If the brain can't think, what does?
I often read in philosophical discussions (in here and elsewhere) the word "brain" connected to higher level human functions, like thought, even consciousness. If this was a scientific place, I certainly wouldn't be surprised. But this is a philosophical place.
So, I made a small "research" in the Web on the subject of where does thought take place. I tried to collect information from sources/references that are generally accepted as standard and/or reliable. I present below the results of this "research", in a concise form. (Comments within brackets [] are mine.)
Human brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
"The philosophy of the mind studies such issues as the problem of understanding consciousness and the mind–body problem. The relationship between the brain and the mind is a significant challenge both philosophically and scientifically. This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, or by any other type of physical mechanism. This difficulty was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz in the analogy known as Leibniz's Mill:
"One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception." (Leibniz, Monadology)
"Doubt about the possibility of a mechanistic explanation of thought drove René Descartes, and most other philosophers along with him, to dualism: the belief that the mind is to some degree independent of the brain.
"There has always, however, been a strong argument in the opposite direction. There is clear empirical evidence that physical manipulations of, or injuries to, the brain (for example by drugs or by lesions, respectively) can affect the mind in potent and intimate ways. In the 19th century, the case of Phineas Gage, a railway worker who was injured by a stout iron rod passing through his brain, convinced both researchers and the public that cognitive functions were localized in the brain. Following this line of thinking, a large body of empirical evidence for a close relationship between brain activity and mental activity has led most neuroscientists and contemporary philosophers to be materialists, believing that mental phenomena are ultimately the result of, or reducible to, physical phenomena
Comment: This case helped to convince people that mental functions were localized in the brain. This is also where Science (with capital "S") had initially based its "belief" (i\unscientific concept!) that thought was created and processed by the brain! But let's see how the subject has evolved in Science since then ...
***
Ask a Scientist: Neurons help explain how our brains think
https://eu.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/2019/03/18/ask-scientist-how-do-thoughts-work-our-brain/3153303002/
"Although the science of brain cell communication is well-understood, the complexity of thought processes is not well-defined.
"The brain is primarily composed of neurons, which are cells that generate electrical impulses for communication.
"Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation.
"One theory explains that thoughts are generated when neurons fire."
[Comment: Well, they don't mention any other theory!]
***
The Brain Building Blocks
https://www.livestrong.com/article/202078-human-brain-thinking-process/
"The brain's primary building element starts with the brain cells known as neurons. Chemical processes in the brain send out messages through the neurons that determine the mental processes along with thinking. Cells called glia exist between the neurons in the brain. Mark Treadwell, an educator from New Zealand at I-learnt Website, indicates the glia interact with the neurons and hormones chemically in the production of thought. The motor neurons produce the action in our muscles and the sensory neurons connect to our five senses."
Thinking Process
"The American College of Radiology and the Radiology Society describe functional MRI as a diagnostic procedure that can determine precisely the location of thought processes in the brain. A positron emission topography scan also can document images of the brain during a range of thought processes. The future has promise for new insights into the thinking process using these new technologies."
Reasoning Process
[They just describe it. They don't connect it to the brain in any way ... I wonder why ...]
***
Brain Anatomy and How the Brain Works
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/anatomy-of-the-brain
"The brain is a complex organ that controls thought, memory, emotion, touch, motor skills, vision, breathing, temperature, hunger and every process that regulates our body. Together, the brain and spinal cord that extends from it make up the central nervous system, or CNS.
"New studies are exploring the cerebellum’s roles in thought, emotions and social behavior, as well as its possible involvement in addiction, autism and schizophrenia."
[Comment: This is all about "thought". In a text of about 2,000 words. Isn't that incredible?]
***
The following section is all mine.
Conclusion
This how much the scientific world understands thought! And they are so arrogant that, even if they are so evidently ignorant on the subject, they insist placing thought in the brain, which they study since ages, having found maybe everything they could about at this date. And this is most probably because, as pure materialists, they think, "Where else can it be located?" What has happened to the scientific method: observation -> hypothesis -> testing (experimentation) -> proof? I have not found that such a thing has been applied in the case of thought. And even if they arrive in explaining some simple process of thought, e.g. "thinking of a tree", what could one say about the whole range of human thought, including higher-level of mind/thinking processes, such as imagination, computing, reasoning and so on?
So, my position is that thought is neither created by nor is taking place in the brain.
And my three part question is "What is thinking, how thought is created and where does it take place?/b].
***
You can find my answer to the above question at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700
So, I made a small "research" in the Web on the subject of where does thought take place. I tried to collect information from sources/references that are generally accepted as standard and/or reliable. I present below the results of this "research", in a concise form. (Comments within brackets [] are mine.)
Human brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
"The philosophy of the mind studies such issues as the problem of understanding consciousness and the mind–body problem. The relationship between the brain and the mind is a significant challenge both philosophically and scientifically. This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, or by any other type of physical mechanism. This difficulty was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz in the analogy known as Leibniz's Mill:
"One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception." (Leibniz, Monadology)
"Doubt about the possibility of a mechanistic explanation of thought drove René Descartes, and most other philosophers along with him, to dualism: the belief that the mind is to some degree independent of the brain.
"There has always, however, been a strong argument in the opposite direction. There is clear empirical evidence that physical manipulations of, or injuries to, the brain (for example by drugs or by lesions, respectively) can affect the mind in potent and intimate ways. In the 19th century, the case of Phineas Gage, a railway worker who was injured by a stout iron rod passing through his brain, convinced both researchers and the public that cognitive functions were localized in the brain. Following this line of thinking, a large body of empirical evidence for a close relationship between brain activity and mental activity has led most neuroscientists and contemporary philosophers to be materialists, believing that mental phenomena are ultimately the result of, or reducible to, physical phenomena
Comment: This case helped to convince people that mental functions were localized in the brain. This is also where Science (with capital "S") had initially based its "belief" (i\unscientific concept!) that thought was created and processed by the brain! But let's see how the subject has evolved in Science since then ...
***
Ask a Scientist: Neurons help explain how our brains think
https://eu.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/2019/03/18/ask-scientist-how-do-thoughts-work-our-brain/3153303002/
"Although the science of brain cell communication is well-understood, the complexity of thought processes is not well-defined.
"The brain is primarily composed of neurons, which are cells that generate electrical impulses for communication.
"Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation.
"One theory explains that thoughts are generated when neurons fire."
[Comment: Well, they don't mention any other theory!]
***
The Brain Building Blocks
https://www.livestrong.com/article/202078-human-brain-thinking-process/
"The brain's primary building element starts with the brain cells known as neurons. Chemical processes in the brain send out messages through the neurons that determine the mental processes along with thinking. Cells called glia exist between the neurons in the brain. Mark Treadwell, an educator from New Zealand at I-learnt Website, indicates the glia interact with the neurons and hormones chemically in the production of thought. The motor neurons produce the action in our muscles and the sensory neurons connect to our five senses."
Thinking Process
"The American College of Radiology and the Radiology Society describe functional MRI as a diagnostic procedure that can determine precisely the location of thought processes in the brain. A positron emission topography scan also can document images of the brain during a range of thought processes. The future has promise for new insights into the thinking process using these new technologies."
Reasoning Process
[They just describe it. They don't connect it to the brain in any way ... I wonder why ...]
***
Brain Anatomy and How the Brain Works
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/anatomy-of-the-brain
"The brain is a complex organ that controls thought, memory, emotion, touch, motor skills, vision, breathing, temperature, hunger and every process that regulates our body. Together, the brain and spinal cord that extends from it make up the central nervous system, or CNS.
"New studies are exploring the cerebellum’s roles in thought, emotions and social behavior, as well as its possible involvement in addiction, autism and schizophrenia."
[Comment: This is all about "thought". In a text of about 2,000 words. Isn't that incredible?]
***
The following section is all mine.
Conclusion
This how much the scientific world understands thought! And they are so arrogant that, even if they are so evidently ignorant on the subject, they insist placing thought in the brain, which they study since ages, having found maybe everything they could about at this date. And this is most probably because, as pure materialists, they think, "Where else can it be located?" What has happened to the scientific method: observation -> hypothesis -> testing (experimentation) -> proof? I have not found that such a thing has been applied in the case of thought. And even if they arrive in explaining some simple process of thought, e.g. "thinking of a tree", what could one say about the whole range of human thought, including higher-level of mind/thinking processes, such as imagination, computing, reasoning and so on?
So, my position is that thought is neither created by nor is taking place in the brain.
And my three part question is "What is thinking, how thought is created and where does it take place?/b].
***
You can find my answer to the above question at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700
Comments (194)
It's probably better to think of what is doing the thinking. While folk psychology generally has an individual as a unified whole, an indivisible actor, modern psychology and neuroscience paints a picture of multiple interlocking systems, with varying degrees of specialization and autonomy. And indeed this view predates modern science by millenia, with plenty of writers pointing out that we often don't act as a unified whole. Nietzsche was writing about a "congress of souls" instead of a unitary soul at the opening of Beyond Good and Evil long before we had MRIs.
When Descartes went to "I think, therefore I am," he is perhaps making a bit too much of a leap with the "I" part of the claim (this was a critique of Hume's).
As an example of this, people with split brains, brains that have had the major connections between the two hemispheres of the brain severed, experiences a lot of abnormal cognitive issues. For instance, if you ask them to write down their ideal career, each hand will give a different answer, and they will not be aware of the discrepancy. So which answer is the real one? I'd say both. Both are the results of thought, they just aren't being edited into a single result due to lack of communication.
You see this with the experience of volition as well. Folk psychology posits an individual decider, the soul or ego, which makes choices and enacts voluntary actions. However, when testing voluntary movement, research finds that the begining of a voluntary motion begins before a person experiences the sense of deciding to move. The movement begins, and the sense of choosing is retroactively formulated.
This is common to all movement, but blindsight provides another good example. People with damaged eyes can't see, but they can still imagine sights and dream of vision. On the other hand, people with a sufficiently damaged visual cortex do not experience sight, despite having working eyes. They cannot visualize and do not dream of vision. However, some of the connections from the eyes to the brain don't run through the visual cortex, some run to the motor cortex. And so you get blindsight. People who don't experience sight can nonetheless navigate rooms using vision and even catch things thrown at them. When they make these movements based on a sight they do not experience, they come up with all sorts of explanations for why they made the 'voluntary' movements they did that appear to be inaccurate. Again, an example of a lack of unity in thought.
---
As for your position that thought isn't created in the brain, how do you explain the fact that injuries to the brain result in profound effects on thought?
Is thought non-physical, existing in a sort of ether?
If so, how does this non-physical thing interact with our physical bodies?
Why do drugs radically alter perceptions by changing the chemistry of the brain? Thought should be safe if it doesn't live in the brain.
Why are brain imaging techniques so effective at predicting mental health disorders or the effects of brain injury?
Really interesting topic. To me it seems like the hardware-software case. I don't think thought can exist without brain. But I am not so sure that thought gets "produced" only there,in a specific part of the brain.
What always troubled me is how all this invisible world (thoughts, ideas, feelings etc) and whatever is going on in unconscious mind are stored inside the brain? And is indeed in the brain at a specific place (part) or spread all over it? If it is spread all over shouldn't something to exist as to keep all that "world" united? The world that we experience via consciousness??
Could ever be possible that this "place", where all these information exist, to be some kind form of energy ? Energy that passes through the brain but also "circles" all human body. Bringing on surface also conscious mind via brain's hardware of course.
I know sounds extreme. To myself also. It's just a desperate attempt my mind to wrap around these questions.
You make my day! :smile:
Thinking (occasionally) happens; "who one is" is a thought entertained recursively and then (mis)attributed ex post facto as the "cause" of thinking. It seems, however, a category error to assume "thinking happens somewhere" (which is like assuming "light comes from / goes somewhere when switched on / off ").
Nice intro and good question. :up:
That a brain and senses are a crucial element of this is without question, but they are not the source of "thinking". The source of "thinking" is consciousness, but what is that?
In evolutionary psychology, it is thought that language developed before self awareness and a symbolic self concept. So, a self concept developed in a collective of minds - as you would expect given the need for cohesion in early hunter gatherer groups. So, thinking, "as we know it", from the very beginning, is not even located in a body, let alone a brain, but in a collective consciousness!
Of course, this is not it's source. to trace it's source requires an understanding of systems theory, and particularly the concept of self organization. In systems theory everything is a self organizing system, enmeshed with all the other self organizing systems around it. The whole enmeshment is articulated and driven by information. Information in this instance = the evolutionary interaction of form, as explained by this hugely popular thread.
In this view, everything is an evolving body of information, in the particular, and in the collective. Such that a cell in the body is one self organizing system, forming a larger self organizing system of organs, forming a larger self organizing system of body, forming a larger self organizing system of families, communities , countries, and finally a collective humanity, enmeshed within a likewise formed and interrelated biosphere.
Self organization is the source of life and thus thinking, but what is the essence or the source of self organization? In yogic logic, consciousness is the source of self organization. So, in yogic logic all that exists is consciousness and information, where information is the evolutionary interaction / interrelation of form. But again, what is this consciousness? In the range of answers, we get back to: God, convergent forces, emotions, a phase state of order, anthropic principle, etc. :smile: Your guess is as good as mine, but regardless of how we relate to the source, and that is what we do when we define it, it doesn't change it, it only changes us! And I think this is an amusing fact. :lol: It seems to me we should just lump all these different conceptions into the one conception, and call it something like the Source, and be done with all this bickering, imo.
**The source does the thinking and will continue to do so regardless of what we think! :lol:
Good call on Nietzsche, too (he was definitely ahead of the game in his suspicion of any supposed unity/transparency/etc of consciousness and the self)
Then it is incumbent on you to answer your own question. If not the brain, where? And if not in the brain, how do you explain the range of observations you so curtly dismiss?
Given that the processes behind thought do not appear to be consciously accessible, what does it mean to attribute the source of thinking to consciousness?
I have outlined the processes leading to thought, but it's source is elusive. When we give this source some definition, it does not change the source, but it changes how we relate to it. So we change ourselves if we say it is god, and then we change to something different If we say it is bosonic forces.
If we say the source is a physical force, then it creates a material reality such as we are used to. But when we say the source is consciousness, the possibilities of our reality are hugely expanded - expanded far beyond anything I can conceive! :smile:
A person is thinking. How the thought is created is quite obscure, it seems we are extremely far from finding an answer to this. The thought isn't realized in my pinky, nor in my stomach, nor in my hair. My brain must be involved somehow and I think it is the best candidate to say that thought takes place in my brain.
But from speaking to brains to speaking about persons, complexity sky rockets. Which isn't helpful as brain already are formidably complex.
Are you considering just ratiocination - forming judgements by proceeding logically? Or the conscious monologue with which some are afflicted? Or will you include a person's ideas and opinions? What of their emotions? What of feelings - is having a pain having a thought?
You ain't going to work out where thoughts are unless you are fairly clear as to what they are.
Banno, I wrote that just for you.
If you can remember you birthday doesn't that confirm the information or thought is contained in your physical brain?
It practices thought, and can generate language, but this is all sourced from interference outside the head. It isn't just a perfect reasoning machine.
False. Neuroscientists, for instance, routinely use 'probes' in specific sites of a human subject's neocortex in order to elicit or inhibit thoughts and feelings – e.g. false memories, phantom limb sensations, dissociated voices, ideational associations – from her brain.
Thank you for your response.
Yes, I know, I thought about this later and I corrected it. In fact my choice of the word "who" was biased, it has to do with my personal view, which of course I have not included in here.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I can't remember Hume's position on this subject (I have read his philosophy too long ago), but Descartes indeed did a big leap with his dualistic system (I wouldn't say "too much" though) and think our civilization in the West was lucky to have him! But this was expected and it would have happened anyway, esp. as West were meeting East ...
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
You talk about very low --actually bodily-- human cognitive functions. I have already mentioned the classic case of Phineas Gage. But this is too far away from major cognitive processes of a human being. (Even from the behaviour highly intelligent animals exhibit.)
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Likewise. All these are basically bodily functions. Human thinking is very far away from all that.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I couldn't explain my position as part of the topic. It is already quite loaded! :smile: I created the topic so that different view points are presented. And of course, I cannot explain my position on an individual basis, for everyone who asks. So, at some point, depending on how this discussion is evolved, I will add a short note at the end of my description of the topic and refer to it everyone who wants to know. So, I will let you know if and when this will be done! :smile:
Thanks. I was expecting someone to say that! :smile:
(Although I believe that it must be interesting for most of us in here ...)
Quoting dimosthenis9
Yes, I know. This subject has come up during our long discussion in another Topic, I think yours!
Quoting dimosthenis9
Right! Isn't this something that indicates the existence of something else gets into play. I call "all this invisible world" higher-level human mind functions. Science (with capital "S"), still after all these years of brain studies, cannot handle them. The reason is evident: they are not material.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Still of material nature. If it were enery, they would have found about it and explained, with their MRI and other instruments ... As it seems, it is not energy either. At least, not the kind of energy we know.
Quoting dimosthenis9
I think that Science is as much "desperate" as you. The difference is that you can admit it, whereas Science cannot! It cannot admit that there's such a huge void in this area and "lose face", after all these discoveries and developents trhough the ages! So, it just makes a note that "thought" --as other highr-level functions-- is part of the brain. No proofs. (Other than changes in the human behavior because of brain injuries.)
Thank you for your response.
Just a note: I have changed the word "who" to "what" as more approriate. (I used word "who" by bias and habit.)
Re "thinking happening": It can, but that would refer to "reactive", involuntary, thinking. As e.g. thoughts produced by the subconsious, emotions, etc. These thoughts always exist and are happening, since the subconscious is always at work.
But there is also a voluntary, analytical thinking. The function and process human beings use to analyze. compute and solve problems, to reason. This discussion, for instance, although it includes some involuntary thoughts (They always exist!) This doesn't just happen. It is created, controlled and directed by us. Isn't that right?
Thank you. :smile:
Quoting Pop
I am very glad to read this quite original (for me) view on the subject!
Very interesting, really! :up:
Thank you for your response.
You are right about my not answering the question. But, as I already replied on this:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Quoting Banno
I have already indicated these "observations" are on a totally phisical (bodily) level. They consist actually of reactions, reflexes, behavioral changes, etc. All these belong to a low-level human mind functions. The higher-level functions (thinking, imagination, computing, problem solving, reasoning, etc. are very far away from what Science can explain. Besides, it is not me or anyone else who "dismiss" observations, etc. This is documentation on the subject. That is why I made all this effort to collect it and posted in my topic! If you have not actually read it, please do. It will answer your question.
You might enjoy Alva Noë‘s book, Out of our Heads: Why You are Not your Brain.
He is part of a broader movement called ‘enactivism’ which argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. It claims that the environment of an organism is brought about, or enacted, by the active exercise of that organism's sensorimotor processes.
Obviously, brains are an important part of that; ‘embrained’ beings have many advantages over their vegetative relatives, or organisms without much in the way of brain. But this approach is not looking at the brain as an ultimate source of explanation in the way that neuro-reductionism is prone to doing, with its hope of reducing ‘humanity’s hopes and fears’ to electro-chemical signal pathways in organised goo. It’s a more holistic, as opposed to reductionist, approach, which can take advantage of the new perspectives afforded by science without necessarily giving the game away to ‘neuromania’.
Thank you for your response.
Thinking for a "best candidate" is how, as I said, scientists most probably think about thought (as well as consciousnes, etc.): "Where else can it be located?" But 1) this is not a scientific answer and 2) material (matter/energy) is something that can be directly observed, measured, detailed, experimented on, etc., so if thought is totally material, how comes then that they have so liitle data on it, and only on a body level?
That's because the detailed information is hard to get. The moment you try to get that detailed information you are interfering with that process you distort it, more or less. The more if you wanna know more details. Thoughts in living creatures are very hard to study objectively.
Thank you for your response.
Remembering a birthday, and where an information is containded refers to memory. So this would be another topic. e.g. "Where is memory located?". But, even if remembering involves some thinking, it is still a different subject.
Does this mean that you have in mind some kind of memory other than "brain memory"?
Then, isn't this too mechanical and extremely simplistic an experiment to describe thought in general, esp. higher-level thinking (imagination, computing, problem solving, reasoning, etc.?
As the information I brought in as part of the description of the topic as well as I mentioned realier in this thread, this is as far as Science can go with the connection of thought to the brain.
Thank you for your response.
Like the Phineas Cage case! Not much of a progress, is there? :smile:
But I don't have to tamper the brain to produce bodily resonses, emotions, etc. I can to that by hitting someone. (I wouldn't, actually! :smile:) But all these are reactions. In fact, bodily reactions. Science has not and cannot explain how they are produced and what is their source. Science (with capital "S") cannot see anything else than a body. It can't see the human being as a whole.
Explain how you know this.
Explain why you assume that "the human being as a whole" is something other, or more, than "a body".
It appears that what science has established is that the brain is necessary for thinking - no brain, no thinking. However, is the brain sufficient for thinking? Can AI think? Can silicon-based life-forms think?
A book has been written that is called "We are our brain". It could have just as well be named "We are our body". The intermediate between outer world and inner world
Thank you for your response.
Quoting Wayfarer
"You are not the brain" sounds quite familar. In fact, I was teaching that in a philosophical institute quite a long ago. I will found more about it, anyway. Although the important thing is that ... At last! A different view on the subject! Up to now, "Brainists" totally outnumber "Non-brainists". And I'm afraid this difference won't get smaller ...
You are the second to mention "consciousness". The third one would be myself when I will explain my position. :smile: Well, if I do, because I don't find it will be of any use. There's too much "brainism" in here. I have already brought in enough evidence and exhausted the reasons why thought cannot be or take place in the brain. Yet, it seems that it had absolutely no effect to "brainists", which totally outnumber "non-brainists".
I created this topic to see whether philosophical thinkers, like (most) TPFers, are "stuck" and obsessed (as you say) with the brain as almost everyone else in our culture. Indeed, Science --with all that it carries with and is implied by it: materialism, physicalism, monism, etc.-- is too strong, much stronger than "God". Well, I suspected the result, but I hoped it wouldn't be true. :sad:
(Who knows, there may be late responses that will change the scene ...)
Thank you for your response.
This reminds me of quantum phyiscs ... However, I don't think that the uncertainty principle is actually the problem. Moreover, as it refers to something totally physical, it excludes the possibility that thought (like consciousness) might be of a non-physical nature. And there are many reasons to believe that, since thought seems to elude Science, and it still is a terra incognita for it. Yet, it cannot see that because it deals only with the physical universe (matter and energy). And we are grateful for that! :smile:
I was thinking exactly that too! :grin:
Terra incognita indeed.
OK, but have you thought involutarily of writing this and what exactly to write about? I certainly haven't! :smile:
I principle, this is impossible.
As for "has not", I have already presented a documenation about what is generally known by Science on the subejct of thought. (So, if you have actually read the whole description of the topic, you shouldn't have asked this! :smile:)
As for "cannot", I assume that this refers to the future, in which Science documentedly (I have already presented something pertinent), it is because "thought" is evidently of non-physical nature and Science does not deal with non-physical things.
:smile:
?
Quoting 180 Proof
Indeed! So, the thought/thinking is like travelling. It can be done by foot (brain), by car, by plane, by ship, teleportation, etc i.e. the brain is just many ways thinking can be achieved. In other words, thinking isn't exclusively brain and that, in a sense, liberates thinking from biology onto other substrates. You are not your brain.
So was I wondering! To Be Discussed? Two Balls Dick? To Be Daft? Togger Beaf Dunckle?
In response to Alkis Piskas' original question, I would state that the notion that memory, reason, emotion, and other types of thought occur independently of the body must by needs be predicated upon the consideration that there is some part of the individual which is incorporeal and which is comprised by that which we call "the person". This appears to be a claim about a supernatural phenomenon. It seems to me that the only rational answer to such a proposition is the (Bertrand) Russellian one: the acceptance of supernatural claims demands supernatural proofs. The fact is, that while we have ample evidence of the existence of the human body and brain, we have as yet absolutely no objective evidence (apart from the possibility that the phenomenon of the mind provides evidence therefore) of any incorporeal aspect of the human person. These facts would appear to clarify the matter.
Since apart from the phenomenon of the human mind, no evidence presents itself that there is any part of the human person apart from the physical body, the choice before us seems to be between: (a) holding the fact of the mind as evidence for an incorporeal aspect of the person, or (b) considering that thought and the mind are a result of physiological processes within the human body, particularly (though not exclusively) the brain. Of these two options, the rational choice seems clear: one must assume, in the absence of further evidence, and while not utterly denying the possibility that there is some incorporeal part of the person which is instrumental in producing the phenomenon of cognition, that the human mind is the product of the physiological functioning of the human body.
The fact that we have as yet not been able to discern the mechanisms by which thought might be produced within the brain is irrelevant to this. The field of computer science has been elucidative of the possibilities, though. We now understand that a system can be contrived whereby bits of information are stored, retrieved and manipulated as polarities in order to produce a rather unsophisticated, though highly efficient type of "thought", and indeed, a rather unsophisticated though highly efficient type of "mind". Knowing this one possibility for the production of a type of "thought" provides us with a foundation for imagining all the various possible types of information storage, retrieval and manipulation which might be occurring within a given human brain/body to result in the phenomenon of a human mind.
The preceding, by the way, involves the same line of reasoning which I follow with respect and in response to the proposition that there exists a God or gods of any description.
I think there is only one boat, the biological boat. Why wouldnt other boats have been around us? The information whirling around in the brain (not being able to do this withou a body or a physical world in which its immersed) cant be separated to continue in a non-biological man-made substrate.
Thought moves bodies. Bodies are physical and physical entities are only moved (affect-affected) by other physical entities. Ergo, "thought" is "evidently" physical.
Yeah, "you" are an idea generated by a brain interacting with its environment.
Yes, precisely. As Doug Hofstadter noted: " 'I' am a strange loop".
You are not your brain as in the thinker, presently the brain as far we can tell, can be anything else, even a sufficiently advanced microchip for all we know.
There's the rub. Will we ever be able to verify whether A.I. is actually thinking/is conscious? No. Even if someone's entire brain was replaced with a functionally identical mechanical brain, and they reported they were conscious, we would still wonder: are you really conscious? We would always wonder that. Science can never answer that question. That suggests science is not the tool for this particular job.
If you think like that then you mean to say that the information accessible to us is insufficient to conclude the presence of consciousness. So, here I am, talking to my friend and his conduct is identical in important respects to mine - he talks, acts just like me - and I, from that, make the following analogical inference:
1. I talk, act, initiate, respond in certain ways and I'm conscious.
2. My friend also does talk, act, initiate, respond in the same way as I do.
Ergo,
3. My friend is conscious.
Now, if I'm to doubt my argument from analogy above, there must be a relevant dissimilarity between my friend and me. If none can be found, the argument is cogent and I, perforce, must accept that my friend, like me, is too conscious.
Coming to AI, we seem reluctant to follow the same logic i.e. the following intriguing scenario is the case for AI:
4. I talk, act, initiate, respond in certain ways and I'm conscious.
5. An AI does act, initiate, respond in the same way as I do.
BUT...
6. I hesitate to conclude the AI is conscious.
We're trying to eat the cake and have it too. If you have doubts about the AI being conscious, this uncertainty automatically extends to your friend too and, conversely, if you believe your friend's conscious, the AI must also be conscious!
Something about the evidence for consciousness is problematic. Either we believe it can be mimicked perfectly in which case there's no difference between your friend and a p-zombie and nonphysicalism is true or it can't be and AI that pass the Turing test are truly conscious.
That means the brain isn't necessary for thought although, in our case, it is.
I think maybe it would be better to say that AI imitates human thinking and not consciousness.
Consciousness requires the existence of subconscious and unconscious mind. It's just the tip of the iceberg. Thoughts already coexist and created in unconscious mind and then show up(some of them) in human consciousness.
That's the only reason, imo, that we can't say at AI robot for example has consciousness. It just does some form of "thinking".
Man I can clearly picture you getting into a store, the employee welcomes you saying :
"Good morning, sir"
And you responding :
"Oh my friend first we have to clarify the definition of what good is. After what you define as morning since it's almost 12, so you could easily say noon. And last but not least to define what you mean with Sir. Since I could easily be a transgender woman dressed like a Sir! ".
No offense here, I hope. Just you are really obsessed with definitions, not that you do wrong. I find also definitions and wording extremely important for conducting a proper conversation with useful outcomes. But if we overdo it, at the end we won't be able to talk about anything!
For me in that case, let's see thinking here as "everything that our mind deals with" . As to have a base to understand each other.
Good one! :lol: .
Two points I think should be included.
We cannot separate the doer from the deed. Since someone brought up Nietzsche, one cannot separate the lightning from its flash, the subject from its predicate. They are one and the same. Both the thinking being and that which is thought is the human organism.
Can the brain think without the heart? the lungs? the endocrine system? The metabolism? Though we could do away with a less vital part of our body and still be able to think, the human organism is so complex and integrated that to attribute an act to a single part which only a functioning whole can perform is to misapprehend both doer and deed. At the very least, the concept of “that which thinks” must extend to all the parts involved in thinking.
"Random stuff"? Is this what research means to you? You must better look up the word "research". Well, I will make it easier to you: Research is "creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research)
As I "admit"? Did I confess anything? (Admit means "Confess to be true or to be the case." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/admit)
In making philosophical discussions one must know well the meaning of the words one uses. This is only essential. Otherwise one's statements, questions, arguments etc., just fall apart.
I am not criticizing you. I only believe that you have to work a lot on your vocabulary if you want to make interesting philosophical discussions ...
Thanks for your response.
Quoting NOS4A2
A lot more should be included! :grin:
Quoting NOS4A2
I agree. I have read Nietzsche (extensively) quite a long time ago, so it is useless to consult my memory about him and his philosopy! But I remember well Krishnamurti's teaching: "The observer is the observed". Which I think is related to your "doer" and the "deed". But the "human organism" and the involvement of the brain in all this spoils things for me! :smile:
I don't think we're justified in making that inference. Two things are going on. One, we assume that we're all biological beings that are pretty much built the same way, so that if I have a body and I'm conscious, and you have a similar body, then you should also be conscious. But I'm not justified in assuming that matter even exists, let alone that you or I are made of it. The belief in the existence of some external non-conscious stuff is just that: a belief. It's equally likely, for all I can tell, that this is all a dream and your (and my) body is just part of a dream. If that's the case, then I should no more assume other people are conscious than I should assume people in my dreams are conscious.
The assumption that materialism is the case is also contradicted by the Hard Problem of Consciousness. At this point in time, we should have some scientific theory, if only a very primitive one, about how consciousness arises from non-conscious stuff, but of course, the theories are all over the place, from panpsychism to mysterianism to computationalism to outright denial of consciousness itself. This, I think, is evidence that materialism (and substance dualism) is not the case. That means that everyone I meet are probably dream figures who may or may not be conscious.
The other reason we assume other people are conscious is we don't want solipsism to be true.
