What is a right action?

[bahman]

Sure.

So for example you decide to have a bite of an apple but drink tea instead?

A real life example would be that I decided to take bike a certain route but then biked another route on impulse instead.

I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.

[Advocate]

[quote=bahman post_id=496747 time=1613501346 user_id=12593]
I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.
[/quote]

It's a matter of focus/attention. That's your conscious mind. It's an attention fairy swimming in a pool of brain. Everything you're not paying attention to in the moment is your subconscious mind.

[Terrapin Station]

So for example you decide to have a bite of an apple but drink tea instead?

A real life example would be that I decided to take bike a certain route but then biked another route on impulse instead.

I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.

I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.

[bahman]

A real life example would be that I decided to take bike a certain route but then biked another route on impulse instead.

I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.

I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.

Then how do you explain Libet's experiment?

[bahman]

I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.

It's a matter of focus/attention. That's your conscious mind. It's an attention fairy swimming in a pool of brain. Everything you're not paying attention to in the moment is your subconscious mind.

I think so.

[Terrapin Station]

I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.

I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.

Then how do you explain Libet's experiment?

This is a good article on the many problems with Libet: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... snt-exist/

[bahman]

I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.

Then how do you explain Libet's experiment?

This is a good article on the many problems with Libet: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... snt-exist/

I will read that later. But how come you don't drive into a wall?

[Terrapin Station]

Then how do you explain Libet's experiment?

This is a good article on the many problems with Libet: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... snt-exist/

I will read that later. But how come you don't drive into a wall?

Because I'd rather not and I haven't done so accidentally yet. (I'm hoping this is leading to something that will be clear eventually, by the way.)

[bahman]

This is a good article on the many problems with Libet: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... snt-exist/

I will read that later. But how come you don't drive into a wall?

Because I'd rather not and I haven't done so accidentally yet. (I'm hoping this is leading to something that will be clear eventually, by the way.)

Anyway, this has never happened to me. I am conscious of one thing at a time the rest is the duty of the subconscious mind. My subconscious mind is in charge of typing for example whenever I focus on something else for example thinking of what to write. I cannot think when I focus on typing therefore my writing halts shortly.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If it is so, then killing a person also is a legal issue rather than moral.

Killing another human is a critical moral issue, rated at 95/100 relative to others, e.g. petty crimes at 10/100 and love & marriage would be 2/100.
As I had stated earlier, the inherent moral potential and function is unfolding very slowly at present. Nevertheless the inherent ought-not_ness to kill human is quite active to the extent that the majority do not go about killing humans willy-nilly.

There are a minority with the active potential to kill humans and some minority permitting killing within their 'justified' rationale.
As such these issue of killing humans by the minority had been handled by tribal laws, religions, and at the present by sovereign laws.

The purpose of morality-proper [confined to the individual inner mental processes] is to reinforce more strongly the ought-not_ness to kill human in the majority and generate greater increase in the strengths of the the ought-not_ness to kill human inhibitors in the minority.
Note this in only anticipate in the future as it is too late to do with our current and next generation.

When the moral competence of the average and minority are increased say 100x relative to the current status, then there will be less dependent on legal laws and the larger majority [95%] will be spontaneously moral, i.e. will not kill humans at all [except rare cases].

You are not paying any attention to what I am saying?
Why cheating the wife is not a moral issue but killing a person is moral? I am saying that both moral issues. You are saying that only the second one is a moral issue. Why?

You missed this point in my response,

• Killing another human is a critical moral issue, rated at 95/100 relative to others, e.g. petty crimes at 10/100 and love & marriage issues would be 2/100.

You stated the husband loved another woman [could merely be in his feelings], but you did not state he explicitly lied to the wife, e.g. when questioned whether he is seeing another woman or the likes.

Lying is a moral issue but rated at relatively 30/100 in contrast to killing humans at 95/100.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A real life example would be that I decided to take bike a certain route but then biked another route on impulse instead.

I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.

I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.

I believe the issue of the 'conscious' versus the 'unconscious mind is an issue due to terminology and definition plus also ideological.

Humans are instinctively pattern seeking entities.
Given all the mental activities of the brain and their effect to actions, it is so evidently clear that out of the 100% of human actions there are two main types of drivers of human actions, i.e.
1. those that one is conscious of and done deliberately,
2. those actions that are not done consciously.

It it from this glaring distinction that Freud [and others before him] had the intuition to categorize the brain/mind into two main categories, i.e. the conscious and unconscious mind. He was not referring to two homunculus in the brain/mind.

Re Principle of Charity, and given the limited knowledge he had during his time [no neurosciences, cognitive science and the likes] Freud was intuitively right on target but not on the bullseye.
So the terminology of the main definitions of conscious and unconscious mind of Freud was right, the issue is only in certain speculative issues, e.g. a link to God, where Satan delved, where the soul is sited, etc.

In modern times the favored terms are conscious awareness and unconsciousness awareness which must be empirically and philosophically verified and justified within the relevant FSK.

These modern terms are no different from Freud core definition of the conscious and unconscious mind.

The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection and include thought processes, memories, interests and motivations.
-Wiki

[bahman]

I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.

I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.

I believe the issue of the 'conscious' versus the 'unconscious mind is an issue due to terminology and definition plus also ideological.

Humans are instinctively pattern seeking entities.
Given all the mental activities of the brain and their effect to actions, it is so evidently clear that out of the 100% of human actions there are two main types of drivers of human actions, i.e.
1. those that one is conscious of and done deliberately,
2. those actions that are not done consciously.

It it from this glaring distinction that Freud [and others before him] had the intuition to categorize the brain/mind into two main categories, i.e. the conscious and unconscious mind. He was not referring to two homunculus in the brain/mind.

Re Principle of Charity, and given the limited knowledge he had during his time [no neurosciences, cognitive science and the likes] Freud was intuitively right on target but not on the bullseye.
So the terminology of the main definitions of conscious and unconscious mind of Freud was right, the issue is only in certain speculative issues, e.g. a link to God, where Satan delved, where the soul is sited, etc.

In modern times the favored terms are conscious awareness and unconsciousness awareness which must be empirically and philosophically verified and justified within the relevant FSK.

These modern terms are no different from Freud core definition of the conscious and unconscious mind.

The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection and include thought processes, memories, interests and motivations.
-Wiki

There is no such thing as unconscious awareness but subconscious awareness.

[bahman]

Killing another human is a critical moral issue, rated at 95/100 relative to others, e.g. petty crimes at 10/100 and love & marriage would be 2/100.
As I had stated earlier, the inherent moral potential and function is unfolding very slowly at present. Nevertheless the inherent ought-not_ness to kill human is quite active to the extent that the majority do not go about killing humans willy-nilly.

There are a minority with the active potential to kill humans and some minority permitting killing within their 'justified' rationale.
As such these issue of killing humans by the minority had been handled by tribal laws, religions, and at the present by sovereign laws.

The purpose of morality-proper [confined to the individual inner mental processes] is to reinforce more strongly the ought-not_ness to kill human in the majority and generate greater increase in the strengths of the the ought-not_ness to kill human inhibitors in the minority.
Note this in only anticipate in the future as it is too late to do with our current and next generation.

When the moral competence of the average and minority are increased say 100x relative to the current status, then there will be less dependent on legal laws and the larger majority [95%] will be spontaneously moral, i.e. will not kill humans at all [except rare cases].

You are not paying any attention to what I am saying?
Why cheating the wife is not a moral issue but killing a person is moral? I am saying that both moral issues. You are saying that only the second one is a moral issue. Why?

You missed this point in my response,

• Killing another human is a critical moral issue, rated at 95/100 relative to others, e.g. petty crimes at 10/100 and love & marriage issues would be 2/100.

You stated the husband loved another woman [could merely be in his feelings], but you did not state he explicitly lied to the wife, e.g. when questioned whether he is seeing another woman or the likes.

Lying is a moral issue but rated at relatively 30/100 in contrast to killing humans at 95/100.

So, not killing is not the only moral standard?

[Terrapin Station]

I believe the issue of the 'conscious' versus the 'unconscious mind is an issue due to terminology and definition plus also ideological . . .

What I'm saying when I say that I don't buy the notion of an unconscious (or "subconscious") mind is this:

I don't buy that there are phenomena that are more or less just like thoughts, ideas, concepts, desires, etc., but where the only difference is that some of the phenomena in question are phenomena that we're not aware of.

Obviously there's unconscious brain activity, but I don't believe there is any good reason to believe that it's more or less the same as thought, etc.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.

I believe the issue of the 'conscious' versus the 'unconscious mind is an issue due to terminology and definition plus also ideological.

Humans are instinctively pattern seeking entities.
Given all the mental activities of the brain and their effect to actions, it is so evidently clear that out of the 100% of human actions there are two main types of drivers of human actions, i.e.
1. those that one is conscious of and done deliberately,
2. those actions that are not done consciously.

It it from this glaring distinction that Freud [and others before him] had the intuition to categorize the brain/mind into two main categories, i.e. the conscious and unconscious mind. He was not referring to two homunculus in the brain/mind.

Re Principle of Charity, and given the limited knowledge he had during his time [no neurosciences, cognitive science and the likes] Freud was intuitively right on target but not on the bullseye.
So the terminology of the main definitions of conscious and unconscious mind of Freud was right, the issue is only in certain speculative issues, e.g. a link to God, where Satan delved, where the soul is sited, etc.

In modern times the favored terms are conscious awareness and unconsciousness awareness which must be empirically and philosophically verified and justified within the relevant FSK.

These modern terms are no different from Freud core definition of the conscious and unconscious mind.

The unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind which occur automatically and are not available to introspection and include thought processes, memories, interests and motivations.
-Wiki

There is no such thing as unconscious awareness but subconscious awareness.

Dogmatism of words, note Principle of Charity and let's be realistic.