We cannot not be part of nature. However, we have qualities that, to our knowledge, no other part of nature has. I don't think it's out of line to judge us. Especially since some of those qualities are what gives us the concept of judgement. We, alone, can judge. And we do, and always will. In how many species does the male kill offspring that are not his own? I have no problem passing judgement on a human male that goes around killing babies.

If anything made by a human is a natural object, then everything is a natural object. We usually differentiate between natural and human-made. Humans make things that would not exist if not for humans. In Incomplete Nature, Terrence Deacon writes:

This exemplifies only one among billions of unprecedented and inconceivably large improbabilities associated with the presence of our species. We could just as easily have made the same point by describing a modern technological artifact, like the computer that I type on to write these sentences. This device was fashioned from materials gathered from all parts of the globe, each made unnaturally pure, and combined with other precisely purified and shaped materials in just the right way so that it could control the flow of electrons from region to region within its vast maze of metallic channels. No non-cognitive spontaneous physical process anywhere in the universe could have produced such a vastly improbable combination of materials, much less millions of nearly identical replicas in just a few short years of one another. These sorts of commonplace human examples typify the radical discontinuity separating the physics of the spontaneously probable from the deviant probabilities that organisms and minds introduce into the world. — Terrence Deacon

In Demon in the Machine, Paul Davies writes:

When the solar system formed, a small fraction of its initial chemical inventory included the element plutonium. Because the longest-lived isotope of plutonium has a half-life of about 81 million years, virtually all the primordial plutonium has now decayed. But in 1940 plutonium reappeared on Earth as a result of experiments in nuclear physics; there are now estimated to be a thousand tonnes of it. Without life, the sudden rise of terrestrial plutonium would be utterly inexplicable. There is no plausible non-living pathway from a 4.5-billion-year-old dead planet to one with deposits of plutonium. — Paul Davies

But does that make human-made things unnatural? Wouldn't that makes humans unnatural? Nothing in the universe can be unnatural. Intelligence, consciousness, teleology... All are natural. All are natural parts of the universe.

Still, there's value in differentiating natural and human-made.

I agree with you. I'm just playing Physicalist's Advocate.

1. Clean up the dog poo.
2. Avoid stepping on the dog poo but not clean it up.
3. Step on the dog poo. — Truth Seeker

4. Step on it and clean it up.

↪MoK You say "How could we have a single thought, knowing that all that exists is matter and forces?" As if you know of some other way to have a single thought. — flannel jesus

My interpretation of MoK's sentence is that, if what we call thought is the interaction of matter and forces, then it is not different than the freezing of water, the foam that results from mixing vinegar and baking soda, an avalanche, a supernova, the growth of a tree, the path of the planets around the sun, ChatGPT, and literally everything else that ever happens anywhere.

From the agential perspective, the sort of action that took place is intelligible in light of the agent's aims, beliefs and reasons. — Pierre-Normand

But if the agent's aims, beliefs and reasons are nothing other than the resolution of an incalculable number of interacting physical events, then it is just physical interactions.

Could anyone have made a different choice in the past than the ones they made? — Truth Seeker

I see people talking about going back in time and doing things differently. I assumed your question, to phrase it in the present, is: Given multiple options that are, in the physical sense, equally possible (for example, I am equally able to press the Netflix or Disney buttons on my remote, and I am equally able to buy the chocolate or caramel ice creams), is it possible that I might choose either? Or is only one possible, due to the hideously complex interactions of particles and structures taking place within my brain, which is really all anything amounts to, regardless of words like consciousness, perception, and memory, and which can and will work out to only one possible resolution?

I say the former. Either because that is the correct answer, or the hideously complex interactions of particles and structures taking place within my brain, which is really all anything amounts to, regardless of words like consciousness, perception, and memory, can and do work out to only that one possible resolution, every time I consider the question.

Schopenhauer has the wrong approach to happiness.

There is no way to happiness - happiness is the way.

-Thich Nhat Hanh

Happiness is not a state to arrive at, but a manner of traveling.

-Margaret Lee Runbeck

A fool is “happy” when his cravings are satisfied. A warrior is happy without reason.

