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:

I just ate a salad. — Patterner

You were the one that used the word, "isolation" and I was simply trying to get at your meaning of your use of it.

I don't know - that whole block of text might be considered one thought and you only divide it up depending on what your present goal is. If I were more interested to know where you got the salad then that would be the part that would be relevant to me, and it is my goal that isolates a cause from its effects - as if the world is an analog signal and our brain converts it to a digital signal that allows goal-directed behavior (in QM this would be like picking out the particle from the probability wave distribution).

That wasn't well-phrased by me. If "a thought" causes another "thought" (countable: one thought, two thoughts...) and it's all "thought" an ongoing process, then we need to divvy up the stream of thought into distinct pieces each of which is "a thought".

Since I came into this thread saying that "sentences" aren't clear expressions of thoughts and thus "I wonder how Ann is doing," isn't a 1:1 expression of thought, it's up to me to say what a thought is and how it's related to its sentence. I tried in this thread, but... it's hard. — Dawnstorm

Look a little deeper and you might find that the boundaries of any thought or process are determined by the present goal in the mind. The boundaries are what make some thought relevant and all the rest irrelevant to the goal, but that does not mean that those other thoughts or processes would not be relevant to some other goal if you had it.

Why do I think this? Am I right? How would I tell the difference? (I actually second-guess myself like that all the time.) — Dawnstorm

The point is that you have a reason to second-guess yourself, and I'd be willing to bet its the same reason I do the same, that we have been wrong in the past. Don't worry. This is healthy behavior, unlike many others on this forum that think they know everything and that it is their feelings, or some authority, that determines truth rather than logic.

You have to already have learned what the relationship is. Your recognition that 5+7 and 12 mean the same thing is an effect of your prior experiences. If you had never seen those scribbles before your thoughts about them would be different.
— Harry Hindu

Obviously. I'm not sure what to make of this whole paragraph. We're talking past each other. — Dawnstorm

Then maybe you should lay out how you came to know what the following scribbles mean: "5+7=" Why would you every return the scribble, "12" when there is nothing inherent in the scribbles themselves as to what they mean or why there is even a relationship between 5+7 and 12.

Think of an alien arriving on Earth after humans have gone extinct and they see a marble tablet with the scribbles, 5+7 = 12. What about the scribbles would allow the alien to know what they mean? Wouldn't they need to get more information (something like a Rosetta Stone) to determine its meaning? In other words, you had to have learned what the relationship of the scribbles 5+7 were to be able to consistently return 12 as an answer. You must be following some rule. Where and how did you obtain this rule?

You were the one that used the word, "isolation" and I was simply trying to get at your meaning of your use of it. — Harry Hindu

I lost track. Dawnstar first used it. I just don't see the difficulty. We can break things up however we want. My father ordering a chef salad in a restaurant is obvious a different thought than my wife's boss's desire to get her to eat at their monthly meetings. We can focus on, as you said, whatever interests us.

My father ordering a chef salad in a restaurant is obvious a different thought than my wife's boss's desire to get her to eat at their monthly meetings. We can focus on, as you said, whatever interests us. — Patterner

Well, now you're talking about different minds, not thoughts in the same mind. So yes, I would consider thoughts in different heads different thoughts, but this could just be an outcome of my goal to treat each person as an individual. Are we all separate individuals, or are we only individuals and part of a group when it suits some goal?

I'm not following. In whose mind are my father ordering a chef salad in a restaurant and my wife's boss's desire to get her to eat at their monthly meetings not easily identifiable as different thoughts?

I'm not following. In whose mind are my father ordering a chef salad in a restaurant and my wife's boss's desire to get her to eat at their monthly meetings not easily identifiable as different thoughts? — Patterner

That is my point - that it is only in some mind that they are identifiable as different thoughts. The world independent of thoughts does not make any distinctions. It is just a wave of probability, according to some interpretations of QM. Think about our minds as stretching all causal relations into what we refer to as the medium of space-time.

I’m not suggesting that thoughts obey quantum mechanics necessarily, but that there’s an analogous structure: just as a quantum wavefunction represents a range of possible outcomes until measured, our experiential field contains a continuous flow of potential meanings or thoughts. It’s our focus, intention, or interpretive stance that ‘collapses’ that field into discrete thoughts or objects. The divisions are in the act of observation, not in the underlying reality.

That is my point - that it is only in some mind that they are identifiable as different thoughts. — Harry Hindu

Certainly. It is only in minds that thoughts exist at all. There is no other place they can be differentiated or isolated.

Yes, this is practically all stuff I took for granted when making my posts. I have no issues with anything you said in this post. Each and every post I made should be based on this. So what went wrong? Why are you trying to lead me to things I think are basic? Where's the misunderstanding? What's the problem? I don't know how to reply. I'm confused.

(I don't remember the details of when and where I learned about "5+7=12"; likely in or shortly before elementary school?)

Just looking at this again.

My father ordering a chef salad in a restaurant is obvious a different thought than my wife's boss's desire to get her to eat at their monthly meetings. We can focus on, as you said, whatever interests us.
— Patterner
Well, now you're talking about different minds, not thoughts in the same mind. — Harry Hindu

They are thoughts in the same mind. My mind. I was thinking of the chef salad I was eating; which lead to how I acquired the salad; which led to my wife's boss; and all the thoughts of chef salad brought up thoughts of my father's love of them. Those were all my thoughts; my mind.

So what went wrong? Why are you trying to lead me to things I think are basic? Where's the misunderstanding? What's the problem? I don't know how to reply. I'm confused. — Dawnstorm

Philosophy tends to do that - leading you to question things you took for granted only to find out the reason you take it for granted is because the issue was already solved long ago and you "taking it for granted" is you having relegated the process to unconscious thinking, and later in life you participate in runaway philosophical skepticism to bring it back to conscious processing - Why do I believe 5+7 = 12?. What proof is there that 5+7 is 12? You end up discovering that these are actually silly questions precisely because you are trying to solve a problem that was already solved in your grade-school years.

Are there ideas that we hold, or take for granted, that should be questioned? Sure, but not every idea.

They are thoughts in the same mind. My mind. I was thinking of the chef salad I was eating; which lead to how I acquired the salad; which led to my wife's boss; and all the thoughts of chef salad brought up thoughts of my father's love of them. Those were all my thoughts; my mind. — Patterner

Yes, but still divided up in your mind depending on your present intention (goal in the mind). As I said before, "It’s our focus, intention, or interpretive stance that ‘collapses’ that field into discrete thoughts or objects." So it isn't just our thoughts that we divvy up - it is the entire world including the people within it.

Philosophy tends to do that - leading you to question things you took for granted only to find out the reason you take it for granted is because the issue was already solved long ago and you "taking it for granted" is you having relegated the process to unconscious thinking, and later in life you participate in runaway philosophical skepticism to bring it back to conscious processing - Why do I believe 5+7 = 12?. What proof is there that 5+7 is 12? You end up discovering that these are actually silly questions precisely because you are trying to solve a problem that was already solved in your grade-school years.

Are there ideas that we hold, or take for granted, that should be questioned? Sure, but not every idea. — Harry Hindu

Do you think I was questioning that 5+7 is 12 in this thread?

Yes, but still divided up in your mind depending on your present intention (goal in the mind). As I said before, "It’s our focus, intention, or interpretive stance that ‘collapses’ that field into discrete thoughts or objects." So it isn't just our thoughts that we divvy up - it is the entire world including the people within it. — Harry Hindu

If I'm following you, the reason for that is that we are incapable of perceiving everything that exists all at the same time, and incapable off perceiving events that have not yet taken place. We perceive what we are able to, when we are able to. So we perceive the entire world including the people in it divvied up, our thoughts are generated in that manner, and we can break them up in that same manner.

Oh! Here's a good one!

There once was a woman named Bree
Who went for a swim in the sea.
But a man in a punt
Stuck an oar in her eye
And now she's blind, you see

I wonder if anyone got a certain thought in their mind. A thought that has nothing to do with that limerick, but which I, nevertheless, intended you to think.

If it worked, was it because certain thoughts I put in your mind caused it?

Do you think I was questioning that 5+7 is 12 in this thread? — Dawnstorm

I don't know. It was a question, not a statement.

I said there is nothing inherent in the scribbles that explains why 12 would come after the = sign in this string of scribbles. Why write the scribble "12" after the "="? What makes that correct, and how did you come to know what scribbles comes after the "="?

It may seem like it is inherent but that is because you already learned it and relegated the process to unconscious parts of the brain.

This can be said about language in general as well. When you look at a language you don't understand it looks scribbles. When hearing a language you cannot speak, you can't even distinguish one word from another - its just noise.

When you learn the rules of the language sufficiently enough to use it consistently the scribbles become words and you can pick out the words when you hear the language spoken. The meaning appears to be inherent in the scribbles, but that is an illusion created by your brain as it creates shortcuts to how it thinks.

So in order for you to explain to me how you know that 5 + 7 is equal to 12, you have to go back to grade school in your mind and try to remember the process of learning what the scribbles mean. If you can't then just ask a teacher how they teach students through memorization and repetition.

If I'm following you, the reason for that is that we are incapable of perceiving everything that exists all at the same time, and incapable off perceiving events that have not yet taken place. We perceive what we are able to, when we are able to. So we perceive the entire world including the people in it divvied up, our thoughts are generated in that manner, and we can break them up in that same manner. — Patterner

We can't perceive the entire world. We only perceive our local environment and infer that the rest of the world/universe follows the same laws.

Oh! Here's a good one!

There once was a woman named Bree
Who went for a swim in the sea.
But a man in a punt
Stuck an oar in her eye
And now she's blind, you see

I wonder if anyone got a certain thought in their mind. A thought that has nothing to do with that limerick, but which I, nevertheless, intended you to think.

If it worked, was it because certain thoughts I put in your mind caused it? — Patterner

The thought I had upon reading it was, "what is your point"? I don't know if I would say that you put that thought in my mind. I'd rather say that you caused that thought in my mind, but so did I when I chose to read your post. You might say that the Philosophy Forum is also a cause as all these processes are necessary for me to have a thought about your post.

I don't know if I would say that you put that thought in my mind. I'd rather say that you caused that thought in my mind — Harry Hindu

I meant I put the thoughts of the woman swimming in the sea, getting hit in the eye by the oar of a guy in a punt in your mind. I did that by posting it where you would read it. In the event that you then found a certain other thought in your head, which is likely, it's not a coincidence. That's the intent of whoever wrote this limerick, and my intent in posting it here. It caused that certain other thought. The words are arranged in such a way that, without saying anything remotely like what many people think after reading it, they directed your thoughts in a specific way.

Well, yeah I did have a visual of what the limerick was representing, but then integrated that with the rest of what you said which led me to then think "what was the point?"

It's all causal where language acts as a causal stimulus that interacts with a receiver’s prior cognitive state. I'm trying to point out that our linguistic distinctions (“I said it,” “you thought it”) are heuristic segmentations of an ongoing causal web. We highlight some nodes (like “speaking” or “thinking”) for convenience, but they’re not ontologically distinct.

Is causation in communication primarily semantic (about meaning structures) or physical (about brain states and sensory processes)? Or is “putting a thought in someone’s mind” just a shorthand for a layered causal process that includes both?

So in order for you to explain to me how you know that 5 + 7 is equal to 12, you have to go back to grade school in your mind and try to remember the process of learning what the scribbles mean. If you can't then just ask a teacher how they teach students through memorization and repetition. — Harry Hindu

Even if I were to ask a teacher how they typically teach that wouldn't really help me remember. Might even encourage false memories. But is it necessary to go that far back? Simple addition is part of my daily life. I work among other things with cash. Any combination of X + Y where X and Y are below 10 come up daily. It's constantly being reinforced. I need number words only for the last operator. So if I've got a column adding 15 + 27 + 13, I'd look at 5 and 7 and think only 12 but not 5 and 7, presumably because they're visually present. Then it's 12 + 3 = 15, and 15 overrides 12, and then I write down 5, and think "1" because that carries over and then it's basically "2", "4", "5" and I write down "5" and then the result is 55. That's only if I've written it down in a column, though. If I were to read these numbers in a line, I'm less organised. For example, I just stared at what I've written, and noticed that 3 + 7 = 10, so adding 27 + 13 up to 40 comes first and then adding another 15, and I get 55, too, but because the process is more ad-hoc I tend to be less secure about the result and keep a "surveillance stream" open, which requires more concentration and leaves me more vulnerable to distraction. And I could be wrong about anything I just said, since when I'm doing addition I'm not running a self-observance stream, and when I'm running a self-observance stream that might influence (through preconceptions) what I actually do. The further back I go the less reliable what I come up with is going to be. Childhood? It's just gone.

Ask a teacher how they teach? What for?

“Can one J-thought cause another, and if so, is this by virtue of a World 2 relationship, a World 3 relationship, or some combination?” And lurking behind this question is another, broader one, which has also been raised repeatedly here: 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

Take this sequence of events (arbitratily conceptualised as single events on the fly, no thought at all given to detail-level): Event 1 = I drop a vase, Event 2 = it falls to the ground.

Event 1 is the cause of event 2. I cannot imagine a sequence in which event 2 causes event 1. (You'd need to go into semantics to make this work: you could, for example, interpret the vase being heavy as the initial step of falling; for our purposes, I'd consider this a stretch.)

Now, if your two events are: Even 1 = "I wonder how Ann is doing? I haven't seen her in a while." and Event 2 = "Oh, it's Ann's birthday soon," then we don't have the same relationship. The propositions we attach to the mental events are exchangable. Event 1 could have been event 2 and vice versa, and the chain of causation wouldn't change. Now there are discourse markers here: "Oh," suggests its a follow-up thought. But that's not part of the propositional content. Compare:

Event 1 = "Hm, isn't it Ann's birthday soon? I wonder what I should get her." Event 2 = "How's she doing anyway. Haven't seen her in a while."

Different discourse markers, but the same propositional contents. There's a flow that's relevant, but the sequencing is part of you moving through your real life.

If we then take a look at entailment, we see no connection between the events: thinking "It's Ann's Birthday soon," does in no way entail having thought "How is Ann doing?" first. Either of these can come first.

If I'm holding a vase, I need to let go for it to fall. If I was holding the vase, and it is now falling, that logically entails that I let go. (Well, in logical space. Somene might have sliced of both my hands at the wrist, so that I technically didn't let go and hands are falling together with the vase...) But I think you get the drift.

In terms of entailment, though, we can say that both thinking "How's Ann doing," and "It's Ann's birthday soon," entail the more general process of thinking of Ann. What we could then say is if either thought came first, the second has an easier time coming, too. This is the rough area I'd poke around for a cause, if this makes sense. But not while disregarding context.

Maybe I'm thinking "How's Ann doing," then I'm walking past a calendar (or some sort of public digital clock that displays the date), and taken together these two events lead to "Oh, it's Ann's birthday soon." Maybe walking past that calendar would have been suffictient to trigger "It's Ann's birthday," and then something latent in your stream of consciousness triggers "How's she doing?". Physical causation seems less context dependent (though it's context dependent, too: if I let go of a vase in space it drifts instead of falling).

Just rambling to clean the cobwebs in my head really.

Ask a teacher how they teach? What for? — Dawnstorm

So you're saying you were born with the knowledge that 5+7=12?

Maybe I should rephrase the question. How did you learn addition - what it was, why you needed on a daily basis? How did you learn what the scribbles refer to? 5 what? 7 what? 12 what? How did you know what the relationship between + and = are, or what they do or mean? If you were to go to school on an extraterrestrial planet wouldn't you need to know the symbols they use to represent quantities and mathematical expressions? Do you remember anything you learned in grade school?

Well, yeah I did have a visual of what the limerick was representing — Harry Hindu

I think it's interesting that very little of the visual that the limerick is representing is involved with the goal. But it still does the job. The nature of the first line, and the rhythm and rhyme of the first two make you think the fourth line will rhyme with the third. Combined with the only visual that really matters, an oar being stuck into something, and Bob's your uncle.

There must be a connection to certain trains of thought, otherwise we wouldn't be able to think or reason. How much of these thoughts are based on connective tissue of a previous thought as opposed to having thoughts floating in the imagination (to borrow Hume's framing) is impossible to delineate.

As for a cause- that may be different. Hitting a billiard ball causing another billiard ball to move is quite reliable, but to argue that, say, thinking about climate change leads to depression reliably, while true, is vastly more complex. There are many more variables as to what constitutes depression than the regularity in which a ball causes another ball to move.