Talk:Unconscious mind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Messy Links[edit]

I've removed a number of the links from the See Also section. Rapid Eye Movement, Slow Wave Sleep, NREM are only related to this article through vague references to sleep, and are not mentioned within the body of the article. The unconcious mind is also not mentioned in any of the sleep articles. I've also removed Psychology of Religion, as it's only link to this article seems to be that they both relate to Jung. I've stuck Psychoanalysis in there to replace them as it seems more relevant.

Also, what's going on with the portal link? Most of the subjects in there seem to be vaguely related at best. Jasonisme (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that it was a mistake to remove 'Psychology of Religion' from the See Also section? It is actually directly relevant to this article, since the idea of the unconscious apparently has religious roots. See, for example, E. R. Dodds's The Greeks and the Irrational.Skoojal (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Misc. entries[edit]

I heard once that 90% of our actions on a daily basis, such as the decisions we make and the interactions with others, are determined or at least affected by subconscious thought. Is there any validity to this statement? If so, does it belong in this article? --BMS 05:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I moved the following to the consciousness entry, because, in my view, an explanation of consciousness is not the responsibility of an article about unconsciousness: "Many cognitive scientists view consciousness as an emergent phenomenon arising from a hierarchy of unconscious processes."

cognitive science has some evidence for the existence of the unconscious. does that belong here, or in the cog. sci. article?

Removed this:

or the social construction of reality, that is, the view of the world and of right and wrong one learns from parents and peers

That seemed like a less than helpful or accurate gloss of what Freud thought the superego was. He certainly didn't (as far as I'm aware) use such modern silly-clever catchphrases as "Social Construction of Reality."

Also removed this:

I don't see why it merits a link alongside the others. --Larry Sanger

Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind theory is one theory that holds that mental functioning consists of a large number of modules, most of which are unknown to the conscious mind, and hence part of the unconscious.

Two questions: (1) who cares about Marvin Minsky's Society of Mind theory? (2) (Rhetorical) Do psychologists ever use "unconscious" in the special sense of "not part of the 'module' to which one has direct access"--or would that be only Marvin Minsky--in which case, again, who cares?

I can't see any value in the above paragraph about Minsky, so I've removed it.

I've also removed the see also list, which included Behaviorism, Cognitive science, and Neurobiology. Behaviorism seems downright irrelivant. Cognitive science was a redundant link, appearing earlier in the article. And I don't see the value in a link to neurobiology, without an explanation of why it might be relevant.

I have two questions now:

  1. Can someone explicate the role of Jung? Without more information, the little reference to him doesn't seem to have a natural place in the article.
  2. Does contemporary psychoanalysis speak of an unconscious? (Is there a such thing as "contemporary psychoanalysis"? Maybe "psychotherapy" would be a better term?)

--Ryguasu 09:21 Dec 25, 2002 (UTC)

I have added some examples of the unconscious at work. They seem pretty convincing to me. Let me know if clarification is needed. I removed the only example that was previously there, as it seemed trivial.

This page seems to be coming together without shooting off into controversial waters.

I also added a brief piece on Jung's view. I removed: What is "phenomenological reflection"? (Something about concentrating to access normally unconscious stuff.) Surely it is important for an article on the unconscious.

-- Tad Boniecki

Well, this page can stand quite a bit of expansion. For now, I added the paragraph about Watson and Popper being the most notable forefathers of those who object to the idea of the unconscious. Isabella (morimom) - Jan 2 2004

Added something re Freud's division of consciousness into the preconscious, conscious and unconscious, on dreams, and on the distinction/similarity between unconscious and nonconscious events. Isabella (morimom) - Jan 3 2004

Edited / added all kinds of stuff, like the distinction between The Unconscious and unconscious events; also, removed the heading "why contemporary cognitive science posits an unconscious". There is no evidence that cognitive science posits an unconscious - there is a lot of talk about unconscious events but little interest in (and often disdain for) Freudian/Jungian ideas. The list below that is still quite the pell-mell grab-bag but it's an interesting one. Isabella (morimom) - Jan 6 2004

