The Unconscious and Freewill

Since there is a plethora of Freewill threads, might as well add another one – and I apologize if this has been recently covered elsewhere. But if Freewill can be considered to have a kind of common sense existence, in the manner that even those that argue against it actually experience it, that is the reality of its description in real, everyday life, so too does the Unconscious seem to have the same kind of common sense existence, in that in everyday life – slips of the tongue, repetitions of childhood traumas in adult life, the benefits of therapy, if not for ourselves, then others - we have come to understand and explain everyday phenomena by way of reference to the Unconscious. So it seems that there are two competing explanations of behavior, both of which seem obvious to each of us at times. And while Freewill has a much deeper entrenchment in our language, given the brief amount of time that the Unconscious has been in common parlance, certainly not more than 80 years - though its antecedents may go back quite far, being linked to conceptions of the Irrational -, the Unconscious has a considerable presence in our everyday reality. So my questions are: are Freewill and the Unconscious in anyway compatible?; does one imply the other, or exclude the other?; is the Unconscious a kind of determinism?; when something unconscious becomes conscious is it then submitted to Freewill, or other determining factors?; does the Unconscious play the same role as the Devil once did in Christian theology (and perhaps for some, still does), that is as a force that operates behind the scenes, but awareness of which promotes a kind of Freedom and self-mastery?; is it possible to conceive of oneself without an Unconscious of some sort in this day and age? Is not Desire to which we are blind to, whatever its form, ultimately undermining to the idea of Freewill, for how can we be aware of all desires in their infinite structure? And for those that place importance on the concept of Freewill, what role do you allow for mental illness in Freewill’s suspension? And questions of that kind.

Dunamis

This idea that everyone has an unconscious mind has to be one of the most successful ideas in the modern realm of self-concept. Hardly anyone could accept the idea of mind without an unconscious element. Modern neuroscience increasing finds evidence of information processing systems that operate outside of the reach of the conscious experience. Vindicating in part Freud who supposed that all of his theoretical constructs (Ego, Id and Superego) would eventually be found to have a parallel structure in the brain.

The existence of the unconscious does not automatically eliminate the possibility of freewill, but it does complicate things. At a minimum it presents us with at least two difference centers of willpower operating within every human being. The hidden nature of the unconscious willpower gives it an advantage. While the conscious willpower seemed to be fully visible to the unconscious willpower, thus rending it exposed.

Mental health then is the effort to reconcile, alight and re-integrate these two centers of willpower. One must develop a partnership with the unconscious willpower, or always fight a losing battle.

Xander,

The existence of the unconscious does not automatically eliminate the possibility of freewill, but it does complicate things. At a minimum it presents us with at least two difference centers of willpower operating within every human being.

In what way would you say that the Unconscious mind does not eliminate the possibility of freewill? For Freewill to be operational as such, it seems it would require the making conscious all of the contents of the Unconscious, a definitional impossibility. As long as the unconscious desires remain, operating through consciousness, can the subject really be said to be freely choosing?

One must develop a partnership with the unconscious willpower, or always fight a losing battle.

If one accepts Freud’s therapeutic compromise, everyday neurosis over extra-ordinary psychosis, I am unsure how Freewill is able to squeeze itself in between. Even a partnership with an ultimately stronger partner is hard to see as an absolute freedom, wherein choice can be made in the sense that Freewill requires.

Dunamis

I think the unconscious part of the mind is the very essence of free will. I’m a scientific determinist-compatiblist, which means i think that, as physical objects, we operate in the same regular way that billiard balls do; however, we do not know a lot about what makes us tick. It is our ignorance of so much of our thinking and acting process that lets us perceive ourselves to be free. I don’t think we are free in an ultimate sense, but we seem to be free because we do not, and probably cannot, know all that makes us act as we do.

Carleas,

“I don’t think we are free in an ultimate sense, but we seem to be free because we do not, and probably cannot, know all that makes us act as we do.”

This is similar to the also determinist Stoic ideal of amor fati, the embrace of fate/God/nature, which provides a degree of freedom, except that the Stoics privilege rational thought as the means to that embrace. We can either choose through insight to be what we must be, or be what we must be under a veil of ignorance, always perhaps falling somewhere in between.

Dunamis

IMO, unconscious undermines freewill BUT may contribute to “choice” on the conscious level. Going further on unconsciousness, our dream state processes in some way effects our conscious decisions. Also, it undermines determinism because it allows for randomness BUT there may be some limitation on the conscious level in the form of a boundary type condition that pushed further opens up “mental illness”.

What an interesting subject. I’m reading a book by David Livingston, a professor and evolutionary Psychologist who teaches at UNE (Maine, NH) called ‘Why We Lie’ and the book is essentially on the deception which occurs in nature in all living organisms. It goes into great detail of the bub-conscious mind and how it works and effects the conscious mind and our behavior. It’s like a computer in the way that our conscious is analogous to the monitor and the sub-conscious to the CPU. Or a funnel where you have the thin part at one end and that’s where the least amount of liquid can pass through.

I have to leave shortly so I can’t go into detail, however, the sub-conscious in no way presents the possibility of free-will. But once again, we have to decide what exactly it is we mean by free-will in the first place. This may not be as easy as it sounds. When we figure that out, everything else will make sense including its relationship with the unconscious mind.

dsavalto,

“But once again, we have to decide what exactly it is we mean by free-will in the first place.”

I have yet to see a definition which is compatible with the Unconscious, but I am open minded to hearing one.

Dunamis

achilles,

unconscious undermines freewill BUT may contribute to “choice” on the conscious level.

Is your use of “choice” synonymous with Freewill here, and if so why is the Unconscious’ effect considered a contribution, and not a determination? Consciousness is by definition blind to the source of Unconscious effects, so in no way can take them into account. Those effects would seem determinations at least to some degree, would they not? And if theories of the Unconscious are to be believed, the contribution of the Unconscious would be structuring, nearly formal causes, rather than additions to freely chosen events.

Dunamis

John Searle has presented the concept of ‘the Background’, which I understand to be a technical term for what we often call “the unconscious”. The idea is that intentionality (which, according to Searle, is essentially conscious) does not function autonomously, but only against a Background of abilities, tendencies, etc. We are not aware of this Background, but it’s what enables us to intentionally interact with the world as we do. For example, when I open a door, I simply think “open the door”; I do not think about the details of the mechanics that go into turning the door knob and then pushing the door open – the work to accomplish the goal of [opening the door] is done unconsciously, i.e., in the Background.

I agree with Searle that intentionality is necessarily conscious. An “unconscious desire” is really a disposition to have a specific desire (due to the particular makeup of our Background), which is itself fully conscious, but we are just not conscious of the desire. Without becoming conscious of it, our consciously-driven behavior must be purely “instinctive”, that is, entirely controlled by the unconscious/Background.

By becoming conscious of the intentional states that we’re unconsciously disposed to have, we can gain a degree of conscious control over how we are. Now, this does not mean that our intentional activity is not entirely determined by our unconscious makeup. It just means that our activity tends to better serve ends that are valuable to us as conscious beings, as opposed to us simply acting in whichever way a blind evolutionary process has conditioned us to act. The activity becomes intelligent (to a degree), even though this intelligence was determined to be as it is by unintelligent processes.

If we take ‘free-will’ to entail a conscious mind that functions autonomously (that is, not determined by unconscious processes), then there is no free-will in this sense. Although it seems to us that we act as we do simply because “I chose to do it”, we are merely unaware of the Background that sets up the context in which we consciously interact with the world. If by ‘free-will’ we mean the ability to consciously control our lives, at least to some degree, then I think free-will is a possibility.

Iss

Iss,

I like your breakdown, but there are still a few, perhaps terminological, holes.

If we take ‘free-will’ to entail a conscious mind that functions autonomously (that is, not determined by unconscious processes), then there is no free-will in this sense.

Here you appear to specify that the unconscious determines, the conscious mind.

Although it seems to us that we act as we do simply because “I chose to do it”, we are merely unaware of the Background that sets up the context in which we consciously interact with the world.

This would seem to qualify for the formal cause of decisions, if not their efficient cause.

If by ‘free-will’ we mean the ability to consciously control our lives, at least to some degree, then I think free-will is a possibility.

Yet here you suggest that consciousness, even though determined by the unconscious, “controls” our lives. If consciousness is the product of the Unconscious, then really it is the unconscious that “controls” our lives. Further, who is this “we”, “I” that does the controlling? It seems we are setting up the homunculus of imagined rationality, a humunculus who would have to have his own unconscious mind. I also am unsure if the equation Background = Unconscious fully works, for theories of the Unconscious extend far beyond background information and awarenesses, into drives, desires and patterns that do more than establish contexts and dispositions, door-workings and such matter, they, at least in theory, express hidden designs of relentless intent. “Conscious control of our lives”, would seem to imply actions free from the determination of the Unconscious. I am unsure how else you could define this, but also am unsure how you imagine it. There seem to be two dimensions of unconscious awareness: one the mechanics of opening a door; and two, the desire to open the door.

at least to some degree

For there to be any degree of control, that degree would have to be attributable to an unconscious-free process, a process I’m not sure I can conceive. Any decision, and for that matter action un-decided or otherwise, can be shown later to have stemmed from unconscious motivation.

Dunamis

First off, you raise interesting questions!

No. I’m not using choice to equate with freewill. I’m considering consciousness as a sort of filter for what happens “BENEATH”. i.e. unconsciousness and at a more deeper level then that [dream like processin state].

I think to some degree the effects can be determinations as well contributions to the structure of consciousness.

achilles,

" I’m considering consciousness as a sort of filter for what happens “BENEATH”."

Would you go so far as to say that what happens consciously is an expression of what happens “Beneath”? And if so, is there anything that happens consciously that is not an expression of what happens “Beneath”?

Dunamis

Dunaimis,

Basically, I am imagining two forces, A and B, with A being a goal-less force although still robotically tending towards a certain goal, and B being a goal-directed force that works to attain a different goal than that which A tends to attain. B emerges from A, and the initial makeup of B is determined by the makeup of A. To say that A is “in control” of B means that the goal which A tends to attain is the primary goal; B attains its goal as well, but not to an extent that it sacrifices the ‘as-if’ goal of A. To say that B has “a degree of control” means that its own goal is sometimes primary when it acts; that is, the ‘as-if’ goal of A is sometimes sacrificed for the sake of attaining B’s goal.

Force A is the unconscious, and force B is consciousness. In my view, the unconscious tends to serve the preservation of our genes, where as the goal of conscious effort is pleasurable experience (broadly construed). When we act “instinctively”, we do tend to attain pleasurable experience, but our conscious minds are “controlled” by the unconscious because the preservation of our genes is still the primary goal that our behavior tends to attain. When we intelligently work towards attaining pleasurable experience, however, consciousness can become “in control to a degree” because in our behavior, the goal of pleasurable experience can take primacy over the goal of gene-preservation.

Perhaps an analogy could be the relationship between parents and a child. The child emerges from the parents, and its makeup is determined by the makeup of the parents. But, the child can be “in control” if it’s able to manipulate its parents into satisfying its own desires.

I am not positing an “I”, only an intelligent thing that can have pleasurable and painful experiences, and strives to attain pleasure and avoid pain.

I was aware that my illustration of the Background was limited to illustrating only the information processing aspect; I didn’t mean that it only serves as a Background for conscious thought, and not conscious feeling as well. How it can serve as a Background for feelings, however, seems much more mysterious.

I agree with the second sentence (except I would never rigorously say “unconscious motivation”), but I think the first does not follow from it. As long as there is such a thing as “conscious work” – that is, consciousness is not just an epiphenomenal thing that results from unconscious processes, but rather is disposed to operate within a certain context by the unconscious, but from there is able to operate according to “laws of consciousness” without the unconscious continuing to (actively) guide its every movement – then there can be “conscious control”.

Iss

Iss,

A being a goal-less force although still robotically tending towards a certain goal

This strikes me as an absolute contradiction. A goal is simply a teleological description of behavior. By being Unconscious - that is blind to consciousness - it would possibly be unaware of its goal orientation, but certainly would not goalless.

B attains its goal as well, but not to an extent that it sacrifices the ‘as-if’ goal of A.

This would contradict for instance Freud’s theory of the Death Drive, and all of the examples where the Unconscious works to subvert the goals of consciousness. In fact if the “as-if” goal of A was never subverted, one would never realize there is any other force. The Unconscious is primarily seen through the “sacrifice”, i.e. failure, of A’s goals. So your theory of control is A is in control of B as long as B achieves its ends. The moment that B’s ends are threatened, B is in control. Freewill would be the freedom to be determined, essentially the Stoic position.

but from there is able to operate according to “laws of consciousness” without the unconscious continuing to (actively) guide its every movement – then there can be “conscious control”.

