" Unless you're saying that's supposed to have something to do with the notion of unconscious mental content".

I do not totally understand how forums work? Are we to limit our comments to individuals, and do we address the subject?

Should all our arguments only oppose what someone says or should we sometimes support what someone is saying with our own argument?

However, we should do things, I must say, the way people conduct themselves in this forum is superior to any forum I have been in! You all are giving me the best forum experience I have ever had.

And for sure our group behavior is filled with unconscious thoughts. That is why many of us need counseling. :lol: So we become aware of the thought beneath our conscious thought that is causing us a problem. Of course, you are just picking on me because you know I am the at the bottom of the pecking order and everyone picks on me. :roll: I am kidding. You are doing a marvelous job of communicating and if I can do something better to improve my communication please let me know.

I checked back post and I think I was attempting to focus on science by taking a different direction than the consciousness issue, rather than react badly to what appeared a rejection of science. Our group behavior being more on topic but still about science. Like the book "Science of Good and Evil".

" Unless you're saying that's supposed to have something to do with the notion of unconscious mental content".

I do not totally understand how forums work? Are we to limit our comments to individuals, and do we address the subject?

Should all our arguments only oppose what someone says or should we sometimes support what someone is saying with our own argument?

However, we should do things, I must say, the way people conduct themselves in this forum is superior to any forum I have been in! You all are giving me the best forum experience I have ever had. — Athena

Definitely do not have to limit your comments to individuals, but when you specifically address and/or quote someone, when you've been going back and forth with them a bit about whatever, it's odd to have the comment not obviously be about what you had been talking back and forth with them about.

And for sure our group behavior is filled with unconscious thoughts. That is why many of us need counseling. :lol: So we become aware of the thought beneath our conscious thought that is causing us a problem. Of course, you are just picking on me because you know I am the at the bottom of the pecking order and everyone picks on me. :roll: I am kidding. You are doing a marvelous job of communicating and if I can do something better to improve my communication please let me know. — Athena

Definitely not trying to "pick on" you (or anyone else) . . . it's just that especially in a philosophy context, I can be pretty focused and persistent. ;-)

Anyway, so, on my view, we don't actually have any good evidence for the notion that we have "thoughts beneath our conscious thought" that we're simply not aware of. I know that's a common belief--that there is unconscious thought, that things like psychoanalysis ferret that out, etc., but nevertheless, I don't believe there is any good reason, any good evidence, that supports this idea.

What is something that you'd consider good evidence of it, or a good reason to believe it?

(In general I'm a pretty hardcore skeptic with a rather parsimonious physicalist ontology, by the way, and I'm even like that towards the sciences, where my view is that the sciences posit all sorts of fantastical, sometimes incoherent nonsense--which might be okay simply as a predictive model or as an instrumental approach, but when it's "taken seriously," when there's an ontological commitment to it, when stuff like that is reified, I balk at that.)

Do we have agreement that social animals live in herds or troops for their mutual survival and that members of these groups will act to defend each other, protect and feed the young? — Athena

I agree with that. A group is made of indivuduals and in a well functioning group whats good for the individual is good for the group and vice versa.

Oh my, we are all so different, it might be a little insane to argue truth as though there is only one truth and not many — Athena

I think we are different in many small ways but the same in the major ways, so you can make a general argument for whats good/right Vs evil/wrong for individuals.

When it comes to the matter of personal taste I acknowledge what is right for one person is not right for the next. But even then things even seem to work out for the group: Why does one person prefer pink and another blue? What is the optimal colour for the group? It is the most popular colour, but that is not right/good for every individual. But it is right that the most popular colour is chosen and each individual in the group can agree with that sentiment, if you see what I mean.

Here is my evidence that if we believe we are good thinkers and conscious of our thoughts, we are screwed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVQJdIrDJ0

I think Daniel Kahneman's research will revolutionize what we think of ourselves and what is required for us to have good judgment. But it does not begin and stop with him. We have always known unhappy people will perceive the world and other humans as awful, while happy people will see everything differently. Our perspective colors our view of life, and our perspective is built on childhood experiences and from there we spend our lifetimes proving ourselves right, even when this means being a totally miserable person, and social failure. Our egos cannot tolerate thinking what we think is wrong, and we would rather die than admit to ourselves we are the cause of our suffering, not that bad experience, not our mother, not our spouse and not because other people are awful. Please check out Daniel Kahnemann. Our thinking is more complex than we think.

