Cogito ergo sum. Thoughts and the act of thinking is (probably) the most powerful proof of my own existence.
If I think, then I exist. Therefore, I need thoughts to be sure about my own existence and circumstances. — javi2541997
Empiricism. I was taught when I was a kid the act of reasoning. Then, I elaborate my own thoughts. I'm not going to say they are "inherent"
The experience itself has taught me a basic principle that if I have thoughts then I can prove my existence. — javi2541997
And if a Consciousness proves your own existence, how about this? — Michael Sol
Are there determinate entities we might call "thoughts". — Janus
Those concepts come from the act of understanding. We need being taught through a good education what is the meaning of the world which is surrounded to us.
"thoughts" could be a general terms which involves many aspects of our ordinary lives.
For example: you mix with and black to get grease colour. This act came from the pure act of thinking but probably we weren't aware of it. Nevertheless, we were taught in class what is going on with the mix of colours — javi2541997
And, generally that's correct about colors/ There are numerous pathways that are used to interpret sight, the thalamus, a couple visual cortexes, and the occipital lobe all work togethor to piece things to gather rapidly in accordance with the natural properties of that being processes in sight. — Garrett Travers
Is is 'sight' "real" or is it a self-contained, non-corporeal process? What do you think about that kind of question? — Garrett Travers
If we match up the color wheel with the electromagic spectrum of light, we have a considerable puzzle, for in the latter there is only one way to get from blue to red, and it passes through all the other colors, but not through purple. Violet may look a bit like purple, but it has nothing to do with red. What is going on? The discipline we need to understand this is not physics or art, but physiology. The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color.
Thinking, therfore thinking exists. :smirk:If I think, then I exist. — javi2541997
What is your position on Mary's Room? — RogueAI
I see your point and the article you shared is so interesting. They develop a scientific theory which explains what is going on when our sight receives lights and pixels. Yes I am agree that how our brain works in this context is innate. — javi2541997
What our eyes recieve in the nature is composed by a vocabulary created by the humans to establish an order. — javi2541997
Thus, Jonh Locke, call them as "primary emotions" and "secondary emotions". We can say "light" or the pixels themselves are primary while the colours are secondary. — javi2541997
We can say "light" or the pixels themselves are primary while the colours are secondary. — javi2541997
If we match up the color wheel with the electromagic spectrum of light, we have a considerable puzzle, for in the latter there is only one way to get from blue to red, and it passes through all the other colors, but not through purple. Violet may look a bit like purple, but it has nothing to do with red. What is going on? The discipline we need to understand this is not physics or art, but physiology. The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color.
that what we generally use the term "thoughts" to describe, are actually neuronal processes of computation by the brain — Garrett Travers
John Locke was thinking well on the subject, but incorrect.
In my view, construing colour as subjective in nature is a product of the "subjectivism industry" that characterises most of philosophy, religion, politics, the humanities, literature, culture. — Counterpunch
So computation is the basis for thoughts (and presumably consciousness)? — RogueAI
Therefore, I need thoughts to be sure about my own existence and circumstances. — javi2541997
Is this where you're coming from?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/ — RogueAI
You are correct. Sorry, I was mistaken. Emotion is not the correct word here. What I wanted to argument were qualities. I think what Jonh Locke pretend to explain is that there are two groups of realties: Those with primary qualities (the first perception we have through the eyes) and then secondary qualities (when we match up colours and then we are able to even create imaginary colour as Violet, a pretty different colour from Magenta). Again, I want to quote John Locke: — javi2541997
In my view, construing colour as subjective in nature is a product of the "subjectivism industry" that characterises most of philosophy, religion, politics, the humanities, literature, culture. — Counterpunch
Despite the fact there is a physiological study of the stimulus we receive. We the humans also create imaginary and subjective aspects through empiricism. — javi2541997
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.