I decided that correct research would really have to start with Buddhism (Gautama Siddhartha - a great scientist) and his efforts to understand man as a spiritual entity, and then move forward. I discovered in the 60s that this had already been done when I read Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard, a book which was widely criticized by psychiatrists and psychologists. It is the only good science on the mind I have ever read. Interestingly, I have never read a critique of the subject by anyone who has actually practiced it, only by those who haven't, usually explaining how wildly out of alignment it is with the theories of modern experts in psychology and psychiatry. One thing I'm sure of - you can study the brain, "neural pathways" and genetics for the next million years and you'll never come any closer than you are right now to understanding who you are, why you think the way you do, the source of the logical and illogical actions you take and source and nature of your own immense and endless creativity.

The questions you raise with "The Hidden Workings of Our Minds" are, in a sense, more fascinating than cited research findings. You and your readers may appreciate my essay, "Getting a Story Out of Nowhere." It is available for reading, and linking to, at http://www.bloomingrosepress.com/gettingastory.html.

Thank you for your provocative piece! I'll be back for more.

I've been interested in creativity, arts, expression and such areas for quite some time now. I came across your blog in the perfect moment. I'm studying the ways those areas connect to each other and this was a light but effective guide for some of my ideas. If you allow me, I've linked this post in my last post.

Congratulations, Dean.

I suppose it sometimes frustrates me that I can't identify exactly why I think a particular way about something. But it's probably a case of be careful what you wish for! You're probably right - if we really did have access to all these processes it would drive us crazy and we, as a species, would never have survived.

In fact, perhaps we had some distant ancestor who DID have access to these processes and they died out from simple indecision.

A couple of points: First, you refer to the frustration of the cognitive processes being hidden away -- the ghost in the machine, if you will. Seriously consider the alternative: full awareness of the cognitive process, with the associated double and triple and quadruple guessing that would ensue. There have been numerous studies that have demonstrated that trying to analyze our reasoning too much results in as much error as relying on hunches.

Second, one theme that seems pretty consistent in the "break-throughs" is what I refer to as the intentionality-unintentionality paradox. That is, if must be something that is deliberately pondered, and has been quite a while, but the solution comes when they stop deliberating.

Naturally, this occurs to those who are experts at what they do, those who have developed the 10,000+ hours neural pathways that produce reliable instinct in their area of expertise.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming series of posts.