Subconscious I.Q.

[Simple Guy]

Do you believe that there is a subconscious I.Q.? If so, how would you
test for this variability? (This isn't the "cleanest" question, but thought
it might stimulate some interesting thoughts.)

[Merlin]

The *IQ* of the subconscious is astronomical!
Off the charts.
The conscious learns to stifle the genius.

Of what use is it to know someone's IQ is 270 or 290 or...?

[Charlie]

The *IQ* of the subconscious is astronomical!
Off the charts.
The conscious learns to stifle the genius.

Is this true of everyone?

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

[skip]

Simple,

I think your question presupposes an erroneous assumption. Specifically that your unconscious is somehow distinct and separate from the rest of your mind.

You have one mind. And you use all of it. There is what you are attending to, which we tend to call conscious mind, and what you arent attending to, which we call sub or unconscious mind.

The interesting thing is, that you can only attend, consciously, to so much, and whenever you add one item over the limit, something you were attending to drops out. In other words it goes from conscious to unconscious. And things come into consciousness, and drop out of consciousness, with amazing facility. You were unconscious of the pressure of the chair on your bottom, until just now. And it will drop from consciousness, in a moment, just as easily as it came into consciousness.

I dont think IQ applies to the so called unconscious. IQ is a device that measures based on what you can bring conscious attention and skills to. The unconscious simply doesnt work that way.

I would say Merlin's assessment is correct, that the unconscious' IQ is higher, but not because it is smarter. It is aware, attending to more than the conscious, we have no idea what the limit, it can attend to is, but it is apparently immense. And it processes differently. So, if you could accurately measure it on an IQ scale, it would be off the charts, but that doesnt make you (or it, if you prefer to be considered separately) any 'smarter'. because it is operating fully now. The question is are you using it optimally yet?

skip

[Simple Guy]

Skip,

There is one mind, as you point out. Speaking of it as two "distinct and
separate parts" is useful, only sometimes, for discussion purposes and
not an accurate description of its function. I recognize the inherent
problem in asking this kind of a question, but didn't come up with
a more efficient way of bringing up the topic.

I wonder if the capacity and efficiency of the subconsious can be
increased. Ordinary I.Q. is said to be a result of nature and nurture.
So, in thinking about using the subconsious optimally, we, of course,
seek to transcend consious limitations. But, what of the possibility of
better enabling the functioning of the subconscious as an operating process?
What aspects of nurture could be helpful?

You ask about using the subconsious "optimally." I don't think anyone
yet has done so. For me the answer is "better" and continuously getting
more so. I say this with humility, not any self-deprecation.

[Merlin]

It is true of those who have a mind which is not seriously injured.
It is even true of those who *outwardly* seem "retarded"
For them, it is most often an inward focus, rather than outward focus.
You could say they are in a deep 'trance'

Yes, it's astronomical, but 'IQ' really is meaningless as a useful tool. It loses value rapidly as you move more than about 20 points past the norm.

[Don]

I would just like to add that Standford-Benet, creators of the IQ test and scale, have admitted that they aren't sure what it measures. Some have claimed that it measures the relationship of the individual to functioning within middle-class Western norms. It certainly does not measure intelligence.

So if what it measures is unknown, asking if the unconscious has it is meaningless. If it measures a relationship to middle class norms, then it might be higher in the unconscious of all people, but even higher in Westerners, which, again renders the scale rather meaningless.

Here in the West there seems to be a strong need to quantify everything. Perhaps the I.Q. scale mostly measures this need.

[Merlin]

So long as you have a conscious, you will limit the subconscious.
The 'nurture' is more a case of feeling safe about using your mind.

[Terry (existing)]

I was facinated to read the word "optimally" in your post SG, because as I understand the subconcious, it never sleeps, and is limited only by what it is exposed to.....In other words, what you observe with each of your senses, is taken in and retained by the subconcious without regard for value. If you expose it to good things only, (which of course of not possible, since you don't control what you sense daily,) it would be used optimally I think according to what I understand you to mean, but since this is not possible, I suggest that we all use our subconcious optimally when in the trance state, and programming it for need, and it is free at all other times to collect data regardless of the value of that data...Terry

[EC]

IQ actually measures our "presence" in the outside world as opposed to others. You might say then that it identifies those individuals that have fewer issues in their past that diverts their attentions inward.

It therefore can determine the likelyhood that an individual will succeed in the real world (job etc.) as opposed to others tested. Some call this IQ.