-Dan Millman's Way of the Peaceful Warrior

Pleasures conceived in the world of the senses have a beginning and an end and give birth to misery, Arjuna. The wise do not look for happiness in them. But those who overcome the impulses of lust and anger which arise in the body are made whole and live in joy. They find their joy, their rest, and their light completely within themselves.

-Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita

In the true order of things one does not do something in order to be happy - one is happy and, hence, does something. One does not do some things in order to be compassionate, one is compassionate and, hence, acts in a certain way. The soul’s decision precedes the body’s action in a highly conscious person. Only an unconscious person attempts to produce a state of the soul through something the body is doing.

-Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations With God

Oh, ho, listen, Man, and we'll tell you everything! Do you hear the waves whispering the secret? We know you know, Man. The secret of life is just sheer joy, and joy is everywhere. Joy is what we were made for. It is in the rush of the nighttime surf and in the beach rocks and in the salt and the air and in the water we breathe and deep, deep within the blood. And the sifting ocean sands and the wriggling silverfish and the hooded greens of the shallows and the purple deeps and in the oyster's crusty shell and the pink reefs and even in the muck of the ocean's floor, joy, joy, joy!

-David Zindell's Neverness

"Quentin, I think the oak is shedding," said Pat.

Possible Quentin thoughts:
"Pat thinks the oak is shedding."
"I think Pat thinks the oak is shedding."
"Pat said that Pat thinks the oak is shedding."
"I think Pat said that Pat thinks the oak is shedding."

There are any number of examples of continuous sound being heard, then a new sound is heard at the same time. The new doesn't whether from silence.

Even if there is absolute silence, then a sound, the silence is not the cause of the sound. And the sound isn't usually generated in response to the silence.

I studied comparative religion, and one of the major authors in that field is Mircea Eliade — Wayfarer

Not relevant, I just happen to know he has a book called Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Which I have not read.

Carry on.

I gotcha.

When I see the word "think" on the screen I hear the sound "think" in my mind. After many repetitions, in Hume's terms, this sets up a constant conjunction between seeing the word "think" and hearing the word "think". Thereafter, when I see the word "think" I instinctively hear the word "think", and when I hear the word "think" I instinctively see the word "think". — RussellA

What about people who don't see or hear words in their head?

And wouldn't "reflexively hear/see the word" be better? But how is it different after many repetitions from the initial time, when, upon seeing the word, you heard it in your mind? What has changed after the many repetitions?

I don't know how to answer the question, because I don't know the difference between the way I can think and the way I think. If there are different ways a person can think, do we each choose different ways at different times? Or do we each have just one that, for whatever reason, we settled on, perhaps very early in life?

My focus has been on things and types of things we think about, not the way we think. Thinking about an object, say, a boulder on a hill, and thinking about what that boulder might do in the future, say, roll down the hill, are different kinds of thoughts. Thinking about that boulder landing on me leads to thinking about my mortality, which is yet another kind of thought. Thinking about these different kinds of thoughts Is a fourth kind of thought. At least it seems this way to me.

But I don't know that I'm not thinking these different kinds of thoughts in the same way. If they are different ways of thinking, I guess they are the thingd that might answer your question? But what are those ways?

You say things like this:

Sure he thinks in ways he could not before. — Harry Hindu

As I have said, learning anything can play a role in your ability to think in ways you did not before. Language is not special in this regard. — Harry Hindu

Yet you say things like this:

Language does not make us think in ways that we already could not. — Harry Hindu

How are these things not contradictory?

Sure he thinks in ways he could not before. He now understands that there are ideas can be shared. Can't it be said that you change when you learn anything new? — Harry Hindu

It seems to me learning language played a pretty big role in his ability to think in ways he could not before.

Exactly. It wasn't language that made you think differently. It was the ideas in a book expressed in language that changed your thinking. The ideas could have been expressed in any form as long as there were rules that we agreed upon for interpreting the forms, and as long as you had a mind capable of already understanding multiple levels of representation. — Harry Hindu

Yes. I still don't know where I'm suggesting any power, or something that isn't logically possible.