Seemingly incorrect information[edit]

The last mentioned point about psychologists in advertisisng using subliminal messages looks completely wrong, as the relevant article shows: advertisers don't employ these because they don't work, and are controversial among the public, who often believe they do work, and would respond with outcry if such things were proven. I think what was intended was not the term "subliminal messages", but "unconscious associations", like visible sexual cues. I don't wish to change it myself because I don't know any of this for certain. 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Expert tag[edit]

I added the expert tag as some of this information is odd and seems dubious and it probably needs a rewrite with the attention of someone really familiar with the material. It's present form is really sloppy and confusing. --DanielCD 21:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I will slowly work may way through this article. When I have a swag of time I will replace all the tags with the ActiveDiscuss tag. First job is to put the article in one of its correct Philosophy of mind categories and link it into the mindbrain portal. Controversially I have added the category of pseudoscience, since this subject can be hjacked by wild claims such as those in subliminal influence. Unconscious and subconscious being rubbery concepts, the article ought to differentiate the collective unconscious, collective memory and transpersonal elements, of which eastern and middle eastern mysticism has something to say, predating western 'discovery' by 5000 years. Some psychoanalytic interpretation is built around hidden messages of the presumed unconscious messenger. You can see the links to material already in wikipedia alongside this comment and that is currently little referred to in the article. Those inclusions are in contrast with academic cogntive science and some classical analytic dogma. The right hemisphere of the brain is generally without speech but rich in imagery. It is the source of music, poetry and an entry into meditation. Research into meditation and with split brain patients can illuminate the functioning of dominant and subordinate hemispheres and these are the hydraulics of unconscious mind. Those common distinctions in neurobiology and neuroscience are nowhere to be found in the article. They are badly needed if it is ever to get past its current and appropriate tagging. Two references currently at the bottom of the article is embarrassing--Ziji 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have begun with the pre-history section adding material and ample references from Vedic psychology, theatre, shakespeare and freud together with symbolic interactionism and link to language. Seems like a lot to preface the article with, but a broad and I hope NPOV informs me.--Ziji 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Concluded my work; more references to contemporary cogntive psychology are required but that's enough from me.--Ziji 00:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm no scientist, but this seems to make no sense:

...Popper defined science in terms which necessarily led to the exclusion of psychoanalysis. Thus, defining science in another way may lead to including psychoanalysis into this domain of knowledge.

I realize strict definitions are important in many fields of study, but this line of reasoning strikes me as the illogical flailing of someone who refuses to lose an argument. Redefining the word "airplane" will not make pigs fly. --Captaindan 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether the counter argument is reasonable or not is unimportant here. Problem is that, this POV is unsourced. I will delete unsourced POV in thise section. Vapour

I have deleted following.

"However, critics of Popper have underlined that Popper's exclusion of psychoanalysis from the normal domain of science was a direct consequence of his specific definition of science as being constituted by what may be falsifiable. In other words, Popper defined science in terms which necessarily led to the exclusion of psychoanalysis. Thus, defining science in another way may lead to including psychoanalysis into this domain of knowledge."
I don't doubt that someone counter Popper's criticism along this line. Please find at least one reference so proper source attribution can be made.
"Still, many, perhaps most, psychologists and cognitive scientists agree that many things of which we are not conscious happen in our mind(s)."
I'm not sure this claim can be substantiated. Plus this is a use of weasle word (some, most, many, majority). I'm quite sure there are lot of brain activities (which include such thing as regulation of heart beat) which we are not "conciously" aware of. Are these profession refering to "brain activities" or "uncoucious mind" or "subconcious"?
It seems that, while many cognitive scientists could find a whole host of things your brain does which we are not concious of, this doesn't even imply, let alone give evidence for or describe, some gross entity such as an "unconscious mind". Which is what the original author seems to be trying to suggest. Jasonisme (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
"The argument seems to be about how mind will be studied, not whether there is anything that happens unconsciously or not."
This looks like someone's personal POV. Vapour

The paragraph that attempts to respond to the criticisms is quite possibly the single worst written thing I've come across on wikipedia. I'd fix it myself, but, to be perfectly frank, I sort of like keeping it unintelligible. That said, somebody who both likes Freud and has a vague grasp of English syntax might want to get around to fixing that.

