Your personality?

[Your Computer]

I suppose i'll put the spoiler tag to work as well.

Spoiler below!

I also take issue with your assertion that 'The conscious is always the starting point for human action', if you know that then you should write a paper on it and become extraordinarily famous for having worked out the origin of human action. How do you account for split-second instinctual actions?

I don't see split-second instinctual actions as a by-product of the unconscious, since that wouldn't make any sense to me. There may be bodily reactions that occur independent of the conscious, but i wouldn't place these reactions on the same level as instinct-based actions. I take it that the main reason why you take issue with my statement is perhaps because you may not see the conscious as something that exists. Though, i'd rather not get into a deep discussion on whether mind is over matter or matter over mind. (Maybe some other time, perhaps in some other thread.)

What you don't seem to be accepting here is that the process itself changes, as the environment around the person changes - new variables come into play that were not relevant before - such as a decision on whether to eat being affected by a famine, having family members to provide for etc.
However, the entire following paragraph is referring desires as a driving force for action, not how it relates to personality or how personality factors into an action. It is worth noting that desires do indeed change with age - perhaps they always existed, but at certain ages certain desires are not factored into the decision making process.

Humans are limited to how they receive information and also on how they can react to that information. But the reason why they chose to react is do to desire to respond to the input. Personality would be what prioritizes the desires people have. Indeed, over time someone who wasn't normally in tune with other people's feelings (a.k.a. a strong Thinking type) may learn to take better notice of other people's feelings or needs. Nevertheless, i don't see this as a change in how one processes information and reacts to that information. Change in personality? I'm inclined to say, no--simply because i never believed that people were incapable of any one personality, even though they prefer certain personalities over the other (even though this may further confuse things).

I do not understand what you mean by action/non-action. If I understand the context correctly, that is, things a human can do, there is no 'non-action', everything is an observable action with - albeit unclear - motivations, even sitting down and 'doing nothing'

I realize that some people consider that doing nothing is doing something--regardless of how self-contradicting that may sound--, like sitting. But i'd rather not play loosely with these terms. For now, consider anything concerning action involves effort. Anything that doesn't require effort is not an act. I don't see it impossible to sit down without requiring any effort to maintain their position (since a lot of chairs are designed to carry the body), therefore essentially doing nothing (a non-action).

Do we know that they thought their actions were logical? How? Could they even explain how a logical conclusion is made? Even if we did know for certain that they thought their actions were logical, and that they could explain how logic works to a degree where we can be sure they are making an accurate assessment, how is it then possible to work out what was the internal thought process?

Edit Disclaimer: I realise I may be speaking too absolutely there - in the future, when we are capable of simulating the very sub-atomic structure of a human being right up to the macro level, we will surely be able to figure out what goes into decision making in the human mind, and whether or not it is a logic structure like a computer. Perhaps we will get there before then, but not now - right now, this is all conjecture.

We would know that they thought their actions were logical because they reveal it to us after the fact. Failure to prove that their actions were indeed logical doesn't discard the previous fact. If they thought that their actions were logical, it should therefore be made known that they had at least one reason for attempting the act. This and any other reason they may have had would (should) be enough to workout the internal thought process (assuming any information shared is in fact true).

I'd go as far as to say that any research done on particle interactions that accumulate to physical, human action will never show any real information on any decision-making process of the human mind. If anything, the only thing i feel it can reveal is what is already known, one of them being that there can only be a limited number of actions.