Traditionally, scientists and most philosophers have considered that human behavior is governed by conscious thought . The belief that we are capable of knowing all the important data about our environment and our body and that we decide how to behave by sticking to this information has been very widespread, perhaps because rationality has been a central value in the naturalists and thinkers of recent centuries.

However, today we know that a very large part of the processes that influence our thinking and our actions are based on things that we do not know directly: that is, elements of the unconscious. Despite this discovery, it is easy to fall into confusion when we talk about the unconscious, since this concept is defined differently by the Freudian theory (and later psychodynamic tendencies) and neuroscience of our days.

Where does this confusion come from? The Precedent of Freudian Theory

Although Sigmund Freud did not use the scientific method to investigate the processes governing thought, it can be said that he noticed the existence of a type of unconscious (or, rather, “the unconscious”, in his terminology) long before scientists came to see it. The unconscious that Freud talks about in his writings, however, is not the same as the one studied today in the neurosciences. Among other things, because neither he nor the other researchers of mental processes knew yet the organic functioning by which higher mental processes are governed at the unconscious level, beyond having described certain general principles.For this reason, Freud wove a network of hypotheses relatively independent of what is now studied by the neurosciences.

It is important to be clear about this idea, since it is often understood that, as Freud tried to rely on principles of physics and physiology to propose his explanations of the mind, these explanations are based on a thorough observation of the functioning of the body at the biological level. Thus, although in the principles of psychoanalysis the brain was compared to a steam engine, this image can be taken as little more than an analogy that served to better understand the explanation itself, rather than the brain.

Research limited by context

In short, Freud knew that he did not have the means to study the physical processes that govern the functioning of the brain, and he believed that this topic was very relevant to understanding how the thought and unconscious proposed in Freudian theory works. The researchers of the mind had very few resources to study the functioning of the brain, and that had clear implications for understanding how what was then called “the mind” works.This can be intuited in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), in which Sigmund Freud said:

“Biological science is really a domain of infinite possibilities. We must expect it to provide the most amazing insights, and we cannot guess what answer it will give, in a few decades’ time, to the problems we have raised. Perhaps these answers will be such that they will demolish our artificial building of hypotheses.

The gap between psychoanalysis and neurosciences

Both Freud and the disciples of Freudian theory who did not depart from the teachings of their master use the term unconscious to refer to the mental content that, at a given moment, is outside the repertoire of thoughts of which the person is aware and which, in some way, remain hidden somewhere in his psyche. However, partly because of his focus and partly because of the little that was known about the nervous system at the time, his explanations of the unconscious are divorced from fundamental principles about the mechanics of the brain and the neuronal activation associated with consciousness that are studied by the neurosciences.

In short, the unconscious of which Freud spoke served to refer to memories, perceptions and mixtures of feelings that, responding to a need, are inaccessible through conscious knowledge . It can be said that, although the current conception of the unconscious is not the one used by Freud, the latter continues to compete with the former for being the first in which “the unconscious” occupies an important position in an extensive theoretical corpus.

The unconscious of the simple

The unconscious raised by Freudian theory is composed of concrete rational and emotional elements that remain repressed because they have a problematic meaning for the conscious mind. That is to say, they are not kept hidden because of their complexity or their little relevance in the person’s day-to-day life. On the contrary, these repressed elements referred to by some psychoanalysts tend to be relatively simple ideas that can be “translated” into the consciousness by means of symbolic operations and whose presence in the unconscious, despite going unnoticed, forms a kind of “glasses” for reading reality through thoughts that, in a certain sense, are recurrent.

Freudian theory maintains that the contents of the unconscious must be simple enough in themselves to be able to be challenged by a multitude of stimuli typical of everyday life, although the way in which the consciousness blocks these thoughts is complex, since it uses original combinations of symbols to give expression to the repressed. Dreams, for example, are for Freud a vehicle for the expression of repressed thoughts conveyed through symbolism.

A touch of mystery

Of course, this definition of the unconscious is problematic and confusing , since language itself can be considered a way of filtering the unconscious through symbols (words), which means that unconscious thoughts, by their very nature, never come to light completely and therefore we cannot know them completely, since they are in constant transformation in their journeys to consciousness. This kind of obscurantism is to be expected due to the complexity of the object of study of psychoanalysts, the subjects dealt with by Freudian theory and its research methodology.

The unconscious always has a side that cannot be accessed by the simple word : that is why psychoanalysts claim the importance of interaction between patient and therapist over the reading of self-help books, which contain principles coded a priori by a series of symbols that the author has chosen and arranged without knowing the reader.

The New Unconscious

Although Freud can be considered the “discoverer” of the unconscious, he is so inasmuch as he introduced a way of thinking of the human being as an animal that does not know all the processes that guide its action , but not for having found the unconscious through a systematic and detailed investigation of it.

Freudian theory is a child of its time, and is constrained by the technical limitations . Both Freud and some of the psychologists of his time speculated on the existence of unconscious aspects of human thought and behaviour, but their methodology of study (introspection, observation of patients with mental disorders, etc.) only provided them with indirect knowledge of these. Fortunately, despite the limitations with which Freudian theory was forged at the time, nowadays neurosciences and the technological developments that accompany them allow a much more complete study of this subject.

Freudian theory introduced for the first time a more or less detailed conception of the unconscious as a determining element in human behavior, while the scientific community of the second half of the 20th century, curiously, still believed in the primacy of conscious thought processes over the rest of the human body. Today, however, the tables have turned in the world of neuroscience and the vast majority of researchers discard conscious thought as the main driver of our behaviour . The investigation of the unconscious by neuroscientists is something that has appeared recently, but has borne fruit very quickly.

Distinguishing terms based on new findings

The unconscious currently referred to by neuroscientists and psychologists is far from the same concept presented by Freudian theory. To distinguish between these two ideas, that of the unconscious of psychoanalysts and that of the unconscious of scientists, the latter concept has been given the name of New Unconscious .

While the unconscious of Freudian theory exists as a redoubt to which thoughts that are difficult to digest by the consciousness are limited and blocked by keeping them away from itself, the New Unconscious is not based on forces of motivation and drive or on forms of repression or “blocking” of thoughts according to their content. The relationship between the conscious and unconscious processes that scientists now speak of is not based on defense mechanisms, but on the architecture of the brain , which is simply not made so that everything that happens in it has a transcription to human consciousness. The New Unconscious is truly unconscious, and cannot be known indirectly through the analysis of its “manifestations”.

The unconscious aspects of thought exist as part of a cycle (the Perception-Action cycle) of which we are not interested in knowing everything. We are not interested in instantly memorizing each and every aspect of the person we have just met, and so we look for one or two references to their identity unconsciously: for example, their hairstyle. We are also not interested in carefully studying all the subjects on which we have to make a decision, and that is why we decide to unconsciously follow the paths of heuristics, nor is it necessary to be aware that the left shoe squeezes very lightly, nor is it essential to consciously direct the movements of the right arm when looking out the window of the bus.

These processes must be carried out with discretion not because of their content, but because of their nature, as they can be managed automatically leaving free space in the consciousness for special tasks. In Freudian theory, on the other hand, what is unconscious is precisely because of its meaning , its importance.

The New Unconscious differs from the term used by Freudian theory because does not respond to a personal history or problematic internalization of past experiences . In any case, its reason for being is found in a brain structure designed so that only some tasks and functions are part of consciousness, while the rest is delegated to a set of automatic operations, some of which we can manage to control partially if necessary (such as breathing).

New Unconscious and Freudian theory, united only by appearances

In short, the unconscious side of the most abstract thoughts, such as the automatic association that can occur between the perception of a dog in the street and the memories of the last vacation in Barcelona, respond to the same mechanics by which the processes responsible for making us blink tend to be unconscious for most of the time. This is the logic that governs the New Unconscious: the pure biological pragmatism .

While the unconscious in Freudian theory is based on motivational mechanisms, the New Unconscious is not a prison of inappropriate emotions and thoughts, but a place where all the series of operations of which we also have no special interest in controlling and whose automatism makes life easier for us are to be found.