I apologize for the delay in responding and thank those who have kept the discussion meaningful.



To me there is no such a thing as an unconscious agreement, I believe that that can be logically shown, however at this time I am choosing to not do so. That is not to deny that current experience can (dis)agree with the previously held and currently unconscious elements in one’s belief system, however that is not the same as an unconscious (dis)agreement.

When considering a child who is taking things taught upon faith and faith alone there is no logical reason to believe that that child even has the ability to be able to question the validity of what is being learned unless there is a pre-existing contradictory belief. That questioning/doubting aspect is actually true of everyone. Belief necessarily comes before doubt. All doubt is grounded upon a prior contradictory belief. Now that particular belief could very well be a set of beliefs that corroborate with one another on many levels and I would think that this is most often the case. The point is that this contradiction between what has been previously accepted as true(one’s current belief system) and that which is currently being contemplated may not be consciously recognized in such a way that the child(or person for that matter) can actually ‘put a finger’ on what, how, or why it contradicts. Often one will immediately dismiss something as false without really knowing why that is the case simply because it “feels” wrong. That can be as simple as an unconsciously perceived and correlated contradiction.

Now, the unconscious to me is an extremely complex and integral part of human behavior and thought - including the belief system - and the discussion may benefit from that temporary focus, if for no other reason than to reach a mutual understanding of what I mean when mentioning it. It may not be necessary though.



I would concur that the unconscious elements of the brain/mind do indeed play a daily and constant role in human perception. Therefore, they necessarily affect one’s belief system. I just think that it is inaccurate and therefore unwise to call that mechanism an unconscious agreement. The previous section above has briefly touched upon this idea, and this response addresses it throughout.




I am inclined to agree in part with massage here. One cannot break human perception down like that Sky. There is no such a thing as a single piece of data when talking about human perception, therefore to attempt to reduce it to a single bit(or two) of data is actually meaningless. The sheer amount of different things being simultaneously perceived denies that approach altogether. It inadequately describes what is.



Again, I am inclined to agree in part with massage here as well. In addition to the false number construct of singular pieces of data that was previously mentioned, there is another problem here with the logic. It directly involves the false presupposition that recognition requires decision. It does not. One does not have to ‘decide’ that they are witnessing things which happen on a consistent basis. They just do it. One does not have to ‘decide’ that they are going to make correlations between things, because it is an autonomous feature of being a human. Correlation and associations can be consciously recognized and recorded in one’s memory via our innate sense of logical reasoning prior to a belief system ever being formed and without ‘deciding’ to do such a thing. That is the beauty of logical inference. It does not require that the subject knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily participate - it just happens.



For reasons already mentioned, I would not agree with this claim that a belief system is created by a decision or decisions. There are other necessary contributing factors involved before a decision is made. The above references some of these other considerations. I would completely agree that it can take a conscious and deliberate decision in order to change one’s original or foundational belief system, but not to formulate it.



I would also agree that the unconscious elements do indeed necessarily affect one’s belief system if for no other reason than affecting conscious perception. The depth and breadth of that affect is unknown to me.



A child figures out things like that Sky. It just happens, and it does so without necessarily making a decision. S/he associates things with emotions as well. I would guess that the correlation between something in the world and how that something makes them feel are some of the first associative thoughts.



There are things which we already know that contradict this approach. A child can(and will) associate emotion with any number of things without deciding to be emotional. They simply remember that which caused the emotions and correlate that with how they felt/feel. A child can associate a bottle with food, and can know that s/he is hungry and know that a bottle makes them feel ‘better’ without ever knowing that they know that. It does not require decision making. That comes later.



There are no two bits of information Sky. As massage has mentioned already, that just is not the case with human perception, and that necessarily includes newborns and young children.



Again, the premise is fundamentally flawed. All that one comes to accept as true(one’s belief system) does not necessarily require decision making Sky, especially during the early formative years. A child takes first learning based upon faith and faith alone. That unquestioned and adopted ideology combined with the innate sense of logical reasoning shapes both the unconscious and conscious mind for that which lay ahead.

Creative, I don't think it is based on faith alone. Both faith and truth are moot points where a new mind is concerned.

They are simply observing and learning. Whether a thing learned is true or not, the concept of truth is not even entertained, nor is the concept of untruth. First, a child observes and learn or collects data.
If they can absorb or comprehend it, they accept it. That is a decision.

Some autistic children will refuse the data and reject it, and even refuse to observe it. You might ask yourself if that is a 'decision' on some level, and if so, why is that decision being made? Certain treatments of autistic children can overcome these problems, but clearly decisions must be made by the child at some level.

If by faith you mean belief without evidence, then I agree that the entire foundational belief system is not based upon faith and faith alone. I can think of two distinct and separate parts which coincide.

1.) That which is learned through innate logical inference regarding objects of perception.

2.) That which is learned through language about that which is being perceived.

I propose that 1.) is not without evidence, while 2.) is. That is not to say that learning the name of a thing does not include the evidence which is the thing itself. It is to say that the acceptance that that thing is called *whatever* is taken upon faith and faith alone without conscious decision or deliberation regarding whether or not that label is correct in it's use. One cannot doubt prior to belief.



No, it is definitely not a 'decision', and may or may not be a form of acceptance.

This line of thinking can be very misleading. It conflates acceptance with conscious recognition/correlation of objects in perception. While it(acceptance) may apply to 2.), it does not necessarily apply to either. The formation of a belief only requires the conscious recognition and correlation of that which is being perceived.

If we are to think and/or claim that one must 'decide' that they accept that which is being perceived, then we must place the ability to decide ahead of the understanding that is required in order to be able to make that decision. That is logically impossible. Some form of understanding/belief necessarily pre-dates the ability to decide.

A very young child can(and often does) establish the belief that fire 'hurts' by the fact that they just got burned without ever deciding to accept the fact that they just got burned. They may even infer the fact that being burned requires getting close enough to the fire itself without ever deciding to believe that.

How could they possibly 'decide' otherwise? Decision requires deliberately contemplating options, which in turn requires volition. Volition requires pre-existing belief. Thus, when regarding 1.) it does not necessarily require making a 'decision', in fact cannot be held as making one.

I disagree. Just because a decision or realization is blatantly obvious or even an automatic reaction, does not mean that it was not a "decision."

The term "decision" (according to you) is probably being defined as a more conscious (aware) type of deductive thinking. But I agree with Sky that some decisions are 'unconscious' or emanate from the subconscious level. That is, that you make a decision but you are not completely conscious of that decision. This is done by everyone on a day to day basis. It is these kinds of unconscious decisions that often get us in trouble and/or cause accidents.

Being careful is a decision. Therefore being careless is also a decision as it is a decision that being careful is not important.

Conscious thinking along with both unconscious and conscious perception necessarily creates all unconscious content, JB. We are not born with unconscious content. It develops through our conscious and unconscious perception and conscious thought about that which is being perceived on a conscious level. Your disagreement here is being made without logical grounding and does not warrant any reason for my agreement with you. Therefore as always, you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter, however that alone does nothing to address the issues which I have presented concerning this aspect of the discussion.

While there may or may not be unconscious factors which affect one's decision-making, one does not make unconscious decisions. That is not to say that one does not act in a way which directly stems from an unconscious element, it is to say that that act is not decided upon.

That is the difference between an unconscious reaction, and a conscious decision. By conflated the two, your denying the difference.



Know whatta mean?

No, actually it's your premise that is fundamentally flawed. According to you, people can "just happen" to believe things without ever making a decision about it (conscious or unconscious). A person is just minding their own business, not believing something and then "poof", a miracle "just happens" and all of a sudden they believe it without ever having to make any decision at all. But on the other hand, you say that (unlike the mechanism that created the belief) ridding oneself of a belief can't "just happen" - it must be definitely and intently chosen and acted upon.

Well I'm sorry but I very much disagree.

Now as I see it, this is mainly about our differences in viewpoint as to what consititutes a "decision". And since you and I have never seemed to agree there, I don't see us agreeing here either.

I know what you are saying but I disagree simply because an unconscious action (or reaction) IS A DECISION at the subconscious level. That you deny it is a decision is just you not wanting to take responsibility for that decision.



That is not something that you could prove hence it is an assumption.

And yes we are both entitled to our opinions.

Yes I will agree with what Sky has said above. I think what Creative's viewpoint on what constitutes a "decision" is not the same as mine.

I will guess that he expects a person to be aware that they are making a decision. The fact is, people make decisions every moment that they are not consciously aware of. Still, they are decisions.

For example, they decide where to focus their attention. In fact, every move they make, every thought they think are decisions.

No need to be sorry for disagreeing, my friend. I understand that you disagree, and do not hold you in a negative light as a result of that, so there is no need to apologize for that. I just do not understand why you disagree other than that disagreement is based upon your belief that a 'decision' is previously required in order for a belief to be able to exist. I also do not know what you think my premise is, but based upon your response I would say that there is a big difference between what you think it is and what it is.

If you feel as though you need to be sorry to me for something from you, then be sorry for making false claims for me and basing the above response upon that which follows from the strawman itself, rather than what I have actually claimed.

According to me, people believe different things for different reasons and there are different methods regarding very young children and everyone else for arriving at any particular one. In light of what is being discussed here, I am concentrating on and addressing that which is first believed, and have clearly shown that those first beliefs do not require making a decision. That is not to say that all belief shares the same determining factors. I would agree that some belief requires making a decision, however all beliefs do not share this feature as a requirement.

The first beliefs are in focus here, and they are of two varieties, those which come from our innate ability to draw conclusions based upon conscious thought regarding our physiological perception, and those of which that are learned through language about that.



I think it is much deeper than that.

This discussion has nothing to do with my not taking responsibility for any action. Your confusing things here, mainly exactly what the unconscious is.

Do you take responsibility or 'decide' for being able to think? For your heartbeat? For your bodies ability to fight off infection? For your physiological nervous system working? For blinking your eyes on a continual basis? For looking at fire and knowing that it exists?



What is the difference, according to you, between an 'unconscious decision' and a conscious one?

I take responsibility for everything.

A conscious decision is one in which you consider and accept full responsibility for your actions. (even if you do not KNOW all of consequences.)

An unconscious decision is one that you make without paying attention to it or considering the consequences. Most of the time you don't remember these decisions because you feel (have decided) that they are not important enough to remember.



Yes it does, simply because it has become part of your belief system for your own purpose and serves you well in that you feel (personally) that you are not 100% responsible for everything you do and think. (And every decision you make.)

The saddest part of that response is that you believe it.

Tell me, what grounds that belief? What is it that you can depend on which necessarily leads you to that conclusion?

You need to address the questions that I have been asking. Those came about through the converation at hand, and yet when we get to those things which just so happen to be the things that establish the truth value of what is being claimed - you avoid them and change the perspective approach.

It is becoming a pattern.

Ok. No point in even going past this.

Thanks for letting me participate for a while. I'll bow out now.

I did answer your questions. Which questions did I miss?

You have shown no such thing. You have merely expressed your opinion that there is no such thing as an unconscious decision. That is an opinion I don't share.

It was included the part that you missed, JB. It is still there.



Sky,

I appreciate your participation here...

Why bow out? Why not show how a decision is required to form the beliefs mentioned earlier by me, or at least logically refute those things?

Your theories assume that reincarnation does not exist and/or memories and information are not contained or inherited in the genes. I do not assume that premise.

Therefore you have shown it only from your premise not mine.

Not exactly, my 'theories' realize - not assume - that reincarnation is one of many beliefs that exist without evidence and are therefore necessarily based upon faith in the source of information, and is no more logically grounded in fact than Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucionism, and/or any other belief that requires that a transcendental divinity be defined through and by undivine sources.

Tell me, how did you come to believe in reincarnation? Do you remember the initial source or evidence presented which led you to the necessary conclusion that reincarnation exists and/or actually happens outside of the imagination?

Edited to add:

To further address reincarnation I would need to know exactly what you mean by it. I do believe in a *form* of 'reincarnation' which could be correlated to *some* commonly held beliefs of reincarnation, yet I realize that those beliefs exist without sufficient enough evidence to conclude that reincarnation(as it is commonly thought of) is factual or 'real'.

What about those who knowingly and deliberately take actions which are inherently meant to exhonerate themselves from responsibility and have the necessary consequence of another taking the blame?

What do you call that, because according to your definition here, that cannnot be a conscious decision. The fact that that actually happens and it is a conscious decision refutes your definition.



The most often used definition of decision requires consideration, which in turn requires conscious deliberation. Therefore, this definition fails to adequately describe a decision as well.



To call a consciously contemplated decision, which is exactly what deciding that something is not important enough to remember would be, anything other than a conscious decision requires some kind of logical grounding to establish.

Consciously deciding that something is not important does not make it an unconscious decision, it makes it a conscious one which will be forgotten in time.

We are born with the ability to breathe. That happens without our decision to do it, as does perceiving, thinking, recognizing, correlating, feeling emotion, and believing that which we are taught through our native language during the first formative years of cognitive development.

Now if one wants to claim that the ability to decide comes before these things which are necessarily required in order to be able to consciously consider and then decide upon *anything*(make a decision), mustn't one necessarily give reasons to conclude this?

Can a decision be made before these other things are being implemented by our brains? If the answer is 'yes', then it definitely requires some kind of logical proof. One example of a decision being made without all of these things(and others) already having been in place would suffice.