For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I think your subconscious mind is dominnat.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:42 pmA real life example would be that I decided to take bike a certain route but then biked another route on impulse instead.
I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:49 pmI think your subconscious mind is dominnat.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:42 pmA real life example would be that I decided to take bike a certain route but then biked another route on impulse instead.
Then how do you explain Libet's experiment?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:54 pmI don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:49 pmI think your subconscious mind is dominnat.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:42 pm
A real life example would be that I decided to take bike a certain route but then biked another route on impulse instead.
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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:25 pmThis is a good article on the many problems with Libet: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... snt-exist/bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:58 pmThen how do you explain Libet's experiment?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:54 pm
I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.
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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:27 pmI will read that later. But how come you don't drive into a wall?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:25 pmThis is a good article on the many problems with Libet: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... snt-exist/
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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:45 pmBecause 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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:27 pmI will read that later. But how come you don't drive into a wall?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:25 pm
This is a good article on the many problems with Libet: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... snt-exist/
You missed this point in my response,bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:31 amYou are not paying any attention to what I am saying?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:17 amKilling 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].
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?
I believe the issue of the 'conscious' versus the 'unconscious mind is an issue due to terminology and definition plus also ideological.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:54 pmI don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:49 pmI think your subconscious mind is dominnat.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:42 pm
A real life example would be that I decided to take bike a certain route but then biked another route on impulse instead.
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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:02 amI believe the issue of the 'conscious' versus the 'unconscious mind is an issue due to terminology and definition plus also ideological.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:54 pmI don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.
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
So, not killing is not the only moral standard?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 4:28 amYou missed this point in my response,bahman wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:31 amYou are not paying any attention to what I am saying?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:17 am
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].
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 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.
- 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.
Lying is a moral issue but rated at relatively 30/100 in contrast to killing humans at 95/100.
What I'm saying when I say that I don't buy the notion of an unconscious (or "subconscious") mind is this:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:02 am I believe the issue of the 'conscious' versus the 'unconscious mind is an issue due to terminology and definition plus also ideological . . .
Dogmatism of words, note Principle of Charity and let's be realistic.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 11:54 amThere is no such thing as unconscious awareness but subconscious awareness.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 5:02 amI believe the issue of the 'conscious' versus the 'unconscious mind is an issue due to terminology and definition plus also ideological.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:54 pm
I don't buy that there is a subconscious/unconscious mind per se.
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