An act of buying going out can have a part of it about buying ice cream. If the person regularly does the “going out” action the “buying ice cream” part might be subconscious and the person never thinks about it the entire time. In this case the purchase of ice cream is not a value judgement, it is no different from an animal choosing to walk to a puddle of water and drink some.
If there is no way of differentiating conscious acting and unconscious behaviour, there is no way of determining the applicability of the austrian method and its claims are not universal.
I dont see how it cannot be unconscious or any other action that seemingly implies value judgement cannot be unconscious. Kind of the same way a musician or computer gamer doesnt think at all about what he does during the song or round of gameplay after having it all in his subconscious memory after thousands of repetitions.
In those situations, what are apparent value judgements are in fact not, but only part of the subconscious part of a larger conscious action(ie choosing to go outside in the OP-s example). So we can see that the act of buying ice cream could in fact not involve making a value judgement and have no meaning in terms of utility gain.
That’s because human action is goal-oriented. Humans make plans to act, hoping that action achieves goals. This requires some form of concious thinking. Automation doesn’t form goals.
The composer still chooses to be there and perform the mundane task, even if that task can be viewed as “automated” or done subconciously.
When the guy is buying ice cream he is not aiming at certain ends in the context of the ice cream, but only in the context of the larger action - going out. The sub part of it, buying ice cream, is not an action in the praxeological sense. But to the observer, it does seem to be, and that is what makes the standard austrian way of analysing the world, via apparently visible praxeological categories, incorrect.
**Mises Pieces:**That is looking at the entire"going out" as an action though, not buying ice cream, that the austrian observing the situation would suggest as an action of exchange. Exchange in the austrian sense did not happen in this situation.
I guess I don’t understand the question. You are making a conscious choice of whether to go out or stay home, then which ice cream parlor to go to, then which flavor ice cream to order when you get there… where is the unconscious choice?
It is possible to happen that no choice is being made regarding the ice cream shop. The same way no choice is made over which pavement block to step on while walking. To apply praxeological logic to the purchase of icecream then is incorrect.
To apply praxeological logic to the purchase of icecream then is incorrect.
How so? It’s a concious human action taken by part of the individual. He’s obtaining certain means, to remove uneasiness, which will be obtained by the consumption of ice cream. Whether or not it’s a habitual action it’s action none the less. If someone has a medical condition and they must take medication everyday to remove the uneasiness brought on from the condition, is that not human action in taking in the medication? You can’t prove that it’s unconcious action nor to say praxeology doesn’t apply to it.
Bert: See my other analogies of examples of what are certainly not action. There is nothing fundamentally different in buying ice cream that would make it not possible to be done in the same manner. But, what then is the distinctive characteristic that allows us to differentiate between unconscious behaviour(to which AE doesnt apply), and action? My claim: there is none, or at least we dont know of any rock certain way, which is a big problem.
With the example of buying ice cream, it would be a subconcious action. The psyche still drives the person toward performing an action. That is still purposeful behaviour with a goal and an action (or set of actions) in mind.
Giant_Joe: Im talking of a situation where it would not be an action. In the same way when going for a walk the entire “walk” would be action, but taking a step with the right leg at coordinate x would not be action, but behaviour.
But isn’t each step in the course of a walk an action? If not, then is it just by luck that people walk in lines and along routes rather than stepping about randomly?
Then it is an action driven by the subconcious, and those steps are still actions. He finds no need adjust his walking behaviour, but he can if he wishes to do so. Man is able to rationalize his behaviour. So far, it seems that he is fine with this subconcious act of taking steps. He doesn’t interrupt the subconcious process in this case.
AE is built on praxeology. Praxeology is concerned with action. Whether those actions are from the concious, subconcious, or any other state of mind, it doesn’t matter. The whole person’s life may be considered to be a string of actions driven by the subconcious, but they are still acting. I believe the issue you’re trying to tackle here is “what is action?”
Giant_joe: That is not what orthodox AE says.. If we applied the action lable to everything like that, it would lose meaning, it has to be strict to eliminate criticisms of animism
See my other analogies of examples of what are certainly not action. There is nothing fundamentally different in buying ice cream that would make it not possible to be done in the same manner. But, what then is the distinctive characteristic that allows us to differentiate between unconscious behaviour(to which AE doesnt apply), and action? My claim: there is none, or at least we dont know of any rock certain way, which is a big problem.
I read them, and my point still stands. Every step in the process of a given action takes action. Walking involves individual steps. Whether you take one step or many steps it’s an action. Even choosing not to act is an action. It’s a choice. You chose to act (or not to act) in a certain way. There’s an obvious distinction between unconscious and conscious action. Not unless you bought the ice cream in your sleep, I don’t see how it’s not conscious action.
Bert: So each single step is a seperate action? Or is the entire walk or other larger period an entire action? Or is a part of a step or even smaller time span a seperate action? How do you quantify action in the time dimension?