Talk:Unconscious mind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of Psychology WikiProject, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Unconscious VS. Subconscious
Coming here in search of specific reasons why people keep getting unconscious and subconscious confused with each other shows that many authors here are also appear to be confused, because they BOTH link to Unconscious. This is understandable since they are commonly interchanged when speaking on such topics. But then, which should a person use for a given situation? According to many dictionaries, they do_not have the same meaning.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=unconscious
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=subconscious
- Unconscious is basically a state of being "without consciousness". (ie. asleep, knocked-out)
- Subconscious is "just below consciousness". Like Jenny said, it's not technically a state of mind at all. It's the part of you that observes things in the environment without the conscious paying attention to them. (People tend spend much of their time driving subconsciously, while the conscious listens to the radio or reads street signs.) Also, contrary to popular belief, hypnotism is generally done with the Subconscious, not the unconscious.
With the natural separation of Subconscious and Unconscious, more research needs to be done on defining them individually. That is the only obvious way to achieving success.
I heard once that 90% of our actions on a daily basis, such as the decisions we make and the interactions with others, are determined or at least affected by subconscious thought. Is there any validity to this statement? If so, does it belong in this article? --BMS 05:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hey! What is a difference between unconscious mind and subconscious mind ? Kenny 20:22, 2004 Jun 8 (UTC)
I moved the following to the consciousness entry, because, in my view, an explanation of consciousness is not the responsibility of an article about unconsciousness: "Many cognitive scientists view consciousness as an emergent phenomenon arising from a hierarchy of unconscious processes."
cognitive science has some evidence for the existence of the unconscious. does that belong here, or in the cog. sci. article?
Removed this:
- or the social construction of reality, that is, the view of the world and of right and wrong one learns from parents and peers
That seemed like a less than helpful or accurate gloss of what Freud thought the superego was. He certainly didn't (as far as I'm aware) use such modern silly-clever catchphrases as "Social Construction of Reality."
Also removed this:
I don't see why it merits a link alongside the others. --Larry Sanger
- Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind theory is one theory that holds that mental functioning consists of a large number of modules, most of which are unknown to the conscious mind, and hence part of the unconscious.
Two questions: (1) who cares about Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind theory? (2) (Rhetorical) Do psychologists ever use "unconscious" in the special sense of "not part of the 'module' to which one has direct access"--or would that be only Marvin Minsky--in which case, again, who cares?
I can't see any value in the above paragraph about Minsky, so I've removed it.
I've also removed the see also list, which included Behaviorism, Cognitive science, and Neurobiology. Behaviorism seems downright irrelivant. Cognitive science was a redundant link, appearing earlier in the article. And I don't see the value in a link to neurobiology, without an explanation of why it might be relevant.
I have two questions now:
- Can someone explicate the role of Jung? Without more information, the little reference to him doesn't seem to have a natural place in the article.
- Does contemporary psychoanalysis speak of an unconscious? (Is there a such thing as "contemporary psychoanalysis"? Maybe "psychotherapy" would be a better term?)
--Ryguasu 09:21 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)
I have added some examples of the unconscious at work. They seem pretty convincing to me. Let me know if clarification is needed. I removed the only example that was previously there, as it seemed trivial.
This page seems to be coming together without shooting off into controversial waters.
I also added a brief piece on Jung's view. I removed: What is "phenomenological reflection"? (Something about concentrating to access normally unconscious stuff.) Surely it is important for an article on the unconscious.
-- Tad Boniecki
Well, this page can stand quite a bit of expansion. For now, I added the paragraph about Watson and Popper being the most notable forefathers of those who object to the idea of the unconscious. Isabella (morimom) - Jan 2 2004
Added something re Freud's division of consciousness into the preconscious, conscious and unconscious, on dreams, and on the distinction/similarity between unconscious and nonconscious events. Isabella (morimom) - Jan 3 2004
Edited / added all kinds of stuff, like the distinction between The Unconscious and unconscious events; also, removed the heading "why contemporary cognitive science posits an unconscious". There is no evidence that cognitive science posits an unconscious - there is a lot of talk about unconscious events but little interest in (and often disdain for) Freudian/Jungian ideas. The list below that is still quite the pell-mell grab-bag but it's an interesting one. Isabella (morimom) - Jan 6 2004
[edit] Seemingly incorrect information
The last mentioned point about psychologists in advertisisng using subliminal messages looks completely wrong, as the relevant article shows: advertisers don't employ these because they don't work, and are controversial among the public, who often believe they do work, and would respond with outcry if such things were proven. I think what was intended was not the term "subliminal messages", but "unconscious associations", like visible sexual cues. I don't wish to change it myself because I don't know any of this for certain. 203.24.100.132 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Differentiation between Subconscious, Unconscious and Memory?
The article's sentences
"[...] the notion of an unconscious mind (or subconscious) [...]"
and
"[...] the subconscious (frequently misused and confused with the unconscious) was that merely autonomic function of the brain."
seem to contradict each other. Can somebody explain? What exactly is the difference (according to Freud / the author / other opinions) between subconscious and unconscious? Is it correct that according to the iceberg model, the subconscious is synonymous with the preconscious, the layer of the unconscious just below the conscious and therefore a small subset of the unconscious?
Also: I often read things like "the unconscious STORES" this and that. Does it really have any storage (or memory, as in storage & recognition) function? Would it make sense to look at storage/memory and conscious and unconscious separately, similar to the storage and processing in a computer?
And: Does it annoy anybody that the words unconscious and nonconscious are used as technical terms for different things, although most people would (and should) perceive them as synonymous?
Thanks, Torsten
[edit] One Proposed Unconscious / Subconscious Distinction
Thorsten: Hallo, I'd be very interested in finding out more on the iceberg model... please could you elaborate a little on this? (My understanding doesn't use a 'physical' model or hierarchy as they've tended to fudge issues or depend on implicit/covert ungrounded assumptions. My offering below is functional as I am interested in its application, but if you could outline iceberg theory, I would be grateful.)
Here's my two penn'orth. For the purposes of a clearer explanation, I'm only defining consciousness in terms of the focus of attention, or intentional object the given mind is consious of, phenomenologically. That is, what you are aware of being aware of, right now (be it object, concept, sensation, idea, whim, plan or self).
Many parts of your awareness will not be conscious at a given precise moment, but can become conscious through conscious will, suggestion, or 'unconscious' processes. You may actively choose to become conscious of your own breathing. You may be reminded with suggestions, of the temperature of your back/ which exact parts of your feet are in contact with the floor with how much pressure/ your current level of thirst/ what is directly to the left of your screen without looking up. Alternatively, you may have no say in the matter of what grasps your unconscious attention. In a busy bar, intensely focussed on the fascinating topic you're discussing with the friend opposite, you drown out the loud background din. But if someone you know and haven't seen in a while enters the bar (in your peripheral vision), it's probable you'll "just happen" to look up just as they walk past. Face recognition parts of the brain light up, then eyes look at the stimulus, then emotional response occurs.
The following definitions form the working model used in hypnotherapy.
[edit] Working Glossary
That which you are conscious of: whatever the mental world is focussed on or towards, at one exact moment. Whether this 'intentional object' is consciously sought/ decided on, or merely came to your attention.
For now, let's assume choice and planning are conscious processes, and that which you are conscious of (intentional object of consciousness) are the subjects of your awareness. (Be it internal thought or external stimuli.) One can be said to be in a 'conscious state' also.
Non-conscious: whatever happens to not be conscious. This wouldn't imply of the non-conscious subject matter that it cannot be conscious, nor must any new beliefs be accepted for it to be understood. I suppose this would include 'preconscious' knowledge, but saying 'non-conscious' is a way to avoid making claims about the order of process, or covert causal assumptions. An exciting/troubling tangent here would be to Benjamin Libet's theory of the Consciousness Veto, where thoughts occur and are cancelled out BEFORE they can become conscious.
A non-conscious piece of knowledge might be, knowing the name of the capital of France. A non-conscious process might be that of regular breathing - which one can become conscious of if desired.
Subconscious: That which is underpins conscious workings of the mind, and the thinker's actions. (I use 'underpins' because Sub=under etymologically, but doesn't make claims about physical characteristics of consciousness, the brain, neural correlates of learning/memory/knowledge/awareness/thought etc.)
There is no 'sub-conscious state' only factors influencing consciousness itself, the intentional objects we're conscious of, and the choices made through conscious decision which are partly governed by (a) assumptions, and (b) beliefs. Of these, closer inspection shows many assumptions the thinker wasn't aware of... often an alternative hasn't ever occured to them. Thus it can be changed: consciously changing the subconscious until the action becomes habit (an action performed unsconsciously) and the new belief subconsciously influences the new behaviour.
One can become conscious that these factors are there, and such covert assumptions of failure or weakness can be changed. (Through natural introspection, philosophical thinking, hypnosis, or consciously challenged through counselling and psychotherapy.) Expectation is subconscious: please see Wikipedia's own "Help" section, "Sources" and find "Check multiple independent sources" ...black aces of hearts explanation.
Unconscious: That which necessarily (logically) cannot ever be conscious. When you are deep asleep, you are unconscious. You are unaware of awareness, unless dreaming... when you become aware of a non-real 'film' of events where no existing stimulus exists. Dead people and people in substance-induced comas are unconscious. This state can only be verified by comparison with conscious states.
This is not necesarily the best model available, but is the most effective model in correcting addictive/ destructive behavioural patterns such as success-sabotaging behaviour, smoking, social anxiety, 'irrational' phobia. Evidence supports the model, and its Freudian origins (search "Freud neuroscience" in the Scientific American for readable articles, www.sciam.com for overview and references.)
Memory is never objectively 'what happened', but is always from a specific perspective. That is both physically ("I stood in the corner of the room") and subconsciously ("the arrogant man did what I expected him to"). The emotions attached to a memory can change, as subconscious beliefs about the memory change. It takes emotion to encode memory and make it more consciously accessible. Hypnosis seems to demonstrate that all memories can be retrieved and \consciously remembered... even those in peripheral vision. (Unconsciously stored). However they can also be tampered with by suggestion from unscrupulous practitioners! My belief is that this is an emotional response to an untrained and unskilled 'bully' type approach from the hypnotist - such effects are also seen in indoctrination and brainwashing on a mass scale.
Hope this helps to clarify things in some way.
Jenny Glanville(UK)
[edit] Expert tag
I added the expert tag as some of this information is odd and seems dubious and it probably needs a rewrite with the attention of someone really familiar with the material. It's present form is really sloppy and confusing. --DanielCD 21:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
I'm no scientist, but this seems to make no sense:
- ...Popper defined science in terms which necessarily led to the exclusion of psychoanalysis. Thus, defining science in another way may lead to including psychoanalysis into this domain of knowledge.
I realize strict definitions are important in many fields of study, but this line of reasoning strikes me as the illogical flailing of someone who refuses to lose an argument. Redefining the word "airplane" will not make pigs fly. --Captaindan 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Whether the counter argument is reasonable or not is unimportant here. Problem is that, this POV is unsourced. I will delete unsourced POV in thise section. Vapour
I have deleted following.
- "However, critics of Popper have underlined that Popper's exclusion of psychoanalysis from the normal domain of science was a direct consequence of his specific definition of science as being constituted by what may be falsifiable. In other words, Popper defined science in terms which necessarily led to the exclusion of psychoanalysis. Thus, defining science in another way may lead to including psychoanalysis into this domain of knowledge."
- I don't doubt that someone counter Popper's criticism along this line. Please find at least one reference so proper source attribution can be made.
- "Still, many, perhaps most, psychologists and cognitive scientists agree that many things of which we are not conscious happen in our mind(s)."
- I'm not sure this claim can be substantiated. Plus this is a use of weasle word (some, most, many, majority). I'm quite sure there are lot of brain activities (which include such thing as regulation of heart beat) which we are not "conciously" aware of. Are these profession refering to "brain activities" or "uncoucious mind" or "subconcious"?
- "The argument seems to be about how mind will be studied, not whether there is anything that happens unconsciously or not."
- This looks like someone's personal POV. Vapour
[edit] Proposed Unconscious/Subconscious Solution
The unconscious article talks about the history of the idea in psychoanalytic theory. The subconscious article stands separate as a catch-all for the other stuff. Bacchiad 05:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with this. I only wish I had the time to work on it properly. --DanielCD 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jung and pseudo-science
Jung is definitely pseudo-science. How can I write this into article? I don't want it getting reverted. Hylas Chung 08:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- You'd have to state where he claimed whatever aspects of his work you are referring to to be hard science and exactly what aspects of his work are supposed to be pseudoscientific. While many aspects of his work may be questionable, there are aspects of his work aren't psudoscientific at all, so making a global claim wouldn't be appropriate. It's likely that claims of psudoscience be left to the individual concepts and their testability. I'm not sure why you left the comment here; are you meaning that the idea of the unconscious is psudoscientific?
- In a nutshell, can you be more specific? --DanielCD 16:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hylas, my friend - know ye nothing of the ways of Wikipedia? You just put in a sentence that says "some observers consider Jung's ideas to be pseudoscience" or some other such copout formation. Bacchiad 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