In the absence of issues drawing our focus inward, in the absence of continual introspection, the more we are able to "be present" and the more conscious abilities (so-called intelligence) we naturally develop as we move thru life.

In the absence of brain injury, we all have about the same IQ abilities, it really is a matter of how much we develop it. Some call this nature and nurture, and nurture certainly plays a large part in it as we progress through childhood.

Similiarly, we can develop more "sub-conscious" (so-called intelligence) abilities if we are not continually focused on internal issues that draw on our energies. As an example, we can become better golfers, etc, unless we expend this available energy being depressed etc.

IQ may be a name we give it, however it really is just how well one's particular abilities are developed as opposed to others.

EC

[skip]

Simple,

Let me try to turn things downside up a bit here.

You said: "I wonder if the capacity and efficiency of the subconsious can be
increased. Ordinary I.Q. is said to be a result of nature and nurture.
So, in thinking about using the subconsious optimally, we, of course,
seek to transcend consious limitations. But, what of the possibility of
better enabling the functioning of the subconscious as an operating process?
What aspects of nurture could be helpful?"

Merlin stated: "The conscious will always limit the unconscious."

I wonder if it is so? I wonder if there is some inherent something, than means the conscious will always limit the unconscious, or if that is just a limiting belief.

I think it is just a limiting belief, more on that later.

See the unconscious is out there doing what it does. We dont yet know what its limits are, if any. We do feel, believe, we havent exausted its potential. We are sure there is more 'out there'. And we are more than sure, that we could accomplish more, if we somehow wed our conscious and unconscious.

BUT that feeling, that belief, that we havent exausted its potential, is based on our conscious understanding and abilities.

Rather than worry about increasing capicity, when I seem, so far, to be unable to utilize the capicity I now have, wouldnt my attention be better turned to increasing my ability to better utilize what I have, until I have exausted that potential? OR does a rising tide float all boats?

And who is to say that we arent working perfectly? What if conscious and unconscious are working exactly as 'ordered'? See, we are a grand experiment, when considered from an evolutionary standpoint. Conscious, self awareness, knoweledge of ones own mortality, ideas of transcending 'death', are "new", on the evolutionary scale. And I dont care whether you are an agnostic or a fundamentalist christian, you can both agree that this consciousness business is a "new experiemnt". I dont care whether the metaphor is "God didnt create anything else with a soul." or "Evolutionary pressure has resulted in this 'variation', that seems to be very successful, but eternity is a very long time, and we shall see."

What if we dont have the bugs worked out, yet? What if we do?

None of that means much, when I wonder about how to run my personal life, but asking those questions, means a lot, when I wonder about potential.

I suspect that the unconscious, is tapped into all that there is. Jung's collective unconscious, Talbot's "Holographic Universe", Taoist's 'Its all us.' Conscious is what allows us to have the "I am unique experience.", and as such I suspect it is a neat enhancement. An optional feature, that enhances the 'experience'. It certainly isnt necessary. Jelly fish dont seem to need it.

So for my part, rather than worrying about enhancing the unconscious, I wonder how to enhance the conscious.

One sure way, is to begin operating in the now. To be responding to what is actually there, not what occurred years ago. In other words, lose the patterns. That way when someone talks to me, 'in that tone." I respond to them, and to that specific situation, not to my mother, or father, or that school teacher, or bully, and that situation years ago, that 'that tone' brings up.

And it means that I dont run the same 'pattern' over and over, like your clients do every 20 seconds or so.

It means that your 7+/- 2 doesnt continually consist of the same VAKOG ratio.

It means that I might even increase my 7+/-2 and thereby increase my sample rate, of reality, by anywhere from 11 to 20 percent, even if I merely increase the sample rate by one.

So for me, Simple Guy, instead of worrying about increasing capicity I dont yet fully utilize anyway, I am oncerned more with increasing the capicity of something I already have topped out. Especially the capicity of something I understand to be the latest development, in evolution, instead of the earlier one.

skip

[EC]

Skip, If I may, without interferring too much !
It seems appropriate to consider that the conscious is limited by the unconscious rather than the other way around: As an example: We often see those with what is called ADD/ADHD doing their very best to remain "here", in the present, however no matter how hard they try, the unconscious has a way of taking over, controlling, "snatching them back" to their inner reality doesn't it ?

Suppose that we first remove any conflict, issues misunderstandings, etc, that might cause us to spend any part of our time reminiscing so to speak.

Now suppose we focus on creating such a level of harmony between our so-called conscious and unconscious that they are truly best friends. We essentially develop a level of rappor so that the unconscious is willing to work "full time" with the conscious to offer-up all that "it knows or has available" upon que, or command, or even full time if we can departmentalize the data ?

>>I suspect that the unconscious, is tapped into all that there is ! <<

Imagine !

EC

[Merlin]

Merlin stated: "The conscious will always limit the unconscious."

Skip said:I wonder if it is so?

Merlin replies: I suggest Skip, that the limits on our capacity is self imposed, not by our subconscious, but our conscious ideas and limiting beliefs.
We do not yet consciously realize the power of the mind.
We ignore many subconscious inputs.

The limits are self-imposed, choices.
Many of those limitations are learned in childhood (nurture issues).

[Charlie]

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

An entire book could be written from the subject matter of this thread. - Quite fascinating!

http://forum.hypnosis.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[skip]

Merlin,

I think I understand what you said.

I am saying that instead of thinking of the conscious as the limitation, what if it is actually the feature enhancement?

skip

[Simple Guy]

Terry,

"Optimally," in the absolute strictest sense of the word implies
perfection. Whether in the ability to work with hypnosis, or in the decision
as to what is the wisest usage of hypnotic and other skills, no one has
yet reached an "optimal" level. We, hopefully, continue to grow more
and more optimally wise and proficient.

[Simple Guy]

Skip,

I'd like to first thank you and others for the quality and depth of your
responses.

It seems to me that any limitations of mind are the result of restrictions
both conscious and unconscious. The veil between the two is porous
and attributing limitations to only one side of the veil seems to overlook
the permeability.

I'm not sure how long the consciousness thing has existed. You can
see it in the Greek Stoics, Buddhist writings, the Bible. You can read
it in the words of Chief Seattle who eloquently spoke of our connection
in the web of life. You can imagine what the most isolated, illiterate
and ancient human may have imagined. It seems kind of innate, though
subject to expansion. I too share your "suspicion that the unconscious,
is tapped into all their is." It's a suspicion that takes on a quality of knowing
as discovery of real connection presents itself as reality. Wherever we
are on a biological or consciousness evolutionary scale, I have the belief
that enormous potential is capable of being achieved right now by being
fully present, to "begin operating in the here and now," as you
said. I know this to be so.

[Merlin]

If that is so, Skip,
Where does the limiting belief come from?
Do you think the subconscious does not understand its ability and so limits itself?

My position is that the conscious has doubts or limiting beliefs as to what is possible.

So I would agree the conscious is a feature enhancer, but only because the conscious is the limiting factor.

[skip]

Merlin,

First of all I suspect it is a mistake to believe that someone who, for example, self sabatoges, because of an unconscious belief, that they cannot succeed, is being limited by their conscious.

Or someone who is responding in a fearful manner as an adult, as a result of some fright they had as a child, which they dont consciously remember, can hardly be accused of consciously limiting themselves.

But I think you miss the point.

I believe the unconscious and conscious are operating at optimim capicity, all the time.

It is what we do with this capicity, how we utilize it that results sometimes in less than the best behaviors. So while we might occasionally limit ourselves, or even often limit ourselves, I would have to say the limiting behavior arises more from our unconscious behavior than our conscious.

Is that the "fault" of the conscious or unconscious?

Hardly, but I do think it is because of the way the unconscious operates.

Our task is to learn how to best utilize this powerful engine we have.

skip

[skip]

Simple,

"It seems to me that any limitations of mind are the result of restrictions
both conscious and unconscious.

See this is what bothers me. And I mean no disrespect, but some things are such ingrained assumptions that they are invisible.

There are NO restrictions. Nada. None whatsoever.

We do not always achieve the best results, but that isnt because the conscious or unconscious are restricted.

It is just because we arent using them in such a way as to achieve the result we want. BUT we are achieving the results we get, perfectly.

And we can achieve any other result just as perfectly.

skip

[Simple Guy]

Skip,

Where we don't get the results we want, there is a restriction -- by
definition. The mind works perfectly, okay. Autos work perfectly. When
there is a mechanical problem we do not work to get the results
we want -- reliably working vehicles. Change the fuel pump or something
else and they work perfectly to run well. The auto part was a restriction.
-- Similarly so, it seems to me when addressing not obtaining a
desired result of the mind. The system works perfectly as it is, but the fact
that a wanted result isn't there is symptomatic of a restriction (be it a lack
of congruence or any number of other possible operating glitches).

