INTRODUCTION:

What is the reality of consciousness?  Is consciousness a dualism?  Here we will argue that it is based on the simple fact that we have a word called consciousness.  If we break down the ideological reasoning for language and language that depicts a state of mind, then we have a distinct dualism within not only society, but the individuals that are the sum of this. 

Thermodynamically we dwell in the concept of 'bonds' between separate structural entities.  To be conscious of any aspect of life, in necessary requirement, requires sensor input; which, by definition, constitutes a primary component of fundamental interaction, and hence indirectly bond formation or dissolution [1].  This idea also deals with duality.  The simple notion of entities, particles, divisions, etc., in any paradigm acknowledges conflict.  Here, we don't mean the conflict of 'conscious', 'happenings', or 'decisions' to create conflict, but the conflict that is natural in anything dual.
 
How do people explain things?  They divide them into subcategories and analyze them from a particular perspective.  What is that perspective?  Is that perspective a 'conscious' act?  Like the interaction of a 'bond' that operates owing to energy fluxes or the 'unconscious' flow of circumstance, proximity, or chemical-molecular properties.  The fact that we're consciously attempting to explain these happenings via thermodynamics, the science of energy transformations, is a great effort to say the least.
Have comments on this article?
Know of any corrections, modifications, or additions to this page?
P.S.
Tell a friend about this page
Inception: 10/11/05
Copyright © Institute of Human Thermodynamics and IoHT Publishing Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
TOP
Article
By
       Andrew Maxwell


Article
Introduction
History
Mental Fluidity
The Conscious Puzzle
Unconscious Consciousness
The Unnatural Reaction
Unconscious Conscious Purpose
Conditioned Response Consciousness
Summary

Attachments
Discussions
Sources
Guest Book
Conditioned Response Consciousness
All true knowledge is ultimately self-knowledge if applied through the individual and void of repetitive duplication.
Journal of Human Thermodynamics
MENTAL FLUIDITY:

In one respect, then, pure consciousness is fluidity of the mind; when the mind flows from thought to action without hesitation [6].  It is a state termed "awareness".  Awareness doesn't contemplate, compare, disregard, or analyze.  Awareness knows without the common conception of 'consciousness'.  It's a place where you're not awake but not dreaming.  You are at one with what most call the unconscious and the conscious together in harmony. 

There are many intellects in this world, yet a number of people in this 'category' lack true intelligence.  All forms of conscious thought are based on a system of reactions in the mind.  If we put it on a chemical basis, we can focus on the bio-chemical-electrical mechanisms in the central processing unit known as the brain.  Here, the transfer of electricity to specific portions of the central nervous system create a reaction, a system of information specific electrical impulses, triggering dynamic molecular movements, which, when sequentially adjoined, result in responsive action. 

Integration of these behaviors into one's life is essential.  Can we truly think, feel, act, remember, and decide simultaneously?  The permutation of these 'divisions' without them being divided and without effort is what we can call awareness or true consciousness.  Integrating not only past experience, but unconditioned feeling into action is the consciousness in motion, a state of 'fluidity'.  Although infinite fluidity, or instantaneous cause-effect processing, can never be actualized, there are states of near perfection, lacking waste and inefficency, discernable to the mind.
HISTORY:
SUMMARY:

In life, through seasoned fluidity of the unconscious conscious, one must seek to seize the moment, trigger the impulse, so to ride the conditioned response wave of purpose forward to the fulfillment of one's greatest activated potentials. 

Of course this is all theory and may be fallible if examined through another 'perspective'.  Hopefully that perspective will be an integrated one.  All we ask is that you don't disintegrate yourself by trying to absorb this ‘perspective’ purely with one aspect of your being.  This would be harmful and anti-productive/destructive for yourself.  I've just realized that I've disintegrated my own self by analyzing the possible outcome of your interpretation to this information. 

Is that a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Am I just 'reacting' to a predetermined psychobabble vent that just came from my mind?  Ouch, I'm committing integral suicide right now and have to stop before I redirect my energy in the wrong direction.  This might cause a bond that I'm not willing to accept, throwing me into an infinite spin towards losing full awareness and true consciousness.  Am I doomed?  Will I fall victim to reactionary circumstance?  Can my conditioned response thermodynamic consciousness save the day?  Only the fully-aware fluid mind will know the answer.


