We're responsible for what we do with our thoughts.

Thoughts at times insist with the adamance of matter. Of course, thoughts are more fluid. But they can crescendo to the repetitive insistence of the killing floor.

Intentional interruption of a repetitious thought pattern can unbalance and ultimately restructure or resituate the pattern. Say, a more desirable, a more pleasure-inducing rut. But repetition seems to be a thing the mind enjoys. (Compare with Freud's death drive and the native lust for repetition in Beyond the Pleasure Principle.)

The mind at large can be tamed via meditative practice. The result is a pleasanter thought-world and far less rumination. A new, less anxiety-centered relation of self and thought.

@180 Proof

One can't decide what to think, but we can, it seems, decide whether to act out our/those thoughts or not. There seems to be a filter of sorts (between thoughts and actions) and the "mesh" that does the actual filtering is made up of, inter alia, our values. Some of us have good quality "meshes", others have broken ones, some don't have one at all.

Is the logical theory that we're capable of step by step linear reasoning, moving from some propositions (premises) to other propositions (conclusions), a myth?

It's a "myth" that works.

is our brain feeding us — Andrew4Handel

Do you think your brain is something other than you? I am my body, my brain. What my brain thinks, I think.

Many of the brain's activities are not conscious. All the physical regulating that the CNS carries out is done outside of consciousness. Some parts of the brain are manageable, controllable; some parts are not. One morning I might wake up awash in feelings of despair, angst, and anxiety. my brain may direct my feet and hands to a bottle of benzodiazepines (for immediate relief) and a bottle of SSRIs for longer term relief.

I could spend the rest of th day ruminating (chewing over and re-chewing) all the reasons why life is unsatisfactory. I could get on the bike and go for a long ride. The latter would probably br more effective than the former, in terms of me feeling better.

I, you, can decide to think some thoughts, or so we believe. One day I decided to learn French. I started, but found it tedious so I stopped, I am responsible for that, as far as I can tell, I spend much of my day reading, I am responsible for that. Various Amazon algorithms help me find books to consider, but I have to decide to buy them.

The One Click feature is Amazon's way of extracting payment before I have had time to change my mind, like one does when one puts the book in the cart first. I like to put clothing in the Landsend cart and then not buy it, I get the pleasure of picking things out but not the cost of buying it. Merchants hate it when that happens. That's why Amazon invented One Click.

Much of the content of our minds was put there before we had control over our environment. All kinds of things get dumped into children's minds, along with language, a basic understanding of the world, and so on, If we have had garbage dumped in our heads, and if we think garbagy thoughts, that just proves "garbage in, garbage out."

So we are responsible for some of our thoughts, but not all.

It's a "myth" that works. — 180 Proof

Are you sure about that? It never works for me and I daresay there are others like me who're in the same boat so to speak.

Sure it works for you, otherwise I couldn't read or respond to your posts.

Sure it works for you, otherwise I couldn't read or respond to your posts. — 180 Proof

:chin: That doesn't make sense to me. How do I know you're not misreading me or, more accurately, projecting your own thoughts on my text? Pareidolia/Apophenia? :grin:

Engage in dialogue. Like the "Turing Test" or "Chinese Room", if we dialogue like we understand one other, then for all practical purposes we do understand one another. :smirk: Of course, Beckett says otherwise, but...

Engage in dialogue. Like the "Turing Test" or "Chinese Room", if we dialogue like we understand one other, then for all practical purposes we do understand one another. :smirk: Of course, Beckett says otherwise, but... — 180 Proof

Rule following paradox (re Ludwig Wittgentein)? The pattern, though it extends for both us, it does so divergently - soon we'll experience a break down in communications as my rule and yours, up until now in agreement, go their separate ways.

What does Beckett say?

We are responsible only for our words and our actions.
Our thoughts can't be controlled and many times are forced to us via society, environment, the way we grew up, friends etc etc. We have no reason to feel guilty about our thoughts, despite how crazy or sinful they might seem. Unfortunately though,that guilt plays a crucial role for many people who develop mental disorders.

We can't tame them, neither we generate them on our own. We are on charge though to which of those thoughts we will turn into words and actions. We are responsible only when we "pull the trigger". Then yes.

What does Beckett say? — Agent Smith

Miscommunication (therefore misunderstanding) between people is inescapable ... I guess?

We're responsible for what we do with our thoughts. — 180 Proof

But in that responsibility, we think.

What does Beckett say? — Agent Smith

I must go on; I can’t go on; I must go on; I must say words as long as there are words, I
must say them until they find me, until they say me (The Unnamable)

Interesting thought experiment to try this at home: Observe the thoughts that are yours "in production". Consider: are we being ventriloquized by history? Where is the generative source?

I am responsible for my posts; and I am also responsible for all the posts I think better of and do not post. This means i am responsible for your replies too, in the same way that I am responsible for my children breaking your window, or becoming fanatics and starting a war. There is no end to my responsibility; I am responsible for every starving child and every idiot politician. I should be more careful.

I am my brother's keeper.

I don't know about thoughts, but emotions are related to who you think you are.

You can use your radical freedom to pop in and out of identities. It's all tricky because you shouldn't try to lie to yourself. This kind of freedom isn't about fiction, if you know what I mean.

But you'll frequently find people trying to control you by telling you who you are. You have a choice in whether you accept their suggestions. Sometimes they'll offer love or protection to induce your agreement, or threaten you subtly for refusing.

There seems to be a filter of sorts (between thoughts and actions) and the "mesh" that does the actual filtering is made up of, inter alia, our values. Some of us have good quality "meshes", others have broken ones, some don't have one at all. — Agent Smith

Hmm, that sounds like blame to me, attributing behavior that disappoints or puzzles you to the other’s disordered thinking rather than to your challenges in making sense of their motives.

I am not sure if we are but I would like to know.

How does a thought come into our consciousness? Are we being creative and thoughtful or is our brain feeding us ideas or something else?

What is the process of rumination?

I do feel somewhat in control of my thoughts in the mental or conscious landscape. I feel like I am monitoring my inner life and trying to exert control and making choices.

Assuming that something is the cause of thoughts, and that that something is therefor responsible for them, it goes to follow that each of us are responsible for our thoughts. One's thoughts come from nowhere else; they begin and end nowhere else; they are controlled by nothing else. Even the seemingly arbitrary activities, like the manifestation of thoughts, are wholly controlled by and under the direction of this same being.

One's thoughts come from nowhere else; they begin and end nowhere else; they are controlled by nothing else. Even the seemingly arbitrary activities, like the manifestation of thoughts, are wholly controlled by and under the direction of this same being. — NOS4A2

‘Control’, ‘under the direction’, ‘cause’. Not sure if any of these terms get at the new ways psychologists
are thinking about human agency. Perhaps if we substitute ‘reciprocal causality’ and brain body-environment loops for simple one way control and direction we can get closer to what thinking and willing consists in.

‘Control’, ‘under the direction’, ‘cause’. Not sure if any of these terms get at the new ways psychologists are thinking about human agency. Perhaps if we substitute ‘reciprocal causality’ and brain body-environment loops for simple one way control and direction we can get closer to what thinking and willing consists in.

It would seem to me your proposed terms suggest a dualism of some sort, which is perhaps the problem to begin with. I would argue that repurposing dualism under more modern terms would only confuse the issue further.

It would seem to me your proposed terms suggest a dualism of some sort, which is perhaps the problem to begin with. I would argue that repurposing dualism under more modern terms would only confuse the issue further. — NOS4A2

Any concpet of will that associates it with control and cause is inherently dualistic in the sense of separating subject from world. To transcend this dualism you have to find a way to see subject and objective world as inextricably intangled , such that interaction is central , and subject and object are only the poles of each interaction. There is no constituted subject who wills autonomously , but only the subjective aspect of subject-world interaction.

Any concpet of will that associates it with control and cause is inherently dualistic in the sense of separating subject from world.

But then we look and find out that there is no dualism, that the subject is also the object, and seek other ways to explain it.

We're responsible for what we do with our thoughts. — 180 Proof

Are you an advocate of free will then?

Thoughts at times insist with the adamance of matter. Of course, thoughts are more fluid. But they can crescendo to the repetitive insistence of the killing floor. — ZzzoneiroCosm

What is the killing floor? Is it the point of thought leading to physical action?

Lots of people have repetitive thoughts and these are the ones I and others are least likely to act on. (See obsessional compulsive disorder)

I am far more likely to act on spontaneous thoughts than pondering.

Do you think your brain is something other than you? I am my body, my brain. What my brain thinks, I think. — Bitter Crank

Do you think with your Kidneys?

We have numerous cells and organs in our bodies are you suggesting we are just our brains?

Is there a specific region of the brain you identify with a self?

Many of the brain's activities are not conscious. — Bitter Crank

Are any of the brains activities conscious if so how?

You seem to be assuming that conscious is inextricably linked to some brain actives of which no reliable correlates have been found.

I could[(...)/quote]

Who is "I" is it some region in your brain? Is it your whole body?

No "I" region or explanation has been located in the brain.

I don't know what "I" or the self is but I am asking what it's explanatory power is in explaining behaviour, actions, thought or reason etc.

If we are just our brains then they are material objects controlled by laws of nature/physics/biology.

I can't take credit for any of my actions. — Bitter Crank

How does a thought come into our consciousness? Are we being creative and thoughtful or is our brain feeding us ideas or something else? — Andrew4Handel

Consciousness is a production of the same, complex, sophisticated, multi-structural system that produces thought. Your brain and you and your thoughts and your creativity and your memorys and your quirks and all the ways that your brain manifests your will are the exact same, singular identity: You.

are you suggesting we are just our brains — Andrew4Handel

Certainly didn't mean to suggest that. We are everything between scalp and toe nails, all connected to the brain. l

The existence of a 'self', the brain, consciousness, etc. are all very hard problems. As far as I know, no one has solved these difficult questions.

Do you think with your Kidneys? — Andrew4Handel

No, but my bladder operates an alarm clock. There is the alimentary nervous system that operates the gut. The ANS has something to say about how we feel, and even how we think (see the various studies of the microbiome).

You seem to be assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked to some brain actives of which no reliable correlates have been found. — Andrew4Handel

Right, nobody knows where the self or consciousness is located, if it is located anywhere. Son of a bitch. My guess is that "self' is emergent, arising from activities of the brain that are not, oddly enough, conscious. However the brain does it, the brain does a great job of faking our consciousness, and sense of a conscious self if they don't actually exit.

I recently read a description of how we know we have relieved our sense of thirst. There is a small set of vessels in the liver that receive blood from the upper end of the intestines. When we feel thirsty, these vessels signal thirst, and we drink water. The water is absorbed in the stomach and intestines. The blood flowing from the small intestine provides the vessels in a specific location in the liver with a sample of blood, from which these vessels can determine whether we have drunk enough water, or not. If we have, the vessels signal satiety,

This is a very recent discovery. Various locations and mechanisms have been suspected as the measuring point. Now we know. I suppose these vessels send a message to the brain, "Enough with the water, already!" when we have swallowed enough.

I would have thought the brain detected thirst and its satisfaction, but no. The brain gets a memo.

If we are just our brains then they are material objects controlled by laws of nature/physics/biology. — Bitter Crank

That spongy 2-halved blob in our skulls does rather seem to be a material object, and it seems to exist within the sphere of reality controlled by nature, physics, biology, doesn't it???

So no free will, then? Can we tell whether we have complete free will?. Can we tell whether we are entirely determined by physics and chemistry? I don't know how we could perceive such a pervasive determinism either way.

Personally, I think people should stop worrying about free will. Endlessly ruminating about free will doesn't get us anywhere.

Are you an advocate of free will then? — Andrew4Handel

Much more an "advocate of" free action than "free will", I'm a compatibilist.