In my previous post I commented upon two experiments that attempted to address the question of free will from the point of view of modern neuroscience. I ended my post by suggesting a thought experiment to the reader. If a scientist informed you that he or she knows with scientific certainty the numbers you are going to play in the lottery, what would you do?

My guess was that very possibly you would avoid playing those numbers, if for no other reason, just to prove this arrogant scientist wrong!

The point of this thought experiment was to show that, at the level that our actual decisions are being taken, we are the sole masters in the house, and, crucially, that discussions about our “free will” and about all what science can, or cannot, claim in regards to it are a bit confused.

Following what I wrote in my last post about the incompatibility between psychoanalysis, as a method, and HPC's requirements for “quality assurance” and “improvement programmes” –to bring just two examples– I would like to attempt to clarify the reasons why such incompatibility exists.

The answer is at once simple and complicated.

Simple because one only needs to remind themselves that psychoanalysts work with what is unknown in the psyche rather than what we know. Freud, who was the first to systematically work in this way, gave to what is unknown the name “Unconscious”.

So, psychoanalysts work with the Unconscious. That’s why requirements about “quality assurance” and “improvement programmes” are irrelevant.

Simple, wasn’t it?

Unfortunately, it is not so simple.