:: Remember ::
CONDITIONED RESPONSE CONSCIOUSNESS:

Can action ever bring about freedom from this chain of karma, cause-effect, or plain and simple experience?  If one has done something in the past, one has had experience, which obviously conditions his or her response today, and today's response conditions tomorrow, a ‘conditioned response consciousness’.  That is the whole process of cause-effect, karma, or experience, and obviously though it may temporarily give pleasure, such a process of cause and effect ultimately leads to pain.  That is the real issue within the matter.  Can thought be free? 

Thought, action, that is free does not produce pain, nor does it bring about conditioning.  That is the vital point of this entire question.  So, can there be action unrelated to the past experience, or cause-and-effect-conditioning within the individual?  Can there be action not based on idea?  Idea is the continuation of yesterday in a modified form, and that continuation will condition tomorrow, which means action based on idea can never be free.  As long as action is based on idea, it will inevitably produce further conflict and separation of self. 

Can there be action unrelated to the past?  Can there be action without the burden of experience, the knowledge of yesterday?  As long as action is the outcome of the past, action can never be free, and only in freedom can you discover truth.  As the mind is not free, it cannot act, it can only ‘react’, and reaction is the basis of our action.  Our action is not action but merely the continuation of reaction because it is the outcome of memory, of experience, of yesterday's response, a human-thermo-chemical reaction.  So the question is, can the mind be free from its conditioning?  We surely hope so, and that is the process of finding the cause of one's personal ignorance.  But, by searching for one's own ignorance, isn't one realizing one's response to conditioning?  Hmm….  That's a rough one. 
UNCONSCIOUS CONSCIOUS PURPOSE:

What does unconscious conscious psycho-neuro-emotional thermodynamics have to do with function?  Does the unconscious conscious have a purpose?  Can a human being be specialized?  What we mean is, can we as human beings have one purpose and one purpose only?  Many think that they have a purpose in life, but they also force that prevocated crystallization of ‘their’ purpose or ‘fate’. 

The greatness of woman/man is that she/he cannot specialize in that sense.  They may specialize technically, but in structure they cannot specialize.  An acorn seed is specialized - it cannot be anything but what it is.  But the human being, or human biomolecule, does not end completely.  There is the possibility of constant renewal; she/he is not limited by specialization.  As long as we regard the cause, the background, the conditioning, as unrelated to the effect, there must be conflict between thought and the background.  So the problem is much more complex than whether to believe in a particular idea or not.  That belief is completely irrelevant. 
THE UNNATURAL REACTION:

What is natural and what is unnatural?  Is it natural to have a ‘reaction’ to the sum of all past experiences and act accordingly?  It is commonplace, but is that the true nature of humanity?  History is repetitive and this is predictable through the simple awareness of thoughts that parallel time and ideology regardless of cultural implications.  To reach 'real' humanity, one must transcend this 'naturalness' and dissolve the conditioned self.  The famous Sunni poet Rummi described this act as being like snow: washing oneself of oneself.  This metaphor fits.  It’s a 'common' dilemma not seen by the majority of mankind.  One must take this principle of natural unnaturalness and seek the cause of one's own ignorance.  With introspection comes awareness. 

When, from a technical standpoint, human thermodynamicists speak of human chemical reactions and molecular bonds [1], the philosopher speaks of reactionary outcomes to predetermined conditional scenarios.  If we have person A and person B both interacting with each other in any social setting, we will have a predictable situational outcome according to each other's reactionary behavior.  If person A reacts, through personal and human condition, to person B's appearance, where we note that vision is thermally mediated via photonic sensor mechanisms, the inner monologue can almost be heard a mile off by the consciously aware individual.  Person B might have a conditioned subconscious reaction to person A's body language shift which will cause a chain reaction, a thermally-mediated, neurologically-processed, psychologically-actuated, dynamically-mobilized fundamental response.  This conclusionary reaction is robotic at best. 

As human organisms, defined as human molecules from a chemical perspective, bond and have human molecular reactions, the dynamics can only be determined in hindsight.  Only the fully active unconscious conscious observationalist would be able to predict the exchange.  Many variables would have to be tallied not only on the cognitive level, but the emotional level as well.  This would be unconscious conscious psycho-neuro-emotional thermodynamics.  You could rebut that emotions occur on the neurological level, but it’s fundamental particle thermodynamics that controls the neurological level. 
THE UNCONSCIOUS CONSCIOUS:

How can this division create true consciousness?  Are you conscious of your unconscious mind while contemplating something that has to do with intellect?  Are you unconscious of your conscious feelings?  This is the unconscious conscious, or the conscious unconscious.  It sounds silly, but in fact is one in the same.  The achievement of this integration equals pure / true consciousness or simply ‘awareness’.

