Is Thinking a Voluntary or Involuntary Action?

But you are saying that because a thought existed prior to a thought "willing" another thought that it is not voluntary. That's simply not true.

You can mount a really reasonable argument that the ultimate origin is not voluntary but you can't argue that no thought is voluntary.

One basis to your above argument is "a thought cannot be said to will another thought" and that is simply not true in addition to being a circular argument that's supposed to prove itself.

Of course a thought can "will" another thought. Happens all the time.

0 Replies

Craven

Quote:

One basis to your above argument is "a thought cannot be said to will another thought" and that is simply not true in addition to being a circular argument that's supposed to prove itself.

That's the whole point it's circular., in fact it's a point, i.e. doesn't go anywhere.

Quote:

Of course a thought can "will" another thought. Happens all the time.

0 Replies

I never said thoughts have "will" Rolling Eyes

.

I did say thought can be voluntary. I did say that thoughts can be "willed".

The one doing the "willing" (BTW, this is a really silly word choice) is the human. And that is a group of collective thoughts. Not an individual thought.

The fact that it's "circular" in no way precludes voluntary thought.

Some thoughts can "appear" others can be voluntarily summoned.

No amount of doublespeak will get around that.

Yes, they "appear" in lower levels of conciousness.

But yes, humans can filter and focus and at the highest levels of conciousness the thoughts you entertain are your choice.

"Red" might "appear" but it's a voluntary choice to think about it on the highest levels of conciousness. When you make that choice you will have voluntarily chosen to foster the subsequent thought.

0 Replies

Craven

Quote:

I never said thoughts have "will" .

I did say thought can be voluntary. I did say that thoughts can be "willed".

The one doing the "willing" (BTW, this is a really silly word choice) is the human. And that is a group of collective thoughts. Not an individual thought.

Thoughts appear voluntary but on inquiry it can be seen that they are not.

Calling a group of thoughts human doesn't solve the problem.

If one thought cannot will another thought, a million thoughts called human also cannot will another thought, for a thought doesn't transform from being what it is when it is in a group or alone, and >being a group< doesn't magically produce the capacity to will.

Quote:

Some thoughts can "appear" others can be voluntarily summoned.

Quote:

No amount of doublespeak will get around that.

What doublespeak?

Quote:

Yes, they "appear" in lower levels of conciousness.

But yes, humans can filter and focus and at the highest levels of conciousness the thoughts you entertain are your choice.

Quote:

"Red" might "appear" but it's a voluntary choice to think about it on the highest levels of conciousness. When you make that choice you will have voluntarily chosen to foster the subsequent thought.

0 Replies

truth
Oh what a headache you two have given me.

0 Replies

This may be flawed but ill say it anyway. The thought process is like a computer. If you have programmed your computer to do something it will do it automatically, but if it is not programmed to do something and you want it to do it you have to write the program and then put it on your computer. Involuntary thought is like the already programmed stuff on the computer like knowing 6 times 6 is thirty-six. The Voluntary is like the computer without the programmed, like figuring out a very complex situation or math problem for instance. You don't know until you voluntarily think it out. Tell me if you think i am off basis.

0 Replies

truth
Sounds right--and creative--to me.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Thoughts appear voluntary but on inquiry it can be seen that they are not.

It can also be seen as little green men whispering. So what it "can be seen as" is of precious little consideration to me.

Quote:

Calling a group of thoughts human doesn't solve the problem.

Well since I do not agree that there was a problem in the first place I can't really comment on this beyond saying that trying to isolate a thought and question whether it has "will" or not is obviously going nowhere.

But "will" exists. I happen to think it's a pretty silly word but it's application requires thought.

Take for example "will power", the power to "will" something. It is formed of a collection of thoughts.

I did not call a "group of thoughts" human so much as simply say humans have "will power" and that this generally describes a mental state i.e. group of thoughts.

Now I don't anthropomorphize each individual thought and call it a little green guy with "will power" but you should get my point.

"Thought" describes mental activity as much as it describes "an individual little green guy".

You CAN direct thought, control some of its segues into other topics of thought and no there don't have to be little green guys with will power.

The individual's collective psyche can and does direct and voluntarily control certain levels of thought.

Quote:

If one thought cannot will another thought, a million thoughts called human also cannot will another thought, for a thought doesn't transform from being what it is when it is in a group or alone, and >being a group< doesn't magically produce the capacity to will.

