Posted by Ben C on 10/11/57 12:01

On 2008-01-27, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <slrnfppuo1.jto.spamspam@bowser.marioworld>,
> Ben C <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-01-27, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > In article <Xns9A31D3D4F61C5nanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236>,
>> > Neredbojias <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > IS THE BOTTOM AN ENGINEERING OR DESIGN DECISION?
>> >>
>> >> It's not any kind of "decision"! It's an integral part of a cup.
>> >
>> > Let us take these two answers of yours in turn:
>> >
>> > One, a decision to include or not include a feature is not
>> > necessarily a conscious one, not necessarily one that is
>> > reflected upon. But if it is a feature that could be left out,
>> > but is not left out, then a decision to include it has been made.
>> > If you don't like the word "decision" here, you can substitute
>> > another one (you like making up words, you will enjoy it)
>>
>> I'm not sure you can really have such a thing as an unconscious
>> decision, any more than you can have an unconscious thought, a circle
>> that isn't round, or a God that doesn't exist.
>
> I was not meaning to get into the status of kinds of decisions
> too heavily.

I know, I was just quibbling.

[...]
> (But, btw anyway, <g> surely your list has an odd man out! The
> last two are logical impossibilities (depending on what you quite
> mean by the last), whereas a thought below the conscious is quite
> well known and is indeed the contrast needed for the very notion
> of some being conscious)

I didn't mean it that way. I would have thought that literally speaking
an unconscious thought was logically impossible.

But it depends on what you mean by thought.

[Back to original message]