I am sorry you don't trust science. I know we can share a false belief, but the method of science is the surest way to not hold wrong beliefs. Science is very important to our liberty and social justice. Maybe we can talk more about this at another time.

But I feel it is probably best to confront how life is actually is as accurately as possible in order to improve it. (That is not to say that we might be wrong in some of our negative appraisals.) — Andrew4Handel

The "real" may be more harmful than not to humans. Think of Disneyland. It is a make believe amusement park full of fake characters and rides. The "good" parts are the make-believe, the imagination, the parts that are not real. The indifferent (and often harmful parts) are the gears moving the rides, the millions of tasks of putting together this "fantasy land" of entertainment. What is real is what causes more work along with the limits of empirical evidence. You cannot fake a blood pressure or a lab result for a blood sample. That is real. That is something to be dealt with. You cannot fake the fact that you will need to feed yourself, stay warm, and avoid illness. That is the real. The fantasy, the imagination, rides on top of this. Even love, romance, etc. are all secondary to the needs of the real, which I stated earlier seem to be indifferent or harmful, and causes more work, toil, and frustration. The real is what cannot be avoided, what must be dealt with.

Here is my evidence that if we believe we are good thinkers and conscious of our thoughts, we are screwed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVQJdIrDJ0

I think Daniel Kahneman's research will revolutionize what we think of ourselves and what is required for us to have good judgment. But it does not begin and stop with him. We have always known unhappy people will perceive the world and other humans as awful, while happy people will see everything differently. Our perspective colors our view of life, and our perspective is built on childhood experiences and from there we spend our lifetimes proving ourselves right, even when this means being a totally miserable person, and social failure. Our egos cannot tolerate thinking what we think is wrong, and we would rather die than admit to ourselves we are the cause of our suffering, not that bad experience, not our mother, not our spouse and not because other people are awful. Please check out Daniel Kahnemann. Our thinking is more complex than we think.

I am sorry you don't trust science. I know we can share a false belief, but the method of science is the surest way to not hold wrong beliefs. Science is very important to our liberty and social justice. Maybe we can talk more about this at another time. — Athena

Is there any way to specify on the Kahneman video just where--just in the ballpark of where it begins--he presents something you count as evidence of unsconscious mental content? I'm just asking because if I sit through an hour video and there isn't anything I count as a presentation of evidence for unconscious mental content, I'm going to be very annoyed.

I am spot-checking a few places and what I'm hearing is him presenting a theoretical framework, nothing like evidence of unconscious thought.

I think you speak of liberty. We defend our liberty by obeying the laws even when do not like them, but it is also our responsibility to argue for a change in the law if we believe the law is wrong. Liberty is not the freedom to do anything we please, but the right to decide for ourselves what is right, as long we do not violate the rights of others.

"But even then things even seem to work out for the group:" Yes, if it isn't working for the group it is not working for individuals either. But that seems like a lot to get our heads wrapped around. The three year old child is not thinking of the group! I am not sure when a child does begin thinking of others. However, in observing children it is evident the child who does not learn to think of others does not have friends. In a troop of chimps the uncooperative chimp will be pushed out to the outer circle where it is most apt to be eaten by a predator. Social animals must balance looking out for their own self-interest with what is best for getting along with others.

We defend our liberty by obeying the laws even when do not like them, but it is also our responsibility to argue for a change in the law if we believe the law is wrong — Athena

It's frustrating when you're the lone loon who disagrees with something, though.

"The fantasy, the imagination, rides on top of this. Even love, romance, etc. are all secondary to the needs of the real, which I stated earlier seem to be indifferent or harmful."

I see a lot of truth in what you said. And I think you missed a few needs, such as a need to be appreciated and to have our feelings validated. When our emotional needs are not met, that can have bad health consequences and trying to compensate for what is lacking with fantasies of love can be harmeful to ones and psyche and health.

The moral is, be real.

"It's frustrating when you're the lone loon who disagrees with something, though."

Tell me about it. I am always regretting my inability to keep my mouth shut and go along with the crowd! I have been a loner my whole life, but right now my life is pretty full of friends so I must be doing something right. But on the internet, I am not doing so well. I read books no one has read and that means having a different perspective, and plenty of times I wish never saw those books and had the same understanding as everyone else.

There is nothing subjective about it at all. Good>Evil. It's just math. — Devans99

No, I'm sorry, it isn't. Your 'proofs' are nothing but a list of dubious (i.e. unjustified) assertions, leading to an unjustifiable conclusion. :roll:

No, I'm sorry, it isn't. Your 'proofs' are nothing but a list of dubious (i.e. unjustified) assertions, leading to an unjustifiable conclusion. — Pattern-chaser

Rather than saying I'm wrong, please say why I'm wrong (be specific).

You're wrong because your reasoning is not, and cannot be, justified. You have made a list of incorrect (unjustified) assertions, then derived from them an unjustifiable conclusion. That's why you're wrong.

Good > evil? Don't be silly. :roll: The ">" sign only applies to quantities that can be numerically compared. Good and evil cannot be so enumerated.

Good > evil? Don't be silly. :roll: The ">" sign only applies to quantities that can be numerically compared. Good and evil cannot be so enumerated — Pattern-chaser

But the only currency humans understand is physical/emotional pleasure/pain, so we can define:

good = pleasure > pain
evil = pain > pleasure

Good has more pleasure than evil. So we can say good>evil

No, we can't. "Good" and "evil" are subjective value judgements. For example, what's good for a bonobo might be evil for you; i.e. they're relative and contextual too. Also, pleasure cannot be mathematically compared to pain.

But the only currency humans understand is physical/emotional pleasure/pain — Devans99

That's clearly false off the bat.

good = pleasure > pain
evil = pain > pleasure — Devans99

And that's completely arbitrary.

That's clearly false off the bat — Terrapin Station

What drives you then if it is not physical/emotional pleasure/pain?

For example, what's good for a bonobo might be evil for you — Pattern-chaser

But I have the same basic drivers as a bonobo; we both seek physical/emotional pleasure and shun physical/emotional pain.

Wait, first, why are you writing the phrase, " the only currency humans understand " if what you're sayig is "humans are only motivated by"?

At any rate, here is one of many other things I'm sometimes motivated by: routine. I don't have any particular emotional disposition towards routine, neither pleasure nor pain or anything like that. I do some things simply because it's routine for me.

I do some things simply because it's routine for me — Terrapin Station

Your routine must reward you in some way else you would not do it. That reward counts as pleasure.

Your routine must reward you in some way else you would not do it — Devans99

What is that claim based on?

Note also that you're shifting from a claim that my motivation must be pleasure.

Well I look at my routine. For example I put the trash out. Because it gives me pleasure to have a clean house. I go to bed on time because it gives me pleasure to wake up fresh in the morning, etc...

What are the drivers for you routine?

Well I look at my routine. For example I put the trash out. Because it gives me pleasure to have a clean house. I go to bed on time because it gives me pleasure to wake up fresh in the morning, etc... — Devans99

That may be the case for you. I wasn't speaking for you.

As I said, there are things I do as routine just because they're routine. There's no other reason for them to me at those times. That they're a routine is it.

I have the same basic drivers as a bonobo; we both seek physical/emotional pleasure and shun physical/emotional pain. — Devans99

The latter may be true, but the former does not follow from it.

Re not speaking for you, it may very well be that you are only motivated by pleasure or pain. You'd need to be careful not to project yourself onto the world, though. That is, to not assume that everyone must be just like you are.

If it's not a personal question, what motivates you?

If it's not a personal question, what motivates you? — Devans99

All sorts of different things in different situations. It's not just one or two things. And yes sometimes it's pleasure or pain, and sometimes other things.

Re pleasure and pain it's almost never a calculus of that, and I don't think I ever make moral judgments on a calculus of that (at least I can't think of a situation where I would at the moment)

Emotional pleasure/pain is a very broad category. I enjoy debating on line because the truth gives me pleasure for example. All my motivations likewise trace back to physical/emotional pleasure/pain. I am surprised that we are different.