Um ... wtf.Conclusion: Thoughts areneither matter nor energy.
In other words, thoughts arenonphysical.
Question: Is mind alsononphysical? — TheMadFool
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
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
Apparently, you didn't take enough time to process what I clearly wrote ...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
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. — fishfry
Apparently, you didn't take enough time to process what I clearly wrote ... — 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.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
"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
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
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
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
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
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Halon
Okay, with that out of the way, account for Alzheimer's adverse affects on "nonphysical thoughts". :brow: — 180 Proof
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.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
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
First, physicalism is a methodology and not a scientific theory (explanation). — 180 Proof
Second, it's demonstrably more useful than any non/anti-physicalist alternative. — 180 Proof
Third, apparently you don't understand physicalism well enough not a pose such a nonsensical question. — 180 Proof
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. — Robert J. Halon
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
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
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
Frankly, I have no clue how big a role QM plays in the human brain — khaled
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
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
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
A Mu state is basically the brain on but the mind off - something impossible if the mind were physical, right? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.