The unconscious, mind and brain.

Fresco

Please don't be offended if I offer the following observation after viewing hundreds of your exceptional posts.

You have keen original thoughts of your own but yet you keep falling back on the likes of Gurdjieff, Ouspenski, and Piaget. Your observations will stand on their own merit.

No offence taken.

In my profile I highlight epistemology (main influence Piaget) and esoteric philosophy (...etc) as academic interests. I do not follow these writers slavishly but offer them as a semantic field within which to interpret my views. Other respondents have offered similar to me (e.g kuvasz - Joseph Campbell) which I find most useful.

What did Einstein say ...something like " He who believes himself to be in possession of the truth will be shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods". I think we all have to bear this in mind if we believe our statements can stand in their own right.

Fresco
Good point but when (as in my case) your mind is unencumbered by education then every thought is original.lafs)))))))))))))))

Perception wrote:

"I predict that you will eventually become fixated on terms like Reality-- Consciousness--- and whether or not the mind is merely a creation of the brain or a spiritual thing that defies description.
Good luck."
-------------------------------------

I'm sorry I've let this thread go cold, but posting here requires some thought and I often don't seem to have time to think anymore. But here, let me try to take this up for a minute.

The mind (and this is according to the main stream of comtemporary Freudian psychoanalysis and neuroscience) is a metaphor we use to describe our experience of brain activity. We use it in it's noun form, not remembering that it's actually more accurate as a gerund. Minding is really more descriptive. Oops, have to go away for a minute. I'll continue soon.

OK..........minding, as in minding the store, taking care of business, searching for meaning.......and meaning defines the difference in mind and brain. Which brings us to the neurobiological causes of affects. And with affects, we are led to affect regulation and self consciousness. The human developmental process has it's roots in the mother/infant diad. Interactions between the infant and mother result in what Daniel Stern calls, "dynamic social narratives." Self-states and attachment methods (all functions of brain activity) are the result of of the intimate interaction between an infant and that infant's primary caregiver.


more on return

Lola
I'll take this up monday.

Lola
We know that each of us has a a"self state" and an ego, both of which cause nothing but trouble. The "self" being a construct of each individual brain and the ego being a social contruct. The self is interested only in what makes us feel good such as comfort, satisfaction and survival and is relatively simple to comprehend and does not require a lot of thought. The ego on the other hand is much more complex because it is a product of our social interaction, however the sum total of what the ego produces depends completely on the sensitivity and awareness of the individual. On the one end of the spectrum is a person who cares deeply about how other people perceive them and want to constantly improve their personality so that they please everyone. On the other end of the spectrum is the individual who cares so deeply about themselves that there is no time to think of how others perceive them.

The above is almost irrelevant because there is a third portion of the mind that is far more secretive and is perhaps the real key to understanding our own minds but it is the one portion of the mind that no one knows anything about because we don't know how to tap into it..................the sub-conscious. It seems according to scientists that most learning and consolidation of the days activities take place during sleep. It is during this very important process that the sub-conscious determines what will be translated into conscious thought which can be recalled for use in making decisions and other useful functions. The rest of this perhaps very important information will be locked away from any recall process, except for the random thought that escapes along with some other totally unrelated thought. There is no known manner of controlling the sub-conscious.

Lola--this is my current thinking-----do you agree with any of it?

I agree with some of what you've written here, perception. In psychoanalytic terms, the term "self" refers to a person's sense of agency and "ego" refers to a component of the "structural theory," which most people have heard of (id, ego and superego.) In this theory, the ego represents a person's attempts to live within the constraints of reality.

I'm going to copy a couple of paragraphs from another thread below in order to discuss sleep, the unconscious and dreams:

Dreams actually represent (and this is according to Freud, and supported by recent research in neuroscience) the dreamer's wishes. Desires, born in early childhood are newly expressed throughout our lives with current friends and lovers. When these desires bring conflict, we try to disguise them, in an attempt to protect ourselves from danger and that evil feeling of anxiety. But when we're asleep, we're immobilized. We're in less danger from the possibility we might act to gratify certain forbidden wishes, so with a lessening of inhibition, desires are expressed, still disguised, but more recognizable to the dreamer than in awake consciousness. Often friends may have overlapping dreams because awareness of certain desires are triggered by interaction with the others.

Dreams are impossible to interpret without the dreamer's awake associations. Attempting to interpret a dream without the day residue (what has happened recently in the dreamer's contemporary life) and the dreamer's thoughts about the dream is of little value. Keep in mind though, that all this wish fulfillment and defense associated with it is unconscious. It is only through derivatives (like a dream, symptom, fantasy, etc.) that we can decern clues.........and the dream brings the unconscious processes closer to the surface of consciousness (a metaphor for several functions of brain activity.) So when the dreamer awakens, she is very likely to reinstate defenses quickly, making the meaning of the dream seem silly or in exact opposition of it's true meaning.

We're most comfortable with the surface meaning of dreams during waking hours. And well we should be comfortable, otherwise living isn't much fun. Looking beyond the present day, practical explanation requires some intrapsychic risk and when a person's life is going well, that person may prefer to leave well enough alone. I can recommend it highly.

But a dream represents more than a wish alone. It actually represents a method of conflict management called a compromise formation, in psychoanalytic terms. So a dream is always an attempt to solve problems. It's a very important aspect of dreaming. It's one of the primary methods we have of working out solutions to the conflicts in our lives. As far as it being prophetic, I don't believe in paranormal phenomenon in the sense of something magical happening. But I think dreams can and often do represent a sense of clarvoyance in that we always know more about ourselves and the possible realities existing in the lives of our friends and intimates than we may be aware of consciously. Little hints or unexpected affects in those we are close to will trigger an alertness to something going on with that friend that he/she has not told us outright. So in this sense, dreams can be prophetic. But dreams are wonderful devises in our brains. They serve multiple functions, all at once. It's very efficient.

Lola
As always, very diplomatic in your response. In your discussion of dreaming you infer I believe, that the examination of dreams in conjunction with waking evidence, is the only avenue open to the psychoanalist in exploring the sub-conscious.

I asked you once before about your opinion of hynosis and to my knowledge you never replied( most probably lost in the chaos of the recent move) or maybe you don't consider it relevant. How can we ever tap into the sub-conscious?

Isn't it possible that the self and the ego have too much control over our minds in that what the sub-conscious chooses to reveal to our conscious minds is very much influenced by the self and the ego in the form of defense mechanisms. Since the ego and the self don't want to be "hurt" emotionally they cause the sub-conscious to lock out anything that can cause emotional trauma.

I think there is no easy way (like hypnosis) around defenses. We can try to over come defenses, but the effect is only "good behavior" rather than understanding. The only way to achieve true insight into the unconscious is through psychoanalysis or intensive psychotherapy. Hypnosis, when it works leads to insight in non conflicted areas where defenses are not necessary. It may give some clues, like a dream, but the patient is only able to use those clues in order to develop insight if anxiety is not too great. Freud initially used hypnosis and he discovered that hypnosis was unnecessary. In the first place not everyone could be hypmotized (too much defense) but also, the process of free association was easier and more effective. Psychoanalytic work involves a gradual understanding, first of defenses, what they are, when they're applied. And as I said, this is gradual, allowing the need for defense to decrease in order to discover the person (or if you want to call it the self, fine) underneath. The material for psychoanalysis is not only dreams, although dreams are a good source of information about the unconscious and it's defenses, but symptoms are a major source of information, primarily because symptoms are what brought the patient into the consulting room. Fantasies (that is stories we take as fact, which in fact are simply assumptions we make about the actions or behavior of others) are another major source. And behavior in general. One need not analyze only pathological or problematic behavior, but what is thought of more under the category of "normal" behavior gives a lot of information about the unconscious mind as well. All of these things, dreams, symptoms, fantasies, behavior both pathological and normal, etc. are all derivatives of the unconscious mind. Where conflict exists in the unconscious, and where it threatens to break into consciousness, anxiety is produced, signaling a need for defense. So approaching the material slowly and with care allows the analyst and patient to discover the contents of the unconscious without generating so much anxiety or depression that the whole enterprise grinds to a halt.

Lola
Very informative and it brings us back to the question that P&L raised on the first page when referring to meditative exercises only I will use a different term.........introspection. For the person who is willing to seriously use introspection as a means of examing the
sub-conscious it would seem useful if one used the techniques you mention as those of the psychoanalist.

I realize this is probably impossible for that individual already crippled by those demons known as defense mechanisms.

I suppose introspection is just another name for the techniques used by Gurdjieff so often referenced by Fresco.

Introspection and meditation are valuable tools and I don't want to devalue them. These techniques have served mankind well for a long time. I'm just saying, as you asked the question, that they're limited to some degree in the pursuit of knowledge of the unconscious mind, because of the human need for safety from too much pain and a wish for pleasure. When a person's life is put together well enough to not be troubled by too many uncomfortable symptoms and they're getting enough gratification and not hurting themselves or someone else unnecessarily, introspection is very useful, but to the extent a person is trying to manage too much anxiety, it will work less well. But I think a good friend can sometimes be very helpful, if that friend is honest enough to tell you what they really experience about your behavior, or to work hard to pay attention when a relationship hits a stalemate, however you can see the limitations of this as well. Because with friends, it's reciprocal, it's more likely you'll get caught up and somehow so involved that even the friend can't be objective enough (I'm making no claims about the possibility of absolute objectivity) to be aware of their own defenses. This of course is a problem any psychoanalyst (I'm using psychoanalysis because I am a psychoanalyst and I know most about this method) has to face. But it's the analyst's job to be aware of her own defenses through a psychoanalysis of her own and to be looking for ways in which she (the psychoanalyst) may be supporting defenses rather than promoting the understanding of them. It takes a lot of self awareness and daily struggle to understand yourself well enough most of the time to stay out of the patient's way. But that's what I get paid for.

Lola
Very concise picture of what you as a psychoanalyst face in attempting to stay objective and to not get caught up in the intricate maneuvering of the patient.
Thanks for you view of hynosis and introspection----it would appear that the sub-conscious will continue to elude our understanding for a while longer.

Lola and Fresco
I have just encountered some recent happenings in the world of neurobiology regarding "The quest for consciousness". This is the title of a book that will be published in 2003 by Kristoff Koch in collaberation with Francis Crick(of Nobel prize fame for his work on DNA). The link follows:
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html

Please let me know your opinions

Tell me, Miss Lola, if ever you have read a book entitled: The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. I am curious because i had read that work, and then discussed with a professor of Philosophy for whom i was "moonlighting." He objected to Jayne's description of consciousness and it's origins, i objected to Jayne's references to ancient literature. I've always wondered what the neurologist or psycholanalyst might think of this work.

Setanta,

I haven't read the book, can you tell me what your prof objected to about Jayne's description of consciousness? And about your objections to his use of ancient literature? I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about consciousness and the brain. I've been studying the collaboration of cognitive neuroscience and psychoanalysis. Very interesting subject. Finally, at last, we have some method to test Freud's psychoanalytic ideas using a more objective scientific method. It's fascinating how much Freud is being proved both right about some things (the existence of the unconscious, transference and conflict theory to name only a few) and wrong about others. It's very helpful to the profession of psychoanalysis to have the measure provided by the science of neurobiology in helping us disprove the Freudian theories that don't fit and build on those theories that do work. And Psychoanalysis is helping the neuroscientists with testable definitions of functions of the brain. Like consciousness for instance.

perception

The above article suffers, I think from a need for an empirically based definition of self-consciousness. The article sets it aside for now because they say it's impossible to study self consciousness in a monkey. But for me, this is my primary interest and the PET scan technology is making the study of self consciousness possible, not in monkeys but in humans. For a clinical practitioner, as I am, the definition in the article above leaves me feeling, "so what? What does this have to do with how human beings think?"

Well, Boss, keeping in mind that i read this in the early 1980's, nearly 20 years ago . . .