[skip]

Just because you drive an auto into a ditch doesnt mean the auto want working perfectly.

Our challenge isnt fixing the car, but in learning how to drive a formula 1.

Now this is based on my idea of learning to use what we arent using to its capicity.

It could be that if we were to increase the overall capicity, that our utilization capability will also increase, such that we still have the same percentage capicity of more. "A rising tide floats all boats."

skip

[Simple Guy]

Skip,

Agreed.

[Merlin]

Respectfully Skip,

I disagree.

>I believe the unconscious and conscious are operating at optimim capicity, all the time.

That might be so. but operating optmally does not ensure optimum results.

I would say the limitations are consciously learned. Right or wrong, they are of conscious origin.

>Is that the "fault" of the conscious or unconscious?

Why must there be 'fault'?

>Our task is to learn how to best utilize this powerful engine we have.

Or, imo, unlearn limitations.

[EC]

Hi Merlin,

You have puzzled me on this one. An example:

(You will be able to tell I know little about trains. At any rate, this is how my train works)

As a train moves along the tracks, the fellow in the engine (engineer ?) keeps a lookout for tree's jumping out in the middle of tracks and if he see's one, he put's on the brakes, otherwise he is full speed ahead. He is the eyes and ears (conscious) but about all he can do is stop to avoid hitting the tree. Now, he does report to the fellow in the back of the train (conductor ?) who really makes all the decisions as he is tapped into all the knowledge available. He is really driving or directing the train.

Similiarly, as we move along the tracks of life, our eyes and ears certainly keep us from hitting a tree, however, it seems that the fellow in the back is tapped into all the information known, and actually makes all the important decisions. It seems that we can understand this because it is rare that we can rationalize with the fellow in the front (conscious) and really effect any desired change. He may desire to do things differently, however, experience tells us he is an employee, and acts at the discretion of the conductor in the rear.

It would seem that if the engineer started making the conductors decisions, there would either be one-helluva-fight, or, one helluva-wreck.

We absolutely know that we limit ourselves due to decisions we have arrived at in our past, that are (often) stored out of sight of the conscious. We know this to be true as we often go beyond consciousness to find these issues.

Have you found this to be different ?

EC

[skip]

Hi Merlin,

Just because you are disagreeable, doesnt mean you arent awsome! :)

I agree that there is a separation between optimum operation and results.

We do operate optimally, and sometimes we get results we dont like. But I would suggest to you that we never consciously choose, deliberately, less than the best.

We always do consciously what we think is best for us at the time. This does not always result in the best, but we never deliberately choose failure.

And I simply do not accept that most of our limitations are consciously learned. Most of our learning is entirely unconscious, especially in our early formative years. And most of our behavior is unconsiously driven. In fact I would like to hear an example of one consciously learned limitation.

As to where we go from where we are. Well I dont believe in unlearning. We dont unlearn well. We do learn well though, and if we can learn to do one thing, we can just as easily learn to do another. To me unlearning implies "broken", and you know I dont believe in that.

I think we do everything perfectly. If we make a mistake, we still make it perfectly. And mistakes are only that in retrospect, it was the best choice at the time. If we have an unwanted behavior, that is unconsciously driven, we still perform that unwanted behavior flawlessly. It is in the results where we fall short sometimes, and we never deliberately choose ****ty results.

We IMO need to focus on what we do best, we are learning machines. We learn so fast it is incredible. There are so many one trial learnings in our lives, it isnt even calculable.

Since we are already performing flawlessly, rather than focusing on the past, and on unlearning, as how to best optimize our results, we need to focus on the what we want to do in the future.

cheers,

skip

[Merlin]

Hi Skip,

we've disagreed on this before, I guess we'll continue.
You seem to consider optimally wrong as optimum. I don't.
If a person is in a 'coma', sure they are doing 'coma' well. I just don't consider such things as optimum.

If you are consistent in answering that 2+2=7, well yes, your mind is functioning. I just don't consider it as optimum.

>We always do consciously what we think is best for us at the time. This does not always result in the best, but we never deliberately choose failure.

I'm not suggesting anyone consciously chooses failure.

> And I simply do not accept that most of our limitations are consciously learned.

That's up to you :)

>Most of our learning is entirely unconscious,

I disagree Skip.
Learning is seldom by unconscious installation.
Most learning goes through the conscious first.

