• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Modes of sub-conscious thought

R

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
13,694
In evolutionary history, before living things became more reflective a lot of our behaviour seems to have been based on what I'll call sub-conscious modes, in other words sub-conscious drivers that allow animals to react quickly for survival and reproduction.

What I'm curious about is what others think about this concept of sub-conscious modes, and if we can agree that they're a thing, at least in the abstract, what exactly the set of modes is comprised of as they pertain to people today.

Thinking off the cuff, I'd say people's thoughts and consequent actions usually follow one of these lines:
- reducing energy output
- maximizing energy input
- maintaining personal health
- maintaining social health
- finding stimulative balance (entertainment)

Thoughts? Opinions? Criticisms? Additions? etc.
 
rousseau said:
In evolutionary history, before living things became more reflective a lot of our behaviour seems to have been based on what I'll call sub-conscious modes, in other words sub-conscious drivers that allow animals to react quickly for survival and reproduction.

What I'm curious about is what others think about this concept of sub-conscious modes, and if we can agree that they're a thing, at least in the abstract, what exactly the set of modes is comprised of as they pertain to people today.

Thinking off the cuff, I'd say people's thoughts and consequent actions usually follow one of these lines:
- reducing energy output
- maximizing energy input
- maintaining personal health
- maintaining social health
- finding stimulative balance (entertainment)

Thoughts? Opinions? Criticisms? Additions? etc.
Click to expand...

I forgot about reproductive. Der.
 
Thoughts, well, I might. Do we need another word to describe what may not exist at all, and I'm talking about unconscious thinking, the mulling of thoughts that we ourselves are not consciously aware of. If conscious thought is our very thinking that we're aware of, and if thinking is specific only to thinking we're aware of, then maybe what's just below our own self-awareness threshold is a kind of brain-mulling of free-floating disorganized concepts that bans the scope of thinking to which we are aware. This gives rise to the notion that sub-conscious thought is a bit of a misnomer in that it insinuates that there is such a thing as descripted. That's not to say there isn't subconscious thought--just that subconscious thought isn't actually thought, and thus we shouldn't use our description of what we're trying to get at misguide us to inadvertently broaden the proper scope of thought. In analogy, we shouldn't think of abstract objects as a kind of object, or free will as a kind of will, or a white lie as a kind of lie, or toy car as a kind of car. Subconscious thought, then, is not a kind of thought at all, but rather something happening that is very similar to that of thinking that happens to exclude at least one attribute belonging to the category of thinking: awareness being the candidate in mind.

Since we have evolved to be instinctual, my guess is that there is some unconscious mental mechanism just below out consciously aware thoughts ... Doesn't seem likely that things that spring to mind have not already began momentum just below our awareness threshold. An idea that is said to have just came to us brings about what might be the false notion that they simply came into being with nothing necessitating it, but had the mental happenings not predicated the idea, I suppose no idea would of sprang to mind. So, I'm thinking, yes, there is something to be had here.

Your nodes talk bring to mind Mazlow's hiearchy of needs, so maybe I can throw self-actualization to your list. I remember love and belonging.
 
Yea that all sounds about right.

Without getting into finer terms and details, I think the process would be that conscious concepts can often become more entrenched to the point that they become second-nature in leading to behaviour. Neurologically the point is to make the behaviour happen quicker. For instance, you touch a hot-stove and the body is designed in a way to react more quickly, without the need for a conscious mechanism. Sub-conscious 'thought' then, would actually be a series of mechanisms that are so intrinsic to reproduction and survival that we can do them while sub-aware. So I guess you're right, it's not really thought at all, just a part of how we're built, how the nervous system moves us when we're not using executive function.
 
Yes, there is apparently events transpiring behind the scenes, just as there must be in order for us to dream while sleeping. As discombulated as dreams might get, and just as seemingly arbitrary as a new idea might pop into our mind, there is some underlying structure that is organized and intelligable. If only we could tap more lucidly into the early workings of our upcoming thoughts, we might, well, I don't know, realize just how random-like our thought processes are. I don't know ... kinda speculating that the hard-wiring is fantastically confusing.
 
Instinct, the pre-installed software courtesy of millions of years of evolution and genetic encoding of information....
 
Once the brain acquires language(it doesn't matter whether it's verbal or sign), words become the primary problem solving device. This requires all things, concepts, and actions, to have a label attached to them. This allows the brain to use metaphors to organize thoughts. "Attaching a label" is such a metaphor. This not only makes problem solving systematic, where one solution can lead to another when solving a complex problem, it makes recalling a previous solution much easier.

It is in recalling old solutions that the subconscious(whatever that is) is used. We usually refer to this as "intuitive reasoning" which is to say, no reasoning. The solution simply appears without going through the thought process all over again. Language is bypassed and the mind is able to function much faster, which is very convenient.

If not for this process, we could never function faster than the speed at which we talk. Most of the things we do, from finding the correct key on our keychain, to tying our shoes, all the way to avoiding touching a hot stove, are handled by this level of thought and decision making.
 
