Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Breath wrote:...

Most of us are aware that conscious thinking is not the only thing that is going on.

Such as?

Do you sleep?

Breath wrote:Do you sleep?

Soundly.

Arising_uk wrote:

Breath wrote:Do you sleep?

Soundly.

Any conscious thinking going on while sleeping?

Breath wrote:Any conscious thinking going on while sleeping?

Depends, what difference do you have between conscious thinking and thinking?

Arising_uk wrote:

Breath wrote:Any conscious thinking going on while sleeping?

Depends, what difference do you have between conscious thinking and thinking?

You questioned my premise that conscious thinking is not the only thing that is going on.

It seems to me that, if you differentiate between conscious thinking and thinking, then you are already well aware that conscious thinking is not the only thing going on.

Breath wrote:You questioned my premise that conscious thinking is not the only thing that is going on.

Well actually I just asked for an example.

It seems to me that, if you differentiate between conscious thinking and thinking, then you are already well aware that conscious thinking is not the only thing going on.

I said it depends, that's why I was asking you what differentiation you make?

Arising_uk wrote:

Breath wrote:You questioned my premise that conscious thinking is not the only thing that is going on.

Well actually I just asked for an example.

It seems to me that, if you differentiate between conscious thinking and thinking, then you are already well aware that conscious thinking is not the only thing going on.

I said it depends, that's why I was asking you what differentiation you make?

It depends on what?

The identity of the apple depends. Depends on temporal location. If your mind memory is changed to percieve it as a non-apple, then it ceases to seem like an apple.

So we'll say the apple is a'somethin.

Breath wrote:It depends on what?

What distinction you make between 'conscious thinking' and 'thinking'?

Arising_uk wrote:

Breath wrote:It depends on what?

What distinction you make between 'conscious thinking' and 'thinking'?

That is not a distinction I made or make; it is a distinction you are suggesting.

Now, in your opinion, is or isn't thinking going on that is not conscious while asleep? An answer to that does not depend on anything I might have to say.

Arising_uk wrote:

Breath wrote:It depends on what?

What distinction you make between 'conscious thinking' and 'thinking'?

Unconscious thinking would be all the things your brain does that you're not aware of, such as adjusting/interpreting perceptions and creating dreams. I suppose it differs from other unconscious bodily functions (like breathing) in virtue of the fact that it's done by the brain and either resembles conscious thought or is otherwise closely related to conscious thought.

Wyman wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Breath wrote:It depends on what?

What distinction you make between 'conscious thinking' and 'thinking'?

Unconscious thinking would be all the things your brain does that you're not aware of, such as adjusting/interpreting perceptions and creating dreams. I suppose it differs from other unconscious bodily functions (like breathing) in virtue of the fact that it's done by the brain and either resembles conscious thought or is otherwise closely related to conscious thought.

There is a popular idea that humans only use 10% of their brain, and I suppose that if you consider only the intentional, conscious thinking that might be pretty close, but I would not like to see what would happen if all the 90% of the brain activity that we are not aware of suddenly was required to be conscious thought. First of all nothing else would get done, and most people would die pretty quickly if they forget to breath, not to mention figuring out how to digest different kinds of food. Just the simplest movement would be a challenge if we had to consciously direct every little muscle movement.

Wyman wrote:

marsh8472 wrote:1) The Law of Identity - An apple is an apple
2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - an apple is not a non-apple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle - it is either true or false that I just ate an apple

Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?

They are axioms and most would agree that they are self apparent truths, although identity is trickier than the other two. The set of all apples is the same as itself (since sets with the same members are identical). Two apples are identical if they belong to the same sets (i.e. if they have the same properties - Leibnitz' Law)

Axioms are only true within the abstract system for which they are axioms.

Applying an abstract system to facts about the real world is a non-logical step.

So the 'three laws of logic' may apply sometimes to the real world while at other times they do not.

thedoc wrote:There is a popular idea that humans only use 10% of their brain,

One only use 10% at a time, poven in Mythbusters.

HexHammer wrote:

thedoc wrote:There is a popular idea that humans only use 10% of their brain,

One only use 10% at a time, poven in Mythbusters.

Yes, but most members here try to overlook your deficiency.