What are thoughts?

Jack Cummins

I was looking at an article, 'Thinking About Thinking' by Raymond Tallis in 'Philosophy Now' (April/ May 2021) in which he considers the nature of thought. He considers the way in which thoughts arise, especially in the mixture of images and words. He suggests that, 'Thinking about thinking gives us an excuse to visit the most famous moment in Western philosophy: Rene Descartes' cogito argument, "I think therefore I am." And so we come up against one of the puzzles...our ability to identify ourselves as the source of mental events.' Tallis says that we can trace the origins of our thinking and he makes reference to William James's ideas about the role of introspection.

Tallis points to the Ryle's analysis of the way in which 'philosophers have generally been reluctant to think of thoughts as ghostly goings on in the head'. He suggests that, 'Our capacity to think about thought is one of the family of enigmas arising out of the fundamental mystery: our ability to encompass ourselves_ as when we talk about "matter", or "human beings or the "self"; or try to get our heads round...the totality of things.'

I believe that the nature of thoughts raises fundamental questions about consciousness and the self. Neuroscientists can link thought to the brain, but I am not sure that this really gets to grips with the way we identify a sense of self through thoughts, or what James describes as the 'stream of consciousness' itself. This seems involve connections between life events, making us the authors of our own life narratives. So, I am asking what does thought tell us about the nature of personal identity and about the underlying source of consciousness? Do thoughts help to explain the nature of consciousness?

Manuel

↪Jack Cummins

I suppose we are aware to some degree that it "I" that is having thoughts, not thoughts arising out of no one. So I'd think we'd need to have a subject of experience which is distinct and not identical to the experience of having thoughts.

Trivially, it could be said that without conscious experience, we would have no thoughts. But I don't know what these thoughts say about consciousness, aside from the apparent fact that they are part if it.

Jack Cummins

↪Manuel

I suppose that a main part of my question is about the nature of the mysterious 'I' of which Descartes spoke. Ken Wilber spoke of this as the 'witness', and it is and it is at the interface between mind and body. I wonder to what extent the "I' is able to reflect upon it itself?

On a daily basis, we rely on the I and the incoming flow of thought, and I am interested in how this contributes to understanding, rather than a move which is taking place to simply look for answers within neuroscience, which probably began with behaviorism. I do believe that thoughts themselves can be a useful focus or perspective for philosophy. What are thoughts comprised of, or composed from, and can they be reduced to matter'?

Apollodorus

What are thoughts comprised of, or composed from, and can they be reduced to matter'? — Jack Cummins

I don't think thoughts can be reduced to matter. But they could be reduced to spirit.

We have (1) thoughts and (2) an awareness of thoughts. The subject which has the awareness of the thoughts and of itself is the spirit, "nous" or "pneuma" or what I would call "self-aware intelligent energy".

Thoughts, emotions and sense perceptions are functions of that spiritual self within us and are made of the same stuff, i.e., intelligent energy.

Jack Cummins

↪Apollodorus

It is interesting to think about thoughts in connection with the whole debate about matter, mind and spirit. I certainly would not have written my question in the thread on spirit because I believe that person is merely looking for a brief definition. However, that thread alongside the article which I looked at this morning got me thinking about the nature and role of thoughts.

I think that it is possible to reduce thoughts to spirit, and certainly that was probably how it was seen in some historical contexts, but that was probably in the context of dualism, or even idealism. I believe that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and, now, it has almost thrown spirit out of the picture entirely. It was interesting that some replies in the thread on spirit saw breath. Of course, we could ask what is breath, and it is probably the underlying source of life itself.

I do feel that many materialistic pictures of consciousness are so reductive that they appear to leave awareness out partially or entirely. As far as I can see there is a whole spectrum of ways of understanding consciousness with various degrees of emphasis on body, mind and spirit. It seems likely to me that the connection between the three are so interconnected and cannot be separated entirely, but at the same time, there are certain distinctions which can be made. I do practice mindfulness meditation in some ways, and it is on that basis that I feel able to wonder about thoughts. I know that they arise in the brain, within the body, but, on some level, I do believe that they are connected to some source which is not entirely the brain and nervous system.

SimpleUser

Or maybe thoughts are just the result of one subroutine being read by another subroutine? We call these procedures "consciousness" and "subconsciousness". And all together - this is just a processor for one large database.

Jack Cummins

↪SimpleUser

I am glad that you have raised the topic of the subconscious because I do feel that many discussions about consciousness don't go into enough focus on the subconscious. We are most aware of the subconscious in our experiences of dreams and the role of the 'I' consciousness here is interesting. Certainly, in my own dreams I am still consciously related to my own waking identity. But, it seems to me that we retain the same witness consciousness in most dreams, even if events of dreams are fragmented in unusual ways.

Manuel

I wonder to what extent the "I' is able to reflect upon it itself? — Jack Cummins

I suspect that this depends on how well we can articulate such a phenomenon of reflection. So perhaps you'd need some kind of phenomenology that may provide a framework on how to think about these things. Or maybe we can't say much about it, which wouldn't be surprising.

What are thoughts comprised of, or composed from, and can they be reduced to matter'? — Jack Cummins

Thoughts are matter. That is, they form part of the most immediate aspect of matter we can recognize to any degree, which is our experience and the thoughts we may have. This idea of "dead and passive" matter is a mistake, when we observe the world, we filter all the things out "there", including "dead matter", through the live process of matter we call experience.

But there's no reduction here, if it's all physical stuff. It can't be framed this way, I don't think.

At least, that's how I view it.

Apollodorus

I do feel that many materialistic pictures of consciousness are so reductive that they appear to leave awareness out partially or entirely. — Jack Cummins

Correct. I think part of the problem is that awareness is something that is difficult to grasp, let alone analyze in detail in a scientific context. The other is that science tends to take a materialist view of reality that excludes non-materialist views. Precisely because the materialist view is unable to pin down and investigate awareness, science ought to try and apply non-materialist approaches to the subject. However, to do so would mean to renounce its exclusive materialist assumptions which few scientists are prepared to do for fear of being ostracized by the scientific community.

Jack Cummins

↪Manuel

I am planning to read more on phenomenology because I do see this as a missing link, but not quite sure where to start exactly. I just see such divergent approaches to the nature of thoughts. In many ways, the various perspectives are only models, but, nevertheless, I do believe that there is a great bias within current philosophy to that of the neuroscientists, and it is almost overlooked how that in itself is only a model. It is from the outside looking in, with a possible claim to being objective. It all seems to me to be about angles of viewing. We have metaphysical systems which looked from the consideration of a divine order to perspectives of mind which are self organising. I am sure that they all contain elements of truth, and it all comes down to different starting points or frames of reference.

SimpleUser

I am glad that you have raised the topic of the subconscious because I do feel that many discussions about consciousness don't go into enough focus on the subconscious. We are most aware of the subconscious in our experiences of dreams and the role of the 'I' consciousness here is interesting. Certainly, in my own dreams I am still consciously related to my own waking identity. But, it seems to me that we retain the same witness consciousness in most dreams, even if events of dreams are fragmented in unusual ways. — Jack Cummins

I separate "consciousness" and "subconsciousness", if only because from time to time we see nightmares. And we are afraid of them. Most likely they are seen by "consciousness". And the "subconscious" shows. Otherwise, "consciousness" would not have been frightened. :) It turns out that there are two of them.
And we "think" only about what is in our "conscious world".
This is why I am assuming that our "thinking" is simply the "processor" of our large database. Which we have accumulated over our life path.

Manuel

↪Jack Cummins

Yes. I very much agree with that.

I especially agree with the neuroscience angle. There is very interesting work done in the field no doubt about that, but certain philosophers and scientist working in this area claim much more than is warranted from the evidence.