That doesn't necessarily follow. If I believe consciousness is only produced by organic brains, I could be sure my friend (who I believe has an organic brain) is conscious, yet doubt whether any machines are conscious.
The thing that's problematic about it is everything is filtered through our own minds, so it's impossible to verify whether any other minds exist. Solipsism will always be a viable option.
Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense. Common sense tells us to think of matter in terms of solid, indestructible stuff. But this kind of matter is not the matter that exists in the world. In fact, "solid" stuff, is by far, much more rare than non-solid matter.
Our common sense misleads us. We know so little about thoughts and brain, from a scientific perspective, because the topic is incredibly complicated. Just look at physics, the most successful of the sciences. It deals with the simplest things in existence: particles, "waves" in space and other small level phenomena.
A good deal of physics is trying to figure out how a few particles colliding could create certain strange effects. But if you consider a brain, you are speaking of billions of particles and a more complicated science, like biology.
And when you speak of persons, you enter sociology and here there are too many interactions between complex creatures to have much by way of insightful data. That's why I think we know so little about thoughts.
Conceptual clarification is the task of philosophy.
That's so true indeed. Imo we examine matter in a very human-ish way. We almost always consider matter as something solid as you mentioned.But solid is only what we see. Our human eyes can see matter as solid.
You say that solid matters are rare. I say there isn't anything solid at all in all over universe. Everything is like huge "molecule-energy soup".
So could that be an indication that our brain's "matter" also is much more than what we can perceive?
Quoting Manuel
So at the end is brain the only thing which gets involved in thinking? As NOS4A2 mentioned, at the end can brain "think" without heart, lungs etc?? For me seems kind of strange to separate mind (thinking etc) from all of the rest of the body.
Your approach is really different and interesting.
To identify yourself as a Brainist or Non-brainist you should have already run through the question of what is thought and answered the question. So I assume most have done this.
The question is close to the question of monism or dualism so most of us have an opinion on that.
I like to expand monism/physicalism to include mental content. I went over this idea in Pops thread 'What is information?'. Basically you take brain state and do an expansion...equal states but increasing detail such as:
Brain state = BRAIN(mental content) = BRAIN(specific mental content)
So I assume brain state includes thinking. By working backwards, knowing your birthday is evidence of a specific brain state.
To frame this problem we have known end points...a physical brain and observed mental content. The circumstances point to brains having the ability to contain mental content. A more difficult question is how the brain actually contains mental content, what is the physical process and is the thing contained physical or physically non-existent. From the Brainist view point it's not hopeless. There are puzzle pieces. Thoughts are associated with the cerebral cortex, memory with temperal lobes, there is centralization in the thalamas, a nested heirarchy in a brains overall structure and there is some ability to observe and correlate brain activity with imaging (MRI's).
If the point of this post is to point out there are huge gaps in what is known, I agree.
There seems to be a relation of the physical brain to physically non-existent subject matter that is a significant problem in philosophy.
It depends on what you mean by "perceive", if by this word you mean our normal human perceptions without that aid of technology, then it's by now an established empirical fact.
If you include technology to perception, I think there are good reasons to suspect that there is more to the universe than what we can reveal about the world. We are human beings, not all-knowing creatures like God or something like that. So there must be a limit in what our senses and intellect tells us about the world.
Quoting dimosthenis9
It's hard to say. Obviously brains don't think in the sense that if you remove it out of the body, you'd still have these thoughts to examine. Which is why I say that it's people that think, not brains. So I'd agree with you.
It is difficult, it's almost impossible to get behind our ordinary intuitions which have been built-in to our mode of thinking for who knows how long.
Quoting dimosthenis9
Thank you.
Yeah I mean with technology's aid also.Even our technology is limited cause it is our "creation". But we humans are incredibly curious creatures. So who knows one day.
Quoting Manuel
Extremely difficult. But not impossible imo.
We've got science which isn't common sense, so we'd made progress.
How far we'll go, who knows?
Don’t hold your breath.
I agree. Physics is indeterminate in regards to metaphysics.
But I think the same can be said about the metaphysical status of the brain and even of mind too. All these things can be looked at without any metaphysical commitment.
Epistemically, I can't disagree. Metaphysically, however, I think we still have all options available. One can't speak of mind realistically if we take away body.
So yes, in terms of knowledge mind is our only avenue to access the world, but mind itself can be interpreted many ways.
All I mean to say is thinking doesn't imply the existence of a brain. In the case of animals this is false of course - all animals that (look like they) are thinking have brains. Just because no one has seen an alien doesn't mean aliens don't exist. Just because the only kinda coffee you've drunk is hot coffee (you live in a cold place) doesn't mean there's no such thing as cold coffee (served in hot regions).
Why not?
They are one and the same.
So the deed of shooting a footbal is me?
So doer and deed are synonyms?
You can speak of it. But... The brain cant exist without a body to be in. The body cant exist without a physical world to live in. The three are interdependent.
In principle, a brain CANNOT be synthetic.
In fact, it DOES imply a brain. A brain, on the other hand, doesnt imply thinking, as becomes clear reading comments and discourses.
Dialysis :point: Artificial Kidneys. How long till we have Artificial brains? :chin:
Quoting Manuel
Can you please also bring in my quote that you are referring to? Thanks.
(Except of course if your commnet is not actually addressed to me.)
In a sense, we are the singularity: inanimate matter -> animate matter -> animate, thinking matter (us) -> ???
The description of the topic was already quite loaded so I have not added my own answer to the question, which I do here:
Thinking is done by and in the mind. The mind is not the brain. The mind is a communication and control system between the spirit (soul) and its environment. In order to achieve this, it uses the brain. One way in which this is done is by thinking. Thought has no mass or energy --so it is not part of the physical universe-- but it can produce mass and energy. This mass and energy is transmitted as signals and/or waves to the brain. The brain then process them and according to their kind, it sends itself signals and/or waves through neurons to the remaining body or as feedback, back to the mind.
This is how the system mind-brain-body works in general. It is of course much more complicated than it sounds!
I give a simple example below. Before that, I have to clarify one thing: When I say "you" I mean YOU as a person (spirit, soul), yourself, YOU as an awareness unit, who can be aware of being aware. You can think of it simply as a point of view (not "viewpoint"), a point from which you can be aware, observe, communicate, etc.
You are looking around in a park and you put your attention on a tree. You observe that tree. In order to do that, you need to use your eyes. You do that via your brain (communication system). Automatically, an image is formed in your mind. This image is also automatically compared to other similar images of trees. If you have seen this kind of tree in the past and/or you have some knowledge about that tree, you will recognize it as something familiar. If you have never seen that tree, it will be added to your "group" of known trees. This is one way of how knowledge is created. The process that the mind used for comparison, etc. is thinking. It may be very simple, i.e. it may end just there and you continue your walk in the park. But it may develop to a more complicated process. Examples:
You might not be sure if you have seen or know that tree. You might start thinking "This tree reminds me of something", "Where have I seen this tree before? Think! Think!", etc. And then you start a whole process of trying to identify that tree ... And, if the tree were something more important, e.g. a person, it could even become on obsession and you get stuck with thinking about it, trying to remember where have you seen that person atc. We know that well!
Now, if the tree is very familiar to you, you might remember that you have fell from such a tree when you were young, and start feeling some fear or other unpleasant emotion, pictures coming to your mind, and so on. On the other hand, that tree might remind you of a romantic place, a time you were in love, etc. which will create pleasant emotions.
This what one of the things a thought (thinking) can do. It can create energy in the form of emotions (waves) that you can feel in your body. The more "negative" these emotions are, the more dense is the energy felt in the body. It can be so dense so as to create a mass: intense anxiety produces adrenaline.
On the contrary, the more "positive" emotions are, the more fine the energy is. When you are happy, you feel very "light", even as if you are "flying". Yet, this is still an energy.
These energies are created my thought, which is created in and by the mind, which is part of the spirit, not the brain.
