What is "The Unconscious"?

[Tricky]

Psychologist and forum luminary Jeff Corey made a number of posts in the "Being skeptical of skepticism" thread about the unconscious. He posits some interesting ideas, like the concept that "the unconscious" is not a ral thing, but just becomes a catch-all for things we don't understand. I have always assumed that the unconscious existed and that it had some effect on our behavior, but I'm not a psychologist. Maybe it's a concept that has outlived it's utility and maybe it still has some value especially in communicating with those unschooled in psychology. I think it is worth some discussion. I'll start by posting some of Jeff's comments here, edited slightly to remove the jokes. Link to the original if you want to see the jokes.

This is another instance of using that nonscientific concept to merely describe the fact that sometimes people make accurate quesses based upon partial cues.
Putting causes into the nonobservable and nonfalsifiable "unconscious" is known as the Freudian (F)allacy.

Actually, "Freudian (F)allacy" is a ... reference to Sir Karl Popper's dissection of Freudian theory as being nonfalsifiable and, therefore, not scientific at all.

As one noted psychiatrist said, "The unconscious is the UFO of psychiatry".

Yes, the "unconscious mind" is a useless concept in my field of psychology. Unfalsifiable theoretical constructs are a feculent burden.
The psychiatrist is E. Fuller Torrey.

Do we have "unconscious minds"? Is it just "partial clues"? How would we possibly recognize the unconscious if it was truly unconscious?

Okay, that's the starting point. I have some other ideas I may toss out later, but for now, I'd like to see what folks here (especially Jeff) have to say.

 

[Mercutio]

"Unconscious" has much too much baggage. "Non-conscious" is much better, although both are fuzzy language. Conscious awareness, too, is no guarantee of accuracy--we can be "aware" of our reasons for performing some action... and be demonstrably wrong.

Unconscious motivation, as it is commonly spoken of, is (I am trying to think of an exception, but I cannot) circularly inferred from the behavior it is alleged to have caused. As such, it has every bit as much evidence for it as, say, vengeful gods, playful spirits, evil psychokinetic puppeteers, and the imperio curse.

 

[Jeff Corey]

The first step would normally be to define what we mean by the "unconscious mind". I think it is meaningless and needs no definition.

 

[Jeff Corey]

"Unconscious" has much too much baggage. "Non-conscious" is much better, although both are fuzzy language. Conscious awareness, too, is no guarantee of accuracy--we can be "aware" of our reasons for performing some action... and be demonstrably wrong.

Unconscious motivation, as it is commonly spoken of, is (I am trying to think of an exception, but I cannot) circularly inferred from the behavior it is alleged to have caused. As such, it has every bit as much evidence for it as, say, vengeful gods, playful spirits, evil psychokinetic puppeteers, and the imperio curse.

Azkaban for you, naughty wizard.

 

[deep]

The first step would normally be to define what we mean by the "unconscious mind". I think it is meaningless and needs no definition.

So how would you explain this?

Much of contemporary psychology has come to recognize that a great deal of human emotional functioning is rooted in unconscious processes. During the last two decades, a lot of behavioral studies were conducted in this field. These studies, for example, showed that humans pick up the emotional content of facial expressions outside conscious awareness and intent to influence perceptions of the target individual. Other studies showed that humans evaluate objects (as for example “good” or “bad”) at an unconscious level.​

Full text (w/ sources cited): http://fmri.uib.no/pdf/publikasjoner/HumanMachineInteraction.pdf

 

[Tricky]

The first step would normally be to define what we mean by the "unconscious mind". I think it is meaningless and needs no definition.

Um... how about "things your mind does that you don't realize it is doing." For example, little habits like drumming your fingers. Is this "unconscious" or is it just a little bit conscious?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Just throwing random knives here: I see the difference between Conscious and Unconscious as a matter of deliberate activity. I could be entirely off here, but I thing that they are not separate things. The only thing that differentiates one from the other is the intentionality factor. When you're dreaming (wether it's actual dreaming or daydreaming) you have reached a state in which your thoughts are no longer being deliberately controlled by yourself. You have taken the hands off the steering wheel and let your thoughts go by themselves so to speak. They're there and they have the same characteristics as the thoughts that you manipulate, only that these are in "autopilot" mode. But essentially the chemical process is the same. Therefore, the key to differentiate between conscious and unconscious thoughts lies in the definition of what and how is the mechanisms through which it can be legally said that we're no longer controlling the mental process but rather let it go spinning off its own inertia.

Or maybe not.

If someone can add or subtract something, please do so.

 

[Piggy]

For me, it comes down to awareness.

As in this article:

Decision-making May Be Surprisingly Unconscious Activity

Brain science is revealing that our conscious experience is just one particular part of what our brains do. It has its own circuitry, but of course it's wired in to everything else the brain does.

And it turns out that our conscious experience is "downstream" from many of the functions that really matter.

We become aware of what we do and think after the fact.

When something suddenly looms into our field of vision, we unconsciously flinch or duck, then we become aware of what made us flinch or duck.

Here's an interesting case I've cited in other threads, outlining what happens when unconscious circuits become disconnected from the downstream circuits that generate conscious experience -- in this case, experience of our emotional states and responses:



So when we talk about the unconscious, we're talking about circuitry.

 

[deep]

Just throwing random knives here: I see the difference between Conscious and Unconscious as a matter of deliberate activity. I could be entirely off here, but I thing that they are not separate things. The only thing that differentiates one from the other is the intentionality factor. When you're dreaming (wether it's actual dreaming or daydreaming) you have reached a state in which your thoughts are no longer being deliberately controlled by yourself. You have taken the hands off the steering wheel and let your thoughts go by themselves so to speak. They're there and they have the same characteristics as the thoughts that you manipulate, only that these are in "autopilot" mode. But essentially the chemical process is the same. Therefore, the key to differentiate between conscious and unconscious thoughts lies in the definition of what and how is the mechanisms through which it can be legally said that we're no longer controlling the mental process but rather let it go spinning off its own inertia.

From that paper I linked:

Current theories of emotion suggest that stimuli are first processed via an automatically engaged neural mechanism, which occurs outside conscious awareness. This mechanism operates in conjunction with a slower and more comprehensive process that allows a detailed evaluation of the potentially harmful stimulus [15], [16]. Evidence comes from neuroimaging studies. Event-related potential (ERP) data revealed a double dissociation for the conscious versus unconscious perception of negative stimuli. In the unconscious condition, responses to the perception of negative stimuli were enhanced relative to neutral for the N2 “excitatory” component (a negative potential at +/-200 milliseconds), which is thought to represent orienting and automatic aspects of information processing. By contrast, conscious perception of negative stimuli was associated with relatively enhanced responses for the late P3 “inhibitory” component (a positive potential at +/-300 milliseconds), implicated in the integration of emotional processes [16].​

Sorry for pasting so much, but there wasn't really a good summarizing passage to extract from that paragraph.

Anyway, wouldn't the research referenced above (and elsewhere throughout that paper) qualify as scientific evidence of the unconscious mind?

 

[Piggy]

Anyway, wouldn't the research referenced above (and elsewhere throughout that paper) qualify as scientific evidence of the unconscious mind?

I think the current research shows pretty clearly that the "unconscious mind" is the greater -- and more necessary -- part of the mind.

 

[Mercutio]

Again... "non-conscious" fits equally well, without decades of Freud and Jung tainting the phrase.

 

[leonAzul]

"Unconscious", "non-conscious", and "subconscious" can all be seen to be problematic because their meanings have become so diluted. For example, depending on context, "unconscious" can mean anything from "in a coma", "catatonic", or "deeply asleep".

May I humbly suggest that it were more to the heart of the matter to refer to the "autonomic mind", since it seems we are talking more about mental/brain activity that is essentially independent of awareness rather than due to the lack of awareness--indeed, it sometimes seems to occur in spite of awareness.

 

[cgallaga]

I heard Susan Blackmore say something quite interesting in an Australia panel discussion on consciousness (I hope that's not too much of a derail). She kept asking, are you conscious now? And I think in a way she was pointing out that most of what we do is done without conscious thought or awareness. So in that example wouldn't the unconscious be the vast majority of the state of our brains?

We know that things like breathing happen without conscious intent, but really how much of our day is spent doing things with conscious awareness or intent?

 

[Mercutio]

"Unconscious", "non-conscious", and "subconscious" can all be seen to be problematic because their meanings have become so diluted. For example, depending on context, "unconscious" can mean anything from "in a coma", "catatonic", or "deeply asleep".

May I humbly suggest that it were more to the heart of the matter to refer to the "autonomic mind", since it seems we are talking more about mental/brain activity that is essentially independent of awareness rather than due to the lack of awareness--indeed, it sometimes seems to occur in spite of awareness.

Except that "autonomic" is typically used in "autonomic nervous system", a part of the peripheral nervous system. The vast majority of the workings of the central nervous system, though, also take place outside of conscious awareness. Even the majority of the areas of the brain that are associated with conscious awareness are only performing those functions some of the time--the exact same areas can be (and usually are) functioning without our awareness. It is only a very small percentage of active neural subsystems, competing against one another for prominence, that are the neural correlates of consciousness (if you use "consciousness" as Crick and Koch do) at any given moment.

Other than that, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[deep]

Again... "non-conscious" fits equally well, without decades of Freud and Jung tainting the phrase.

Right, except the term 'unconscious' appears in numerous peer-reviewed research papers instead of 'non-conscious', or any other alternative.

As for multiple meanings - we're referring to the noun, not the adjectives. The noun has only one meaning that I'm aware of.

Now, regarding falsification- what about the (somewhat famous) statement, "there are black-holes"? It cannot be falsified by any possible observation. Also, "for every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt". Same thing. Do you dispute those statements?

 

[Mercutio]

Right, except the term 'unconscious' appears in numerous peer-reviewed research papers instead of 'non-conscious', or any other alternative.

Well, yeah... that's kind of part of the problem. Of course the term is used. Properly and improperly.

As for multiple meanings - we're referring to the noun, not the adjectives. The noun has only one meaning that I'm aware of.

And that is...? (I am serious--depending on level of analysis, I could either agree with you or very much disagree.)

Now, regarding falsification- what about the (somewhat famous) statement, "there are black-holes"? It cannot be falsified by any possible observation. Also, "for every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt". Same thing. Do you dispute those statements?

As a psychologist, I feel far more qualified to speak about matters within my own science than outside of it.

 

[Smackety]

If there is no unconscious mind, why do I cry sometimes when I hear the national anthem? Why would I become aroused when I definitely do not want to? While I may be conscious of my emotional state I am certainly not in conscious control of it. Whatever part of my mind is deciding what emotion to feel, and the part of my mind that decides if something is right or wrong, is not conscious.
The unconscious is the decision making part of the brain that is not under a person's direct control.

 

[deep]

Well, yeah... that's kind of part of the problem. Of course the term is used. Properly and improperly.

If it's being used improperly, how did these papers pass peer-review?

And that is...? (I am serious--depending on level of analysis, I could either agree with you or very much disagree.)

Well, it's not my definition, it's from the dictionary: "the part of the mind that is inaccessible to the conscious mind but that affects behavior and emotions".

As a psychologist, I feel far more qualified to speak about matters within my own science than outside of it.

Sure.

 

[Mark Felt]

Now, regarding falsification- what about the (somewhat famous) statement, "there are black-holes"? It cannot be falsified by any possible observation. Also, "for every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt". Same thing. Do you dispute those statements?

They aren't falsifiable as a practical matter; it falls under the same fallacy of asking someone to disprove the existence of God.

The problem isn't that you can't prove a negative, but that you can't prove(or disprove) an assertation that's too broad. We could search the universe for a hundred thousand years and not find a black-hole, but would this mean that there are no black-holes, or just none where we've searched? Likewise for the metal, though you could prove it by syllogism.

 

[Ysidro]

"Unconscious" has much too much baggage. "Non-conscious" is much better, although both are fuzzy language.

Damn you for saying it first! Subconcious has baggage too. Non-conscious may be "fuzzier" but it seems better than either.