It is more like the mathematicians are engaging the non-conscious mind to come to biochemical logical conclusions from whatever knowledge is stored. Then consciously guided logic can be used to refine the conclusions to the extent of checking the premises.
Why just single out liberals. All walks of life have the same problem. Religious practitioners, e.g., when in what I would call a religious state or a kind of trance state, can be the same as those liberals. Probably no one is exempt at times in their lives. Nor are most people unable to be irrational all the time.
What bothers me the most is getting to the bottom of just what 'conscious' is objectively. The word basically means 'with knowledge'. That presupposes what is knowledge. If knowledge is some kind of stored something about reality, then is it knowledge only when it is conscious or is it knowledge when both conscious and when it is stored? If it is just stored and not knowledge as sometimes assumed in so called dumb animals, in non-humans but is used non-consciously to guide action in those so called non-conscious beings like my cats, can the cats be said to have acted with knowledge of reality or are they just automatons going through the motions, Though Rand would consider it as action from inborn knowledge?
I like the exercise of finger movement which I think came from a book called "Action and Purpose" Now if you consciously try to move your finger your consciousness cannot do it. It can only give a kind of permission for the brain to signal the body to move the finger when ready to do so. Almost everything you do is not done through conscious effort. Even when I do math, the non-conscious mind kind of quarries the conscious mind with results which can be allowed as valid from some personal standards of truth or discarded with new orders to the subconscious mind.
As one who had maybe a dozen or so episodes of a sudden voice of my mother waking me with "LARRY" with no mother in sight. It probably was learned mental memory retrieval of when when I was young and my mother would come into my room and call my name to waken me to watch some important thing such as an atomic bomb test on TV or like another time late at night there was an accident of a motorcycle with young boy on the back that she know I was interested in observing. I recall that before I could read I would wait for my father to come home so that I could have him read me newspaper stories about accidents and fires. Those memories can become part of long term memory and in times before much thought had been done would be the norm for memories of everyday occurrences and since minds do poorly without use they will be active when necessary and if that means recall of junk that is what will become conscious. Todays minds do the same thing under the right conditions.

Your third par. proves my point that a lower collection of compartmentalized information may not have a clue.

Your are absolutely correct about judging someone on IQ alone, because it's clearly one's use of the mind and it's ability to integrate that compartmentalized information that would skew the results.

I'm laughing with you in your last paragraph...I tend to use the mind more than a reliance of my brain...my poor ole head has suffered much political and sociological damage over the years...never mind the toxins I've unknowingly ingested.

Ah, but those mathematicians are gauging the conscious. Now try and use that math on those that are clearly not...it can be observed. Take hiltery, obobo, reid, nancy, soros and Schultz for examples.They clearly are not aware of their own actions nor the consequences of those actions. (they are clearly not that smart and are blindly following what they have been taught). It would be very interesting to see and understand these results.

Also note that just because we might see a mathematical relationship, doesn't mean is all came from one's head. All human behavior, thoughts and actions must be expressed through the body otherwise one could not observe nor measure them and it does not mean it all come from the body. There are a host of processed at work outside the body as well. It's not mystical...I posit that it is quantum physical and eventually we will prove that. Then the process begins again and again and again on through human "Inter-lectual" evolution. And you mathematicians will help us do that. Are you up for that...isn't it exciting to even just think about.

A lot of positing, inferring, and bicameralism going on. IQ is more of a measure of ability to gain and use perceptual data and of experience. Try an IQ test which does not include a lot of assimilated type stuff and deals mainly with abstract reasoning of a type not previously practiced. There are those who can do that and those who cannot and it is not all from previous experience.
Here is a simple little problem in probability that nearly everyone gets wrong due to differences in abstract thinking.

A person is given a drug test for a certain drug and tests positive for the drug. Through statistical evidence through sampling, it is known that the test is 95% valid in positive results and sampling shows that 5% of the population uses that drug. What are the odds that that person having tested positive is guilty of using the drug?

Of course knowing probability theory might help, but higher IQ persons, even without prior experience will tend to not jump to conclusions and be able to get a reasonable answer, while those with lower IQs will not have a clue.

