> So what? If you are conscious of your actions, you choose your
> actions, regardless of whether or not you are conscious of everything
> that might influence your choice.
These dynamics casts "choice" into a different light I think. There are
plenty of examples of people acting in conflict with what they claim they
would have chosen.
> The cues only facilitate self-interested behavior if they are
> accurate. Since no "personal cosmology" will ever be 100%% accurate,
> one cannot ever be certain whether some particular cue will or will
> not facilitate self-interested behavior, thus it has no objective
> meaning.
You're think in excessively literal terms. We act in our own best interest
given the information we have. The accuracy of the information is
irrelevant. The motivation is always the same: essentially we can boil it
down to approach pleasure, withdraw from pain. This is true whether we're
talking about information we're consciously aware of or not.
>> To argue that the cues have no meaning because there's no conscious
>> experience of it is utterly inconsistent with these data.
> Again, and again, I am NOT arguing that the cues have no meaning
> because there's no conscious experience of it.
Okay. Good.
>> What do you think happens between cognition and action?
> Choice. Unless you're a robot. Are you a robot or what?
Like I said, give the state of the data, we have to start thinking about
choice in a new light. What does the fact that we are influenced by factors
we're unaware of as they have their influence imply about the nature of
choice to you?
>> The statement stands on its own. We are highly influenced by cues we're not
>> consciously aware of. We are often, but not always, aware of the influence
>> though. In the blunt example at the bus stop, you become aware of the
>> feelings of discomfort.
> Yet you have no knowledge of the source of those feelings, thus
> conditioning yourself to act on those feelings could lead you to act
> against your self-interest rather than facilitate self-interested
> behavior.
I'm sorry to do this, but I really have to get this point across.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONDITION YOURSELF. YOU ALREADY FUNCTION THAT WAY!!!! YOU
ARE LOADED WITH IMPLICIT ASSOCIATIONS THAT INFORM EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO.
THERE ISN'T ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO AVOID IT.
All I'm talking about is how that natural process works, and how one might
be able to improve the accuracy of those associations.
And again, self-interested behavior is just what we do by our nature. And
both conscious and non-conscious processes are involved.
>> In the more subtle example of the conversation, we
>> may never become aware of how the blushed skin tone affected our
>> interpretation of the conversation.
> All the more reason to avoid conditioning oneself to trust normal
> cognition as the best, most accurate source from which to inform our
> actions.
What I described is normal cognition.
>> What do you think happens?
> I told you already. We make a choice about what action to take. What
> do you think happens?
What is a choice if you are not aware of everything that influences it?
> Yeah yeah yeah. Lots of guys would like to put me through a series of
> "experimental procedures".
> Have you considered that the results may change your mind about the
> subject? Or is your certainty of belief embedded in concrete at this
> point?
I go with the data. It's just that I'm talking about an existing body of
work demonstrating very robust effects that replicate over and over again no
matter who conducts the experiments and no matter who participates in them.
I could dump you into that literature if you like. Or just follow the
Article of the Week feature on my website. I'm presenting it piece by piece
with commentary and an opportunity for discussion and further exploration.
> So what? I can still accomplish my intention of getting in the car
> and driving from place A to place B without incident.
The point is that if you could somehow switch off your implicit processing
and you tried to do it exclusively with conscious deliberation, as you
suggested, you'd never make it.
>> It's as certain a fact as any I know.
> So, apparently no, you're not willing to admit to your beliefs.
> That's not a very good way to start a supposedly "scientific" study.
There is enough consistent data to rely on at this point. I am open to new
evidence if you have any, but understand that this is what I do. We have
meetings, lunches, etc., almost every day of the week to discuss the latest
findings. In addition to conducting my own experiments and teaching, that's
pretty much all I do. I'm not discussing speculative findings here. I'm
talking about the very well established stuff.
>> Okay, but if ones will leads them to behave in ways that are inconsistent
>> with the way things actually work,
> That's not possible. Unless you are using a different definition of
> "will". I am talking about one's will as in "pure will", "True Will"
> or Thelema, one's essential nature. Your essential nature is,
> naturally, aligned with "the way things actually work". It's only
> through the influence of the mind that leads people to behave in ways
> that are inconsistent with "the way things actually work".
Ah, I see. Religion. That's a different topic altogether.
>> Nothing is perfect.
> "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of
> result, is every way perfect."
At least my beliefs can be supported by empirical data.
