I will check the definition of subconscious later. I will, however, make it clear here that I am talking about a level of consciousness in the brain which precedes the person's awareness of a decision to do something ... and doing it. Do you agree that this has been discovered and found to be correctly and objectively tested?Quote
Any supposed scientific reports you've read that use the word "subconscious" are immediately suspect.
Although the term 'subconscious' may not be used in scientific papers in relation to particular neurological conditions, I think you will agree that it is a term generally used, and that it refers to the actions we perform automatically etc.
That is interesting - have they detected and described aprocess which avoids or skips the pre-attentive awareness?? I don't see how that would work, so please clarify.Quote
That's not how cognitive neuroscientists theorize about the control of attention.
How do they know this? What have they done to show that conscious attentive processes are not controlled, or preceded by … well, what?Quote
The use of the term "subconscious" brings us away from science to a much discredited psychoanalytic tradition. A scientific term would be "pre-attentive processes," but such processes by no means control conscious attentive processes.
Well, if the brain isn’t part of a physical, structural development, what is it?Quote
Theories of evolution are about physical, structural development,
And I have never said such a thing – please cite if you think I have. I have checked – and you have not used upper case t or e when talking about theory/ies and evolution.Quote
not cognitive development Anything you might believe about communication somehow being "explained" by the theory of evolution is pure conjecture.
Maybe you did this deliberately in order to allow room for your faith belief?!