Being late in the discussion, I wondered how many times in the thread the word "unconscious" had been used. Well, it came back as "zero". This, I think, reflect

Being late in the discussion, I wondered how many times in the thread the word "unconscious" had been used. Well, it came back as "zero". This, I think, reflects what happened to psychology/psychiatry over the past, say, 30 years and at least in the US: the generalization of an homomorphism between the brain and the current state of data computing. Although a very useful concept, the "unconscious" has been dropped because it doesn't fit in this morphism. Or does it? Low level processes are somewhat "unconscious" to computer operation. There are memory leaks and odd stuff happening with memory blocks that one could see as the expression of an unconscious. But, as some people pointed out, this aspect is only a sort of malfunction of the system. The beauty of the unconscious in the brain is that it is productive. Strictly whatever it does serves a purpose: it can be protective (as in dissociation to tolerate trauma), it can be optimizing (as in handling survival functions in the background), it can be productive (by constantly scanning its database and I/O for patterns, convergences, anomalies, etc.) and, I believe, it is the very source of creativity. To the point that I wonder if data computing might not benefit from emulating such a sub-architecture... As people pointed out, we all dissociate, somehow, in our days and that’s because we have an unconscious that does all that. It has been a huge loss for psychology to lose the unconscious to the data computing model. And it might be a huge loss for data computing to not try to emulate our unconscious.