The unconscious-conscious is the concept of totality within an individual.  It is a parallel to what we call in relationships a "bond" or technically in thermodynamic terms a  ‘psycho-neuro-thermo-dynamic bond[1].  The bonding of these two (actually one) entities is the culmination of what is consciousness or awareness.  As long as we depend on thought (the intellect) as a means of integration of this awareness or consciousness, there will be an ongoing disintegration within the individual.  The individual must be aware of his or her conditioning and his or her responses to this conditioning.

To avert this inward disintegration, the micro (individual) needs to bond thermodynamically with the macro (society) and divert from putting attention to the division.  It is only when the individual is fully aware of the contradictory actions, actually reactions, to conditioned response without true consciousness or awareness, between the 'heart' and the 'mind', can one go beyond the nature of self and achieve a state of true consciousness.
THE CONSCIOUS PUZZLE:

From our own 'perspective', a compilation of knowledge, experience of our conditioning in motion, and the realization of the conditioning of the knowledge source, true intelligence is the integration of the 'unconscious' and the 'conscious' minds.  There's that division again.  Why is there a difference between the two?  Because we need to divide, separate, and organize our 'thoughts'.  This is not conscious behavior, for it may have intellect, but it lacks true intelligence and awareness to the other pieces of the puzzle.
 
To achieve this integration we must TRULY UNDERSTAND every piece of our conscious puzzle, not only the apparent, but the hidden as well.  This is not possible if we continue to put forth this 'effort' and concentration on the intellectual or internal mind.  This is not cultivation of true consciousness, i.e. awareness, but a disintegration inwardly which leads to confusion, conflict by division, and over analysis. 

This relates to the separation of intellect and feeling.  The emotional human being is obviously lopsided or unbalanced.  We've all known somebody emotionally driven.  There are downfalls to this for the lack of balance or equilibrium between the two.  We also may know many intellectuals who have problems with their emotional beings and distract themselves from these feelings.  These individuals can never see clearly because their unconscious mind is racing in another direction from the 'conscious' mind.  The result is a conflict between conscious and unconscious interest.
The concept of “consciousness” was coined in precursory form in the early 1670’s by the English philosopher John Locke and his associates at the Royal Society - a group of learned friends and thinkers who discussed philosophical and scientific problems.  After a particularly quarrelsome meeting, Locke reported, because of the difficulties that beset the participants, they resolved to devote their next meeting to discussing the "powers of the mind" in order, as they said, “to examine our own abilities and see what objects or understandings were, or were not, fitted to deal with” [2].  Nineteen years later, in the famous Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke had come to define consciousness as:

"The perception of what passes in a man’s own mind"
  John Locke [1632-1704]
Towards the later half of the 20th century, the famous American "optimal experience" psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi assimilated these Freudian concepts of divided consciousness and instinct drives, together into the concept of "flow", being a mental state of operation in which the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing; being characterized by a feeling of great freedom, enjoyment, and skill; where out of such activity, temporal concerns abate.  The name "flow" was coined during Csikszentmihalyi's 1975 interviews with several 100 people termed "experts", those as musicians, artists, athletes, chess masters, and surgeons, etc., who seem to spend their time doing precisely those activities they preferred, when in these interviews several people described their "flow" experiences using the metaphor of a current carrying them along [5].
In the Essay, Locke critiques the philosophy of innate ideas and builds a theory of the mind and knowledge that gives priority to the senses and experience.  Here we agree wholly with this philosophy, in that, from a particle physics perspective, sensory input is a precursory energetic form of "consciousness", in its most rudimentary state.
Building on Locke's theories of consciousness, in 1923, based on the principle that the human organism, as governed by the mind, is inherrently an energy-system, the Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud seperated Locke's consciousness into three energetic parts.  He called this his "structural theory" of the mind.  Frued pictured the mind as divided into three distinct yet interacting agencies: the id  or the wholly unconscious domain of the mind, consisting of the drives and of material later repressed, the ego which is partly conscious and contains the defense mechanisms and the capacities to calculate, reason, and plan, and the super-ego also only partly conscious, which harbors the conscience and, beyond that, unconscious feelings of guilt [3].  The energetic descriptions of these parts are:
  Sigmund Freud [1856-1939]
[1]  The id being the source of the energy for the system, described as our biological needs, drives and instincts, as: hunger, thirst, desire, and sex, etc. [the sub-conscious]

