As Neil deGrasse Tyson says nature "is under no obligation to make sense to you" or Steven Weinberg says "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." In other words, mate, that you find certain scientific results "difficult" to accept is completely irrevelant to their truth-value and, without compelling reasons for rejecting them, it's arbitrary, even childish, to do so.

As for Fritjof Capra, tell me what actual science he has made contributions to and which scientists cite any of his peer-reviewed publications (and not his pop-sci bestsellers). I'd stopped reading Capra at The Turning Point while doing physics coursework as an engineering undergrad (the very talky movie "Mindwalk" based on that book was quite good, I admit); I found early on he'd had neither "discovered" systems thinking nor "clarified" it for me (or any serious scientist or thinker back then or since), plus the parallels he draws between ancient mysticism or "perennial philosophies" and contemporary sciences are simply specious, even to my naivete when I was heavily into my own non-academic studies of comparative religion / philosophy.

I'm old enough to remember the late 70s (high school) / early 80s (college), Jack, how "New Age", or "new paradigm thinking" became a mind-mushing racket perfect for the head-up-your-arse conservativism of the Thatcher-Reagan era. I wish younger thinkers would study genuine evidence-based sciences before extrapolating pseudo-speculations from it that amount to little more self-confusing woo-of-the-gaps. Just think: anti-Cartesian, anti-dualistic thinking began in earnest as far back as Spinoza; systems thinking, in an empirical sense, as far back as Darwin-Wallace with biological evolution and Poincaré with precursors of chaos theory. Einstein's General Relativity is one of the most holistic theories ever produced. Capra's "work" IMO speaks only to the scientifically illiterate and/or woo-minded "new agers". The boring this-worldly fact is, mate, physical sciences are less reductive, less Cartesian-Newtonian, far less scientistic, than the fashionable p0m0 caricatures pimped off/on these fora (looking at you @Wayfarer :eyes:) suggest.

update:

This overview might be of interest to you on the subject what contemporary scientists actually philosophically assume and how contemporary sciences are actually practiced in contrast to how they're mischaracterized by pseudo-scentific woo-doctors & "shaman" so fashionable with "new age" shoppers & youtubers.

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-fifth-horseman-the-insights-of-victor-stenger-1935-2014/

Hmm, (just going to piece together my thoughts in the comment to build on a answer xD)

The way the brain processes thought:

A range of sensory inputs to the brain.
Our freewill which can be described as dynamic mental adaptation to current events.
Memories that sum up the history of sensory inputs on a fundamental level.

The piecing of sensory inputs together in some shape or form through freewill, but since our enviornment does not require us to actively survive it gives us the luxary of thought on other things that we will to think. . .

Common knowledge Biases that could be mistaken as assumptions:

Humans are not different to other living things in being able to observe reality only their senses.

Self reminders of word meanings:

Consciousness-
noun: consciousness; plural noun: consciousnesses

the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"

Nature-
noun: nature; plural noun: natures

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.
"the breathtaking beauty of nature"

In this regard every living thing with senses has a consciousness when viewed without a species bias.

Observation of reality is also observation of self by our senses or reflection of senses.

Q:

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

A1: Thought is a translation of senses of reality to the brain, because we are able to sense ourself that we are being in this reality, our very identity. Conciousness itself is a combination of our senses and free will with memories being a type of subconcious being able to recall it.

A2: The nature of conciousness is to act in response to reality through senses, This acting or responding to reality based on senses is freewill. (Since this answer itself is a thought, it itself answers your question. ;))

Note: The fact we are able to think about such random things is because we have a history to create and learn from, the evolutionary advantage of physical creation, while not having to actively fight for survival.(in some parts of the world)
You could say we are the ultimate day dreamers of creations.

My sentiments as well. Has there ever been an occassion, in the everyday course of your private rational machinations generally, you ever said to and for yourself alone, “I think.....”?

I’m guessing.....never. — Mww

Once I remember saying to myself "I tawt I taw a puddytat."

I am not in disagreement with science and do believe in the importance of evidence based research. However, what about the arts? I don't believe that science has the exclusive view of truth. I am aware that most of my studies were arts based and I do often wonder how differently I would think if I had followed a science pathway. Psychology is interesting in this respect, because it can be studied as an art or science. But, it does seem to me that whether we study ideas as science or as an art, the result is models and metaphorical representations. Of course, these are important, but most ideas we have are only approximations, and they will be refined upon and rebuilt at some time.

Do thoughts help to explain the nature of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

I often think of our stream of consciousness as quantum randomness, indeterminacy or contingency in nature. Meaning, the reality exposed by quantum measurement is determined in part by the questions/choices the experimenter puts to nature. Then those choices come back to us later, as part of random thoughts from having the resultant sense experiences. Kind of like recycled water coming from a natural stream.

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

We cannot escape the subjective experience.

As James told us: Consciousness, then, does not appear to itself chopped up in bits. Such words as 'chain' or 'train' do not describe it fitly as it presents itself in the first instance. It is nothing jointed; it flows. A 'river' or a 'stream' are the metaphors by which it is most naturally described. In talking of it hereafter let us call it the stream of thought, of consciousness, or of subjective life. (James 1890:239)

And in this subjective life of ours (a subjective truth) we have things like Qualia:

1. ineffable – they cannot be communicated, or apprehended by any means other than direct experience.
2.intrinsic – they are non-relational properties, which do not change depending on the experience's relation to other things.
3.private – all interpersonal comparisons of qualia are systematically impossible.
4.directly or immediately apprehensible by consciousness – to experience a quale is to know one experiences a quale, and to know all there is to know about that quale.

If qualia of this sort exist, then a normally sighted person who sees red would be unable to describe the experience of this perception in such a way that a listener who has never experienced color will be able to know everything there is to know about that experience. Though it is possible to make an analogy, such as "red looks hot", or to provide a description of the conditions under which the experience occurs, such as "it's the color you see when light of 700-nm wavelength is directed at you", supporters of this kind of qualia contend that such a description is incapable of providing a complete description of the experience

I am not sure that it makes sense to say that, 'Thoughts are matter'. This applies to individual thoughts especially. Let us say we take any individual philosophy idea, like, for example, the idea of freedom, it is a mental representation, and may be perceived by the brain or written about in many ways, on paper or spoken about but it is not a physical reality. Even ideas about physical reality, as for example the idea of a circle is separate from the physical circles in the real world. I believe that you are missing the metaphysical basis underlying thought. The empirical and metaphysical are both important in the way in which we construct and engage with thoughts.

Science is not about "truth" per se; it's about reasoning to the best, unfalsified, good explanations of phenomena. And "art", by the way, is studied by biologists, neurologists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, linguists, even mathematicians, etc, and, last time I checked, those are (still) sciences. Philosophers, IMO, ought to propose only speculations (i.e. interpretations and extrapolations) consistent with the best available scientific theories and data in so far as their inquiries are concerned with the meaning of, as it were, living significantly (as much as possible) in the real world with and among others.

I think that you are right to say that scientists incorporate art and, equally, the arts need to incorporate scientific evidence. It is probably a whole spectrum, especially with the social sciences falling in between the two. To focus on science or art alone would result in a lack of balance.

Freedom is an idea. We say that ideas are something that occur to people, usually through some obscure process in the brain.

I don't take anything away from freedom. Freedom is, whatever you think it means. But why isn't freedom physical? I'm not "reducing" the idea of freedom to the brain. I wouldn't even know what that would mean. All I'm saying is that a person lacking a brain cannot conceive of freedom, or anything else. We call parts of what the brain does "mental". An in fact, I think mental aspects of physical reality are the ones we are most acquainted with, because we have these ideas.

But I wouldn't say that the mental conflict with the physical. Why? The physical is just whatever there is.

Physical circles in the real world? I don't think these exist. We see representations of circles, but we never see a circle in the world. We construct them out of sense data. These form part of our innate capacities.

The only distinction I can make sense of for the moment is "mind independent" and "mind dependent". Mind independent things are what we hope our best science captures. Mind dependent things are everything else. But both are physical.

We simply don't know enough about physical stuff to claim that mental stuff cannot be physical, including thoughts. You'd have to tell me why physical stuff would repel or be incompatible with other kind of stuff. The reason I don't say everything is mental is because I don't think the world depends on me for its existence. I cannot exhaust the world by thinking about it. We don't know enough to do this.

For me the arts are autonomous (Bataille, I think, says "sovereign") and have no need of science. Morality, rather than art, is what needs to be coupled with science for a complementary, or socially holistic, balance. Many a scientist are accomplished musicians and painters, even poets, whose scientific work is focused on e.g. weapons of mass destruction or unsafe, though profitable, pharmaceuticals; not enough 'artistic scientists' are ethical enough to refrain from doing morally suspect R&D.

It is interesting to think about James' idea of the stream of consciousness in relation to the quantum world, and I must admit that I probably focus on how it relates to James Joyce's stream of consciousness in fiction. The two probably interconnect somewhere as well.

I had not really thought that much about qualia until I began reading a few threads on it on this site. However, I have always been aware the way our subjective experience are so variable, especially how when a group of people draw one object or person the portrayals are so variable. I think that even our own experiences vary too. In particular, I am aware that certain music seems to sound completely different at times, depending on my own state of mind.

I don't think that we can separate the mental and physical entirely. In the previous post I have been engaging in discussions about qualia, in terms of the objective and subjective. They are different ways of perceiving, or of constructing thought but they come together in thought. Within our own experiences we can look out to the external world and within our own previous memories, but the two come together in our thinking in some kind of synthesis.

In my previous post, I forgot to say that I have read some writing by Oliver Sacks, and his observations are extremely interesting, in showing the variations of thoughts and perceptions which people can experience.

I do realise that you probably see the arts as autonomous and perhaps, the best fiction writers and rock artists are engaging with thought in a shamanic way.

my own trip on acid, which I took twice — Jack Cummins

Lucky you! Someone at least knows how to have fun around here!

I went up to a mirror and I expected to see a grotesque monster staring at me. But, instead, I could see the walls and the radiator behind me, but I was not there at all — Jack Cummins

At certain angles, your reflection falls outside your field of vision. The same may apply to self-reflection, temet nosce in that you either get a distorted image or you fail to see your reflection at all. A pity.

dualism — Jack Cummins

I never understood dualism. At first glance, it looks so easy, the basic idea being to view the world in terms of things and their opposite counterparts, the most common illustration of this being that of a man (active) and a woman (passive). However, I'm still struggling to understand the notion of oppositeness. I can't for the life of me figure out what opposite means and by that I mean its logical meaning if that even makes sense to begin with.

Feelings projections. Part of them that humans can have awareness at least

As human rights we do project so much, especially onto other people's. I believe that if we realise that we are projecting and see what we are projecting as being related to us individually, we are likely to gain some increases self awareness.

The word opposites does indeed imply mirror images, but it is connected to binary thinking. Dividing the world into binaries is useful in some ways, and I believe that even the development of computing used this. But, the other possibility is thinking in continuums.

I have wondered at times whether the idea of the continuum is useful for thinking about the mind and body problem. Rather than splitting the mind and body as suggested by dualism, we may be able to think of a whole spectrum of subtle states in between body and mind, as we commonly call them.

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/the-fifth-horseman-the-insights-of-victor-stenger-1935-2014/ — 180 Proof

Luke Barnes critique of Stenger.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1112.4647\
https://mathscholar.org/2018/03/has-cosmic-fine-tuning-been-refuted/

Darwin-Wallace with biological evolution — 180 Proof

Wallace dissented from Darwin on the issue of Evolution Applied to Man

Those who admit my interpretation of the evidence now adduced--strictly scientific evidence in its appeal to facts which are clearly what ought not to be on the materialistic theory--will be able to accept the spiritual nature of man, as not in any way inconsistent with the theory of evolution, but as dependent on those fundamental laws and causes which furnish the very materials for evolution to work with. — Alfred Russel Wallace

Although, of course, this aspect of Wallace's thinking is easily dismissed as 'woo', whereas the hard-arsed scientific materialism of Darwin's Scottish Enlightenment peers as an example of 'real science', no doubt.

Besides, @180 Proof, my beef has never been with science, but with scientific materialism as a philosophy - the attempt to apply the methods of science to the problems of philosophy, and the belief that the laws of physics are the only natural laws. There are plenty of first-rate scientists who are not materialists and indeed materialism is falling out of favour in science generally. It’s practically gone in physics, the only holdouts are in old-school Darwinism, which is also a crumbling edifice. And amongst the secular intelligentsia.

I almost entirely agree with that statement. But isn't less confusing to just use the term "scientism"? Materialism is also used in Marxist thought or in the ordinary usage of "buying many things."

Scientism doesn't have those problems.

I guess, but it’s a term I use sparingly.

Would you consider yourself a metaphysical monist?

Some other day I'd like to discuss the materialism I associate with, with your idealism. It may come down to semantics at bottom, but if there is some substance it could be beneficial for me.

Mabe in some other thread, to not derail this one. :)

The 'autonomy of art', if I'm not mistaken, is the raison d'être of the whole of modernist art.

... scientific materialism as a philosophy - the attempt to apply the methods of science to the problems of philosophy, and the belief that the laws of physics are the only natural laws. — Wayfarer

Well then, my friend, you're still shadowboxing with that old strawman because, typical of most idealists (anti-realists, mysterians), you incorrigibly fail to acknowledge the distinction of methodological (epistemic, or scientific) materialism and philosophical (ontic or speculative) materialism. The latter is never at issue in science.