That is no reason to judge anyone by IQ or that IQ has anything about quality of life or anything else. Does make a difference as an indication for that nasty NSA whether someone can be able to think out of the box. I am 76 and I am starting to notice that I know the word (if a thing or action I can picture it) I am looking for but cannot bring it to consciousness without time and effort. Could be sleeping only 5 hours a night or change in brain function due to getting old. Time will tell. Does probably do a number on what little IQ level that I still have.

No, freud and jung were idiots and way off track. I speak in a quantum physical sense...this is the way of our future understanding of what the mind is. It's a quantum physical consequence of the electromagnetic goings on in our brains. It is not contained in your head and it's not just a chemical response and it certainly is not some mystical ghost...it can be measured and observed and that observation can be repeated.
It's high time we move on from our limited understandings of the past. It is a natural process. This has been part of my work for 20 years and much of that work is making sure I don't get caught up in the "new age" quagmire or the status quo. we take what's valuable and expand it. As I said, this is the process.

Part of my work is figuring out what process are at work that has inhibited all Humans from becoming self introspective, (a new definition of consciousness)...and it does seem it can be purposely confounded and a chosen preference not to be as well but over all, something else is going on. We as a species have only had 3000 years to get this right and all of us, obviously have not.
I use the work of Julian Jaynes and the latest work of his peers. You can find this latest work in the latest book on Jaynes: Gods, Voices and the Bicameral Mind, edited by Marcel Kuijsten. The founder of the Julian Jaynes society of which I am a member.

I do not understand you on that last limitation of reason stuff. As a mathematician discovering all kinds of new relationships both between things and between concepts, I think that is a bit narrow. Despite Rand's idea that mathematics is the science of measurement, it is also the science that studies all relationships whether they actually exist in physical bodies or not. Most are very abstract and depend upon whatever structure one wants to set up as long as there are no contradictions involved. That does not mean that such reason deals with existing things, but only with the aspect of objective reality which deals with what might be called mental patterns or patterns within the operation of a brain. Math objects, despite Roger Penrose's belief that they exist in some kind of Platonic existing reality of mathematics, exist as mental patterns as mathematical concepts.

Seems like you believe that mind is some ghost in the machine thingy. Best to drop Freudian and Jungian concepts, if any, and any kind of mind-body dichotomy. There is no separation of mind and body, and through the nervous system and perhaps even through chemical connections for homeostasis, etc., the mind-brain may be extended to the whole body so the whole individual is included. The mind is just the brain working and and just like any other existent, it has an objectively existing identity. It just depends upon your perspective or point of view if you want to look at the parts as separate or not but the whole is made of all the parts and their interconnections with an emergent conscious awareness of itself and the you. It is not immediate since being born tabula rasa prohibits inborn knowledge of existence including self or you or whatever you want to call it but the mind is there and may become aware with a self consciousness.
Some people think that since the parts do not include some property, that if something is composed of the parts it cannot have a certain property unless the property is instilled into it by some supernatural means. But that view is just from those who find that life is not livable without at least pretending to have some kind of absolute knowledge of reality. Being human means that one will never have absolute knowledge other than of some axioms which cannot be further analyzed and lead to contradictions of observed objective reality when they are denied.

Yes, there is a variable, but integration itself depends upon the bicameral brain to integrate giving forth, access to the mind in an aware like manner. This defines consciousness and not just rote memory. Your son was obviously good at this combination of instant rote "and" integration...where as most will just assimilate.

Thinking in pictures is big part of this. I myself see everything in pictures but even people that don't (a rare condition), still having access to the mind has allowed their brain to adapt using physiological survival techniques.
As I am sure your son can attest, The brain is quite an amazing thing by itself...but in conjunction with an energetic field, we call the mind: Nothing will be impossible unto it; according to the temporary limits on that connection.

I'm using the example of my son who (shameless brag here) earned his PhD in neuroscience at age 25. During his time in the local school "challenge program" and attending summer seminars at age 10 and 11 with the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth (CTY), the consistent observation was that, unlike most kids, he only had to be told once to "get it." So there are varying levels of conceptual integration.

That's ok, it's a discussion, (which I cherish), Learning to not touch something hot is a physical thing and applies to physical survival. What we are discussing is conceptual integration. (forgive the terminology, it may not be correct. It's always a contentious point.)

How someone gets it depends upon using the mind or using just a monkey see, monkey do type process. We see the latter in academics and science. One requires a mind to integrate ( which means the bicameral brain is now integrated also), thoughts and concepts versus a robot type response according to the teachings...man...do we ever see this a lot.

Not sure I agree with you, Carl. The brain may not inspect itself but it certainly teaches itself; the lesson of touching the hot stove, for example.

Intelligence and IQ are more than a "measurement of the amount and content of assimilated information." They are measures of how quickly and completely someone "gets it" when presented with new information and their ability to form concepts from it.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out this week end.
Your correct about the mind...however, the brain alone can not think rationally unless you consider survival part of rational thinking. It is debatable if the brain can reason beyond the simple function of physical things...ex, fixing your car or a leaky faucet.

It is a false You...ego...(brain only), with no connection to the mind. One must "Chose" to accept the identity inherent in the mind. The mind and the brain are two different things.

Can you be "you" without a mind? There is no "if you have a mind." You and mind are the same thing. Mind includes the unconscious or subconscious since you (mind) require those in order to think, cut them off and you vegetate no matter how much you wanted to consciously think rationally with logic and checking the truth of your premises or irrationally with not caring whether your premises are true or not.
You, if you are a you, does not require a conscience as sociopaths, who can rationally think just fine, demonstrate while psychopaths have some rudimentary conscience in that they can see that they may have done wrong but not worry about it. You can have a conscience and still knowingly do harm just by allowing emotion to take its course without inhibiting the action. The mind is still working, else you would not be aware of acting and not even be able to act.

Sounds like "you didn't build that". Gag!

You sound like James Taggart. No one invents anything. Quit spewing a bunch of socialists nonsense on my post.

All art and inventions are derivative; every creator stands on the shoulders of giants. The longer we let each inventor own a monopoly, the longer we have to wait before the next inventor can improve on what the first one did. That's a real cost, but one which the likes of Hollywood want us to believe doesn't exist.

Am I the only one here who has read Spider Robinson's Melancholy Elephants?

great quote

Good link. Thank you, b

Either you own the product of your mind, or you don't.

The brain alone has no way to inspect itself...it just does what it does and often is pulled toward pleasure, moral or not. But when mankind, under pressure and oppression needed and wanted to rule himself, he finally became aware of his sub conscious...which I posit is our connection to our minds; this is where we get conscience and an awareness of our actions, and a way to control the temptations of our brain, which gave way to rational and moral thought.
Our mind was always there, it a consequence of our brains and every cell in our body responding to it's environment generating an energetic field outside our heads and body. Which I posit is actually part of the quantum field we call the ether.

Intelligence or IQ is only a collection of compartmentalized information and has nothing to do with morality or conscience unless some of that compartmentalized information includes those concepts. When one engages the mind (which also means our bicameral brain is integrated and acts as one), we can become introspective...which by definition is consciousness.

So, a high or low IQ means nothing, it's just a measurement of the amount and content of assimilated information. What makes a person smart and capable of rational thought is his level of integration of that information. Also, that information has to be accurate and not a lot of bull crap.

Hello Mamaemma.
Indeed. Your theory has merit.
Many seem smart enough to understand the facts presented; either they have cognitive dissonance or they are willfully, purposely, dismissing them for reasons that can only be considered nefarious.
Good to hear from you.
Regards,
O.A.

True. Many have part of the puzzle and many refuse to even see those parts. Even the big mistakes are not recognized. History repeats. “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

Regulations are like brakes: the more regulation, the greater market friction. The U.S. and European regulatory environment has passed the point of sanity. When a dairy farmer has to collect and weigh the amount of manure produced by his cows as a measure of how much nitrate flows from his land into the waterways, this is regulation gone haywire - especially since no one has set a limit on how much manure can be produced (which, of course is likely to be the next step, limiting his dairy production and impacting market availability).

Bureaucrats score themselves by the only medium of production available to them: numbers of new regulatory rules produced. No thought goes into the impact of an ever-increasing regulatory load on the economy by those bureaucrats, but other parties estimate that nearly a trillion dollars are sucked out of the market by regulatory compliance burdens. If that won't create a low growth situation, I don't know what else can.