Jung and pseudo-science[edit]

Jung is definitely pseudo-science. How can I write this into article? I don't want it getting reverted. Hylas Chung 08:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to state where he claimed whatever aspects of his work you are referring to to be hard science and exactly what aspects of his work are supposed to be pseudoscientific. While many aspects of his work may be questionable, there are aspects of his work aren't psudoscientific at all, so making a global claim wouldn't be appropriate. It's likely that claims of psudoscience be left to the individual concepts and their testability. I'm not sure why you left the comment here; are you meaning that the idea of the unconscious is psudoscientific?
In a nutshell, can you be more specific? --DanielCD 16:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Hylas, my friend - know ye nothing of the ways of Wikipedia? You just put in a sentence that says "some observers consider Jung's ideas to be pseudoscience" or some other such copout formation. Bacchiad 02:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Lacan and Chomsky[edit]

It worth noting that Chomsky's position vis a vis language and the unconscious is rather difficult to separate from his position regarding the Holocaust and its deniers. Chomsky has defended the thesis that in democracy there is the right to deny the Shoah, and by doing so, he places argumentation as the real in itself. It is a kind of sophistes position, which may cast very serious doubts on his linguistic theories.:

Does this paragraph about Chomsky's political opinions really belong in a section devoted to Lacan? Michael Rogers 12:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Eduard von Hartmann[edit]

The article really deserves to mention the philosopher Eduard von Hartmann, who is largely responsible for the popularization of the idea of the unconscious mind in the 19th century, prior to Freud. Hartmann established it as an interest with his book 'Philosophy of the Unconscious', which was an attempt to reconcile the philosophies of Hegel and Schopenhauer in a way of Hegelian synthesis. He became a very well known philosopher at the time that Freud was young. One should also note that the field of psychology was established in academia by a French 19th century philosopher, Victor Cousin, taking the term from Thomas Reid, as he believed the central interest of philosophy developed by the 19th century to be the study of the mind. Scientists and thinkers like Freud were mainly driven by the idea of developing psychology beyond metaphysics and into a positivist science. I think its important to restate this not only for the sake of history, but because its important to realize that the narrative of modern psychology is based on a philosophical narrative, and the unconscious is a metaphysical category.


Can the publications of followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi be considered reliable sources? I am referring to the three publications that have C. N. Alexander as first author. I am not immediately convinced that this gives a commonly accepted interpretation of the Vedas, and the terminology of a "unified field of consciousness" in the article seems very much tied to the Maharishi's pseudo-scientific foundation of his theories.[1]  --Lambiam 10:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)durka durka

Unconsciousness, Unconscious mind, Subconciousness[edit]

[collection of several older contributions, put in one place by Morton Shumwaytalk 17:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC).]

Hey! What is a difference between unconscious mind and subconscious mind ? Kenny 20:22, 2004 Jun 8 (UTC)

Coming here in search of specific reasons why people keep getting unconscious and subconscious confused with each other shows that many authors here are also appear to be confused, because they BOTH link to Unconscious. This is understandable since they are commonly interchanged when speaking on such topics. But then, which should a person use for a given situation? According to many dictionaries, they do_not have the same meaning.

  • Unconscious is basically a state of being "without consciousness". (ie. asleep, knocked-out)
  • Subconscious is "just below consciousness". Like Jenny said, it's not technically a state of mind at all. It's the part of you that observes things in the environment without the conscious paying attention to them. (People tend spend much of their time driving subconsciously, while the conscious listens to the radio or reads street signs.) Also, contrary to popular belief, hypnotism is generally done with the Subconscious, not the unconscious.

With the natural separation of Subconscious and Unconscious, more research needs to be done on defining them individually. That is the only obvious way to achieving success.

The article's sentences

"[...] the notion of an unconscious mind (or subconscious) [...]"


"[...] the subconscious (frequently misused and confused with the unconscious) was that merely autonomic function of the brain."

seem to contradict each other. Can somebody explain? What exactly is the difference (according to Freud / the author / other opinions) between subconscious and unconscious? Is it correct that according to the iceberg model, the subconscious is synonymous with the preconscious, the layer of the unconscious just below the conscious and therefore a small subset of the unconscious?

Also: I often read things like "the unconscious STORES" this and that. Does it really have any storage (or memory, as in storage & recognition) function? Would it make sense to look at storage/memory and conscious and unconscious separately, similar to the storage and processing in a computer?

And: Does it annoy anybody that the words unconscious and nonconscious are used as technical terms for different things, although most people would (and should) perceive them as synonymous?

Thanks, Torsten

Thorsten: Hallo, I'd be very interested in finding out more on the iceberg model... please could you elaborate a little on this? (My understanding doesn't use a 'physical' model or hierarchy as they've tended to fudge issues or depend on implicit/covert ungrounded assumptions. My offering below is functional as I am interested in its application, but if you could outline iceberg theory, I would be grateful.)

Here's my two penn'orth. For the purposes of a clearer explanation, I'm only defining consciousness in terms of the focus of attention, or intentional object the given mind is consious of, phenomenologically. That is, what you are aware of being aware of, right now (be it object, concept, sensation, idea, whim, plan or self).

Many parts of your awareness will not be conscious at a given precise moment, but can become conscious through conscious will, suggestion, or 'unconscious' processes. You may actively choose to become conscious of your own breathing. You may be reminded with suggestions, of the temperature of your back/ which exact parts of your feet are in contact with the floor with how much pressure/ your current level of thirst/ what is directly to the left of your screen without looking up. Alternatively, you may have no say in the matter of what grasps your unconscious attention. In a busy bar, intensely focussed on the fascinating topic you're discussing with the friend opposite, you drown out the loud background din. But if someone you know and haven't seen in a while enters the bar (in your peripheral vision), it's probable you'll "just happen" to look up just as they walk past. Face recognition parts of the brain light up, then eyes look at the stimulus, then emotional response occurs.

The following definitions form the working model used in hypnotherapy.

Working Glossary[edit]

That which you are conscious of: whatever the mental world is focussed on or towards, at one exact moment. Whether this 'intentional object' is consciously sought/ decided on, or merely came to your attention.

For now, let's assume choice and planning are conscious processes, and that which you are conscious of (intentional object of consciousness) are the subjects of your awareness. (Be it internal thought or external stimuli.) One can be said to be in a 'conscious state' also.

Non-conscious: whatever happens to not be conscious. This wouldn't imply of the non-conscious subject matter that it cannot be conscious, nor must any new beliefs be accepted for it to be understood. I suppose this would include 'preconscious' knowledge, but saying 'non-conscious' is a way to avoid making claims about the order of process, or covert causal assumptions. An exciting/troubling tangent here would be to Benjamin Libet's theory of the Consciousness Veto, where thoughts occur and are cancelled out BEFORE they can become conscious.

A non-conscious piece of knowledge might be, knowing the name of the capital of France. A non-conscious process might be that of regular breathing - which one can become conscious of if desired.

Subconscious: That which is underpins conscious workings of the mind, and the thinker's actions. (I use 'underpins' because Sub=under etymologically, but doesn't make claims about physical characteristics of consciousness, the brain, neural correlates of learning/memory/knowledge/awareness/thought etc.)

There is no 'sub-conscious state' only factors influencing consciousness itself, the intentional objects we're conscious of, and the choices made through conscious decision which are partly governed by (a) assumptions, and (b) beliefs. Of these, closer inspection shows many assumptions the thinker wasn't aware of... often an alternative hasn't ever occured to them. Thus it can be changed: consciously changing the subconscious until the action becomes habit (an action performed unsconsciously) and the new belief subconsciously influences the new behaviour.

