Is your non-conscious mind part of YOU?

[Pattern-chaser]

Recent work in neurology, cognitive psychology (etc) indicates that our non-conscious minds play a greater role in our thinking and acting than was previously thought; the conscious mind is just a particular portion of the whole mind.

And yet, our intuitive grasp of ourselves and our minds seems to be that "I" am my Conscious Mind, and probably nothing else. We can see such attitudes, if we look, in almost every aspect of our human culture and lives. I have seen them here too, and in other philosophy forums.

So I have created this topic to ask these questions:

• Does the 'non-conscious mind' really exist?
• Is your non-conscious mind part of YOU?
• Is your Conscious Mind the only part of your mind that 'matters'?
• Is there any benefit in considering the mind to have two or more parts, instead of as a whole?
• Is the mind distinct from the body?
• ...and any similar/related questions.

My own thoughts are that yes, the non-conscious mind exists; it is that portion of our whole mind that is not open to conscious scrutiny or awareness, and I think it is by far the larger portion. All of my mind is part of me, so yes, of course my non-conscious mind is part of me. Our Conscious Minds matter, but they aren't the only parts of our minds, so they can't be the only parts that matter. There is no significant benefit to considering the mind in pieces. No, the mind is not truly distinct from the body; connections between the two are many and varied, distributed throughout the bodily volume.

Your thoughts?

[JackDaydream]

The answer to your question may depend on how ' YOU' is understood, in terms of the concept of self. There are aspects of the subconscious which are extremely important. For example, many aspects of the bodily processes, such as breathing and the heartbeat are automatic to a large extent, although will may be involved on a subconscious level.

Also, the psychoanalysts and psychologists, such as Freud and Jung do point to deeper aspects of the subconscious, in spite of the dismissal of some of these aspects within the philosophy of materialism, as an understanding of causality and its relationship with consciousness.

[stevie]

Recent work in neurology, cognitive psychology (etc) indicates (etc) indicates that our non-conscious minds play a greater role in our thinking and acting than was previously thought; the conscious mind is just a particular portion of the whole mind....
Your thoughts?

Since there is no scientific evidence of "consciousness" or "mind" your expression might be compatible with "psychology" but I wonder what kind of "neurology" you are referring to ...

[Pattern-chaser]

Recent work in neurology, cognitive psychology (etc) indicates (etc) indicates that our non-conscious minds play a greater role in our thinking and acting than was previously thought; the conscious mind is just a particular portion of the whole mind....
Your thoughts?

Since there is no scientific evidence of "consciousness" or "mind" your expression might be compatible with "psychology" but I wonder what kind of "neurology" you are referring to ...

Fair enough. I intended only to refer to those sciences (or other serious study disciplines) aimed in the general direction of brain and/or mind.

Have you any other thoughts on the questions I asked in the OP?

[stevie]

Recent work in neurology, cognitive psychology (etc) indicates (etc) indicates that our non-conscious minds play a greater role in our thinking and acting than was previously thought; the conscious mind is just a particular portion of the whole mind....
Your thoughts?

Since there is no scientific evidence of "consciousness" or "mind" your expression might be compatible with "psychology" but I wonder what kind of "neurology" you are referring to ...

Fair enough. I intended only to refer to those sciences (or other serious study disciplines) aimed in the general direction of brain and/or mind.

Have you any other thoughts on the questions I asked in the OP?

So I have created this topic to ask these questions:

• Does the 'non-conscious mind' really exist?
• Is your non-conscious mind part of YOU?
• Is your Conscious Mind the only part of your mind that 'matters'?
• Is there any benefit in considering the mind to have two or more parts, instead of as a whole?
• Is the mind distinct from the body?
• ...and any similar/related questions.

Question 1 does not apply since there is no scientific evidence of "mind".
Question 2 does not apply since there is no scientific evidence of "mind".
Question 3 does not apply since there is no scientific evidence of "mind".
Question 4 does not apply since there is no scientific evidence of "mind".
Question 5 does not apply since there is no scientific evidence of "mind".

[Atla]

I seem to be one of those few people who pierced the conscious/unconscious barrier in some part(s) of my brain. I think it's a form of acquired savantism. I don't really know how I do it, but my conscious "I" seems to be able to command the unconscious part to do certain calculations, work on certain questions. There seems to be some undetectable undetectable parallel processing going on, and then the results appear, almost instantaneously. That's how I could think through things in 10-20 years that would have normally taken me like 200-300 years.

