The unconscious. Is it not you? It’s not conscious by definition (or is it??). Is it you?
What is the unconscious? As far as I know, that refers to something that affects you, not that it is you
I think it more you and more of you than the thinky little wordy thing most people identify with. And how could it not be you. It’s a part of you, inside with the inside parts of you, with your feelings and memories and dreaming and you associating and doing a bunch of other stuff.
Simply not being you, but someting that is part of the context.
What is the unconscious? Can we measure it? Is it true that there is one? Seem quite fuzzy
Fuzzy things can be real. Can we measure the conscious mind? Sounds fuzzy, this conscious mind thing. Is it the same size as the head or the body? What is it? What’s it made of? You know when you get that feeling that you don’t trust someone - but you’re not conscious of why? Must be the weather.
You get priming effects where just seeing a word or image nudges your behavior (like walking slower after elderly-related words) even though you’d swear nothing influenced you, 2. there’s blindsight where people say they see nothing but can still point to or guess visual things correctly, 3. you can drive, type, or play music on autopilot while thinking about something else and still do it well, 4. slips of the tongue happen where you say something you didn’t intend but that often fits the situation in a meaningful way, 5. tests like the Implicit Association Test show patterns in your reactions that you don’t consciously endorse, 6. post-hypnotic suggestion has people carry out instructions later without remembering why and then making up a reason, 7. split-brain patients studied by Michael Gazzaniga will act on information they aren’t consciously aware of and then confidently explain it anyway, 8. you can have emotional or fear responses to things you don’t consciously recognize yet, 9. dreams can solve problems or shift your emotions without you deliberately working on them, and 10. habits kick in automatically from cues like picking up your phone or snacking before you even notice you’ve started—so are you really denying that information processing, decision-making, and behavior can happen without conscious awareness?
Could you please measure your anger the next time you feel it. I don’t mean give it an intensity rating, I want the volume. Then the measurements of recent dreams. Are they all the same size?
What do you think of…? Unconscious mind - Wikipedia
What do you think about https://www.sciencedaily.com/search/?keyword=unconscious+mind#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=unconscious%20mind&gsc.page=1 - hover over that, click the link, note the ten pages of articles, get back to me. Or, what do you think of my previous post? Or what do you think about the rest of the Wikipedia article? Or what do you think of Google Scholar ? - same idea, hover then follow - many pages. This is fun. No need to respond to what people write, love it.
Could you tell us about your consciousness meter?
Poor people who die in the delta sleep all of them every night. Wait, where’s the consciousness meter?
Taking up from where I left off:
A relevant question:
You don’t know that all its parts have been replaced OR NOT, so your calling it the same name is admission that it is.
“Is” without temporal location, I presume. Whole timeline “co-eternal” with it, so… no beginning (that isn’t every moment—not to be confused with all times t happening in the same time t).
Final answer?
Or are you saying it has to have at least one of its original boards to retain identity? Heh.
See Descartes on spiritual vs physical material.
3 things would ruin the very premise your question depends on
-
Essentialism , that God gave X the power to change but it is X that in fact changes
-
If you replace everything on the ship and then replace it back , the form has perdured, the form of the ship of Theseus (somewhat different from 1 in that I am distinguishing the causes of Aristotle)
-
The only reason it is a question is because no one takes it to be answered just by stating it.
If I said a dog changed into a cat, no one would say 'yeah, well it’s still a dog"
And under all this is the master logician Peirce
“Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts.”>
Why should it be that certain shapes bare/bear certain qualities?
This is why it would be helpful to know how programmers draw out function from matter. Probably not gonna get to the answer more than studying how seeds activate their environments (already configured for them) so that they can become their capacity.
• boards arranged as ship (times t of T)
• changes replacing boards (between times t)
• unchanging purpose of ship unifies arrangement and changes
We have come to this exact same question in the other topic.
Its not the shapes that bear certain qualities. Its the boundaries which define them.
Separation is needed for something to be. What makes it different from the rest.
When there are no boundaries, there are no shapes or functions, nothing individual.
The shapes can be intrinsic to the individual and relationally extrinsic between individuals. Shapes can be shared between individuals in terms of a similar shared image sourced in the original.
Imagine an eternal shape that can only be itself if it is being itself in community freely… and there’s absolutely nothing else more beautiful. The mind/heart/spirit subject to time literally explodes and cannot contain it.
A glass marble is in community with the table it is sittin on and the air that surrounds it.
The marble is the marble, but its not the table and its not the air.
The problem with your proposal is that you are trying to make the marble’s existence dependent on the community.
Thats not the case.
The part of your sentence that makes no sense is
If you toss the marble into the void, it still remains a marble.
The community has nothing to do with the shape. There is no connection there.