I take the following ideas from Daniel Kahnemann.
41RtytNpsfL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Figuring things out takes time. Our conscious thinking is slow, problem solving cognitive processing which pools other thinking from the group through langauge.

In any case, slow thinking has serious evolutionary disadvantages in addition to the advantage of resolving things. First, the slowness can get in the way of urgent matters such as fight, flight and other situations.

Once you find solutions, these become automatic. These take much less time, and therefore help speed up solutions for problems that may comprmise survival.


Now, let's go to clinical psychology, and here I take ideas from Freud (who else?).

In infancy, the human CNS is especially susceptible to non-rational learning. Here we pick up cultural bullshit that may help with survival in the social milieu, such as what to touch, what not to touch, when to touch, who to touch, and... you get the picture. This is stupid learning, and makes you "normal", meaning, getting you out of trouble from other stupid people. So then, you survive long enough to knock up or get knocked up.

The End.
 
Perspicuo said:
I take the following ideas from Daniel Kahnemann.
41RtytNpsfL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


Figuring things out takes time. Our conscious thinking is slow, problem solving cognitive processing which pools other thinking from the group through langauge.

In any case, slow thinking has serious evolutionary disadvantages in addition to the advantage of resolving things. First, the slowness can get in the way of urgent matters such as fight, flight and other situations.

Once you find solutions, these become automatic. These take much less time, and therefore help speed up solutions for problems that may comprmise survival.


Now, let's go to clinical psychology, and here I take ideas from Freud (who else?).

In infancy, the human CNS is especially susceptible to non-rational learning. Here we pick up cultural bullshit that may help with survival in the social milieu, such as what to touch, what not to touch, when to touch, who to touch, and... you get the picture. This is stupid learning, and makes you "normal", meaning, getting you out of trouble from other stupid people. So then, you survive long enough to knock up or get knocked up.

The End.
Click to expand...

I wonder if what you're describing is actually an ongoing process throughout our lives. Let's take away the phrase 'stupid learning' and replace it with 'conformist learning'. We eventually learn that conforming is a good idea and then it becomes intrinsic to our instinct.

It then wouldn't be unique to youth, just something that we're in a constant process of balancing.
 
Supposedly it does go on through a lifetime, but children are especially susceptible.
 
untermensche said:
For humans we say "modes of sub-conscious thought".

For non-human we say instinct.
Click to expand...

So I guess the concept I'm speaking about becomes:
- instinctual modes

Behaviour that is so intrinsic to being human that it is inherent and can be categorized.

Executive function then is something like a passing awareness a few times a day while our lives pass us by.
 
rousseau said:
untermensche said:
For humans we say "modes of sub-conscious thought".

For non-human we say instinct.
Click to expand...

So I guess the concept I'm speaking about becomes:
- instinctual modes

Behaviour that is so intrinsic to being human that it is inherent and can be categorized.

Executive function then is something like a passing awareness a few times a day while our lives pass us by.
Click to expand...

It would take a lot of research to decide what is innate and what is cultural.

You can't deprive humans of culture and study the effects however.

You could look for things like language that transcend cultures.
 
untermensche said:
rousseau said:
So I guess the concept I'm speaking about becomes:
- instinctual modes

Behaviour that is so intrinsic to being human that it is inherent and can be categorized.

Executive function then is something like a passing awareness a few times a day while our lives pass us by.
Click to expand...

It would take a lot of research to decide what is innate and what is cultural.

You can't deprive humans of culture and study the effects however.

You could look for things like language that transcend cultures.
Click to expand...

The most universal of these things is "No". In every human culture there is both a word for "No", and the exact same gesture (head shake, side to side along the horizontal plane). This is not the case for "Yes". "Yes" is represented culturally (some cultures "nod" up and down, and some cultures 'wobble' side to side in the vertical plane). the reason for the transcendent "No" is it's origins. "No" is universally the first notion communicated from an infant to a caregiver. When they do not wish to eat something, they turn their mouths away from the food source, wither to the left or right... Generally, the caregiver will persist, causing the infant to move their mouth away again, this time to the other side. Thus, the head shake from side to side representing the most fundamental of notions; "No".
 
Malintent said:
untermensche said:
It would take a lot of research to decide what is innate and what is cultural.

You can't deprive humans of culture and study the effects however.

You could look for things like language that transcend cultures.
Click to expand...

The most universal of these things is "No". In every human culture there is both a word for "No", and the exact same gesture (head shake, side to side along the horizontal plane). This is not the case for "Yes". "Yes" is represented culturally (some cultures "nod" up and down, and some cultures 'wobble' side to side in the vertical plane). the reason for the transcendent "No" is it's origins. "No" is universally the first notion communicated from an infant to a caregiver. When they do not wish to eat something, they turn their mouths away from the food source, wither to the left or right... Generally, the caregiver will persist, causing the infant to move their mouth away again, this time to the other side. Thus, the head shake from side to side representing the most fundamental of notions; "No".
Click to expand...

This may be the most common word but for every human group you find you will find a rich language.

So one instinct humans have is the instinct to create language, like some birds create nests.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom