Subconscious

[JetLeg]

Sometimes people say that they were motivated to do X,Y for subconscious reasons.

We do know our desires, when we feel them. But what can a "subconscious desire" mean?

If it is a felt desire, it is not a subconscious one. If it is a subconscious one, how is a subconscious desire different from a non-existant one?

[Loriciferan Universe]

I don’t know why I ate the fifth burrito, I shouldn’t have, but I made a choice to eat it anyway. I did not desire to eat it per se. Yet I ate it. Thus there must have been a driving wish *somewhere* to eat fifth-burrito-of-doom, and because I did not know about this desire consciously, it must be my subconscious.

This is opposed to a lack of desire to eat the burrito in which the burrito would fall into your mouth and down your throat in one go, kinda like swallowing a bug while biking. That’s how I see it anyway.

Maybe I don’t get the question. :confused:

[fuelair]

D-oh! burrito, chipotle sauce, must ingest.

[Jeff Corey]

The term is useless. Even the more frequently used Fraudian (Oops,Freudian slip) term "unconscious" was used to avoid falsifiability. See, Bunky, we can use our well honed tool (not a penis joke) of psycho anal ysis to probe your unconscious mind through a technique called "free association" which is an oxymoron because it's expensive.And the kicker is the "reaction formation" where you either do what you want or the opposite.

[JetLeg]

Eh...

Loriciferan Universe ,

You have an observation of you eating, and some problem with your wishes.

Then you say "How can we explain it? We need to posit subconscious wishes".

Alright, first - we can, but can we posit some other explanation as well? It is just one theory. And I am not sure what is its merit. Sounds not much better than saying "I was forced by a demon... ". You have not established the existance of subconscious wishes in the first place, but you use them in your theory.

[Loriciferan Universe]

Eh...

Loriciferan Universe ,

You have an observation of you eating, and some problem with your wishes.

Then you say "How can we explain it? We need to posit subconscious wishes".

Alright, first - we can, but can we posit some other explanation as well? It is just one theory. And I am not sure what is its merit. Sounds not much better than saying "I was forced by a demon... ". You have not established the existance of subconscious wishes in the first place, but you use them in your theory.

The burrito demon of doom? No, you’re right. I guess the thing that always has me guessing at my actions would be the observation that the impulse to move has been shown to occur before “conscious” (or whatever) thought acknowledges it (i.e. before the observer thinks “I will my arm to move” the actions are underway to make it so). I can’t link because I am but an egg, but try these search terms in Google:

Free Will and Free Won't

Click on the first link, should be to an article in American Scientist. So if there really is no conscious control than is the unconscious a moot point? My thinking is that if, when I think I’m thinking something so I’m actually not, than why not suppose that when I’m not thinking something so I actually am? You follow? I don’t. :boggled:

[Mercutio]

I prefer "non-conscious". Less baggage. It basically admits we don't know. "Subconscious" and (worse, as Corey says) "unconscious", while describing the same phenomena, have decades worth of impotent theorizing clinging to them. When somebody says "you subconsciously wanted to do that", it sounds suspiciously like an actual explanation. What it really means is "I have no freakin' clue why you did that."

Much better to simply admit ignorance and search for real reasons, than to make crap up and pretend to have answered.

[l0rca]

I prefer "non-conscious". Less baggage. It basically admits we don't know. "Subconscious" and (worse, as Corey says) "unconscious", while describing the same phenomena, have decades worth of impotent theorizing clinging to them. When somebody says "you subconsciously wanted to do that", it sounds suspiciously like an actual explanation. What it really means is "I have no freakin' clue why you did that."

Much better to simply admit ignorance and search for real reasons, than to make crap up and pretend to have answered.

What he said.

Since it was never anatomically defined when presented in the idiom, you should consider "subconscious" to be a metaphor, er, a substitute, for things that are not discernably consciously motivated, but still influence thought or action. There are many things that fall under this category:

Experienced changes in the brain that are partly conscious; minor activity, probably in the limbic system, that might partly make its way to the frontal lobe for conscious analysis. I'm not sure how often this happens, but probably less than--

Changes in the brain that are not conscious at all; activity that changes the structure of the brain responsible for a mental state or an idea that is not consciously percieved as the activity of change occurs. This one happens all the time.