>And most of our behavior is unconsiously driven.

Eventually, yes. But not initially.

Don't know where that 'unlearning' comment comes from?

>We IMO need to focus on what we do best, we are learning machines. We learn so fast it is incredible. There are so many one trial learnings in our lives, it isnt even calculable.

I never said otherwise. I said "The *IQ* of the subconscious is astronomical! Off the charts.

[Merlin]

Trying to follow your analogy...

I'm suggesting that there are situations where the engineer might be putting on brakes unnecessarily.
Indeed, I am saying that what slows the train down are mistakes of the engineer.
We would be full steam ahead, were it not for the conscious.

>It would seem that if the engineer started making the conductors decisions, there would either be one-helluva-fight, or, one helluva-wreck.

Yes. That's what i'm suggesting is limiting I.Q.

>We absolutely know that we limit ourselves due to decisions we have arrived at in our past, that are (often) stored out of sight of the conscious.

I'm saying that the origin of the limitations are consciously learned. I'm not saying that the decisions are currently in the conscious providing conscious decisions.

[EC]

Thanks for the reply Merlin,

I agree that in learning, we must first gain conscious competence before we can have unconcious competence. However, when it comes to self imposed limitations, I am more of the opinion that we arrive at and retain these "protections" below the level of our so-called conscious. But then again, where is the seperation between that so-called con/uncon anyway ?

Debate/disagreement sets up a new learning endeavor and is a *good thing* !

Thanks,
EC

[Merlin]

EC,
The context of my comments may have been lost along the way. :(
Easily done in such a forum.
I read all the posts. I had a context in mind.
It may not be obvious to anyone else tho.

See, I was referring to the need for nurturing. For the conscious feeliing of safety.
When the safety of using the mind is not available (in early childhood) then the child learns that using the mind fully is not acceptable and outward expression of IQ is limited to what feels safe.

Hence the need for nurturing which enhances apparent IQ.

[EC]

Merlin,

That then explains your point in terms I can understand. I totally agree with what you are saying. Yes, nurturing issues sometimes limit the *safety* of conscious expression, therefore,,,,,.

I knew you had a valid point, I just had not yet found it !

Thanks,
EC

[skip]

EC,

It is not necessary to have conscious competence before having unconscious competence.

You can install skills unconsciously, I do it in trainings all the time.

You can also have unconscious skills, and believe that you dont have them in contexts, or say a new context, and fail misreably in those contexts, simply because you havent cross contextualized skills.

with respect,

skip

[EC]

Hi Skip,

I agree, but I was thinking more along the lines of the normal learning process; Learning to ride the bicycle thru trial and error !

At the same time, I certainly won't argue the ability of our minds to occasionally circumvent this process.

EC

[skip]

Ah!

And here is the difference.

The difference, between what you said, and how I percieve what Merlin said.

I dont think the 'circumvention' is occasional. I think it is the vast majority.

I think the bulk of our learnings are unconscious, most probably all of them.

Even to riding the bicycle. We failed miserably when we tried consciously. It was only when we let the unconscious handle it, that we were able at all.

Conscious sets the intent, but that is as far as it goes. If the conscious tries to control the process, we fail.

I am still waiting for Merlin, or anyone to give me an example of conscious learning.

Maybe it is a definition issue, what do you think?

skip

[EC]

>> I dont think the 'circumvention' is occasional. I think it is the vast majority
I Agree

>> I think the bulk of our learnings are unconscious, most probably all of them

Agreed - This is where the puzzle is assembled.

>>Conscious sets the intent, but that is as far as it goes. If the conscious tries to control the process, we fail.

Ditto

>> I am still waiting for Merlin, or anyone to give me an example of conscious learning.

I agree; I still think conscious is just making sure we don't hit a tree !

>> Maybe it is a definition issue, what do you think?

Picture unconscious as a tunnel that begans forming at birth and then gets longer and longer as we age. This is a fun, creative environment that we play around in until such time as we accumulate enough pieces to begin forming our different puzzles that ultimately decide our perception of the world. As we do get these puzzles together, we have enough information to begin forming logic/reasoning ability. Now suppose *conscious* is that area just out in front (in the light) of the tunnel. Ah, the dangerous time of life: We have but few elementary puzzles assembled, yet we "peek out into the light" (first real consciousness) and form an opinion of what we see based on our immature puzzles. If what we see is perceived as scary, we run back into the tunnel. Some call this *conscious* limitation. But is it really conscious limitation, or, fear of consciousness based on limited unconscious knowledge?

We get to replicate this scenario throughout life. We have a choice of either joining the conscious world and just looking to the tunnel for the wisdom within, or, the conscious world remains a threat and we stay in the tunnel. Some folks stay just inside the entrance and poke their head out occasionally, we call these *emotional folks*, others stay well back from the entrance and we call these psychotics, and then some stay way back around the corner and cannot even see the light at the end of the tunnel (consciousness). We sometimes call these schizophrenics.

Regardless of where we happen to be in our little tunnel of life, I think we can hear what's going on out front. Therefore you might then say that all info does come from *out there*, however, I believe it is always interpreted in accordance with our own set of puzzles and therefore all limitation comes from within.

At the same time, I suppose that we can be out in front, in the conscious world, filtering what goes in to be interpreted. If so, this might be seen as a *limitation*. I just never have been able to prove that we have any other storehouse of knowledge to base any decisions on. I have to think that all information is passed on back, interpreted, and the appropriate response handed back up to be executed.

So yes, I agree that it probably is a matter of definition. When I look out into the scary world of daylight, do I stop (limit) myself from venturing further due to my perception of the world, arrived at as I formed my puzzles, which *are* the so-called unconscious ?

I think so.

EC

[skip]

Merlin,

“we've disagreed on this before, I guess we'll continue.
You seem to consider optimally wrong as optimum. I don't.”

Yes we have disagreed on this, and other things, and most of the time I can understand where you are coming from, this time is different.

I think you are forgetting to take into account the separation of the behavior from the person, or more specifically the results, from the operation of the equipment. It is the results we don’t like, not faulty operation of equipment.

“If a person is in a 'coma', sure they are doing 'coma' well. I just don't consider such things as optimum.”

That is a value judgment we would both tend to make, however coma may be the best way the person knows how to deal with that ever it is causing the coma. Now if the person learns a better way … And doing coma well, DOES mean the ‘equipment is working”, it is the results you are critical of here Merlin. I would suggest that if someone continues to do something the same way, over and over, that one of two things is true, they either like the results, or they don’t yet know another way. Neither is the fault of the equipment, and neither indicates less than optimum use, neither is the fault of the person’s conscious mind.

In response to “Most of our learning is entirely unconscious, “ you said; “I disagree Skip.
Learning is seldom by unconscious installation. Most learning goes through the conscious first.”

Well I already asked you to show me this by giving one example, maybe you will. I cannot believe that you as a baby deliberately consciously cried to get discomfort alleviated. Or that you smiled, gurgled pleasantly, and such, to garner attention. You may think you consciously set out to learn those things, but I suspect it was unconscious. Do you really believe you learned to drive consciously, or do you understand that you set conscious intent, and failed miserably consciously, but then succeeded, when you let the conscious get out of the way? So you really did intend to burn yourself, or cut your self, in the endeavor to learn ‘fire is hot’ and ‘knife is sharp’? Or were you actually just curious, and the learning experience an accident? And when you set out to learn 2+2=4 and not 7, how did you accomplish it consciously? How specifically do you store that information ,and retrieve it consciously?

Then I said, “And most of our behavior is unconsiously driven.”, to which you replied, “Eventually, yes. But not initially.”

So shy people are the result of deliberate conscious volition? So people deliberately consciously set out to have low self esteem? So people actively consciously decide and learn to respond to past events, in current situations? Sorry Merlin, I simply don’t perceive how your theory, fits whih my understanding of how people behave.

“Don't know where that 'unlearning' comment comes from?”

I said “We don’t unlearn anything, but we do learn new things.” It was a pointer towards where our attention ought be focused, and not in response to anything specific that you said.

Then I said “We IMO need to focus on what we do best, we are learning machines. We learn so fast it is incredible. There are so many one trial learnings in our lives, it isnt even calculable.” To which you responded, “I never said otherwise. I said "The *IQ* of the subconscious is astronomical! Off the charts.”

I agree whole heartedly, but it is irrleevent, the thread has moved well past this point..

Merlin, I really do wish you would take the time and effort to help me understand your concept here, because I respect you, and generally assume you know what you are talking about. Yet in this, we are seemingly diametrically opposed. So if you can explain your position, you can see how fast my mind can change, if not perhaps we can see how fast yours can? Or maybe neither has adequately understood the other, and we aren’t quite talking about exactly the same thing yet, eh?

skip