Conclusion: Thoughts are neither matter nor energy.

In other words, thoughts are nonphysical.

Question: Is mind also nonphysical? — TheMadFool

Um ... wtf.

:nerd:

Basically, thinking is autonomic processing of environmental and bodily sensory inputs reflexively looped through memory correlations. "Thoughts", thereby, are referential (intentional?) narrative-like abstractions from – interpretive confabulations of – thinking; in other words, they are reflexive sub-vocalizations of which we are more often than not completely unaware (like e.g. breaths or stools) that tend to facilitate adaptively coordinating behaviors with perceptions.

So to the point: "thoughts" seem to be series / traces of irreducible electrochemical events occurring in network-like clusters (akin to static discharge bursts) frequently throughout structural pathways of the mammalian cortex (affective bottom-up, fast system 1) and by comparison only occasionally throughout structural pathways of the human neocortex (semiotic top-down, slow system 2). — 180 Proof

I'll take some time to process that!

Basically, thinking is autonomic processing of environmental and bodily sensory inputs reflexively looped through memory correlations. "Thoughts", thereby, are referential (intentional?) narrative-like abstractions from – interpretive confabulations of – thinking; in other words, they are reflexive sub-vocalizations of which we are more often than not completely unaware (like e.g. breaths or stools) that tend to facilitate adaptively coordinating behaviors with perceptions.

So to the point: "thoughts" seem to be series / traces of irreducible electrochemical events occurring in network-like clusters (akin to static discharge bursts) frequently throughout structural pathways of the mammalian cortex (affective bottom-up, fast system 1) and by comparison only occasionally throughout structural pathways of the human neocortex (semiotic top-down, slow system 2). — 180 Proof

I think I get it now! At best this is a fairly good attempt at descrbing the process of thinking but it contains absolutely zero information about what thinking is, what thoughts are. I can describe the process of urine formation in kidneys but that doesn't necessarily mean I understood what pee is, right? :chin:

At best this is a fairly good attempt at descrbing the process of thinking but it contains absolutely zero information about what thinking is, what thoughts are. — TheMadFool

Apparently, you didn't take enough time to process what I clearly wrote ...

Basically, thinking is autonomic processing of environmental and bodily sensory inputs reflexively looped through memory correlations. "Thoughts", thereby, are referential (intentional?) narrative-like abstractions from – interpretive confabulations of – thinking; in other words, they are reflexive sub-vocalizations of which we are more often than not completely unaware (like e.g. breaths or stools) that tend to facilitate adaptively coordinating behaviors with perceptions. — 180 Proof

My brain neither gains mass nor increases in volume. Ergo, my thought about Aphrodite isn't matter! — TheMadFool

Ahem. When you think of Aphrodite, it's not your brain that gains mass.

Couldn't resist.

Ahem. When you think of Aphrodite, it's not your brain that gains mass.

Couldn't resist. — fishfry

:rofl: I'm experiencing a moment of Zen here. Give me a second. What should've happened didn't happen! :chin:

Apparently, you didn't take enough time to process what I clearly wrote ... — 180 Proof

I agree, I couldn't parse it well. However, if there's any truth in what I said, you're changing the subject, deliberately or unwittingly dragging that rotting red herring across the scent trail. I'm interested in the relationship between matter, energy and thoughts/mind. Stick to the script, 180 Proof. Your improvisational skills are legendary of course.

Parse some more, Fool, the "relationship" is explicitly stated :

So to the point: "thoughts" seem to be series / traces of irreducible electrochemical events occurring in network-like clusters (akin to static discharge bursts) frequently throughout structural pathways of the mammalian cortex (affective bottom-up, fast system 1) and by comparison only occasionally throughout structural pathways of the human neocortex (semiotic top-down, slow system 2). — 180 Proof

Alzheimer's, for instance, consists, in part, in plaque deposits in the brain that inhibit thinking as well as memory and which can only happen if thoughts-memories are physical systems that physically process thinking & memorizing.

Agree that thoughts are not physical.

"thoughts" seem to be series / traces of irreducible electrochemical events occurring in network-like clusters (akin to static discharge bursts) frequently throughout structural pathways of the mammalian cortex (affective bottom-up, fast system 1) and by comparison only occasionally throughout structural pathways of the human neocortex (semiotic top-down, slow system — 180 Proof

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon are clearly devoid of inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot possibly be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot be identified with brain processes. — Feser

Furthemore, if this post causes anxiety, then that will have metabolic i.e. physical consequences, in terms of blood pressure etc. But the proximate cause of those changes is not physical, it's purely because of a perceived conflict or disagreement.

Parse some more, Fool, the "relationship" is explicitly stated :

So to the point: "thoughts" seem to be series / traces of irreducible electrochemical events occurring in network-like clusters (akin to static discharge bursts) frequently throughout structural pathways of the mammalian cortex (affective bottom-up, fast system 1) and by comparison only occasionally throughout structural pathways of the human neocortex (semiotic top-down, slow system 2).
— 180 Proof

Alzheimer's, for instance, consists, in part, in plaque deposits in the brain that inhibit thinking as well as memory andwhich can only happen if thoughts-memories are physical systems that physically process thinking & memorizing. — 180 Proof

Please take a close look at the underlined bit above viz. "...[irreducible] electrochemical events..." Surely, if what I know about science is true, the "...electrochemical events..." must be expressible in terms of matter and energy but as I've demonstrated, as best as I could, thoughts are neither matter nor energy.

Alzheimer's, for instance, consists, in part, in plaque deposits in the brain that inhibit thinking as well as memory andwhich can only happen if thoughts-memories are physical systems that physically process thinking & memorizing. — 180 Proof

Good one! :up:

What do you think of this:

On Consciousness

What the meaning to this play we’re befit,
From dirt to dust within the script that’s writ?
The wise in search have thrown themselves to waste;
Experience alone is the benefit.

Physics describes but the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself,
As the intrinsic, compositional,
Informational, whole, and exclusive—

As the distinctions toward survival, 
Though causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.

The posterior cortex holds correlates,
For this is the only brain region that
Can’t be removed for one to still retain
Consciousness, it having feedback in it;

Thusly, it forms an irreducible Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
A process fundamental in nature,
Or’s the brain’s private symbolic language.

The Whole can also be well spoken of 
To communicate with others, as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For nonconscious parts know not what’s being made.

Alzheimer's, for instance, consists, in part, in plaque deposits in the brain that inhibit thinking as well as memory andwhich can only happen if thoughts-memories are physical systems that physically process thinking & memorizing. — 180 Proof

Missed that part. Good point! Physical changes can affect the mind, to be precise its functions. There seems to be a correlation between brain plaques and thinking cum memory. In short there are physical correlates to mind function.

However, is this a watertight case for physicalism? No loopholes, no ifs, and, and buts? Somehow the answer that I think of is "no".

At any rate, it seems to be inconsistent with my interpretation, I employed the best science I could muster.

Which would take precedence I wonder? My argument or yours?

Mine is deductive so far as I can tell, yours is inductive.

Dude. You quote me but clearly you don't read what I write for comprehension, only to score points in your head it seems. From now on I won't repeat myself since that doesn't clarify my meanings for you.

Okay, with that out of the way, account for Alzheimer's adverse affects on "nonphysical thoughts". :brow:

Dude. You quote me but clearly you don't read what I write for comprehension, only to score points in your head it seems. From now on I won't repeat myself since that doesn't clarify my meanings for you. — 180 Proof

All I can say is, it isn't deliberate.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Halon

aka Hanlon's Razor

Okay, with that out of the way, account for Alzheimer's adverse affects on "nonphysical thoughts". :brow: — 180 Proof

Truth be told, Alzheimer's or any other organic brain disorder and their correlation with altered brain function is not a 100%. Not all brains with plaques develop Alzheimer's and not all those who have Alzheimer's have brain plauqes. I'm afraid the ball is still in your court!

However, is this a watertight case for physicalism? No loopholes, no ifs, and, and buts? Somehow the answer that I think of is "no". — TheMadFool

First, physicalism is a methodology and not a scientific theory (explanation). Second, it's demonstrably more useful than any non/anti-physicalist alternative. Third, apparently you don't understand physicalism well enough not to pose such a nonsensical question.

Also, I gave 'a conceptual description of thoughts' and not 'an argument for or against thoughts', so your characterization of "inductive" is a non sequitur. Are you stoned? drunk? off your prescribed meds, Fool? Something physical distorting your "non-physical
mind"? :sweat:

What? :lol:

Some untangling is due here.

If I have a sorted series of red and blue boxes, RRRBBRBRRB for example, is the series physical? As in is the pattern itself, the structure physical? I frankly don't care about the answer to that question because it's definitional. But since you want to define whether or not something is physical by whether or not it possesses mass and volume, then for you probably the pattern is not physical (since the pattern does not possess mass).

For the record, since the pattern is a pattern of physical stuff (boxes) I would call the pattern itself physical, which is maybe why a lot of people on the site think I'm disagreeing with them when I'm not. Maybe my use of physical is weird. Anyways.

I would say this structure is mind. Mind is a structure of matter, specifically brains. Now, here is where you need to be careful not to separate the structure as a separate sort of thing. That's what dualists do. They think "Ah, here is something that doesn't have mass, namely mind! So there must be 2 sorts of things!" but there is no need for that. It's not that there is a something that doesn't have mass, it's just that there is a pattern, and we call that pattern mind.

Because when you make it so that there is something that doesn't have mass that does all the thinking at best you're going to end up with epiphenomenalism, or at worst you're going to try to go against the science (conservation of energy, momentum), and no one likes that. Though there is a way out for dualists, that is shoving the role of mind into QM. As in, although this is true:

I can't seem to do any work with my thought about Aphrodite. I mean my thought about Aphrodite can't seem to deflect even a single air molecule off its path let alone do anything else physical. — TheMadFool

What the thought of Aphrodite does is that it somehow resolves the Quantum Wavefunction in your brain in such a way that the neural correlates of "thoughts about aphrodite" happen (such as an increase in volume. Not in your brain though). That way you can keep your non material mind and have it be doing something without violating the laws of physics. Take this to the extreme and you get panpsychism or whatever Donald Hoffman is doing.

That or you can just hold that a mind is a pattern of matter and that way you get all the same stuff you would get with the dualist/panpsychist route but with a simpler explanation and no need for QM wizardry. Also there is debate over whether this role of mind would be significant at all. QM has very little impact on big objects. So if you claim that mind is an immaterial thing which has the job of resolving wavefunctions in the brain, you might end up with a mind that can't do anything impactful. Frankly, I have no clue how big a role QM plays in the human brain, all I know is there is debate about it.

First, physicalism is a methodology and not a scientific theory (explanation). — 180 Proof

[quote=www.rit.edu]So the physicalist view is that we can reduce any mental state so that it is completely described as events in neurons that are made up entirely of matter and energy.[/quote]

:chin:

Second, it's demonstrably more useful than any non/anti-physicalist alternative. — 180 Proof

Noble, nevertheless a lie

Third, apparently you don't understand physicalism well enough not a pose such a nonsensical question. — 180 Proof

Like I said,

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Halon

However, you've not said anything with regard to the deductive nature of my argument (OP) and the fact that Alzheimer's disease is based on induction.

Also, I gave 'a conceptual description of thoughts' and not 'an argument for or against thoughts', so your characterization of "inductive" is a non sequitur. Are you stoned? drunk? off your prescribed meds, Fool? Something physical distorting your "non-physical
mind"? :sweat: — 180 Proof

:rofl: Possible, very possible but probably not.

Why is it a non sequitur? You brought up Alzheimer's as evidence for physicalism and I, with full warrant, pointed to the fact that the correlation between brain plaques and mind functions is not a 100% i.e. some with Alzheimer's don't have brain plaques and some with brain plaques don't have Alzheimer's. Anyone claiming causation between brain plauqes and mind function must, logically speaking, have an explanation for these exceptions in terms of physical correlates if physicalism is true. None exist!

A better option for you would've been to look at the correlation between complete traumatic brain injury (gunshots, vehicular/industrial accidents, etc.) and mind function. In this case the correlation is 100% - complete traumatic brain injury is always associated with loss of mind function.

However, total loss of mind function caused by complete traumatic brain injury doesn't seem to square with the fact that while the brain is functioning normally, as described in the OP, the mind seems to be neither matter (no increase in brain mass/volume, mass/volume of a thought =0) nor energy (E = 0 × c², since m = 0). Also, a thought can't do physical work, you can't, for example, lift a paper clip by thinking.

Furthemore, if this post causes anxiety, then that will have metabolic i.e. physical consequences, in terms of blood pressure etc. But the proximate cause of those changes is not physical, it's purely because of a perceived conflict or disagreement. — Wayfarer

You need to separate your variables. In this case there was a visual input and supposedly some perceived conflict. If you want to claim that the metabolic effect took place because of the perceived conflict, and not because of any visual or auditory input, you'd have to find a case where a metabolic effect takes place due to "perceived conflict" alone without any accompanying physical inputs. Otherwise one can easily make the claim that it is the physical input causing the metabolic effect. Good luck with that one!

:snicker:

Because when you make it so that there is something that doesn't have mass that does all the thinking at best you're going to end up with epiphenomenalism, or at worst you're going to try to go against the science (conservation of energy, momentum), and no one likes that. — khaled

I'm not trying to please anybody although, I would wanna "tread softly" because "you (I) tread on my (other's) dreams".

Frankly, I have no clue how big a role QM plays in the human brain — khaled

:ok:

:snicker: :rofl:

If you want to claim that the metabolic effect took place because of the perceived conflict, and not because of any visual or auditory input, you'd have to find a case where a metabolic effect takes place due to "perceived conflict" alone without any accompanying physical inputs. — khaled

Anything that is read by a human is obviously a matter of interpretation. If I write something that annoys you or alarms you, and your blood pressure and heart-rate go up, that effect is wholly and solely reliant on your interpretation of what I wrote, unlike if I injected you with a drug, or physically hit you, which would obviously be physical.

No disagreement there. "Interpretation" is a purely neurological process after all!

It might be neurological, but it isn't physical, because it relies on interpretation. Even to understand what is physical relies on interpretation. That is why the physical can never be fundamental.

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon are clearly devoid of inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot possibly be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot be identified with brain processes. — Feser

It might be neurological, but it isn't physical — Wayfarer

Uh...huh...

Anyways we already did this on my thread and got nowhere. Maybe try again in like a week or something but not 2 days later. Cheers!

But I will add, I think we're more agreed than disagreed, we just use different words for the same stuff. I would never say "It's neurological but not physical" for one.

There's no bridge between the laws of physics and those of logic. They function independently of one another.

@Wayfarer

Brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, the motion of water molecules, electrical current, and any other physical phenomenon are clearly devoid of inherent meaning. By themselves they are simply meaningless patterns of electrochemical activity. Yet our thoughts do have inherent meaning – that’s how they are able to impart it to otherwise meaningless ink marks, sound waves, etc. In that case, though, it seems that our thoughts cannot possibly be identified with any physical processes in the brain. In short: Thoughts and the like possess inherent meaning or intentionality; brain processes, like ink marks, sound waves, and the like, are utterly devoid of any inherent meaning or intentionality; so thoughts and the like cannot be identified with brain processes. — Feser

This is a critical point and coming from a scholar in Buddhism, makes that much more significant. Meaning, as I understand it, is apart frome a sign-referent schema, the usual, also includes coherence aka that which can be made sense of.

Do recall our previous discussions on the so-called Mu (Negative) and Mushin (the mind without mind)? These are mind states attained when we're asked to, let's just say, parse the irrational/meaningless in whatever form or shape.

I've had a lot of experience with the Mu mind state but they were of a quality that left much to be desired. Can't complain though, it was the best available in the market in a manner of speaking.

So, in a way, meaning ain't what's important. Au contraire, the key to realizing what the mind really is, in Buddhist terms, is the meaningless (koans) but, my hunch is, it'll eventually circle back to meaning at some point.

Another idea, again of Japanese origin, is Shoshin (Beginner's mind) described as the trio of,

1. Openness
2. Eagerness
3. Free of preconceptions

A Zen master might, in order to instill shoshin in faer students, ask them to meditate on a koan (essentially meaningless/irrational from a conventionally logical point of view), the objective being to break decades of well-practiced but stymying thinking habits that students find impossible to see past until they encounter Mu.

Insofar as this post is concerned, Zen in particular & Buddhism in general attacks physicalism by inverting the problem as it were. A Mu state is basically the brain on but the mind off - something impossible if the mind were physical, right? A physicalist can't have the cake and eat it too - physicalism "explains" both brain on & mind on (normal consciousness) on AND ALSO brain on & mind off (Mu).

A Mu state is basically the brain on but the mind off - something impossible if the mind were physical, right? — TheMadFool

Guess physicalists can't explain sleep either :roll:

Physicalism is the idea that the meaning of language is grounded in third person testimony and the results of unperformed experiments, i.e. counterfactuals. For if the meaning of language was considered to be grounded in first-person observations and the results of actually performed experiments, then the words "mass", "electromagnetic force", "neuron" and so on would reduce in a literal sense to the lived experience of the first-person, making physicalism ontologically reducible to mentalism.