Jaynes is basically saying that early humans, lacking a consciousness of self (still in an "animal" state), interpreted messages from one of the two hemispheres (i don't recall what distinctions he made) as being phenomena distinct from self, and therefore real. In other words, should the clan chief tell you to go cut wood, and you began the task, but, losing interest, began to wander off, the memory of his/her orders would come back to you, but you would interpret them as an apparition of the chief, and thereafter attribute strong, mystical powers to that figure. By extension, when a greatly revered chief of clan or tribe were buried, and memories of that individual returned, the members of the group would consider these a manifestation of the actual person, and therefore assign "god-like" attributes to that person. This is what Jaynes meant by the bi-cameral mind. The gentleman for whom i worked on the side (definitely not "my" prof) objected that this posited a priori a lack of any form of consciousness in "pre-human" hominids and any other animal species, and had other objections, which were too boring to me at the time for me to have remembered them.

My objections were that Jaynes adduced support for his contentions from ancient petroglyphs and writings--for example, claiming that originally, portrayals of deities were those in which the deity stood or walked side by side with humans (the "bi-cameral hallucination"--which is my term for his thesis, not Jaynes'); but that later depictions placed the deities off in the sky. I would object because he selected only deptictions and texts from semitic peoples in the ancient middle-east, and ignored all the other cultures on the planet. He was also ignoring the large and growing body of ethnological data which suggests that many human groups have had no conception of a deity. Ancestor worship may be accounted for by his description of "bi-cameral hallucinations," but that constitutes a flimsy basis for a pan-humanic statement of the terms of consciousness. He also makes reference to ancient Greek texts, although he only cites the Illiad to suggest that humans did not originally make a connection between body and mind. It would be necessary to read the text to make this clear, however--i'm not stating his case well, i'm sure, and i'd have to re-read it to make clear in my mind my objection to his citation of ancient sources.

Lola
Your reaction to the approach of Crick and Koch to consciousness was very interesting and I can certainly agree with you that their reluctance to define the term "consciousness" immediately causes one's eyes to "glaze" over. Had I not been so interested in the fact that someone of Crick's stature was willing to tackle this age old debate from the angle of "neural activity" instead of the usual philosophical pontification about some transcendental illusion that has been ongoing for at least 2500 years, I probably would have had your same reaction.

Since you are so interested in the neuroscience angle of how the mind works, I would like you to study a model of "How cognition is implemented in the brain" and then I will give you this same author's criticism of the Crick/Koch approach
http://www.human-brain.org/cognition.html

I have not been able to locate a similar model and it reads well---even though it may raise more questions than it answers. It does not deal with consciousness because of the very reason that Crick and Koch do not define it-----it defies definition as does the term "cognition".

It does point out that neural activity in the brain during sleep may be at the same level as during wakefulness. It does not however say anything about the transition from one to the other which to me is of vital importance. If consciousness is strictly a neural process then the transition from waking to sleep would indicate a completly separate but yet integrated network of neurons being activated or inactivated by some unknown "switch". At this point I tend to want to believe in the mind being more of a "neural process" than the "philosophical pontification approach" would have us believe and like you I can't wait for the "fMRI" and "PET scan" or some similar scanning system yet be developed, to prove or disprove it.

NO, Lola it DOES appear is a
very intelligent woman, and she is apparently
quite well read.... about matters which she
takes quite seriously. I take matters like
unconscious, subconscious,anima, animus,
shadow self, child self, etc etc seriously
BECAUSE of my dreams!!!
IT IS MY DREAMS THAT HAVE TAUGHT ME TO
TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY.
I don't know another way to say this - but, if
I am understanding Lola correctly, and I hope
I am, then this means I have found another
person who agrees about the incredible
educational usefulness of the dream.
It is NEVER "just a dream"
OH, BTW if you are splitting off to another
thread, let me know where.

Babs

Tell me again exactly what it is that you have interpreted from this thread----You confused me by starting out with----No, Lola......... as thought I had implied otherwise. I consider Lola extremely intelligent and I value her opinions highly. I believe Lola to be a professional psychiatrist and I was disappointed she has not taken a look at the model I suggested regarding the implementation of cognition in the human brain.

Your comments are very interesting and it would seem that you have very vivid dreams that can be interpreted. This could be very useful to you. My dreams on the other hand are very disjointed and I have never been able to make any sense of them.

Feel free to start a thread about dreams and perhaps Lola will respond