Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Commentary: Definitely maybe: can unconscious processes perform the same functions as conscious processes?

2017; Frontiers Media; Volume: 8; Linguagem: Inglês

10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01230

1664-1078

Ariel Goldstein, Ran R. Hassin,

Embodied and Extended Cognition

Through critically examining Hassin's paper "Yes It Can" (YIC; 2013) Hesselmann and Moors (H&M; 2015) suggest that existing data support a more moderate, skeptical view than that suggested by Hassin.The thing we like the most about H&M's paper is the view it proposes: "Definitely Maybe."To the best of our understanding, the view that H&M suggest to those of us interested in non-conscious high-level cognitive processes-open minded skepticism-is definitely an improvement on the more traditional "No It Can't" (e.g., Newell and Shanks, 2014).Definitely Maybe leaves a door open, conceptually and empirically.The argument Hassin made in YIC is simple.He suggested that the capacity limitations of our conscious processes, as well as evolutionary considerations, make it reasonable to suspect that non-conscious processes can carry out every fundamental high-level function that conscious processes can perform.He then went on to review the literature on a number of functions that were traditionally associated with consciousness, and showed that there are already data to suggest that they can occur non-consciously (see also Hassin and Sklar, 2014).The functions that Hassin reviewed in YIC were cognitive control and executive functions, pursuing goals, and information broadcasting and reasoning.Each section reviewed multiple papers that were representative, but far from exhaustive.The function of the literature review was simple: "to illustrate [emphasis added] YIC in fundamental, high-level cognitive functions" (p.196).The review rendered the argument for YIC more plausible simply by pointing out that many data exist to support it.H&M offer three main criticisms of YIC that have to do with the supporting evidence reviewed in the paper.We thank them very much for making these comments, and for the way they make them.We believe science is a social endeavor that advances by exchanges of this sort.We will address each of their points below. H&M'S REVIEWIn their first section H&M argue that Hassin's review of the literature was selective, and many of their points are well taken.Note, however, that much of the data that was left out of YIC was supportive: there is so much additional data out there about non-conscious high-level cognitive and motivational functions that Hassin had to limit himself in certain ways (see Bargh and Morsella, 2008;Bargh et al., 2012; for other relevant reviews and overviews see Kouider and Dehaene, 2007;Van den Bussche et al., 2009 as well as Kahneman, 2011;Dehaene, 2014).Ironically, yet naturally, H&M's review of YIC is... selective too.In their first section, they raise concerns about a small subset of the findings Hassin reviewed.They ignore most of the papers reviewed in YIC, in most of its sections.Just to Illustrate: none of