***
This is how I view and can explain what thinking is, how it us created and works and where it takes place. But if you want a more "standard" view, I will refer you to Descartes' and dualism. I use him as a reference because he is well known in here. (I could use philosophers and philosophic systems that are much nearer to my views, but they belong to the Eastern philosophy, which does not belong in here, as I can see from my 2+ months experience with TPF.)
Note: I am not a follower of Descartes or cartesianism. This is only a second view, in which mind is separated from the body-brain. These are not my views, which I have already described.
I include below just a few of quotations regarding Descartes, which I find representative of the subject of "thought".
*********************************************************************************************************************
"Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Meditations on First Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum, (I think, therefore I am)."
(https://grants.hhp.uh.edu/clayne/HistoryofMC/HistoryMC/DescartesI.htm)
"Descartes defines thought (cogitatio) as what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes)
"And so something that I thought I was seeing with my eyes is grasped solely by the faculty of judgment which is in my mind."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes)
"Descartes tries to give a definition of thought in his Principles: By thought he means to refer to anything marked by awareness or consciousness. This does not just include reasoning or other such intellectual activities but also imagining, sensing, willing, believing, doubting, hoping, dreading, and all other mental operations."
(https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/principles/section3/)
Quoting Banno
See my answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700
See my answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Well, I did that, but I finally have not included "consciousness" in my position, for not complicating things. Yet, I have included two quotations referring to Descartes, which mention consciousness. See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700
I think it was very clear from my description of the topic that I am a non-brainist. Not only my description was based on that element, but I also declared it explicitly towards the end: "So, my position is that thought is neither created by nor is taking place in the brain."
Anyway, you can find my whole answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700
Scary and also exciting! I feel dinosaurish!
I don't know or can understand what does this mean. Should I study monism or something?
Quoting Mark Nyquist
So, you assume that based on a previous assumption (which you take as granted). Well, what can I say? Maybe I could say something if I had studied monism.
I also use the terms "dualism" and "monism" but as general concepts/terms that one can check in any philosophical dictionary. But just that. Then I always offer a personal description/view, usually with practical examples (applications in life) that everyone can undestand, which is the main thing and which do not require the study of these subjects.
I don't understand why you say that the brain can't think. Why do you write this?. My answer is a long one. It's all about a three-unity. Physical world. You=body, inner magical world. Once they were one.
The first answer that came up in my head btw, was "my d××k..."
This is not adressed to me but I take it as a response to the topic. So, thank you.
Re "The mind thinks": OK, but is the mind the brain or something else?
Re "triangular ideas", etc.: Can you give a practical example?
Is this addressed to me?
We must at this point, consider the question of what "thought" is, and what it's essential nature is, and more to the point, what individual "thoughts" are and the "minds" composed thereof. I would argue that, despite the essentiality of thought to the human experience, and the profundity of the experience of thought from the perspective of an individual human being, that thought in general and individual thoughts in particular have no independent, objective reality. Thought is a highly subjective human experience, and one person's thought cannot be said to have any reality outside of the body (using that term as inclusive of the brain) of that individual person. To say, then, that a person's thoughts can be "located somewhere", even though they are the result of the biochemical and bioelecrical activity of the central nervous system, I think is a false consideration. "Thought", rather, appears to be the subjective human experience of those biochemical and bioelectrical activities. Said biochemical and bioelectrical activities are the answer to the second of your questions: "how is thought created?" In answer to the third of your questions, "where does thought take place?", the activities themselves occur within the body, and more particularly within the CNS, and even more particularly within the brain, with all three of those statements cbeing equally correct, but the "thoughts" experienced by the human being comprising that body, CNS, and brain, and indeed the "mind" which is the sum total of the individual's thoughts, cannot be said to be located within the same localities. Rather, they are general subjective experiences of the individual, the individual's subjective experience of his "world" and of the interaction of his body, CNS, and brain with the external environment, and as such cannot be said to be located, or to have independent existence, anywhere. While the physiological activities which result in the subjective human experience of thought can be more-or-less located (even though they are not as yet fully understood), the resultant experience of "thought" and "mind" themselves absolutely cannot, because they have no location, as a result of their having no independent reality. This is similar to the human experience of color, which has no objective reality. Color is a dependent, subjective human experience based upon the objective, independent reality of differing wavelengths of light. While the differing wavelengths of light have existence in objective reality, the differing colors do not, but are rather only subjective human experiences. It is the same with certain physiological (biochemical and bioelectrical) processes of the body, CNS, and brain, as opposed to "thought" and "mind". "Thoughts", like "colors", are not real things, though to we humans they seem to be, and though they have a profound impact upon our lives. As such, they, along with the various "minds" comprising them, cannot be located anywhere in the universe. Am I effectively communicating my concept of this? I hope so...
Surely the Reptilians would resist that though. They already have a monopoly on powerful people.
inanimate matter -> animate matter -> animate, thinking matter (us) -> the attaining of the Absolute
That's why the ETs are observing us, to see if we can do it. Hence all the wild UFO sensor readings on US military aircraft.
That being the case its the brain that thinks and our bodies (the true us) seeing it.
Cant we see the inner world as being on equal level with the outer physical world?
Prishon, I am new to this site and the software thereof. How does one quote a post in replying?
:grin:
Yes. All three, the body, the brain, and the outer world are interdependent. If you consider the body to be you then the question of who thinks becomes obsolete.
:grin:
Then, who is?
Don't mind me. I was just poking a bit of fun at the discussion title.
You're one of those guys!
Select what you wanna quote. Then press "quote".
:sweat:
Im on phone too. My laptop needs lapup. ?
Like this. When you keep your finger on the text you can select.
Sapristi! :grin:
This is a profound question. The "inner world" does not reflect the truth of the "outer world", which is truth itself...the truth of physical reality. That is why I generally like to refer to said "inner world" as "the/a world" ("the world" when the subjective experience is held in common, and "a/his/her/it's world" otherwise), and to said "outer world" as "the universe" or simply "reality". Even so, for human beings, and from the human perspective, the "world" is every bit as important as the "universe". This having been said, I would estimate that when dealing with matters concerning the individual or group human perspective, the "world" should be placed on an equal footing with the "universe". However, when dealing with questions of ultimate reality, especially with questions of "pure science", the "universe" should be given primacy of place. For instance, we humans cannot, in making our day-to-day decisions, base them upon the absolutely true fact that our bodies, being composed of atoms which themselves are upwards of 90% empty space, are themselves upwards of 90% empty space...
As a particle physicist I should agree wholeheartedly...But... isnt the particle picture, quantum fields of particles and their gauge field mediated interactions (fluctuating gauge fields taking care, in popular, virtual particle exchange) a mind's picture? I dont say this mental picture isnt pointing to the stuff in the outer physical world, but the appearance of that physical world is mind-dependent.
"The relationship between the brain and the mind is a significant challenge both philosophically and scientifically. This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, or by any other type of physical mechanism. This difficulty was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz in the analogy known as Leibniz's Mill"
Argument From Incredulity
No, to @Cheshire. His name is mentioned in my comment ... Has TFP lost control?
I think I have... I mistook triangulation for trinity.
What's the difficulty?
What do you mean by this?
The spirit (soul), YOU, yourself, an awareness unit that is aware of being aware. None of these can be identified with the brain, a network of neurons that reveive and transmit signals in the form of particles or waves.
Quoting Prishon
That TFP notified you about a post that mentioned your name, when your name wasn't in that post. (This is how I personally respond to comments, from TPF notifications to me.)
But then of course you can always select yourself and respond to a post that doesn't mention your name! :smile: I repeat, the post mentioned @Cheshire, not @Prishon.
OK, this explains it! :smile: (But still, it was addressed to @Cheshire! :grin:)
WhenI replied I saw too late that it was addressed Chesire. I thought it was about the trinity theory. Instead of triangles... ?
No harm intende! ?
Thank you for your response to the topic.
But I have first to "study" your long post before replying to you. :smile:
I will do that soon, after responding to a couple of other posts ...
The body in between the inner and outer world. It has all the features of a person.
The brains in a jar are impossible in principle.
I dont agree. Why not?
Quoting Manuel
Thanks. :smile: I can see why I couldn't connect your comment to something I said. It's because it referred to the above quotation, which I used from Wikipedia.
So, to reply now to your comment that "Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense" ... If by "stranger" you mean "complicated" and by "appears to common sense" you mean "appears when observing it", I agree! :smile:
At full volume!
OK, we have resolved this.
I'm very certain about this! :smile:
?
No, the problem comes from asserting minds are brains. If minds are brains, then when I imagine a red sunset (or see a green afterimage), there's nothing red or green in my brain.
https://iep.utm.edu/identity/#H2
"A more serious objection to Mind-Brain Type Identity, one that to this day has not been satisfactorily resolved, concerns various non-intensional properties of mental states (on the one hand), and physical states (on the other). After-images, for example, may be green or purple in color, but nobody could reasonably claim that states of the brain are green or purple. And conversely, while brain states may be spatially located with a fair degree of accuracy, it has traditionally been assumed that mental states are non-spatial. The problem generated by examples such as these is that they appear to constitute violations of Leibniz’s Law, which states that if A is identical with B, then A and B must be indiscernible in the sense of having in common all of their (non-intensional) properties."
The so called hard problem, how could "dead and stupid matter" lead to mind. I think that phrasing it this way is misleading. There are many hard problems, not one.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
:up:
I had one this morning! No, just kidding. The thing is that matter is not just matter.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Aren't these two statements-positions in conflict?
Quoting Michael Zwingli
What part of the memory this is? Where is the remaining memory? You don't mention anything else about memory. Well, these are rhetorical questions, so you don't have to reply because they belong to some other topic.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Again, aren't these two statements-positions in conflict?
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Thought is not a highly subjective human experience: it is a totally subjective experience. How could it have a reality (existence) outside the body?
(BTW, I have still to establish what is finally your position about whether thought is created and takes place inside or outside the body-brain ...)
***
I am sorry @Michael Zwingli, but at this point I have to leave the place because it got too late. I will try to continue my replying to you tomorrow.
Not only is a specific thought based on a specific brain state, but failure to grasp a specific thought is a failure to assemble a specific brain state. Sorry you didn't understand it. Did anyone else? As a concept it's not that hard and you might not agree with it.
Memories dont exist.
Right! Though it must be said that thoughts can go on unconsciously. You can sometimes wake up with a solution for a problem you have been thinking about. Likewise, we dont notice everything going on in the physical world.
So the physical world is mathematical and the appearance is experimental physics?
Prishon says no. Physical world is material side. Appearance is the "magical", "essence essential" construction of material part of the trinity. The magical part expires in inner world of Prishon. Inner world make physical world appear. Prishon in between! Before animals walked or swimmed or crawled or fly, all was one. The trinity was one. Then one trinity shifted. To two worlds with Rishon or mama in between. All animal came to be in between. When Prishon dead Prishin one trinity again. No shift anymore.Mathemati just in Prishon inside. Experiment is done on outside of Prishon. But some people have looked in Prishon head! Prishon no like!
By what means can any of these be related? How does Prishon's physical world relate to Prishon's material world, can they really be the same, as in 'is', or is the magical essence the only intermediary for reconstruction?
Prishon say: good question! Prishon is in between. Physical side of trinity is coming alive through eyes of Prishon. Physical side tickles inside world of Prishon. Tickles magical trinity part that blossoms in inside world of Prishon. How trinity know to be magical part inside, and physical material part of trinity outside? Prishon is the unshifted trinity form. Or better the unshifted matter and essence in matter. Who knows true Nature of matter? Prishon does not know. But Prishon can FEEL the magic essence of matter. Prishon liky liky magical stuff. Likes to feel and see and hear and think. And dance. Prishon is not brain. Prishon is person, body with eyes and ears and feet! Thats why Prishon like dance! And music. And think. Inner world of Prishon now hurts. Inner world of Prishon has think too much. Says dont want to think anymore. But Prishon dont listen! Prishon wants brain to think!
Jesus! Enough now Prishon. Im not sure I understood you question correctly. What do you mean with my material world? And with the physical world?
Believe it or not, an old friend of mine had very similar thoughts! He spent his life trying to relate those ideas without much success. But he died happily knowing that the next time he comes back freshly reincarnated he will return with more clues to further his quest. He is not back yet. I hope he isn't now a giraffe or something.
Maybe it's me. Was his name Wiliam? No, coming to think of it...I believe too in reincarnation. But in a next universe... So... It cant be me. ?
I love that painting by the way. He was philosophical! I did a copy once of the minds eye. With thunder and lightning instead of blue with clouds..
Yes, of course, but that is an old, tried and true device used by philosophers to illustrate certain points of truth.
Quoting Prishon
I notice that I should have said "...does not always reflect the truth of..." Indeed, much of the time our inner world does accurately reflect most aspects of objective reality, but not always. What I mean by this is that human perceptions of reality are always interpretations of the aspects of reality, but are not necessarily true reflections of the realities themselves.
This is most apparent in certain examples. When I look at a blue sky, a red traffic "stop sign" or a verdantly green meadow, I interpret that I see colors. The colors of my mental interpretations, though, do not really exist, but are merely the way in which my sense of sight in concert with the functioning of my brain interpret the differing wavelengths of the same type of light radiation. People once thought surely that the sun moved around the earth, and across the diurnal sky, daily; this was what their interpretation of their sensory experience of physical reality indicated to them. Now, with the benefit of scientific discovery and technological innovation, we have come to know differently, so that when we see the sun "setting", we now think of the earth rotating on its axis. In like manner, people were at one time sure of the "fact" of human race, that all people on Earth could be shoehorned into one of three "racial categories": mongoloid, negroid, or caucasoid. With the broader view that we have of the world's people's today, though, we can now see that trying to assign or segregate human beings into racial categories defies the reality of a broad spectrum of physical types, many of which do not fit the old categories, and that indeed, the entire concept of human race might just be fallacious to begin with. Before Neo began to realize his innate potential, he thought that the virtual world programmed by machine AI and transmitted directly into his CNS was reality, but then he began to develop his ability to "see the Matrix".
Such examples illustrate that our subjective human perceptions of reality do not always reflect the truth of objective reality. In truth, I'm not so sure that I would want them to. Perhaps our common subjective experiences in creating a "world" are what have enabled us as a species to relate to the universe in ways constructive enough for us to be as successful as we have been. I'm not entirely sure that I would want to be able to "see the Matrix".
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The vast bulk of memory is stored within the brain. Differing aspects of memory are stored in different parts of the brain. Certain "procedural memories" are stored in the basal ganglia. The major areas involved in the storage of memories are the prefrontal cortex, and the hippocampus. Even so, neuroscientists have been able to make experimental subjects experience memories by stimulation of certain tissues of the body. See here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I think not. Many of the thoughts produced by the brain are engendered by sensory input from the body. Without that sensory input, many human thoughts would not come into being, and the inner "world" that is the sum total of an individual human's thoughts would be very different. While the generation of thoughts occurs within the brain, the impetus for said generation generally comes from the body, thus it is the person as a biological whole who is the thinker...
Quoting Alkis Piskas
You forgot to include the complementary clause to the second of my statements, which changes the nature of the assertion:
Quoting Michael Zwingli
Thoughts are compulsed by the body, and generated within the brain, but are experienced by the person as a whole, as he has emotional and physiological reactions to said thoughts. Don't you think?
This sounds like feeling pity for me for not being able to understand it ... But I guess you actually mean, "Sorry I didn't explain that well" or something like that, right?
