We often treat actions with noun phrases. Even the word “action” or “process” are nouns, but not persons, places or things. Maybe this confuses us—it confuses me. However in every scenario the thing is the one performing the action, and we can only observe the action by observing the thing. This is because the thing and the action are the same.

So it is with thought, I think. The physicalist can only measure the thing and it’s movements. Man and his thought are one and the same, at least until it is reified through some form of expression or other.

I wouldn't really say that chance is ignorance, but it's more like the way that we represent our ignorance. So for example, if I do not know the cause of something, I might say it was a chance occurrence. In this case, what "chance" represents is the fact that I do not know. But it's a misleading usage, because it creates the appearance that I do know the cause, and the cause is something called "chance". — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I can think of chance as a legitimate explanation.

Here goes nothing. I'll use the genesis of life to illustrate.

The ingredients for life, all the necessary chemistry, were all present in the oceans of the earth roughly 4.5 Gya. These life molecules were randomly distributed in the water. It so happened that some of these biomolecules came to be at the same place, in each other's vicinity, and they interacted in the right proportions to produce the first life. The rest is history.

Note this is knowledge and not ignorance.

There is no question that the mind is physical...The evidence for a material mind isn't controversial. — Philosophim

There is no question that chemistry is just particle physics.
There is no question that cell biology is just chemistry.
There is no question that neurology is just cell biology.
There is no question that the mind is just neurology.

Therefore - There is no question that the mind is just particle physics.

The ingredients for life, all the necessary chemistry, were all present in the oceans of the earth roughly 4.5 Gya. These life molecules were randomly distributed in the water. It so happened that some of these biomolecules came to be at the same place, in each other's vicinity, and they interacted in the right proportions to produce the first life. The rest is history.

Note this is knowledge and not ignorance. — Agent Smith

To me, your example looks like this: All the necessary ingredients for a cake were distributed around the kitchen. It so happened that they came to be in each other's vicinity, interacted, and produced a cake. Ignorance, not knowledge.

Are you familiar with the principle of plenitude? Roughly speaking, it states that if given enough time, all possibilities will be actualized. So if we assume an infinite amount of time, then everything possible will be real. Check out the infinite monkey theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Interesting idea this principle of plenitude. It is a probabilistic argument from what I can tell, just like abiogenesis as I outlined it.

We often treat actions with noun phrases. Even the word “action” or “process” are nouns, but not persons, places or things. Maybe this confuses us—it confuses me. However in every scenario the thing is the one performing the action, and we can only observe the action by observing the thing. This is because the thing and the action are the same.

So it is with thought, I think. The physicalist can only measure the thing and it’s movements. Man and his thought are one and the same, at least until it is reified through some form of expression or other. — NOS4A2

:up:

well said but we can go deeper than that. all of these fields are expressed through math. ultimately our descriptions of the brain and consciousness are just math. mind is math. then look at important findings in math like godel incompleteness amongst others all suggestions on limits to self reference. paradox is inherent in any (self)description of the mind.

ultimately our descriptions of the brain and consciousness are just math — Apustimelogist

Descriptions differ from the subject described. Particles connected in the shape of a parabola are no parabole.

mind is math — Apustimelogist

Says you. I don't think math structures contain consciousness. That's reversed to living beings. Which are no mathematical structures.

then look at important findings in math like godel incompleteness amongst others all suggestions on limits to self reference. paradox is inherent in any (self)description of the mind. — Apustimelogist

This just says you can't have complete self-knowledge , as the knowing part is part of yourself. You can know half of you, at most. You can't have an exact image of your brain running around on your neural network.

Yes, and the problem here is, that's an anti-philosophical cop-out for disregarding the science that has been established, that people employ here almost every single time I bring this u on this website. There is no understanding consciousness without the understanding what it is that is producing it, and how it operates. If one is going to have philosophical deliberations on the nature of consciousness, the science has to be incorporated into that view. To do otherwise would be a disregarding known science fallacy. Besides, the OP was about the functionalist aspect of consciousness. So, literally anybody disagreeing with me here about this is going to need to bring some data, and at bare minimum contend with what I have already brought that dispels with the mind/body "distinction" that doesn't exist according to the data. — Garrett Travers

Every theory of consciousness, even including substance dualism, is consistent with the data. The science just doesn't rule much out.

well said but we can go deeper than that. all of these fields are expressed through math. ultimately our descriptions of the brain and consciousness are just math. mind is math. then look at important findings in math like godel incompleteness amongst others all suggestions on limits to self reference. paradox is inherent in any (self)description of the mind. — Apustimelogist

Oops. My post was intended to be ironic. I reject a reductionist approach to understanding and I was trying to show the somewhat absurd consequences of taking it to an extreme.

Welcome to the forum.

Every theory of consciousness, even including substance dualism, is consistent with the data. The science just doesn't rule much out. — bert1

I'm willing to concede such a thing, if you can support this. That sounds interesting as hell, but I need to see what you mean.

Update

I can hold something classified as physical, say a cigarette, in my hands. I can manipulate (turn, twist, roll, bend, etc.) it quite easily and demonstrably so.

However, I can't do the same with a thought. I can't reach into my head, and pull out a thought; I can't pass it from one hand to the other; I can't turn or twist or roll or bend it in/with my hands, can I?

Are thoughts energy? Energy too isn't something I can handle, literally speaking. It's, in that respect, very thought-like, oui? Energy, however, can be converted into matter (E = mc²) i.e. I can, using the right tools, transmute pure energy into matter and then move it around with my man-paws.

So, in theory, if thoughts are energy, we can change it into matter. I wonder how much my thoughts on physicalism would weigh? How much space would it occupy? :chin:

So, in theory, if thoughts are energy, we can change it into matter. — Agent Smith

You pass your thoughts to another person by speaking them or writing them down. When they are spoken or written down they are "changed into matter".

You pass your thoughts to another person by speaking them or writing them down. When they are spoken or written down they are "changed into matter". — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: That's one way, yes!

However, I was hoping there was a more scientific way to do that. There doesn't seem to be anything mathematically precise about it. For example I could think about divine and write _god, god, GOD; something's not quite right.

Very often, the sign is in no way similar to the thing which it signifies. That's an indication of the lack of necessity between the two, such that the relation may be random. It is important that we remember this, in order that we recognize that a theory, even though it is the correct theory, does not necessarily hold a relationship of semblance with the thing that it represents. This non-necessary nature of this relationship excludes the possibility that the relationship is scientific, or mathematically precise.

Are thoughts energy? — Agent Smith

No. They are the contents of living beings. Their placeholders run around as patterned currents on the lightning shaped paths that neurons provide for. Because they are the content of these currents, you can't touch or weigh them. Neurons and currents have weight. Thoughts have not. You can calculate the weight/mass though of the placeholders involved. Or the equivalent energy.

Very often, the sign is in no way similar to the thing which it signifies. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree and disagree. Language (the written word) began their jounrey as pictograms (the letter resembled, physically so, the object it symbolized). For example the letter A, if inverted, looks like an ox/bull, the referent of A. The letter A looked more "oxy", but now, after multiple transformations (reflection, stretching, squeezing, etc.) it looks nothing like an ox/bull.

If physical symbols are thoughts materialized, my concern is there doesn't seem to be a mathematical law that governs/determines the transformation of thoughts into physical words (spoken/written), very uncharacteristic of matter & energy (the physical world).

If physical symbols are thoughts materialized, my concern is there doesn't seem to be a mathematical law that governs/determines the transformation of thoughts into physical words (spoken/written), very uncharacteristic of matter & energy (the physical world). — Agent Smith

I guess that's why philosophers often say that thoughts are not part of the physical world, not matter and energy, but something else.

But I wouldn't say that the physical symbols are actually thoughts materialized, explicitly, I'd say they are more like things created as representations of thoughts.