From morality to equality
Two alignments get involved when it comes to morality, namely, good and evil. We can realize that something is good when it is pleasing, and in the same manner, we can realize that something is evil when the person is suffering. Good and evil creatures like pleasure and suffering, respectively, and dislike suffering and pleasure, respectively, as well. Morality, therefore, is about realizing what is right (what we should do, good or evil) and what is wrong/bad (what we should not do, good or evil). Humans are not perfect, judge or criminal, for example; therefore, we should leave room for their ignorance as well when it comes to justice. Justice is the ability to realize what the judge should command. The goal should be equality for humans.
Comments (107)
Do you want to maybe qualify this? I suffer every morning when I put my body under immense pressure to achieve a better body.
So you would claim that evil creatures like suffering and dislike pleasure?
Experiencing evil is not a bad thing per se. I am not in your position, so I cannot judge why your suffering is unpleasant to you. Suffering is not unpleasant to me. There is, of course, a reason for that if you start believing that they might be creatures in charge of Judging us that we are not aware of.
Correct.
Could you outline how you're using 'evil' here? I don't think many would recognize it.
Humans are mostly inclined toward good, prefer good over evil. There are plenty of people who enjoy evil, such as masochists.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't think so. Do you mind elaborating after reading this post?
Quoting AmadeusD
Depending on the person you are, you are a good person, you only enjoy/like good experiences. I don't know why you are suffering.
Why?
So you think that inequality in humanity is right? Someone starves to death while others enjoy the wealth! Each person is unique and has the potential to grow. Is that proper to leave such a potential in poverty?
I invite you to reread and rethink my last post. Think of a situation in which you are living on the street.
I am wondering why you like @180 Proof post. Do you like to live on the street?
I already asked you a question that you didn't answer. That is the key to the discussion. So, I repeat the question: Do you like to live on the street and lose all the luxury that you have right now? Some people live on the street, and they apparently don't like it. This situation seems unjust. If it is, and we could not realize the reason for being just, then we have ignorance about the situation! We are, however, minds in the core, plain and simple. The question is, why should minds be treated differently? We could believe in the Divinities, saying things are just for a reason, but just humans are ignorant of it. Why should humans be kept in ignorance? Do you have an answer to the last question?
:clap: :up:
Why don't you answer my question?
Mind experiences. Good and evil are features of experiences.
Quoting LuckyR
I would be happy to know if I am wrong somewhere.
Quoting LuckyR
Killing a human in most cases is wrong, since life is the main property of an individual. There are cases where individuals require death assistance, like people with locked-in syndrome. In this case, it is allowed!
Besides, as @Leontiskos points out, the burden of proof is on you answer my question:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752
A simple question cannot be a non-sequitur! The answer to that question is the key to understanding why equality is the goal. We have a dichotomy of just and unjust. Do you think that humans' lives are just? We have a dichotomy of equality and inequality as well. I think that just lives for humans is when there is equality. It seems that you think otherwise. You think that it is right that people live on the street.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752
I did. Please reread my post here.
It would be a hard situation, but I can't see if it is related to inequality. Perhaps it is more connected to my personal circumstances which make me live on the street. In my humble opinion, I believe we should consider why I could end up living on the street rather than if it is a lack of inequality. Living on the street may be a personal decision to escape from reality rather than a cause of financial issues.
I'm not detecting answers to my questions, so I guess we can't converse.
Correct, it is hard! However, some people on the street might wish for a different life, might deserve a different life. Is there any social system to support such individuals? Equality is related to being in a situation you deserve.
Quoting javi2541997
Equality does not mean that all people should be similar. Equality is about receiving the required income for all individuals so they can constantly contribute, constantly grow, etc.
Indeed, it is interesting to study each individual case!
but this violates your use of 'evil' as that would not be suffering.
Quoting MoK
I cannot see a reason beyond 'it's unpleasant' to label any given x 'evil'. It doesn't work for most examples I can think of, other than as an arbitrary label for 'unpleasant' which we alreayd have and use.
Quoting MoK
This seems non sequitur.
I think I should have used the word "like" instead of "enjoy" to avoid confusion: There are plenty of people who like evil, such as masochists.
Quoting AmadeusD
If by unpleasant you mean dislike, then that couldn't be correct. I already illustrated in the OP what I mean by good and evil and what I mean by good and evil creatures.
Quoting AmadeusD
It is not. You are a good person, by a good person I mean that you prefer pleasure instead of suffering. You expressed that you don't like pain in your first post in this thread. Therefore, you could not be an evil creature.
This doesn't solve the issue. If Evil is as you describe, no amount of enjoyment is acceptable under that category. That's a serious problem here.
Quoting MoK
And you have not used htem consistently, as noted here and prior. That's the entire point of these replies. The inconsistency is, I believe, leading you claim things you don't hold true.
Quoting MoK
1. No i didn't. At all. And the post is right there. Here's the post:
Quoting AmadeusD
That's the entire post. So, either you're lying or thinking of something else. I am unsure whether you're having some trouble, or you just forgot what thread you were in?
2. That concept of a Good person is a non sequitur. As noted.
3. That doesn't fit with either your conception, or general conceptions. If you 'like' pain, then you enjoy it and prefer pleasure to suffering (you have confused suffering and pain here, to be sure).
Non sequiturs all the way down, it seems.
Suffering could be psychological or physical, so-called pain in the second case. It seems to me that you don't like suffering, pain, for example. That means that you have a good nature or you are a good creature.
I think other creatures, like animals, also suffer.
Quoting javi2541997
By physical suffering, I mean a kind of suffering whose cause is physical, like when you cut your finger. Psychological suffering is otherwise. The effect is the same, namely suffering.
Do you like or dislike suffering?
Ok, so could you give an example of when you like suffering?
Like @180 Proof, this struck me as the unsupported part of your OP and I'd ask why this should be the goal.
To quote Dylan:
"A self-ordained professors tongue
Too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty
Is just equality in school
Equality, I spoke the word
As if a wedding vow
Ah, but I was so much older then
Im younger than that now."
That is, an unnuanced equation of liberty or goodness generally to equality or really to any one single thing is overly simplistic, the behavior of someone who claims to know more than he knows, the result of clinging to youthful unprocessed idealism.
I already discussed what I mean by equality through my conversation by @javi2541997. The thread is short so you can spot those posts quickly. If you wish, I can see if I can find more information than this discussion.
I also respond to @180 Proof as well in this thread. He refused to answer my question, which was key to the discussion, calling it a non-sequitur!
Ok, so you are having a sort of pain, muscle pain, for example. Muscle pain is my case. I think we are simple people dealing with suffering and are not narcissists at all.
You respond to my OP by saying about your pain. It seems that you can handle it, which sounds right to me. I still don't know whether you agree with my OP or not.
I agree equality before the law is a good political ideal. Thats one whole conversation, about politics and the formation of the relationship between citizens and the state and the law.
I agree equal opportunity would be nice, but practically will never happen. Thats economics and maybe sociology. Totally different discussion and use of equality. We will never be able to create a world where all people have all opportunities equally because of the nature of people and the nature of the world, and the nature of people in the world.
I disagree people are by nature equal to each other. Quite the opposite, I believe all of us are each unique, and unequal. This is biology, psychology and theology.
So depending on what you mean by equality for humans, and unless you are only talking politics, I likely disagree with you.
Quoting MoK
I dont know what that means.
I agree too.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Correct, given your last point.
Quoting Fire Ologist
How about not spending money on the military, saving money for the right education, and creating new job opportunities? Could you rationalize making a weapon to kill humans?
Quoting Fire Ologist
So, you think that we have not evolved well enough?
Quoting Fire Ologist
Yes, we are different.
Quoting Fire Ologist
By equality, I mean that all members of humanity get what they deserve, opportunities, growth, and then delivering the fruit of the growth.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Morality is about realizing what is right to do, good, or evil, given the definition of good and evil in the OP.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752
Pain does not equal suffering.
Yes, pain is not wrong/bad per se. That is discussed in the OP. And I am not conflating suffering with pain. Suffering and pain, however, are related; suffering is defined as the state of undergoing pain.
What is evil other than a word? Like ignorance is an evil, but it doesn't always lead to suffering. Ignorance can be bliss.
How can ignorance be bliss?
I don't think so! I would be happy to discuss the OP from the start if you are interested.
What if a person derives pleasure from suffering or suffering from pleasure? I'm not sure this is complex enough a theory to account for the human condition.
AI says
"The saying "ignorance is bliss" suggests that not knowing certain things can lead to a more peaceful and worry-free state of mind."
Now add to this that there is a God who wants the best for you, and he will protect you and give you what you ask for. And he will do the same for all deserving people.
Now what can possibly go wrong?
Can you? The only thing that I am aware of is my mood change, from anger to happiness, for example. I am not denying that moods cannot be interrelated.
Quoting MrLiminal
I think it is.
Why do you think that God created us curious? There would be no humanity without curiosity.
Sadists and masochists come to mind. Or the mixed feelings of things like nostalgia. I think you are oversimplifying human emotional range.
A masochist, for example, is an evil creature. S/he likes evil. What do you mean by mixed feelings? To experience both good and evil? The basic ingredients of such a state are good and evil.
Why would enjoying pain that is caused to you be evil?
And yes, nostalgia is inherently a mixed feeling. It is a longing for a past that combines both positive feelings for the memory and negative feelings for the loss. The current usage of the word has drifted somewhat.
People are complicated, emotions even more so. Also, not everything is reduceable to pure good or evil.
I change your question slightly: Why would liking pain that is caused to you be evil? I distinguish between enjoying and liking. By liking, I mean you prefer something.
Correct. Curiosity is the fundamental aspect of life.
Quoting Athena
I have to say evolution is accepted as a scientific fact, but that does not mean that there is Divine intervention is not involved during the processes of evolution. That is true because physics is precise, but it is not exactly precise! Evolution is an imprecise discipline. So, there may be a slight change in the matter beyond the precision of physics. Consider that as fine-tuning Divine's intervention, which is necessary for the emergence of life. So, we cannot make a solid argument against Divine intervention when it comes to the philosophy of science!
First of all, The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the emergence of life, that's abiogenesis, not evolution. Second, there's no need to try and come up with an argument against divine intervention when there's no sound argument and/or evidence for divine intervention. We should accept a hypothesis as a theory only when there is sufficient evidence to support it. Lastly, if we don't currently know something, in regards to physics, then our conclusion should be, "we don't know." It's not, "we don't know, therefore, it's divine intervention." That's the philosophy of science.
BTW,
Not accepting a hypothesis does not necessarily mean that you accept it as being false/wrong.
I have an argument for the Mind is the cause of change in physical that you can find it here.
Quoting night912
Our instruments have certain precision, so it is not about whether we can say "We don't know". We can say this for sure: one cannot exclude the role of Divine intervention when it comes to life!
Sure, as night pointed out, rejecting does not mean accepting it as false.
However, we can absolutely set it to one side until something even vaguely indicative comes along. So far, it hasn't, so we're almost behooved to set it to one side, currently. This has been the case for about 200 years, best I can tell. There's simply no good reason to continue entertaining it on current knowledge. Given that this is a culmination of moving away from Divine intervention as a reasonable hypothesis, the indication is that the more we know, the less likely it becomes to the point of almost assured falsity (not assured - almost assured).
I understand that. So he does not accept the hypothesis since?
Well, why do you reject it if you know it is actually false? I think we should consider all hypotheses unless we can show that some of them are false.
Becauase there is absolutely no reason to entertain all comers. I will entertain theories with something (even a lick) of indication they might be true. Fairy stories do not fall into this category.
But you cannot falsify that fairies are untrue, given that our instruments are not precise enough.
I think that the idea of fairies is important when it comes to reality, since we cannot explain out-of-body experiences, near-death experiences, etc., without them. There is one thread on NDE. There is another thread on what the soul is. That is all I am aware of. Perhaps there are more.
NDE, to me, refers to the existence of something that experiences when even the brain is shut down. They seem to experience themselves in the form of a ghost as well. Once you accept a ghost as a real thing, a new world will open to you. What about spiritual reality?
THe brain is not entirely shut down during NDEs. That's why they are NDEs. It doesn't suggest much of anything but that the mind is powerful.
I also note fairies appeared nowhere in that?
What spiritual reality?
NDE also occurs in cases in which the brain also shuts down according to researcher: "Near-death experiences (NDEs) are intensely vivid and often life-transforming experiences, many of which occur under extreme physiological conditions such as trauma, ceasing of brain activity, deep general anesthesia or cardiac arrest in which no awareness or sensory experiences should be possible according to the prevailing views in neuroscience."
Quoting AmadeusD
Have you ever heard of DMT?
Quoting AmadeusD
The reality that is hidden from our senses for some reason. The reality we cannot detect it by our instruments either, because they are very light.