You seem to imply that there are times when A is operating completely independent of B, even contrary to B in a moment of freedom. And if so, how would you determine that that is the case given the unknowability of the extent and form of Unconscious processes? There seems no event that cannot be attributed to the Unconscious, even events of the most legally conscious form. Given an example, if you would, of either such an event, or the distinguishing characteristics of such an event.

Dunamis

This is a hard question to respond to since my understanding of “consciousness” is not the usual.

The “two competing behaviors” you describe I see as just different levels of unconscious behavior reacting to stimuli they have been habitually conditioned to. It is a struggle between many small wills rather than the assertion of "one"will.

Freewill is an attribute of consciousness. Consciousness in this case is self awareness; both the functioning self and that which is aware of it are creating a person’s “presence”. Sustained freewill reflects consciousness of the whole of oneself and is an “action”. Unconscious response to a dominating desire, lacking self awareness, appears as freewill but is just a “reaction” from a part of oneself.

Freewill for me means not conditioned by desires reflecting only parts of ourselves.

I believe so. Since we lack sustained self awareness, we continually follow the cycles of nature as does the rest of unconscious organic life. The oppositions of the elemental forces of nature create life as we know it. They overlap so not much is predictable as far as details. The cycles on a larger scale is all that is necessary to determine. What may appear as progress is just a different stage in the cycle.

We all have intervals of consciousness and slip back into unconscious behavior or this waking sleep that all the ancient traditions caution us about. Sustained consciousness can transform our capacity for will as demonstrated in our reactions to desire, into the will of consciousness. Consciousness offers freedoms impossible without it when tied to habits.

I would think so. In our normal waking sleep,we are in the power of imagination often considered the domain of the demonic since it denies us the understanding of our human nature. I can see how the struggle against imagination could be considered fighting with the Devil.

The trouble with these kinds of questions is that they are normally considered while in the presence of waking sleep. The unconscious cannot understand the conscious. It would seem more profitable to consider how to experience consciousness and this will automatically put the unconscious into its rightful perspective.

Mental illness can give strength to a small “will” creating something out of proportion and creating an imbalance that can be damaging to both oneself and others. When socially acceptable though, we sometimes call it “genius.”

Nick,

“This is a hard question to respond to since my understanding of “consciousness” is not the usual.”

I wish I could respond, but since you are operating from a perspective quite different than that implied in the question, it would only lead to abstrusely spiritual speculation, (or perhaps for you explication). I did enjoy your thinking here, apart from the needs of question. :slight_smile:

Dunamis

This is really a question of identity. Who is the subject? Is he a conscious mind with a freewill who has this alien unconscious mind that is trying to dominate him? Or is he a single mind that operates in a disintegrated state? Is the mind one system or is it two? The conscious mind is a natural outgrowth of the unconscious mind. It is a sub system created by a larger organic system. The trouble is that the conscious mind suffers from a kind of amnesia. It has forgotten its origin. It does not experience its connection to its organic source. Yet all the time it is connected.

It is comparable to the metaphor of the Demiurge and the genuine God in some Gnostic models. The conscious mind is like the Demiurge. It looks back and is blind to its origins thus it assumes that it originated itself. It sees itself as the sole lord of creation. Yet it is only a fragment of the larger unconscious mind. The unconscious mind is like the genuine God.

The unconscious mind is who you really are while the conscious mind is only who you think you are. The conscious mind confuses the map for the territory. The conscious mind is as the microcosm to the unconscious mind as the macrocosm. The conscious mind is part of a greater whole of which it has forgotten. Only through re-integration with the greater portion of itself can it experience wholeness. It cannot encompass the unconscious mind because the unconscious mind is so much bigger then it.

It is as if the final end digit of your finger lost its experience of connection with the preceding digits. As an independent operator it would seem to be controlled by the digits higher on the hand. It is not controlled by them it is a part of them. Only in its mistaken sense of independence could it imagine itself as being controlled.

Xanderman

Have you considered that it may be exactly the opposite? What you are calling the unconscious mind is actually the conscious mind while what you are calling the “conscious mind” is really who you think you are or the rationalizations necessary for communal life in the absence of consciousness.

Um, sorry Nick, you lost me.