Tags: Business Plans Templates PdfEconomics Term Paper TopicsExample Of Research ProposalsThe Value Of HomeworkEuropean Group Of Public Law Thesis PrizeHelp Writing A Biology Lab ReportAristotle Research PaperWbnsou Assignment
They posit: (1) that some psychological processes are unconsciously performed and causally determine conscious processes, (2) that they are governed by their own cognitive rules, (3) that they set out their own intentions, (4) and that they lead to a conflicting organization of psyche.We show that each of these postulates is the subject of empirical and theoretical works.
The latter used to claim being entirely aware of his motives: “and entirely responsible for [its] actions.
They are all conscious.” Edelman, an admiring of Freud’s, once responded to him in exasperation, “Jacques, let’s put it this way.
Recently, psychologists (Greenwald, 1992; Loftus and Klinger, 1992) have posed this question in terms of whether the unconscious is smart or dumb.
In other words, the question of whether unconscious processes can be said to be psychological depends on what extent they are as “intelligent” as conscious ones.
Some researchers have already attempted to consider Freudian hypotheses at the light of cognitive science and neuroscience (Figure 1).
Among them, Shevrin and Dickman (1980), in a seminal paper, started out from the common consensus that defines unconscious processes are (1) psychological events that are unknown to the patient but that actively affect its behavior, and adduced empirical data in favor of the more challenging Freudian postulate that (2) unconscious processes are ruled by specific laws of organization.Moreover, if the two biologists share a more or less similar brain, can they have two different kinds of unconscious; among which only one (the cognitive one) is scientifically observable?The aim of this article is to review out the empirical and theoretical convergences between the two fields pleading in favor of a common and objective representation of unconscious processes (see Table 1).But the question now is whether those heuristic concepts, applied to the unconscious, are consistent with neurocognitive data.Brain imaging has shown that many subliminal stimuli activate brain regions without the subject being able to report those influences. (1998) presented pictures of human faces bearing fearful or happy expressions that were sequenced 33 ms before neutral faces that backward masked the face.If the two fields refer to more or less similar mechanisms, we propose that their opposition rests on an epistemological misunderstanding.As a conclusion, we promote a conservative reunification of the two perspectives.Nowadays, we are witnessing a certain convergence between both fields.The aim of this paper consists in examining the four basic postulates of Freudian unconscious at the light of neurocognitive sciences.They refer to psychological descriptions cuing biological regulation traits, which are not psychological per se.Shevrin and Dickman (1980) bites the bullet and proposes that: “by psychological we mean simply that all categories of descriptive terminology applicable to conscious experience can also be applied to unconscious processes.” Such a statement is consistent with Dennett’s criticism of realistic psychology, and in line with the central tenet of Freud’s epistemology (Arminjon, 2010).