A specific thought unsupported would not exist. — Mark Nyquist
↪Mark Nyquist Where's your argument for this? If you provide one, I bet it'll commit the fallacy I identified earlier - that is, you're going to argue like this: this brain state causes this mental state......therefore this brain state 'is' this mental state. — Bartricks
I stress, it isn't true and you have not supported it in anyway — Bartricks
I am a poor representative of whatever the Philosophy Forum might be.
The question is a problem for me. If I am asked to locate a process in one place or another, does that mean it is not happening in other places?
How would one go about checking if such was the case? — Valentinus
The application of a systemic approach lead Vygotsky to another very important conclusion: since psychological functions are organized in hierarchical systems, developmental processes become central for understanding the human mind. The crucial role of developmental processes in the system as a way to understand the system itself is a direct consequence of a principle of systemic organization: when a component becomes part of a system, both the properties of the new whole and the properties of the component change (Vygotsky, 1932/1960; Koffka, 1935; Kohler, 1947). Vygotsky argued that once new components enter the system, they affect the system in general and all other components of this system accordingly. For example, once a child masters language, its psychological functions become semiotically mediated and thus change their qualities, becoming higher psychological functions. This principle was essential for Vygotsky, who maintained that the structure of the mind cannot be understood by researching the mind of an adult. To know what a mind system is, we need to observe mind development in a child. It is not enough to observe only the final product of these processes. — Olga Basileva and Natalia Balyasnikova
Great! What, then, are they?I agree that 'thoughts' are "non-physical'. — Mark Nyquist
In the physical form that they exist, they are brain state. That's not a limitation. You just don't need a non-physical realm to explain them. — Mark Nyquist
You might be right about brain state causing mental state being fallacy. I was giving an overview, not cause and effect. My second attempt was that thought can only exist if supported by brains state. That's how I approach it — Mark Nyquist
Well, that was just gibberish. — Bartricks
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.