So, "scientific materialism" does not address "the problems of philosophy" (whatever the hell those may be) but concerns itself with methodologically eliminating immaterial qualities (e.g. qualia) from materal quantifications (i.e. measurable data) in the formation of conjectures, then scientific models. And "physical laws", as Victor Stenger repeatedly points out, only refer to the structural invariants of scientific models for tracking physical regularities in nature and are not applied to nature itself as "the only natural laws". Those scientists or philosophers who talk that scientistic talk are merelly doing bad philosophy and, in my mind, do not represent the best contemporary scientific practices.

Anyway, señor, you go right on tilting at Woo-mills. :sparkle:

Would you consider yourself a metaphysical monist? — Manuel

My view has been influenced by non-dualism, but it's a rather difficult principle to elucidate.

"the problems of philosophy" (whatever the hell those may be) — 180 Proof

Speaks volumes.

you incorrigibly fail to acknowledge the distinction of methodological (epistemic, or scientific) materialism and philosophical (ontic or speculative) materialism. The latter is never at issue in science. — 180 Proof

I recognize 'methodological naturalism' as a valid working principle of science, i.e. not to assume factors that can't be accounted for naturalistically. Where it becomes problematical is when it morphs into philosophical naturalism, which it so easily does.

If you think that Frithjof Capra was a hack, so too was Victor Stenger.

If you think that Frithjof Capra was a hack, so too was Victor Stenger. — Wayfarer

:lol:

Well, since you clearly lack an adequate conception of contemporary scientific theories & practices and, for that matter the philosophy of science, Hitchen's Razor aptly applies to this latest non sequitur.

. Thoughts are your guests ...

. You are the host ...

. Thoughts are your servants ...

. You are the master ...

. But ... apparently ... for people .... it seems exactly the opposite ... isn't it?

. So ... "Do thoughts help to explain the nature of consciousness?" (That's your question ... )

. No ... exactly the opposite ... Thoughts help your ignorance to know about your consciousness ... You think that you know by thinking ... that's a paradox friend ...

. You cannot know anything clearly ... by thinking ... you can do ... by understanding ... you cannot have any preconceived ideas when you face that which is the unkown for you ... otherwise you will miss it ... right? ... For example ... you cannot understand your friend clearly while listening to him ... if the day before he did insult you ... and you carry on this stupid insult with you ... Your inner rageful thoughts ... won't allow understanding being born in you ... even if he is a completely new being while talking to you ... even if he did repent and he just would like to apologize you ... you will just listen to that thoughts ... you will not even allow him to apologize you ... because you cannot see the obvious fact that he is not the person he was yesterday ... do you understand ... Thoughts are always the past memories ... never the new ...

. So ... yes ... understanding is not a corollary of thinking ... but of listening your inner voice ... Thoughts cannot give you understanding ... it can just make your intellect sharper ... nothing else ... It can make one more and more cunning ... more and more unnatural ... more and more far away from his home ... Thoughts are like clouds ... obstructing the sun daylight ...

. They have made a lodging house of your mind. It is wrong to think of them as yours; and this same mistake comes in the way of getting rid of them. If you identify as yours, you stand in the way of their exit.

. And the thoughts which are your temporary guests become permanent lodgers. By looking at thoughts impersonally, you sever connection with them. Whenever a thought or desire is born in you, watch its birth ... see it grow before the mind’s eye ... and then observe its decline ... and the final departure.

Another hack :-) As I say, there are many scientists with profound philosophical acumen but I don’t rate Hitchens for any kind of philosophical acuity.

Science is not about "truth" per se; it's about reasoning to the best, unfalsified, good explanations of phenomena. And "art", by the way, is studied by biologists, neurologists, psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, linguists, even mathematicians, etc, and, last time I checked, those are (still) sciences. Philosophers, IMO, ought to propose only speculations (i.e. interpretations and extrapolations) consistent with the best available scientific theories and data in so far as their inquiries are concerned with the meaning of, as it were, living significantly (as much as possible) in the real world with and among others. — 180 Proof

:100:

I don’t rate Hitchens for any kind of philosophical acuity. — Wayfarer

He would probably agree. He was a barnstorming polemicist. But he did have the occasional insight.

:up:

Non sequitur. Hitchens was not a scientist but a journalist who had studied philosophy at Oxford (tutored by Anthony Kenny). Again, Wayf, given your own intellectual proclivities, assessing others as "hacks" indicates to me you're merely projecting onto those with whom you disagree especially when they confidently dismiss your woo.