Fortunately not a requirement! Although to listen to some people on TPF, you'd think it was a requirement, and anyone who isn't quite sure what they think, and pursues possible lines of inquiry, is perceived as "refusing to take a position" or "arguing sophistically" or something like that. — J

Chin up! It's not the subject matter. Such people are in all walks of life. But there are also other types.

Language does not make us think in ways that we already could not. — Harry Hindu

I wonder if Ildefonso now thinks in ways he could not before he learned language. I'll have to think about that.

But even if language did not make him think in ways that he already could not, it certainly made him think in ways he had not. One day, I saw a book called Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. I'm a Bach freak, and Escher is great, so, despite never having heard of Gödel, I thought I'd see what it was about. I had never heard of Zeno's or Russell's paradoxes before I found GEB. We know everything we know because, at some point in our lives, we're exposed to them for the first time. My first exposure to these paradoxes came from reading a book. Because of the scribbles. One guy scribbled on paper, and, decades later, by looking at those scribbles, someone else is thinking in ways he never had before.

The real subject of the proposition, which is pain. Pain is never experienced in the third person. :roll: — Wayfarer

Indeed. Seeing a damaged hand does not mean the hand hurts. No damage does not mean the hand does not hurt. Only the bearer of the hand can know if the hand hurts.

So, sorry if I sound like I'm waffling. — J

What?? Not ready to declare total understanding of all things yet?!?

:rofl:

Ok, I'll let it slide this time.

edit

The more I work with this, the more I'm realizing that the idea of "accompanying" a thought can be given so many interpretations that I wonder if it's even helpful. — J

It does seem to be a bit of a bother. But many things are worth the bother.

The OP was examining a common but still controversial claim -- that when we think, there is some accompanying "I think" that characterizes the act of thinking, and which according to some is also a type of self-awareness or self-consciousness. — J

Did you mean a type of evidence of self-awareness or self-consciousness? Or did you really mean a type of self-awareness or self-consciousness?

I for one would like to understand this issue better. I guess that's the "something" toward which I'm heading. Its significance might be to give me a better self-understanding, a clearer feel for what being me in the world actually is, thought I don't mind admitting that I find the topic interesting in its own right, regardless of any further insights. — J

And that is as worthy a motivation for pursuing this as any other.

The OP was examining a common but still controversial claim -- that when we think, there is some accompanying "I think" that characterizes the act of thinking, and which according to some is also a type of self-awareness or self-consciousness. — J

It seems somewhat akin to a sentence like "Throw the ball." The subject of the sentence is You. That's not in question, or ambiguous, despite not being spoken. I think it might not even be thought, and omitted from the spoken command because, being certain and clear, it's not necessary. I'm not literally thinking "You/J throw the ball" when I say "Throw the ball." Still, it seems it must be part of my thought.

Maybe Frege's idea is a bit more involved than that, but it came to mind.

I don't know what you mean by power. I can't imagine anything about them I'd use that word for.
— Patterner
It's a term I'm using to refer to your idea that scribbles can somehow do more than what is logically possible. You are free to use a different term to refer to this idea of yours. — Harry Hindu

Ok. Well, Human languages are much more complex than any non-human language that we are aware of. With them, we can discuss things, and kinds of things, that cannot be discussed in any non-human language. Things that are not thought by any non-human.

Humans created systems using scribbles in order to make lasting records of ideas that can be expressed in those languages. Presumably, the motivation for creating such systems was the desire to communicate those utterances, both to distant people and to future generations. The squiggles can record and communicate relatively simple things that can be communicated in non-human languages, and also things, and kinds of things, that cannot be discussed in any non-human language.

The result being, when we look at the scribbles, we can, and very often must, think things, and kinds of things, that cannot be discussed in any non-human language, and which are not thought by any non-human. Also, they are often things the one looking at the scribbles has never thought before.

I don't know what's not logically possible in any of that. And I don't know how any power can be read into any of it. At least not in the magical/fantasy sense that I believe you mean it.

But these scribbles are signs that can pass extremely complex ideas, in great detail, from the mind of one person into the mind of a person living thousands of years later, who never had any inking of those particular ideas, or kinds of ideas. That's pretty darned special.

I can understand what you're saying. I differentiated different kinds of thoughts, in regards to baseball. What is the significance of it all? Is this a first step toward something?



How about this sentence, spoken by someone who lost a leg in an accident, but is in traction, can't see it, and hasn't yet been told:
"My foot hurts."

Sure, because of the sheer number of scribbles and rules for putting them together in strings, not because of some special power of the scribbles have apart from representing things that are not scribbles. — Harry Hindu

I don't know what you mean by power. I can't imagine anything about them I'd use that word for.

:grin: Well, you don't have to. . . . — J

Yeah, I meant can I understand that idea fairly quickly, in order to be able to continue reading.

As a short cut, forget about "thought1" -- this is just me trying to specify some terminology -- and focus on the idea of a thought as being merely entertained qua thought, as something to ponder or question. — J

As opposed to what??

Are you familiar with the force/content distinction? — J

Never heard the phrase.

The OP of "A challenge to Frege on Assertion" gives an overview. Take a look and then I'm happy to try to clarify. — J

I wondered what that was about when you started it. I'd never seen the name Frege before. And a book named Thinking and Being sounds fantastic! But I couldn't make head nor tail of the op. I'll try again.

Thank you for your time.

let thought1 be understood as unasserted, without force, "merely thought". — J

Do I have to read much (books? paragraphs? posts?) to learn what this means?

My point is that we could use anything to symbolize other things. Any visual could represent some other visual, sound, feeling, taste or smell. Our ancestors used natural objects to symbolize complex ideas like status within the group, or one's role in the group. It is merely the efficiency of symbol use that has increased exponentially with writing scribbles is more efficient than hanging a bears head above entrance to your tent. Increasing the number of symbols and their relationships allows one to represent more complex ideas and probably does improve the efficiency of conceiving of new ones. — Harry Hindu

It seems that you start off disagreeing with me, and end up agreeing. Certainly, our ancestors used things other than words to symbolize other things. We still do. But words and language is a huge step above anything else when it comes to communicating specifics, and let's us think about things I doubt think we could think about without it.

Can a society without a written language evolve? The Incans did not have a written language but were able to pull of some very sophisticated feats of engineering. — Harry Hindu

I guess that depends on what we mean by "evolve". if we mean ethically or artistically, I don't see why not.

Musically would take longer, unless you have musical notation but not written language. Which I guess is possible, but no culture in human history is known to have done so. A society's literature would also take much longer to evolved. I mean things like story-telling and poetry, which don't have to be written down. Anyone listening to the Aboriginal "Dreamtime" stories in Australia hundreds of years ago might have thought it would be good to create a huge, complex story. But very difficult to do that, as opposed to Shakespeare getting the idea. So the Aboriginies concentrated on stories that were important to their culture.

Technologically? No. The ability to store, and easily access, information, rather than being limited to what was able to be memorized, is a gigantic advantage. If they never started using written language, Incans were not going to the moon.

The fact that we can use hand movements (sign language) or braille to symbolize things is evidence that words can take any form that we can perceive and can be used to represent almost anything. — Harry Hindu

I agree. But if you don't find a way to store sign language outside of memory, like in writing, you won't get as far in some ways.

Rhyming is simply making similar noises in succession. — Harry Hindu

It's making similar sounding words in succession.

I always end up posting a link to this video in discussions like this: A Man Without Words — Harry Hindu

Watching it now. Sounds fascinating!

Hehe

"I think I am" sounds like I am guessing I exist. — Corvus

"Are you that baby's father?"
"I think I am."

I know that's not what you meant. I just couldn't resist. :grin:

For some reason, people seem to categorize words as having this special power or needing a special explanation that makes them separate from all the other visual experiences we have. I'm saying that is not the case. They are no different than any other visual experience you might have — Harry Hindu

Seeing words can make us think of things, and kinds of things, no other visual experience can. Things that wouldn't exist but for language. Rhyming, for example. If their weren't words, we wouldn't open a wooden barrier in a hole in the wall, behind which is a large, tusked pig, and bloody, dead body, and think:
The door
Hid the gore
Perpetrated by the boar

I'm sure there are things other than rhyming and poetry that can't wouldn't and couldn't be thought without words. Much of math and science must surely depend on them.

I am a mobile phone user. I can just holds the o, and it gives me options.
ô ö ò ó œ ø ō õ

Honestly, I don't know what you folks are saying half the time. I've never read Frege, Rödl, or most others being mentioned. (I read most of Nagel's Mind and Cosmos. Absolutely loved what I could follow.) So I don't know how relevant these thoughts are.

I want to get away from the oak. Let's take baseball.
"Who is batting next for the Dodgers?" Some possible answers:
1) "I think Freddie Freeman."
2) "Freddie Freeman"
3) "I think Freddie Freeman is scheduled."
4) "Freddie Freeman is scheduled."

1) It's a fact that I think Freeman is batting next. Freeman may or may not bat next.

2) This is presented as a fact. It may or may not be. Difficult to see is the future. Always in motion it is. It may be that he's not even scheduled to bat next. Even if he is, any number of things might prevent his from batting next, right down to stepping in a hole and twisting his ankle one second from the plate. We'll have to wait and see.

3) It's a fact that I think Freeman is scheduled to bat next. It may or may not be a fact that Freeman is scheduled to bat next.

4) It's a fact that Freeman is scheduled to bat next. The lineup is written down, so you can read it. Doesn't mean he'll bat next, but he's scheduled.

I find Wayfarer's sci-fi scenario of AI systems "duking it out" in the absence of human intentions to be an interesting thought experiment.

I find it interesting that Claude finds it interesting.

Here are my two cents, for what it's worth. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, I mean...
Hehe

I believe that reality exists independently of our observation, or else nothing makes sense. — Brendan Golledge

Yes. Any number of people, none of whom know each other, can, all at different times, be rendered unconscious and taken to the same place, a place which none of them had ever heard of before, and take photographs, draw pictures, or write down descriptions of whatever objects they see. What would it mean if all of the photos, drawings, and descriptions matched?

I didn't realize the intent of this thread was to discuss the topic only in relation to Rödl's book.

But I think questions about 'whether animals think' really belong in the Rational Thinking Humans and Animals thread. — Wayfarer

It is relevant, because, if an animal that either has no sense of self, or has a sense of self but no thought of self, can think anything along the lines of ‛That oak tree is shedding its leaves,’ then the “I think” does not necessarily accompany all thought. And if it does not necessarily accompany all thought, then it might not always accompany all our thought.

Ok, my example wasn't good enough to make my point.

"The leaves are falling from the tree, and the temperature of the surface of the Earth's core is estimated to be around 9,800°F/5,430°C."

Am I able to think of these two entirely unrelated things at the same time? I would think so, or anything might come out of my mouth. If so, then any thoughts can be thought at the same time. They don't have to be related, or one built upon the other

I agree.



And I disagree with myself. :rofl: To wit:

However, i also understand the difference. And i agree with Pat. — Patterner

I've literally never thought about these things before, so I don't have a solid position. I came to a new conclusion while posting, then didn't proofread very well. I had just said (what I called) nested thoughts means I am thinking ‛The oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ as I am thinking ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ Else I wouldn't know what I was thinking. (Can't think about nothing. [Well, not in this sense.])

I recently said (Janus and/or Meta?) something along the lines of all this. Maybe compound thoughts of the same level, and nested thoughts of different levels, can exist if one is built upon the other, but not if there is no connection. But is even that correct? Am I thinking about leaves falling from the tree and the height of the Empire State Building when I say, 'The leaves are falling from the tree, and, when you include the antenna, the Empire State Building is 1,454 feet (443.2 m) tall"?

Do the quotes around "I" mean that there is literally no self without thoughts, or only that the "I" of philosophy, so to speak -- the self-conscious cogito -- is constructed from our thoughts?
— J

As I see it, there could be no self without thoughts. The self doesn't have thoughts, the self is the thoughts that the self has.

If you had no thoughts, would it be possible for you to have a self?

How could you express your self without thoughts? — RussellA

Someone recently told me about Noesis and Noema. I have only started reading it, but I think it's relevant?

Even if I can't think the higher level thought without the lower level though, I can think the lower level thought without the higher.
— Patterner

Yes, if "I think p" is indeed meant to be present to consciousness at all times that "p" is thought. — J

Am II right that a cat can think about the tree, but cannot think about thinking about the tree?