Your right.Thank you.

Riding a bicycle is something that is consciously learned through trial-and-error. But once it is learned, almost all the action involved in riding a bicycle is carried out unconsciously.

So in this sense, the “self” is not the unconscious. Instead, the unconscious is a “stimulus-response mechanism” that was constructed by the “self” and as such it is a product of the “self”.

The "creation" being attributed to the unconscious is no less creative than any other machine that creates - e.g. a bread-making machine that creates bread. Hypothetically, one could have created the bread-making machine, in which case the bread-making machine would be a product of "self". But there is never any confusion between "self" and the bread-making machine.

And as to the "creator of the bread"...well, that is usually thought of as being the machine, but one could also say that "self" was indirectly responsible for the bread, since there would be no bread if it weren't for the creator of the bread-making machine.

Yes "the self" is not the unconscious, it is not the body, it is not the brain, it is not even the mind or all it memories.

All of that stuff is hardware and software.

The self is the user.

Haven't you ever seen the movie "Tron?"

Its like that.

Your observations are laughable, society is founded on supersition, misinformation, and the pursuit of power. Aside from the 4-5 people here questioining freewill vs. determanism. Hey paris is in trouble gotta go watch TV.

I just don't understand the purpose of a post like this. It is condescending, demeaning and confusing, with no apparent point other than ridicule and dogmatic over-simplification.

Or maybe it's just intended as a practical demonstration of one type of human behavior?

First of all, who are you talking to and what observations are you referring to?

Second, what is the purpose of this post? It says NOTHING, and adds nothing to the conversation and not only do we not know what you are talking about I doubt it you do either.

Sky...

An interestingly laid out form of proposition...

I thank you.



I would concur, keeping in mind that the idea of choosing when to to learn and later when to ride the bicycle is always a conscious decision and is contemplated first.



I personally find reason to believe that the "self" is but a misdiagnosis. I should not have used the term, honestly. While I would completely concur to the fact that the unconscious is a experience based mechanism, it is one of which that exists as an element of one's perceptual faculty born and later bolstered by conscious thought.



Purpose requires conscious thought. In this example the bread-making machine was a conscious thought product which had the attributes of intent and purpose. Unconscious actions do create products which can be consciously perceived, yet their cause lies within the unconscious. Unconscious creation then, would have no conscious purpose. Therefore, I hold that the self IS the unconscious. As much as Jung's teachings about the unconscious resonate with me, I disagree with his conclusions regarding self and archetypes.



Here is where the disagreement in our positions truly can be ascertained. For you have proposed that the "self" created the bread-making machine, and therefore can be indirectly responsible. I hold that the "self" IS the unconscious and this necessitates a distinction. A consciously created machine is not a product of the unconscious, it is one of conscious thought with a purpose. Unconscious elements do not consider ramifications nor consequences for choices. Unconscious elements are automatic.

I suppose the issue lies within the notion of intentional and deliberate creation, and whether or not one can identify, know, and therefore affect the unconscious creations.

It would follow that if we create by thought and thought determines action, we must do most of it by an unconscious measure. Unconscious overwhelmingly exceeds conscious thought. Without further contemplation, such as what exists within the unconscious, how can one attribute the property of knowing to that which the unconscious creates? Without knowing, how then can one feel as though they have any control over the unconscious features of their personality? What if, as in so many documented cases, there exists an unconscious personality feature of which one is unaware, and this feature is counterproductive to what the conscious thought wants to do?

Where is the "free" will in that well-known aspect of human behaviour?

That is exactly where the will comes in and the reason for the will. The will can choose to consciously direct the unconscious.

That is what affirmations are for. That is what hypnotism does. That is what consciously directed thought does. That is what purposeful thinking does. It is a conscious direction that overrules the unconscious thinking.

Unconscious thinking has its specific purposes. It allows us to focus on the things we choose to focus on consciously and the unconscious thinking does the other menial tasks that we are not focused on.

If we are lazy minded and don't use our will to direct our thinking, the unconscious thinking just takes over our lives and our actions. That is a person who has a weak will because they are too lazy to use it to direct their conscious thoughts.

The unconscious thinking is sub-thinking. It is subordinate to conscious thinking when we decide to think with purpose. Conscious thinking directs attention purposefully. Unconscious thinking is distracted by what ever pops up or runs on its own level of habit, programing, and influence of others.

Some people call conscious living, living on purpose or Lucid living. It is taking charge of our thoughts and directing them. That is the power of the will. Some people use it and some people don't.

If a person does not purposefully use their will to direct their thoughts and attention they are sleep walking and allowing their unconscious thinking to be in charge.

Yes, the basic difference of opinion is in how we define “self”. And our definitions are, for all practical purposes, diametrical.

By your definition of “self” (the unconscious) there most certainly cannot be free will, since the unconscious is, by definition, a purely stimulus-response mechanism.

However, if I were given “the conscious” and “the unconscious” as the only two choices for defining “self”, I would choose “the conscious”.

But to me, a more accurate definition of “self” would be “that which has free will” (or possibly “that which is non-deterministic”). Thus, to me, there cannot be a "self" in the absence of free will.

So in using the word "self", we're not really even talking about the same thing here.

JB...

I would tend to concur with the general viewpoint that you have just shared concerning the will. I would only choose to add another necessary element, the element of knowing "better". Unless one has been exposed to another viewpoint, the existing one has dominion. One cannot know of "better" unless one has been exposed to the idea of "better". This includes all knowledge.

Whatever is conceived is always believed to be true by the one conceiving unless it contradicts one's perceptual faculty knowledge base in some way, shape or form.

That is a foundational element of humanity, and of human knowledge irrespective of one's environmental influences... in other words, across the board.

An issue arises at the point of contradiction regarding which proposition warrants the most belief and why. The variables which guide one's personal value assessment are overwhelmingly in the unconscious. Directed thinking is conscious thinking with a purpose. However, it contains unconscious elements which may or may not be recognized within the one thinking. If an unconscious element or feature causes the perceptual faculty to overlook a possibility of "better", then "better" lies in unknown territory.

Will presupposes volition. Volition requires knowledge. Knowledge determines what choices one can recognize as viable. If a choice is consciously unknown it cannot be consciously made. Choice depends upon being known. Knowledge determines the recognition of choice.

One cannot intentionally choose that which is unknown.

Humans choose from what they know.

C.S.

I agree. And I believe that is why we are here... to learn.

There is a circumstance that appears to me to contradict that last statement.

The issue is that of “creativity”. In other words, when one creates, one is “choosing an unknown”.

For example, when a composer creates a piece of music, that arrangement of tones has never before existed. That arrangement of tones was not ever known to anyone beforehand. That arrangement of tones was not known until after it was created. And that arrangement of tones was created by the composer.

This “creative thought” is what leads me to conclude that “Volition requires knowledge” is exactly backwards. It seems to me that “knowledge requires volition” is more accurate. To put it into cause-and-effect format, I would say that “knowledge is the result of a decision to accept something as true”.

In other words, decision is the cause of the knowledge, not the other way around.

So “One cannot intentionally choose that which is unknown” is somewhat mincing of words. One can intentionally choose to create that which is unknown.

Thus, the “knowing better” is not dependent upon having been previously exposed to the idea of “better”. It is dependent upon there being a decision that “better” can exist. One must decide that “better” exists before there can be any knowledge of “better”.

A practical example: One is considering what to eat. One thinks about taste, size, hunger, ease of preparation, etc. While considering these factors, there is no “better”. “Better” only comes into existence when the decision is made.” “Better” is dependent upon the decision, not the other way around. It is the decision that creates “better.” Were it not for the decision, there would be no “better”.

Good points Sky. I suppose we do choose the unknown sometimes.
We may be faced with two choices which we know about, and one door has the unknown behind it. If the two choices we know about don't appeal to us, we can be bold, and choose the unknown one, taking our chances on door number 3.

This must be true because I have done it.


"Where are you going?" My husband said.

"I don't know." I said

"Then why are you leaving?" he said.

"Because I don't like the choices I have here."

"But you don't know what is out there."

"That's right, but I choose to go anyway."

I will face the unknown and see what happens.

I sometimes wonder if what we think of as creation would not be more accurately described as discovery through the willful exploration of the unknown (to the seeker). A musician may come up with a particular arrangement of notes for the first time but that doesn't mean the potential for that arrangement never existed. The potential arrangement was just sitting around waiting for someone to come along, discover it, and manifest it.

That sort of sounds like determinism. So you are saying that all things already exist (that can possibly be imagined) in the potential plane. Now all one needs is someone to imagine it.

But I am not sure the thing does exist in the potential plane until it is imagined by someone. Once it is imagined, then it exists. That does not mean that it is then brought to fruition into the physical plane. It only then exists in the potential plane. What it needs now is for the one who imagined it to bring it forth. If he does not do this, then someone else may discover it there, (already existing in the potential plane) and bring it forth for him.

I think this is why some inventions come forth by different inventors sometimes at the same time. Someone created it in the potential plane and someone else discovered it there and perhaps found it in a dream or vision.

No offense intended, but to be honest, that strikes me as semantic sophistry.

“Discovery”, by definition, requires that a thing exist prior to its discovery.

“Creation”, by definition, requires that a thing not exist prior to it’s creation.

“Potential” means “capable of being, but not yet in existence.”

One cannot discover something that does not exist.



However, if one postulates that everything already exists in fact, and is only waiting to be “discovered” then I can see the logic.

I just don’t see any reason to accept that postulate.

JB and Sky-

What I was trying to express is my difficulty with the term creation. To me the term implies bringing forth something out of nothingness, when what we typically describe as being "created" is actually an original rearrangement of pre-existing components, whether those be paints, sounds, or ideas, or anything else in existence.

Perhaps my definition of creation is too narrow.

I don't think any of us mere humans possess the power (yet) to bring forth something from nothing that I know of, so please allow us to create something new from existing materials.

I'll work on the something from nothing when I get a handle on this painting I'm doing.

Ha- I think maybe I'm just scared of God vaporizing me for lack of humility.

Sky,

Volition is the ability to envision different possibilities and/or outcomes. One cannot envision that which is unknown.

Your conclusion does not follow from your claim. There are too many unrecognized elements. A thing cannot exist prior to the individual elements which, when combined, constitute it's existence. The composition did not exist prior to the individual notes and chords which, when combined, constituted it's existence.

All of man's "creation" is but inference from already existing information.

You have perfectly described an inference from already existing products and knowledge.

The composer chose what he came to know(the new arrangement) through trial and error. Unless, of course, one makes the claim that the first time one ever saw a piano s/he successfully composed an arrangement on their very first attempt. That is only way your conclusion would logically follow your example.

One cannot intentionally choose that which is unknown, Sky. Call it what you may. We all have our own perceptual faculty and/or capabilities.