How do we know we have a subconscious?

[awisler]

I was sitting in psychology class, my teacher was talking about dreams and our subconscious etc.

I was wondering, can we honestly PROVE we have a subconscious? Perhaps a stupid question, I have not looked into it a whole lot but I mean you can't just point to a part of the brain and say there it is. But in order to exist doesn't it have to be somewhere?

[GeneralChaos]

The thing to remember is that the unconscious is more of a metaphor that describes the mind. It isn't a part of the brain; instead, it's a pattern that is used to describe cognition. It helps describe people and their behaviors more, so I guess it's more of a tool than something biological one could point to.

[Ummon]

The thing to remember is that the unconscious is more of a metaphor that describes the mind. It isn't a part of the brain; instead, it's a pattern that is used to describe cognition. It helps describe people and their behaviors more, so I guess it's more of a tool than something biological one could point to.

Not at all: cognitive psychology and neuropsychology experiments show we do. Many of our mental functions are unconscious, thus unaccessible to our consciousness. Many of our memories (emotional, procedural) are too.

Unconscious, besides: cannot be accessed by consciousness.

Subconscious: is not conscious but can become conscious. Attention shift being the most obvious example.

[GeneralChaos]

The O.P. mentions dreams and the unconscious (actually he said 'subconscious') so he is probably doing a psychoanalytic section (Freud?). Maybe it's Gestalt/Jung/whoever, but whatever field it is, these all use the term Unconscious as a much more loaded term than Cog. Psych. does.

The Conscious and Unconscious are psychoanalytic terms. Cog. Psych. deals with things that we may or may not be aware of, but it avoids using those words. Neurobiology likewise doesn't bother with the terms, and neither would touch dreams with a 20 foot pole.

Without knowing what theory the O.P. is studying, it's hard to go in depth on specifics. If it is Freud, he used Subconscious only until he redefined his term as Unconscious. If it's someone else, let us know and we can go more in depth.

[Ummon]

1) there is very little in terms of incompatibility between cognitive unconscious and psychoanalytic unconscious. The main issue is repression. Through an analysis of literature, some have asserted that many of Freud's definitions are compatible with modern experimental findings.

2) Psychoanalytic unconscious for what pertains dreams, lapsus linguae, and any other Freudian argument of interest, can be fully experienced and tested cognitively. The controversy between the so called activation-synthesis model and significance of dreams is... not an argument for this place.

3) Terminology issues are present in the whole span of psychoanalytic theory. As such here I have provided general labels, without entering is a Conscious/Preconscious/Unconscious, what is Subconscious, Es/Ego/Superego affabulation.

[GeneralChaos]

I'm not saying the Freud's conclusions can't be tested or demonstrated. I'm not even trying to judge his theories. I am saying that Freudian psych. uses metaphor and symbolism to describe human behavior and its patterns. The Unconscious is an intellectual construct, used to describe the collective urges/feelings/whatever that affect people. It isn't a section of brain matter. The O.P. is looking for a biological solution in a field of psych. that doesn't focus on biological solutions.

Dreams I only mentioned as to explain why I assumed the O.P. was taking some flavor of analytic psych.. Cognitive Psych. tends to blow dreams off as the mind filtering daily experiences, so the Unconscious has no place in a Cog. Psych. discussion on dreams.

As for comparing the unconscious of Cog. Psych. and the Unconscious of psychoanalysis, they serve completely different functions. Cog. Psych. would see it like the autonomic nervous system- mental processes happen automatically, outside of conscious control. The Unconscious, however, is filled with urges/ideas/thoughts that seek conscious awareness- they don't usually have a procedural function the same way the first group does.

[Ummon]

I'm not saying the Freud's conclusions can't be tested or demonstrated. I'm not even trying to judge his theories. I am saying that Freudian psych. uses metaphor and symbolism to describe human behavior and its patterns. The Unconscious is an intellectual construct, used to describe the collective urges/feelings/whatever that affect people. It isn't a section of brain matter. The O.P. is looking for a biological solution in a field of psych. that doesn't focus on biological solutions.

Dreams I only mentioned as to explain why I assumed the O.P. was taking some flavor of analytic psych.. Cognitive Psych. tends to blow dreams off as the mind filtering daily experiences, so the Unconscious has no place in a Cog. Psych. discussion on dreams.

