Subconscious automatizations

[knast]

I have a question, which presupposes a good understanding of Objectivist epistemology. So if you have not read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and/or listened on various lectures on the nature of reduction and induction, such as Objectivism Through Induction, then please do not bother.

This is the background. I have inductively validated the following propositions:

There is a subconsciousness. (As proved by the fact that most of the things we know, are we not consciously aware of at any given moment.)

Our subconsciousness makes some integrations. (E.g., You think about a problem, but you get stuck and so you "give up" for the day and go to sleep. Then, the next day it all comes together in your head, with total clarity, and you scream: "Eureka!" - even though you have not put any more _conscious_ thought on the problem.)

There is such a thing as automatized knowledge. (E.g., our vocabulary and a basic grasp of syntax; otherwise we would not be able to talk, read or even think. All of this knowledge comes to me automatically, i.e., without any conscious effort.)

However, Ayn Rand also claims that our subconsciousness is the faculty that automatize our knowledge by integrating it. Here is the relevant quote:

"The subconscious is an integrating mechanism. Man’s conscious mind observes and establishes connections among his experiences; the subconscious integrates the connections and makes them become automatic."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/psycho-epistemology.html

Now, my question is simply this: What do I have to look for in order to validate this claim inductively? I have tried hard to figure it out on my own, but I have failed.

I think my problem here is that while I know that my subconscious is doing some integrating and thus some automatization, I also know that my consciousness is doing some integrating and thus also, I presume, some automatization. So why, then, emphasize the role of the subconscious? For all I know, all or most of my automatizations might be the result of my conscious efforts to integrate my knowledge.

Any suggestions?

[DavidOdden]

I would look at integrated systems of knowledge which you have, and whose nature you cannot fully explain with conscious knowledge. You would probably not look at calculus; I would suggest looking at language acquisition, with is rampant subconscious integration without any conscious awareness of those principles. A concrete example is how to make yes-no questions in English, and the rule regarding addition of "do" (thus "He knows the answer" -> "Does he know the answer" versus "He is a teacher" -> "Is he a teacher").

[Grames]

"The subconscious is an integrating mechanism. Man’s conscious mind observes and establishes connections among his experiences; the subconscious integrates the connections and makes them become automatic."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/psycho-epistemology.html

Now, my question is simply this: What do I have to look for in order to validate this claim inductively? I have tried hard to figure it out on my own, but I have failed.

I think my problem here is that while I know that my subconscious is doing some integrating and thus some automatization, I also know that my consciousness is doing some integrating and thus also, I presume, some automatization. So why, then, emphasize the role of the subconscious? For all I know, all or most of my automatizations might be the result of my conscious efforts to integrate my knowledge.

Any suggestions?

What is lacking in the given example?

For example, the skill of walking is acquired, after many faltering attempts, by the automatization of countless connections controlling muscular movements; once he learns to walk, a child needs no conscious awareness of such problems as posture, balance, length of step, etc.—the mere decision to walk brings the integrated total into his control.

[aequalsa]

Now, my question is simply this: What do I have to look for in order to validate this claim inductively? I have tried hard to figure it out on my own, but I have failed.

I think my problem here is that while I know that my subconscious is doing some integrating and thus some automatization, I also know that my consciousness is doing some integrating and thus also, I presume, some automatization. So why, then, emphasize the role of the subconscious? For all I know, all or most of my automatizations might be the result of my conscious efforts to integrate my knowledge.

Any suggestions?

It is currently believed that dendritic stems begin growing almost immediately during a motor activity. So when you are actively doing something to learn, the dendrites begin to branch out. During sleep, however, a great deal of mylenization(a fatty insulation around the dendrite) occurs and this increases the speed and permanence of the connection. Once that connection is mylenated, it is in a very real sense, automated. So, spending more time learning something means more dendritic connections will form, and during the non-learning(subconcious) times they will be made more permanent. With the permenent set of data your conscious mind can then integrate the chunks and repeat the process forming more and more abstract conceptions. So science, and if I remember right, Rand would say that conscious focused effort AND periods of rest when the subconcious does its thing are both necessary for any longterm knowledge to occur.

I realize that this is probably a little more empirical than what you are looking for, but I sometimes find that understanding the empirical allows me to better conceptualize the subject inductively.

[knast]

I would look at integrated systems of knowledge which you have, and whose nature you cannot fully explain with conscious knowledge.

That is what I did in order to validate the claim that my subconscious do any integration whatsoever. But what I am looking for are automatizations that I cannot remember I did anything consciously to achieve, not just any integration my subconsciousness have performed. That is what I have failed to find. Whatever automatized knowledge I have, I can, as of yet, remember that I have made an conscious effort to integrate it with the rest of my knowledge.

[knast]

What is lacking in the given example?

Well, I am primarily looking for conceptual knowledge that have been automatized, not motions, i.e., not things that primarily involve your implicit "muscle memory".

I grant you that it is a good example of automatized knowledge, but not conceptual knowledge. I also grant you that it is probably a good example of something we learned subconsciously, in the sense that we did not know exactly what we wanted to achieve or do while we were doing it.

Now when I think about it, I guess many other things could be an example. For instance, learning to speak and everything that entailed. I can see how that was at least partly subconsciously and involved at least some automatization of conceptual knowledge. But the examples I can think of are of things that we learned when we were children, but I have a hard time finding examples of things we learned and automatized subconsciously when we are adults.

I will have to think some more about this.

[DavidOdden]

Whatever automatized knowledge I have, I can, as of yet, remember that I have made an conscious effort to integrate it with the rest of my knowledge.

You have automatic knowledge of the rules of Swedish syntax, meaning that you know that these are possible sentences:

Han hittade faktiskt pengarna under sängen.

Under sängen hittade han faktiskt pengarna.

Pengarna hittade han faktiskt under sänge.

Jag har ännu inte tagit pengarna.

and these are not (marked with an asterisk)

*Han faktiskt hittade pengarna under sängen.

*Under hittade sängen han faktiskt pengarna.

*Pengarna han faktiskt hittade under sänge.

*Jag tagit ännu inte pengarna har.

As an adult you may have learned a conscious rule which summarizes this fact, but when you gained this knowledge initially as a child, it was completely subconscious. It is possible to become aware of subconscious knowledge, but it requires that the automatically integrated subconscious knowledge already exist.

[Bob G]

I have a question, which presupposes a good understanding of Objectivist epistemology. So if you have not read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and/or listened on various lectures on the nature of reduction and induction, such as Objectivism Through Induction, then please do not bother.

This is the background. I have inductively validated the following propositions:

There is a subconsciousness. (As proved by the fact that most of the things we know, are we not consciously aware of at any given moment.)

Our subconsciousness makes some integrations. (E.g., You think about a problem, but you get stuck and so you "give up" for the day and go to sleep. Then, the next day it all comes together in your head, with total clarity, and you scream: "Eureka!" - even though you have not put any more _conscious_ thought on the problem.)

There is such a thing as automatized knowledge. (E.g., our vocabulary and a basic grasp of syntax; otherwise we would not be able to talk, read or even think. All of this knowledge comes to me automatically, i.e., without any conscious effort.)

However, Ayn Rand also claims that our subconsciousness is the faculty that automatize our knowledge by integrating it. Here is the relevant quote:

"The subconscious is an integrating mechanism. Man’s conscious mind observes and establishes connections among his experiences; the subconscious integrates the connections and makes them become automatic."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/psycho-epistemology.html

Now, my question is simply this: What do I have to look for in order to validate this claim inductively? I have tried hard to figure it out on my own, but I have failed.

I think my problem here is that while I know that my subconscious is doing some integrating and thus some automatization, I also know that my consciousness is doing some integrating and thus also, I presume, some automatization. So why, then, emphasize the role of the subconscious? For all I know, all or most of my automatizations might be the result of my conscious efforts to integrate my knowledge.

Any suggestions?

Some of the automatizations will be shown through your emotions. Many emotions that you experience that you can identify as ratonal have been created while you are an adult. Try looking at things that you have learned are good or bad since you have read AR and see what you experience.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Well, I am primarily looking for conceptual knowledge that have been automatized, not motions, i.e., not things that primarily involve your implicit "muscle memory".

I think you have to be careful not to confuse automatized with automatic. Automatized means that conscious awareness is necessary -- you have to be aware of it consciously -- and then you can do the routine until it becomes a habit. Like learning to type, for example. At first you had to put conscious effort into it, but after a while of typing it becomes automatized, but it is not as if you can sit down at a key board and begin to type automatically without the conscious effort to learn how to type. But the subconscious can integrate things from experience, without conscious thought involved. In other words, if things are similar, one tends to combine them together subconsciously. Look at Hank Rearden and his problems with sexual enjoyment. Given the partners he had and their lack of enthusiasm, he concluded subconsciously that sex wasn't that important, and this was a subconscious integration of experience. If similar things happen under similar circumstances, your subconscious will tend to group them together into a subconscious conclusion based on experience. It then takes a conscious effort to overcome the inductive and implicit generalization, you have to put a conscious effort to re-learn something that your subconscious has put together.

Your small habits are like this. For example, being unemployed and not able to find work, I've gotten into the habit of sleeping in late, and drinking a lot of diet coke and smoking cigarettes as a way of relieving the stress of not knowing when I am going to find work. I didn't sit down consciously and say, "OK, I'm going to develop the habit of drinking three cokes and smoking a half a pack of cigarettes while I'm looking for a job." It just developed that way out of doing a routine in the mornings and late afternoons as I'm looking for work. So, look at your habits and see if they developed out of a conscious intent or if they developed over time because you developed a routine.

[knast]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I will have to integrate it. If I have some "revelation", after my subconsciousness have done its work, then I will report it!

[Grames]

Thanks for all the suggestions. I will have to integrate it. If I have some "revelation", after my subconsciousness have done its work, then I will report it!

Dr. Peikoff says the recognition of first level concepts are often automatized. Stuff like water, tree, cat.

[Dingbat]

It is currently believed that dendritic stems begin growing almost immediately during a motor activity. So when you are actively doing something to learn, the dendrites begin to branch out. During sleep, however, a great deal of mylenization(a fatty insulation around the dendrite) occurs and this increases the speed and permanence of the connection. Once that connection is mylenated, it is in a very real sense, automated. So, spending more time learning something means more dendritic connections will form, and during the non-learning(subconcious) times they will be made more permanent. With the permenent set of data your conscious mind can then integrate the chunks and repeat the process forming more and more abstract conceptions. So science, and if I remember right, Rand would say that conscious focused effort AND periods of rest when the subconcious does its thing are both necessary for any longterm knowledge to occur.

I realize that this is probably a little more empirical than what you are looking for, but I sometimes find that understanding the empirical allows me to better conceptualize the subject inductively.

This is interesting stuff. Do you happen to have any sources or books I can read up on this?

[knast]

Let me just repeat what I know and what I do not know. I know that the subconsciousness makes some integrations and I know that there is such a thing as automatized knowledge. So I know that I have automatized syntax, a vocabulary, and many, many, many, many other things. The only question is: what is the evidence for any _subconscious_ automatizations?

According to Ayn Rand, Harry Binswanger, and my own observations, the automatizations I have are the result of my conscious thinking, my conscious work of connecting and integrating, including much repetitions. The fact that all of my automatizations are _placed_ in the subconscious do not prove that it was created by my subconscious. (Not even the fact that they are activated by my subconscious once they are there is evidence for that conclusion.)

The fact that I have some automatized knowledge which I do not remember how I got are not either proof that they were created by my subconsciousness. Notice how you can know a lot of things, things you have read about, but you do not remember where or when you read about it? That does not prove that your subconsciousness did the reading for you.

It has been suggested that emotions are proof of subconscious automatizations. I am inclined to accept that, but I do not think that that would qualify as evidence for subconscious automatization of _conceptual_ knowledge, which is what I was looking for, not value-estimates or basic emotional generalizations.

Some might say that this is no big deal. True, but since I have come such a long in my work to inductively validate Objectivism, I thought it would be a shame if I just gave up on this point.

I have a suggestion though. It occured to me when I thought about something David Allen (the author of Getting Things Done) said. He said that the reason we should write down everything we think about, everything we want to do or have to do, is because that way we free our mind from it. If put it on a piece of paper, then we do not have to think about it all the time. (For the complete argument see his book or Google on it.)

This made me think of computers. I think Allen is right. And I think this indicates that our mind works like a computer in the sense that we have many "processes" going on simultaneously. They do not stop, just because you are not currently consciously focused on them. Instead they continue in "the background", i.e., in your subconscious.

Our mind, it seems, are engaged in what computer people call "multithreading". And if this is true, then I guess that what can happen is that you start consciously to integrate something, then when you start another task, you do not stop that process, you just put it in "the background," i.e., in the subconscious. (This is, I think, similar to what Ayn Rand meant by giving your subconscious a "standing order".) Sometimes, maybe most of the time, your subconsiousness finish the job, just like when you start a process on your computer, you let it finish in the background, while you are busy doing something else, e.g., writing something in Word.

If this analogy is true and appropriate, then many, maybe most of all our integrations and automatized knowledge, have been created, at least in part, by our subconscious. The reason to suspect that is the case, is because we start many more processes like this than we can consciously work with at any given moment. (Remember "the Crow.") Also, look at how we are using our computers. We have many more applications active than we can use at any given moment.

Any suggestions?

[Grames]

Any suggestions?

David Allen goes on to make the point that this is a bad thing, those other processes are ultimately just distractions that suck up mental energy and leave less space for thinking clearly consciously.

[knast]

David Allen goes on to make the point that this is a bad thing, those other processes are ultimately just distractions that suck up mental energy and leave less space for thinking clearly consciously.

I think we have to make a distinction between: things we think about, in general, and when we think about what we want to do or have to do. I think the latter is distractive and sucks mental energy. I think David Allen is right about this. I do not know if it is as distracting to just think in general. Further, even if one chooses not make such a distinction, then I do not see how that affects the truth of what I am saying. If I am right, then it only means that it is also distracting to be thinking about a lot of different things all the time. That is true. That is why one should write down what one is thinking about, that is why many people have an "intellectual diary." Ayn Rand had one and I too have one and I suspect that many other people who think a lot have one too. I write down my thoughts, my conclusions, my issues and how I try to solve them on paper. Sometimes I leave my problems and progress on paper, sometimes I continue thinking about it when I am "out and about". That is why I write down good ideas, such as this one, when I am out and need to focus on something else, such as my work at hand.

Edited December 7, 2009 by knast

[DavidOdden]

The only question is: what is the evidence for any _subconscious_ automatizations?

A counterpart to this question is what the evidence would be for conscious reasoning in the acquisition of syntax and vocabulary, when children acquire language. How would you establish that a child is using conscious reasoning when learning the rule that places the verb in the correct position? Or, how do you establish that a child is aware of the reasoning required to determine that 'pojke' is grammatically a noun, or that there is a valid concept 'noun' that distinguishes 'pojke' from 'blå' or 'kalla'.

[aequalsa]

This is interesting stuff. Do you happen to have any sources or books I can read up on this?

Cognitive neuroscience gets buckets of research money right now so new stuff is coming out everyday. Impossible to keep up with. Any book I recommend will be outdated by the time amazon ships it. Below are a few things I've read recently that I thought were interesting regarding storage of LTM. If there is something specific in the field you are looking for, I might be able to recommend something.

http://www.physorg.com/news165074214.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90915174506.htm

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/...000001/art00025