This distinction is roughly the same as when people talk about things like: left brain vs right brain, or thinking slow vs fast, or thinking logically vs intuitively.
- whereas I usually think of part A as sentient, and part B as a sort of helpful external processor, maybe part B is also sentient.
- whereas some messages from part B are essentially solutions to real world problems, like which project should I work on? hm.. that one "seems good", where the sense of "seeming good" is the form of the answer from part B — maybe some messages from part B are essentially saying "Hey! part A! I'm not 'unconscious' in the way you think, I'm intelligent, and I want to talk and be heard and such! Let's chat!"
Channel of Communication
maybe the only way part B can communication is through recognizing patterns in raw sensory inputs, like seeing faces in clouds, and maybe the channel of communication is increased with the following:
- high ratio of ambiguous sensory input to literal input, i.e. "open to interpretation", like: vs
- ..where this high ratio can also be achieved by relaxing in a quite place with eyes closed, such that the dominant sensory inputs are random static from the body, eyes and ears.
- ..ratio can also be increased by increasing modalities of input, like looking at ambiguous visual art while listening to ambiguous music
- ..ratio can also be increased by being in an environment with a wide selection of inputs, so if the mind isn't finding good patterns in one place, with a simple turn of the head, it can search for patterns somewhere else, or find patterns between images and other things in the environment
- ..ratio can also be increased by looking at inputs that have lots of details at different levels, like fractals, and nature, as more fodder for the mind to find patterns
- relax, seems helpful for allowing for the next two things:
- focus, e.g. keep looking in the same place for a while, giving part B time to find patterns that communicate the message it wants to convey
- open, non-judgmental attitude, since the patterns found by part B will be strange, and will interpret scenes in unusual ways, and it will be easy to reject these interpretations as "not what's actually there"
- "listening", which is sort of the opposite of judging.. actively trying to hear what part B has to say.. I think some religious people may call this "faith", an expectation that a message will present itself, because it's so easy for part A to sort of put a message somewhere that wasn't generated by part B.
- all these activities seem to increase the medium of communication with part B:
- viewing art, hearing music
- being in nature
- psychedelic drugs — increased focus, lower inhibitions/judgment
- dreaming / lucid dreaming
- hypnosis — though part B's message may not be heard, since the hypnotist will be sort of telling part B what to say
- religious gatherings or motivational speakers — similar to hypnosis, can open communication channel, but because part B can only communicate by interpreting the raw inputs available, the preacher or speaker can manipulate those inputs to influence the interpretation by part A about what's going on
- maybe when people say these things, they're actually hearing part B:
- "this art speaks to me"
- "I prayed, and God spoke to my heart"
- "I meditated, and I could see a deeper connection between things"
- "when I looked at the grand canyon, I was struck with a sense of awe"
- "when I heard that song while high, I felt like it was speaking directly to ME!"
- maybe the "hole in the soul" I've felt, described here, is part B wanting to be acknowledged, and this hole was filled with religion, because part B could masquerade as God, but was left empty when I left religion, because I no longer acknowledge part B as an entity, but rather as a tool
If this theory is true, I could see it being misinterpreted in these ways:
- notion of God
- maybe part B just wants to be heard, but doesn't mind being thought of as external to the mind
- super-natural theories, astrology, psychics, conspiracy theories, etc:
- since part B is "only human", it can be wrong
- since part B can only communicate through patterns matched on raw inputs, its messages are open to misinterpretation by part A, and are influenced by the available raw inputs
- since the sense of truth itself is a feeling, it can be generated by part B as a pattern matched on inputs, where part B might invoke the feeling as part of a message, not to be taken literally, or just in a wrong place that it thought was right
If this theory is true, it seems consistent with these other ways of saying it:
- "you need to let lose and express yourself" — this may be literally true: part B can only communicate and express itself when I "let lose" in the sense of relaxing and opening my mind, and it very much wants to express itself, meaning that if I don't do it, part B will be unhappy and trapped, and may generate feelings of depression
- "you need to love yourself before you can love others" — maybe part B wants to be heard and acknowledged and before that is done, most input will essentially be translated as "hey, I'm this other part of yourself, pay attention to me!"
- "I'm trying to find myself" — usually when someone says this, they don't know quite what they mean, at least I didn't, but according to this theory, it's pretty literal, I need to discover that there's another me inside my brain that wants to be acknowledged as an entity and acknowledge it.
- notion of "living in the now" and "stop and smell the roses" — maybe part B doesn't have memory the same way, where its "memory" is algorithms for solving problems that we might call "understanding" or "intuition", so it's only possible to really "hear" part B in the current moment, and it helps to "stop and smell the roses" to give part B sensory input to pattern-match on top of as a means of communication with part A.
There may literally be another sentient entity within our brains that we don't realize is there, and that wants to be acknowledged and communicated with.