What is a right action?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

Sure, there's slavery, rape, incest, torture, harming, corruption, wars, serious crimes, petty crimes, lying, and many others of various rating of evil-ness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

You don't seem to be highly cognitive of pattern recognition, effective problem solving, efficiency, and other related positives.

Under the Philosophy of Thought, it would be very inefficient to lump every types of thought as merely 'more or less the same as thought'.

The subject of thought range from 'the origin and source of thoughts" to how thoughts are manifested into actions, how thoughts are stored, processed etc. etc.

Because thought underlies many human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins and its effects has been a longstanding goal of many academic disciplines including philosophy, linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, biology, sociology and cognitive science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought

In any intellectual and problem solving endeavor, the most critical starting point is to look for patterns in all activities and group those with common features.

My forte is Problem Solving Techniques;
Note this fishbone technique;



Whatever the name,
there are two distinct types of thoughts from the same brain, i.e.

• 1. "conscious" deliberately thought of.. and the likes
  2. "unconscious" subconscious, subliminal, not-consciously-aware, etc.

Thus whenever someone used the term 'subconscious mind' not referring to a homunculus within, it is acceptable upon invoking the principle of charity.

The problem with most [not you] from the analytic philosophy tradition is, they will jump at the term 'subconscious mind' with subconscious 'fear' then rage as if they have seen a ghost, without any concession for the above explanations.

[bahman]

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.

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

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

I mean consciousness is the state of awareness so unconscious awareness is meaningless.

[Advocate]

[quote=bahman post_id=497175 time=1613647462 user_id=12593]
I mean consciousness is the state of awareness so unconscious awareness is meaningless.
[/quote]

I also wrestled with the fact that awareness and consciousness are indistinguishable for most purposes but professionals and academics tend to use awareness to include anything in your mind, even if you're not paying conscious attention to it. Regardless of which words we use to refer to what phenomenon, we can't move forward in a conversation about it until everyone agrees where those semantic boundaries are, and since consciousness is as of yet poorly defined, Any use of words to accommodate it should be acceptable.

[bahman]

I mean consciousness is the state of awareness so unconscious awareness is meaningless.

I also wrestled with the fact that awareness and consciousness are indistinguishable for most purposes but professionals and academics tend to use awareness to include anything in your mind, even if you're not paying conscious attention to it. Regardless of which words we use to refer to what phenomenon, we can't move forward in a conversation about it until everyone agrees where those semantic boundaries are, and since consciousness is as of yet poorly defined, Any use of words to accommodate it should be acceptable.

I call anything in the mind memory. Consciousness to me is the state of being aware of something/experiencing.

[Advocate]

[quote=bahman post_id=497206 time=1613664351 user_id=12593]
[quote=Advocate post_id=497195 time=1613652027 user_id=15238]
[quote=bahman post_id=497175 time=1613647462 user_id=12593]
I mean consciousness is the state of awareness so unconscious awareness is meaningless.
[/quote]

I also wrestled with the fact that awareness and consciousness are indistinguishable for most purposes but professionals and academics tend to use awareness to include anything in your mind, even if you're not paying conscious attention to it. Regardless of which words we use to refer to what phenomenon, we can't move forward in a conversation about it until everyone agrees where those semantic boundaries are, and since consciousness is as of yet poorly defined, Any use of words to accommodate it should be acceptable.
[/quote]
I call anything in the mind memory. Consciousness to me is the state of being aware of something/experiencing.
[/quote]

What is it, then, when you act reflexively, instinctively, intuitively?

[bahman]

I also wrestled with the fact that awareness and consciousness are indistinguishable for most purposes but professionals and academics tend to use awareness to include anything in your mind, even if you're not paying conscious attention to it. Regardless of which words we use to refer to what phenomenon, we can't move forward in a conversation about it until everyone agrees where those semantic boundaries are, and since consciousness is as of yet poorly defined, Any use of words to accommodate it should be acceptable.

I call anything in the mind memory. Consciousness to me is the state of being aware of something/experiencing.

What is it, then, when you act reflexively, instinctively, intuitively?

Reflex is the response to stimuli. Instinct is an innate derive to certain things. Intuition is the ability to decide optimally to fulfill what instinct requires. Logical thinking is the ability to analyze and categorize phenomena. Wisdom is the ability to decide optimally in the process of logical thinking.

[Walker]

Reflex is the response to stimuli. Instinct is an innate derive to certain things. Intuition is the ability to decide optimally to fulfill what instinct requires. Logical thinking is the ability to analyze and categorize phenomena. Wisdom is the ability to decide optimally in the process of logical thinking.

Right action is the marriage of wisdom and compassion.

[bahman]

Reflex is the response to stimuli. Instinct is an innate derive to certain things. Intuition is the ability to decide optimally to fulfill what instinct requires. Logical thinking is the ability to analyze and categorize phenomena. Wisdom is the ability to decide optimally in the process of logical thinking.

Right action is the marriage of wisdom and compassion.

Compassion or feeling?

[Walker]

Pick the third door.

Unconditional love.

[bahman]

Pick the third door.

Unconditional love.

Ahan, so you are in love mode.

[Walker]

Pick the third door.

Unconditional love.

Ahan, so you are in love mode.

Here, we exist intellectually.

Unconditional love objectively correlates with compassion, and applies to all folks.

Can't have one without the other.

The third door is just playing along with your multiple-choice game of arbitrary dichotomies.

[bahman]

Pick the third door.

Unconditional love.

Ahan, so you are in love mode.

Here, we exist intellectually.

Unconditional love objectively correlates with compassion, and applies to all folks.

I prefer peace. A bit of love and hate won't kill me yet. By the way, there is a gap in your argument.

Can't have one without the other.

I can have compassion without unconditional love.

The third door is just playing along with your multiple-choice game of arbitrary dichotomies.

Could you please elaborate?

[Walker]

Ahan, so you are in love mode.

Here, we exist intellectually.

Unconditional love objectively correlates with compassion, and applies to all folks.

I prefer peace. A bit of love and hate won't kill me yet. By the way, there is a gap in your argument.

Can't have one without the other.

I can have compassion without unconditional love.

The third door is just playing along with your multiple-choice game of arbitrary dichotomies.

Could you please elaborate?

Certainly. The distinctions you are making are doors, or separations, created by your understanding and the limitations of your understanding. Thus, your dichotomies are your own, as in your recent separation of peace from compassion and unconditional love, love mode, hate, and the other dichotomies that fill your cup, such as the separation of compassion and unconditional love without mention of peace. Those dichotomies and taxonomies and labels obviously keep you busy and you're quite apt to apply so many in so short a space.

[bahman]

Here, we exist intellectually.

Unconditional love objectively correlates with compassion, and applies to all folks.

I prefer peace. A bit of love and hate won't kill me yet. By the way, there is a gap in your argument.

Can't have one without the other.

I can have compassion without unconditional love.

The third door is just playing along with your multiple-choice game of arbitrary dichotomies.

Could you please elaborate?

Certainly. The distinctions you are making are doors, or separations, created by your understanding and the limitations of your understanding. Thus, your dichotomies are your own, as in your recent separation of peace from compassion and unconditional love, and the other dichotomies that fill your cup, such as the separation of compassion and unconditional love without mention of peace. Those dichotomies and taxonomies and labels must keep you busy.

Ohh, I see. Thanks.