Fair enough. But I've heard many sorts of voices in my head. There's the usual one that observes and echoes what I'm doing. But there are other voices that come with stress and anxiety. Sometimes they warn me, alert me to danger. Sometimes they converse, and get into arguments. Then there are other fainter voices that come with various drugs, under various circumstances.
When people seek help about such matters, they often find themselves working with therapists who have this or that conceptual framework. And so patients learn to frame their experience accordingly. Explanations are comforting.
So anyway, I'm dubious about the distinction. I think that it's an artifact of social norms and therapeutic bullshit.
In so far as what the brain could be without the strictures of society and its learned/forced behaviours, thats an interesting question that i hope no psychologist ever really goes too deep into trying to figure out. I guess parts of it can be deconstructed, if that is your cup of tea, and as long as that works for an individual then hey, thats pretty great.
What i find missing in most conceptual frameworks is a greater response to the raw constructive capacity of the human brain. Most inquiries into mental voice states (non-consciously controlled ones) deal not directly with the capacity of the brain for such activity, and its implications for phenomenology of being, but with it as an outlier to normal human function. Granted, the reason for this being that its what pays the bills, and i assume a lot of people don't want the hassle and can't really afford to spend time trying to figure it out. Thats perfectly reasonable.
As for the great phenomenology of mind/being/brain discussion, its good fun. I'm pretty much consigned to the fact that artifacts are what we have, and what we will forever work with. In my opinion the idea that the natural state is superior in matters of mind is as much an artifact of a particular social conception as all others. Often the conscious sabotages, often the unconscious does. Believing either to be naturally superior without any form of proper data sets relating to weighted choicemaking over an extensive period of time for multiple individuals is still just a statement of faith, regardless of how you assemble it. (And good luck finding the objective criteria on which judgements as to superiority of choices are concerned.)
Basically, its a tug of war between conscious and unconscious, and i think we should be glad that it is thus and not unnecessarily elevate one over the other. But hey, thats just like, my opinion man.
My framework draws primarily on Burroughs, Hofstadter, NLP and est/Landmark. Plus lots of SF, lately Greg Egan and Peter Watts. I've also practiced Aikido, and played in hardcore whitewater.
The distinction between conscious and unconscious is too simplistic, I think. There's a continuum in multiple dimensions. But I do agree that it's all useful in one way or another. It was simplistic of me to dismiss consciousness.
We're all familiar with the process of learning motor skills. Much conscious attention is required at first. We screw up and get feedback. We think about it. We listen to coaching. We keep practicing. And eventually, it becomes automatic.
I believe that the same process applies in all areas of being. It's a little hard to get, because the learning goes out of consciousness. You know what you've learned only through measuring performance.