[JackDaydream]

I seem to be one of those few people who pierced the conscious/unconscious barrier in some part(s) of my brain. I think it's a form of acquired savantism. I don't really know how I do it, but my conscious "I" seems to be able to command the unconscious part to do certain calculations, work on certain questions. There seems to be some undetectable undetectable parallel processing going on, and then the results appear, almost instantaneously. That's how I could think through things in 10-20 years that would have normally taken me like 200-300 years.

Do you think that it is about some underlying mode of consciousness and formation of habit which leads to aspects becoming below the threshold of conscious practice. For example, it may be that people are able to regulate themselves to awake at certain times and even regulate behaviour and speech. It may be that the conscious persona is built on this, such as the civilities and pleasant nature of conversation. In most instances, unless one is known for being outspoken there may be a need to put on a front and hold the wild forces of the subconscious at bay. At times, people may go outside of their learned boundaries, but that is what it is, about boundaries of what is acceptable, not simply in terms of social norms, but the persona as a construct of personal in navigating the streams of thought and emotions which try to break into the streams of experience in the depths of the subconscious which enter into the person's consciousness.

[Rende]

Its the activation of higher awarness of being, its like a hyperstate of brain, so I think there should be a world like "realm" so I am and my "I" transform into being inside my "realm".

[Atla]

I seem to be one of those few people who pierced the conscious/unconscious barrier in some part(s) of my brain. I think it's a form of acquired savantism. I don't really know how I do it, but my conscious "I" seems to be able to command the unconscious part to do certain calculations, work on certain questions. There seems to be some undetectable undetectable parallel processing going on, and then the results appear, almost instantaneously. That's how I could think through things in 10-20 years that would have normally taken me like 200-300 years.

Do you think that it is about some underlying mode of consciousness and formation of habit which leads to aspects becoming below the threshold of conscious practice. For example, it may be that people are able to regulate themselves to awake at certain times and even regulate behaviour and speech. It may be that the conscious persona is built on this, such as the civilities and pleasant nature of conversation. In most instances, unless one is known for being outspoken there may be a need to put on a front and hold the wild forces of the subconscious at bay. At times, people may go outside of their learned boundaries, but that is what it is, about boundaries of what is acceptable, not simply in terms of social norms, but the persona as a construct of personal in navigating the streams of thought and emotions which try to break into the streams of experience in the depths of the subconscious which enter into the person's consciousness.

I'm not sure if I'm addressing what you wrote. I think it's better to divide the mind into three parts, conscious, subconscious and unconscious. It's the default state for most things to be "below the surface".

The unconscious is just imperceptible from the conscious mind, all I can say is that I think it does local parallel processings, while the conscious mind does global (brain-wide) linear processing. It doesn't matter what our habits are, how our conscious mind is structured, the unconscious always remains imperceptible for everyone. (For example acquired savants seem to have some damage to the left hemisphere, and to compensate, some of the local unconscious processes of the right hemisphere seem to go into overdrive.)

Then there's the subconscious floating between the two, we normally don't percieve this one either but it's always lingering just below the threshold of conscious awareness. But with things like paying attention, doing cognitive-restructuring techniques with pen and paper, doing meditation, these can be brought to the surface. The personality can be greatly changed this way.

I think the human self-awareness, from which the "I" is born, which dominates the conscious mind in many people, also has its roots in the unconscious mind, but it's present in all three. It's only a matter of definition what we consider part of ouselves and what we don't. I found it best to equate the "I" with the self-aware parts of my being, but one can also identifiy with just the conscious "I", or the whole mind, or the whole human, etc.

[Elephant]

No, the mind is not truly distinct from the body; connections between the two are many and varied, distributed throughout the bodily volume.

Your thoughts?

At the moment I'm not able to formulate a good objection to this. It's late for me. But I will say this, if you think this is so, then you must accept that everything is reducible to mind. (We really can't say that all things are reducible to physical - as it leaves out the mental. So, the only way is to say you believe that everything is mind). I hope you see the consequence of believing so.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, the mind is not truly distinct from the body; connections between the two are many and varied, distributed throughout the bodily volume.

If you think this is so, then you must accept that everything is reducible to mind.

I don't think so. I have stated my opinion, that body and mind are, in practice, indivisible and inseparable. If I were to make a statement similar to your own, it would have to be that everything is reducible to mind/body. Not just 'mind'; not just 'body'. The two are one, in effect.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it's better to divide the mind into three parts, conscious, subconscious and unconscious. It's the default state for most things to be "below the surface".

The unconscious is just imperceptible from the conscious mind, all I can say is that I think it does local parallel processings, while the conscious mind does global (brain-wide) linear processing. It doesn't matter what our habits are, how our conscious mind is structured, the unconscious always remains imperceptible for everyone. (For example acquired savants seem to have some damage to the left hemisphere, and to compensate, some of the local unconscious processes of the right hemisphere seem to go into overdrive.)

Then there's the subconscious floating between the two, we normally don't percieve this one either but it's always lingering just below the threshold of conscious awareness. But with things like paying attention, doing cognitive-restructuring techniques with pen and paper, doing meditation, these can be brought to the surface. The personality can be greatly changed this way.

I think the human self-awareness, from which the "I" is born, which dominates the conscious mind in many people, also has its roots in the unconscious mind, but it's present in all three. It's only a matter of definition what we consider part of ouselves and what we don't. I found it best to equate the "I" with the self-aware parts of my being, but one can also identifiy with just the conscious "I", or the whole mind, or the whole human, etc.

Interesting. Three parts?

First, I am always a little bit wary of our use of the computer analogy for the brain-mind. The analogy is a good and useful one, but it carries with it the temptation to extend the analogy beyond its usefulness. We humans have a habit of using the most advanced tech we have at the time as an analogy for the brain-mind. A couple of centuries ago, it was apparently common to compare the brain-mind with an automated loom!

OK, so there is what we would call "processing" in the brain-mind, but it isn't anything like the processing in a modern computer. It is both more and less; slower, and faster too, in some ways. Computers are networks of interconnected transistors; brain-minds are networks of interconnected neurons. There we should stop, as we have reached the useful limit of the analogy. The brain-mind operates in a manner qualitatively distinct from computers.

I like the idea of three parts to the mind, even though it isn't divided; it's a useful perspective. In between that of which we can be aware (conscious), and that of which we cannot, there is a grey area. This accords with other observations in the real world: there is rarely just black and white. Often the grey area between them overwhelms the extremes, of black and white, so that it might appear to be all grey.

The influence of knowing (becoming aware of) some of the grey area on personality is interesting too. There are many proverbs along the lines of 'know thyself', probably with good reason. Such knowledge could indeed affect the outward seeming of personality.

I started this topic because I have, in the past, encountered people who accept no responsibility for anything they might think or do that is not wholly conscious! This has always seemed very odd to me. Why would my non-conscious mind not be part of "me"? My vote goes with "I" = all of me, body, mind, spirit and soul.

[Gertie]

Recent work in neurology, cognitive psychology (etc) indicates that our non-conscious minds play a greater role in our thinking and acting than was previously thought; the conscious mind is just a particular portion of the whole mind.

And yet, our intuitive grasp of ourselves and our minds seems to be that "I" am my Conscious Mind, and probably nothing else. We can see such attitudes, if we look, in almost every aspect of our human culture and lives. I have seen them here too, and in other philosophy forums.

So I have created this topic to ask these questions:

• Does the 'non-conscious mind' really exist?
• Is your non-conscious mind part of YOU?
• Is your Conscious Mind the only part of your mind that 'matters'?
• Is there any benefit in considering the mind to have two or more parts, instead of as a whole?
• Is the mind distinct from the body?
• ...and any similar/related questions.

My own thoughts are that yes, the non-conscious mind exists; it is that portion of our whole mind that is not open to conscious scrutiny or awareness, and I think it is by far the larger portion. All of my mind is part of me, so yes, of course my non-conscious mind is part of me. Our Conscious Minds matter, but they aren't the only parts of our minds, so they can't be the only parts that matter. There is no significant benefit to considering the mind in pieces. No, the mind is not truly distinct from the body; connections between the two are many and varied, distributed throughout the bodily volume.

Your thoughts?

The way I see it there are two (correlated) aspects of consciousness, the physical brain processes and phenomenal experience. If we think about mind and consciousness in those terms it's a bit clearer what's going on.

While the physical brain processes do their bio-chemical stuff in response to physical stimuli, some of that also somehow manifests as experience (''what it's like'' to see an apple, etc). But this experiential part doesn't reflect everything which is going on physically in the brain which contributes to it. The parts of brain activity which are contributing, but not explicitly manifesting as experience, are the ''unconscious mind''.

A crude example - I might have a fear reaction to spiders because I was scared by one as a young child. I've completely forgotten the incident now, but strong neural connections were formed that 'spark' whenever I see a spider and I experience something like that old fear.

There are billions of such neural connections being activated by stimuli all the time, not all of which manifest consciously like fear at seeing a spider, but never-the-less influence us as they feed in to our experience and affect behaviour. Based on 'hard-wired' pre-dispositions and past experiences creating new neural connections. Psychoanalysis tries to understand what effects those often unexperienced neural connections have on us.

If I apply that physical brain/phenomenal experience characterisation of consciousness or mind, here's how my answers to your questions look -

* Does the 'non-conscious mind' really exist?

The physical brain activity exists and can contribute to what is experienced without all of it being present as experience itself.

* Is your non-conscious mind part of YOU?

Depends how you define ''you'', it's not part of the conscious experience of being a 'Me', but the brain is part of my body.

* Is your Conscious Mind the only part of your mind that 'matters'?

Well my view is that there is no ''mattering'' without conscious experience, but as the non-experiential parts of my brain contribute to my conscious exerience then yes, that matters too.

* Is there any benefit in considering the mind to have two or more parts, instead of as a whole?

The physical brain and phenomenal experience are related in some way we don't understand, but as they have radically different qualities we should consider each individually as well as consider the nature of the relationship. If there's a blood clot in my brain then I need physical surgery. Or if I'm feeling hungry I don't care what my neurons are doing, I want to eat that apple.

* Is the mind distinct from the body?

There are physical brain processes and correlated phenomenal experience - are they 'distinct' from each other? Well they have radically different types of properties, but until we know the nature of the mind-body relationship, who knows. If experience is an emergent property of brain processes then that's like asking is water distinct from ice. But we don't know what the relationship is, it might entail a whole new conceptualisation of the fundamental nature of reality! So ''Don't know'' is about the best we can do on that.

[Pattern-chaser]

* Is the mind distinct from the body?

There are physical brain processes and correlated phenomenal experience - are they 'distinct' from each other? Well they have radically different types of properties, but until we know the nature of the mind-body relationship, who knows. If experience is an emergent property of brain processes then that's like asking is water distinct from ice. But we don't know what the relationship is, it might entail a whole new conceptualisation of the fundamental nature of reality! So ''Don't know'' is about the best we can do on that.

Thanks for your reply. Most of it is just ... interesting, so I will digest your thoughts over the next little while. Thanks.

As for the above, I didn't ask my question clearly enough. I intended to ask, is the mind distinct from the body, such that it would be valid to consider each separately and independently, and still have a reasonable expectation of reaching meaningful and helpful conclusions? [My answer would be "no".]

That's quite a wordy question, I admit. But I think and hope it's the question I intended to ask.

[Gertie]

Gertie wrote: ↑47 minutes ago * Is the mind distinct from the body?

There are physical brain processes and correlated phenomenal experience - are they 'distinct' from each other? Well they have radically different types of properties, but until we know the nature of the mind-body relationship, who knows. If experience is an emergent property of brain processes then that's like asking is water distinct from ice. But we don't know what the relationship is, it might entail a whole new conceptualisation of the fundamental nature of reality! So ''Don't know'' is about the best we can do on that.

Thanks for your reply. Most of it is just ... interesting, so I will digest your thoughts over the next little while. Thanks.

I might've made it sound more complicated than it is then . I'm basically saying we have physical brain activity, some of which which somehow relates to our phenomenal experience. The non-experienced brain activity which interacts with the experienced brain activity at any moment is what you're calling ''the unconscious mind''. Make sense?

As for the above, I didn't ask my question clearly enough. I intended to ask, is the mind distinct from the body, such that it would be valid to consider each separately and independently, and still have a reasonable expectation of reaching meaningful and helpful conclusions? [My answer would be "no".]

That's quite a wordy question, I admit. But I think and hope it's the question I intended to ask.

Okey doke, what sort of meaningful and helpful conclusions are you thinking of PC?