Empirical support for the role of subconscious processes in our immediate thoughts and reactions.
Split-Brain Studies #
In the context of “healing”, there is a notion of the higher self that would be able to register an emerging thought but then suspend (re)acting in the world until that thought is evaluated. What do you think about the following test: “How do we know that a thought about a thought carries more clarity than the original thought?”. In a different context, this would correspond to the question: “Who guards the guardians?” #
Your question delves into the philosophical and psychological realms, addressing the meta-cognitive process of thinking about one’s thoughts and the concept of the “higher self” in the context of healing and personal growth. This is reminiscent of the notion of reflexivity in epistemology and the ancient philosophical problem “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (“Who guards the guardians?”), attributed to Plato.
When we ask, “How do we know that a thought about a thought carries more clarity than the original thought?”, we are exploring the idea of self-reflection and its role in achieving a clearer, more objective understanding of our initial thoughts. This is rooted in the belief that our first thoughts or reactions are often influenced by subconscious biases, emotions, and preconceived notions. The act of reflecting on these thoughts is seen as a way to step back and evaluate them more critically and objectively, akin to a higher level of cognitive processing.
The concept of the “higher self” in this context can be interpreted as an aspect of our consciousness that operates at a more detached, observant level. It’s akin to the executive functions in cognitive psychology, which include metacognition (thinking about thinking), self-regulation, and inhibitory control. This higher self is presumed to be better at evaluating thoughts and actions because it is less influenced by immediate emotional responses and more aligned with long-term values and objectives.
However, the paradox inherent in this idea is similar to the “Who guards the guardians?” conundrum. If our higher self evaluates our thoughts, what evaluates the higher self? This leads to an infinite regress unless we assume that the higher self operates on a level of cognition that is inherently clear, unbiased, and aligned with our true values and objectives. This assumption, however, can be difficult to substantiate.
In psychotherapy and mindfulness practices, the idea of observing one’s thoughts without immediate reaction is often used as a technique to foster emotional regulation and cognitive clarity. It is based on the premise that distancing oneself from immediate mental processes can provide a more objective view of them, but this does not necessarily guarantee more clarity or truth in the evaluation process. It’s a method of introducing a pause between stimulus and response, allowing for a more considered reaction.
In sum, the question you pose is a profound one that touches on the limits of self-awareness and the nature of consciousness. It suggests that while reflective thought can provide a degree of clarity and objectivity, it’s also subject to its own limitations and biases. The pursuit of clarity in thought is thus a continuous process, rather than a definitive state to be achieved.
Has the belief that our first thoughts or reactions are often influenced by subconscious biases been experimentally proven? #
The belief that our first thoughts or reactions are often influenced by subconscious biases is well-supported in the field of psychology, particularly in the areas of cognitive psychology and social psychology. This concept is rooted in the dual-process theory of cognition, which posits two systems of thought: System 1, which is fast, automatic, and often subconscious, and System 2, which is slower, more deliberate, and conscious.
Several experimental findings support the influence of subconscious biases on our immediate reactions and thoughts:
Implicit Association Test (IAT): Developed by Anthony Greenwald and colleagues, the IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts in memory. It has been widely used to demonstrate implicit biases, such as racial and gender biases, that people may not consciously endorse or even be aware of. These biases can influence first reactions and thoughts in ways that are inconsistent with conscious beliefs.
Priming Experiments: Research in social psychology has extensively used priming to demonstrate how exposure to certain stimuli can subconsciously influence subsequent thoughts and behaviors. For instance, John Bargh’s famous study where participants exposed to words associated with old age subsequently walked slower, illustrates how subconscious cues can affect behavior without conscious awareness.
Split-Brain Studies: Research on patients with split-brain (where the corpus callosum connecting the two hemispheres of the brain is severed) has shown how the subconscious mind can influence thoughts and actions. In these studies, patients would make up explanations for actions decided by one hemisphere of their brain without conscious access to the reasoning behind the decision, suggesting that a significant portion of our decision-making process can occur subconsciously.
Neuroscientific Evidence: Advances in neuroscience have shown that many cognitive processes occur in regions of the brain not associated with conscious thought. Decisions can be detected in brain activity before the individual becomes consciously aware of them, suggesting a subconscious origin of some thoughts and actions.
These and numerous other studies in cognitive psychology, social psychology, and neuroscience provide strong empirical support for the idea that many of our immediate thoughts and reactions are influenced by subconscious processes. However, it’s important to note that while these biases are common, they are not absolute and can vary widely among individuals and situations.
Tell me more about split-brain studies? #
Split-brain studies provide fascinating insights into the nature of consciousness and the functional specialization within the human brain. These studies are primarily associated with patients who have undergone corpus callosotomy, a surgical procedure that severs the corpus callosum, the major set of neural fibers connecting the two cerebral hemispheres. This procedure was historically used as a last-resort treatment for severe epilepsy.
The pioneering work in this area was conducted by Roger Sperry and his colleagues Michael Gazzaniga and Joseph Bogen in the 1960s. Their research on split-brain patients revealed several key findings about the lateralization of brain function and the nature of consciousness:
Lateralization of Function: One of the most significant findings from split-brain research is the idea that each hemisphere of the brain has specialized functions. For instance, in most people, the left hemisphere is dominant for language and analytical processing, while the right hemisphere excels in spatial abilities, face recognition, and processing of nonverbal information.
Independent Processing: In split-brain patients, the two hemispheres can operate independently of one another. This was demonstrated through experiments where different information was presented to each hemisphere (for example, by showing different images to each visual field). Patients would often only be able to verbally describe the image processed by the left hemisphere (which controls speech), but could use their left hand (controlled by the right hemisphere) to select an object related to the image seen only by the right hemisphere.
The Interpreter in the Left Hemisphere: Gazzaniga’s work showed that the left hemisphere not only processes language but also seeks to create coherent narratives and explanations for our actions and experiences, even when it does not have full information. This phenomenon is often referred to as the “left hemisphere interpreter.” In split-brain patients, this can lead to confabulation – the creation of explanations for actions taken by the right hemisphere that the left hemisphere is not aware of.
Consciousness and the Split Brain: These studies also raised profound questions about the nature of consciousness. If each hemisphere can function independently, does this mean split-brain patients have a divided consciousness? While patients typically present a unified consciousness in everyday interactions, experiments suggest that each hemisphere can have its own separate and distinct awareness.
Clinical and Ethical Considerations: The split-brain procedure is a radical intervention, and its use has raised ethical questions. It’s mainly considered in cases of severe epilepsy that cannot be controlled by medication. The insights gained from split-brain studies have been instrumental in understanding the brain’s functioning but also underscore the complexity and ethical considerations involved in such neurological interventions.
Overall, split-brain research has been instrumental in advancing our understanding of the modular nature of brain function, the lateralization of cognitive processes, and the complex nature of consciousness. It also underscores the remarkable adaptability of the brain, as many split-brain patients can lead relatively normal lives despite the profound disconnection between their cerebral hemispheres.