As for the "brain states" you are mentioning that we are all supposed to know about and understand:
"Philosophers have been talking about brain states for almost 50 years and as of yet no one has articulated a theoretical account of what one is. In fact this issue has received almost no attention and cognitive scientists still use meaningless phrases like ‘C-fiber firing’ and ‘neuronal activity’ when theorizing about the relation of the mind to the brain." (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09515080600923271)
:up: :up:
(there isnt a righthand one. The right one...)
My question was addressed to @Michael Zwingli, who said "some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586765) ... So, it would be better if you addressed your comment directly to him. Except of course if your comment was actually addressed to me as from a independent, third party. (I think this is most probably the case! :smile:)
BTW, the subject was "memory" (mental faculty and system), not "memories" (mental images etc, things that we remember from the past), although these two are related of course.
Thanks for your expressed agreement. :smile:
But where is your comment about "a righthand one" addressed to? For one thing, I know I have not and could not say that ...
Oh! Dont look for a lot! The thumb is a lefthand hand thumb (you cant choose! Discriminating!). The right one is just wordplay (is there a nice word for wordplay, by the way?). :smile:
OK. I took it as a correction of a mistaken English expression! :smile:
This was a statement made by @MichaelZwingly. There are no memories stored. Only connective strengths to enable memories to flow. And they are flowing continuously. Conscious or not. The central nervous system radiates into the body, so...
It was given as a "brain fact" in a program for children that the brain has a storage capacity of 20 000 Gb... No brain fact!
The brain...
Philosophy is so easy. Can't see what the fuss is about.
I have not made any critique or criticized your post. I only poinpointed some conflicts. And, in fact, as questions, not even as assertions or facts. I have to clear this, and I consider it important, because otherwise our discussion will contain negative elements, which are obtacles to communication and thus undestanding.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
I see. OK. (This could not be inferred from the rest of your post ...)
Quoting Michael Zwingli
But ... Haven't you started your post by saying "it can only be said that the person, rather than the brain, is thinking ... "? These are evidently in conflict (not a question, but an assertion this time! :smile:) Well, except if you differentiate between "thought" and "thinking", which are generally considered as the same thing. (Except when "thought" is used with the meaning of an independent image or other recollection of the memory. But even in this case, it is part of the thinking process.)
Listen, I can't go on questioning things you say, because my intention and purpose is really to undesrand your position(s) on the subject and certainly not to criticize you. But it looks like I fail on this. So, you can consider this as my problem.
Thanks for the exchange! :smile:
Quoting Prishon
It seems that you insist bringing up the statement "some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body" as if I have said that! I could never, never say such a thing. this was said by @Michael Zwingli!
So, I would like please to disconnect this statement from my name! Really, it is unfair, embarassing and annoying! Thank you.
I corrected. Thanks for making me know. I thought you were a opponent of stored memories.
What fuss? Where?
"The mind is a communication and control system between the spirit (soul) and its environment"
Its the body thats between the soirit and the environment.
"The mind is not the brain"
Correct. But its inside the brain (central nervous system radiating out to the body.
"In order to achieve this" (communication between the two worlds) ", it uses the brain."
The body is used for this. The true you.
"One way in which this is done is by thinking. Thought has no mass or energy --so it is not part of the physical universe-- but it can produce mass and energy. This mass and energy is transmitted as signals and/or waves to the brain. The brain then process them and according to their kind, it sends itself signals and/or waves through neurons to the remaining body or as feedback, back to the mind"
Thoughts have a mass as well as an essence, though in the inner world only the essence is seen and felt or heard.
It can produce energy in the body to express itself by language, be it spoken, screamed, or bodily language.
OK.
Quoting Prishon
What kind of an opponent is that? Who is against stored memories?
BTW, I already mentioned that there's a difference bwtween "memory" and "memories". The following may be more helpful:
"Memory" from Dictionary.com:
[i]"1. The mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences."
5. A mental impression retained; a recollection."[/i]
We talk about the "human memory", "I have a bad memory", etc. And we talk about "childhood memories". Unfortunately this is a problem in English. In Greek, we have two distinct word structures: "mnimi" (= memory) and "anamniseis" (= memories). (Some of course, as in every language that has been distorted with time, use "mnimes" (in plural) to mean memories. But it's wrong. In English it is correct! :smile:
Hahaha...fair enough, but please don't be afraid to actually criticize my statements. After all, somebody needs to check my thinking, lest (my head having a bothersome tendency to swell, unchecked) this "funny monkey" begin to think himself more and more...
The good thing about not being a "professional" philosopher, is that being occasionally wrong need not engender an occasional existential crisis. Being wrong in my case usually just engenders a shrug. I know this because I can remember once thinking that I was wrong, but later found out that I was mistaken...:wink:
Well, bodies are already part of the environment, the physical world, aren't they? If so, they cannot be between something and the environment, can they? Maybe you think of your body as something separate from the environment. But what about the other bodies that you see around? Do you also think of them as separate from the environment, the physical world?
Quoting Prishon
You are your hands and your feet? Are these the true you? What will happen if one or more members of the body are cut off of person? He would not have a YOU anymore? What about totally paralyzed people who can still communicate very well? They don't have a true self?
Thank you for letting me criticize your statements. It's very generous of you! :grin: But I never do that, except if I have a good reason to. Not the case! :smile:
I dont think so. Whats around my body is my environment.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
Not only that. I am my legs, mu face, my back that itches for which I use a found stick to scratch, my nose, my ears, my belly, my toes, etc. That all is the true me. All things happening in the brain are part of an inner world, like the sun is part of the physical world outside, the outer world. Whats wrong with being a body?
"Rishon says its nice what says Rishon. But what mean trinity? Rishon can xplain? "
Yes Rishon, Rishon can but there is magic too.
"Rishon ask, what is magic? Magic evil man? Magic nice man? Magic likey likey Rishon?"
Yes Rishon, you will like magic.
"Why Rishon liky likey magic"
You just like it Rishon.
OK, but I asked you: "But what about the other bodies that you see around?" Where do they belong?
They stay, like me, between their inner world and their outer, physical world. We share things about that outer world and inner world. We share similar outer worlds and inner worlds.
I see. So other persons' bodies are not part of your environment, i.e. part of the physical world. They belong to some other dimension, in some other universe. Is this what you mean?
If this is so, how comes that you can see them and touch them?
I didnt say that. Other people as well as animals, are in between the two worlds. For you, my body is part of your physical world. And you can look at my brain like being part of it as well (neural scans, brain wave detectors, drug behavior in my brain, etc.). But for me, being the body that types to you now, the "essence, magical" part of the dual stuff has expressed in my inner world. You can never feel what I (my body) see in this inner world (thoughts, imagination, which resolves the issue who thinks: thoughts just are part of my inner world and I see them; no one does the thinking; my thoughts are not mine, though I can love some of them and consider them mine or likable as the thoughts I have right now).
??? How can you know the truth by using something that can never exist?
There's a single physical world. Its perception by each person, i.e. each person's reality ("inner world", as you call it) regarding the physical world, is different. We live in the same universe. Our reality regarding it differs in general, but we also share a common reality about parts of it.
Quoting Prishon
Yes, your inner world is certainly not part of the physical universe. But this reality does not rest in the body-brain (physical universe).
Regarding the body and the self, I remember the famous Polanski's dilemma in his film "The Tenant":
[i]If I cut off my hand, you say me and my hand.
If I cut off my leg, you say me and my leg.
If I take out my kidney, liver and intestines, you say me and my intestines ...
But if I cut off my head, do you say me and my head or me and my body?[/i]
(There are other minor versions too.)
The inner world, being the expression of essence only, is the content of the physical matter. That what you see if you look to my brain. You see the difference, I feel the difference.
Hi. I have asked you to disconnect the statement "some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body" from my name, but the connection is still there. Can you please either delete that post or remove my name from it? (It's the post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/587299)
Thank you.
I have changed the question already long time ago.
OK, but first please handle your post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/587299 as I requested previously. OK?
What should be fixed still?
Nothing. You fixed it. Thank you!