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … 995.x/full
Hypnagogic imagery and EEG activity:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10483662
And even: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia  is helpful.


Re: are the states of consciousness on Jeff Warrens wheel reflecting the spectrum between conscious and unconscious or am I off on that? And are his states of consciousness mutually exclusive or are they all running parallel but only one of them is at different times perceived?
Or is unconsciousness basically the unpercievable meanwhile conscious states are software, is that it? Are brain states mutually exclusive?

One would have to ask the author these questions, as it's their model  :  )  We can't be sure we understand the intended meaning of Warren's terms as there is no 'definitions' section that I could see. You can contact Jeff Warren here: http://www.jeffwarren.org/contact/  on his website.
Best,
AR

Hi dudes,
Rico wrote:
All states are states of wave propogation. 

...Well, strictly speaking, death is a 'state' involving a distinct lack of wave propagation  :  )


[r]States are descriptions of the kinds of processes happening in the brain. 

'Mental states' or 'processing states' are, yes. You'll hear people talk of 'physical states', 'emotional states' and 'state of mind' as distinct from 'mental states', but really there is not such clear separation because all these are inextricably linked and a change in any one affects all the others.


[r]Congruity is itself a firing in sync and connection that "makes sense" between unconscious knowledge and conscious awareness. 

Sorta, but to be clear I'd enlarge this to encompass parallel processing; like so:
Congruity is:
(a) a firing in sync of one or more networks (wave propagation)
(b) coincidental firing of two or more areas or networks that forms a physical connection between the two (plasticity in progress)
(c) the comprehension of two or more concepts that "make sense" both to unconscious knowledge and conscious awareness.
Examples:
Congruity:
unconscious mind knows: “I love this person”.
conscious mind thinks, “I love this person, therefore I will spend most of my time with this person.”
(this makes absolute sense and these concepts make universal sense to all living mammals.)
Incongruity:
unconscious mind knows: “I love this person”.
conscious mind thinks, “I love this person, therefore I will get married to this person.”
(there is no unconscious knowledge that can make sense out of the concept, 'get married'. Unconscious biology doesn't know what it means, and can never learn, because it's a synthetic concept some human made up -ie, it's not a part of physical & biological reality.)
Fragment from T12:
“The unconscious can only make sense out of concepts if they actually make sense in reality. Thus, it can understand what 'a library' is, (a collection of information that may be useful) because it makes total sense to collect useful things together; biology knows that. But it will never understand
“adultery” because biology already knows that variation in reproductive partners is genetically beneficial for both the individual and the species (which is why biology tries to get us to achieve it).
When it comes down to it, in order to be congruous, our conscious mind has to believe the truth.”


[r]A measure of "sense making" is made by measuring the potential for improved outcomes or the levels of anxiety.  Yes? 

...Not absolutely sure what you mean here, so you'll have to help me  :  )  Can you think of another way to ask the question, then I might get it?


[r]I am still fascinated and unclear about the unconscious.

Yeh, me too. It's the larger part of our consciousness by far, and has been much less studied that conscious awareness. A similar thing happened with genome studies; everyone ignored the larger part (and originally called it 'junk dna') because it wasn't part of the 'interesting bits' -the genes. I suspect the unconscious has similar surprises; the part that isn't the 'main show' is in fact running the whole show.
What's more, I suspect the same may be true of neurons themselves (note, that's not an hypothesis; it's a suspicion) ...but now I'm waffling :  )


[r]What determines if a cell firing is an unconscious or a conscious cell, if such a distinction can exhist?

Such a distinction doesn't exist; cells are used for both unconscious and conscious processing. For examples:
The same cells fire when we dream, during unconscious memory consolidation, that also fired during the original event in waking time we are remembering.
The same cells fire when we imagine playing tennis that are used for actually playing tennis.


[r]Another question would be, in deepest sleep pure unconsciousness? 

This is under debate, because you have to look at states such as hypnosis, anesthesia, hibernation and coma; and ask yourself how exactly you are defining 'unconscious'. I use a straightforward conscious/unconscious terminology in these tutorials defined by conscious awareness, but since we can do all sorts of things without any conscious awareness this isn't necessarily linked with physical behavior. We only have to think of sleepwalking (or large quantities of alcohol) to see this point  :  )
Best,
AR