subconscious

HI,

I am new to this site and this is my first post. I remember reading something a few months ago that described (interms of existentialism or maybe phenomenology) how there can be no subconscious. As a believer in the non-existence of the subconscious I am very interested in any ideas or theories that anyone has that back up the theory that the subconscious (in any way) does not exist. Can anyone point me in the direction of any other theories to support this notion. Many thanks.

You don’t believe in the subconsciouness? And you’re looking for information to back that up? Surely subconsciouness exist, otherwise the gap between conscious ot not-conscious would be to big.

Thanks for the reply Tuihu,

what gap? where is the gap?

can you explain to me your ideas of why the subconscious must exist?

Consciouness is a part of a spectrum of information we are receiving. It’s like the tip of an iceberg. What else could there be underneath besides the subconsciouness?

Memory also remain subsciouness?

This topic also interests me a great deal. I am also sceptical when it comes to ideas of un/sub conscious. I have only read Sartre who is influenced by phenomenology. I know that he doesnt think that there is an unconscious. This is shown in Being and Nothingness on his chapter on bad faith or self-deception.

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/7e.htm#bad

Its quite interesting, but i dont think that his argument is entirely convincing. However i personally see the modern adoption of the unconscious as a religious symbol. Where is the logical proof for an unconciousness? There isnt one, because psychology is firstly a human science and can never provide that kind of proof. Thereofore it will always be based on empirical judgements which can always be argued one way or another.

Haven’t you ever been high?

I’m being so serious right now. Smoke some marjuana and let your sub-consious reveal itself to you. If you take it seriously you’ll be able to discover and learn a lot about yourself.

Yes, I did some marijuana, and it sure did take my thoughts further. What were seeing and experiencing, isn’t that covered by the ‘veil of perception’? What’s behind that veil? Think deeper, search harder. There are things you can see and you can know. And there are things you don’t see and don’t know. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be reveiled. It can come to your conscious .

There are two types of consciousness, each are accessible and active in awareness. There is spontaneous doubt, which is the immediate awareness of any objects other than consciousness. It is the immediate revelation of being conscious, before the reality of the objects themselves are questioned. Then there is the methodological doubt, when consciousness is not only aware of the immediate objects, but also of the fact that it is aware. The “method,” as opposed to the “spontaneous,” is a cogitative awareness, it is the organization of a number of negations. Classifying the object as a phenomena with attributes and properties, distinguishing it from other “it(s),” as well as the consciousness itself. Only when the being of the object is in question does reflection occur, the method, where its existence is “profiled” and momentarily seperated from the otherwise ambigious being. Initially there is only a consciousness and a world of phenomena. Until any comparisons are made between distinct individual objects, there is no separation…no negation.

A subconsciousness has no place in this equation. If, on the other hand, what is meant by “subconscious” is really “involuntary cognition,” then we are talking about the autonomous mechanics of the physiological mind. This is irrelevant to the act of being conscious, which is not a phenomena in terms of “what there can be consciousness of.” See? To say that I have a subconscious is the same thing as saying that my awareness is not immediate or methodological. For how can there be any signifying consciousness other than the very act of being conscious of an object and knowing that one is conscious of the object(the initial and immediate negation)? There couldn’t be, or, coming from the other end, if there is, then it isn’t a consciousness because consciousness cannot work without spontaneous awareness and methodological negation, both of which require “self” awareness from the start.

Not to detract from your statement, UndergroundMan, but what would make the awareness during a drug intoxication any different than a sober one? Once again, even though the mind is altered, the state of being conscious is still the same.

When you say “reveal,” do you mean that consciousness is no longer a surface activity, an immediate activity? Or do you mean that the “thoughts” you are conscious of are however different than those “thoughts” during sobriety?

If, for example, a drunk person with uninhibited behavior becomes aggressive and thinks violent thoughts, this doesn’t mean that those thoughts arise from a subconsciousness, as if the thoughts revealed another nature or personality. Even with a tendency to become violent when drunk, consciousness operates no differently. It is only an aspect of your personality that reveals itself as such, not a different kind of consciousness.

what would make the awareness during a drug intoxication any different than a sober one? in respose to that:
awareness during intoxication is very very different. when one is intoxicated the synapses in the brain are partially disabled meaning the brain does not react to ecvironmental stimulus. it becomes so absorbed in its own train of thought. that it becomes aware of things that it would never contemplate on in concious thought,because it would be too busy foccussing on normal, everyday thought.
And on the topic of the subconcious not existing. that is total shyte cos the subconcious plays an even more vital role to the activity of the brain-of the mind. if someone spends a few months in a foriegn country and makes no effort to learn the language, they will know it. whether they like it or not. their subconciouss will pick it up. This just a trivial example of the powers the subconcious has.

Look closer, my friend.

Does a drunk man change the state of the blue ball when he looks at it? Or is his sensory perception changed? If the ball then looks purple, like its moving, like it has a double, etc., does this mean that the awarness of this new perception is different than the awarness of the perception he had of the ball before getting drunk? Let us not question the reality of the object percieved. Let us examine the structures of experience, the phenomenological aspects about awareness that remain the same for any state of consciousness.

Yes, indeed, but you pretend that perception must be formal to be real. What is the natural state of the brain? When is it physiologically consistent, when is there “real” awareness, when is there “false” awareness. Remember, I’m not concerned with the actual state of the ball, that is irrelevant. I’m concerned with the process of being conscious of any perceptual stimuli, during any state of sensory awareness.

I do not hold one over the other, and need not to examine consciousness.

Again, what makes drug induced experience any different than “everyday normal” experience? Lets say you were drunk 75% of the time. Would the remaining 25% of experience be abnormal?

Well certainly they would make an effort. Though they need not focus on that effort as an item of knowledge given to immediate awareness. He would learn the languge discreetly, only focusing on the efforts if someone stopped and asked him “what are you doing?” There isn’t a “subconscious” directing these efforts, as if it were a type of consciousness that was aware of an object(language) but not aware of that awareness itself.

If so, why not divide it once again and posit a sub-sub-consciousness behind that one?

Who is doing the thinking here? You, or the other you?

[laughing]

mate i have no idea what u were just going on about. heh heh! maybe its the other me thinking now cos really, i have no idea what that blue ball stuff was about. my main point is that if u went into a comma experiencing no concious thought, you would still survive. Why? because your subconciouss would still be instructing your heart to beat, your organs to function etc. you wouldn’t be aware of this, and this is what conciousness means AWARENESS.

The organs you speak about function involuntarily. This is the result of hydraulics, chemicle reactions, and electrical impulses. All are mechanical and physiological. They are automatic. Consciousness and/or subconsciousness has nothing to do with this.

There’s awareness or there isn’t. There is no “kinda awareness.” If you are aware, then you are conscious. If you are conscious, there is an object that exists for you to be conscious of. This event must be experienced to be acknowledged. For this to happen, one must be aware and in a position to be doubtful. Doubting involves purpose and intention, psychic activities, which are not mechanical and which do not operate “subconsciously.”

hey by the way that “guest” comment was me. and i still dunno what on earth u going on about. u just confuse me. or is that your strategy at winning arguments? look mate… subconcious means NOT AWARE but still in the human body and mind.conscious means aware. you’re in a comma… you’re not aware of anything. ok but yeah i see your point, about the body carrying on as per normal cos of it’s biology rather than it’s subconcious. i need to sleep on this one. i’ll ahve summit for u tommorow.

de’trop, maybe this is in the wrong thread… the wrong site, even…

but, in the psych. perspective thread in thin_edge you mentioned descriptions of a psycho/sociopath incapable of empathy…

you have mentioned humans being amoral…

that seems only to be true when one can not conceive of injustice or whatever…

Most people can conceive of it… even a psycho/sociopath can feel wronged by another person… they just don’t really seem to care the other way around…

bad faith seems only to involve choices we make that we try to blame on some outside cause other than our own choosing… and doesn’t really necessarily bring morality into question…

so it’s not bad faith if a pscho/sociopath says “I choose not to empathize with you” – but it is bad faith if they say, “I am, for reasons outside my control, incapable of empathizing w/ you,”? Am I getting something wrong here… is empathy a choice?

just rambling, beg your pardon

For consciouness and awareness is this topic.
This topic was about arguments why the subconsciouness would not exist. I didn’t read any yet, and I would be interested in it.

Deep hidden fears are another example of your subconscious. Simply thoughts that exist inside you and direct your actions to an extent that you arn’t aware of.

But then what happens when the person with [insert favorite phobia] confronts that fear and overcomes it? Does the subconsciousness, then, disappear, disassemble, disintegrate?

Was it even there to begin with?

When one is no longer affraid, do they still have a subconsciousness?

Would this be the same thing as body language then? The mind would react to these without been conscious of them or if it was, it would be merely as the term subconscious (psychic activity just below the level of awareness) would mean. More specifically, is body language just “involuntary cognition,” as if it is then the majority of communication would be spent in “autonomous mechanics.”

When ive been high, watching the magic roundabout and talking alien panda conspiracys. I find my consciousness is aware its aware. More a surface activity in which my feeling’s and cognition are been watched.

Your subconscious is at the command of your conscious mind thats why its called the subconscious. Although you cannot entirly control it, it is however open to auto-suggestion, afirmation ext. When you confront your fear yes you raise it to your conscious awareness and in a sense reprogram your subconscious.

You change the way you think about a certain thing such as the dark. You change it in your conscious mind effectivly enough to alter how you think about the thing in your subconscious mind. So that you get to a point where you walk into a dark room and no longer have to say to yourself consciously “theres nothing to be afraid of, theres nothing to be afraid of”. But just walk in unafraid and when you do your subconscious mind is allready running the message for you. Its a way of programing yourself.

Being high by the way is very different then being drunk.

Then what is commanding the subconsciousness, and is it entirely controlled itself? So on and so forth.

Wait a minute. Which one is preceding the other, here?

Do you see the senselessness in the idea of this subconsciousness?