Comments

  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    I only have a cell phone. I know it misspells things all the time, and I proofread a lot. It's very frustrating to read your response, and see mistakes I didn't catch.

    "I don't see how something we are thinking short isn't, but definition, a thought."
    might be better as
    "I don't see how something we are thinking about isn't, by definition, a thought."

    Anyway, I'll be back.
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    The only line I'd draw in the sand would be: We mustn't talk as if we already understand this issue, or as if there is no issue. — J
    Well now that's two lines in the sand. Is it two different thoughts? Or is it one compound thought?

    Yes, I'm joking.
    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

    Another problem: 5+7=12 is usually just memorised, — Dawnstorm
    You think? I intentionally looked for an example that I didn't think is memorized. I don't know that people memorize addition the way we do the Times Tables. It's also more involved than counting by 2s. And not as thoughtlessly easy as adding 1 or 2 to any number.

    Well, even if it's not the best example, I'm sure we can find one that is net memorized, but is easy enough that the majority of people would add it up sticky and reading, rather than shrug and walk away.


    Take "7+5". In what ways is that even thught? If I read "7+5" and think "12" then I might just cover this with a stimulus-response model without ever invoking the concept of "a thought". — Dawnstorm
    I haven't thought about this before, but I'm inclined to disagree. I don't see how something we are thinking short isn't, but definition, a thought. And even if we're talking about counting by 2s, which most beyond whatever age can do easily, without any sort of calculating, do we not have to think to do it?


    Take "432 + 493 = 925". If you were to see "432 + 493" and you recognise this as addition. You may solve, or you may shrug and walk away. These are two responses: do any of those involve thought? Is shrugging and walking away less of a thought than mumbling "Who cares?" and walking away, because the latter includes language and the former doesn't? — Dawnstorm
    Either is a decision. Which sounds like a thought to me.


    Is the recognition of addition already thought, given that it's implied but not expressed in either reactions? — Dawnstorm
    I don't see how it's possible that it's not thought. Photons can hit our retinas without us really seeing it. We don't notice everything in our visual field, and wr sometimes don't notice things dead center in our visual field. But if you notice it enough to decide you are not going to do the math, you're thinking about it.



    And if thought happens is there anything you could usefully demarcate into "a thought"? — Dawnstorm
    It seems like running to me. Running happens. It's a process. And you go for a run. Thought happens. It's a process. And you have a thought.

    (Although it might be better to use the word thinking for the process. Sometimes we do strange things with words. "Lowe's delivered the fencing yesterday.")


    It's a difficult thing sometimes. Can a voluntary action become so habitual that there is literally no thinking involved any longer?

    I do not believe driving, or walking through a crowded store, on "auto-pilot" is done without thought. We certainly relegate such things to the background. Sometimes so much so that we have accidents. And, not dwelling on any moment, nothing makes it into our long-term memory. But I have to believe there is some thought involved.
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    ↪SophistiCat

    :rofl: Maybe so. But, then, the site could be asolutioninsearchofaproblem.com
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    Given that I myself have never really had cause to wonder whether thoughts can cause thoughts before reading this thread (I actually might have read similar threads in the past, but for simplicity's sake let's pretend I haven't) so I have no intuitive substratus here. I'm still trying to figure out what the topic is. — Dawnstorm
    I think the topic should be:
    How Does a Thought Cause Another Thought?

    That's what we need to work on. It can happen in different ways.

    "7+5" shows one way. It's such an easy one, we can't stop ourselves from solving it.

    "Grassy knoll" shows another way. (At least if you're above a certain age, or you learned the association in some other way.) This type would include personal memories. At least I don't think personal memories is a different way?

    Word Association shows a third way. A different type of association. When I write "black", "wet", and "boy", do you think "white", "dry", and "girl"? Not specific associations, and there are surely more likely responses to these than there are to "7+5". In response to "boy", did you think "George"? "Tarzan"? (Gilligan said "oh" when Ginger was testing him. Because "Oh boy." :rofl:) Did "wet" cause "slippery"? "Water"? "Paint"? "Willie"?

    In what other ways does one thought cause another thought?

