Does the Unconscious Mind Even Exist?

[Elfa]

Behaviorism is an assumption that mind is irrelevant and people are just acting according to external world, thus they think that looking at how people behave to certain stimuli, they can find out everything from him.
I looked it up and you were right, some branches of behaviorism still exist and behaviorism was just largely replaced by cognitive psychology(what you called mentalism? studies how mental processes affect behavior) and cognitive neuropsychology(tries to find neural correlate to mental processes). i dont really get why some people cant let go of behaviorism already..

Even tho MBTI is based on jungs theories of personality and unconscious is one of the key aspects to jungs personality theory, MBTI leaves unconscious totally out of it(one of the reasons why it sucks compared to jungs theory). in MBTI you speak of undeveloped functions and means that you simply dont use them or cant use them well, they drain you or what ever. jung on the other hand talks about these "undeveloped" functions as unconscious functions that you still use as much as developed functions, but you use them unconsciously(dont have conscious control over) and that they link themselves to other functions and have guiding effect to consciousness.

Freud didnt come up with the idea of unconscious, that idea has been around for ages(if i remember right, even aristoteles wrote something about it). freud simply made claims about what this unconscious is. and if you are trying to nitpick on freudian definition of those, at least do the nitpicking properly;

conscious: everything we are aware at a given moment
preconscious: thoughts, feelings, memories, that can be easily brought to conscious level
unconscious: thoughts, feelings, memories and wishes that are difficult to bring awareness.

Its not that unconscious determines us, its just that unconscious is us.

Personally i prefer jungian approach to whole psyche(conscious, personal unconscious, collective unconscious and body). but jung approach is largely the same as freuds, but jung doesent talk about everything that freud did and some of those things are pretty important. but thats not because jung disapproved them, its just because he didnt have anything to add.

Did wikipedia actually say "random association" ? Anyways the wiki quote sucks and only lists words, not concepts or meanings behind the words.

Actually Watson's methodological behaviourism (the first of all behaviourisms) had the assumption that mind is irrelevant and people are acting according to external world; but Skinner's radical behaviourism assumes that there isn't a mind. I was talking about radical behaviourism and I should have said it before... Watson's behaviourism has really been replaced by other theories, but the radical behaviourism is quite popular right now and it has been the most effective approach to the treatment of autist children and some other stuff.

I had no idea about the relations between unconscious and MBTI, I just knew Jung believed in unconscious mind and MBTI was based in his theories. XD But it's good to know that.

You are right about Freud, he didn't made the "unconscious mind" term. I made a mistake in my previous post...

I'm was not trying to nitpick :/, I just thought you were trying to clarify some concepts and I corrected you, but thank you for saying almost what I said, but with other words.

Hum... We are actually made of conscious and unconscious, we are them both together... And the unconscious is what determines our behaviours and wishes (in Freud's theory).

Yes, Wikipedia said "random association". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind . I don't know what is the right english expression for that term; in portuguese we call it "associação livre", which the translation means "free association". I guess "random association" could mean that... But I might be wrong...

For the OP, I admit I didn't get what Ginkgo wanted to say in the end of the post...:/ (sorry my bad english ><) But I can say the divide between conscious and unconscious is made in the relation with other people (according to Freud). So maybe looking outside could be useful too in understanding ourselves? (I'm really not sure of this, since I'm not even sure if I got the OP... :/)

 

[xisnotx]

An unconscious mind wouldn't be able to tell if it exists or not because it is unconscious.
A conscious mind would be convinced that an unconscious mind can't exist because it goes against everything the conscious mind "knows".

So, who knows?

 

[INTP]

And the unconscious is what determines our behaviours and wishes (in Freud's theory).

unconsciously doesent determine our behavior(look up ego, super ego and id, and their drives), there is an unconscious instinct to act in certain ways, but that doesent mean we would act on these instincts and not all behavior is guided by unconscious. pretty much the same thing with wishes. wishes that are repressed are in unconscious, not all wishes come from unconscious tho. (in freuds theory)

Free association is the correct term, this just shows how good some people writing on wikipedia knows their business.

 

[chris1207]

I'm going to make the distinction between the unconscious and the unconscious mind. The unconscious, or rather, that which is unconscious, is what we are unaware of. However, the unconscious mind is a reservoir of unconscious information and an essential part of our psyches.

So does the latter even exist in your opinion? I don't doubt that there are symbols that pervade most if not all men's psyches; I also don't doubt that we are guided by them so often that we barely notice them if at all. Perhaps they work behind the scenes, but perhaps they spring from parts of our brain that deal very little with our peak consciousness.

