All thought consists entirely of correlations drawn between directly and/or indirectly perceptible things. Memory is but a repeat of correlations previously drawn.
— creativesoul

Sure, this follows when dealing with "ordinary objects", what about between thoughts? How do we account for correlation here? — Manuel

Could you elaborate? Are you referring to the time period between thoughts?

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. What I wrote there was simply the most basic claim that I've been able to arrive at over the years that seems to be universally applicable; i.e., an adequate, albeit very basic, description of all thought, regardless of complexity.

I can give examples that more or less follow. Suppose that right now, I have in mind an idea I'd like to convey. I have a computer at my disposal, obviously a keyboard, and some ideas in my head as to what I'd like to say.

In this situation, in which I'm in front of an object, with a goal in mind, I can find a connection between the ideas of transmitting these thoughts, via a keyboard, being careful as to avoid a typo and so on. I see individual letters in my keyboard, which I can use to form words that convey an impression from my head into yours.

This can be accounted for by the circumstances I'm in now. The ideas of a computer, a keyboard, letters and what example to use can be pointed to concretely to account for the connection of my thoughts.

In another circumstance, say I'm walking around in my neighborhood listening to music, I can be thinking of, the war in Yemen in one instance, onto the favorite part of the song that is playing, then thinking about Hume, my dinner with my friends and what I should do tomorrow.

In this latter circumstance, it's less clear to me how to account for how the ideas I have when walking and thinking form a connection or follow. It could be totally random. I'm a bit skeptical on this conclusion, but it's possible.

In any case, I'm off to sleep.

If you're asking me about what 'connects' our thoughts to each other, I would only say that that seems to presuppose some need for something other than us to perform the 'task' of connecting all our thoughts. That's a dubious assumption. Aren't all our thoughts always already connected by virtue of being what they are; our own prior, current, and future correlations. We are the bridge between.

Sleep well.

I can give examples that more or less follow. Suppose that right now, I have in mind an idea I'd like to convey. I have a computer at my disposal, obviously a keyboard, and some ideas in my head as to what I'd like to say.

In this situation, in which I'm in front of an object, with a goal in mind, I can find a connection between the ideas of transmitting these thoughts, via a keyboard, being careful as to avoid a typo and so on. I see individual letters in my keyboard, which I can use to form words that convey an impression from my head into yours.

This can be accounted for by the circumstances I'm in now. The ideas of a computer, a keyboard, letters and what example to use can be pointed to concretely to account for the connection of my thoughts. — Manuel

Aren't you merely using the keyboard to state your thoughts? Are you merely expressing your thoughts about thought here via common language use?

You see, that's one place where philosophy proper has failed miserably. They've yet to have taken into proper account the differences between thinking about thought and thought. As simple as that sounds, it is a major flaw that has led to the inherent inability for current conventional understanding to arrive at a notion of thought that is amenable to evolutionary progression.

In another circumstance, say I'm walking around in my neighborhood listening to music, I can be thinking of, the war in Yemen in one instance, onto the favorite part of the song that is playing, then thinking about Hume, my dinner with my friends and what I should do tomorrow.

In this latter circumstance, it's less clear to me how to account for how the ideas I have when walking and thinking form a connection or follow. It could be totally random. I'm a bit skeptical on this conclusion, but it's possible.

Thought is most certainly an autonomous process. We need not turn it on. We cannot turn it off. We can, however, influence it, intentionally and accidently. Random thoughts? Well, I am a firm believer in a causal universe, so strictly speaking if by "random" we mean spontaneously formed completely devoid of prior influence, then I would say that there are no such thoughts. Well, at least not once we've begun the mastery of common language. The simplest of thoughts must begin free from prior influence, but those kinds of thought are the most basic kind of simple elementary composition... the basics that begin to develop into what we call "minds", and those do not include language use. The correlations are not drawn between language use and other things.

That's odd...

We cannot sensibly swap these words whenever and wherever we chose. That inability to remain sensical when doing so tells me - quite clearly- that all those things you mentioned are not the same. — creativesoul

Are they not mental objects? Do we not think about them?

Aren't all our thoughts always already connected by virtue of being what they are — creativesoul

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Rain, cloud, two thoughts, "connected" because they're thoughts, but also connected in a causal sense. I'm interested in connexions that go beyond the simple classificatory.

Aren't you merely using the keyboard to state your thoughts? Are you merely expressing your thoughts about thought here via common language use? — creativesoul

The "keyboard" is a construction of the mind on the occasion of sense. I use it to try to approximate my thoughts via word use, such that what I'm thinking now can be evoked in your own mind when reading these words. It's not an exact science, far from it.

They've yet to have taken into proper account the differences between thinking about thought and thought — creativesoul

Could well be. It's already hard to talk about what thinking is. Thinking about thinking is ever more complex, but we seem to do it.

Well, I am a firm believer in a causal universe, so strictly speaking if by "random" we mean spontaneously formed completely devoid of prior influence, then I would say that there are no such thoughts. — creativesoul

Interesting. So on your view, most (if not all) our thoughts follow a causal process?

I've explained my objection above, for the third time. Yes, I can explain how thought works. I would not talk in terms of "thought connections" for all the reasons mentioned heretofore. — creativesoul

As I read it the OP is merely asking whether only the logical connections between thoughts reveal "reality" or whether other connections such as the imaginative, intuitive, metaphorical, analogical, magical and so on also reveal "reality" or some aspects of it, so your objection that talking about thought connections is equivalent to talking about "connection connections" seems somewhat inapt.

The "keyboard" is a construction of the mind on the occasion of sense. I use it to try to approximate my thoughts via word use, such that what I'm thinking now can be evoked in your own mind when reading these words. It's not an exact science, far from it. — Manuel

I've no idea what you're trying to say here. What's the significance of encapsulating the term keyboard in quotes?

Are you referring to the word or what the word picks out to the exclusion of all else? Perhaps, you're referring to all the different ways you use the term? I'm lost here...

Well, I am a firm believer in a causal universe, so strictly speaking if by "random" we mean spontaneously formed completely devoid of prior influence, then I would say that there are no such thoughts.
— creativesoul

Interesting. So on your view, most (if not all) our thoughts follow a causal process? — Manuel

Causality always plays a role. Thought is itself efficacious.

That's odd...

We cannot sensibly swap these words whenever and wherever we chose. That inability to remain sensical when doing so tells me - quite clearly- that all those things you mentioned are not the same.
— creativesoul

Are they not mental objects? — Agent Smith

That's not the way I talk. I reject the very notion of 'mental objects'.

Do we not think about them? — Agent Smith

What does that have to do with anything. We think about trees too, but trees are not thoughts anymore than all those other things you've named are.

That's not the way I talk. I reject the very notion of 'mental objects'. — creativesoul

Why would you do that? Are thoughts not mental objects? Are they then pulmonary/renal/hepatic/cardiac/etc. objects?

What does that have to do with anything. We think about trees too, but trees are not thoughts anymore than all those other things you've named are. — creativesoul

We think about something, then we think about some other things. Are these things connected in one sense or another? Is there a pattern in our thoughts? Not necessarily logical though.

That's not the way I talk. I reject the very notion of 'mental objects'.
— creativesoul

Why would you do that? — Agent Smith

I reject the mental/non mental dichotomy as well as the subject/object dichotomy upon grounds of inadequate explanatory power. Not all things are one or the other. Some things consist of both, and thus are not adequately described in terms of either. Thoughts, and thinking are two such things.

We think about something, then we think about some other things. Are these things connected in one sense or another? Is there a pattern in our thoughts? Not necessarily logical though. — Agent Smith

A pattern? Not my choice of descriptions...

All thought consists entirely of correlations drawn between directly and indirectly perceptible things. We are the bridge that 'connects' all our thoughts together. Are they always logical? Of course not.

correlations — creativesoul

What do you mean by that? Isn't a correlation a pattern?

mental/non mental dichotomy — creativesoul

Everything, as far as I can tell, is brought to our attention, as a thought. I dunno about perception (e.g. is seeing a tree is a thought?), but seeing a tree does bring to mind the concept/idea of a tree.

Are they always logical? Of course not. — creativesoul

That's exactly what I wanna find out. What nonlogical correlations/patterns exist in re our thoughts?

As I read it the OP is merely asking whether only the logical connections between thoughts reveal "reality" or whether other connections such as the imaginative, intuitive, metaphorical, analogical, magical and so on also reveal "reality" or some aspects of it, so your objection that talking about thought connections is equivalent to talking about "connection connections" seems somewhat inapt. — Janus

Yes, yes!

Connexions between thoughts

1. Logically meaningful (the usual deal)

2. Illogical and yet meaningful (contradictions ok, but more...)

3. Alogically meaningful (Free association, etc.)

Simply that a keyboard is also something which we construct in our cognition, there are no keyboards in nature. It's also an idea. Nothing beyond that.

Nature excludes humans and all we've done?

No... we are part of nature. That doesn't mean that the things we experience aren't a product of our cognitive capacities.

I'd be very conservative in what I'd attribute mind independence to.

:up: