Do you think that you have an unconscious?

Post Reply New Topic

What if it is your basic human right to not be affected by theirs - what law enforcement agency enforces your right?

.. is a totally bogus belief.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/

also;

Debunking Neuromyths: Eight Common Brain Myths Set Straight
These myths resemble brain facts but are really fiction.
Posted Aug 10, 2017
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201708/debunking-neuromyths-eight-common-brain-myths-set-straight

I don't deny unconscious. We are conscious in certain way of meaning of our actions - in irl or in dreams -but we almost have no knowledge of real force that drives us. We can somehow understand the hidden intention of the force only through an intuition. And those people whose conscious found exlusive acces to unconscious control their fate. BTW As you may know Shopenhauer called the force Will.

I didn't think you were denying the unconscious, just wondering how you'd categorize the conscious state of that experience/process.

Schopenhauer uses will as a placeholder for the true nature of a thing, and in a sense, it's potential. In that way of thinking, the unconscious is not the will but some process that has evolved in service of the will to achieve it's ends. It exists somewhere between the will and consciousness, or knowledge as he refers to it. For Schopenhauer rocks have will, and it is responsible for the rock's inner makeup and outward appearance. I would argue that will, in Schopenhauer's usage of the term, does not equal unconscious, as it relates to us humans. I think he would place it even deeper in the our hierarchy, so to speak.

I would say Schopenhauer's will is more akin to the morphic fields in Sheldrake's hypothesis of formative causation. Not to pick nits, mind you, I was just sort of struck by the similarity when you brought up Schopenhauer and will.

More to the point, how "aware" a top level process like consciousness can be of it's constituent parts and processes is an interesting question.

If you are using the word "unconscious" in the way that has become the "normal" misnomer for the word "subconscious", then "yes", I believe I have a subconscious; and yes, I believe all neurodiverse people have a subconscious; and yes, I believe that it is a different subconscious, because we seem to think so differently (so, it stands-to-reason, IMO, that if we have different thoughts in the forefront of our mind [conscious], we will have different thoughts, in the back of our minds [subconscious]).

I'm sure I sometimes learn or act unconsciously, but I'm not convinced there's a great big "unconscious mind" that runs as a self-contained entity, if that makes any sense. I'm just not aware of some of my brain's activities, I can increase my awareness of some of them by introspection, but I've never noticed myself making my heart beat. I think the aware part of the brain / mind can only handle so much at a time or there'd be too much to think about. I can't understand Jung's work, Freud seems easier for me, but he seems to be a mixture of useful, clever insights and utter crap. I'd like to see proof of dreams being the unconscious mind at large, I guess it's possible but I don't see why they have to be that.

I suspect my Aspie brain might have less unconscious and more conscious activity than a NT brain, because I always seem to have to ponder consciously a lot of the brain things I do that most people are supposed to do intuitively. But I'm not a brain expert and I have trouble watching my thoughts while I'm thinking them, so it's all rather confusing to me, I can't study it like I can study the insides of a mechanical clock for example.

Well I haven't thought about it much before, but it seems like dreams couldn't come from anywhere else but the unconscious. We aren't thinking consciously while we're asleep, and the dreams are created by our own minds, so where else could they come from (rhetorical question)?

I guess it depends on how one defines consciousness. If it's awareness of our surroundings, you're correct I think. But could we be in a sense conscious when dreaming? A somewhat delusional consciousness to be sure, but does delusion mean not conscious? Meditating people sometimes focus on their inner bodies, ignoring the outside world completely (a condition that would usually induce sleep if not for their upright yogic posture). Are they conscious? And what about a person who hyper-focusses on an idea? I've had dreams in which I've been doing little or nothing else but thinking, sometimes in a surprisingly non-delusional coherent and logical way. It could be argued that I'm not really dreaming, but I experience waking from these things just like I wake up from the usual type of dream. In a normal dream, one is "conscious" of imaginary events but not of real events.

I believe everyone has an unconscious component in them, defining that with any precision is beyond me. I also believe that each individual's unconscious is just as unique as their personality while still the result of the same underlying biology and processes that we share as humans. I don't think neurodiversity would make a huge difference in that unconscious, probably as much or more in the way it is expressed through our conscious behavior as anything else.

If you haven't seen it before, there is a great pbs series based on David Eagleman's research into the brain.

The Brain - all 6 episodes

I think you mean "subconscious" and yes, the brain has one. Unfortunately it has been misrepresented and exploited by field of psychology.

The subconscious is analogous to all of the background processes of a computer, and the conscious is what's presented to the user.

The subconscious has access to memories in deep storage and is responsible for dreams and certain biases, and is responsible for handling much of the brain's auto pilot system.

The brain stores an enormous amount of information. For the most part, humans don't forget many things. The memories remain in deep storage and are inaccessible to the conscious mind because the synapses for the conscious mind to access them have been pruned.

This is a bit like when the boot sector of a hard disk drive becomes corrupted. Your data is still there, you just can't access it using a computer that uses that drive as the primary drive.

This is also why some people see their lives flash before their eyes in near death experiences. The brain enters a hyperactive state in a last ditch effort to revive them and very weak synaptic connections become active and " the signals "amplified", revealing to the person memories in deep storage.

I don't, however, believe that a person's psychological problems can often be attributed to repressed memories which can be revealed through hypnosis. I think most memories that end up in difficult to access areas of deep storage are of rather uneventful things. The more eventful or emotion provoking something is, the more it's likely to form synaptic connections with multiple areas of the brain, and have multiple access points. I do believe though that people can willfully refuse to think much about something that has upset them, edit their recall of something, or have it otherwise distorted. This is proven.

I had an interesting experience once involving deep storage memory.

I once had a dream that I was in a place that I hadn't recalled ever being in, and when I woke up, couldn't recall it as even a real place. I thought little of it, until years later, I decided to take a walk up a road my father and I used to hike up when I was very young, and ended up in the place I had dreamed about.

The memory of the place had been stored in my deep memory storage and could not be access from my conscious memory, as is apparent when I failed to identify the place as a familiar place, both in my dream, and when I awoke. However, my subconscious was able to access it, and had decided to use it to construct part of my dream.

Another interesting manifestation of how the brain works can be found in "split brain" experiments. The two halves of the brain are actually like two different people who are networked together. When the primary connection between them, the corpus callosum, is partially or completely severed, it inhibits the ability of the hemisphere's to communicate with each other. It's upon examination of these individuals that the duel personality nature of the brain can be seen. The two hemispheres will often indicate different answers when presented with questions concerning aspirations, likes and dislikes, and desires. The right hemisphere might want to be a doctor, for example, while the left hemisphere might want to be a secretary or plumber. One hemisphere might want to get dressed while the other hemisphere might want to remain undressed. One hemisphere might hate someone while the other hemisphere might like them. We are two conjoined people constantly in negotiations and collaboration with each other. As an aside, NT females typically have more connections between the two hemispheres of their brain than NT males, which might be why they appear to be better multitaskers and more socially complex. They also use more words per day, possibly because they literally think of more things to say, having more input from both hemispheres, but that's just speculation.

Here is an interesting example from an article on split brain experiments.



Here is the link to the entire article.

Split Brain Experiments

There is also a video on youtube on this issue.

Im my own law. f**k the agency.

I made my own research and i came to understanding that Will does equal unconscious.

I'll admit it's been several years since I've read any Schopenhauer, the english translations are slow reading. I'm curious as to why you would say that, not that I doubt your take on Schopenhauer and will, I just want to understand it. Or, it could be the term unconscious where we differ. Either way, I'm all ears

Would this mean that the ones who are more in touch with their unconscious mind is more likely to be global thinkers as opposed to those who use their conscious mind more, because of this " collective unconscious "?

They are more likely to understand there is a world and history beyond one's country's (or ethnic group's) borders.

I believe "unconscious" and "subconscious" are synonyms, though there is the implication that the "unconscious" is "deeper" than the "subconscious."