The brain ultimately makes the decisions - not consciousness

 

Since I've talked to countless people over the years about these topics, and their opinions have often found their way into my manuscripts, I call the dialogue partners here CP.

 

 "You say that consciousness is an enhancement of the senses," CP summarized. "And you mean, it makes no decisions."

 

"Consciousness is intense perceptual experience with our senses, through an arbitrary or involuntary concentration, to provide the most accurate information to the targets in the brain," I nodded.

 

"This is a description that is probably foreign to most people."

 

"Because in 'consciousness' they project the whole 'freedom of man' into the eye, without examining them in detail."

 

"You mean, it would ultimately come out that it's just a brain information transmitter?"

 

"For sure. The senses can only experience and not decide. The brain reacts, controls and decides, but cannot experience.

 

It's important to know: Life always also means: experiencing feelings. And that the brain is the memory of the feelings that are connected to the respective Neuron-Network. "

 

"But why does one need consciousness at all, because the information from the senses could be stored in the brain without it?"

 

"The information must first be perceived, experienced.

 

As I said: the brain does not perceive. It's only building the world for its goals. That is, the attention takes them from this perspective, experiencing them with each existing reality and transmits the information to the brain.

 

That is why we need to have attention and, in amplification, consciousness.

 

Basically, the world is not what we see it, but always the way our brain shows it to us.

 

This is not clear to many people. For them, the world is just as they and others (seemingly) see it: the same. That goals in the brain make the respective world is usually alien and unimaginable to them. Therefore, they do not pay attention, stay with their old view. "

 

"But I can decide for myself if I for example, turn my head right or left, "argued CP.

 

"Of course, you can. But as you say yourself, your ME, which is in the brain, makes that decision, not your consciousness; this only perceives. "

 

"You mean, my ME giving the impulse to turn my head, not my consciousness?"

 

"Yes sure. That should be clear:

 

Your consciousness is not your ME!

 

 There is another obstacle to understanding in the form that is often said that inorganic material, that is, matter, could not produce anything organic.

 

I would like to say that the first organic compounds were formed billions of years ago from inorganic substances. Over time, this resulted in more and more complex life forms with differentiated functions, including the brain.

 

Here are not only atoms, etc., but in particular also neurons, synapses, and so on, which control the physical and mental functions of man.

 

The adaptation pressure of life generates goals. The brain forms neural networks to execute them.

 

And: Not only the perceptions are stored, but, as I said, the resulting feelings. We experience these. The stronger they are, the more we experience them with our consciousness. "

 

"Consciousness is experienced, the brain reacts, controls and decides," recapitulated GP.

 

I nodded. "The brain shows us the world because of its goals - consciousness experiences this world and sends the information to the brain.

 

The brain makes suggestions, anticipates them and anticipates results - the consciousness lives them and returns the information back to the brain.

 

This means that the brain does not experience - the consciousness does not decide.

 

The central point of all living things is the preservation of life. This is best done by experiencing. And these, in turn, are important information for the brain that couples and stores it with each event. Without consciousness one could not experience this because the brain alone cannot.

 

If a similar situation occurs, then the corresponding feelings are activated again.

 

(The danger here is, if one does not consciously perceive the current situation, that one reacts not to the now, but to the past.)

 

"It's about attention," GP considered.

 

I nodded. "Attention means 'being in the thing'. Consciousness means intensifying your attention. The latter usually occurs much less.

 

In any case, the consciousness would not be able to decide without the brain, because the set of factors is much too large and variable to make positive decisions about the necessary activities and actions. It would simply be overwhelmed.

 

It would have to generate and control processes that are constantly taking place in the brain. "

 

"And if you take what goes on in the brain to help?"

 

"That would mean acknowledging that it matters a lot, and because you cannot track those processes because of the variety and speed you're already exposed to your brain here, what would a brain-free mind be? decide the brain? "

 

"Hardly," nodded GP.

 

It follows: The brain decides. What one absorbs by means of consciousness through perception, may, depending on the value, possibly influence the decision. Because all information can influence the brain - as long as it is open and flexible.

 

How far they reach, the brain decides. The better one knows its functions, values and possibilities, the more influence one can take over the I and the will (which both are also in the brain). "

 

"So, 'know yourself'?"

 

"Know your psyche."

