Tweet
I'm not up on the distinction between unconscious and subconscious and I don't think it really matters for what I'm talking about. Anyway, we often talk about humans having complex, non-conscious motivations. I want to distinguish this from having multiple, conflicting motivations that give rise to complex behavior. For example, a person may value both intimacy and privacy, and these sometimes conflicting values will give rise to weird, possibly inconsistent behavior. I'm not talking about this.
Instead, I'm talking about scenarios in which we imply that a non-conscious aspect of the human brain can make long-term plans. A good example of where we talk this way is in "self-sabotaging behavior." For example, we might look at a person and conclude that they have commitment issues, and that their commitment issues explain why they engage in destructive behaviors in relationships. They sabotage relationships before they get to the commitment stage, thus protecting the individual from having to confront their commitment issues. Or something like this.
Now the thing is, when we make such a claim about a person, we're not suggesting that they sit down at night and write out a five step plan for how to sabotage their relationship in order to avoid commitment issues. Instead, we're suggesting that some non-conscious process is at work.
So my question is, do we really think such a mechanism exists in the human brain? Do we come up with complex, non-conscious plans? If so, what form do these plans take? Are there thoughts we are simply not conscious of that explicitly construct these plans? Is it something less tangible than thinking, such as symbolic representations of concepts encoded in neurons/synapses/other brain structures that still explicitly enact plans? Or is non-conscious planning more the result of having a brain that takes in some inputs, associates them with a particular class of problems, stirs them around for a bit, and then spits out a solution? All the stirring is just having a complex brain that responds mechanistically to inputs, but at no level could we point to a process in the brain and say, "Here are steps 1, 2, and 3 of the plan being made."
In that last case, I think it's still reasonable to say that the brain decided on the best course of action to achieve a particular aim, but not by spelling out a plan. I want to distinguish this from a final possibility, which is that at no point in the stirring is the brain trying to solve or optimize for a particular situation that it has identified. Instead, the brain is just reacting to inputs as a giant machine and cranking out behaviors. Because brains also have conscious thoughts that can create structured plans (and a theory of mind), we might look at another person and assign agency (planning) to behaviors that are instead merely machinery (when conscious planning is not involved).
I'm not sure where I stand on this, and I think the argument could definitely be made that some of the scenarios I've described are "really" the same thing on some level. Thoughts? Monkeys.
Instead, I'm talking about scenarios in which we imply that a non-conscious aspect of the human brain can make long-term plans. A good example of where we talk this way is in "self-sabotaging behavior." For example, we might look at a person and conclude that they have commitment issues, and that their commitment issues explain why they engage in destructive behaviors in relationships. They sabotage relationships before they get to the commitment stage, thus protecting the individual from having to confront their commitment issues. Or something like this.
Now the thing is, when we make such a claim about a person, we're not suggesting that they sit down at night and write out a five step plan for how to sabotage their relationship in order to avoid commitment issues. Instead, we're suggesting that some non-conscious process is at work.
So my question is, do we really think such a mechanism exists in the human brain? Do we come up with complex, non-conscious plans? If so, what form do these plans take? Are there thoughts we are simply not conscious of that explicitly construct these plans? Is it something less tangible than thinking, such as symbolic representations of concepts encoded in neurons/synapses/other brain structures that still explicitly enact plans? Or is non-conscious planning more the result of having a brain that takes in some inputs, associates them with a particular class of problems, stirs them around for a bit, and then spits out a solution? All the stirring is just having a complex brain that responds mechanistically to inputs, but at no level could we point to a process in the brain and say, "Here are steps 1, 2, and 3 of the plan being made."
In that last case, I think it's still reasonable to say that the brain decided on the best course of action to achieve a particular aim, but not by spelling out a plan. I want to distinguish this from a final possibility, which is that at no point in the stirring is the brain trying to solve or optimize for a particular situation that it has identified. Instead, the brain is just reacting to inputs as a giant machine and cranking out behaviors. Because brains also have conscious thoughts that can create structured plans (and a theory of mind), we might look at another person and assign agency (planning) to behaviors that are instead merely machinery (when conscious planning is not involved).
I'm not sure where I stand on this, and I think the argument could definitely be made that some of the scenarios I've described are "really" the same thing on some level. Thoughts? Monkeys.
Comment