Consciousness is too resource hungry, therefore it's also too slow. Muscle memory, aural memory and even, to an extent, visual memory are accessed much quicker by the non-conscious - teach it to carry out your wishes. To do that you've got to discover how it learns. Sadly, it's the elephant comme servant in the room we all try to ignore.

So, how does it learn?

It learns while we sleep. So, get lot's of sleep after your evening practice and you will notice post-practice-improvement in the morning.

It learns loads while we're asleep because our consciousness isn't interfering. It also learns as we do tasks as long as we perceive them in a way that is convergent with how it operates and, I shudder to say, how it thinks - to answer your question Phlebas.

I don't believe that's accurate. Is that a hypothesis or it based on something? I think it learns while you sleep because neural pathways take time to develop (a night's sleep ensuring plenty of time is taken)- and because your body regenerates best in the hours while you sleep. Apparently there's actually some kind of a physical element to the way these pathways are strengthened. I'm not aware of any reason why conscious thought might prevent such regeneration when awake. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe that the subconscious also makes progress while you are awake (although perhaps not at quite the same rate as during sleep). Work on something in the morning and it would almost certainly have had enough time for the benefits to be on display by the evening.

I don't know a whole lot about the fine details, but I've heard it suggested that it's vital not to finish a session of slow practise with a run-through. You need to leave it time to settle in. Go fast in the same session and you undo the memory of the good practise. Try it out the next time, and it may well go considerably better than you would ever have expected (even if you were not aware of having made any progress during the slow work). If this is accurate, the last rendition is most important to what settles in. Ideally if everythhing is accurate, the programming is flawless. That's why it's better to do a small amount perfectly, than to repeat endlessly with different errors.

I believe that any improvement as you're doing a task is primarily down to added conscious awareness. You have to walk away and leave it, before the subconscious has a chance to set in. Instant improvements and genuinely subconscious ones are very different issues- so it's important to aim for accuracy at all times, but not to worry about speed before that accuracy has already set in (from a different practice session). I think this is single most important thing to know about the subconscious. Good quality practise may not seem to show any discernable progress at the time- but if you can bring yourself leave it at that, the progress can come over the following few hours (or certainly by the next day).

When you talk of how it 'thinks' I believe you're confusing it. Unless I'm much mistaken 'muscle memory' (which is to do with nerves and the brain, rather than the muscles actually 'memorising' for themselves) is a very different kind of subconscious than repressed memories etc. I don't believe it has much to do with Freud style subconscious thought, but merely the ability to reproduces particular combinations of movements at will without great conscious will- once they have been done consciously enough times. Unless I'm vastly mistaken, I think you're perhaps confusing different elements of what the word 'subconscious' can mean. There may be some degree of cross-over, but I believe it's largely quite a separate issue from actual subconcious thought.

*** I am ignoring the above user ***

Technically speaking, making a point of responding to my post to say that you're 'ignoring' me does not count as 'ignoring' me.

If you are indeed interested in neural pathways, I'd take heed of those points about practising. Apparently these principles are vital towards how we can make progress.

Sheesh, some people just don't get the message.

Is it actually possible to ignore users on this forum? I never found the option for it

That's not 'ignoring' either. If you want to do it properly, please don't let me stop you.

Click on their name and choose 'view profile' and 'ignore this user'. Just a shame it doesn't wipe them entirely!

keyboardklutz,

Are you looking for the "unconscious" whatever that may be, or a non-conscious neurological process?

As I understand it, current research is that the process of correct process engages our neurons in specific ways to trigger the generation of further myelin around the neurons that are used during the practice. Adding myelin takes time and I believe that it occurs mostly (or possibly fastest?) during sleep. The effect of this myelin sheath is that this particular neural pathway is faster and more secure due to the increase velocity of signals and capacitance.

Rich

"The effect of this myelin sheath is that this particular neural pathway is faster and more secure due to the increase velocity of signals and capacitance."

Is it possible that the magic is called repetition? [or am I the only one that needs repetition?]

rada

That is how it was explained. How one practices, especially repitition, become triggers that myelin is needed which makes practicing that task more efficient.

Rich

Don't we have to put something into our consciousness first before it can later become sub-conscious, ie, beneath the consciousness level. To me, this means lots of time and experience at the instrument with much repertoire, styles, moods, rhythms, key signatures, all the basic things that give us something to think and do at the piano keyboard. Reading from the music and applying it to the piano keyboard is the game - through our accurate physical processing. In the beginning it is quite complex to get anything right and there are many approximates without there being precision. Only with regimen and discipline do we have something musical to retrieve.

Quietness of the mind, keeping thinking simple, repetition, listening, touching, sensing, experiencing music builds our abilities of technique and artistry. Time and effort in a neutral mind set is the best situation to build our musicianship.

It's the quiet mind that is so valuable that also sleeps so well.

I think "baklava" and "minestone soup" when thinking about what the brain does with our thoughts. Our brains are hungry to store knowledge and to retrieve it for our enjoyment. If we would only take the attitude and learning steps to "feed" it what it needs.

This is how I see it, so please take it as a grain of sand if you happen to disagree. It is just one person's opinion or maybe, it's fantasy. Maybe it's to be ignored.

I had a slight car accident 20 years ago. I was driving along in the rain and it was too wet to break quick enough not to slide into this guy. I only realized yesterday what happened - I saw a stopped car at a roundabout, assumed it was about to go as the way forward was clear, checked it and moved on to something else on the road. All this was done non-consciously; I predicted the situation, as we do as we drive, with no conscious involvement. Consciousness got involved as I looked at where the car had been, and found it was still there!

It's not myelin. Here's part of a correspondence I had with a concert pianist and myelin researcher:

Thanks for the advice, and sorry for being so off-topic!

No, most of our learning goes straight into the non-conscious. What I am saying is try and look through the lens of the non-conscious, see how it sees the world, to be better able to present material for learning in an efficacious way. The learning styles idea is an example but it's not just sensual prejudice that effects learning; I think the non-conscious is often more logical, but it's a logic that can be hard to understand or accept.

If you weren't ignoring my posts, you my might have heard the bit where I explained what a load of hogwash is being stated there as if it were incontrovertible scientific fact. Who do you think you are, to 'correct' such a simple statement with pure nonsense?

We certainly do have to execute a movement or make an association via the immediate conscious for it to become subconsciously learned. Those who are good sight-readers etc. have ALREADY put substantial workings into their subconscious, through repetition. There's a reason why even a genius cannot sit and give a flawless performance of a Chopin Etude, if he has never played the piano before (regardless of how much time he might have spent studying the score or watching others doing it).

As for the idea that the subconscious is more logical, how about Freud and the notions of secretly wanting to sleep with your mother and kill your father etc? Logical? I'm not sure if the fact that you made a false conrrection implies that you think you're in command of scientific principles here, but the rest of that comment reads more like som kind of a zany new-age mantra. Logic is absolute. The subconscious is driven by hormones and countless other erratic factors. Certainly not logic. Some dispute Freud's specifics, but I have never heard anyone claim the gut instincts of for human behaviour are more 'logical' than those that are rationally and consciously thought out. In any case, as I pointed out earlier, the subconscious of the mind and the subconscious ability to execute a series of learned movements would appear to be vastly different issues. Unless I'm hugely mistaken, there's very little direct cross-over. What we talk about in terms of 'subconsciously' ingrained procedures have little to do with anything that might described as 'thought' (especially if you're talking in reference to learning). I believe that you are simply making assumptions based on the different contexts in which the single word 'subconscious' is typically used.

*** ignoring the above user and user's post below*** (he just won't go away!)

Seeing as he's as blissfully ignorant of my posts as of the various factual errors in his own, would someone like to point out the inherent contradiction in stepping forth to proclaim that you are 'ignoring' someone, every time they make a post (and then updating to ensure that people are aware that you have supposedly 'ignored' another post)? This is as tiresome as it is hypocritical.

Apologies for having to join in such a stupid game of 'tell him that...', but if he's not reading my posts, he won't see this one telling him to stop wasting everybody's time.

A good example is playing the same passage at a different octave. To the conscious mind it looks similar, in fact the keyboard was designed by a conscious brain. To the non-conscious it's a very different coordination needing a very different orientation of muscles and vision. Perspective, in this instance, just gets in the way - if you try to play what consciousness sees you'll be interfering.

What are you trying to say? First you say how different the coordination is in the "non-conscious". Then you say that using conscious thought would be 'interfering'? So what are you supposed to rely on, if the 'non-conscious' actions would be different, but conscious thought would be interfering? The power of God? Where on earth are you trying to lead with these rambling, contradictory thoughts?

If you initially allow the subconscious to kick in at once, the slightly differing angle of the arm may mess things up at once. If there's no conscious thought, you will not succeed in making the adjustments that are required, from that which has been learned in a different octave. Nothing less than conscious thought about doing the same notes in a different position (with feedback from the nervous system- to tell you what feels the same and what feels different) can ensure that subconscious habits can form strongly enough, so as to permit you to reach a stage where you can play in any octave. Fortunately, the skills are transferable, so experienced pianists are no longer greatly aware of any adjusments, regardless of which octave something needs to be played in.

This is a very interesting area to consider, but I'm really not seeing what these various contradictory thoughts are supposed to suggest to anyone. The implications of the subconscious processes are actually quite simple and very rational- practise slowly, aiming to get thing perfectly accurate from the earliest stage. Fix any wrong notes instantly- by going back a few notes before, to set the flow of movements that will always need to lead into those notes. Once you've done it flawlessly a few times, walk away. These are the single most important things to know about the subconscious learning process. Even among those who do the best slow practise, you rarely encounter anyone with the patience to leave it be (in order to let the benefits set in), rather than spoil the hardwork by going faster right after- hence undoing all the good work and finishing with the internal 'memory' of inaccurate movements. Sadly, most learners don't even have the patience to correct most of the errors (within even slower work) properly in the first place- nevermind to allow slow work to settle in before they test themselves.

EDIT I think I've now realise what you were trying to say, but to say that conscious thought would be interfering is totally missing the point. When trying to analyse such internal processes, it's essential to be very careful with use of terminology. The conscious thought that says 'This must be exactly the same feel because the notes are same' might cause problems. That's because it would be a naive conscious thought. To follow through by saying that 'conscious' thought would be an interference is as logical as suggesting that using a calculator is a poor way to solve a sum- because, if you forget to key in one of the numbers, you do not get a correct answer.

The only process that achieves the adjustment would be a conscious thought that says 'This is basically the same, but let's take it nice and slow (rather than rely solely on a prelearned series of motions) because my arm is going to be in a rather different position'. If you think such a conscious process (coupled with conscious sensory awareness throughout the process) would be classed as 'interfering' then I'm really not sure what you think the alternative might be. Every movement in piano needs to eithe be learned consciously (or at least, by a teacher persistently manipulating your body in such a way as to teach you a physical sensation).

keyboardklutz first said:Then he said:
I don't remember how or when I discovered this web site, Musical Fossils. There is some great information about what I think this thread is saying and some suggestions on how to turn on, let me call it, the "non-thinking" or "non-analytical" part of our brain. I hesitate to use 'unconscious' or 'pre-conscious' because of the myriad of connotations these terms have. My teacher has said, "Don't try to play it perfectly. Just play it! Speak the language of music."

Yes, there must be, as Betty said, an introduction. I'm not minimizing the role of repetition, hands separately, playing pendantically slow. When I'm "in the zone" I can internalize the notes (memorize?) and when that happens, I really love my music. The introduction can be shear drudgery, but I think that's the discipline.

We westerners with our finely honed sense of cause and effect can, I think, get lost in the analysis and pre-judge what sounds good and bad. Then we try to perform to that standard. It's almost "brute force." But the "letting go," however that works in our brain to fingers to keys endeavors, is what IMO makes the music.

A data point for me on the viability of this concept comes in an experience I had last spring. There's a young clerk at the store where I have my lessons. We struck up an acquaintance and talked about our music. She sings--BEAUTIFUL voice--but doesn't like to sing alone for people. I, at the time, was hesitant to play for people--it wasn't perfect. One day she asked me to play for her. We went into the "grand" sales floor and I played the first movement of Mozart's sonata in A minor (K310). I just played it and, when I finished, she was just staring at me and said, "Dan, I didn't know until just now that Mozart could reach out and grab your heart so tightly." Wow! What a compliment! Now she sings for me. And all I did was just speak the language of music.

As we get to know a passage, as it moves from conscious to non-conscious, do we resist the change in how we perceive it? Is the conscious reluctant to give up its false view? Stubborn? Now you can see the wood are you still hankering for the trees?

These see Thee, and revere
In sudden-stricken fear;
Yea! the Worlds,- seeing Thee with form stupendous,
With faces manifold,
With eyes which all behold,
Unnumbered eyes, vast arms, members tremendous,

My sense tells me there is no resistance, merely a transformation. Maybe to the conscious music is merely black markings on paper that when associated with finger movement produce tones of a certain frequency and a certain rhythm. Maybe to the unconscious music is a language that does not speak to the ears, but to the heart. To continue your analogy, you forget the trees knowing that the grain is beautiful.

The grain's at its most beautiful as a piece of furniture.

And the more you nurture that furniture, the more beautiful the grain and its patina.

...of course, you can't always get the wood these days.

I think it's important to distinguish between the subconscious that puts emotion into music and the subconscious learning process, though. A problem with either is of paramount importance. Having said that I don't think these are entirely separate though. For example, one teacher always made me analyse intervals in chords. Now it's simply second nature that if I see something so chromatic as a minor ninth within a harmony, I do something to illustrate that without having to first stop and analyse the chord consciously (at least, most of the time- although I do still spend some time thinking consciously about points of interest along these lines, to check I'm not missing stuff). I do not see 'feeling' as being a purely subconscious thing that cannot stem from the conscious. How do you practise a lyrical piece? Simply learn the notes? Or think consciously about what you need to make it work expressively? Expressive renditions are often integrally linked to those notes that are most chromatic and players tend to take more time over wide intervals etc. When you've learned how to unlock these points of interest and make the most of them, they can integrate into the subconscious. I'm no Horowitz or Cortot, but having thought this way now permits me to display certain aspects of expression without necessarily thinking much during the process. Had I never thought consciously in the first place, my subconscious would likely be missing out on plenty of opportunities. How can you reflect a searingly tragic suspension in a melody, if you have not predetermined that to be a vital point of interest?

You have to acquire a certain number of building blocks in the first place, before you can simply turn off and let music flow. Until certain things have been acquired, you cannot turn to the subconscious for something profound- unless you are a genius who has been lucky enough to simply absorb things, both musical and technical. I always find it ironic when people like Volodos say that technique is easy and that the sound is the hard part. If whatever sounds he thinks of simply come out at the drop of a hat, it goes to show that he has a near flawless technique- and was lucky enough to aquire it without great effort. If you don't start out with those foundations (whether they come through talent or learning) simply turning off the active parts of your mind is unlikely to produce anything greatly profound. A lot of people end up doing formulaic, repetitive 'rubato' that evokes little emotion but can cause great annoyance.

For example, although this pianist does many things very well the way he 'feels' the semiquavers in a virtually identical rushed way really spoils the performance. In order to avoid monotonous things like that (when striving for freedom), you need to think about how to avoid falling into formulaic repetition during the conscious processes, before you move onto simply playing from your heart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoFYyfngQOo

I believe that various medications can help with that.

Or better still, a healthy dose of The Goon Show

Another example is scales. As you move up your thumb is gradually moving under your palm ready to play after finger 3 or 4. This isn't learned (or therefore teachable ) behaviour as such, it's more the non-conscious acting under present contingencies knowing where the thumb will need to be, and getting prepared. We all spend time explaining and showing this to students but the conscious mind hasn't the capacity to carry it out, along with the myriad of contiguous tasks. Besides, the conscious mind doesn't really understand the task as it hasn't the capacity to perform it. I think the point here is to know this fact, allow it to influence your expectations/evaluations - scales cannot be consciously performed smooth. Usually we place the foreknowledge (of where the thumb will be) in the wrong place (consciousness) where it's of no use; we need strategies to place it in the correct place (non-conscious).

What an absolute load of hogwash! The motion of the thumb is both 'learned' and 'teachable' in absolutely every respect conceivable. If the only thing a teacher does is tell a student what note the thumb belongs on (supposedly leaving the student to figure out the 'non-conscious' process- or rather 'conscious' process, by which he can execute this for the first time), he isn't doing his job in any respect whatsoever. Do you sincerely think that the conscious, thinking mind has no capacity to think it's way through a process that it has 'never had to perform'? How about the subconscious instigating something that it's never had to perform? Presumably by purely random guess-work, seeing as the conscious mind is supposedly incapable of getting involved. Which sounds more feasible?

I think you might want to try putting a little more 'conscious thought' into your posts, before typing such a complete load of illogical drivel...

Look mate, I haven't read a single one of your posts nor do I ever intend to. You're full of crap that you make up in your head; there's no point attempting a discussion. Go away and study piano pedagogy for 10 years, then come back - I may give you another hearing.

This is all getting a little contentious which is a pity as it is such a great discussion and these posts are really thought-provoking and I think important. I'd like to pour a little oil on troubled waters... I find it helps my students' and my own practice to perceive conscious thought and the "unconscious" (or more deeply conscious) as one whole thing. Problems start when the critical mind tries to control all the functions of playing. A bird or flying insect can execute the complex and often rapid movements and adjustments involved in flying without much recourse to thinking. However, the human mind cannot be switched off and it needs to be involved. So it is a question of focus. I like to place the greatest part of my conscious focus on rhythmic structure. A deep awareness of the sense of unfolding that rhythm creates is what the NLP people call a state of flow. This rhythmic sense is essentially unconscious as it is a deep function of the body but it can be brought into consciousness. If every movement is executed within the body's natural rhythmic state, learning is effective and sometimes rapid. A shift in conscious focus can "unlock" the inner musician in an instant. I call this tuning into the matrix of pulse. It is quite magical yet also common sense!

I have to disagree there. The 'often rapid movements and adjustments' are thinking, but of the non-conscious variety. We have to realize that thinking, strategy building, deliberation, etc. is going on well beneath any conscious radar - it's not just a muscle memory or a 'pulse', it's dynamic.

I think that's a good point. Music attracts the non-conscious, in fact the non-conscious thrives on it. Is that why so many fail to reach their potential? Because they're locked into a conscious mode exclusively? Or more likely, have separated the two?

That's an interesting claim from somebody who wishes to state such naive hypotheses as though they were scientific fact. I love the notions that the conscious mind is incapable of instigating movements that it has never learned, or that that the subconscious is more 'logical' than the conscious mind. I can't believe the embarassing twaddle that you are making up and stating as if it were fact- especially when discussing something so scientific as the subconscious learning process. I don't think that you seem to be fully 'conscious' of what conscious thought entails.

If a student just has a go at the motions for a scale for a first time (which already involves a great deal of conscious thought, no matter how much they try to repress it), they either fluke an efficient movement or they have an inefficient movement. Conscious analysis of the efficiency of the movement is required to improve it. If anyone does so without thinking, they are a rare genius indeed. You're simply throwing these terms around, without thinking about what they actually mean- or what conscious thought actually entails.

If you're not reading my posts, why did you reply to that? How would you even know that it concerned you? Feel free to go back to ignoring them.

I see your points, but once more, the success of the method requires things to have already been put into place within the subconscious. What use is the body's rhythmic state, if the fingers tend to collapse with no consistency? How is that going to result in a student playing Chopin Etudes?

I don't dispute the flow that you speak of, but there are countless processes that must be put in place, before such an unconscious flow can come into play. If these issues are not set either by chance or by prior conscious work, it the flow may simply never come. The student is probably put down as not being 'talented' enough to play well, when it may be that they simply hadn't learned that which is required to reach a state of flow.

Birds evolved through natural selection, so as to be able to fly. Those that couldn't do it died. I don't think there's any reason to believe that anyone has ever failed to pass on their genes through inability at a keyboard, or that good technique has become instilled in our genes. You cannot compare a bird that flies by instinct, to the notion of playing a piano by instinct. To all but a tiny handful, good piano technique does not emerge through instinct- although it CAN be accumulated and put into the subconscious processes, through conscious will. I think a rather closer comparison would be to a human flying an aeroplane.

There are few greater examples of a flow of movement than the triple jump. I doubt very much whether any athletics coach would simply tell people to think of moving their body in a rhythm, before demonstrating the three individual components. The rhythm is the end product of components that have been set with great assurance, not the means of learning assurance within those vital components. I believe that one of the things in NLP is that although you begin by looking at the final goal, you then go on to divide it into small segments. The goal is always in mind somewhere, but sometimes the subtasks have to take far greater precedence. Those who can achieve things by not thinking consciously about anything but the final goal are rare genuises indeed.

OK - breaking my own rule about posting in the Teachers Forum.....


Hey Nyiregyhazi - is your real name Danny by any chance????




Back to not posting in the teachers forum....

Ha, ha! ...and moved to England, just to be closer!

And how do you define thinking?

I once asked a millipede how he decided which of his hundreds of legs to move first. He thought about it and never walked again.

Some things are simply reflexes.

He KBK is this one of your sites??
http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/music-in-lucid-dreams.html

He should have told you to eff-off, he was too busy walking!

If only.

I guess he lacked your charm and manners.

But it does illustrate my point - there are places the conscious should fear to tread.

Nope. It's not Danny.

Every walking millipede is a born 'genius'. That's evolution. Millipedes that do not walk die.

I'm afraid that it does not illustrate any points, as it's a made up story. How many professional golfers do you know of who never seek advice from golf teachers? Some of the biggest pros on the circuit seek to improve their swing. That doesn't involve turning off the brains and just swinging the club. For those who can maintain a high standard while turning off, that's because they have LEARNED. I'm rather impressed that a thread that is supposedly about the implications of the subconscious in the learning process has generated into a- just do it and hope it works.

That's not 'learning' in any sense. That's musical Darwinism. Such a method merely means that those who chance upon getting it right succeed. Those who don't fail and disappear. Not everyone is a born pianist. That's why we learn things. Fear to tread beyond the subconscious (which is merely the product of whatever habits happened to occur, whether those habits are necessarily beneficial or not) and you spend your whole life limited by your (probable lack of) genius.

Our conscious mind is unquestionably the product of a myriad of unconscious processes.
First there is unconsciousness and then arises the illusion of consciousness.

Understanding the human senses and our neurobiological systems would seem to be the first step towards understanding the genius of our unconscious "mind".

Next understanding the limitations of and characteristics of the arising of our conscious mind would seem to an appropriate next step. For example, how we throw away most sensory information, how we see or hear what we expect to see or hear, how we create narratives to convince ourselves that our actions were the result of our free will and decision making, how our body has already "decided" to act before we are consciously aware of it, etc.

Finally, gaining insight into how we can selectively bring more of our unconsciously registered sensory input into our conscious mind and how we can develop strategies and tactics for programming and modifying sensory response reflexes and fine motor skills to modify (increasingly unconsciously) the feedback we are getting from our heightened awareness would seem to be the most productive path forward.

A good start but it's not going to help confusing non-conscious with unconscious (which is totally non-thinking even to the exclusion of dreams?, dreams being close to pure non-consciousness). (The subconscious needs to be kept to its Freudian sense - perceptions that are repressed, probably by the non-conscious mind (the conscious mind is not clever enough to do this - try not thinking of a white bear).)

'For example, how we throw away most sensory information, how we see or hear what we expect to see or hear,' - that's the main role of the non-conscious, to mold the world that is placed before consciousness and why I placed this topic in the Teachers Forum. Traditionally teachers take their molded world, and present it the molded world of the student but this is not the reality. In reality you are presenting your molded world to their non-conscious which then molds and presents it to the student's consciousness. There is a term in education - 'covert learning' - it refers to two or more non-consciouses communicating directly. I am saying the teacher's job is to be aware of this and pass the knowledge/skills directly to the non-conscious in a form that's already suitably molded - even when self-teaching (that's why the term self-learning is inappropriate). Something similiar was subliminal messaging but that was shown to be quite bogus.
Now this is interesting:
From here

Same source:

They leap to the assumption that the moves were made 'by the body'- rather than that the mind may have done something that is presumably so staggeringly improbable as thinking about two things at once? Is this a credible source?

Assuming the false dichotomy of mind versus body might also be considered incredible.

Yes, that was exactly my point. It's extremely illogical to refer to the body as having been responsible, as though it were separate from the mind (simply because the mind was concentrating on other things).

Let me get this straight, N is seriously asking if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Gendlin is a credible source?

Well, I don't know if I would turn first to a philosopher and psychotherapist for developing a shared language and gaining neurobiological insights into improving effectiveness in learning complex, psychomotoric behaviors.

If we replace "by the body" with "below consciousness" and "mind" with "consciously", I would be more on board.

There is pretty incontrovertible evidence for a cognitive stage preceding an autonomic stage in learning psychomotor skills. Some teachers however do take more of a "non thinking" approach working in developing fundamental technique where months can be spent simply working phsysically on relaxation, weight drop, effortless fingers falling into the keys, lack of extraneous movement, etc. This kind of approach would be less fruitful in teaching someone to play the Hammerklavier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychomotor_learning

Your fellow seems to be preaching what the Dutch say with "Ik voel het aan mijn klompen aan" "I feel it already in my wooden shoes" meaning that there is a knowing or premonition that precedes conscious awareness. This seems to me to be self-evident when we accept that our consciousness is an emerging property of the sum of our unconscious neurobiological processes. However, in general this insight doesn't help us learn to play the piano any better unless we use it to improve our attention to sensory input, bring the right elements into better conscious focus, and gain insight into how to "listen to the body" [sic], such as when it tells us that something is "right" such as a fingering that feels good and gives us the right sound even while perhaps breaking conventions.

Common language conventions and implicit Descartian mental models can make discussions on this topic difficult.

Yeh, but it's a start!

When he refers to the idea that the fact a chess player is thinking about sums while playing shows that his moves are formed “without deliberation,” i.e., by the body. It certainly brings his credibility into question. Either he has about as flimsy a grasp of logic as an average teenager, or he has been extraordinarily naive with his choice of terminology.

The idea that thinking of one thing means you cannot be thinking of another (whether directly on less consciously) is bullshit, for a start. So, it doesn't 'show' anything at all with regard to deliberation. If he really moved without intent, he probably make illegal moves- nevermind the idea of winning the game. If he were referring to a pianist repeating notes on autopilot, I could see his point. However, chess players do not merely use learned movements. They have to respond to how the other player is working- not merely resort to movements without any thought processes. To refer to this as happening "by the body" either shows that phrase has been taken quite extraordinarily out of context, or that it's a complete pile of tosh.

Such actions are no more or less "by the body" than those made by a chess player who is thinking solely about the game in hand. It's a staggeringly ill-thought out example, from someone who is clearly no expert on the issue. Psychotherapy is supposed be a qualification for this type of thing?

Tiger Woods says "I never remember hitting the ball"

This is really intelligent stuff. Whether you call it 'body' or 'non-conscious' makes little odds, I would say Eugene Gendlin is using 'body' to mean anything that isn't consciousness. You say 'listen to the body', that's the important (and for the dualists impossible) point - there is someone else there! Yet we hate to give them credence. I think the latest thought on schizophrenia has something to say.

Can you elaborate?

Though I'd say the non-conscious uses the same units, which is why you can learn to see it in action.

Is this the same guy? Sounds like he's heavily into his philosophy mode, because the point behind all those words is really quite minimal. Basically it seems to be saying nothing more than that thoughts beneath the surface interact with what the environment throws at you. And when the environment changes the body is capable of initiating minor adaptations to prelearned patterns. In other words, the world is not always the same, so prelearned movements cannot be reproduced in practise without some unconscious corrections. It's all very poetic, but from a practical point of view that hardly constitutes a revelation.

If I'm missing something, feel free to translate the psycho-babble into a more practically-oriented point. However, unless I'm vastly mistaken, there doesn't seem to be much beyond the obvious, beneath all that pretentious (not to mention unscientifically vague) language. What is this 'given' that is referred to? 'Space time units'? Is he trying to draw some parallel to advanced theoretical physics? If so, why? Or is he simply a member of a religious cult? If he seriously thinks he's some kind of a scientist, he ought to take more care about how he expresses himself. What point is this supposed to illustrate, precisely? And how about your own sentence? If anything, that is possibly even vaguer than the paragraph that precedes it. What are you trying to say?

Michelangelo said "It was not my hands, it is never my hands, it is the hands of God"

And what do the rest of us do- if we are not gifted the "hands of God"? Give up? Or attempt to learn the things that only a tiny number of geniuses are born with?

Good one. Now, can we know God?

Let me just say this is very tiring and confusing reading of this topic with quotes within quotes and a few nasties being exchanged. Totally not necessary guys, and the prodding and annoyance speaks blatently about the sender as much as they speak the unpleasant remark directed at someone. Now that comment is about the posting, not the content of the information.

In this situation, brain's abilities and patternings are best explained by scientists who research such things and there is actually lots written for laymen. It is this conjecture here with the various words (vocabularly) being used carelessly that irritates me most.

Now that I've complained enough, I'd like to tell you about "brain" some situations I've had and ask what you think about them.

First of all they have each happened when I am playing the piano, I can be playing from memory, or I can be playing with music in front of me:

1) At a very raucous bar, many years ago, I was the hired entertainer for the evening. It was so very noisy with lots of people moving about that I felt very stressed, my conscious brain was thinking "Oh my word....this is over whelming noise and activity, I can't hear myself play, I can't think, I'm going to fall apart any minute"...while my body carried on the music with no problem. I found myself smiling at the phenomena, and just let it happen because a part of my brain could go on as if there was nothing to be concerned about. No one seemed to notice my distress, it was all in my inner world.

2) The other situation is that many times while playing, I can carry on a conversation with someone, my speech doesn't falter, I understand and respond to what they are saying, and the other part of me continues on as though nothing is competing for my attention. "Automatic pilot" so to speak.

If you are still "talking" to me after my complaint, please consider what I am asking: "Can anyone explain this?" I wonder what has "programmed" me to be able to do this. Yes, it is similar to driving the car and having conversation too, but playing the piano accurately is quite a high skill that seems to require our complete attention at any given time.

It "feels" kind of like me, and my shadow, when it happens. It's coming from me, but I'm not aware of it. I'm in the present moment with other things going on. Simultaneous operating fields, I'd call it.

Eek, a freak!

Betty, I think the mind is like a hall of mirrors - as many I's as you wish. It's just that only one of these I's can be conscious at a time and typically we lazily always make the same one I. Is N saying rude things about me? I have him switched off.

Nice to hear your response, kbk! Up to a point!

The "hall of mirrors" I guess doesn't have to be dark or alarming, but it can be startling, I think. Every time I'm in town and walk by a store, my image when it's reflected to me, is startling. And, of course, like most women, I start to tug on the clothing, or lean forward to look at the hair do. So "mirrors" may mean different things to people. A hall of them! I think I like photographs in a gallery better, from having been caught in poses we were not aware of making. Now there is where the true picture lies, no?

The "up to a point place" with me is your comment about "N" - I'd prefer if no one said anything rude, ever. How can you drop your rudeness on someone and merrily trip away like you are doing? I use the ignore feature too, but I would not divulge about who I'm ignoring unless directly asked by them. The game of ignoring is better when they don't know about it, I think. Ignoring someone really protects you both from serious altercations in your future posting, so by all means do it. Just don't brag about it. Being a "gentleman" is quite elegant and wins one points in diplomacy. I will try to do the same and behave myself as a "lady".

Betty

I actually appreciate tackful rudeness so continue gentlemen, this game may become a great one act play for my purse. Reminds me of the play "Sleuth"

Gee, this is the thread in which you decided to ignore me - I kind of thought it was funny then, too, and decidedly public

Various Issues With Students thread

Cathy

I think if someone posts in a thread (repeatedly!) you've initiated though knowing you're ignoring them, they're being quite rude - I'm not at all surprised that a gargoyle from my hall of mirrors escapes!

This may be the funniest post I've read in a long time. In the past couple of months, Betty has placed (at least) three of us on her ignore list and announced that she was doing so quite publicly, and without having been directly asked about it. The sheer irony of instructing others not to brag about using the Ignore feature is truly mind-boggling.

Oh, kbk, I'm afraid I can't agree with you here Whoever is on your "ignore" list is for you to decide, but the threads are open to all of us whether we were the ones who started them or not. JMO, of course.

I have, however, followed this thread and found it thought-provoking, with some ideas to comtemplate from a couple of different people. Good to get the old brain working.

Cathy

Gee, I didn't know we owned threads that we initiate and that we are at liberty to keep certain people off "our" threads. As in, get off the premises! This is private property!

You publicly claimed you were putting me on your "ignore list" for all to see.
It's a bit hypocritical (and too late to be a "lady") to tell him to not do it too, don't you think?

But of course you won't answer me because you have publicly deemed me unworthy.

If only.

Ah, but do we not become that which we ignore?

“When we become aware that we do not have to escape our pains, but that we can mobilize them into a common search for life, those very pains are transformed from expressions of despair into signs of hope”

"Somewhere we know that without silence words lose their meaning, that without listening speaking no longer heals, that without distance closeness cannot cure”

Henri Nouwen quotes (Dutch Christian writer 1932 - 1996)

...and a bird in the hand's worth two in the bush!

You, Cathy, and Ebony and Monica are very right to call me on it. Since my experiences where I did make it public recently. It is really because of the "joisting" between kbk and "N" here in this topic that it was obvious to me that I should not have done that. It felt good at the time, I must admit. Power in a little button. But, I'll now do it silently.

What is a person to do when there is "watched topics" and "watched posters"? If one's efforts are directed at trapping someone in their words, these features work far better than the feature that allows you to ignore someone. I feel "foiled" and it's understandable.

Maybe I should say to kbk to "carry on" with his efforts? I don't think so.

I think I now know why the knights wore armor.

I'm eating my "I'm ignoring" words with salt and pepper and two forks.

Why say anything at all? If you want to ignore it, ignore it.

I'm sure every single one of us ignores stuff that's posted here, but I personally don't have anyone on my official ignore list. Just don't read it.

There's not always an easy answer when you've really had enough.

You mean you not only read our posts in threads you are watching, but have us on your "watched users" list, too?

Cathy

No, Cathy, I don't have a watched user's list, but I do have watched topics because of my interest in them. The only step I have taken is the ignore button. It's pretty helpful because it avoids the interaction. There is also an option for reading it if you choose.

I actually meant the comment coming from my perspective because, darn, if I don't say something and immediately I'm surrounded by several people, the same people again and again. I recently exchanged pm's with someone who was "correcting" me about my posting style. This person commented that they had received several pm about something I had said. So, that made me cautious about a "group" that communicate to each other about things I have posted. We do have pm's that can include others and it has given the concern that "getting Betty" has become a hobby of some proportions. There are no facts in my thinking, just curious things that happen over and over.

You asked a direct question about what I meant and this is the situation which prompted it. It is not a healthy situation to be the recipient, nor is it healthy if people actually do what I suspect. The "archives" will show my "same people" statement to be true the majority of the time.

I would like to think that we can each state opinions and experiences without being adversarial. Being criticized for my use of language, punctuation, run on sentences is getting old really fast. There are many people who have these characteristics and I don't see there being a "drive" to correct them - nor do I see the energy directed to others when their comments defy intelligence.

I would love to be ignored actually. There are a lot of people that have told me they appreciate, like, enjoy my posts. Some are waiting for my "book" (LOL, I'm sure). So, the dissatisfaction seems to be from a few posters who are tireless in their constant pointing out of issues with me.

I really felt in alliance with "N" when kbk kept isolating him and pointing to him as a "problem" poster in kbk's opinion. That is why I'm in this "conversation". I would call it "bullying". And, I think I am the recipient of it over and over.

Betty Patnude

Space-time units? Great stuff!

It is a well-known but unfortunate phenomenon of various internet fora that some posters are not happy until the topic of a given thread is no longer about the original topic but has been instead changed by said poster to be about that poster and their trials and tribulations.

In extreme cases of paranoia in the great Pacific Northwest and without further knowledge of the specific situation of people, I would tend to recommend that one needs to lay off of the BC Bud for a while.

The danger I see in an escalation of the use of the ignore feature is that we will get even more disconnected, "broadcasting" style non sequiturs and there will be even less worthwhile debate. Fortunately, it would appear that until now those who are most bragging about their ignore function use are also ignoring the ignores.

Loath though I am to extend the agonies, don't posters need to know if a poster is on one's ignore list? Otherwise how do others know why statements are going unchallenged? That, at least, is my reasoning.

I shudder to think what Kant would say. Personally I think the interface beyond space-time is non-cognizable consciously or non-consciously by definition, if for no other reason.

So don't ignore them. If someone gave a lecture to set out their own personal conjectures (which seems to be how you regard this, judging from your absurb complaint about my posting in 'your' thread) and someone raised a point (that raised substantial questions about an integral issue) do you think that saying 'I'm ignoring that' would appease the audience? Or would the person doing the ignoring actively be undermining their own credibility?

Debate exists for a purpose. I'm sorry that you got annoyed (when I undermined your theories by demonstrating that it is rationally impossible to balance the force of gravity with both a slack hand and a loose arm, in the impossible scientific model you attempted to set out to 'prove' your theory). However, if you make the decision to ignore people (when you are unable to address any holes they have picked in your theories) you have to face the consequences.

What was the purpose of that tautological statement? Are we discussing science, or are we looking to impress people by bundling together pleasant sounding combinations of words that have no practical significance or depth of meaning? Is this a discussion about the learning process, or is this actually a poetry corner for dope-smokers?

PS. If you wish to make reference to the definition of "the interface beyond space-time"- hadn't you better start by actually offering your definitio for such a comically vague 'concept' (or rather, 'load of pretentious twaddle', perhaps).

I spaced out the time once and missed a dentist appointment.

Nyuck, nyuck.

Sorry, I'll get my coat

Cathy

I am going to go with "the person doing the ignoring would actively be undermining their own credibility".

YMMV.

Nyiregyhazi FTW!

FTW? WOEDTM?* DTMIHTLIUOTUDS!*

*WOEDTM = what on earth does that mean?
*DTMIHTLIUOTUDS! = don't tell me I have to look it up on that urban dictionary site!

OMG! FWIW, IMHO, yeah!, I'm like ROFL.

JEEZ!

Often consciousness feels overwhelmed by a task that the non-conscious, because it's not so processor hungry, will cope quite well with. There's no way consciousness could understand this state (one needing less processing power) but does need to accept it. Children often fall down here and shy away from a task which they see consciousness can't handle, lacking knowledge of their non-conscious strengths.

Ha! See the thread`s better already

...of course the non-conscious is very much at the mercy of conscious' control of attention often pulling it here and there.

Surely you mean TTBA?

If their conscious cannot handle it, perhaps their non-conscious is simply not ready to handle it? Who's to say that these "non-conscious strengths" necessarily exist, if they cannot be accessed? There's a safe way to make progress, that doesn't involve any of these random, speculative ideas. You just make sure that the conscious mind is in control of what is happening, as a starting point to anything new. The rest follows, provided you work slowly and accurately.

***I shall not be challenging anything the above user says as he's on my ignore list***

Howzat?

Loaded with an excess of self-importance and wholly uninteresting to anybody as a piece of information?

Of course a common pitfall is wanting to know you know. You can put knowledge in your non-conscious but don't then expect it to be conscious!

The sound of one hand clapping.

***I shall not be challenging anything the above user says as it mostly has no meaning***

Then there are the times when consciousness must take a back seat, where the passage is perfect - it just needs delivering to the non-conscious. Because these are moments of great angst - will we still be there when we get back from our delivery? - we tend to shy away from them.

You're still going on about this? If you're so interested, why don't you go and read some books, instead of presenting all these apparently randomised conjectures from the top of your head?

If it isn't still there when you get back from the 'delivery' then you're not obviously ready to drop the conscious stage (or someone needs to move things for you, to accustomise your subconscious to the movements). Either you have not performed the procedures with enough consistency (which I suspect often includes those who move inefficiently- inefficient movements are rarely terribly consistent), or you haven't done them enough times. Why don't you stop and think about that? I have not the slightest idea where you are going, with all these vague points. Are you planning on becoming one of those lifestyle gurus?

The reality is really quite simple (in terms of the basic principle). You deliver things to the subconcious by repeating them accurately. Forget this nonsense about a 'shyness.' If you're not ready to start to turn off then you most certainly shouldnt'. That just screws up the programming, when things go wrong. If it doesn't work- perhaps you're not moving as consistently as you think? Perhaps you're allowing too many flaws to go by uncorrected? Or perhaps you're simply impatient and not doing enough repetitions. Or perhaps you're forgetting that you have to leave it time to settle in, before the conscious can relax?

I understand that it takes many correct repetitions to erase the memory of just one accidentally misstruck note. Easier to get it right in the first place. 'Shying' away from letting the non-conscious take over is precisely the right way to build up the security that will later ensure that there's nothing to be shy of. When it's actually settled in for real, you are unlikely to feel shy about the way the movement will flow.

Allow me...

Paraphrase or what!? It isn't it, it is we. Still abusive I see.

"Paraphrase or what!? It isn't it, it is we. Still abusive I see."

Still in schizophrenia mode? What I don't understand is why you had a go at someone for referring to it as the 'subconscious', yet you keep referring a 'non-conscious' as thinking (apparently more logically than the conscious). Not only is this rather puzzling, but the idea of the 'non-conscious' thinking would appear to be a direct contradiction of terminology.

theJourney -

Cathy

Then there's the commuter-like side of it. You know when occasionally you're just going through the motions? We do it in teaching, we do it in practicing - remember Liszt recommended reading a book. That's no bad thing, the non-conscious is still active. We need to explain to our students it's essential for some of their practice. A few weeks of 'mindless' repetition (once it's perfect) of a difficult passage puts it into the non-conscious. In no time the student wakes up to a 100% secure performance. Do you remember the finer points of learning to ride a bike? Hell no, you remember the falling off bits.

Anything new to add, though? Or did you just want to remind us that a person can do stuff that they have already mastered, without having to concentrate so hard as when they're beginning? At this stage in the thread, I can't really see that flooring anyone.

I've never yet had a student who I needed to stress the importance of turning off to. The point is that the ability to suceed when turning off is down to the ability to think when making the preparations. At least 99% of inadequate unconscious reflexes are down to poor programming, not a lack of practise at stopping yourself of thinking. The acts of turning off must be kept to an absolute minimum, in preparations- and only used to check what you still need to put more work into when returning to active concentration.

'Mindful' (as opposed to 'mindless') repetition works far more efficiently. Perhaps the process need not take weeks? In any case, if the repetion is mindless, that would illustrate that it were already in the non-conscious (if it is indeed 'perfect' already). Your sentence contains a complete paradox.

***Still ignoring the above***- I wouldn't mind if his writing wasn't so coarse in style.

I'd happily ignore your posts too, if the contradictions and factual inaccuracies were not quite so infuriating.

Perhaps you two could simply move this outside and resort to sending each other PMs that you each don't read in order to reduce the clutter on this thread belonging exclusively to kbk.

I claim this thread in the name of the Peoples Republic Of Keyboardklutzville!

The non-conscious is instinctual - yes, it thinks but only on an instinctual basis. For it to operate otherwise consciousness needs to direct it, lead it. That takes solid concentration on the part of consciousness - it's why I like watching the Dog Whisperer.

So you're secretly reading my posts now? If you're going to berate others for using the word 'subconscious', rather than 'non-conscious', then please start to exercise some consistency. If you insist on something that 'thinks' without the involvement of the conscious, then the subconscious is a perfectly appropriate word to use. If you are talking about what is often referred to as 'muscle memory', there is no thinking involved but merely the ability to reproduce prelearned movement patterns without great conscious will. I had assumed you were referring to this, after you insisted on differentiating it, but if you're going to go on about it thinking, you are apparently talking about the subconscious.

If you're going to keep going on about this, please make up your mind as to what you're actually trying to convey and make an effort to be clear with your terminology. Alternatively, you might want to go and read some books about it, rather than keep plucking things out of thin air.

hey what the heck does any of this have to do with the piano?!!!! I just wasted 5 mins of my time skimming through this thread. The interplay and jostling between keyboardklutz and Nyierghazi was hilarious though, kids stop it! Or just set up two pianos and have yourselves a duet "duel". Let your music speak for itself.

"now back to our regularly scheduled programming"...

Glad you were entertained. I'm certainly not. Tweedledum's a real pain in the butt.

Couldn't agree more about what a waste of time most of these posts are. There are a few basic principles about the subconscious aspects of learning that are extremely interesting, with regard to how to practise. For instance, you should never follow slow practise up with an immediate run-through, if you want to reap maximum benefits from your slow work. Sadly kbk is more interested in a stream of random conjectures from the top of his head, than in the issues that actually have a practical value with regard to learning. It's a pity that he's more concerned with some hippy mumbo-jumbo about being too 'shy' to transfer learning from the conscious to subconscious. The truth is that all it takes is extremely accurate repetition. Beyond this simple principle there are a number of interesting issues about how to pace things, in order to ensure maximum benefits.


KBK- I'm sure it is indeed most annoying when somebody points of holes in your logic and questions whether you have any basis for made-up assertions. Perhaps you could put a little more effort into your posts- rather than loading them with unsupportable conjectures and then complaining if anyone has grounds to dispute them?

You know how kids always want to go back to the beginning if they make a mistake? That's the non-conscious, it wishes all things to be whole (not sure why). We have to train it otherwise. Is that what gives infant beginners the edge - their non-conscious is more malleable? As the Jesuits say... "Give me the boy until he is seven, and I will give you the man."

Question for Keyboardklutz and Nyiregyhazi: How long have you two been married?

Since here: http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1247912/1.html

Check it, 19 pages of madness!

How many times do you see something then clock what it is? I just walked past a 20p coin on the floor, then saw it was a 20p coin. The non-conscious saw it but it took the conscious mind a millisecond to identify it.

Your unconscious decided to type that last post before your conscious mind told you the fib that it was you who had decided to do so.

Libet (1985)

Ever have problems playing on a different keyboard? That's because the conscious can't be bothered to notice the difference - so all keyboards look alike to it! To the non-conscious even differences in lighting on the habitual instrument becomes a small mountain to climb!

This is a genuine question:

What if you relate to keyboards by touch and sound? It would be a different object to you at the onset. (?)

It is not about which sense, all keyboards feel and sound different as well.

What on earth are you talking about? It's down to the conscious now? You've abandoned the idea that the subconscious governs things? Do you think that a performer "consciously" adjusts the movements for every single finger when playing an advanced etude on a new piano? This is precisely where the subconscious is required to fill in the gaps. That's why it's important to train it to adapt by playing many different pianos during the years of learning.

(yes, that's right. Thinking about this subject can actually lead to practical applications- not that one would realise it, from any of the posts you have made on it)

Indeed. That was quite evidently his point. But now you've claimed it as your own?

Go away.