[2] The superego being the restrictions to this energy, owing to society's rules, the energy of conflict, constrictions in life, directives, friction, confusion, tension, etc. [the pre-conscious]

[3] The ego being the release of the remaining free energy into the external world in the form of work and activity [the conscious]
SOURCES
[1]
[a] Thims, L. (2005). Cessation Thermodynamics. Chicago: IoHT Publishing Ltd.
[b] Thims, L. (2002). Human Thermodynamics, Vol. I-III. Chicago: IoHT Publishing Ltd.
[c] Thims, L. (2005). "On the Nature of the Human Bond" [URL], Journal of Human Thermodynamics, Vol. 1, Issue: 5. Chicago: IoHT Publishing Ltd.
[d] Thims, L. (2006). Human Chemistry - on the Evolutionary Propensity towards Biomolecular Field Particle Mediated Atomic Exchange. Chicago: IoHT Publishing Ltd. [HT Books].

[2]
Hoiberg, D. [Senior Editor] (2002). Helmholtz, Hermann von  (biography). Encyclopedia Britannica Deluxe Edition, CD-ROM.

[3]
[a] Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
IoHT (2003). Freud's Psycho Dynamic Theory [URL]. Chicago: IoHT Publishing.
[b] Contract Author [essay] (2003). [URL] "Relationship Between Freud's Psycho Dynamic Theories and Thermodynamics" [www.learnessays.com].
[c] Ratner, C. (1994). "The Unconscious: A Perspective from Sociohistorical Psychology." [URL] Journal of Mind and Behavior. Autumn, Vol. 15, No. 4, pgs 332-342.
[d] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The Life and Theory of Sigmund Freud" [URL].
[e] Ritvo, L. (1990). Darwin's influence on Freud. New Haven: Yale University Press.
[f] Freud, Sigmund (1856-1939). Biography, MSN Encarta. [URL].

[4]
[a] Freud, Sigmund (1856-1939). Biography, MSN Encarta. [URL].
[b] IoHT (2005) Freud, Sigmund (Biography) [URL], Chicago: IoHT Publishing, Ltd.


[5]
[a] Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow - the Psychology of Optimal Experience. Harper Perennial.
[b] Flow (psychology) (2005). Article (www.wikipedia.com). [URL].

[6]
Maxwell, A. (2005). Blog: Mental Fluidity (Consciousness & Reality). Google Blogs.
  Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
Sign InView Entries
SIGNOUT
[leave your comments here]
Discussions
From: Lynn Liss To: Libb Thims
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:56 PM
Re: summary of article

More philosophical, but that will entice the philosophical sort.  Generally though, the article is thought provoking.  It would be good to explore the 'specialized' concept more, as I am not sure that I agree that humans can only specialize technically, but not structurally.  He notes that Karma can only be a bad thing; whereas I believe it can have both bad and good effects?  He talks about a 'mind free of conditioning', which goes against the general HT premise.  Lastly, I like the 'Remember' part at the end.
Freud, having been influenced during his education by the works of those as Charles Darwin, Hermann von Helmholtz, and Ernst von Brucke, argued that human beings, being energy-systems applicable to the laws of thermodynamics, have a “tendency” to seek pleasure and avoid pain [second law of thermodynamics].  Moreover, during early life, this tendency brings the developing individual into conflict with the external world.  The consequences of these conflicts are retained in the unconscious [first law of thermodynamics].  Freud held that the conflicts in early life arose as a result of innate human drives or instinct; where an awareness of a need to keep rein on the free expression of drives gradually develops, and failure to keep rein on these drives is felt as guilt.  Life becomes a state of fluid equilibrium [Gibb’s equilibrium] between drives, conflicts, and reality [4].

Based on this energetic equilibrium principle, Freud theorized that the “ego” is the only part of the consciousness or psyche [system] to have connection to the external world; as such, it functions as an energetic sieve between the competing internal forces of the “id” and “superego” with those external regulating forces and restrictions of the surroundings
September '05
Vol. 1,  Issue. 2, pgs. 13-20
:: JHT ::
ISSN: 1559-386X

Discussions