The Unconscious Mind: Does it Exist?

[WW3 Memorabilia]

You want the unconscious mind consciously mapped?

I don't think there's any difference. You either are conscious of a particular perception, or you're not. It's just a matter of whether a particular block of information is currently in your conscious experience. The only questions that are worth asking about the unconscious is how much we are able to do without currently being aware of the thought process. And the answer is quite a lot - but that doesn't make the process fundamentally different to whatever techniques the brain is using to give us the profound, observer based perspective of online consciousness.

 

[cesare]

I don't think there's any difference. You either are conscious of a particular perception, or you're not. It's just a matter of whether a particular block of information is currently in your conscious experience. The only questions that are worth asking about the unconscious is how much we are able to do without currently being aware of the thought process. And the answer is quite a lot - but that doesn't make the process fundamentally different to whatever techniques the brain is using to give us the profound, observer based perspective of online consciousness.

I'm more interested in why the unconscious is unconscious, and what there is there yet to be discovered.

edit: and you appear to be talking about subconscious as opposed to unconscious.

 

[Jonti]

You're assuming that we're anywhere near working out how subjective experience arises from the study of the brain. We're not.

That might have been the case a decade ago, but I believe we really are close now. I'm relatively convinced about notions of a 'common cortical algorithm'. Once you have that as your basic assumption, then subjective experience doesn't really look such an imposing goal. It's not an intuitive theory, but it makes a lot of sense when you start applying it.
...

What's the evidence for a common cortical algorithm?

And what would it be, if it turned out to exist?

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

'the unconscious' in the Freudian sense is a linguistic approximation of what he believed is contributing covertly to the online experience of being conscious. Just because he wrapped it up in a fancy story doesn't make it any more real or addressable. sub/un/pre/conscious, it's all the same idea. Something that contributes to cognition without being fully accessed or accessible to the observer at any given moment.

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

What's the evidence for a common cortical algorithm?

And what would it be, if it turned out to exist?

The evidence is the homogeneity of the cortex. Aside from some local variations (which you really have to look very hard to find), the structure is remarkably similar to the very earliest parts of say, the visual cortex, all the way to the front at the prefrontal cortex, where the majority of higher reasoning and thought is said to reside. The fact that the brain has folded in on itself to preserve the stucture of the cortex while expanding is good evidence that there is something vital about that structure that is worth preserving.

As to what that algorithm is, err, well.. how the hell should I know

I dunno, there is a lot of good work coming out that stuff from computational neuroscience. Pick one, see if it works in simulation, if it doesn't, find out why, and move on to some other ideas. There is everything to play for.

 

[Jonti]

the online experience of being conscious

What's the offline experience of being conscious, then?

 

[Jonti]

The evidence is the homogeneity of the cortex. Aside from some local variations (which you really have to look very hard to find), the structure is remarkably similar to the very earliest parts of say, the visual cortex, all the way to the front at the prefrontal cortex, where the majority of higher reasoning and thought is said to reside. The fact that the brain has folded in on itself to preserve the stucture of the cortex while expanding is good evidence that there is something vital about that structure that is worth preserving.

As to what that algorithm is, err, well.. how the hell should I know

I dunno, there is a lot of good work coming out that stuff from computational neuroscience. Pick one, see if it works in simulation, if it doesn't, find out why, and move on to some other ideas. There is everything to play for.

How can any algorithm produce consciousness?

It's just manipulating symbols, after all. I don't see how simply manipulating symbols is going to conjure consciousness.

Sounds downright superstitious to me

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

How can any algorithm produce consciousness?

It's just manipulating symbols, after all. I don't see how simply manipulating symbols is going to conjure consciousness.

Sounds downright superstitious to me

What else is there? Either you agree that there is a learning-focused predefined structure that produces consciousness through the learning process, or you think there is a consciousness 'machine' hard coded in your genes which produces consciousness on tap - both of this require some algorithmic implementation, the growth process of either of these structures is not random luck, it's written down in your DNA. If you disagree with BOTH of these, then it's you that is invoking superstition.

 

[Jonti]

I was hoping for something a little more convincing than, "it has to be magic, we can't think of any other explanation".

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

What's the offline experience of being conscious, then?

Well, there isn't one. That's the point. If you access it, then it has to come into your consciousness, if it's covert and subconscious then you are not, or can never access it. That would be the only possible definition of unconscious.

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

I was hoping for something a little more convincing than, "it has to be magic, we can't think of any other explanation".

I could outline a theory of cortex based on probabilistic prediction, informational hierarchy, invariance, explicit representation and folded feedback. It's not magic, but it's not easy either. That's what happens when you try and apply real theories to explain how the mind does what it does, you have to risk being wrong. On the other hand, you could just make up a bunch of stories about latent influences of your mothers boobies and not bother.

 

[Jonti]

How can any algorithm produce consciousness?

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

How can an algorithm produce hair, or cells that can detect slippage, or an immune system that can fight off a billion types of alien invader? Maybe you have an overly strict idea of what algorithm can mean?

 

[Blagsta]

That might have been the case a decade ago, but I believe we really are close now. I'm relatively convinced about notions of a 'common cortical algorithm'. Once you have that as your basic assumption, then subjective experience doesn't really look such an imposing goal. It's not an intuitive theory, but it makes a lot of sense when you start applying it.

We're nowhere near!

I agree that what a human learns and experiences (including art and whatever cultural artifacts you deem important) is part of understanding. Unfortunately, without a varified working assumption about how information is stored and interpreted in the brain, then sociological/cultural theories have no boundaries and no way of crossing the line between correlation and causation.

I'm not advocating an empirical neuroscientific bottom-up approach here - we have absolutely mountains of data on the subject and very little consensus. What is needed is a fundamental understanding of the underlying principles, which draws its constraints from the biology, but is not afraid to see past contrived details.

You're making category errors all over the shop. I'm outta here.

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

You're making category errors all over the shop. I'm outta here.

Glad to see you've taken the points on board, thought about what was said, then gone 'oh, this person doesn't label things in exactly the same way I'm used to; bin it'

 

[Jonti]

In mathematics, computing, linguistics, and related subjects, an algorithm is a finite sequence of instructions, an explicit, step-by-step procedure for solving a problem, often used for calculation and data processing. It is formally a type of effective method in which a list of well-defined instructions for completing a task will, when given an initial state, proceed through a well-defined series of successive states, eventually terminating in an end-state. The transition from one state to the next is not necessarily deterministic; some algorithms, known as probabilistic algorithms, incorporate randomness.

In the case of hair, or other specialised body cells, the algorithm is acting to effect a chemical or physical transformation on the substrate to transform it into a different type of matter.

How does a chemical/physical transformation of matter produce subjective awareness, rather than merely a different form of matter?

 

[phildwyer]

If the unconscious mind is important to cognition, if it solves problems and it answers questions about how to deal with physical reality, and you also agree that this process comes from the brain, and not like, the spirit

Trouble is, no-one with a basic grasp of logic is going to accept your reduction of thought to "the brain." So your argument is flawed from the outset. Next?

 

[Blagsta]

Glad to see you've taken the points on board, thought about what was said, then gone 'oh, this person doesn't label things in exactly the same way I'm used to; bin it'

I've taken the points on board and thought "this person knows nothing about psychoanalysis, this debate is pointless".

See ya.

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

Trouble is, no-one with a basic grasp of logic is going to accept your reduction of thought to "the brain." So your argument is flawed from the outset. Next?

Where does thought take place if not in the brain? And what does logic have to do with that?

 

[phildwyer]

Where does thought take place if not in the brain? And what does logic have to do with that?

In the mind. It is logical that the recognition of matter as existing implies the recognition that spirit exists. It is illogical and reductionist to reduce the mind to the brain.

 

[bluestreak]

What's the offline experience of being conscious, then?

This post is asking for a picture of William asleep at Offline.

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

I've taken the points on board and thought "this person knows nothing about psychoanalysis, this debate is pointless".

See ya.

You're right, I know very little about psychoanalysis. My main interest is in understanding the mechanisms of cognition, memory, the interactions between subcortical emotional systems and cortex, and learning. The way I see it, these are the domains where the only valid discussions about the effects of unconscious brain activity on behaviour are now held. I had thought the OP might be interested in what I believe to be the modern perspective.

But I'm interested to hear your response to him about the reality of the unconscious mind and its effect on behaviour - what is contemporary thinking from psychoanalysis on this?

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

In the mind. It is logical that the recognition of matter as existing implies the recognition that spirit exists. It is illogical and reductionist to reduce the mind to the brain.

Ok, so you believe the mind comes from something exernal to be body. In which case you can not apply logic, since logic requires formal rules and you have just stated you believe in a system which is beyond rules and deterministic accountability.

 

[phildwyer]

Ok, so you believe the mind comes from something exernal to be body. In which case you can not apply logic, since logic requires formal rules and you have just stated you believe in a system which is beyond rules and deterministic accountability.

How's that then? Plato also believed that "the mind comes from something external to the body." Would you deny that Plato was a rationalist?

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

How's that then? Plato also believed that "the mind comes from something external to the body." Would you deny that Plato was a rationalist?

I know nothing about Plato.

 

[phildwyer]

Ok, so you believe the mind comes from something exernal to be body. In which case you can not apply logic, since logic requires formal rules and you have just stated you believe in a system which is beyond rules and deterministic accountability.

I'm quoting this again, because I can't quite believe you said it. If I read you correctly, you're identifying materialism with rationalism, and saying that an idealist cannot be a rationalist. But that is such a stupid thing to say that I can't quite believe you're saying it. Is that what you're saying?

 

[phildwyer]

I know nothing about Plato.

Hmm. It's going to be a bit difficult talking to you about the philosophy of mind then. I'll still give it a try, but you might want to bone up a bit on Plato too. Start with the Timaeus, I'd say.

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

I think I'm saying that you can't formally declare anything in the domain of the supernatural to be one thing or another. How do you apply logic to a plane which claims to be non systematic? How would you know your rules wouldn't just change one day, without reason or method?

 

[phildwyer]

I think I'm saying that you can't formally declare anything in the domain of the supernatural to be one thing or another.

And you believe ideas to be supernatural? You believe the mind to be supernatural? You believe reason to be supernatural?

 

[WW3 Memorabilia]

Hmm. It's going to be a bit difficult talking to you about the philosophy of mind then. I'll still give it a try, but you might want to bone up a bit on Plato too. Start with the Timaeus, I'd say.

I'm really not interested in anything before about the 20th century in regards to be mind. Post 1950s is preferable. I realise it is important historically, and that their thoughts on the subject helped create what we know now, but there are rather a lot of new things to learn, and more by the day. You've got to pick your battles.