Changes in the brain which resonated significant conscious-based experience, but was in some way forgotten or not remembered to be a conscious thought. I don't know how often this happens.

There may be more, and some of these may blend into others. Brains are tough stuff, yo.

[Soapy Sam]

Jeff and Mercutio are right that the term "subconscious" has been tarred by association with psychoanalysis, but that does not mean the brain does not operate on levels we are not consciously aware of. If all neural processes were accessible to the conscious mind, we would be so swamped by neural noise we would be literally incapable of coherent thought.

I agree with the OP that the term "subsconscious desire" seems contradictory. Desire , surely, is a conscious state. You have to know about something to desire it.

But there may well be reasons for an action of which the actor is not consciously aware.

What he ought to be aware of are the probable consequences of his actions. If I was sitting in judgement , I'd be looking at that- his responsibility in terms of maturity, education, etc- than worrying about which neural subroutine was the immediate cause of his action. There is always a point at which an act becomes deliberate. That's what matters in law and common sense, not the neural activity that preceded it.

[JetLeg]

Jeff and Mercutio are right that the term "subconscious" has been tarred by association with psychoanalysis, but that does not mean the brain does not operate on levels we are not consciously aware of. If all neural processes were accessible to the conscious mind, we would be so swamped by neural noise we would be literally incapable of coherent thought.

I agree with the OP that the term "subsconscious desire" seems contradictory. Desire , surely, is a conscious state. You have to know about something to desire it.

But there may well be reasons for an action of which the actor is not consciously aware.



I agree. But the terms of subconscious\unconscious historicaly have not being used to describe brain mechanisms. It might be wiser to coin new ones, rather than adapt the old.


What he ought to be aware of are the probable consequences of his actions. If I was sitting in judgement , I'd be looking at that- his responsibility in terms of maturity, education, etc- than worrying about which neural subroutine was the immediate cause of his action. There is always a point at which an act becomes deliberate. That's what matters in law and common sense, not the neural activity that preceded it.

I didn't understand.
What does it adress?

[Soapy Sam]

Sometimes people say that they were motivated to do X,Y for subconscious reasons.

We do know our desires, when we feel them. But what can a "subconscious desire" mean?

If it is a felt desire, it is not a subconscious one. If it is a subconscious one, how is a subconscious desire different from a non-existant one?


Going back to your OP, line one , you comment that people sometimes use subsconscious reasons to explain or justify an action.

My point here is that while unconscious neural events may be one cause of the action, they cannot be used as a justification, because there must come a point at which the action becomesa conscious choice. Any cause before that is irrelevant.

There may be exceptions- reflex actions for example. If I pull a hand away from a hot surface , no conscious decision occurs. If, in the process, I accidentally punch someone on the nose, the action of assault might be justified as being caused directly by an unconscious action over which I at no time had conscious control.
I doubt this is what you had in mind in the OP though.

[drkitten]

The term is useless.


How do you explain blindsight, lexical priming, and similar phenomena where the subject is able to observe things without being aware of his observing them, without resorting to words like "subconscious"?

[drkitten]

I agree with the OP that the term "subsconscious desire" seems contradictory. Desire , surely, is a conscious state. You have to know about something to desire it.

In my experience, a "subconcious" desire will be "felt" as an apparently reasonless desire; the desire is of course something I am aware of, but the underlying cause is not. For example, I occaisionally find myself craving certain specific foods -- "You know, I really want some potato chips" without realizing that I'm slightly electrolyte-depleted. (I've been out doing yard work, and the day is slightly hotter and more humid than I had realized.) Pregnancy cravings -- which are somewhat controversial, but most doctors accept their existence -- may be a stronger version of this. What you are conscious of wanting are pickles and bananas. What you "subconsciously" want are foods high in potassium....

[Darat]

How do you explain blindsight, lexical priming, and similar phenomena where the subject is able to observe things without being aware of his observing them, without resorting to words like "subconscious"?


Merc suggests "non-conscious".

My view is that the word itself doesn't really matter as long as we all agree what we mean by it. So I support the idea of dismissing something like "subconscious desire" as being an oxymoron as Soapy Sam describes whilst quite happy to call some "processing" in the brain "subconscious", without assigning any explanationary power to it.

[Belz...]

I prefer "non-conscious". Less baggage. It basically admits we don't know. "Subconscious" and (worse, as Corey says) "unconscious", while describing the same phenomena, have decades worth of impotent theorizing clinging to them. When somebody says "you subconsciously wanted to do that", it sounds suspiciously like an actual explanation. What it really means is "I have no freakin' clue why you did that."

Much better to simply admit ignorance and search for real reasons, than to make crap up and pretend to have answered.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to give people the impression that they've got a subconscious other-mind somewhere in their cranium that has its own agenda, possibly secretly plotting to overthrow the conscious mind.

Or at least that's how movies make it sound. :rolleyes:

[Fnord]

We do know our desires, when we feel them. But what can a "subconscious desire" mean?

I agree with the foregoing definitions of "Subconscious," "Unconscious," and "Non-Conscious." No more need be said on these.



Really, unless established by a professional clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, the diagnosis of "Subconscious Desire" is meaningless.

Claiming "Subconscious Desire" as a cause for action is only a more sophisticated way of abdicating responsibility than claiming "The Devil made me do it, so..." or "The Holy Spirit came over me, and...".

And once a subconscious desire is revealed, it is no longer subconscious, now is it?



Disclaimer: I have no formal training in psychiatry, psychology, or any similar realm of medical or behavioral science. I am an Electrical Engineer by profession.

[Z]

Putting aside the problem of word choice, recent research has demonstrated (IIRC) that the conscious part of our brain may be less involved in making decisions that it is in about taking in reports of decisions already made. And while we perceive thought as being part of the conscious process, actions resulting from thought may be initiated by non-conscious portions of the brain - and are sometimes initiated without conscious thought. A good martial artist, for example, doesn't think (much) about the precise moves used in defense; he's been trained so that he blocks and dodges without a thought - or, more accurately, with thought being reserved for strategy and planning other actions.

Subconscious desires, however, seem to be an expression of shifting blame for one's actions to some part other than one's self. At least, that seems to be the common usage...

[JetLeg]

I agree with the foregoing definitions of "Subconscious," "Unconscious," and "Non-Conscious." No more need be said on these.



Really, unless established by a professional clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, the diagnosis of "Subconscious Desire" is meaningless.

Claiming "Subconscious Desire" as a cause for action is only a more sophisticated way of abdicating responsibility than claiming "The Devil made me do it, so..." or "The Holy Spirit came over me, and...".

And once a subconscious desire is revealed, it is no longer subconscious, now is it?



Disclaimer: I have no formal training in psychiatry, psychology, or any similar realm of medical or behavioral science. I am an Electrical Engineer by profession.

If a "subconcsious desire " cannot be revealed, then even a professional cannot reveal it.

[Dancing David]

Sometimes people say that they were motivated to do X,Y for subconscious reasons.

We do know our desires, when we feel them. But what can a "subconscious desire" mean?

If it is a felt desire, it is not a subconscious one. If it is a subconscious one, how is a subconscious desire different from a non-existant one?


The issue here is one of semantics, the word subconscious is not a bad one if it is limited to discussing behaviors that are not at the threshold of the standard defined as 'conscious'. The real problem comes about in the usage of 'subconscious' that Freud gave us and Jung gave us, 'a subconscious desire' is a bogus semantic concept as you have pointed out.

[Dancing David]

Thus there must have been a driving wish *somewhere* to eat fifth-burrito-of-doom, and because I did not know about this desire consciously, it must be my subconscious.



You hit the nail on the head, it is the assumption of the sentence above that is the semantic fallacy of the 'subconscious'.

[Dancing David]

Click on the first link, should be to an article in American Scientist. So if there really is no conscious control than is the unconscious a moot point? My thinking is that if, when I think I’m thinking something so I’m actually not, than why not suppose that when I’m not thinking something so I actually am? You follow? I don’t. :boggled:


The question is not if thinking occurs the question becomes: What do we arbitrarily define as conscious?

[Dancing David]

How do you explain blindsight, lexical priming, and similar phenomena where the subject is able to observe things without being aware of his observing them, without resorting to words like "subconscious"?


By describing the behaviors?

The assumption of consciousness is the real issue here, we use it in common speech. But that it is used that way does not mean that it has an actual scientific meaning in psychology. It has a vague meaning in common speech and is used to denote the ability to preform certain behaviors in medical speech but the actual defintion of it runs out if you examine it critically. The issue then becomes : Is consciousness a semantic concept or an actual seperate object?

[cyborg]

Let us consider the brain as essentially a large mass of independently acting processing units which can communicate with each other. Let us then group certain processing units into logical decision making blocks.

So, let us say we have a decision making block that decides on whether or not to 'eat' and another set of decision blocks that decide how to 'eat' - i.e. locate food, implement the actions of eating etc...

Now the process of deciding to eat may involve a whole lot of processing that weighs all sorts of factors together to make a decision but, ultimately, all the second process block gets is a message about the final decision: 'eat', 'don't eat'. As such the 'why' of that decision is completely hidden from the other processing block that has to implement the decision. It is only sufficient that they acknowledge that a decision was made and that the responsibility in the processing chain is passed onto it in the next stage.

Now if we break down the abstraction so that we realise that this processing blocks are all overlapping and interfering with each other such that finding a simple, clear delineation - such as the above - is basically not possible is it any wonder then that the bits of the processing which create the feeling of 'I' -ness - the post processing analysis of internally generated desires, hypothesised solutions and the actual outcomes - are no more than a 'digest' of the whole end-to-end process and as such simply cannot represent all the myriad small decisions that ultimately led to an action occurring?

We might as well consider then the subconscious/non-conscious processes as simply being data that is not available - by virtue of the connectivity of the decision making blocks - and hence not incorporated, into the self-model that we consider as being conscious.

Is it any wonder then that we can find ourselves completely unaware of why we made a decision and, furthermore, when the self is forced to formulate explanations in the absence of that data that people can come up with so many wrong reasons to explain their own behaviour?

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Pregnancy cravings -- which are somewhat controversial, but most doctors accept their existence -- may be a stronger version of this. What you are conscious of wanting are pickles and bananas. What you "subconsciously" want are foods high in potassium....

How does a body know what food type contains potassium, or anything else?
Is it learned from having eaten that particular thing or not, or does it
"just know" somehow?

[rats]

[scientology vent]
"The subconscious reactive mind is twice as strong as the conscious mind, which is why you need the help of an auditor to remove Overts and Engrams" is how I remember them perceiving the subconscious.
[/scientology vent]

Sorry for the slight derail to an otherwise interesting discussion, sometimes it just seeps out... :o

[drkitten]

How does a body know what food type contains potassium, or anything else?
Is it learned from having eaten that particular thing or not, or does it
"just know" somehow?

I don't think there's any studies on the mechanism, but the assumption would be that it's learned from eating the food before. Given that "just knowing" in the complete absence of evidence has absolutely no basis in science whatsoever -- although it seems to be prominent in certain theories of economics and politics -- I would be extremely surprised for this to be the one well-documented instance of the paranormal in existence.

[Soapy Sam]

I don't think it has anything to do with food (f) having nutrient (n), just that eating (f) in the past made sensation (s) feel better (or whatever). I would expect (f) to be a regular part of the person's diet.
If someone could crave food (f) for a condition fixable by eating nutrient (n) , where (f) did indeed contain (n) and the person had never seen , touched, tasted or smelled (f) it would certainly suggest a sensory (but unconscious) ability to detect (n) in a sample of (f). How likely that is , I have no idea, but controlled experiment is feasible.


drkitten- Case in point. I'm browsing the forum, while writing some letters and paying bills online. About an hour ago, I suddenly had the desire for a coffee. I got up and headed for the kitchen. Half way there, I realised I was carrying an empty coffee mug.

Now. Did I unconsciously perceive the mug (which my peripheral vision could have caught as I typed)? Was that the event that triggered the desire for coffee? I can't be sure, but I didn't "feel like" a coffee five seconds earlier, then I was up, out of the door and en route, with the mug already in my pathetic paw.

I've noticed many such events before, usually concerning basic wants- food, drink, toilet, but how much of more complex human behaviour is like this, I wonder?

[Soapy Sam]

Double post.

To which I'd add- I suppose it's feasible that knowledge of a particular food's value could be hardwired genetically.

Or at least feasible :rolleyes: