This explains a lot.

I saw this little gem thanks to the Week in Pictures feature from the gang at PowerLine: 

So one article tells us that we have no unconscious thought and the other that we have no conscious thought. Well, that pretty well fixes our wagon, doesn't it? What's left?

I decided to do a deeper dive -- I was thinking about this dilemma, you see, and realized that I might not really be able to think about it or anything else, consciously or unconsciously. I figured I'd better find out if it's true, so I can stop thinking about it. 

The first article comes from the science magazine Nautilus, written by behavioral scientist Nick Chater and published July 26, 2018. Its argument against unconscious thought addresses the origins of the popular idea that we often find solutions after leaving off a problem because our unconscious mind continues to puzzle it out. But Chater says that the neural network is complex and interconnected and doesn't have bandwidth to work on multiple serious puzzles with some on the back burner. Chater writes:

Solving difficult problems, whether mathematical, musical, or of any other kind, is the very antithesis of a routine, specialized problem with a dedicated brain network: On the contrary, thinking about such problems will need to engage most of the brain. So the idea that profound unconscious thought can be “running in the background” as we go about our everyday lives is fanciful indeed. Routine and highly practiced activities aside, the cycle of thought can attend to, and make sense of, only one set of information at a time.

All right, so the idea of this unconscious problem processor is bunk, and the reason that we think it works that way is that what seems like inspiration is just caused by taking a break: 

Breaking out of mental cul-de-sacs is precisely what a break will give us. A clear mind is more likely to succeed than a mind filled with partial solutions and suggestions which have clearly failed. And, by sheer chance, we might even bump into a clue that helps. But probably the most important aspect of setting a problem aside is that, when we return to it, we see it afresh unencumbered by our previous failed attempts. Often, our new perspective will be no more successful than the old, but, now and again, we will chance on the right perspective—the pieces of the mental puzzle will suddenly snap into place.

Okay! No unconscious thinking! If you are thinking unconsciously, knock it off! You're defying science!

But wait -- what about conscious thought? Well, article #2, from Scientific American, was published just a few months later, on December 20, 2018, and is an interview with brain philosopher Peter Carruthers of the University of Maryland. Why does this smartypants think that conscious thought is just an illusion? 

I believe that the whole idea of conscious thought is an error. I came to this conclusion by following out the implications of the two of the main theories of consciousness. The first is what is called the Global Workspace Theory, which is associated with neuroscientists Stanislas Dehaene and Bernard Baars. Their theory states that to be considered conscious a mental state must be among the contents of working memory (the “user interface” of our minds) and thereby be available to other mental functions, such as decision-making and verbalization. Accordingly, conscious states are those that are “globally broadcast,” so to speak. The alternative view, proposed by Michael Graziano, David Rosenthal and others, holds that conscious mental states are simply those that you know of, that you are directly aware of in a way that doesn’t require you to interpret yourself. You do not have to read your own mind to know of them. Now, whichever view you adopt, it turns out that thoughts such as decisions and judgments should not be considered to be conscious. They are not accessible in working memory, nor are we directly aware of them. We merely have what I call “the illusion of immediacy”—the false impression that we know our thoughts directly.

Uh... yeah.

There's a lot more to the Carruthers interview, but in a nutshell, the way he finds that consciousness works, or doesn't, is associations of sensory aspects and memory. Our awareness of our own thoughts is the illusion, the results of mental processes below the level of what we consider thought -- or, should I say, below the level of conscious thought. 

Now, I encourage you if you're interested to read both pieces in case my summaries are worse than I think they are. I think it's clear that Nater and Carruthers might have some nasty words to exchange if they ran into each other at a brain convention, but maybe not -- maybe there's more ground to agree than not. Maybe they'd agree that we actually have no thoughts at all. 

And, as I said in the title today, that would explain a lot. 

Since I'm not thinking, consciously or unconsciously, I'm going to give up thinking about this. You're welcome to post your thoughts in comments... if you have any.