Self Comes to Mind

has allowed the growth of knowledge and the development of science and technology, two ways in which we can attempt to manage the predicaments and opportunities laid bare by the human conscious state.
Self and the Issue of Control
     
    Any discussion of the advantages of consciousness must consider mounting evidence to the effect that, on many occasions, the execution of our actions is controlled by nonconscious processes. This does happen frequently enough, in all sorts of settings, and it deserves attention. It is apparent in the execution of skills, from driving a car to playing a musical instrument, and it is constantly present in our social inter actions.
    The evidence for nonconscious participation in our actions, solid and not so solid, can be easily misinterpreted. It is easy to downplay the value of self-directed conscious control, when it has been shown in numerous experiments, beginning with those of Benjamin Libet and including those of Dan Wegner and Patrick Haggard, that one’s subjective impression of when or what initiated an action can be proven wrong. 1 It is just as easy to use such facts, along with evidence from social psychology, as an argument for the need to revise the traditional notion of human responsibility. If factors unknown to our conscious reasoning influence the shape of our acts, are we really responsible for our actions?
    But the situation is far less problematic than it may seem from such superficial and unjustified reactions to findings whose interpretation is still being discussed. First, the reality of nonconscious processing and the fact that it can exert control over one’s behavior are not in question. Not only that, such nonconscious control is a welcome reality from which we draw palpable advantages, as we shall see. Second, nonconscious processes are, in substantial part and in varied ways, under conscious guidance. In other words, there are two kinds of control of actions, conscious and nonconscious, but the nonconscious control can be partly shaped by the conscious variety. Human childhood and adolescence take the inordinate amount of time that they do because it takes a long, long time to educate the nonconscious processes of our brain and to create, within that nonconscious brain space, a form of control that can, more or less faithfully, operate according to conscious intentions and goals. We can describe this slow education as a process of transferring part of the conscious control to an unconscious server, not as a surrender of conscious control to the unconscious forces that, to be sure, can wreak havoc in human behavior. Patricia Churchland has argued this position convincingly. 2
    Consciousness is not devalued by the presence of nonconscious processes. Instead, the reach of consciousness is amplified. And, assuming the presence of a normally functioning brain, the degree of one’s responsibility for an action is not necessarily diminished by the presence of healthy and robust nonconscious execution of some actions.
    In the end, the relationship between conscious and nonconscious processes is one more example of the odd functional partnerships that emerge as a result of coevolving processes. Of necessity, consciousness and direct conscious control of actions emerged after nonconscious minds were in place, running the show with plenty of good results but not always. The show could be improved. Consciousness came of age by first restraining part of the nonconscious executives and then exploring them mercilessly to carry out preplanned, predecided actions. Nonconscious processes became a suitable and convenient means to execute behavior and give consciousness more time for further analysis and planning.
    When we walk home thinking about the solution of a problem rather than about the route we take, but still do get home safe and sound, we have accepted the benefits of a nonconscious skill that was acquired in many previous conscious exercises, following a learning curve. While we were walking home, all that our consciousness needed to monitor was the general goal of the trip. The rest of our conscious processes were free for creative use.
    Much the same applies to the professional behaviors of musicians and athletes. Their conscious processing is focused on achieving goals, reaching certain marks at certain epochs, avoiding some perils of execution, and detecting unforeseen circumstances. The rest is practice, practice, practice, the second nature that can guide