As for comparing the unconscious of Cog. Psych. and the Unconscious of psychoanalysis, they serve completely different functions. Cog. Psych. would see it like the autonomic nervous system- mental processes happen automatically, outside of conscious control. The Unconscious, however, is filled with urges/ideas/thoughts that seek conscious awareness- they don't usually have a procedural function the same way the first group does.

I have to pass answering: these are not forum matters. Undoubtedly, believe me or not, all you state there is completely incorrect.

[Event Horizon]

I have to pass answering: these are not forum matters. Undoubtedly, believe me or not, all you state there is completely incorrect.

How many of your 14,000 posts consist of that exact statement? There must be a reason why the concept of an arguement escapes you, and why you spend so much time here.

[Playfishpaste]

The unconscious is mostly in the hippocampus, as well as how it interacts with the frontal lobe, as is the subconscious, the amygdala play a role in it's regulation.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

The unconscious is mostly in the hippocampus, as well as how it interacts with the frontal lobe, as is the subconscious, the amygdala play a role in it's regulation.

I am probably wrong but shouldn't that include the Brain Stem? It regulates most of the bodies functions subconciously.. I also have a question. Why is it we can change our breath rate but not our heart rate? They are both normally controlled by subconcious processes..

[GeneralChaos]

Hey guys, just to warn you all, biological psych./cognitive neuroscience isn't my specialty. I have taken courses, though, so I'm going to throw some quotes out there from a textbook and if you're interested, you can draw your own conclusions about what belongs where.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Limbic System
"a loosely defined, widespread network of structures that are involved in emotion and learning."
-The Amygdala: "consists of several subdivisions with quite diverse functions, including emotional regulation and the perception of odor."
-The Hippocampus and Fornix: are important for [the learning process].
-The Cingulate Gyrus: "which is implicated in diverse functions including the direction of attention"
-The Olfactory Bulb, involved in the sense of smell. The rest of this system is found in the Diencephalon"

The Diencephalon
-The Thalamus: "is a complex cluster of nuclei that act as way stations to the cerebral cortex. Almost all sensory information enters the thalamus, where neurons send that information to the overlying cortex."
-The Hypothalamus: "has been implicated in hunger, thirst, temperature regulation, reproductive behaviors, and much more. [It] also controls the pituitary gland, which in turn controls almost all hormone secretion."

The Midbrain
-Superior/Inferior Colliculi: receive visual/audio information.
-Substantia Nigra: releases dopamine.
-Red Nucleus: "communicates with motoneurons in the spinal cord"
-Reticular Formation: "Many varied functions have been attributed to different parts of this loose aggregation of neurons, including sleep and arousal, temperature regulation, and motor control."

Brainstem
The Cerebellum: "involved in the central regulation of movement."
The Pons: [contains] important motor control and sensory nuclei, including several cranial nerve nuclei."
Medulla: "[This] marks the transition from brainstem to spinal cord." "all axons passing between the brain and the spinal cord necessarily course through the medulla..."

Cerebral Cortex
"performs complex cognitive processing."
(this can be subdivided further)

Anyway, this is the chapter 1 breakdown, and it only focused on brain parts that are in both hemispheres. I'd go into more detail, but Reno 911 is on and this took longer to type than I thought. Have at it- it's just as much fun as that wall of text makes it seem.

Edit: Complete guess, but I think the reason you can control your breathing rate is because of the muscle types. Cardiac muscle cannot be consciously controlled, but skeletal muscle can- when you breathe in, your skeletal muscles increase your body cavity, lowering pressure and sucking air in. Hopefully someone with a bio. background comes in soon though.

[Ummon]

How many of your 14,000 posts consist of that exact statement? There must be a reason why the concept of an arguement escapes you, and why you spend so much time here.

The concept of stuff which can be stated in a random conversation and stuff which goes in publications on the other hand, is quite clear to me.

And of almost 15000 posts, I'd say that probably 100 or so are such. A small fraction of what you'd expect from someone who can't argue.

I am probably wrong but shouldn't that include the Brain Stem? It regulates most of the bodies functions subconciously.. I also have a question. Why is it we can change our breath rate but not our heart rate? They are both normally controlled by subconcious processes..

Yes, some say so. Reticular Ascending Formation is dubbed S.E.L.F. by some.

When you can control your physiological functions it is just because voluntary mechanisms supervise automatic pacemakers.

Post.

For a clinically oriented, if theorical overview.

http://www.amazon.com/Psychoanalysis.../dp/1572302135

[GeneralChaos]

Without having read that book, I can't really respond to it. A google search did reveal this, however: http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/ewa...dCognition.PDF

Honestly, she's creating her own theory. She's not an orthodox Freudian, nor an orthodox Cog. Psychologist. She's an eclectic, working to unite two separate fields within psychology. She isn't representative of the norm in either sub-field, and is redefining terms from either field in order to better unite them under her theory:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The pervasiveness and diversity of unconscious processes, as understood today, require that the implications of the unconscious as a psychoanalytic construct be reconsidered. The factors determining what is understood psychoanalytically as the systemic or dynamic unconscious, and the features of such processing, need to be distinguished from the general modality of processing outside of awareness. Beyond this, we may also find that it is not the dimension of awareness or lack thereof that is most significant in understanding psychic functioning, but the form and organization of thought. This change in emphasis may he seen as a revisiting of the structural model, in a new light (Bucci, in press). [Bucci's article]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

To demonstrate the contribution of psychoanalytic concepts to the field of information processing, we need a theoretical framework that makes these concepts coherent and consistent and amenable to empirical investigation. The multiple code model has been constructed as such a theoretical framework, a general theory of emotional information processing that accounts for adaptive as well as maladaptive functions and that may be applied to an understanding of pathology and its repair in treatment. [Bucci's article]

*****

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

While avoidance may appear to control the emotional arousal, the individual pays a high price. The painful subsymbolic sensory and visceral components and tendencies toward action continue to operate, at least in trace form, but now without emotional meaning and without capacity for symbolic regulation. The individual may seek to find meaning, conscious or unconscious, for the bodily activation: in some cases as having an independent somatic source, as in somatization; in other cases as displaced to related but different objects where the perceived connection does not
threaten the self. When this happens repeatedly, the emotion schema may then be reconstructed in this dissociated or distorted form. [Bucci's article]

Even she doesn't use the term Unconscious, except as 'unconscious' and only in the general sense. She has reorganized the model of the mind into the "subsymbolic, symbolic imagery, and symbolic verbal codes" and uses those terms, precisely to avoid the confusion of terms that I had mentioned in earlier posts. It isn't that she is proving Freudian theories with Cognitive methods- she is designing a theory, informed by both Cognitive and Freudian theories, that is testable with Cognitive methods.



Also, to relate to the O.P.'s question:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I shall entirely disregard the fact that the mental apparatus with which we are here concerned is also known to us in. the form of an anatomical preparation, and I shall carefully avoid the temptation to determine psychical locality in any anatomical fashion. I shall remain on psychological ground. (Freud, 1900/1953a, p.536) [bucci's article]

I think if anyone else is still in the thread, it would be a good idea to just say "ask your professor" at this point. Academic arguments can be informative for people familiar with the topic, but they don't help someone in PSY100.

[Ummon]

The unconscious is infact being reconsidered (marginal modifications), and Bucci's theory is not the only one nor the best, but the book delves in detail in the issues you mentioned, thus I have suggested it.

Bucci's extreme cautions arise from her peculiar program of research, but you see, I am not discussing this with you. I have suggested that you read a book. One of the many you could read on the subject.

Fact remains, that cognitive psychology has no valid objection to most of Freud's theorizations, although of course a great deal of work is required to bridge the language gap, operationalize concepts, etc.

Your comments are also somewhat superfluous. None of your spoilers worries me in the least, nor is it really pertinent, as scientific theories have to be updated of course, compared with evidence, corrected, etc. The assertions in the third spoiler in particular have been challenged by research already. Science also, is not about orthodoxy and eterodoxy, but about hypotheses, experiments and refutations.


Freud abondoned his "Project" because he was unable to pursue a neurological basis for his fledgeling psychoanalysis. Today, we are not.

Nothing induces me to discuss such a serious matter here. You don't consider psychoanalysis scientific? Well, you're welcome. Wrong, but welcome.

The refutation doesn't belong here.