I don't think you can hope to explain mental processes if you leave out psychology and epistemology altogether. We speak and experience beautiful sunsets, horrific massacres, wonderful music and the like, not of the V4 cortex or the amygdala doing something which plays a part in our perception of the world.

These are just two different sets of phenomena, which are linked in a way we don't understand.

It is basically not wanting to deal with a massive portion of reality.

Jack Cummins

↪Manuel

I would certainly not wish to leave psychology out of the discussion, because I do believe that it has so much to offer. It also has a variety of perspectives. Also, I am certainly not opposed to neuroscience, but just feel that it is almost being seen as of such importance in questions of consciousness as if it probably has all the answers.

Jack Cummins

↪Manuel

I just wish to add that I do hope to be able to read to follow through any discussion with reading, but just waiting to see if the thread is even going to work at all, because it may be that it fizzles within less than a day. I do wish to make it work, and will try to do further reading when I can work out a picture of the way in which the thread may develop.

TheMadFool

Thoughts are, to my reckoning, reflections of reality on what is essentially an analog of a narcissist's favorite object, a mirror. The reflections either are hi-fi replicas of the original like that of the senses, especially the eyes, or are symbolic representations (language) of reality as we know it, the symbols themselves being products of thoughts, designed, I suppose, to make thinking, producing more thoughts, easier. A critical feature of human thought is that it's able to self-reflect i.e. it, unlike our eyes or a mirror alone, can see itself with itself - "Thinking about thinking" - which is akin to a mirror reflecting itself in itself.

Jack Cummins

↪SimpleUser

The area of the subconscious is a large one indeed because it does involve many interpretive viewpoints. I have come across psychology texts which see the subconscious as more of a processing of data and I think that it is possible that you see it in this way because you mentioned data and systems.

However, we do have to bear in mind that ideas about the subconscious also emerge within psychoanalytic thought. In particular, both Freud and Jung speak of it, and their approaches are extremely different from one another. I am aware that many may see the ideas of both these thinkers as being outdated and not evidence based to be worthy of serious debate. However, they do provide frameworks.I think that both writers would probably see nightmares as material which is repressed and surface.

One aspect which I am aware of is how I often notice that I begin having nightmares, or even hypopompic and hypnagogic experience when I am in stressful life situations and I know many other people who have found this too. This probably points to chemicals which are triggered by stress.

Also, I think that the systems approach of Fritjof Capra is very useful and that thoughts, including those which are consciousness and those emerging from the subconscious can be viewed as arising within us as living systems, and as parts of larger systems.

No One

↪Jack Cummins

Plato Says: "Thoughts are soul talking to itself"

No One

↪Jack Cummins

Jack Cummins do you think there are some goals in life that are in someway better for you than some other goals.
I created a thread few minutes ago .....
I would love to hear your opinion of it .....

Jack Cummins

↪No One

I think that it is a very helpful quote and I feel that my thoughts seem like they are from some underlying source, such as that of a soul. One aspect of this is the way in which thoughts seem to rush in, like stimuli from the brain and senses and it is as if one's highest consciousness has to shift and select from them, as the guiding force. I believe that Plato believed in the idea of a 'daimon' as being the higher aspect which is able to oversee the thinking process.

Jack Cummins

↪No One

I will have a look at your thread and try to put in a response in the next half hour.

T Clark

So, I am asking what does thought tell us about the nature of personal identity and about the underlying source of consciousness? Do thoughts help to explain the nature of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

"Thoughts" is the name we give to our inner experience when we have to put it into words to communicate with another person. Turns out when we do that, we also start communicating with ourselves, which is probably one of the definitions of consciousness or self-awareness we have recently discussed. To meet the requirements of language, we have to take something which is amorphous and non-linear and break it into defined pieces placed some sort of linear order.

No One

↪Jack Cummins

Jack why is that you don't agree with the Naturalistic notion to this question? .... I mean if there was soul before birth , then ultimately we should have thoughts back there too.

T Clark

I am glad that you have raised the topic of the subconscious because I do feel that many discussions about consciousness don't go into enough focus on the subconscious. — Jack Cummins

On the other hand, I don't think things going on in the subconscious or unconscious become thoughts until they rise into consciousness. Now, after our previous discussions, I'm realizing I have to be careful to use the right word. The definition of consciousness I'm using is "non-verbal sentience or awareness of internal and external existence." Oh, no! Then what does it become when I put it into words? I don't want to start that conversation over again.

Daemon

I feel that my thoughts seem like they are from some underlying source, such as that of a soul.

How would it feel if they weren't from some underlying source such as a "soul"?

Jack Cummins

↪No One

It is interesting to know at what point thoughts arise whether we adopt a naturalistic approach or otherwise. Part of it probably comes down to the role of language although images and sense impressions are probably important too. I am sure that people do have some sensory impressions. However, I imagine that reflection on thoughts in the development of memory plays an ongoing role.

I can definitely remember my own life in connection with the thoughts which I had about it. I am often surprised by the way many people don't seem to remember aspects of life, like their first day at school, and it is probably connected to it not having been internalised as a thought. A little while ago, I met a woman on a bus who I sat next to on my first day at school and I mentioned that to her and she was astounded by me telling her this. I can probably remember because I have always been someone who thinks a lot.

SimpleUser

The area of the subconscious is a large one indeed because it does involve many interpretive viewpoints. I have come across psychology texts which see the subconscious as more of a processing of data and I think that it is possible that you see it in this way because you mentioned data and systems.

However, we do have to bear in mind that ideas about the subconscious also emerge within psychoanalytic thought. In particular, both Freud and Jung speak of it, and their approaches are extremely different from one another. I am aware that many may see the ideas of both these thinkers as being outdated and not evidence based to be worthy of serious debate. However, they do provide frameworks.I think that both writers would probably see nightmares as material which is repressed and surface.

One aspect which I am aware of is how I often notice that I begin having nightmares, or even hypopompic and hypnagogic experience when I am in stressful life situations and I know many other people who have found this too. This probably points to chemicals which are triggered by stress.

Also, I think that the systems approach of Fritjof Capra is very useful and that thoughts, including those which are consciousness and those emerging from the subconscious can be viewed as arising within us as living systems, and as parts of larger systems. — Jack Cummins

Can you speak in your own words? Without Freud, Jung And Capra. In their time, there was no "big data", a computer, and even the "Chinese room" was just an inference. And now it is a reality.
You will notice that any thought you have may just be a fuzzy sample from a large database. Well, you (and I) have no new thoughts. Our "new thoughts" are just a "kaleidoscope" of our own old thoughts with data correction in accordance with new requests.
You simply cannot believe that your "thoughts" can simply be states of some kind of "state machine." Automatic machine. And which you consider unique and impossible to generate by a machine.
By the way, I can also be a machine, talking to a machine now.

Manuel

↪Jack Cummins

Fair enough :up:

Jack Cummins

↪SimpleUser

I am sorry if I appear to be referring to specific ideas of particular writers and this is just because they seem to have thought so much about the subconscious or systems. I see your point about a database and how we could be like databases. However, while the model of information may have some usefulness for considering our processing, but it is a picture based on our particular perspective, whereas people who lived in different historical eras may have thought in an animistic way, or in connection with the planets and stars as a basic construct for viewing and explaining the content of thoughts.

Manuel

The definition of consciousness I'm using is "non-verbal sentience or awareness of internal and external existence." Oh, no! Then what does it become when I put it into words? — T Clark

How dare you?

Blasphemy I say.

No One

↪Jack Cummins

:up: thoughtful.

No One

↪Manuel

make him drink Hemlock. :razz:

What are thoughts?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions