From the author: Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Academician Panasyuk A.Yu. provides research data on consciousness and the unconscious in his book “What’s in his subconscious?” Once again about consciousness and the unconscious Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Academician Panasyuk A.Yu. provides data from a study of consciousness and the unconscious in his book “What’s in his subconscious?” The research is carried out on the basis of the analysis of: human actions; the process of forgetting information; signs, superstitions; dreams, trance. At the beginning of the study, the following questions are posed: Who controls our behavior? Who or what controls human behavioral acts? Panasyuk A. Yu. suggests considering several options behavior: "1. You are walking down the street... Your behavior is no different from the behavior of an ordinary passerby. Let's call it “passerby behavior.” ... You saw a familiar face, remembered, recognized - a childhood friend, were delighted... And your behavior is no longer the “behavior of a passer-by”, but “the behavior of a joyful meeting.” Your face broke into a smile. You spread your arms wide... . So - a whole complex of behavioral acts called “joyful meeting”. Question: who controlled this behavioral act?...You are walking down the street, and in the crowd you see a familiar face - a childhood friend whom you have not seen for twenty years. ...you have never been friends. ... How to behave? ... “Well, okay, so what?” and you make a polite smile. ... “On a business trip or something?” And here we also have a whole complex of behavioral acts. But under the name “Polite meeting.” Two options for the meeting are being considered. If we compare these situations: in the first - actions were performed automatically, mechanically; in the second, each behavioral act was performed consciously, i.e. At first we thought about whether to do it or not. It turns out that in the first case, behavior is determined by a program formed long ago (“stereotype of behavior”) and behavioral acts unfold as if “by themselves,” without stage-by-stage specific commands of consciousness, and in the second case, behavior is regulated by consciousness. In one case, the I includes a stereotypical program and then only controls its compliance with the situation, in the other, the I controls almost every element of behavior. So, in some cases a person does something intentionally or consciously, and in others - involuntarily, automatically, unconsciously. This begs the question: where is the “polite meeting” program formed, and where is the “joyful meeting”? “Polite meeting” is in the mind. “Joyful meeting” is outside consciousness, i.e. in the subconscious (unconscious). Conclusion: human behavior (actions, sequence of actions) can be regulated either by consciousness or by the unconscious. Next, Panasyuk examines the relationship of incoming information to consciousness and subconscious. ““I realize” means “I know”, it means “I have information.” But will the opposite be true: if “I have information”, then it means “I know”, it means “I realize”. No, that's not true." Consider the argument: "Are you asking if I know what it's called? Of course I know. Now I’ll tell you... uh... how could I... well... I forgot, completely forgot... but I remembered... I remembered! It’s called!...” Panasyuk concludes: “Consequently, having information does not mean knowing, does not mean being aware. And the conclusion: a person can have information both in his consciousness and outside his consciousness.” “Under hypnosis, people remembered things that they considered either “completely forgotten” or never “known.” “So, information can be both in consciousness and outside consciousness.” What kind of repository is this “extraconsciousness”? We can assume that this is memory. Let's consider this: “...memory is a repository of information. And as you know, a repository is a conservation body, but not a management body. Memory does not control a person’s actions or his consciousness. However, as we have seen, the information that is stored in the “extraconscious” can regulate behavior. This means that “extraconsciousness” and “memory” are not the same thing.” An example confirming this conclusion: “Listen, I think I’m already"worked hard." How to correctly write the word - “extrosystole” or “extrasystole”, I haven’t written it for a long time? - How to write. I won’t say it right away... Give me a pen... Here, I wrote it, it worked, look... In such matters I trust my hand more than my memory, the hand remembers better! "This example confirms that "memory " was controlled by that sphere of the psyche, which is the "unconscious". It can be argued that this sphere, along with memory, is also a repository of information, but unlike it, this repository can control a person’s movements, actions, and actions. It is well known how information enters consciousness, where it is stored for some time and can be used to control behavior. How does it enter the subconscious? Let us consider the translation from the outside into the subconscious of such information, the carrier of which is subsensory signals. The force of influence of which causes a response in the receptors of the analyzers, but it is clearly not enough to cause a corresponding reaction in the consciousness. Then this information goes into the subconscious and from there has a certain effect on the person. This is one of the options for translating information into the subconscious. Next, an analysis of human behavior is carried out. Here are specific examples that will help answer the question: what determines the behavior of the interlocutor - his consciousness or the subconscious (unconscious)? And to the question: when is a person more sincere - when running a conscious or unconscious program? Is it possible to control those behavioral acts that come from the subconscious? Is it possible to “play” a “joyful meeting” in such a way that all behavioral acts reflecting a true attitude are inhibited, and only those that are characteristic of a “joyful meeting” appear? And one more question. How can a partner deceive his interlocutor? “If a partner wants to show a completely different attitude than the one he actually experiences, then he must “enter the role,” i.e. remember all your feelings and experiences. And to do this, he will need to imagine that in front of him is not a partner with his idea, but his old and dear friend. And for this you need to remember and experience. And this requires time for preparation, time and energy expenditure... but it is difficult and requires a lot of expenses, and a certain ability to remember your feelings. In normal everyday practice, your business communication partner most likely will not resort to this method of long-term restructuring of their behavior programs. Perhaps he will choose a different path - not perestroika, but the “path of control.” “Constantly monitor” means analyzing your every gesture, every word, every behavioral act. “Constantly control” means constantly thinking about it. But then you will not be able to analyze information coming to you from the outside, in particular from your interlocutor. Because your consciousness will be occupied with other information - information about your behavioral acts. This means you can’t hear your partner. In addition, by analyzing and controlling each of your behavioral acts, you will naturally look like a person attending a diplomatic reception for the first time. And this is at least alarming: if this is not the first time he has been conducting such negotiations, but he is acting so constrained, it means that he is trying to hide something. And what is clear, of course, is the opposite of what it shows.” There is a third way - the formation of a program of prohibitions of previous action programs. “Being restrained in your movements and actions” means minimizing the number of behavioral acts, which means minimizing information about your condition, your relationships, and attitudes. This is achieved through long training. The automatic ban program works and there is no need to think about it every minute.” Panasyuk examined three ways in which a partner can mislead his interlocutor regarding his true attitudes: present a different program of behavior through “getting into character”; consciously control every behavioral act; create a program of prohibitions. Not everyone can master theseways. “Yes, a person, an ordinary person, is not the master of his own house. Or, more precisely, the owner, but only partly - he can, by an effort of will, force himself, for example, not to think, or open his arms crossed on his chest, or forbid himself to express displeasure. But all this is only for a short time, because at these moments his consciousness is unable to generate new ideas or analyze the ideas of his interlocutor. As a result, it turns out that if a communication partner has not studied in special schools, it will be very difficult for him not to show his true attitude through unconscious behavioral reactions. Thus, it is almost impossible to control subconscious behavior programs (for a “common” person). This means we conclude: if we know which program this or that behavioral act uncontrolled by consciousness belongs to, we can identify the true attitude of the interlocutor. The question arises: how relevant is the role of the subconscious in the life of a “simple” person? “In the morning you were woken up by the alarm clock. Without opening your eyes yet, you reached out and pressed the button. Then they stood up and, rubbing their eyes, went into the bathroom. Your entire morning toilet, all your actions during this period of time are on “autopilot”, because you don’t think about it when you brush your teeth, wash your face, and get dressed. Then you have breakfast, also on “autopilot”, without thinking about what to eat, which hand to take the fork in, how to use a napkin. Then you go to your work and again you don’t think: where, what transport to take, where to transfer, where to turn, where to cross... Everything is worked out “to the point of automation”. The regular bus broke down, I had to get there by trolleybus, then change to the metro, of course I had to think all the time where to get off, where to cross. We switch to “manual control” in non-standard, unusual situations. Then you came to work (until now, “90% of your actions were on autopilot”). And at work everything is familiar: You enter the classroom to give a lecture. You read many sections of this lecture on “autopilot”, and your consciousness controls the behavior of the audience. And then lunch is on “autopilot” (unless your dining room is closed for renovations and you have to “rack your brains” about where to have lunch today). After a working day - home (on “autopilot”), then dinner, newspapers, TV (everything on “autopilot”). So, it turns out that we switch to “manual control” in our behavior only when we are faced with a non-standard situation, an unusual , rare.” From the above observation, Panasyuk concludes: “So, consciousness controls our behavioral acts (forms a program of actions) only in non-standard, atypical situations. And then the question arises: in our life, ordinary life, which situations are more common - standard, typical, ordinary or unusual. The answer is obvious - in ordinary life ordinary situations occur more often. Hence the answer to the question: what program is our behavior based on most often? Clearly, more often - on “autopilot”. In life, people more often base their behavior on an unconscious level. This means that in ordinary, familiar situations, their behavior is typical, characteristic of them, and reflects what is most often manifested in their behavior. And if we learn to “read” these unconscious movements, actions, deeds, then we will be able to find out what is characteristic of a given person. Conclusions: “Reading” the thoughts of an interlocutor is an attempt to detect a discrepancy between his conscious behavioral acts and subconscious behavioral acts. Replacement natural reactions by artificial ones, i.e. an attempt to “play a role” requires a special technique of “entering into the image of a hero”, mastery of the “Stanislavsky system”. This method is difficult for many people to implement. An attempt to hide natural behavioral acts through constant conscious control over their manifestation makes it difficult to consciously process information coming from outside, which manifests itself in “stiffness” of behavior. The desire to develop an automatic program of prohibitions - to minimize behavioral acts - is associated withlong-term training. As a result, it is difficult for a person to completely subordinate his behavior to his consciousness, his behavioral acts to his will. Hence: it is possible to “read” the thoughts of your interlocutor if you are able to interpret the meaning of those behavioral acts that under normal conditions people do not control with their consciousness, since they are determined by their subconscious.” Next, Panasyuk poses another question: are random actions possible? - Or a person never does anything by accident! The overwhelming majority of people are convinced that more than once they have had to do something accidentally, accidentally: they accidentally sat down wrong, accidentally made a mistake, accidentally dropped a folder, etc. “Where is the border between intentional and accidental in human behavior?!” The author of the book examines several specific observations. Let's consider one of them: “It’s your birthday... And not only nice and pleasant people (close to souls) come to visit, but also “close” relatives, whom we are sometimes forced to invite because of this very relationship, although they and are antipathetic to us. But a relative, and you need to humble your feelings. And as usual, he came with a gift. And the gift is expensive: a crystal vase. And a strange thing - approximately the same expensive gift was brought by a person very close to you, for whom you feel more than sympathy. And now the question: “Which of these gifts will you cherish more carefully? Which one is more likely to “die”? Will you “accidentally” drop it, split it, break it? The majority answers - the first. And this logically follows from the answer to the first question. But both gifts are expensive. Yes, dear ones - objectively, but subjectively. Subjectively, the sight of one of them evokes unpleasant associations, while the sight of the other fills your heart with warmth.” Further, Panasyuk reasons as follows: “You didn’t even think about getting rid of her. “We didn’t think” - it means there was no thought (motive) to get rid of it in the mind. But at the same time, in your soul, this beautiful, valuable thing causes you unpleasant associations with this guest - an unpleasant person. There is an internal conflict between consciousness, reason (valuable, beautiful) and feelings, subconscious (unpleasant memories). How to resolve it? Throw the item away? Stupid. Leave? Unpleasant. And a saving “accident” comes to the rescue: while washing, the vase slips out of your hands and breaks. And the subconscious gives the conscious mind a saving explanation: “Everyone knows that a wet vase can easily slip out of wet hands, and no one will be to blame. Don't blame yourself for this "consciousness". So the subconscious, having caught a good moment (washing), resolved this internal conflict.” Conclusion: what is valuable for consciousness is not necessarily valuable for the subconscious, which protects our state of mind from all sorts of worries. The opposite is also possible: what is of little significance to consciousness can be valuable to the subconscious. (“With my mind I understand that this is nothing, but for some reason my soul reaches out and that’s all”). Such “internal splitting” is a normal phenomenon. For there are two different realities - consciousness and unconsciousness. Therefore, we can draw the following conclusion: “a “random”, “unconscious”, “unintentional” act is an act determined by a system of values ​​in our subconscious. “I didn’t want, I didn’t think” - this is in consciousness; “Somehow it happened by accident” - this is from the subconscious.” The next situation, which Panasyuk analyzes, will also help us answer the question: what is the role of consciousness, the unconscious in a person’s actions and behavior? “There are people who like to be pitied, but in life, for example, they lack this. And then a person is unconsciously drawn to such actions, after which they begin to feel sorry for him and sympathize with him. This is how this unconscious need is satisfied.” From this the conclusion is drawn: “Losses are explained, if not by low cost, then by other unconscious motives. People never do anything by accident.” Let’s consider another observation offered by Panasyuk: “Let’s follow two citizens. So they need to cross the street. No. 1 will wait for the green light for pedestrians and... No, he won’t, but make sure thatthe cars stopped. And only then will it begin to transition. Well, what about number 2? And this one runs, quickly, quickly. Traffic light? What are you talking about?! Question: Which of them is most likely to have an accident? Let's think about it some more. Both are motorists. Which of them do you think checks the wheels more often when leaving the garage? Further, both of them are avid hunters. Which of them is more likely to have his gun go off “accidentally”? If we take into account everything that we know about them, it’s more likely to be No. 2. Who is he, this citizen No. 2? This is a potential suicide. Only he doesn't know about it. Who is a suicide? A person who deliberately commits an act that leads to his death. (Suicide in the heat of passion is when consciousness is narrowed to one thought? “not to live,” but not turned off). And a potential suicide is someone whose desire to end his own life may not be conscious; it is at the subconscious level. The price of his own life is low for him, hence the increased likelihood of “accidentally” “breaking” it. For whom is the price of one's own life low? For a suicide. And if someone commits actions that indicate the low value of his own life, but at the same time there is no obvious thought of suicide in his mind, who is he? Then he is a potential suicide." Whether an “accident” will happen or not - this is largely determined by the system of our values. And this system can be in the consciousness of one, and in the subconscious of another. “Consciousness does not know its counterpart, the subconscious, because we know here and now only what is presented in our consciousness. Everything that is outside our consciousness is unknown to us; after all, a person in an unconscious state does not know what is happening to him here and now, i.e. at this time in this place.” As a result of the analysis of various life situations, the conclusion suggests itself: “Any “random” act necessarily has a motive: conscious or unconscious.” What happens in the subconscious during the process of forgetting? Here is the view of the author of this book: “So. You can be quite intentional about remembering something (using repetition or other mnemonic devices). Intentionally means quite consciously, with the participation of consciousness. But you can also remember unintentionally (besides your will). You didn’t plan to remember it at all, but somehow it turned out that you remembered it, or rather, it was remembered. Try to forget something on purpose. No matter how many times you repeat: “I need to forget Ensk, I need to forget Ensk.” You will remember this city name just as much better. Our thoughts often come to us “without knocking.” So, consciously, deliberately, a person cannot forget anything. The expression “I forgot” does not correspond to reality, or rather “forgot.” Consider the experiment that Panasyuk leads. “Psychologist: please tell me, have you ever been in love?” Subject: (adult man): Of course. P.: Or maybe Are you still in love with someone? I. (somewhat embarrassed): Well, yes. But can’t this be? P.: Well, why? On the contrary, in these years love is even stronger than in youth. By the way, do you know this person well with whom you are in love? And.. (confidently and with some pride): Yes, of course? We have known each other for many years, more precisely for three years. P.: Then, if you don’t mind, please name the best character trait of this person. I.: Please, she is sensitive, kind.... (Stop. As soon as the subject named the first positive character trait, the psychologist immediately stopped the stopwatch. The “memory” time took “3 seconds”). P.: And now, if it doesn’t bother you, please name the worst character trait of this person. I.: The worst? She is sometimes uncontrollable. (It took 4-5 times longer to “remember.”) I wonder why the subject took so long to find an answer to the second question, while he answered the first question almost without thinking? Psychologist: You know, sometimes we have to deal with people to whom we experience a pronounced hostility, with whom we would not even talk if not for the circumstances. Does it happen? Subject: Of course,happens P.: And tell me, if, of course, it is possible, is there such a person among the people with whom you often come into contact? I.: Yes. P.: Do you know this person well? I.: Yes, yes. P.: Then, If you don’t mind, please name the worst character trait of this person. I.: Please, firstly, he doesn’t care about people, secondly (the stopwatch is stopped). P.: Now please name the worst the best trait of his character.I.: The best? Well, frankly speaking, I don’t know if there is anything decent in him? P.: But you know that every person has something positive. I.: Yes, yes... Well, you know, he sometimes he is still active. (Stop. It took several times more time to “remember.”)” Then Panasyuk asks the following question: “What does a person actually remember better: bad or good?” And he answers: “So, it turns out that human memory depends not only on sclerosis (and not so much) as on our attitude to the subject of memorization. Experimental data showed that the first subject - the lover - forgot the negative character trait of the one he loves, and the second forgot the positive character trait of the one he hates (or did he forget?). An unconscious psychological defense helped the subjects forget. Through forgetting, the psyche thus protected itself from various troubles and troubles. To prevent us from developing a stomach ulcer or a neurotic tic from every unpleasant episode, our health is guarded by psychological defense, one of the mechanisms of which is forgetting (or repression). The essence of the action of this mechanism is the displacement from consciousness (or from memory) of what causes mental discomfort into the region of the subconscious. All natural psychological defenses are beyond the control of consciousness. The subconscious controls these mechanisms. Consequently, repression from consciousness (or from memory), i.e. “Forgetting” is regulated by the subconscious, not the conscious.” It can also be forgotten if it is not used for a long time, when it has not been remembered for a long time. But if something very important is “forgotten,” this is a consequence of unconscious repression. Next, the question is posed: important for whom? “The question is not an idle one, since what is important for consciousness may not be “accepted” by the subconscious, because our subconscious has its own system values. When you say that you forgot something important to you, i.e. for your consciousness, this means that for some reason this information was objectionable to your subconscious. That is why the subject was not immediately able to name a positive character trait of a person whom he could not stand. That is, of course, he came across situations when his counterpart showed himself on the positive side. But these episodes were forgotten, i.e. were repressed from memory due to the functioning of “psychological immunity”. Also, the negative traits of the person they love were repressed from memory.” Panasyuk states: “a person’s mental life is not as simple as it sometimes seems to us. After all, we cannot admit in our thoughts that in relation to one and the same person, not to some of his traits, but as a whole, there can be both love and hatred or, say, love and dislike at the same time. This is difficult to imagine if we consider a person not as a complex being, unless we take into account that his behavior and his assessments are controlled not only by consciousness, but also by the subconscious.” Conclusion: “The functions of the subconscious are quite extensive: from the regulation of our gestures and movements to control our thoughts and behavior. It also protects us with the help of psychological mechanisms of “repression” and withdrawal from reality, etc.” This conclusion follows from the above facts, analysis of life situations, experiment. Panasyuk does not stop there and continues to give arguments in favor of the unconscious. He gives examples (from life) of other functions of the unconscious. Here is one of them: “Two friends ran to the departing bus, but did not make it in time. And then one said: “Well, okay, it’s not really necessary. But we’ll take a walk, it’s good to be in the fresh air.” The statement contradictsprevious behavior. Why is the behavior so illogical? “To talk badly about yourself means to cause mental discomfort, and this, if repeated often, as we know, is a direct path to neuroses. And then along this path comes psychological defense in the form of a mechanism called “rational explanation.” What was said is illogical, maybe even stupid, but there is comfort in the soul, and if there is annoyance, then it is noticeably weakened.” In this case, the subconscious controlled people's behavior, pursuing an absolutely selfish goal - to protect its owner from feeling discomfort and, thus, from nervous disorders and illnesses. For if a person often talks negatively about himself, then he will often experience mental discomfort - nervous tension (overstrain). To prevent this from happening, psychological defense is triggered. In this case, in the form of a “rational explanation.” Panasyuk writes: “This is what it is - our subconscious, our protector from nervous diseases... But this is not the only thing that exhausts the noble role of the subconscious. It not only protects us from harm, but can also warn us of possible trouble in the future. Yes, the subconscious turns out to be able to look into our future and inform us about possible troubles even before the conscious mind becomes aware of it.” Panasyuk tries to prove that the subconscious is capable of looking into the future by analyzing superstitions. What are the connections between superstitions and the unconscious. “If you stumbled, it means there is some, even a small, failure in the automation. Crash! And if in full health, is this possible? “Full health” for us often means: with normal health. But the disease begins before we feel it. And the first harbingers of the disease are lethargy, “falling out of your hands.” The harbingers of the disease are disturbances not in the conscious mind, but in the subconscious. And - he stumbled - this is a sign. The first sign of a possible disease, but not only that (says Panasyuk). “For example, you are having trouble at work, a major problem. How to get out of possible trouble? You are completely absorbed in this situation, all your energy is aimed at solving this problem, all your attention is on finding a way out, “listen, you can’t eat soup with a fork.” Is the situation clear? And in this case, the automation does not work properly. “Abstract-minded” - they say about someone who “put on a frying pan instead of a hat while walking.” This is an example of the fact that when concentrating attention, the automation begins to fail: and - I tripped over the threshold in my own apartment. A person solves the problem of “how to be.” True, not for good, only in this case - not in the form of a future illness, but in the form of a future trouble. What happens if a person gets behind the wheel in this condition? The fat is in the fire. And the sign of “stumbling” is a warning.” “Being in trouble is a sign, not a superstition. Not a prejudice, but a manifestation of “breakdowns” in the subconscious. And this is exactly how it, the subconscious, warns us.” Let’s consider another example: “We won’t go back - there will be no way.” Yes, it's not that coming back is a bad sign; a bad sign is that they forgot. Why did you forget? Because vanity, and as a consequence, a “breakdown” in the distribution of attention, a “breakdown” in the subconscious. They forgot what they always did - a failure in the automation, in the work of the subconscious, which means that it may not work in a more dangerous situation. In addition to illnesses (pre-diseases), alcohol intoxication and nervous experiences, other reasons are possible that lead to a “breakdown” in the subconscious.” Panasyuk’s research into the influence of intuition on the course of events in a person’s life is interesting. “The subconscious, sending “alarm signals” to consciousness, warned its owner about troubles, predicted possible unfavorable developments in the future.” The following are data obtained during hypnotic sessions: “It turns out that in our subconscious there is much more information than “we know” ", i.e. than in our minds. If the information perceived by the senses is not realized by us at the same moment, this does not mean that it has disappeared. The subconscious is truly a person’s wealth! If only they couldenjoy! One of these possibilities is hypnotic sleep, the other is associative analysis.” Further: “information enters the subconscious when the analyzers (hearing, vision) perceived it, and consciousness at that moment was blocked by the processing of other information (did not pay attention); secondly, information that is stored in the subconscious can be brought into consciousness either through hypnosis or psychoanalysis. Information stored in the subconscious can influence a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior (“I have a feeling that something is wrong here,” “I have a feeling that I shouldn’t deal with him”). And people explain by saying that “intuition” suggests. As is now clear, the subconscious predicts and warns. In some cases in the form of an uncertain sensation, feeling, and in others - in the form of certain information, as happens in hypnosis or in dreams.” Let's consider how the subconscious predicts events through dreams. To better understand this issue, let’s consider what is physiological sleep and what is hypnotic sleep. Physiological sleep is characterized by the fact that there is a kind of “turning off” of consciousness, “suppression of conscious mental activity.” In this mental state, a person is not aware of himself or his environment. Moreover, there is no connection with him, with his consciousness, since this state is characterized by “disconnection from the sensory influences of the outside world.” Hypnotic sleep is also characterized by “turning off” consciousness, i.e. suppression of conscious mental activity. But unlike physiological sleep, in this case a verbal connection arises between the hypnotist and the hypnotized, or more precisely with his subconscious. “If the subject was aware of everything that the hypnotist did to him, then there would be no phenomenon of post-hypnotic amnesia, forgetting. But the subject will never be able to independently reproduce what happened to him in a hypnotic dream. For all the influence of the hypnotist was addressed not to the subject’s consciousness, but to his subconscious, which will then “control” the consciousness, forcing the subject to do this and not do that, etc. In a state of hypnotic sleep, dreams are also possible, but not spontaneous, but purposeful: “Imagine that you are in the forest” - and the person will see himself in the forest, see a dream, a dream. But - a purposeful, hypnotic state is a state of active functioning of the human subconscious. In a hypnotic dream, the content of the subconscious appears.” What happens during physiological sleep? “Dreams reflect both the real events of yesterday and the results of the analytical activity of our subconscious (this is very important for understanding the predictive function of dreams).” Panasyuk agrees with Freud that: “Dream interpretation is the high road to knowledge of the unconscious.” The author draws the following conclusion: “There is nothing mystical in the prognostic function of dreams, but only one reality - the state of the subconscious.” Panasyuk writes that the only problem is how to correctly interpret the dream symbols. He also agrees with the point of view of A. Freud that: “The technique of translating symbols is a direct road to understanding, or, more precisely, a way to move from the higher layers of consciousness to the lower layers of the unconscious.” And further: “Today science has not advanced so far in this area. It has only been established that dreams manifest our subconscious, and the subconscious is capable of analyzing the situation and drawing conclusions (including prognostic ones) no worse than its counterpart, consciousness.” “To believe in subjective sensations in dreams, to believe in their prognostic significance means to better understand the role of the subconscious in human life. Through understanding the subconscious, we can explain the so-called “random actions”. Through psychological defense mechanisms, the subconscious protects us from all kinds of “nervous” diseases. And, finally, the subconscious can warn us about future events, when consciousness still knows nothing about them, through subjective sensations, including in dreams.” To summarize».