In so far as what the brain could be without the strictures of society and its learned&#x2F;forced behaviours, thats an interesting question that i hope no psychologist ever really goes too deep into trying to figure out. I guess parts of it can be deconstructed, if that is your cup of tea, and as long as that works for an individual then hey, thats pretty great.<p>What i find missing in most conceptual frameworks is a greater response to the raw constructive capacity of the human brain. Most inquiries into mental voice states (non-consciously controlled ones) deal not directly with the capacity of the brain for such activity, and its implications for phenomenology of being, but with it as an outlier to normal human function. Granted, the reason for this being that its what pays the bills, and i assume a lot of people don&#x27;t want the hassle and can&#x27;t really afford to spend time trying to figure it out. Thats perfectly reasonable.<p>As for the great phenomenology of mind&#x2F;being&#x2F;brain discussion, its good fun. I&#x27;m pretty much consigned to the fact that artifacts are what we have, and what we will forever work with. In my opinion the idea that the natural state is superior in matters of mind is as much an artifact of a particular social conception as all others. Often the conscious sabotages, often the unconscious does. Believing either to be naturally superior without any form of proper data sets relating to weighted choicemaking over an extensive period of time for multiple individuals is still just a statement of faith, regardless of how you assemble it. (And good luck finding the objective criteria on which judgements as to superiority of choices are concerned.)<p>Basically, its a tug of war between conscious and unconscious, and i think we should be glad that it is thus and not unnecessarily elevate one over the other. But hey, thats just like, my opinion man.