Ted Chiang wrote a short story called Understand, in which a man becomes super intelligent. Not really intelligent. Super intelligent. He says this:Since I came into this thread saying that "sentences" aren't clear expressions of thoughts — Dawnstorm
I’m designing a new language. I’ve reached the limits of conventional languages, and now they frustrate my attempts to progress further. They lack the power to express concepts that I need, and even in their own domain, they’re imprecise and unwieldy. They’re hardly fit for speech, let alone thought. — Ted Chiang
I don't really know what you had in mind with the word "isolation". But, unless we say we have only one thought per day, spanning the entirety of the time we're awake and thinking, then, whatever it means, we isolate thoughts all the time. I just ate a salad. You don't need, and surely don't want, to hear all the thoughts surrounding it. My wife gave it to me. She got it last night at a late meeting for her job. Her boss had these meeting every month. He always gets food. but my wife only eats one meal a day, and it is keto, so she never eats at these meetings. For some reason, that bothers her boss. He always wants her to eat, and actually you could say he pressures her to eat. don't know why he feels so strongly about it. Anyway, it's usually pizza or something, and she's not gonna eat it under any circumstances. But last night he got her this nice chef salad, and asked her how that was. She said she would eat it today. She gave it to me instead. My father absolutely loves chef salads. He always says, "That was good! It had everything!" it cracks all of us up. we can go to any restaurant, with the most amazing food in it, and he's darned likely to ask if they have a chef salad.:rofl:But did they really occur in isolation? What do you mean by isolated? It seems to me that the isolation is a mental projection onto the thinking process just as we project our categorical boundaries onto other natural processes. And each thought shares a property with the thought before it. — Harry Hindu
I don't know about being able to isolate a thought from the process of thinking, but we can clearly talk about different thoughts in isolation. I can think of my door that needs work too keep thme cold out. I don't know what to do, so I need to find a carpenter. I really like the music of The Carpenters, and Karen had an amazing voice. Karen does because, even though she was recovering from anorexia, it had already causes damage to her heart.I don't see how one isolates a thought from the process of thinking. It would be like trying to isolate the stomach from digestion, and I don't see how that would get us any closer to how thoughts are caused. — Harry Hindu
I would agree that conclusions are caused by reasons. I think reasoning is one way a thought can cause another.Would you agree that conclusions are caused by reasons? Have you ever reached a conclusion without a reason? Would that still qualify as reasoning (thinking)? — Harry Hindu
My definition might be something like:It seems more important to lay out what we mean by "cause" so even understand how it happens in the physical realm to understand how it might apply to the mental. — Harry Hindu
One thought can cause another. It happens all the time.So my initial question is now: “Can one J-thought cause another — J
I won't be able to help you with this. I just don't get the idea well enough. Or maybe the point of it. We'll see if I catch on as you guys discuss.and if so, is this by virtue of a World 2 relationship, a World 3 relationship, or some combination?” — J
I think causation is a good model, and I think it's because of associations.If causation isn’t a very good model of what happens when we think J-thoughts, then can we come up with a better description, something more contentful than merely “association” or “affinity”? — J
True enough. But the idea is that the gathering of people at that time and place is not the cause of the train's arrival. If nobody showed up when they needed to to catch the train, the train still would have shown up. It wasn't even the purchase of those particular tickets that caused the train to show up. Tickets for that particular day of the week and time would have to stop for some time before they stopped having three train stop there. At which point, no number of people gathering there would cause the train to stop.They're most definitely causing the trains to show up. The proof of that if that if those people would stop showing up, the trains would eventually also stop showing up :wink: — Pierre-Normand
You knew you were being prompted to retrieve 12, so chose not to, all without thinking of 12? aren't you thinking of 12 when you realized it's what was being prompted? Isn't the best you could do choosing to stop thinking about 12?So what was my thought process here? What's clear is that, even though I was prompted to "retrieve 12" and I knew I was prompted such, I didn't bother to retrieve twelve. — Dawnstorm
Yes, I was misunderstanding. However, I think I disagree. In what way can we not break apart what's going on and isolate a single thought? Driving into work this morning I see a lot of leaves on the ground. It's autumn. I think New Yorkers as a rule like autumn. Pumpkins and squash and apples are big this time of year. All the apple orchards have apple cider and cider donuts this time of year, and there's usually fudge also. One orchard has a cupcake festival every year, which is as wonderful thing as you can imagine. Autumn also reminds me of a particular Monty Python moment with the leaves falling off the tree, seen here:I think you misunderstand my position. "Thought" is what's going on in when we're thinking. The process; the stream of consciousness (or part of it, whatever we're willing to count as thinking). "A thought" is unit that occurs with that process. It's perfectly possible to be thinking, but there's no good way to break what's going on apart to isolate "a single unit that makes up a thought". — Dawnstorm
Sure, we should be able to come up with ideas for models along these lines. Any suggestions? I can't say I'm entirely clear on what you have in mind.I'm suggesting we need a model of what type of thoughts can reasonable compared to each other on a level that's relevant to causation. I'm sorry for being so convoluted, but that's just how I... think. — Dawnstorm
Difficult to answer, since, as I've said, we don't even know what charge, which is fairly important for physical causation, is. If mental causation is a significantly different thing, it's going to be even more mysterious, since we don't have centuries of systematic study of it.Finally, thought in the context of cause and effect needs certain traits amenable to cause. What are they? — Dawnstorm
It seems to me retrieving a memory is a big way one thought causes another. Any kind of association is a memory. The fact that bananas are yellow is stored in my memory. So seeing something yellow might make me think of bananas. There was a ridiculous, hilarious show with Space Ghost as a talkshow host. One time he just blurted out that bananas have potassium, when it was only a tangent to the conversation. So thinking of bananas might make me think of Space Ghost.It's not causation. It's memory retrieval. — L'éléphant
Maybe that is the mind. I've asked elsewhere - What is the mind when there is no thinking taking place?Because of the operation of the mind -- thoughts are modes of thinking. If a thought can cause you another thought, are you not removing the mind from the equation? — L'éléphant
Well now that's two lines in the sand. Is it two different thoughts? Or is it one compound thought?The only line I'd draw in the sand would be: We mustn't talk as if we already understand this issue, or as if there is no issue. — J
You think? I intentionally looked for an example that I didn't think is memorized. I don't know that people memorize addition the way we do the Times Tables. It's also more involved than counting by 2s. And not as thoughtlessly easy as adding 1 or 2 to any number.Another problem: 5+7=12 is usually just memorised, — Dawnstorm
I haven't thought about this before, but I'm inclined to disagree. I don't see how something we are thinking short isn't, but definition, a thought. And even if we're talking about counting by 2s, which most beyond whatever age can do easily, without any sort of calculating, do we not have to think to do it?Take "7+5". In what ways is that even thught? If I read "7+5" and think "12" then I might just cover this with a stimulus-response model without ever invoking the concept of "a thought". — Dawnstorm
Either is a decision. Which sounds like a thought to me.Take "432 + 493 = 925". If you were to see "432 + 493" and you recognise this as addition. You may solve, or you may shrug and walk away. These are two responses: do any of those involve thought? Is shrugging and walking away less of a thought than mumbling "Who cares?" and walking away, because the latter includes language and the former doesn't? — Dawnstorm
I don't see how it's possible that it's not thought. Photons can hit our retinas without us really seeing it. We don't notice everything in our visual field, and wr sometimes don't notice things dead center in our visual field. But if you notice it enough to decide you are not going to do the math, you're thinking about it.Is the recognition of addition already thought, given that it's implied but not expressed in either reactions? — Dawnstorm
It seems like running to me. Running happens. It's a process. And you go for a run. Thought happens. It's a process. And you have a thought.And if thought happens is there anything you could usefully demarcate into "a thought"? — Dawnstorm
I think the topic should be:Given that I myself have never really had cause to wonder whether thoughts can cause thoughts before reading this thread (I actually might have read similar threads in the past, but for simplicity's sake let's pretend I haven't) so I have no intuitive substratus here. I'm still trying to figure out what the topic is. — Dawnstorm
Try to construct an explanation, assuming a sincere questioner asked you, "What caused you to think that sentence?" I wonder what you'd get. Would you wind up denying causality completely?
17h — J
Yes, I thought of that, too. Reminds me of synthetic buffalo hides. :grin:(And of course it's ambiguous: Giant festival, or festival featuring giant mushrooms?) — J
I wish I could makes sense of it. What can have caused a sentence that I intentionally constructed to be unique to the world, whose parts are unrelated to each other, none of which came about because of any association that I am aware of? I'm now singing Cat Stevens' song in my head. But I wasn't before, and haven't for at least many months, so I think the sentence is the cause, and the song the effect.Try to construct an explanation, assuming a sincere questioner asked you, "What caused you to think that sentence?" I wonder what you'd get. Would you wind up denying causality completely? — J
I don't think that's right. The propositional or meaning content of the thought can't lead to anything. It can only lead to certain things for anyone, and the things it can lead to for you are not necessarily the same things it can lead to for me.This highlights a problem with "cause" language in this context. Certainly "7 + 5" is not a necessary cause of "12" (assuming it's causal at all). Nor is it a sufficient cause, though, as has been argued, it's a very likely one. If we end up saying that whatever follows from the thought of "7 + 5" has been caused by that thought, doesn't this amount to saying that only a W2 thought can be causative? That is, the propositional or meaning content of the thought can lead to anything, so no causation is involved at that level. — J
I have not been able to find anything on that particular experiment. I wonder if I'm remembering it correctly after all these years.I haven't heard of that one; thanks for bringing it up. I was vaguely aware of research, but nothing drug related. — Dawnstorm
Could be. But I'll bet it lead to "12" first. I'll bet nobody who read it thought "5 +7" or "7-5" or "7 divided by 5" or "these two prime numbers do not sum to a prime" or anything else before they thought "12".I think we can reasonably say that the thought "7 + 5" may lead to the thought "12", or it may lead to the thought "5 +7" or "7-5" or "7 divided by 5" or "these two prime numbers do not sum to a prime" or whatever. — Janus
That's an extremely interesting thing. I can't say I've ever had the experience. I've only ever had the opposite, sort of. Thinking I had an understanding of something, I've often come to realize I didn't when I tried to put it into words. Sitting it down forced me to consider it more thoroughly, revealing gaps.I'm often aware that I comprehend a particular thought I'm having much faster than I could have said it in words, even thinking them to myself. And looking back on such an experience, it seems to me that what I mean by "a particular thought" is not a linguistic unit at all . . . nor is it quite an image or a structure . . . it's a thought, something with a content or meaning I can understand, while the medium that may convey it is completely unclear. — J
Many years ago, I heard of a study where they injected novacaine or something into people's throats so they could not make those micro movements. The people found it extremely difficult to think.. I believe the conclusion was that we unconsciously make the movements of talking when we think, and the association is extremely strong. I know it is for me. Especially if I think of a song in my head. I've noticed many times that my throat is moving as I'm reciting it in my head. I often pay attention to my throat when I'm thinking, to try to make sure I'm not "going through the motions."When you think a word, you think the sign-body as well as the meaning. It depends on the person how you internally think the signbody: some people might hear it said (they literally have a word in the head), some people might just think the word purely abstractly - I don't know if that is possible; for me, thinking a word is performative - I believe I can sometimes - not always - detect micro movements of the speech aparatus (the vocal chords are probably not involved, I'm more thinking about the tongue, palate etc.) — Dawnstorm
Yes. Things are often not how they appear. We should always keep an open mind. But the default position for anything isn't "Things are often not as they appear, so this must not be, and you need to prove it is. If you can't, then you should look for an explanation of how it is really something else."This much, at least, we know, phenomenologically -- this is certainly how it appears. Or if this isn't true, I'd say the burden of proof is on the denier to say why not, even in the absence of a good explanation for it. — J
That's a difficult question. But we know it's there somewhere, so we have to figure it out. How can it be denied that I caused 12 to be in your head? It was my intention, and I succeeded. I used other thoughts as tools to accomplish it. I used physical tools to put those thoughts in your head.If I'm right that you see a clear explanatory connection between Thought A ("7 + 5") and Thought B ("12), can you say more about the causation involved? How does A cause B? Where does such a relation occur? — J
We don't know what charge is. We can't know how it works. We only know what it does. Maybe that's bottom-level.I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do. — Brian Greene
Well, I don't know the lingo, so I'll just give my thoughts, and you can see if it's what you're after.Great. That's exactly what I'd like to hear about: Can we give a sense of causality to entailment or logical equivalence? — J
:rofl:Over the weekend, almost seven million people in several thousand communities here in the US got together to celebrate our anniversary...among other things. — T Clark
I hope this didn't happen! I was there this morning, but have already driven home.All of us meet in Times Square in New York City. We can borrow that ball they use at New Years. — T Clark
But nothing!!! That's a crime!!!I don't know what double-secret probation is but — javi2541997
That kind of thing is always amazing.Consider this article a précis of 'the world-creates/embodies minds' ...
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/new-way-to-map-the-unique-brain-organization-of-individuals/ — 180 Proof
What does "aware" mean that bacteria and archae are aware of drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc.?"Real" is the aware-ing organism, aware of its drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc. Shared by all living organisms in varying degrees — ENOAH
It is interesting that "mind" can seem to itself to be something that it is not. Unlike a sphere drawn on paper which does not seem to itself to be a 3-D sphere, or a map which does not seem to itself to be the actual terrain."mind" is not what it seems to itself — 180 Proof
All true. But no theory of consciousness has made predictions that explain how consciousness comes to be, that rules out any other theory, and whose predictions have been verified. So far, no theory is more than a guess. We all have our preferred guesses, based on whatever makes the most sense to us.Hence 'magic' is a poor tool to wield. If Chalmers' 'all material having mental properties' is actually the case, then it wouldn't be magic, it would be a property of this reality. But still totally unexplained or even described since there's no current theory that supports that view. There sort of is, but nobody formally mentions it because, being a theory, it makes predictions, and those predictions likely fail, so best not to be vocal about those predictions. — noAxioms
Maybe natural? Anything born out of the universe is natural.What would your proposed word be? — Copernicus
I'm just thinking that it would be bad if we only gained negative things. Have we also gained self-love? I would think that, if you are right, and self-love is truly a new thing, then maybe yin and yang require an opposite. If we don't have one, then we can only become more and more negative as a species. More hurting, and more hurtful.What 'new good things' do you think may benefit us? — Jeremy Murray
I agree. Because if something does not have physical properties, then it is not physical.Perhaps I'd have to use a better-suited word. — Copernicus
That is not how physical is defined.it also has non-physical characteristics
— Patterner
If they stemmed from physical properties, then they're also physical properties, regardless of characteristics. — Copernicus
