Can anybody give an example of something being conscious and yet not aware at the same time? — Purple Pond

No, but for purposes of discussion, I think it's important to elaborate upon what "aware" means, and to recognise that from a clinical standpoint, "responsiveness" should probably also be included in a definition of consciousness.

Three types of human mind/body condition can be inferred from observation: consciousness, semi-consciousness, and non-consciousness. These conditions entail variations in awareness and responsiveness (fully aware and fully responsive, partially aware and partially responsive, unaware and unresponsive).

To be aware is to be perceptive, observant, and/or introspective. And to be responsive is to be receptive and/or reactive. The mind is variably aware, and the body is variably responsive.

Should I accuse you of changing the topic, quibbling, dodging the point, of being an idiot. — woodart

Feel free to accuse me of anything you like. In turn, I could accuse you of answering your own questions and having an agenda which isn't interested in the acquisition of knowledge that contradicts your own opinions. For what purpose? To advertise: charlatan for hire, dreams interpreted here?

When it comes to thinking about a particular subject, I prefer to draw conclusions from the relevant science(s), imagine possibilities which are consistent with those conclusions, and then engage in speculative brainstorming. Navel gazing sessions rarely have any practical, problem-solving value.

The value and purpose we place on dreams is not totally subjective, given current research in neuroscience (an intersubjective activity). However; it's your prerogative to assign any meaning you like to dreams, consult palm readers and astrologers, partake in seances, etc. if that's part of your "vision quest". For many, however; philosophy is a knowledge quest.

I can control the direction and content of my thoughts. However, I observe myself wandering a lot during the day. Can this understanding tell us something about dreaming? Dreaming seems like wandering – sometimes there is a direction – like sexual dreams. Most of the time my dreams seem unfocused; like my wandering during the daytime. The similarity does not seem coincidence – what do you think? — woodart

I think daydreams can be equated with mind wandering, or creative thinking.

Christoff, Kalina; Alan M. Gordon; Jonathan Smallwood; Rachelle Smith; Jonathan W. Schooler (2009-05-11).
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/21/8719.full.pdf

By "good experience" and "bad experience" do you mean "moral experience" and "immoral experience"? — Michael

Yes.

If so then I'd question the concept of a moral/immoral experience. What are such things? — Michael

A moral experience pertains to the satisfaction of, and an immoral experience pertains to the frustration of, a fundamental human need, as defined by Manfred Max-Neef, et al.

Max-Neef, Manfred A. with Elizalde, Antonio; Hopenhayn, Martin. (1989). Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. New York: Apex.
http://www.wtf.tw/ref/max-neef.pdf

But until you explain the relationship between the thoughts and/or feelings of another and moral truths, this claim isn't justified. — Michael

If truth is an accurate description of experience, and I decide my experience of this is good and my experience of that is bad, those are moral truths (albeit subjective ones).

So what does empathy, as you've defined it, have to do with moral truths? — Michael

Empathy is an ethical perception faculty which develops after theory of mind has been attained (between 2-7 years of age per Jean Piaget). It informs the ethical interpretation of social situations (except in the case of mental disorders such as psychopathy), cf. Francis Hutcheson's Moral Sense.

Empathy permits a judgement to be made regarding the experience of others in terms of one's self (i.e., a decision is made regarding experience goodness or badness). This results in the acquisition of ethical knowledge, hence; a person's morality construct develops in parallel with mental maturation, personal experience, and social influences.

So what does that have to do with moral truths? — Michael

It has to do with defining empathy, which is important since we appear to have different ideas about what empathy is, unless you now prefer my definition to your own?

As I said, you seem to be implying that rightness and wrongness have something to do with the emotional (or cognitive) conditions of others (and my assumption is that you're implying that rightness is concerned with "positive" conditions and wrongness with "negative" conditions. — Michael

It seems rather that more definitions are required. Rightness and wrongness have nothing to do with defining what is moral and what is immoral (i.e., accessing moral truths).

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Therefore if empathy is a means to access moral truths then moral truths have something to do with the feelings of others. Correct? — Michael

Empathy is identification with, and the vicarious experience of, the thoughts and/or feelings of another person.

Empathy has affective and cognitive components:
(1) Affective Empathy: the capacity to understand the emotional conditions of others.
(2) Cognitive Empathy: the capacity to understand the cognitive conditions of others.

Rogers K, Dziobek I, Hassenstab J, Wolf OT, Convit A (Apr 2007). "Who Cares? Revisiting Empathy in Asperger Syndrome". J Autism Dev Discord 37 (4): 709–15. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0197-8. PMID 16906462.
http://www.cog.psy.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/papers/2007/Rogers(2007)_JAutismDevDisord.pdf

You seem to be implying that something is moral if it makes others feel good and something is immoral if it makes others feel bad? — Michael

You seem to be implying that empathy is something that makes others feel good or bad, without reference to the accessibility of moral truths?

Are moral truths accessible? — rickyk95

They are if you possess empathy.

I believe dreams to simply be partial thoughts, images, and sounds that we have experienced throughout our days; particularly those that [have] been thought on recently. — Lone Wolf

This agrees with the Continual-Activation Theory of Dreaming, a neurological explanation of memory consolidation during sleep, and dreaming as by-product.

The type I dream, a thought-like mentation, is the consequence of the memory replay when the declarative memory data is retrieved from the temporary memory store to the conscious subsidiary systems of the working memory for processing during NREM sleep. On the other hand, type II dream, a more dream-like mentation, often occurs during REM sleep, when the procedural memory is being transferred from the temporary memory to the long-term memory.

Zhang, Jie (2004). Memory Process and the Function of Sleep. (6–6 ed.). Journal of Theoretics.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-6/Zhang.pdf

As usual with these philosophical questions, it comes down to the definition of "free will". — Harry Hindu

Agreed.

If free will is simply the ability to make decisions, then that gives computers free will. — Harry Hindu

Only by a purely physical definition of decision-making.

If free will is related to the amount of choices one has at the moment of decision then free will comes in degrees as it is related to the amount of choices, which could be just one, or several. — Harry Hindu

Agreed.

I could limit human choices to three types, and further limit choices according to genetically predisposed preference. To wit, generally:

1) Human choice is ultimately limited to satisfying corporeal desires (being mindful of mortality), social desires (being mindful of a transcendent public good, and obligations imposed by social norms, laws, etc.), or ethical desires (being mindful of moral obligations imposed by conscience, intersubjective morality, etc.).

2) Human preference with regard to satisfier choice:
a) First Choice: personal satisfiers.
b) Second Choice: social satisfiers.
c) Third Choice: ethical satisfiers.

But is this the sense (i.e., limited v. unlimited choice) in which free will has been debated in past ethical discourse? Probably not. It's probably been more concerned with issues such as agency/autonomy/self-determination.

Inasmuch as human mental processing is a combination of controlled and automatic functions, free choice is an illusion, however; personal responsibility obtains in the absence of compulsion.

So, the human will is never free from human nature, but often free from compulsion, and it's the latter condition that determines personal responsibility.

If asked, I would normally respond "Tea, thanks" without consciously thinking about it. Yet I would still consider that I had chosen tea. — Andrew M

I would consider that to be an example of automaticity ( a semi-conscious response pattern resulting from habituation).

I was explaining how appealing to quantum mechanics to justify claims of free will are inherently flawed: it's because randomness does not equate with freedom. — VagabondSpectre

I agree that randomness does not equate with freedom. Psychologically, it may equate with creativity, or insanity.

Emergent properties are in fact determined by lower levels. The lower level complexity is why we consider it emergent. — VagabondSpectre

Then please explain foreign language acquisition or culture shock in terms of quantum-mechanical interactions between elementary particles.

It is thought by some that Psychology reduces to Biology, in which case, the use of physiological terms would be appropriate to describe free will.

However, the higher level explanations provided by Psychology contribute new qualities (emergent properties) to mental phenomena, and are undetermined by, hence; independent of, the lower levels.

Such a random will might be undetermined by Newtonian physics, but it IS determined by quantum mechanics. — VagabondSpectre

Explaining free will in terms of Quantum Mechanics is a category error, because Psychology doesn't reduce to Physics.

Choices can be spontaneous. — Andrew M

Much human mental activity can be described as automatic, inattentive, unintentional, involuntary, uncontrollable (e.g., procedural memory recall, priming effects, intuition, automaticity, schema activation, the application of heuristics, operation of conscience, affect display, etc.). These are semi-conscious activities which are not free or choices.

For example, I can choose when to start or stop walking, but walking itself is automatic. I don't have to make a conscious decision to lift my right foot, I don't have to make a conscious decision to swing it forward in the air, I don't have to make a conscious decision to drop it onto the ground, then repeat the process for my left foot.

Every time we make a choice there is a decision making process. — Purple Pond

I agree. Decision-Making: learned strategies which control mental processes resulting in the choice of a proposition, course of action and/or consequence.

The amount of time available for decision-making varies along a continuum between immediate and delayed depending on the exigencies of a situation. Immediate decision-making requires semi-conscious, automatic processing. Delayed decision-making permits conscious, controlled processing.

To what extent is a choice free if it is the outcome of automatic processing?

I totally agree with the fact that language and communication was a huge step, but no more than in the sense of giving us the capacity to express in a more clear manner thoughts that had been already present in our minds until we found words. — Eugen

Agreed.

I believe that notions like gods, universe, other universes, immortality have been here since humans were humans. — Eugen

There is a difference between interpretation and verbal modelling. Interpretation produces concepts, but verbal modelling constructs a set of related concepts, arranged to represent a composite concept or system. Whether the concepts you mentioned are simple concepts or mental models probably determines when they appeared in the evolutionary process.

On the other hand, animals don't think about gods and parallel universes. — Eugen

Agreed. They sense, interpret, and nonverbally model their environment. But without language, they cannot verbally model their environment.

I was asking if human evolution will transform us in[to] something that we have no capacity to understand... — Eugen

Possibly. It has in the past, so it's reasonable to expect that it might in the future.

An observation regarding human incomprehensibility:

Unique to the Animal Kingdom, the faculty of language in the genus Homo evolved from a strictly communication function to include a verbal modelling function. With this new functionality came new potential. Homo sapiens accurately models its environment, adding to its knowledge base to an extent not possible in Homo erectus or Homo habilis (due to less brain capacity), and enabling the development of technology which radically changes its environment. Changes in environment cause new adaptations, and the cycle repeats itself.

So, the acquisition of a verbal mode of thought is a point of concentration in human evolution. Einstein's mode of thought seems to have been mostly iconic. What type of enhanced functionality will the next evolutionary point of concentration bring? Absolute mutual comprehension? And what will be its consequences? It's a bit like asking Homo habilis what it will do with language.

To have a method is to be doing the same thing that has been done before; but to be creative is to come up with something new. It is unwise to expect that doing the same thing will result in something new. — unenlightened

So the repetitive application of one method is incapable of producing unique results? Sounds like a new philosophy to me. I'm looking forward to the detailed account.

What are the methods for creating a new philosophy? — hiroko

A new [system of] philosophy is created by practising philosophy.

So, how is philosophy practised?

Generally, by interpreting a significant experience and/or modelling a domain. This results in the acquisition or modification of knowledge.

Specifically, by:
1) Problem Definition
2) Solution Strategy Implementation
3) Perception or Imagination
4) Observation or Introspection
5) Interpretation or Modelling
6) Argumentation
7) Constructive Criticism

Science v Philosophy: it shouldn't be viewed as an adversarial relationship. They are complementary approaches of equal value in problem-solving. The exclusive practise of either one is an affront to reason, resulting in groupthink and poor problem-solving.

I've been doing a module at undergrad level on 'philosophy of emotions'. Broadly, theory suggests... — mcdoodle

Shouldn't philosophy be based on current science when addressing subjects which have been addressed by science, and serve as a tool of science, asking questions which may, or may not, direct research? I only ask because William James and Martha Nussbaum aren't practitioners of current science, and who's Helm?

He [Roddy Cowie] found that some feeling we call 'emotional' is in place more or less all the time, on people's own first-person accounts, but that the role of 'the emotions' is exaggerated by commentators, in that most emotional moments can't easily be tied to a single emotion. — mcdoodle

Please provide a link and/or citation for the "empirical work" by Cowie, so I can verify whether or not:
1) "...feeling we call 'emotional' is in place more or less all the time..." refers to core affect (which was addressed by Barrett in 2006).
2) "...most emotional moments can't easily be tied to a single emotion" says anything new about Plutchik's secondary emotions.

It would also be useful if you could provide a link and/or citation for the "feminist work on 'emotional labour'," so I can verify what is meant by "...the 'distribution' of emotions...", and whether or not Plutchik's claim of cross-cultural basic emotion is valid.

Thanks in advance.

So, is math ability synonymous with intelligence/thinking ability, or do you agree with my assessment that math is just a specific skill in the wider scheme of intelligence? Do you think its more important for me to learn math or just get over it? — Avidya

Just get over it. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.

I knew an engineer who could quickly execute quite a few mathematical operations in his head when other people were reaching for their calculators. But his language skills were abysmal. Asking him to compose an articulate post on a philosophy forum would've been a complete waste of time.

I also knew a nurse who couldn't do math in her head to save her life, but her facility for medical diagnosis was recognised as profound.

Intuition: a semi-conscious process of perception and pattern-matching which enables quick problem-solving, judgement and decision-making.

Cognition: The combined operation of faculties used to represent, compare, modify, synthesize, organise, store, retrieve, communicate, and apply, knowledge.

Cognition is a slower process than intuition.

From the linked abstract:

In this paper, we develop an impure somatic theory of emotion, according to which emotions are constituted by the integration of bodily perceptions with representations of external objects, events, or states of affairs. — Luca Barlassina

This sounds similar to Barrett's Theory of Constructed Emotion. I agree with the Author that Prinz's Pure Somatic Theory (2004) is untenable.

Reducing our choices to a pair of polar opposites means we can act with counterfactual definiteness. There is simple clarity. — apokrisis

Excellent! That's great. Thanks.

I feel emotions. But what are emotions, and how do I feel them? — darthbarracuda

Emotion: a mental condition having environmental and/or biochemical causes, and physiological (autonomic activation), cognitive/intuitive (thought), and behavioural (affect display, action), effects.

Lisa Feldman Barrett's Theory of Constructed Emotion, 2016 (formerly, Conceptual Act Model of Emotion, 2006) describes emotion as a physical/mental construction of interoception, concepts, and social reality. http://www.affective-science.org/pubs/2017/barrett-tce-scan-2017.pdf

Plutchik, Robert (1980), Emotion: Theory, Research, and Experience: Vol. 1. Theories of Emotion 1, New York: Academic describes basic and secondary emotions:
1) Basic Emotions: emotions which are experienced, displayed and recognized similarly across cultures (involving fast brain pathway processing through the limbic system).
2) Secondary Emotions: a larger and more refined set of emotions which vary in arousal intensity and valence (i.e., the attraction or aversion associated with an experience) as a result of cognitive appraisal.

In addition, the following have been observed:

1) Common Phobias
2) Social Emotions: emotions that result from the attribution of mental conditions to others (e.g., embarrassment/confidence, guilt/innocence, remorse/joy, shame/self esteem, kindness/cruelty, sympathy/discord, compassion/indifference).
3) Social Phobias

We are naturally organised to respond to the demands and opportunities of the world in a dichotomous fashion - either relaxing or tensing in some appropriate holistically orienting and prepatory fashion. — apokrisis

Given that human descriptions generally reduce to a dichotomy, or complementary opposites, what could be the psychological cause of this?

I suffer from chronic anxiety and am nearing the end of twelve sessions of CBT. — Andrew4Handel

Have you asked these questions of your Therapist? If not, I would recommend that you do. If so, and you're not satisfied with his/her answers, I would recommend seeking a second opinion from another healthcare professional (rather than from an online forum). Advice is usually worth what it costs.

Because you are supposedly under the care of a therapist, you say you are in ill health, and I don't know you, I'm not inclined to address these questions, even on a speculative basis (all the while wishing you good health in future).

What kind of social environment produces denial (i.e., an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable)? — Galuchat

Typically, childhood abuse, physical, sexual, or psychological. More generally, a dependent relationship that is simultaneously intolerable and inescapable. Such is my best current understanding, anyway. — unenlightened

Thanks for that.

But one becomes dysfunctional in relation to a social environment, and that is what we call 'mental illness'. — unenlightened

Actually, what we call mental disorders are listed in diagnostic manuals (e.g., ICD-10, Chapter V). What kind of social environments produce autism and catatonia?

As you say, anyone can find themselves in an environment they cannot cope with, and the details of what they cannot cope with will vary with the individual. But one becomes dysfunctional in relation to a social environment, and that is what we call 'mental illness'. — unenlightened

What kind of social environment produces denial (i.e., an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable)?

...can psychology really be called a science? — rickyk95

Fanelli D (2010). ""Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences.": "...these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree."
https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010068

The hard science - soft science debate is useful to an agenda which attempts to discredit Psychology by means of disinformation (itself a psychological tool based on the premise: information control is mind control). What would be the purpose of such an agenda? The findings of Scientific Psychology can have disturbing implications regarding human behaviour. Would it cause distress among the populace to know how easily their thoughts, attitudes, and behaviour can be (and are) manipulated?

The more pertinent question is: to what extent has the reliable application of Psychology affected people over the past 120 years?

It is the nature of human beings to be genetically predisposed to certain cognitive and intuitive misinterpretations (i.e., errors, biases, and illusions), and to predictable behaviour in group dynamics, etc. If the facts of extensive psychological research were known and understood, many cherished models of "free will" (among other things) would be considered absurd, and simply collapse.

Structural models of the human mind based on memory, knowledge, and processing capacity, dynamic models which simulate cognitive and intuitive processing (e.g., interpretation and mental modelling), and formal domain ontologies containing knowledge, are all being constructed and contribute to the field of artificial intelligence.

Time doesn't permit a sufficient summary of the many other applications, but the Wikipedia article on Psychology would be a good place to start.

The act of reasoning, i.e., using logic to come to a conclusion is not a psychological condition. I would say that using a dictionary (if that's where you got this) is not the best way to come to a conclusion on this subject. — Sam26

Where does reasoning happen? In your mind or somewhere else? What is psychology (I would recommend using a dictionary)?

This is not to say that psychology cannot be studied, or that people cannot be treated. — unenlightened

By focusing on Clinical Psychology, 97% of Psychology is ignored.

It's not a very successful science. — unenlightened

The shortcomings of Clinical Psychology are acknowledged by its own practitioners. Do the so-called "hard" sciences have any shortcomings? If not, please explain mental phenomena in terms of Biology, Chemistry, or Physics.

I would suggest the use of Physiological terms, since it is thought (by some) that Psychology can be reduced to Biology.

I could be in favour of maintaining higher (less abstract) levels of explanation, only because it would be cumbersome to explain foreign language acquisition or culture shock in terms of quantum-mechanical interactions between elementary particles.

However, the higher level explanations provided by Psychology are required for an exhaustive explanation of reality. These contribute new qualities (emergent properties) to mental phenomena, and are undetermined by, hence; independent of, the lower levels.

For the most part beliefs have more to do with psychology than reason. — Sam26

Belief (a propositional attitude) and reasoning (a cognitive process) are both psychological conditions. Belief (a proposition accepted as true):
1) Can be rational (based on reasoning), or irrational.
2) Is not fact (verified truth).

It seems to be that the way psychologists and psychiatrists diagnose mental illness is through conversation with the patient. — rickyk95

Actually, mental health diagnoses are based on an interview (objective symptoms are observed) and the result of a checklist survey completed by the patient (subjective symptoms are reported). Symptoms are then mapped to a corresponding category in ICD-10, Chapter V: Mental and behavioural disorders.

Also, Psychology (a science by virtue of the method it employs to acquire knowledge that can be rationally explained and reliably applied) is very broad (i.e., not limited to a clinical application).

That said, there are certainly a fair number of charlatans peddling pseudo-psychology on public forums.

My own definition of everything is: all things everywhere at all times, whether known, unknown, or unknowable.

The problem is that too many people have made an emotional investment in what they believe. — Harry Hindu

Or a cognitive investment. People will resist dislodgement (jenga-like) of a key proposition in a mental model, especially if the model has become complex over time through assimilation. Upon dislodgement, the model may require modification (due to partial collapse) or replacement (due to total collapse).

Too many people don't integrate their ideas into a consistent whole and end up being inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

Which results in cognitive dissonance.

Do christians use the same teachings to describe how they feel about medical ethics? — Ellie

Wouldn't that be the purpose of any worldview?

On a more general level regarding medical ethics:
1) Is it ethical to prolong human life artificially (i.e., by use of life support technology)?
2) Does ethics apply to human-human interactions, human-animal interactions, or human-everything interactions?

The psychology of obstinance has been well researched. In addition to confirmation bias, there is:

1) Disconfirmation Bias: the tendency to set a higher standard for evidence that contradicts one's expectations.

2) Attitude Polarization: the intensification of disagreement as a result of confirmation bias.

3)Groupthink: closed-mindedness and poor social group problem-solving resulting from high group cohesion and insulation/isolation.

As far as persuasion is concerned, there are two ways to present a message:

1) Central Route: a direct (i.e., fact-based, explicit) presentation which is cognitively assessed (i.e., judgement based on argument strength) and intended to elicit agreement.

2) Peripheral Route: an indirect (i.e., emotion-based, implicit) presentation with cues processed by heuristics (i.e., cognitive short-cuts) and intended to elicit an automatic favourable response.

The peripheral route is much more effective than the central route, which is why there are better ways to persuade someone than by philosophical argument. I would suggest that persuasion is not the goal of philosophy, it is the goal of advertising, propaganda, etc.