Subconscious Understanding

W   
hat is understood consciously is first understood subconsciously. In fact, we may know things far in advance of the time at which they are first given conscious attention.

We learn things in minutes that are commonly thought to be acquired after years of practice.

For instance, one learns to play the piano in about 5 minutes (my personal estimate). I don't mean that we learn to hunt and peck for the notes in 5 minutes, I mean that we can play like a professional pianist in 5 minutes.

What?!? No way man....

Yes, true. The programming needed to play the piano is too simple to require vast learning. Think about what it would take to program two robot hands to hit keys in defined sequences with varying grades of force. The problem wouldn't be software, it would be to get the robot hands to move and stop fast enough.

There are some (very few) 'idiot savants' who have learned to play the piano seemingly without learning. And there are numerous examples of such people doing things that "normal" people can't do at all.

Is this because they have acquired some miraculous facility? Hardly. It is not that they have gained something. They have LOST something. Something which is necessary for survival in nature but which gets in the way of such "automatic learning". Mental retardation never consists of something gained ... only lost. Imagine your old Chevy breaking down and thereby turning into a new Porsche. Genetic structures are not made instantly in order to compensate for some deficit.

In the aforementioned case, it is clear that since it is undeniably true that these things do occur, we must accept that the latent ability to do the same is present in all of us but is 'blocked' by something for some reason connected to optimum survival strategy.

Another case wherein automatic learning is not blocked is the ability of many animals to walk within moments of birth. Walking is another simple program. It requires some programming, of course, but not more than five minutes worth.

The problem in learning is to "release" into primary consciousness what is already known. Normal people can release such knowledge only by understanding it (placing it in a hierarchical structure). Such structures are our maps of reality which we use to plan future action. That is the advantage of surpressing automatic knowledge. If you are automatic, you are a robot incapable of understanding what you are doing and why and what it will necessarily lead to.

A knowing, sentient being is the acme of evolution.

The power of the subconscious mind is staggering in comparison to that which is available to the conscious mind. It is the font of numerous 'strange' abilities which many believe have extrasensory sources.

I can give here three occurences of mine which illustrate the points I wish to make quite well. Strange occurences are rare for individuals and I don't personally have any others to offer.

1) ... I once had the notion that my father was going to visit my apartment. So, in response to this "knowledge" I stayed home and waited for him. I stress here that the idea that he would come was absolute. It had the force in my mind of 2+2=4 , i.e. knowing, calm certainty.

Of course, he showed up as predicted. This would pass as a minor, inconsequential example of 'clairvoyance' but there is no secret information passing between human beings. The information was simply sent up as a subconscious calculation of extremely high probability.

Of all those focuses of subconscious attention, there are many avatars (representative models of people whom we know). Your fathers' avatar (in your mind) is an array of graded settings which describe and delimit him within your mind. You use your own 'personal interaction programs' to predict what he will think, do or say in various circumstances. You simply delete your own settings and supply his and the avatar takes on his characteristics instead of yours.

Such an avatar can be very specific especially if some factor of importance intervenes to make some actions more probable than others. In my fathers' case, he was in the process of getting a divorce from my mother (not an everyday, difficult to predict state).

You can obtain information about a person in very suptle ways (entirely subconscious) such as in a letter (reading between the lines). Such information coupled with what is already known may make some prediction so likely that the result, if important or interesting enough, will be rise to the level of main consciousness ... there to be described in words, i.e. more exacting terms.

2) ... I predicted the score of Super Bowl XXV as N.Y Giants 21 - Buffalo Bills 19. It came out 20 - 19. Here again was the sense of absolute, calm certainty as before. I went around telling everyone what the score would be. (This is the only time I have had a sense of certainty about the outcome of a sporting event. I'm not much of a sports fan - strictly fair weather.)

I lived in New York at the time and everyone was a Giants fan. So there was plenty of TV coverage leading up to the game. The conjecture here is that

The outcome af any sporting event is predetermined.

This means that the mind of man is overpoweringly the agent which determines the future in all things related to his activities. The effects of random 'noise' in such a calculation are miniscule in comparison to the ability of the mind to 'adjust' for it. If the players have decided subconsciously that the outcome is to be 21- 19, then that's just what it will be. If it looks like the score is going to deviate from the projected score, they will simply alter their behavior (all subconsciously) to compensate.

I am saying here that a basketball player is fully capable of making every shot (with some possible probabilistic limits - everything must obey Gaussian probability). He misses shots to adjust the outcome of the game. Understand that the act of shooting hoops is a simple operation hardly scratching the surface of the minds' capabilities.
That information is available to anyone via TV interviews (what the outcome will be). It's written on the faces of the players who appear on TV. And the opinions of all the players who aren't seen on TV are integrated with the faces of the players who are. After all, they know each other well enough to take showers together.

In theory, someone could predict the outcome of EVERY sporting event. In practice, there are so many things to interfere with the prediction that in cannot be done consistently. Once in a great while you may find yourself "knowing" something with absolute certainty that you couldn't possibly know. When it does, act on it (but DON'T bet money - if you have the intention of getting something in return - that's already figured into a "fake" prediction and you will take a bath compliments of your own subconscious).

3) ... My last example was the weirdest thing that has ever happened to me.

I was watching two women's softball teams play a game in a local park in Michigan. I had no stake in the game but found it interesting because the pitcher for one team was about 12 months pregnant, i.e. she was ready to 'drop' any second. Yet she was pitching slow underhand standard distance for softball and batting and SHE RAN OUT A GROUND BALL TO SHORTSTOP with such agressiveness as to give me abdominal pain.

I was standing at a fence by third base abut ~80 feet from home plate and ~50 feet from the pitcher. After watching abut two innings, for no apparent reason, I knew that the next pitch she threw would come as a foul ball directly to me and that I could catch it with my right hand if I simply put it up in a position about where your hand would be if you were swearing an oath in court.

So I put my hand up like so ... then ... she made the pitch ... then ... the batter fouled off the pitch about 30 feet high and curving foul right into my waiting hand. I caught it (after all I knew it was coming - and it was a soft liner) and threw it back to "Big Momma" on the mound.

Now that has to be a super, absolutely super, subconscious calculation that I would have thought impossible had I not already been aware of the minds' enormous potential power. The calculation was made by me off the faces of the players (subconsciously). They know what's to occur before it occurs because, as I have said, everything is prescripted. (How for in advance, I have no present guess ... but it's probably farther than I would think.)

Another facet of this event underscores my contention. The ball did not come "exactly" to my hand. I had to move it about eight inches up and about 4 inches to my right to intercept the ball. I thought long about this discrepancy. Finally resolving it thus:

There were at least three subconscious minds involved directly here; mine, the pitchers', and the batters'. Part of my burden was to calculate the curve imparted to a spinning softball when fouled off in the expected manner. That calculation was dependent on my previous knowledge of softball action acquired as a kid/teenager playing baseball. And also dependent on my visual resolution of this particular softballs' condition which greatly affects its ability to curve (as any kid knows).

When I caught the ball I was surprised at its roughness and the high rate of spin on it which made it hard to hold on to. I had anticipated an "average" ball to come to me. It was quite old and used and therefore "fuzzy".

This bit of information, which was physically beyond my ability to sense, accounts quite naturally for the descrepancy since "above and to my right" is exactly where the spin on a rough ball would take it in that situation. The roughness also accounts for the excess spin since the bat would be able to 'grip' the ball during contact without slipping.

To me, the foregoing constitutes a reasonable justification that a subconscious calculation was involved rather than some extrasensory perception. It is easy for me to see why some people having similar weird experiences would believe in such things. It is certainly an experience "out of left field".

Why can't we do such things all the time?

Because it gets in the way.

If we did all that our brain was capable of ... all the time ... we would be on automatic (robot style). The thing we need to do most is make choices in the present tense. Since we can only do one thing at a time, which, of the inumerable focuses operating at any given time, is it to be?

Programming that is closest to immediate goals composes all of the main focus of attention. To have obscure information come to be the main focus would necessarily displace something of greater general importance.

If you practice playing the piano for five years, you may be able to bring that latent skill (which you acquired in five minutes) to the main focus or close enough to be useful. What you are saying when you practice is not "How do I do this?", rather, "This is inportant enough to be included in my main repertoire.". All that practice does, in virtually any endeavor, is to indicate importance via repetition, i.e. if you want something bad enough you keep trying and the thing works its way up the hierarchy of importance to 'mainstream'.

It makes it onto your RAM task bar.




Next Page