    I don't think every thought causes another thought. (And I don't think every thought is caused by a thought.) But maybe every thought causes thinking?
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    ↪Dawnstorm

    That's a fun exercise! And I think it's even more difficult to answer J's question regarding your sentence than my mushroom festival sentence:
    Try to construct an explanation, assuming a sincere questioner asked you, "What caused you to think that sentence?" I wonder what you'd get. Would you wind up denying causality completely?
    17h     — J
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    (And of course it's ambiguous: Giant festival, or festival featuring giant mushrooms?) — J
    Yes, I thought of that, too. Reminds me of synthetic buffalo hides. :grin:
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    Try to construct an explanation, assuming a sincere questioner asked you, "What caused you to think that sentence?" I wonder what you'd get. Would you wind up denying causality completely? — J
    I wish I could makes sense of it. What can have caused a sentence that I intentionally constructed to be unique to the world, whose parts are unrelated to each other, none of which came about because of any association that I am aware of? I'm now singing Cat Stevens' song in my head. But I wasn't before, and haven't for at least many months, so I think the sentence is the cause, and the song the effect.
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    ↪J

    My Castro example is demonstrating that the association can be anything. Because of my posts, If you get the thought "7 + 5", you will soon have the thought "Castro". "7 + 5" will have caused "Castro". Possibly even if you just have the thought "12" for any other reason. Obviously, the association is necessary. You now have an association.

    I guess not all thoughts are caused by thoughts. If I see a cloud that I think looks like Godzilla, I wouldn't say a thought caused the thought of Godzilla. Sensory input and memory caused it.

    We can make sentences that have never been thought before. Kathmandu will be the site of a giant mushroom festival in the year 2145. I think we can be reasonably sure that's the first time that sentence was ever thought, spoken, or written. While constructing it, I intentionally discarded anything that came to me from my surroundings. I believe no part of the sentence was was inspired by anything at all. I wanted a sentence that was entirely out of the blue. So what caused the thought of a giant mushroom festival in Kathmandu in 2145?
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    This highlights a problem with "cause" language in this context. Certainly "7 + 5" is not a necessary cause of "12" (assuming it's causal at all). Nor is it a sufficient cause, though, as has been argued, it's a very likely one. If we end up saying that whatever follows from the thought of "7 + 5" has been caused by that thought, doesn't this amount to saying that only a W2 thought can be causative? That is, the propositional or meaning content of the thought can lead to anything, so no causation is involved at that level. — J
    I don't think that's right. The propositional or meaning content of the thought can't lead to anything. It can only lead to certain things for anyone, and the things it can lead to for you are not necessarily the same things it can lead to for me.

    Compare it with a pool table. The cue ball, 8 ball, and corner pocket are in a straight line. Hit the cue straight into the 8, and the 8 goed in the pocket.

    That doesn't mean every time you hit the cue ball straight into the 8, it will go into the corner pocket. The three are not always in a straight line. Sometimes there are other balls between the 8 and the pocket. Nevertheless, wherever the 8 ends up, having been hit by the cue ball is always the cause. At least having been hit by the cue ball is always a big factor in where it ends up.

    Getting the thought 7 + 5 in your head is getting hit by the cue ball. Which specific thought it causes depends on the layout of the table. Meaning your past experiences with "7 + 5" specifically, your past experiences with math in general, and even non-math considerations (now to include my connecting 7 + 5 and Castro). But the thought of 7 + 5 is always the cause, or where you end up.


    I have had an idea for a story for many years. People in a certain area seen to be going crazy. Many people are found talking nonsense. Strings of seemingly unconnected words. It is eventually noticed that they are all speaking the same string of seemingly unconnected words. It turns out they have all been in an extensive, recently discovered cave that contains various archaeologically interesting things. Glyphs, carvings, textures on the walls, containers of scented things. It turns out that, seeing and smelling these things in the order you encounter them while walking through the cave inevitably leads all people to a specific chain of thoughts, because the chain of stimuli acts upon things in the psyche common to all humans. (I suppose a civilization was wiped out. As people become caught in the chain of thoughts, they become incapable of breaking out of it, and stop eating.)
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    I haven't heard of that one; thanks for bringing it up. I was vaguely aware of research, but nothing drug related. — Dawnstorm
    I have not been able to find anything on that particular experiment. I wonder if I'm remembering it correctly after all these years.

    I wonder if those who do not think in words have these sub-vocalizations.
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    ↪Janus

    I think you're right. But, regardless of the specific thought "7 + 5" causes, it causes another thought. I'd say it's overwhelmingly likely that it will cause "12" or another mathematical thought than, say, "Fidel Castro". Because meaning is the key, and there's very little possibility that anyone associates "7 + 5" with Castro more than with 12 or some other mathematical idea. Even now that I've created an association between 7 + 5 and Castro, 12 is still stronger, and the next time you think 7 + 5, you'll first think "12", then you'll think "Castro", then you'll think "Patterner is an idiot."
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    I think we can reasonably say that the thought "7 + 5" may lead to the thought "12", or it may lead to the thought "5 +7" or "7-5" or "7 divided by 5" or "these two prime numbers do not sum to a prime" or whatever. — Janus
    Could be. But I'll bet it lead to "12" first. I'll bet nobody who read it thought "5 +7" or "7-5" or "7 divided by 5" or "these two prime numbers do not sum to a prime" or anything else before they thought "12".
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    I'm often aware that I comprehend a particular thought I'm having much faster than I could have said it in words, even thinking them to myself. And looking back on such an experience, it seems to me that what I mean by "a particular thought" is not a linguistic unit at all . . . nor is it quite an image or a structure . . . it's a thought, something with a content or meaning I can understand, while the medium that may convey it is completely unclear. — J
    That's an extremely interesting thing. I can't say I've ever had the experience. I've only ever had the opposite, sort of. Thinking I had an understanding of something, I've often come to realize I didn't when I tried to put it into words. Sitting it down forced me to consider it more thoroughly, revealing gaps.
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    When you think a word, you think the sign-body as well as the meaning. It depends on the person how you internally think the signbody: some people might hear it said (they literally have a word in the head), some people might just think the word purely abstractly - I don't know if that is possible; for me, thinking a word is performative - I believe I can sometimes - not always - detect micro movements of the speech aparatus (the vocal chords are probably not involved, I'm more thinking about the tongue, palate etc.) — Dawnstorm
    Many years ago, I heard of a study where they injected novacaine or something into people's throats so they could not make those micro movements. The people found it extremely difficult to think.. I believe the conclusion was that we unconsciously make the movements of talking when we think, and the association is extremely strong. I know it is for me. Especially if I think of a song in my head. I've noticed many times that my throat is moving as I'm reciting it in my head. I often pay attention to my throat when I'm thinking, to try to make sure I'm not "going through the motions."
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    This much, at least, we know, phenomenologically -- this is certainly how it appears. Or if this isn't true, I'd say the burden of proof is on the denier to say why not, even in the absence of a good explanation for it. — J
    Yes. Things are often not how they appear. We should always keep an open mind. But the default position for anything isn't "Things are often not as they appear, so this must not be, and you need to prove it is. If you can't, then you should look for an explanation of how it is really something else."
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    If I'm right that you see a clear explanatory connection between Thought A ("7 + 5") and Thought B ("12), can you say more about the causation involved? How does A cause B? Where does such a relation occur? — J
    That's a difficult question. But we know it's there somewhere, so we have to figure it out. How can it be denied that I caused 12 to be in your head? It was my intention, and I succeeded. I used other thoughts as tools to accomplish it. I used physical tools to put those thoughts in your head.

    Once the thoughts were in your head, they caused other thoughts. That's what they do. It's not always as predictable as with simple arithmetic, because other factors are involved. Other thoughts you're already having; memories that the implanted thought brings up; other sensory input your receiving; and others. But 7 + 5 is such a simple thing that it isn't easily overwhelmed by other things before 12 shows up. So it's good for the demonstration.

    As to the "how" that you're asking? Good question. But we don't really have the answer to that for physical causation, when it comes right down to it. The negative charge of the electrons on the outer surface of one object repel the negative charge of the electrons on the outer surface of another object? In Until the End of Time, Brian Greene writes:
    I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do. — Brian Greene
    We don't know what charge is. We can't know how it works. We only know what it does. Maybe that's bottom-level.

    I don't know that we can't figure out more about thoughts causing thoughts than we currently know. I'm very happy to discuss it, but can't be of much help. But I imagine we'll reach a bottom level.
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    Great. That's exactly what I'd like to hear about: Can we give a sense of causality to entailment or logical equivalence? — J
    Well, I don't know the lingo, so I'll just give my thoughts, and you can see if it's what you're after.

    I would bet a large majority of those who read my post had the thought of what I had in spoilers in their minds before they looked. If so, the only reason was that they were thinking about 7 + 5. I didn't even have to put the =, or say to add the numbers. But they thought, even if not explicitly, "I need to find the sum of those two numbers." Then they did so. Adding is thinking, and having "12" in your head means you're thinking "12". And it came about because the thought "7 + 5" was put in your head. What else could be responsible for you thinking "12"?
  • Can a Thought Cause Another Thought?
    I wish I had time to read this right now. Not for another nine hours, at least. But I have one *ahem* thought from the little I just read. I suppose it can be argued that your initial thought about Ann did not cause your second thought about her. It can also be argued that it did, but I think there's a much stronger argument that the thought "7 + 5" caused the thought
    Reveal
    12
  • What are your plans for the 10th anniversary of TPF?
    Over the weekend, almost seven million people in several thousand communities here in the US got together to celebrate our anniversary...among other things. — T Clark
    :rofl:
  • What are your plans for the 10th anniversary of TPF?
    All of us meet in Times Square in New York City. We can borrow that ball they use at New Years. — T Clark
    I hope this didn't happen! I was there this morning, but have already driven home.

    I don't know what double-secret probation is but — javi2541997
    But nothing!!! That's a crime!!!

    HAPPY ANNIVERSARY TPF!!!
  • The Mind-Created World
    Consider this article a précis of 'the world-creates/embodies minds' ...

    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/newsplus/new-way-to-map-the-unique-brain-organization-of-individuals/     — 180 Proof
    That kind of thing is always amazing.
  • Transcendental Ego
    "Real" is the aware-ing organism, aware of its drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc. Shared by all living organisms in varying degrees — ENOAH
    What does "aware" mean that bacteria and archae are aware of drives, feelings, sensations, image-ing etc.?
  • The Mind-Created World
    "mind" is not what it seems to itself — 180 Proof
    It is interesting that "mind" can seem to itself to be something that it is not. Unlike a sphere drawn on paper which does not seem to itself to be a 3-D sphere, or a map which does not seem to itself to be the actual terrain.
  • The value of the given / the already-given
    ↪Astorre

    It is an interesting thing, eh? But yin/yang is real. When we're sick, we feel so good upon recovering. Better than we did before we got sick. I don't like winter in New York, but it makes me appreciate spring and summer more. I doubt we are built to take joy in the good without the bad now and again to compare it to.
  • First vs Third person: Where's the mystery?
    Hence 'magic' is a poor tool to wield. If Chalmers' 'all material having mental properties' is actually the case, then it wouldn't be magic, it would be a property of this reality. But still totally unexplained or even described since there's no current theory that supports that view. There sort of is, but nobody formally mentions it because, being a theory, it makes predictions, and those predictions likely fail, so best not to be vocal about those predictions. — noAxioms
    All true. But no theory of consciousness has made predictions that explain how consciousness comes to be, that rules out any other theory, and whose predictions have been verified. So far, no theory is more than a guess. We all have our preferred guesses, based on whatever makes the most sense to us.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    What would your proposed word be? — Copernicus
    Maybe natural? Anything born out of the universe is natural.
  • Tranwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    ↪Philosophim

    No problem. I really wasn't sure what you were after. Sorry about that
  • Tranwomen are women. Transmen are men. True or false?
    I have no doubt that Dr. Renee Richards and Caitlyn Marie Jenner are women. I can't imagine how such a thing happens, but I do not have any suspicion that they are:
    -confused.
    -joining in a fad.
    -faking it in order to be in the spotlight, or any other gain.
    -the product of minds warped by abuse, societal conditioning, or whatever other cause.
  • Virtues and Good Manners
    What 'new good things' do you think may benefit us? — Jeremy Murray
    I'm just thinking that it would be bad if we only gained negative things. Have we also gained self-love? I would think that, if you are right, and self-love is truly a new thing, then maybe yin and yang require an opposite. If we don't have one, then we can only become more and more negative as a species. More hurting, and more hurtful.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    Perhaps I'd have to use a better-suited word. — Copernicus
    I agree. Because if something does not have physical properties, then it is not physical.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    it also has non-physical characteristics
    — Patterner

    If they stemmed from physical properties, then they're also physical properties, regardless of characteristics.     — Copernicus
    That is not how physical is defined.
    If something does not have physical characteristics, then it is not physical.
    Just as if something does not have solid characteristics, then it is not a solid.
    Just as, in chemistry, if something does not have carbon in it, then it is not organic.
    If something does not have wood in it, then it is not wooden.
    If something does not have metal in it, then it is not metalic.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    My point is, everything came from the Big Bang (assuming it's legit), but varies in characteristics. All are physical. The universe is physical. — Copernicus
    It certainly has physical characteristics. But it also has non-physical characteristics. Such as consciousness.

    Unless anyone can point out any physical characteristics of consciousness.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    Exactly. Both have different classes. — Copernicus
    That's my point. Eyes are physical. Consciousness is not.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    Of course you can quantity heat and light.
    — Patterner

    I meant to say "count" (like physical objects).     — Copernicus
    Being countable like physical objects is not a requirement for being considered physical. Heat and lighte have other physical characteristics, even if they are not countable.


    It can't be sensed with any of our senses
    — Patterner

    Like eyes can't see themselves. Consciousness itself is a kind of sense.     — Copernicus
    I said consciousness can't be sensed with any of our senses. That is not similar in any way to an eye not being able to see itself. Eyes can still be sensed visually, by other eyes. Further, my eyes can be felt, tasted, etc., even by my own senses. They are physical, because they have physical characteristics.

    Consciousness has none.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    ↪Copernicus

    Of course you can quantify heat and light. We do it all the time. We feel heat on our skin, and can measure it in degrees with a thermometer. We can see light with our eyes, and measure it in lumens per square meter, or square foot, with a light meter. We also know what they are made of/how they comes into being.

    But not consciousness. It can't be sensed with any of our senses, and it can't be measured or quantified with any of our technology. Although it is inextricably bound to the physical, and doesn't exist without a physical component (at least we are not aware of any consciousness without a physical componentry), it is not, itself, physical. If every other product of physical events is, itself, physical, why would we think this lone, non-physical thing is also the product of physical events? Why would we not think this lone, non-physical thing is the product of something non-physical?
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    Physical property doesn't have to have tangibility. — Copernicus
    "Tangible" is just one physical characteristic. Not every physical thing has every physical characteristic. But you can't call something physical if it doesn't have any physical characteristics. How is such a thing deemed to be physical?
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    What do you think the nature of the nonphysical part is? — frank
    I think the only way to put it is subjective experience. It can't be worded in any physical way. If it could be, someone would be able to give me what in asking for. Without all the physical terms that we're so used to and comfortable with, it's not easy for us to talk about it. Especially me, since very few on TPF think consciousness is fundamental. It's the property that subjectively experiences. Not a physical property. Not all properties are physical.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    ↪Copernicus

    Seeing and licking are physical processes. We can describe and measure them physically. And we can discuss the lower level structures, down to the particles, that allow for, and give rise to, the processes.

    I'm hoping someone can tell me about the physical aspects of consciousness that are physically describable and measurable. It could be that, like a hurricane, it is far too complex for us to figure out in every detail, and far too complex for us to fully describe how its constituent parts allow for, and give rise to, its existence. But what are it's physical characteristics?
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    Certainly we are physical. At least in part. I believe not entirely, but maybe someone will tell me of consciousness's physical, quantifiable characteristics, they way we can talk about the physical, quantifiable characteristics of other processes.
  • We Are Entirely Physical Beings
    ↪Punshhh

    I guess we could say any fatal disease threatens it's own existence by possibly wiping out all hosts. But it doesn't work out that way. At least not when humans are the host. I don't know if there have been other diseases that no longer exist because all hosts were killed?
Home » Patterner