One can become conscious that these factors are there, and such covert assumptions of failure or weakness can be changed. (Through natural introspection, philosophical thinking, hypnosis, or consciously challenged through counselling and psychotherapy.) Expectation is subconscious: please see Wikipedia's own "Help" section, "Sources" and find "Check multiple independent sources" aces of hearts explanation.

Unconscious: That which necessarily (logically) cannot ever be conscious. When you are deep asleep, you are unconscious. You are unaware of awareness, unless dreaming... when you become aware of a non-real 'film' of events where no existing stimulus exists. Dead people and people in substance-induced comas are unconscious. This state can only be verified by comparison with conscious states.

This is not necesarily the best model available, but is the most effective model in correcting addictive/ destructive behavioural patterns such as success-sabotaging behaviour, smoking, social anxiety, 'irrational' phobia. Evidence supports the model, and its Freudian origins (search "Freud neuroscience" in the Scientific American for readable articles, for overview and references.)

Memory is never objectively 'what happened', but is always from a specific perspective. That is both physically ("I stood in the corner of the room") and subconsciously ("the arrogant man did what I expected him to"). The emotions attached to a memory can change, as subconscious beliefs about the memory change. It takes emotion to encode memory and make it more consciously accessible. Hypnosis seems to demonstrate that all memories can be retrieved and \consciously remembered... even those in peripheral vision. (Unconsciously stored). However they can also be tampered with by suggestion from unscrupulous practitioners! My belief is that this is an emotional response to an untrained and unskilled 'bully' type approach from the hypnotist - such effects are also seen in indoctrination and brainwashing on a mass scale.

Hope this helps to clarify things in some way.

Jenny Glanville(UK)

Proposed Unconscious/Subconscious Solution[edit]

The unconscious article talks about the history of the idea in psychoanalytic theory. The subconscious article stands separate as a catch-all for the other stuff. Bacchiad 05:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. I only wish I had the time to work on it properly. --DanielCD 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Im my experience, the term "subconscious" is used in the 'cognitive' literature more often than the term "unconscious". However, psychoanalysis uses the latter term, and it is quite common to ridicule the use of "subconscious" in these contexts, which may have lead to a bias against "subconsciousness" even in other contexts. It is my impression that most of the cogno/neuro stuff is filed under "unconscious", maybe for that reason. However, the "unconscious" article (Unconscious mind) is to a good part about the use in psychoanalysis. Even more so, the "subsonscious" article is mostly written from a pseudo-/parascience perspective. This considered, the solution proposed above to me still seems the way to go. Morton Shumwaytalk 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC).

Unconscious (spanish)[edit]

Somebody should apply some rigour in the spanish section of unconscious. 3/4 of it seem like "development of Freudian theory" more than unconscious mind. How do i get the "expert tag" that's not psychoanalytic on there? The admins working there aren't very neutral. Maybe, where can I post this to get the proper help? -- (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Kant

Empirical research for unconscious processes[edit]

I have an interest in presenting the scientific opinion supporting the existence of unconscious processes. A great deal of this research is summarized in Drew Westen's 1999 paper "The scientific status of unconscious processes", a published version of which is cited in the article. Daniel Kahneman's Nobel-prize-winning dual systems model is a more recent formulation of the conscious and unconscious minds, and also one that is based in cognitive neuroscience.

I wish to contrast the empirical support for the unconscious with the article's "Some critics have doubted the existence of the unconscious." I think this contrast is under the purview of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, because it represents a cited mainstream scientific opinion. So far these edits have been reverted. I think mine is a fair point, and to erase it completely, I feel, would be academically corrupt -- removing substantial scientific evidence from the discussion. How could I contrast the science summarized in Westen with the critics' opinions, in a way that won't be quickly reverted? Nsteinberg (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The "critics" referred to in the statement "Some critics have doubted the existence of the unconscious" are Jean-Paul Sartre, David Stannard, and Richard Webster. All of them make their case on what could be called philosophical grounds. It seems strange, to say the least, to respond to their criticisms by citing a scientific paper: how could a scientific study be an appropriate answer to a philosophical argument? Your edits made it look as though the paper refuted Sartre, Stannard, and Webster, but I just don't see how a scientific study could do that; in response to a philosophical argument against the unconscious, a philosophical answer would be required. I find it implausible that Western actually claims that his paper refutes those specific critics and their views, but I haven't read it. If Western does claim this, please quote the relevant parts of his paper. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the "academically corrupt" thing, please see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; your comments could be taken for an implied attack. I hope you don't mean them that way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll try to find a more appropriate place to make my point. I hope the "academically corrupt" thing didn't come off as an attack on you, I meant it as a criticism of the article, which I felt had the risk of being one-sided.Nsteinberg (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Caption wording: what sort of theory?[edit]

I feel I improved a poorly written caption by making this edit, though I do agree with User:Polisher of Cobwebs that "notion" probably wasn't the best choice of word to refer to Freud's conceptual model of the unconscious mind and its workings. However, I don't feel comfortable with ["theory" by itself] either, because of the likely confusion with scientific theory -- especially given Freud's view of his work as scientific, coupled with the somewhat common belief that Freud's theories really are scientific. So I specified "psychoanalytic theory" (and on being reverted politely asked Polisher to discuss the question here). According to Polisher's edit summaries (during 2 reversions), this was "unnecessary" and "equivalent to 'Marx's Marxist theory'." Well, I don't think it is, and would point out that there's no repetition involved. Nowadays, not many people, I'd guess, think Marxist theory is scientific, whereas many more are under that impression for Freud's theories. Personally, I feel "conceptual model" would be a good alternative, though I haven't worked out the details of the wording in the context of the actual caption. In fact, I really didn't want to invest too much time on this. But it would be nice to find a solution which makes everyone happy, —Misty(MORN) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you are questioning whether psychoanalytic theory is scientific. It would be possible to have that debate endlessly, I suppose, but personal opinions about the non-scientific nature of psychoanalysis don't appear to me to be a good reason for using a wording such as "Freud's psychoanalytic theory." It's a redundant expression. Since Freud was a psychoanalyst, obviously his theories were psychoanalytic theories. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I see no reasonthe phrase "Freud's psychoanalytic theory" should be considered intrinsically redundant, as say "Freud's Freudian theory" surely would be. And claims that Freud's investigative methods were genuinely scientific (as distinct from the existence of scientific support for some of his intuitions) are, at the very least, seriously disputed. However, I really don't want to waste more time and energy on this. —Misty(MORN) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


I am a Psychology student attending Clemson University, and I will be modifying this article. EHD51791

Welcome EHD51791! Please remember that Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay. Wikipedia articles should not be based on WP:primary sources, but on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I had to do a copy edit of this page for a class, and it all looks good! Mhickey2 (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I noticed there was Freud's dream interpretation yet nothing for Jung and his dream analysis. Here is a piece I wrote for a class on Jung and Dream Interpretation.


Jung, similar to Freud, believed that dream analysis is important to understand the unconscious mind. Jung believed there were signs and symbols in life; symbols are familiar parts in life yet they have a deeper meaning, often implied and vague. Signs on the other hand were obvious images, such as street signs, these had one meaning and represented that meaning. In dreams symbols that are developed by the unconscious mind to point out these vague or implied items in our lives. Jung’s theories surrounding dream interpretation are inspired by Alfred Adler and Greek philosophers, Anaximader and Heraclitus. One theory revolves the imbalance between the unconscious mind and the conscious mind. If these two are imbalanced this will be displayed in a person’s dreams, to create balance one must understand what the dreams are saying. Jung believes the unconscious mind speaks to the conscious mind through dreams. This is done with images a person can understand through their day and the associations these images have with a person and their lives. Though Freud did affect Jung, he did believe each image in a dream meant something to the dreamer and the dreamer alone. A single image does not represent a definition. This argues against Freud that believed that items such as rockets and circles represented sexual images. Jung believes the individual has different meaning for the symbols in their dreams and one symbol may mean something to a person yet completely different for another person. Mhickey2 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Unconscious mind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)