Communicate with your subconscious mind ?

[loikan]

Hello!

I wonder if anyone here that can communicate with the subconscious mind. I have tried many times but i don't get any signs. I have bought the book thegeniewithin Harry W Carpenter.
I wan't to know if someone here can communicate with the subconscious mind that can help me.

 

[chroot]

Mainstream psychology no longer recognizes a 'subconscious mind.'

- Warren

 

[wuliheron]

I prefer to call it the "Toddler Within". Toddlers can brain each other with a toy telephone fighting over a piece of lint, and otherwise display behavior and emotions that are out of proportion with the situation or even completely out of touch with reality. Although the adult mind in us can know better, many of these emotionally immature reactions persist throughout our lives.

I've had some success with lucid dreaming and surrender in general. In lucid dreams I just tell myself over and over as I fall asleep "Finish the dream". By running that tape through to the end I find it is like reassuring a child that, no matter what, I will be there for him.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Mainstream psychology no longer recognizes a 'subconscious mind.'

- Warren

No one bothered to tell me. Got a link for this?

 

[En_lizard]

Mainstream psychology no longer recognizes a 'subconscious mind.'

- Warren

why? it doesnty exist?

 

[Pythagorean]

Subconscious existence:

I think it's more difficult to say that the subconscious doesn't exist, because it's interpreted a couple different ways:

1) The hypothalamus' actions: breathing, heartbeat, temperature regulation.

2) That casual kind of assumptions you have brewing underneath your word-based thoughts.

3) Freud's subconscious.

-----------------------------

1) I know exists, but I don't really think it's some form of consciousness, I think it's a biological machine more or less

2) I experience, but I don't know what the psychological term for it is; I've always called them subconscious without giving much thought to it.

3) I have no idea what Freud was on about, but he's been considered wrong about most of his assumptions, so I can only assume that this is what one means by no longer recognizing a 'subconscious'.

 

[ardalin]

I would largely agree with Pythagorean. There are a lot of things going on in our brains, including things we are not conscious of. If you want to call those processes the "subconscious mind," then that is perfectly fair to do. But I'm not sure what it would mean to "communicate with it." You are communicating with it all the time! If you couldn't interact with your non-conscious mental processes, what exactly would they be doing?

But you can't "talk" with them. It's not even clear what that would mean. You could gain increased conscious control over some of them (i.e., through "bio-feedback"), but that wouldn't be talking with the subconscious, it would simply making something that was non-conscious conscious.

---
Please take a minute for science at http://coglanglab.org

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The description of the book Loikan mentions is 'positive thinking'. So I'm assuming it's more along the lines of assumptions we make without necessarily knowing we're making them. Modes or models for processing experiencial data and how that effects us psychologically.

 

[wuliheron]

Denial is another interesting aspect of what some people call the unconscious. How could it be possible for a person to lie to themselves or be unaware of themselves? A more accurate view might be that such things fall under the category of pretense. For example, we might pretend that we are not aware of our heartbeat, in order to focus our attention more on other things.

People use a variety of ways to help focus their attention. For example, when attempting to picture something in our minds we become more likely to say things like "see what I mean". These are acquired habits that people often call unconscious acts.

 

[ardalin]

Denial is another interesting aspect of what some people call the unconscious. How could it be possible for a person to lie to themselves or be unaware of themselves?

Very easily. Our memories are not designed to be accurate. Nor is consciousness. Our mental abilities were designed to help us function effectively. Denial can be effective.

Here's another classic example: people are very bad at knowing what will make them happy. Many victims of a crime believe they want revenge. However, study after study shows that revenge does not make you happier. Similarly, children make parents less happy (and also live shorter lives). It isn't necessary for evolution that we actually like children or like revenge; it is necessary that we are highly motivated to have both. (The bright side is many things that we think would make us miserable, like losing a limb, typically don't make people unhappy and may even make them happier.)

I wrote a post on a similar theme recently on my blog:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/do-you-see-what-you-see-14026.html


---
http://coglanglab.org

 

[wuliheron]

Very easily. Our memories are not designed to be accurate. Nor is consciousness. Our mental abilities were designed to help us function effectively. Denial can be effective.

