Wyman wrote:My understanding is that the subconscious is what creates the mental models of the world - i.e. creates perception.
Yes, well, this is the common understanding of the subconscious mind. An idea that neurology supports, but psychology does not fully support. What must be understood is that the unconscious is not just one thing doing one job. Most people know that Freud broke the mind down into three divisions, the Ego, the SuperEgo, and the Id, and placed two of those divisions in the unconscious, the SuperEgo and Id. But most people do not know that Dr. Blanco, who worked with Anna Freud, broke the unconscious into five different levels or categories -- and there may be more.
Although there is much to learn, there are some things that we do know about the sub/unconscious.
1. It is reactionary. We do not know what we are going to do until we react. Although there are some people, who through discipline and meditation, have gained some control over the sub/unconscious -- monks and such.
2. It works through feeling and emotion. This is what activates it.
3. The large majority of it, or maybe all of it, does not understand time and space. So this begs the question, Why would it make models of the world, when it does not know physical reality?
Also consider that "incomprehension" is an antonym of "perception", and the sub/unconscious aspect of mind is incomprehensible. I have no doubt that the unconscious does perceive things, but we are not aware of what it perceives, which would be why we call it "unconscious". The only part of the sub/unconscious that I would expect to have 'models' is the part that holds the memories that were generated in the rational aspect of mind.
It is the rational aspect of mind that works with the five senses and understands physical reality, so it is my thought that this is where our perception and modeling comes from.
Wyman wrote:I don't know what you mean by the 'shared, external... reactionary subconscious aspect of mind' or 'emotion.'
This is probably because I am the only person that I know of, who actually studies emotion. Not how we feel, but what emotion actually is. Since I can not put it on a lab table and measure and weigh it, I study how it works, it's limits, it's capabilities, how it works, what it does, what it can't do, where it comes from and goes to, etc.
My conclusions are that emotion can not be known, only felt and interpreted, unlike thought which is known. Emotion is external and works between things, specifically life forms. Emotion is reactive and works through the sub/unconscious. Emotion works through attraction and repulsion. It is more like a force than an actual thing. I suspect that emotion is responsible for much of the supernatural, religion, and all bonds, as it works between people. There is some information in this thread, some in the thread, "Pure Consciousness?" and a lot in other forums that led me to the above conclusions. It would be impossible to explain it all here in this thread.
Wyman wrote:I suspect you are like Nagel and Chalmers (Gingko can help me here if this is wrong) and believe that apart from perception/sensation, there is also a distinct 'feeling' that is not explained by theories of perception alone - a feeling of 'what it feels like to be conscious' for instance.
You are talking about qualia. I know that Nagel did a paper on 'what it feels like', but that is a subjective study. I am not sure what slant Chalmers took in his book, The Hard Problem, because I have not read it. I know that Chalmers has seen studies on the supernatural, but I don't know if he has addressed the idea that emotion and the supernatural are the same thing. I know of no studies that look at emotion objectively from a third-party perspective.
Wyman wrote:And that this feeling is connected with emotion in some way?
I can't believe you said that. (chuckle chuckle) Yeah, feeling is connected to emotion.