 

Whoever observes himself, when he consciously picks up something, will find that his senses are strongly activated. Much stronger than if it's just about general attention

 

The brain needs the awareness to get information on specific topics. Although humans take about. 11 million bits per second by means of its senses; but these serve the general orientation. "

 

"Could the brain renounce consciousness by using this reinforcement everywhere?"

 

"That would be impossible, because it is the consciousness u.a. because of the absorption by the senses needs. And uneconomical, because only certain information about the midpoints, which currently have a greater value, are needed. Anything else would lead to an inflation of information that makes it impossible to delimit individual midpoints and thereby reach their goals. One would also be in a state of constant tense concentration, which is physiologically hardly possible.

 

You absorb life with your senses, and when something special happens, for example, something interesting, dangerous, emotionally moving, then you take it intensively with his consciousness.

 

If a person deals with a specific topic, then he needs targeted information. This should provide the consciousness. 'Being conscious' means, as I said, receiving information, which is then passed on to the brain. "

 

"The midpoint formed in each case may focus on the subject, and consciousness provides the brain with more accurate facts through intense perception," concluded GP.

 

"For example, thinking," I explained, "because of a stimulus or a question, consciousness seeks information in the outside world and immediately sends each one to the brain. This looks for experiences or similarities. These intermediate results become conscious again, etc. The interplay goes on until you have a coherent feeling or cannot get any further. The end product of thinking is formulated by the brain and becomes aware only fractions of a second or later. "

 

GP considered. "What comes out, is so decided or formulated by the brain?"

 

"Yes, from a mid-point that makes the final decision and excludes all other non-relevant neural networks.

 

The reason that man believes that he has decided with his consciousness lies in the very short period of time - often only milliseconds - between the decision of the brain and the awareness.

 

Concerning important issues, there is always an interplay between the brain and consciousness, because the brain has only a limited amount of up-to-date information and relies on consciousness as an enhancer of the senses to possibly add new facts. "

 

"Only the most important things become so conscious?"

 

"Yes".

 

"Who decides what is important?"

 

"The goals with their midpoints."

 

"There are actually people who say you do everything with your consciousness," GP now interposed.

 

"It's unbelievable what it all means," I said. "Once you go through the definitions, you read: the knowledge of certain facts, the remembering of certain events, the sum of beliefs and points of view, etc.

 

And synonymous words for the consciousness should be about: intelligence, memory, conviction.

 

All these definitions apply exactly to the brain. But once you check the consciousness of what it represents, you look in vain. Because it's not designed to carry this around and it cannot. "

 

"People say that they control themselves, with their consciousness, because they do not observe themselves, because these views are taken for granted. They just babble, out of habit, what other people say or what they have learned. It also means using the word consciousness unreflected. "

 

"That hits the nail on the head," I confirmed.

 

"You just take it that way."

 

"Yes, because they either have not heard the statement that man is a purpose-led being or did not want to hear it. Accordingly, they do not investigate in this respect.

 

A major obstacle, as we said, is that they cannot or do not properly classify the role of consciousness. That, too, is the reason in the past and in the still-to-hear opinions that consciousness is something only human beings have, and that they control themselves with it."

 

Who would you leave a decision for? "I asked GP now. "Someone who already has a lot of experience in this field or one who lacks this experience?"

 

"That's not a question, of course with experience."

 

"Who has more experience, consciousness or brain?"

 

GP smiled. "Of course, the brain."

 

"The experiments of Libet and others (scientific writings by Benjamin Libet 1983, Keller and Heckhausen 1990, Haggard and Eimer 1999, Miller and Trevena 2002) clearly show that, before a person made a conscious decision, the brain does this decision has already been made. So, you cannot deny that the brain is deciding and not consciousness.

One particular difficulty was that in earlier times it could not be precisely defined: Consciousness was something that was not found in the brain but, as people said, controls one's actions.

The fact that the brain decides has been clearly demonstrated by the experiments of Libet and other scientists. The so-called 'freedom of consciousness' has never been proven. "

 

"But why do educated people still hold to their version today, that this decides everything, firmly?"

 

"It has always been considered a cognitive and decision-making body. It was certain that it could identify the entire true world. In the past, the brain explained that the world was unique - to handle it well - and that it could be perceived and recognized by people with their consciousness. Of course, that lifted the human far beyond the animals. At the latest since the emergence of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics and their experimental confirmation, this belief is over: the world is neither unique nor the same from every perspective. What remains in many people is the idea of the consciousness that the decision is made, because, according to its logic, it recognizes everything. Of course, this logic excludes the brain - as a decision maker.

Consciousness is, so to speak, an important interface between the brain and the outside world”, I explained. "Only with his senses - and it is indeed an enhancement of the senses - is it possible for the brain to get targeted information from outside and, of course, from within."

 

"So, if something is important, then the senses are reinforced and awareness comes into play," repeated CP.

 

"Imagine that you have the goal of making an important decision, of choosing or pronouncing judgment on the basis of relevant facts, and that you should do all this in your own sequence only with your consciousness, without the interplay of consciousness and brain.

Or take the language, it will automatically expire. One has learned how to speak, articulate and so on. An experienced speaker, of course, does not focus on the individual points of the language, but the focus is on the topic at stake.

The speaking, the gestures, the facial expressions that one makes, all this has been learned in the course of life and is, if one speaks, expressed. Since the consciousness has nothing to do with it, unless one behaves wrong, makes mistakes that are cognitively recognized by the brain, then it is usually immediately active and provides appropriate information to the brain. This then tries to bring about a correction or behavioural change.

Imagine, you have to choose all your words only with your consciousness. For example, at a party. And now ask yourself what you are really aware of. That means: how to use your movements, how you speak, facial expressions, etc. "

 

"That's really impossible, you need the learned routines from the brain," CP agreed.

 

"Yes, the respective midpoints."

 

"You say only the relatively most important things come to your consciousness. But how is it when I am busy with an important topic and concentrate on it. Suddenly, something comes to my consciousness that has nothing to do with the current midpoint? "

 

"Well, the brain jumped from one midpoint to another because it took the attention or because the previous one might just go by itself and no longer need consciousness. Or the other midpoint seemed more important to the brain at the moment, because a question that had been in one for a long time could now be answered. This often happens with creative people.

Incidentally, this reminds me that if you did not finish something you just wanted because you forgot it, then it helps to ask, 'What was my goal right now?'"

 

"You mean you jumped to another midpoint, and is less shaped by the previous one?"

 

I nodded. "And in general: A very strong concentration is only possible for a limited time, because at a certain point, physiologically, it wears off."

 

"And otherwise you live without consciousness?" asked CP. "If everything works and no new facts are added?"

 

I laughed. "Most of the time, everything actually goes off automatically, the consciousness is almost in the standby state during this time, but is immediately active again when something important occurs. In general, this is far less the case than you should think. In addition, the brain learns, and the new usually quickly becomes routine, so that the consciousness is then no longer needed in this intensity. "

 

"What is the difference between attention and consciousness?"

 

"Attention has the task of being in the midpoint of things.

It is the task of consciousness to focus, if necessary, to convey to the brain the information that is considered to be very relevant. "

 

"Consciousness always becomes active with intense attention when something is very important," CP repeated.

 

"Yes. Depending on what the attention is focused on, this gets a value that can shape or, in other words, structure man. This is the normal attention. If something is particularly important, then one speaks of a conscious recording.

Also, at the risk of repeating myself: the purpose is to provide these strong information to the targets in the brain so that they can immediately absorb them and respond accordingly. So, consciousness is always an enhancement of the senses. "

 

"So, is attention and consciousness each providing information to the brain?"

 

 "Yes, the difference is in the different valence."

 

 "Consciousness is not active that often."

 

"If you observe yourself, you will be able to confirm this. In everyday life you do not usually encounter something exciting new or important events.

But here one should differentiate: Adolescents and especially children have more awareness than adults. Consciousness in the sense of increased perception. Because the world is still new and they are gathering their experiences. But that does not necessarily mean that its perception corresponds to the facts. Conversely, it seems that the older you are, the less you usually integrate in yourself. Experience shows that neuronal plasticity is limited. However, this is less the case for areas that have interested people for life. Many midpoints have become firmer over the years, but also more rigid, and unfortunately often exclude new things that seemingly do not suit them with the midpoint mechanics.

Awareness awakens or generates midpoints because of important values in the brain when they are particularly touched. For example: survival, new orientation, social recognition.

Is it overwhelmed or bored, then one comes to dreams.

However, the moment you leave your habitual environment, for example, the attention or consciousness becomes more active. Because new facts or impressions are important to the brain to orient itself. Movements and pictures are preferably consciously perceived. "

 

"What mechanism may be behind this if you're stuck with a topic, even though you think you know the solution?" CP asked.

 

"It's a midpoint that blocks. For example, one has gotten bogged, and in this impasse the thoughts circle. The same mechanism works when one is ruled by anger. Generally speaking, whenever there is a midpoint that severely restricts others. "

 

"That reminds me," CP said, "if you've slept on it, the solution often comes to mind the next day."

 

"That's because the blocking midpoint has lost value or dissolved in the meantime. We have found a distance. In sleep, the brain has the task to integrate the experiences of the day's events, to learn, and possibly to create a different view through restructuring. For this, the brain prefers to use the creativity that the midpoints of the day's events can not interfere with.”

 

"You see things in a different light," thought CP.

 

"Yes, the attitude changes. In other words, the other midpoints associated with this topic have been re-evaluated or others have been added. Unless this dead-end midpoint acts in the same form. Then you have a complex, so to speak.

Incidentally, we all know that the brain can be wrong. Therefore, one should sleep one night before deciding something important. "

 

"Explain complex please again."

 

"It's a midpoint, a neural network that's unable to adapt and offers strong resistance to change attempts."

 

"He has encapsulated?"

 

"Yes, unlike the clusters. These are neural networks that perform learned or innate processes - like sucking the baby's toddler's breast, running or tying the shoes. "

 

"A cluster is therefore a midpoint, which is responsible among other things for routines, such as movements, recurring actions, learned reactions. Can you give a graphic example? "CP asked.

 

"Well, about a tic - a short and uncontrollable motor contraction of individual muscles in the face - is a complex. By contrast, normal facial expressions are a cluster. "

 

"There are, as you said, many clusters in one - skills, learned procedures, behaviours, attitudes, etc."

 

"Can one say: complex means enclosed? "

 

"Yes, he surrounds himself with walls. His goal is to maintain certain attitudes, postures, reflexes under all circumstances, and to influence other midpoints with his peculiarity of maintaining what he has once learned in a particular situation."

 

"That is," CP considered, "it is rigid and does not act like other midpoints that are flexible and play in concert with the goals of the brain."

 

"Yes, he does not act like the clusters, does not learn and thus disturbs the flexibility, the adaptation of the brain. This is of course unfavourable. The outside world is constantly changing. The central point of life in general and the resulting requirement should be that man adapts to these changes.

That's usually the case as well. Complexities prevent this, as do prejudices, delusions, stubbornness, intolerance. And especially fanaticism or dogmatism. "

 

 "This is quite common," commented CP.

 

"Here's another question," he continued, "How could one explain that there are people who think their view of the world is the only true one?"

 

"You can see that very clearly in extremists, fanatics, devout believers, people who are nailed up," I nodded.

 

 "But also, the other 'normal' people have fixed midpoints. These are their anchors, their reference points, from which they act and evaluate the world.

Anyone who realizes that their perspective is just one of many is less in danger of being torn away from the ground by the abandonment of a midpoint.

Unfortunately, here as well, the midpoints act to diminish everything else that does not support them.

Many people refuse to give up a midpoint, even if it dawns on them that it is harmful to them. Partly because they are afraid of losing their grip.

This fear is more justified for extremists and strict believers than for other people, because they are only made special from one or a few midpoints. This is how their world could actually fall apart.

However, the more midpoints that can play in a person flexibly and communicate with each other, the less he will risk them here. "

 

"Because other midpoints can intercept the inner system?"

 

"Yes, especially if you have not focused only on a few midpoints in your life, but inwardly rich and diverse."

 

"You mean, if you focus not only on his family, on a beloved person, on whom you are fixated, the profession, his hobby, etc. You can be endangered by these midpoints so, if you are completely absorbed in it, in the long run nothing else sees. "

 

"I think so."

 

"So, you do not have to give up your special midpoints?" CP asked.

 

"You do not need that. But one thing to watch out for is that the midpoints you love will eventually get a place in one that guarantees that others will retain their value more or less. "

 

"Well, that a midpoint does not become a dominant ruler."

 

 "Yes, that's important for inner harmony."

 

 "That reminds me of complexes we just talked about."

 

 "Midpoints that master everything are complexes."

 

 "So, you should try to change or dissolve them," I suggested.

 

"That's usually difficult. If you have recognized a complex and tried to work on it, then this meets with considerable resistance. "

 

"What options are there?"

 

"You can divide the psyche of man, that is, the midpoints in the brain, into accessible and difficult to access.

If a complex interferes with healthy behaviour, and you cannot change it yourself, it is the job of a therapist, for example, to give that complex access to change or dissolve it.

The work of the brain is usually unconscious. It becomes aware when certain thresholds are exceeded. So, when something important is in the foreground, awareness comes into action to provide information to the midpoints involved through more intense awareness. "

 

"And this information does not take the encapsulated complex?"

 

"These can be very resistant to change.

But a complex need not necessarily be aware of, so you can change it. It is often enough, if it is a learned behaviour, this again unlearn.

The method, such as the fear of crossing large squares, is to cross very small squares first, which can become larger if the client feels less anxious.

For others, it makes more sense to look for the reason why he has formed. This can potentially provide access when the mind stimulates a new midpoint that can bring about change. "

 

"You mean," said CP, "the one was learned and could be unlearned again."

 

"In all cases, it's about forming a new midpoint, which is increasingly reinforced by emotions and counterbalances the complex midpoint that narrows, oppresses or torments people."

 

 "And what about the mind or the reason?"

 

 "These can say x times, 'It's nonsense, what you do or think.'

 As long as you do not convince the feeling, it will hardly do any good. "

 

"How about the feelings when they become aware?" CP jumped to the next topic.

 

"Emotions are powerful controls in humans," I explained. "They arise among other things by achieving or not achieving goals.

Reaching reinforces the path one took to reach the goal in a similar situation. Failure to achieve a goal triggers negative emotions that are intended to dissuade one from taking the same path in the future.

Consciousness passes this information on to the brain's targets so that they can be processed by their networks. The stronger feelings for something, the more the human being gets in this midpoint. "

 

"Because this midpoint is reinforced by consciousness?"

 

"Yes, when we, for example, hear music.

Here the Qualia problem of the philosophers is often addressed.

Qualia means quality, quality means value. The quality of a value results from the feelings that a person feels. "

 

"Qualia means emotional."

 

"Yes, man is receptive to music because it creates feelings in him. The more beautiful these are, the more value they have for him. "

 

"That's how the value of music comes from the feelings you feel," said CP. "That's nothing new."

 

I nodded. "That these feelings are triggered by a midpoint is something new.

For many philosophers do not understand this, because the midpoint mechanics are unknown to them. They say that while the brain can perceive all sorts of stimuli, it does not explain the enjoyment of the music we feel.

I say that this enjoyment comes from the midpoint in which I am when I hear music. Of course, this network of neurons not only absorbs the stimuli, but also wholeheartedly arouses feelings that arise in connection with this music. "

 

"The better you feel music, the more beautiful your feelings are," added CP.

 

 "Yes, of course, the reverse is true: the worse the music, the less positive feelings will unfold."

 

"And if someone is completely unmusical?"

 

"Then he feels next to nothing in this respect."

 

"The extent to which a Qualia can develop depends on the people who receive it," CP concluded. "The quality is thus determined reciprocally: once from a midpoint of the receiver, on the other by the quality of the transmitter."

 

I nodded again. "To feel holistic often means to feel a similarity. This can be seen very well in the music: You can recognize a melody that has been stored in memory, even if it is played with other instruments. Unless the instruments do not hit the tone, that is the essence of this melody. "

 

"Why have many philosophers for more than 200 years had difficulty understanding this simple mechanism?" Asked CP.

 

"Because they did not know about mid-point mechanics, so they did not have that key to the brain, they thought of consciousness as something not ultimately comprehensible, and because feelings in their subjects were often just a minor matter. This applies especially to the followers of the philosopher Kant, who portrayed the feelings as 'opponents of reason'.

Of course, feelings have a very high value for humans - not only in the negative, but of course in a positive sense. They are strong helpers of the goals - the midpoints. They control man and are not always unreasonable. What would a person be without feelings? "

 

"Philosophers can come to strange conclusions," CP shook his head.

 

I bowed my head. "What happened had to happen as it happened."

 

"Why is consciousness so important to many people?" He asked again.

 

"Because they often think they would decide everything. It is not clear to you that the goals of the brain have decided in them.

They do not even want to be aware of that, because they fear losing control of themselves. "

 

"But do people even have control over their consciousness? After all that you have done, the brain is infinitely diverse and decides alone and often holistically through the goals. "

 

"Control means being able to steer something. This then proceeds so that the consciousness gives information to the brain that e.g. something is wrong. The brain then tries to correct this incoherent, if it does not actually fit the goals of the brain.

To have complete control over yourself would be to be able to govern all goals. Alone because of their multitude, this would be impossible. And even more impossible would be to control all interactions between the goals that influence and change each other. In addition, there are many midpoints that have some strength, and cannot simply be governed by the I, such as the life instinct.

Many people are subject to this illusion of control and believe that they can control processes with consciousness that are demonstrably uncontrollable.

I would like to ask: What would be so bad, leave the decision to the brain? Because everything here is designed to survive. "

 

CP nodded thoughtfully.

 

"The more important a decision is, the more aware it becomes," I repeated again. "So, as people become aware of these choices every time, they believe that they are self-conscious.

Moreover, until the 18th century, people knew little about the brain. That changed in the 19th and especially in the 20th century, when the triumph of the computer began. This created non-invasive methods such as EEG (electroencephalography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography) and CT (computed tomography). These procedures allow insight into the brain, providing facts that were previously unknown.

But the old conceptions of consciousness that have been taught for thousands of years are still in people's minds today and are difficult to change. "

 

"I'd like to come back to the controls for a second," said CP. "So, consciousness already has some control. While not aware of the brain's immediate decision, it can control whether these decisions made sense in practice. If he notices that they do not fit, the brain may consider these new facts and make other choices. "

 

"That's the same," I nodded. "If something is wrong from the brain's point of view, the goals."

 

"Could not you still observe yourself the moment you make the decision of the brain?"

 

"That's difficult because it delays the execution. This is usually only possible in the second moment, after the first midpoint has been executed, because it excludes everything else in order to be realized. Because you can always focus on one thing. Focusing on two, then the attention changes in short moments. "

 

"You mean that you can observe yourself at first, but it disturbs the flow of what you want to do. Because this midpoint is no longer 'free'? "

 

"Yes, one, or more exactly: the brain intervenes with another midpoint in the expiration of the first and delays or changes it.

However, this mechanic can also be a great opportunity if you want to change your behaviour: For a mid-point to have the maximum impact force, other midpoints that do not suit you must have no influence.

Here is the starting point for the self-influencing: The observation with another midpoint disturbs the execution of the first and thus takes him energy.

For example: Athletes who want to achieve maximum performance are totally focused on their goal, so they are absolutely in this midpoint. As a result, all others are virtually completely overridden, have no influence on the current behaviour. If the athlete gets something in mind now, such as 'I cannot do it' or something completely outrageous: 'How can I solve my marital problems?', Which are in each case the midpoint points, then the midpoint of execution loses its strength.

Or, for example, when someone is addicted and drinks alcohol. He, too, is at the moment of execution in this total midpoint: the grip to the bottle, the drinking, the feelings that this generates in him. Everything else is completely excluded at this moment. However, if he observes the activities he is doing and the feelings that the drinking induces in him, they will lose their strength. "

 

"You mean," thought CP, "this takes the midpoint point in the moment the punch?"

 

"Yes, every total midpoint depends on everything else that does not belong to it being reduced to near zero. If something interferes, it will deprive him of energy."

 

"So, you could actually influence yourself through observation."

 

"Yes," I nodded, "if you understood the principle of midpoint mechanics. This results in a large field of influence on one's own behaviour through corresponding goals, which one creates oneself. "  

 

"There's a question of criminal acts going up in me," CP said. "The judiciary assumes that you have the responsibility for your actions."

 

"If someone commits an act, then he is in an intensified focus during that period, and the perpetrator is usually unable to stop: the goal is to be fulfilled."

 

"And he cannot observe himself? He cannot be aware of what he is doing? "

 

"You can, of course, observe your behaviour by creating a new midpoint from which the brain specifically seeks information about what you are doing.

At the moment of the act, the focus of the target, as a rule by the criminal act, is so strong that there is no room for another to act against it. "

 

"It's really strange that while the brain, more specifically, the midpoint decides, we do not notice and believe it, that's what consciousness has done."

 

"That is exactly what the judges believe because they assume that the consciousness and the will are free and that they could have stopped the act."

 

"But theoretically, consciousness could use individual parts of the brain as an aid to make its own decision," CP tried to argue again.

 

"These tools are running at such a rapid rate that they would not be able to keep up. This is neither his job nor is it even possible. He's just an information supplier! "

 

"But if the brain has made its decision, then consciousness could signal through information that you cannot keep up," CP tried again. "

 

"As I said: not in the tiny moment of decision. One is then in a midpoint. This dominates a total, if only very briefly. In addition, the criminal act has set in motion a process that is not so easy to stop. "

 

"So, you could not express any criticism at the moment, because all the other midpoints - which influence the perception - hardly come to fruition," concluded CP.

 

"Exactly. There can be no such resistance in one as long as one is at the midpoint of that decision, because it makes sure that one perceives practically nothing else. And, as I said, he puts everything else close to zero. After that, you often become aware of what you have done. But then of course you cannot correct it anymore. "

 

"Unless you've already created a focal point for self-observation before," CP added.

 

"That would be a way of influencing - if you want it."

 

  

For a moment it was quiet between us. Then CP continued, "Can one say: Everyone knows he has consciousness, but hardly anyone has been able to define it yet?"

 

I nodded. "Consciousness is intense perception with its senses - more precisely, concentrated perception, holistic or in detail.

 

Consciousness is also about the issue of man's spiritual freedom. If it turns out that everything runs according to substances and laws, then everything would be predetermined, then man would have, quasi 'no freedom and the free will would not be there then - from the legal and philosophical point of view."

 

"And - is that right?" asked CP.

 

"The will is of course still there and plays a central role in the life of man. Will means to form a particularly strong midpoint that can shape others.

 

And human freedom would continue - because he does not know everything. And who does not know everything, is forced to make decisions. This ignorance is his freedom, which man will not lose because he can never know everything.

 

But consciousness and free will in the previous sense would have to be given up.

And in the end, the fact is that everything is made up of substances that run according to laws and, as a result, everything is predetermined. "

 

"You do not mean the freedom that comes from nowhere, but the freedom of the possibilities one has. Is that ultimately freedom? "asked CP.

 

"It's a quasi-freedom," I answered. It is definitely a mistake to believe that there is a freedom that comes from nothing or an incomprehensible mind. "

 

CP considered and then said: "There are also a lot of theories about what is psychologically in the person."

 

"You could say so. I would like to give an example: You can divide the psyche, that is, the totality of the midpoints in the human, which have neuronal networks. For example, in ego, it, superego, as Siegmund Freud did. However, this is problematic and does not hit the core of reality. This is that the brain (which includes, among other things, the so-called belly brain) is a dynamic system in which the midpoints all communicate with each other more or less - and depending on the subject.

In this example, the 'ego' should be the consciousness that intervenes regulatively in the processes of the psyche.

It can be said that the consciousness only provides information to the brain, which it has absorbed through intense perception, and then more or less processed by the respective midpoints - which was not previously known. The ME is represented with its goals and midpoints in the brain and these maybe regulate and intervene in the processes of the psyche.

The 'it' in this case is intended to represent the unconscious, whose content are the instincts, needs and affects.

It can be said that what one is unconscious of involves much more than these three areas, namely, among other things, procedures, communication attitudes, adaptation to the respective environment, etc. It is also not the case that this must necessarily remain unconscious, but all these actions become conscious when they exceed a certain threshold value.  

Finally, the 'super-ego' represents in the model the morality, the social norms and the conscience, which is supposed to intervene in the processes of the id, that is to say the impulses, needs, affects.

One can say that morality is stored in goals, as well as social norms, etc. Conscience is a feeling that is triggered by judgments of good or evil that are also generated by goals. "

 

"Comprehension therefore arises when one has not behaved according to the moral ideas that have formed in one," concluded CP.

 

 I nodded. "And when you commit an act that you think you have done.

 

 Overall, however, it is the case that the midpoints that form the psyche communicate more or less with each other and trigger the respective hooking up."

 

"Why were such theories born?" CP asked. "You really do not train the complicated processes in the brain."

 

"At that time, one did not know otherwise, theories of the time, which, like these, fell on fertile ground, because here the role of the unconscious was presented more clearly for the first time.

 

Until then, one had more or less thought that one dominates himself only with his consciousness. This theory was something new, the time was right and it was very simple.

 

The time was also ripe, because at that time the prudery was driven to the extreme, which led to sexual neurosis. That was a strong focus of this theory building.

 

Such theories can last a long time - like habits. And have been defended for a long time. "

 

 

 

© It is permitted to use or reproduce this content without restriction on the condition of naming my website www.karlheinzhermsch.de and without changing or shortening the texts. (Please inquire about exceptions via my imprint.)