Here's another classic example: people are very bad at knowing what will make them happy. Many victims of a crime believe they want revenge. However, study after study shows that revenge does not make you happier. Similarly, children make parents less happy (and also live shorter lives). It isn't necessary for evolution that we actually like children or like revenge; it is necessary that we are highly motivated to have both. (The bright side is many things that we think would make us miserable, like losing a limb, typically don't make people unhappy and may even make them happier.)

I wrote a post on a similar theme recently on my blog:
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/do-you-see-what-you-see-14026.html
http://coglanglab.org

Ancient Chinese saying, "Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."

There have been studies of what is sometimes referred to as the zombie aspect of our personalities. For example, when asked to estimate how steep a hill is, people are often wildly inaccurate. However, ask them to show you with their hand and their accuracy goes way up. Such studies demonstrate clearly that our so-called subconscious mind tends to appraise the situation quite differently from that of our conscious mind.

Edited - off topic

 

[Evo]

There have been studies of what is sometimes referred to as the zombie aspect of our personalities. For example, when asked to estimate how steep a hill is, people are often wildly inaccurate. However, ask them to show you with their hand and their accuracy goes way up. Such studies demonstrate clearly that our so-called subconscious mind tends to appraise the situation quite differently from that of our conscious mind.

No, that means it's easier to show something than to articulate it, it has nothing to do with the subconcious.

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm curious, what does the psychology/neuro community call this?

2) That casual kind of assumptions you have brewing underneath your word-based thoughts.

I have two examples, and I'm not sure if they occur in the same parts of the brain or are even considered the same behavior:

2a) when you're driving somewhere that you've driven many times before, you don't really think about where you're going. You can go off into la-la land, insignificantly bantering with yourself until you reach your destination at which point you have no memory of most of the drive (besides what you were thinking to yourself).

2b) Assumptions or judgments that you've made or been raised into that you don't even notice you're making when approaching a problem.

 

[wuliheron]

No, that means it's easier to show something than to articulate it, it has nothing to do with the subconcious.

No, there are other experiments that have been done that prove my point. For example, people are asked to play a game of cards in which they draw from one of two decks. Unbeknownst to them, one of the decks is rigged. When asked which one is better than the other they show little better than a fifty-fifty chance of picking the correct deck. However, they actually play the better deck more.

There are a number of such experiments that all lead to this same conclusion. Of course, you could claim that all these people are merely lying or incapable of clearly articulating what they know, but without any demonstrable motive or problem in articulating the answer it seems silly to me. Again, I think of the subconscious more as a pretense or denial of their awareness of the reality of the situation. Something caused more by the reliance on habits than a conscious decision to lie or the inability of expressing ourselves clearly.

As Lao Tzu said,

Habits are the end of honesty and compassion,
The beginning of confusion!

Nonetheless, as human beings we are the masters of habits. We create habitual ways of looking at the world (ie- beliefs) as a routine way of thriving and surviving. The trick it seems is to be aware of what we are doing, accepting of what we are doing, and thereby a little more open minded about what we do.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Again, I think of the subconscious more as a pretense or denial of their awareness of the reality of the situation. Something caused more by the reliance on habits than a conscious decision to lie or the inability of expressing ourselves clearly.

In ascribing these things, alternately, to pretense, denial and habit, I think you're overlooking the phenomenon of Procedural Memory. It's something you'd be interested in if these sorts of issues concern you. It's a type of memory that doesn't seem to be dependent on the usual functioning of the amygdala/hippocampus, because it continues to work even when those parts of the brain have been damaged beyond the formation of new long term memories. You can teach a person with this kind of damage to perform a new procedure, and the next day they will be able to perform it but with no recollection of how or when they learned it.

 

[moe darklight]

Mainstream psychology no longer recognizes a 'subconscious mind.'

- Warren

Is this strictly in the Freudian sense of the subconscious? Because I was under the impression that the idea of unconscious thought ("background," non-conscious processes) is accepted by mainstream science.

If this is not the case, are there any articles I could read that talk about evidence against this?

 

[chroot]

I was referring to the Freudian notion of a subconscious -- a "tape recorder" in the back of your head that remembers and stores everything that's ever happened to you, yet is ironically not available to your conscious mind.

Obviously many functions become autonomic -- eating, even driving -- after being practiced enough. The brain is extremely good at off-loading repetitive tasks into less expensive, automatic areas of the brain.

- Warren

 

[moe darklight]

O, ok.

Still, that notion of the subconscious is not 100% erroneous. The idea that everything is stored in perfect detail might be wrong, but, as far as I know, the verdict is not yet in on concepts such as repressed memories.

Doesn't the unconscious extend beyond mastication and breathing? "Gut feelings" or even the processes involved in learning (how does the brain go about storing and organizing that information) are certainly not conscious.

Maybe the term subconscious no longer applies. It just creates trouble (but a great deal of $$ for manufacturers of "subconscious healing music" and crap like that).

 

[wuliheron]

There are a great number of other things I left out that can effect and affect us including not least of all procedural memory. However, their influence is noted precisely because it effects our habits and beliefs.

 

[Pythagorean]

Ah yes, Freud's "tape recorder", I guess I do remember something about that.

One thing I hear about (but have never actually seen) is people locking bad memories away, and then requiring hypnosis or some sort of similar therapy to bring the memories back and face them (think Hollywood had a hand in that assumption).

Does this ever really happened and is there a name for this part of the "mind" or brain?

 

[moe darklight]

My mom works mostly with kids and teens, especially kids who have some sort of trauma. And this is done to some extent (and obviously very carefully), which is why I am doubtful about completely dismissing the subconscious. She doesn't do it through hypnosis though (even if hypnosis were used, the memories would not be perfect like the "tape recorder" hypothesis suggests, so it is certainly wrong in that sense).

Hypnosis simply puts a person in a state where they are more likely so relax and be open to suggestions. You can't magically retrieve something that isn't there, turn people into obedient zombies, or any of that wacky stuff that happens in movies.

People can repress memories; completely forget about pretty big events in their lives, or, in their minds, change what happened. Trouble is often when the memory resurfaces during a period of extreme anxiety (a so-called flashback, or sometimes regression).

I don't understand what the controversy over this is though. I think we've all re-remembered things we had completely forgotten. Maybe a smell brings back a childhood memory, stuff like that.

Or does it not happen that sometimes you're trying to think of a solution to a problem, and you worry over it all day long, but nothing comes to mind... finally you give up and go to sleep. the next day as you're having lunch, an answer suddenly pops into your mind.
Wouldn't that be attributed to non-conscious processes?

Freud was a long time ago, and he was among the first of a science that was just beginning. He's bound to have been wrong in a lot of his assumptions, it doesn't mean he was wrong about everything or that he wasn't heading in the right direction. A great deal of modern psychology is based on his ideas.

 

[chroot]

The problem with the "repressed memories" industry is that studies have shown time and time again that many of the so-called memories are actually implanted (either inadvertently or purposefully) by the interviewer during these periods of openness and hypnosis.

- Warren

 

[zoobyshoe]

I was referring to the Freudian notion of a subconscious -- a "tape recorder" in the back of your head that remembers and stores everything that's ever happened to you, yet is ironically not available to your conscious mind.- Warren

I don't believe Freud ever proposed anything like this.

This is a good explanation of Freud's unconscious:

Perhaps the most significant contribution Freud has made to modern thought is his conception of the unconscious. During the 19th century the dominant trend in Western thought was positivism, the claim that people could accumulate real knowledge about themselves and their world, and exercise rational control over both. Freud, however, suggested that these claims were in fact delusions; that we are not entirely aware of what we even think, and often act for reasons that have nothing to do with our conscious thoughts. The concept of the unconscious was groundbreaking in that he proposed that awareness existed in layers and there were thoughts occurring "below the surface." Dreams, called the "royal road to the unconscious", provided the best examples of our unconscious life, and in The Interpretation of Dreams Freud both developed the argument that the unconscious exists, and described a method for gaining access to it.

The Preconscious was described as a layer between conscious and unconscious thought—that which we could access with a little effort. (The term "subconscious" while popularly used, is not actually part of psychoanalytical terminology.) Although there are still many adherents to a purely positivist and rationalist view, most people, including many who reject other elements of Freud's work, accept the claim that part of the mind is unconscious, and that people often act for reasons of which they are not conscious. In a lecture at Clark University in 1910, he explains his new conception of the workings of the human mind and its rejection by fellow professionals and the public. "The arrogance of consciousness which for example rejects dreams so lightly, belongs quite generally, to the strongest protective apparatus which guards us against the breaking through of the unconscious complexes, and as a result it is hard to convince people of the reality of the unconscious, and to teach them anew what their conscious knowledge contradicts."

Crucial to the operation of the unconscious is "repression." According to Freud, people often experience thoughts and feelings that are so painful that people cannot bear them. Such thoughts and feelings—and associated memories—could not, Freud argued, be banished from the mind, but could be banished from consciousness. Thus they come to constitute the unconscious. Although Freud later attempted to find patterns of repression among his patients in order to derive a general model of the mind, he also observed that individual patients repress different things. Moreover, Freud observed that the process of repression is itself a non-conscious act (in other words, it did not occur through people willing away certain thoughts or feelings). Freud supposed that what people repressed was in part determined by their unconscious. In other words, the unconscious was for Freud both a cause and effect of repression...

The whole page is worth reading:

http://www.quotemonk.com/authors/sigmund-freud/biography-profile.htm

and his book The Interpretation of Dreams is really brilliant. Freud marveled in the introduction to a later edition of one of books that the harshest criticism he received always seemed to come from people who had never read anything he wrote.

 

[moe darklight]

The problem with the "repressed memories" industry is that studies have shown time and time again that many of the so-called memories are actually implanted (either inadvertently or purposefully) by the interviewer during these periods of openness and hypnosis.

- Warren

Well, it's possible to create a memory regardless of having been traumatized or psychoanalyzed, it's something that happens to everyone to some extent at one point or another.

My mom works with cases where she already knows what happened, more often than not. Sometimes, though a person seems to have forgotten the event, the memory exhibits itself in other aspects of their behavior— It's still there, somewhere, in other words. A kid will make drawings that seem to allude to the event, that type of stuff.
She has a sandbox in her office, sometimes she'll just watch the kids play. Or give them a toy family, and watch how the kid relates the characters, etc.

I don't believe Freud ever proposed anything like this.

I've heard the tape recorder theory so many times, usually attributed to Freud. So he never said such a thing after all?
Any idea who did start the whole tape-recorder thing? I've heard the most ridiculous stories, like that people under hypnosis can remember the door to their childhood home down the most minute scratch and stain.

I think the reason Freud has turned into fair game is because there are so many quack psychologists out there. I was talking with my parents about it the other day (sparked by the "is psychology a pseudo-science" thread from PF actually :tongue:), and it's part of why my dad has decided to leave the field for good. They feel it has lost its way. There are too many psychologists out there that are either poorly qualified, looking to make a quick buck, or just completely nuts.
My mom still wants to keep practicing. But my dad is completely frustrated with the field and the way it's going. All the nuts doing mystic healing and crap like that get all the press coverage, while people doing real research are barely even mentioned in the news.
That's a completely different topic though.

 

[moe darklight]

then again, in most cases, the complete oposite is true:

Steve Porter
Was Freud wrong?Psychology Professor Steve Porter (Pearce photo).
In the late 19th century, Sigmund Freud developed his famous theory about how some people recall horrific traumatic events. To cope, people repress memories of such events so their painful effects won’t have to be experienced over and over again.
But a new study by Dalhousie researchers Steve Porter and Kristine Peace suggests otherwise — that victims can recall the details of traumatic events such as physical or sexual assault with as much clarity as the day they happened. Their study is due to be published in the journal Psychological Science.

“If Freud was right, these would be the kind of events that people would try to push away,�? says Dr. Porter, associate professor in the Department of Psychology. “People tried to push them away but were unable to do so. They were, in fact, haunted by what they experienced.�?

On the other hand, the same study found people’s recall of pleasant memories — weddings, births, awards — wasn’t nearly as good.

“The positive memories changed dramatically and began to look very little like the event itself,�? says Dr. Porter. “So, if people start to tell you about the good ol’ days, you might want to take that with a grain of salt.�?

The findings are of particular interest for court cases that involve historical complaints of assault, abuse and violence.

"We can expect that traumatic criminal experiences can be recalled quite reliably over time," says Dr. Porter. "That doesn't mean there won't be some level of distortion. But the central details will be recalled quite well."

The study took place over five years. In 2000, researchers recorded the memories of participants concerning both a traumatic and positive memory. The participants were re-interviewed three months and five years later.

Dr. Porter’s research group (which includes graduate students Marcus Juodis and Sabrina Bellhouse, and honours students Leanne ten Brinke and Laura England) is now embarking on research on concealed emotions. The research, which will examine the facial expressions of people when they’re disguising their emotions, is supported by a Discovery grant from National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and an operating grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

The reason why there is so much dispute over these issues, I think, could be because we don't yet have the "if A >> then B" of the mind. It looks like more of a "if A >> then often C >> but sometimes D >> although E has also been known to happen among older people >> but for some reason H is more common among wealthier individuals >>..."
This is why good psychologists learn many methods and models and are careful with which to approach each case.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've heard the tape recorder theory so many times, usually attributed to Freud. So he never said such a thing after all?
Any idea who did start the whole tape-recorder thing? I've heard the most ridiculous stories, like that people under hypnosis can remember the door to their childhood home down the most minute scratch and stain.

The notion we have a perfect tape recorder in out brains probably arose from the discoveries of Wilder Penfield who found that stimulating various parts of the brain with a small voltage seemed to evoke remarkably clear and intact memories of childhood. This discovery got widely published and astonished a lot of people.

In fact, though, the people he was doing this to were all epileptics (whose skulls had been opened for surgery), and in cases where it was tried later on non-epileptics it didn't seem to work. Pennfield therefore, strongly began to suspect that the "memories" he initially evoked weren't authentic at all, but pseudo-memories created on the spot from elements of real memory by virtue of the fact that the neurons of epileptics are vastly more "touchy" than those of non-epileptics (google: "the kindling effect" or maybe "neuronal kindling").

The notion that we store every minute detail of our lives in memory is the erroneous notion that lives on from Penfield's work and I suppose it is repeated by hypnotists for the simple reason it serves their purpose. That has nothing to do with Freud, and Freud is not responsible for any erroneous associations of this idea with his theories of mind.

I think the reason Freud has turned into fair game is because there are so many quack psychologists out there. I was talking with my parents about it the other day (sparked by the "is psychology a pseudo-science" thread from PF actually :tongue:), and it's part of why my dad has decided to leave the field for good. They feel it has lost its way. There are too many psychologists out there that are either poorly qualified, looking to make a quick buck, or just completely nuts.
My mom still wants to keep practicing. But my dad is completely frustrated with the field and the way it's going. All the nuts doing mystic healing and crap like that get all the press coverage, while people doing real research are barely even mentioned in the news.
That's a completely different topic though.

The reason Freud is fair game is because he raised the subject of sex at a time when sex was taboo: it was clear to him that the content and subject matter of dreams and the things that drove neurotic behaviors were all those things we automatically repress from our conscious mind during the day. At that time, mores being what they were, this mostly meant sexual things. It was important to most to maintain the status quo and Freud had to be denigrated, made to appear silly or everyone would have to face the fact they were all very much more sexual than social and religious pretence allowed them to admit. He was somewhat in the position of someone who wants to criticize a dictator while the dictator is still in power and most people's energies are monopolized by trying to obey the dictator. The habit of criticizing him without reading what he'd written became firmly instituted and continues to this day, despite the fact, strangely, that we can all be very much more open about sex because of Freud.

 

[zoobyshoe]

then again, in most cases, the complete oposite is true:

Or:

Childhood abuse and other extreme stressors can have lasting effects on brain areas involved in memory and emotion. The hippocampus is a brain area involved in learning and memory that is particularly sensitive to stress.8,9 As reviewed in greater detail by Bruce McEwen in other Cyberounds high levels of glucocorticoids (cortisol in the human) released during stress were associated with damage to neurons in the CA3 region of the hippocampus, and a loss of neurons and dendritic branching.10,11,12 Glucocorticoids disrupt cellular metabolism and increase the vulnerability of hippocampal neurons to excitatory amino acids like glutamate.13 Other neurochemical systems interact with glucocorticoids to mediate the effects of stress on memory and the hippocampus, including serotonin14 and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF).15,16 Stress also results in deficits in new learning that are secondary to damage to the hippocampus.17,18 Exciting recent research has shown that the hippocampus has the capacity to regenerate neurons and that stress inhibits neurogenesis in the hippocampus.19

http://www.lawandpsychiatry.com/html/hippocampus.htm

 

[moe darklight]

great article zooby. I didn't know stress can affect the brain to that extent.

from the same article, about memories resurfacing:

Many abuse victims claim to remember only certain aspects of the abuse event. For instance, a patient who was locked in the closet had an isolated memory of the smell of old clothes and the sound of a clock ticking. Later, she connected that with feelings of intense fear and, then, the entire circumstances relating to the abusive events

 

[moe darklight]

The notion we have a perfect tape recorder in out brains probably arose from the discoveries of Wilder Penfield who found that stimulating various parts of the brain with a small voltage seemed to evoke remarkably clear and intact memories of childhood. This discovery got widely published and astonished a lot of people.

In fact, though, the people he was doing this to were all epileptics (whose skulls had been opened for surgery), and in cases where it was tried later on non-epileptics it didn't seem to work. Pennfield therefore, strongly began to suspect that the "memories" he initially evoked weren't authentic at all, but pseudo-memories created on the spot from elements of real memory by virtue of the fact that the neurons of epileptics are vastly more "touchy" than those of non-epileptics (google: "the kindling effect" or maybe "neuronal kindling").

The notion that we store every minute detail of our lives in memory is the erroneous notion that lives on from Penfield's work and I suppose it is repeated by hypnotists for the simple reason it serves their purpose. That has nothing to do with Freud, and Freud is not responsible for any erroneous associations of this idea with his theories of mind. The reason Freud is fair game is because he raised the subject of sex at a time when sex was taboo: it was clear to him that the content and subject matter of dreams and the things that drove neurotic behaviors were all those things we automatically repress from our conscious mind during the day. At that time, mores being what they were, this mostly meant sexual things. It was important to most to maintain the status quo and Freud had to be denigrated, made to appear silly or everyone would have to face the fact they were all very much more sexual than social and religious pretence allowed them to admit. He was somewhat in the position of someone who wants to criticize a dictator while the dictator is still in power and most people's energies are monopolized by trying to obey the dictator. The habit of criticizing him without reading what he'd written became firmly instituted and continues to this day, despite the fact, strangely, that we can all be very much more open about sex because of Freud.

thanks. great info.

I also never though of it from that point of view, I guess I'm too used to modern society and it didn't even occur to me.
I think some of his writing is interesting even if you're not interested in psychology. He was very artistic in the way he wrote sometimes. It wasn't boring and dry (well, some of it was).
I can't say I've read a lot straight from him though, mostly books that reference him or have the odd quote. I have his complete works, leather bound, in 4 volumes sitting on my library and I read a bit from it sometimes. They're in spanish and I find spanish a bit hard to read when its too dense; I'll probably get it in English at some point.
It's also incredible HOW MUCH he wrote. It's endless.

 

[zoobyshoe]

thanks. great info.

I also never though of it from that point of view, I guess I'm too used to modern society and it didn't even occur to me.
I think some of his writing is interesting even if you're not interested in psychology. He was very artistic in the way he wrote sometimes. It wasn't boring and dry (well, some of it was).
I can't say I've read a lot straight from him though, mostly books that reference him or have the odd quote. I have his complete works, leather bound, in 4 volumes sitting on my library and I read a bit from it sometimes. They're in spanish and I find spanish a bit hard to read when its too dense; I'll probably get it in English at some point.
It's also incredible HOW MUCH he wrote. It's endless.

When I was studying acting they made the point that when depicting the past it was often necessary to indirectly communicate the morals and social attitudes of that time. Despite his directly addressing sexual issues, Freud was not, himself, free of the prevailing attitudes, and an actor could pick up a lot about those times from his works. His choice of words and delicate, always professional, set up of such discussions betrays that he, himself, was given to a very prudish sensibility that comes out clearly in his wording here and there. Things were very different then.

 

[Morella]

In lieue of an earlier post re most of Freuds assumptions being wrong - on the contrary, there are many of hs views which have been proven through neuro-science.

 

[rcritchett]

This is a great question. Everyone's answers are also great! It is my personal belief that yes, the subconscious mind exists. Whether or not it is a physical part of your nervous system, cannot be confirmed or denied. Modern psychology, though there are some knowledgeable individuals and organizations, is not (in my opinion) "open" meaning that the theories and philosophies, to the psychologists themselves, are set in stone. It is people with tenacity, like Bandler and Grinder (Neuro Linguistic Programming) and people like Deepak Chopra that truly have the upper hand in terms of getting to the bottom of the phenomenon we call consciousness.

This is my personal belief. Whatever works for you, is true for you. This cannot be denied either way. The answer to your question is yes, the subconscious mind can be spoken to. This is essentially what hypnotists do. They speak to the part of your brain that accepts, without judgment, suggestion. It is my belief that through altering your state of consciousness (meditating), you can give yourself your own suggestions, that seat directly into a deeper more receptive layer of your mind. One day, out of nowhere, using this same technique, I no longer was a smoker. Thanks for reading!

 

[brainstorm]

I think I have a good example of subconsciousthought:

Imagine you had a hard time keeping track of time as a child. People were always getting upset at you and teasing you about being late. It was emotionally traumatic and you eventually learned to keep very good track of time and now you feel a strong sense of confidence in always being on time.

Now you have a friend or colleague who is bad at keeping track of time. Let's say they work in a different department as you so them being late for work doesn't affect your work in any way. Still you feel intense irritation at their sense of time, even though you like them at lot in other ways.

I think that you could say that your irritation is caused by your subconscious cognitive-emotional programming that occurred during your childhood when you were informally disciplined all the time about your bad time-keeping.

You can't communicate with your subconscious as such, but you can identify patterns in your thoughts and behavior and become mindful of past experiences that might have "programmed" you to think and act in certain ways.

When you identify such patterns, there's a good chance you experience fear that you could lose power by deconstructing your programming. In the previous example, the person might fear losing the discipline that keeps them being on time, because they are afraid of feeling like they did as a child when people disciplined them for being late.

 

[rcritchett]

I think you could be right. Once you step into your brain, through awareness, incantations, meditation, or reconditioning, it can be a bit strange because it is new and can make people feel uncomfortable and because human beings innately move towards gaining and maintaining pleasure and comfort, they may not change the conditioning. (fear of deconstructing programming)

Also, I want to point out that I believe human beings are consciously aware of their own conditioning to an extent, even that it needs to change, and in some cases how to do it, it just never is held in their awareness long enough to and there are many different reasons for that. Fear, Security, Comfort, Inbound Information Filters, definitely avoidance and as a result of those feelings that come to the surface within seconds, the person moves away from it quickly, to forget the thought, and not even think of changing tendency. Great reply brainstorm

 

[ArchHawk_Eyes]

I've been dealing with my subconscious mind for about two years now. I've come to the conclusion that your subconscious mind is a lot like a computer. It has no sense of humor, takes everything literally and only executes the orders it's given. The orders come from your conscious thoughts. Another analogy for this relationship would be, your conscious mind is the gatekeeper. Whatever thought goes in that you most passionately believe, comes out on the other end in your physical reality. Now don't go thinking you can consciously think of a pink unicorn for a year and it'll come into existence. It's "magic" but not really. While it can create the circumstances you desire if you're persistent in your thoughts, it can't bring fantasy into reality... unless you're tasking your subconscious mind with creating a fantasy movie. Then I suppose anything is possible.

I've learned all this from the book "The Power of Your Subconscious Mind" by Joseph Murphy. Another good book that elaborates and provides a formula for harnessing your subconscious mind is "Think and Grow Rich" by Napolean Hill.

Since I realized the subconscious mind's existence my time has been spent perfecting the way I communicate with my subconscious. It can be done. All you need to do is set the frame of your relationship between your conscious mind and subconscious mind. Do you want it to be like a drill sergeant to a private? Doctor to patient? Or like someone send earlier... parent to child? Any frame works the only thing is, you should stick with whatever you choose. So, choose wisely. Just like with every other skill... repetition is key. Once you start communicating and giving out orders in the same pattern with the same frame over and over... you'll notice how potent your new ally in life really is. The more specific the order the better. Generalities don't bode well with the subconscious mind. It needs to know EXACTLY what you want from it. Just like a computer... if one string of code is off... the system crashes... if nothing else, you don't get exactly what you want. I myself have tasked my subconscious with many specific things in the past. Many of which I already have and the other I have complete faith will be delivered in due time. Some of things I've already attained through working with my subconscious mind are 1: A 6 speed BMW. 2: Gorgeous Blond haired girlfriend. 3: Consistent domination in my favorite Xbox game. All three of these I can back with visual evidence. The whole reason I'm posting right now is because I want to help anyone who's legitimately interested, how to harness their subconscious mind. I'll admit I am a ways off from completely getting it down. I still consciously psyche myself out in situations even though there's no point... basically... old habits die hard... some harder than others. Nonetheless, I have a lot more to talk about but I want to make sure I'm not wasting my time here. If anyone is interested in hearing more let me know.