Unconscious mind

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is an NCBI article about the unconscious mind that I found interesting.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2440575/

***********

The unconscious mind is still viewed by many psychological scientists as the shadow of a “real” conscious mind, though there now exists substantial evidence that the unconscious is not identifiably less flexible, complex, controlling, deliberative, or action-oriented than is its counterpart.

This “conscious-centric” bias is due in part to the operational definition within cognitive psychology that equates unconscious with subliminal. We review the evidence challenging this restricted view of the unconscious emerging from contemporary social cognition research, which has traditionally defined the unconscious in terms of its unintentional nature; this research has demonstrated the existence of several independent unconscious behavioral guidance systems: perceptual, evaluative, and motivational. From this perspective, it is concluded that in both phylogeny and ontogeny, actions of an unconscious mind precede the arrival of a conscious mind—that action precedes reflection.

In nature, the “unconscious mind” is the rule, not the exception.

***********

Cheers.

Sriram

[Sriram]

Instead of so much money being spent on space travel, space observatories, LHC's etc......if more money, time and effort are put into research on things like the unconscious mind....we could discover meaningful  aspects of life that are of prime importance to all of us personally.....

The impression that the mind and consciousness are merely brain generated phenomena which are of no relevance to objective reality.....should change. 

There is a whole world to be discovered within ourselves, that could also get integrated with our faith, hopes and beliefs.

[Udayana]

People, governments and businesses, put resources into research if they have reason to think, ie. evidence, that the benefits that can be obtained can justify the risks that they are taking.

What resources do you need to research "the unconscious mind" ? What benefits are you expecting to find? What evidence is there that the research could be successful and worthwhile? 

[ProfessorDavey]

Instead of so much money being spent on space travel, space observatories, LHC's etc......if more money, time and effort are put into research on things like the unconscious mind....we could discover meaningful  aspects of life that are of prime importance to all of us personally.....

But it isn't one or the other, is it Sriram. We already fund research along both the lines you mention - however the cost of setting up the LHC is clearly much greater than the cost of some psychology research into perceptions etc. That said a lot of the neuroscience research that is really making progress into our understandings of sub-conscious brain function uses kit that costs serious amount of money. So we should fund both, but what research we fund must be of the highest quality, not questionable pseudoscience.

[ProfessorDavey]

The impression that the mind and consciousness are merely brain generated phenomena which are of no relevance to objective reality.....should change.

Only if that is what high quality, objective, reproducible research shows. But yet again you seem to want to use research to back up your pre-determined conclusions - that isn't how it works. The research comes first and you then base your conclusions on the evidence generated from that research.

The problem for you Sriram is that research is increasingly showing clear links between emotions, perceptions, aspects of unconscious/subconscious phenomena and observable brain activities. Even to the extent that you can generate these emotions, perceptions, phenomena by artificially stimulating certain parts of neural function. So increasingly your assertions are being proved wrong - but rather than accept these data you seem to want to ignore them and do some different research which, presumably, you've already determined the outcome of which should be.

[ProfessorDavey]

Also - as the topic here is about research around the unconscious mind then it should be in the 'Science & technology' section of the MB, not the 'Philosophy, in all its guises'. We aren't discussing philosophy, we are discussing scientific research and the paper that Sriram links to in the OP is a piece of scientific research - specifically behavioural/cognitive psychology, not a paper on philosophy.

[Sriram]

You don't need to panic Prof D. I am not likely to influence the research in any way.  Relax!

The point is that research on such matters as the 'unconscious mind' is far more important and relevant to us than anything on far away black holes or galactic structures.

The real fear is  that people who are materialists are likely to sway the research in established directions and are likely to rubbish findings that may be uncomfortable or outside the materialistic mindset.....like it is being done on NDE's.       

[ProfessorDavey]

You don't need to panic Prof D. I am not likely to influence the research in any way.  Relax!

But you seem to want to ignore high quality research whose findings you don't like, whether that is the neuroscience of NDE or whether Jains are theist or not.

The point is that research on such matters as the 'unconscious mind' is far more important and relevant to us than anything on far away black holes or galactic structures.

That is a matter of opinion and it is worrying when people assert that this research is more important than that research and therefore that the former should be funded and the latter defunded. I think understand fundamental aspects of the universe and its origins is incredibly important to us, both from the perspective of blue-skies investigative science but also there are all sorts of technologies that are required to be developed for research of this kind that are massively practical and valuable to us. For example the ability to handle incredibly large data sets and technologies that may support alternative and green energy generation.

So it isn't one or the other - I want to see our brightest minds trying to understand how black holes work and how our brains work.

The real fear is  that people who are materialists are likely to sway the research in established directions and are likely to rubbish findings that may be uncomfortable or outside the materialistic mindset.....like it is being done on NDE's.     

I think it is you who is fearful - fearful that reliable, high quality, objective research comes up with data that doesn't find your pre-existing mind-set. NDEs are a great example - you simply dismiss any research that links these phenomena (which are mis-named as they aren't always associate with near death experiences) to neurological function and stress. Indeed you describe high quality research that you don't like as 'silly'. Your prejudices are, sadly, achingly on show Sriram. I'm happy with all kinds of research - my only stipulation is that it should be good quality.

[Udayana]

Only if that is what high quality, objective, reproducible research shows. But yet again you seem to want to use research to back up your pre-determined conclusions - that isn't how it works. The research comes first and you then base your conclusions on the evidence generated from that research.

The problem for you Sriram is that research is increasingly showing clear links between emotions, perceptions, aspects of unconscious/subconscious phenomena and observable brain activities. Even to the extent that you can generate these emotions, perceptions, phenomena by artificially stimulating certain parts of neural function. So increasingly your assertions are being proved wrong - but rather than accept these data you seem to want to ignore them and do some different research which, presumably, you've already determined the outcome of which should be.

Research into neuroscience, brain function and psychology is obviously useful given the medical, mental health and societal issues that affect us all. That is why it is funded and undertaken. There has even been extensive research into paranormal effects, now mostly abandoned as not practically useful. But for some reason Sriram wants to know who he was in his previous life, or maybe who he will be in his next and other questions to which there cannot be any answers.

[ProfessorDavey]

Research into neuroscience, brain function and psychology is obviously useful given the medical, mental health and societal issues that affect us all. That is why it is funded and undertaken. There has even been extensive research into paranormal effects, now mostly abandoned as not practically useful. But for some reason Sriram wants to know who he was in his previous life, or maybe who he will be in his next and other questions to which there cannot be any answers.

Indeed - he really doesn't seem to understand that the purpose of research is firstly to 'find out stuff' and secondly once we know more about that stuff we can develop better explanations for phenomena. The point being that we use the research to drive our conclusions. And once we have 'found out stuff' we can usefully use that knowledge to develop new technologies, processes, ways of doing things, ways of thinking etc.

I think the most horrifying comment I've seen from Sriram in a long while is the following (from another thread):

'I don't know what the research is worth when it goes against basic Jain tenets.'

So in effect that research is of no value unless it aligns with some philosophy or religion. News for Sriram - the purpose of research is to 'find out stuff' not to pander to any belief, philosophy or religion. Sometimes what we find out is uncomfortable, it shakes us out of old but wrong, certainties. Sometimes (as was the case in the other thread) it shows someone that their assertion was just plain flat out wrong. But the response to this is to accept that we got something wrong not to indicate that the research is worthless.

[Sriram]

Indeed - he really doesn't seem to understand that the purpose of research is firstly to 'find out stuff' and secondly once we know more about that stuff we can develop better explanations for phenomena. The point being that we use the research to drive our conclusions. And once we have 'found out stuff' we can usefully use that knowledge to develop new technologies, processes, ways of doing things, ways of thinking etc.

I think the most horrifying comment I've seen from Sriram in a long while is the following (from another thread):

'I don't know what the research is worth when it goes against basic Jain tenets.'

So in effect that research is of no value unless it aligns with some philosophy or religion. News for Sriram - the purpose of research is to 'find out stuff' not to pander to any belief, philosophy or religion. Sometimes what we find out is uncomfortable, it shakes us out of old but wrong, certainties. Sometimes (as was the case in the other thread) it shows someone that their assertion was just plain flat out wrong. But the response to this is to accept that we got something wrong not to indicate that the research is worthless.

    You're a funny guy Prof D!

When I said that 'the research goes against basic Jain tenets' .....I did not mean that the research should pander to religious beliefs.....for heaven's sake!

What I meant was that, as per the basic tenets of Jainism, the Jains do not accept the idea of a creator or supreme God.  It is a fundamental part of their doctrine. So, if your research says that 99% of Jains believe in a Supreme God.....there is obviously something wrong with the research.  Get it?!

Anyway,I don't want to digress into some other subject on this thread.

Coming back....the very fact that when I talk of the unconscious mind you are immediately talking of research on the brain and neuroscience....shows the level of the materialistic bias in your minds.

Consciousness, mind and the brain are not synonymous. Research on consciousness and the mind could involve much more than merely peering into the brain. New perspectives, New methods and new tools might be required.

[ProfessorDavey]

When I said that 'the research goes against basic Jain tenets' .....I did not mean that the research should pander to religious beliefs.....for heaven's sake!

You are now quote mining yourself. What you actually said was.

'I don't know what the research is worth when it goes against basic Jain tenets.'

The flip side of which will be that research is only of worth aligns with basic Jain tenets (i.e. a religion etc). I don't think my understanding of your post is anything other than completely reasonable. But then in your clarification you make matters even worse.

So, if your research says that 99% of Jains believe in a Supreme God.....there is obviously something wrong with the research.  Get it?!

So in effect if research goes against your assertions of what Jainism is about, or even actually what Jainism is about, then the research must be wrong. Terrifying - horrific echo chamber attitude, 'research doesn't agree with me, research is wrong.'

Well, here is news for you Sriram - Pew research are an extremely reputable research organisation who use robust and validated methods to ascertain public opinion. Their methododologies do have a margin of error, but with the numbers of people within the research this will probably only be 1% - so when they conclude 99% believe in god the real value may be as low as 98% or as high as 100%.

Sriram - the research isn't wrong - it requires you to potentially rethink your assumptions.

Actually in this case there is nothing 'clunky' about the research in relation to Jain religious philosophy. Jainism is clearly theistic, just does not accept a creator god. The research didn't ask about a creator god, merely whether an individual believed in god/gods. 99% of Jains said they did - so what, so very Jainist.

But even if a large proportion showed that they did not agree with an element of the basic tenets of the religion they affiliate to, that doesn't mean that the research is wrong. What it means is that although people may self affiliate as, for example christian, that doesn't mean they necessarily believe in things that christianity teaches - e.g. virgin birth, actual resurrection of Jesus etc. Survey after survey has show this for all sorts of religions. Whisper it quietly so Sriram won't hear - lot's of people who say they are of a particular religion don't actually believe everything that the religion teaches them.

Bottom line Sriram - if high quality research runs counter to your assertions, it isn't the research that is wrong, it is your assertion.