I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with this. I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether it's necessary to incorporate all of that which we don't know into something that is essentially accessible through deep introspection, intuition, etc, or whether that which we don't know may as well be an object of outward (more extraverted) discovery.

The un-conscience is merely a coping mechanism that aids us in understanding those who are unlike us (i.e. have different cognitive functions.) It's an apparition that we perceive because it's a tool that we use in our everyday lives to coordinate with others and develop mutual understanding. You aren't aware of it because you are not predisposed to think that way. It is no more real than 'shadow functions' and as a whole quite analogous to them, in concept.

Also, un-conscience is to be distinguished from sub-conscience (introverted cognitive functions.)

 

[INTP]

The un-conscience is merely a coping mechanism that aids us in understanding those who are unlike us (i.e. have different cognitive functions.) It's an apparition that we perceive because it's a tool that we use in our everyday lives to coordinate with others and develop mutual understanding. You aren't aware of it because you are not predisposed to think that way. It is no more real than 'shadow functions' and as a whole quite analogous to them, in concept.

Also, un-conscience is to be distinguished from sub-conscience (introverted cognitive functions.)

Lol wtf

 

[chris1207]

It's called Fe=>Ni>Se=>Ti . It's all my own conjecture. I have not read up on what you all conceive of as the 'un-conscience'. Also, I may've been wrong with the last part... That may only apply to people who are extraverted and caught in a cognitive function loop, such as an ENFJ caught in an FeSe loop who is unaware of his introverted functions...

In other news, I may have hit what many refer to as self-actualization...

 

[INTP]

It's called Fe=>Ni>Se=>Ti . It's all my own conjecture. I have not read up on what you all conceive of as the 'un-conscience'. Also, I may've been wrong with the last part... That may only apply to people who are extraverted and caught in a cognitive function loop, such as an ENFJ caught in an FeSe loop who is unaware of his introverted functions...

In other news, I may have hit what many refer to as self-actualization...

Well.. Pretty much all you wrote contradicts everything people know about unconscious.

 

[chris1207]

Well.. Pretty much all you wrote contradicts everything people know about unconscious.

In what way is their conception different? Is it unreasonable to assume that they only have a partial understanding of it and that we are talking about the same thing? Also, was my argument logically succinct?

 

[INTP]

In what way is their conception different? Is it unreasonable to assume that they only have a partial understanding of it and that we are talking about the same thing? Also, was my argument logically succinct?

well this explains what consciousness is pretty well:
thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_12/d_12_p/d_12_p_con/d_12_p_con.html

notice that upper left corner has explanation levels(beginner etc.) and upper right has explanations from different perspectives(psychological, neurological etc.)

and there is bit simpler explanation of what consciousness and unconscious is:

cba to start explaining this more, but one thing i can tell you, there has been quite alot of scientific research on what unconscious is.

 

[chris1207]

Very nice, thank you. I think there is a semantic difference in the way I was classifying these terms versus everyone else.

Consciousness - What we are aware of when we are awake - Same
Sub-conscience = your un-consciousness. The other 90% of the brain we do not use but could tap into. Maybe these parts are analogous to undeveloped or underdeveloped cognitive functions. I would imagine that wiremen from India would concern themselves with this on account of their focus on self-actualization.
Un-consciouness for me = Shadow cognitive functions and the way they allow us to interpret that which we do not innately understand due to our predispositions.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

Something that is unconscious for us necessarily doesn't exist at all since It may exist whether or not we are aware of of them.

 

[The Cat]

Seeing as how we still exist unconscious, yes.

 

[Venus Rose]

Because I’m currently reading a relational theory of...the sense of self and the theory of mind etc. (at least how that emerges) I’m of the view currently that the unconscious “cognition” or thoughts can be influenced (in such a way as to produce an alien self or provide psychological compatibility so as to “complete” the person) by another, in the sense they EXIST because another does. They are felt as “existing in reality” but it might be because the other exists to begin with (it might almost be this sense of conjuring it up though I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case)

In the same vein the unconscious can be influenced, be projected upon, and the ease with which projections are possible that ability can even be abused (apparently Freud did it), say in cases of minor attempts at brainwashing or at worst, gaslighting

That’s only one way of looking at it though

‘Metarepresentation’ allow awareness. Otherwise the experience itself will have a lot more unconscious elements compared to the idea - or the metarepresentation - of it.

it is not a black and white case of “your unconscious contains thoughts and I’m going to expose it”
human experience is made sense through the eyes of the other, and also prediction/expectation and in a sense almost “becomes what it is,” as if conjured out of thin air, because of the projection upon the unconscious by another person.

to put it very briefly unconscious content is not necessarily an absolute thing, it is a relativistic thing - it can be influenced