1. If brain activity entirely ceased, it could not be restarted. Vegetative states are not death. That's key.
2. I am extremely well-informed about DMT. I spent around 10 years intensely embedded in the communities relevant to it including helping to design research protocols, raising funds, public speaking, ceremony and much else besides..
3. I see, that's fair enough. I'm unsure there is anything interesting there. Infrared light isn't that myusterious, is it?
I am not an expert in this field, and I just report what an expert says. Perhaps @Sam26 can comment on this more.
Quoting AmadeusD
Oh, that is interesting. So, you used DMT. Have you ever used it in such a dosage to encounter the Elves mentioned in this video?
Quoting AmadeusD
Or perhaps something is interesting as it is mentioned in the above video. I am a schizophrenic, so I experience weird things all the time. Some of my experiences are interesting.
There is literally a surge of brain activity during NDEs, typically gamma waves. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4576755/ - this paper is a mishmash, and gives us almost nothing to move the field forward. It is someone employing wishful thinking - trying to lump together psychedelic experiences, NDEs and several other notions. These fall apart at the level of basic scrutiny, given the lack of homogenaiety in any of them.
Quoting MoK
I have. I have also spoken at length with Terence's brother Dennis, who is a friend. I have encountered entities. The Elves noted in this video appear in the reportage after Terence became popular. It is not likely, in any way, that these are actual entities. Dennis accepts this, for what that's worth. I have also encountered entities with Mescaline, Psilocybin and Salvia (I do not recommend the latter, at least smoked. It is meant to be chewed fresh).
Quoting MoK
That's fair, but not what I was getting at - it is not interesting to the field. People hallucinate and image things. Wow. Yknow?
Do you know of any studies that support this?
Quoting AmadeusD
Maybe.
Quoting AmadeusD
Oh, that is a lot of drugs! And, why do you think that your encounters are not referring to real entities?
Quoting AmadeusD
What is interesting in my experience is that my hallucinations are coherentmy conversations, my visions, my other experiences that I cannot explain with words. Therefore, I believe my experiences may refer to other beings, unless my subconscious mind is deceiving me.
I'm no expert on DMT. I've listened to many accounts of people who have taken DMT, so I have some knowledge. If I'm an expert in anything, it would be NDEs and Wittgenstein's OC. My expertise is very focused and limited. That said, I'm loath to call myself an expert in any subject.
Cool. I am wondering if there is any brain activity during NDEs, or if there was at least one case in which there was no brain activity during the NDE.
There is a classic example that I've given in my thread 'Evidence of Consciousness Surviving the Body.' It's about Pam Reynolds from Atlanta. You can look it up on YouTube, but some of the videos are old.
The following is a section of my book where I mention this case:
From Testimony to Knowledge: Evaluating Near-Death Experiences
Chapter 1: The Preliminaries
[i]In 1991, Pam Reynolds lay on an operating table at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, undergoing a rare standstill procedure to remove a life-threatening aneurysm near her brain stem. Surgeons stopped her heart, lowered her body temperature to 60°F, and drained blood from her brain. She was clinically dead, with no measurable brain activity; her eyes were taped shut, and her ears were plugged with speakers emitting 100-decibel clicks to monitor brain-stem function. Yet Pam later described rising above her body and observing the surgical team with extraordinary precision. She noted the bone saws peculiar shape, like an electric toothbrush with a groove for interchangeable blades, and saw the case containing spare blades. She heard a female voice say, We have a problem, her arteries are too small, followed by a discussion of trying the other side. She reported being drawn through a tunnel toward a light more brilliant than anything imaginable, yet not painful to perceive. There she encountered deceased relatives, including her grandmother and an uncle she had known only from photographs. They communicated without words: Its not your time. You must go back.
When surgeons later confirmed these details, the unusual design of the Midas Rex bone saw, the unexpected problem with her arteries requiring femoral access from the left side, and the exact words spoken, they were puzzled. Dr. Robert Spetzler, the renowned neurosurgeon who operated, admitted his bewilderment: I dont have an explanation for it. I dont know how she can quote the conversation and see the instruments. These are things she shouldnt have been able to experience. He confirmed additional details that troubled him: Pams accurate description of the craniotomy drills unexpected pitch (a high D natural that bothered her musicians ear) and the specific pattern in which they had shaved only the top portion of her head, leaving hair below for cosmetic reasons. From a scientific perspective, Spetzler concluded, I dont know how to explain it.[/i]
Many thanks. So, there was at least one case in which the person experiencing NDE had no brain activity. Case closed!
One case is enough if you want to discard the idea that the experience arises from brain activity.
You need many affirmations to tell a theory is correct. One negation, however, tells that the theory is incorrect.
I agree, maybe. But I think it's likely, rather than a coin toss.
Quoting MoK
I am on drugs. What kind of logic is it that says you alter your consciousness in a way that reliably causes hallucination, yet you take hte entities as real?? Seems utterly bizarre to think they are real without further.
Quoting MoK
Your imagination is also coherent. This is an absolute nothing in terms of supporting a view that they might be real entites. I have full-blown conversations with my dead dog in my dreams sometimes.
I've actually had one dream where i was with Graham Hancock on a vine-covered river cruiser speaking at length about the possibility that psilocybin mushrooms graduated through ancient Welsh ceremony to the Druids. Two days later, I fell asleep and hte dream picked up in the exact same place. I was able to report hte entire conversation. This simply means my mind is agile.
Did the entities you encountered show any sign of intelligence? If yes, why are you discarding them as unreal? I have never used DMT, but if I had a chance, I would ask questions I don't have answers for to check whether these entities are real intelligent entities or just mere hallucinations.
Quoting AmadeusD
How do you define mind?
Because I am intelligent, and it is occurring inside my head. There is nothing to be explained. We understand how this occurs. We create entities constantly. Taking drugs just makes it easier. I cannot understand the question, in some sense, because it seems to reverse the general course of assessment.
Quoting MoK
Mental faculties, collectively.
Are you saying what you experience is made by you, yet you are not aware of how you make these experiences? That is a very odd position.
Quoting AmadeusD
I mean, if they are intelligent entities and can answer questions and continue conversations, etc., then why do you consider them to be unreal? There must be other real entities if they answer your questions, since you don't have answers to your questions. I cannot imagine how you could make these entities in your head, answering your question while you don't know the answers.
This is exactly wrong. You don't know how you produce your every-day experiences, let alone hallucinations. There is simply zero reason to entertain hte idea that these entities are real beyond my mind's creation. It is not an odd position in any sense of that word.
Quoting MoK
There has never been any evidence that this has occurred. That you can access your pre-conscious when in an altered state is very well understood.
Quoting MoK
Which makes this, also, exactly wrong.
So, you are saying that you create those entities with your mind?
Quoting AmadeusD
But the guy in the video mentioned intelligence in entities he encountered.
Quoting AmadeusD
I don't know about that. Do you mind elaborating?
Quoting AmadeusD
Why?
Yes, and that's the general consensus because we already create entities in our minds, in waking and sleeping consciousness. There is literally zero reason to think otherwise with drug use. Particularly as most of these drugs use either neurotransmitters themselves, or analogs thereof.
Quoting MoK
I could tlel you that Jesus spoke to me in a dream and told me 9/11 would happen a week before it did. Big whoopee.
Quoting MoK
Psychedelics reduce blood flood in many areas including the anterior cingulate cortex and hte amygdala. These have to do with emotional processing and "pre-recorded" responses. When these are dampened, we get access to thoughts we usually don't have access to, and information we usually don't want to see. This is why they are so good for exposure therapy - it helps drag up pre-conscious thoughts and ideas which, if understood, would allow us to transmute pain and trauma into better things. Note: Salvia doesn't fucking do this lmaooo. It hits an opioid receptor.
Quoting MoK
You do have answers to your questions. That's logically deducible from the facts at hand: You are the only person around. You answer your own questions. Presto!
Really? And you think that Jesus is made in your mind, too?
Quoting AmadeusD
I would say that you get access to the content of the subconscious mind when you are on a drug.
It depends exactly what you're asking - Jesus was created in someone's mind (at least, the character Jesus - I am alive to the fact that there was, most likely, an historical Jesus too - lets not split hairs. I certainly didn't know that guy). When I imagine Jesus, that is a self-created image. So, in my scenario, I have created the Jesus and more than likely created everything he utters too. Its not out of the question that my mind would import actual claimed utterances of Christ given I am 30-ish years deep into being acutely aware of those claims and claimed utterances.
Did I invent Jesus? No. Do I create an image of, and fill-in the character of Jesus whenever I personally imagine that character? Yes, definitely.
Quoting MoK
That does not seem possible. The subconscious is not thought to be accessible. The pre-conscious, however, is. If that's all you meant, then I agree, but the chances that you can access anything you've not, at some stage, consciously come into contact with, is next to zero. I'm open, but no one's ever been able to show that they've gained information they couldn't have had previously on psychedelics. Despite claims of such.
When it comes to the conscious mind, preconsciousness is a term that refers to the accumulation of data in the conscious mind. If the data is proper, then a chain of thought is generated by the conscious mind. The conscious mind has an important duty: processing the delivered data very fast. The conscious mind has a very limited memory; this memory is registered for important topics only. But if you read what I wrote once more carefully, you will then realize that the conscious mind cannot do its job without a perfect intervention of the subconscious mind. You work on a topic given the limited related data, finish the job by creating a new idea, and then the conscious mind is done and stays silent. That is what you are, the conscious mind. Like it or not, without the subconscious mind, you can do very limiting things. There would be no long stream of thoughts, no long stream of words, no communication, etc. The subconscious mind is huge. It has access to all the ideas generated by the conscious mind. It also knows what kind of data might be relevant when it comes to processing the data, which might lead to the creation of a new idea. I think you at least face the subconscious mind when you are on the drug! What do you expect to find? Wonder!
The preconscious and subconscious are not hte same. The subconscious cannot be made conscious, is hte position of those in the field. That is with whom you should argue that point. The preconscious does what you're describing, as best I can tell.
But, you'll note, none of this butters bread for psychonaughts trying to claim they hav retrieved previously-unknown information.
I see and I agree.
Quoting AmadeusD
However, in this video, Terence mentioned that he had conversations with entities he encountered. He clearly mentioned that entities answered questions as well.
He was never able to procure information previously unavailable to him.
That said, I, more than anyone on this forum is seems, will be sympathetic to any Terence you bring up. He was probably hte best extemporaneous speaker i've ever seen.
Oh, I see. Thanks for the information.
It cannot, therefore ever, perhaps at least once (or even reliably and constantly), be triggered by a static and consistent means?
So, Pavlov's theory is just generational mass hysteria, then? No, of course not.
Point being, it can reliably be "drawn out" to the point it becomes clear as day to another observer, if that observer is tact enough. And if that is true, which it is, it means one can clearly, with discernment and skill, draw it out one's self. How could it not?
Otherwise, why even suggest it even exists in the first place? Why not say there's a "superconscious" that's just a giant dinosaur rampaging through the streets of New York that one can never interact with inside the mind of each and every one of us, while we're at it.
It was defined and coined for a reason, that reason being because it is in fact detectable, and so can in fact be made conscious. Perhaps it's difficult. Impossible by one's self. But that's no rhyme or reason to call a thing imperceptible.
My understanding is that it is point-blank not accessible. The pre-conscious is what you are describing. based on two Princeton MOOCs i took.
Not exhaustive, but this explains what I mean. I can't really understand the more silly aspects of this response (but I do note that was their point lol)
Thank you for the video. I plan to watch it when I get the chance.
My question would be: How do we know it even exists, then? Specifically if, presumably it cannot ever be made conscious, doesn't that mean it can't ever be observed or proven to exist?
The point of the silly example was to ask the further question: If the unconscious is real, how do we know something deeper doesn't exist? And then something even deeper than that? How do we know there aren't layers beyond the layer we assume to be the deepest if nothing other than the conscious and pre-conscious can ever be detected or otherwise observed?
I'll in reverse. Yeah, this is a good point. I think most in the field tend to seek something indicating that there is somethign further. Although essentially debunked since, Benjamin Libet's for example gave an indication that mentation must be happening prior to conscious awareness of it. That gives a logical reason to presume some mental 'area' below the level of that which is conscious. I don't think we've seen any good reason to presume something 'below' the subconscious.
To your question: My understanding is that the reason we posit a subconscious is little, otherwise-unexplainable (this isn't airtight, just hte argument as it goes) appearances of emotions, desires and behaviours that indicate same. You might slip when greeting your crush and say something slightly more flirty, and not know why you did it. It might take you a long time to realise you are crushing on this person. And that might only happen when your pre-conscious processes a memory like that slip-up and analysses it via introspection. I suppose this could be said to be an avenue for making it 'conscious' but there's a stop-gap where no contact between sub-and-actual consciousness occurs.
Again, not an analyst myself - just an understanding I have :)