Below you ask what I mean by "double speak". Please refer to this parahraph that does not mean anything relevant.

For example, you are the only one describing individual thoughts and asking if they have "will power". While the thought-as-an-individual-anthropomorphized green guy is entertaining it is tangiental.

I earlier said "no duh" and perhaps I should explain. "No duh!" was a reference to the obvious fact that a thought does not have conciousness. So no, it can't have a "will". But "will" is comprised of thought in a counciousness and the concious being retains the ability to direct it to some degree.

When I talk of "double speak" I talk of this incoherence due to tangiental exploration.

Quote:

Quote:
Some thoughts can "appear" others can be voluntarily summoned.

You can say that till you are blue in the face, but since you asked about its opposite I will explain.

Thoughts can be summoned and directed by a conciousness, which is a collective of thought.

For the most part they are not controlled, but like breathing it can be influenced and directed to a certain degree by the conciousness.

Please take note of the fact that the thought is not an absract power. It is a poorly understood function of hardware.

Hardware that can be manipulated.

To use a very crude example, come a bit closer < picks up bat >, I can help you summon thoughts about pain. Laughing

Or we can try happy thought, then really angry ones < picks up Chinese feather torture kit>.

If you want we can make your thought even more absract <starts rolling a doobie>.

We can't control the mind (and thought) completely. But we do exercise control to some degree.

Heck, with practice you can even try to influence what you will dream about through manipulation of both external sensory input and the focus of thought.

I can cite examples of my own if you would like.

Quote:

Quote:
No amount of doublespeak will get around that.

What doublespeak?

See above.

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, they "appear" in lower levels of conciousness.

But yes, humans can filter and focus and at the highest levels of conciousness the thoughts you entertain are your choice.

Ok, this is just more of your double speak. I referred to "will" being formed of a collection of thought. Now you are still one the tangent of your own creation in which humans are supposed to be thought.

If we are to discuss this on a level above a stoner's mental meanderings (which can be fun) we will need to avoid such tangiental and irrelevent doublespeak.

I refer to convoluted sentences that mean nothing relevant to anything but the tangent that launched them.

Quote:

That's only an appearance. At the higher levels of inquiry we see that it is a false belief.

Another ultimately meaningless contruct. I will ask for this to be given meaning.

Quote:

Ok, before we continue let me tell a anecdote.

Ever heard of the expressions between the difference between "deep" and "murky"?

When I keep referencing "doublespeak" I am talking about the murkiness of tangiental convolutions.

It's not deep, it's just murky.

So to avoid all the meaningless expressions on both of our parts let's cut to the chase.

Do you assert that I can't manipulate your thoughts to some degree? For example, were I to expose my beastly and hairy posterior and were you to think of, say, a gorilla, would your thought have been influenced by the sensory input that my mind's collection of thoughts decided to subjugate you to?

And for example, if your mind decides to continue this discussion and further expound on this topic would you not have voluntarily made a decision to control some sensory input and subsequently influence thought?

I am sticking to an easy one. You can't deny that sensory input influences thought. I am simply illustrating that we each have control to some degree of our sensory input.

Try sensory deprivation, it can produce marvelous inreospection and very strong paranoia. I tried to do it and while not complete it was interesting.

0 Replies

In answer to Individual's question in his first paragraph of his post of Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:06 pm:

Yes, in both my professional and military experiences there is a wide spectrum of differences in what seems to be basic intelligence within our species. The military is probably the best cross section of human intelligent differences there is. One might think that the officer corps would demonstrate more overall intelligence than that of the enlisted cadre, but this prejudice is misleading. Both seem to enjoy roughly the same level of intellectual potential.

However, the average officer is (usually) the product of at least some level of advanced academic training in addition to that received in OCS by the military itself directed towards analytical thinking with the goal of quality decision making. This, therefore, gives the average officer the appearance of being more on the "cerebral" ball.

All this aside, I have noted a number of individuals that seem to have slow synaptic connecting abilities. I am not being facetious. It often seems there is either a longer thought path process involved in the particular individual's gray matter (more neurons employed) or a physically larger synaptic distance involved. The response is normal for simple thoughts and concepts but slower, sometime painfully so. However, this slowness works against the ability to carry out more complicated mental tasks.

Just an individual difference in intelligence...so what ? Well, if we see this individual inability to think -- an inability to understand -- on an individual level, how does this speak towards our collective ability to understand the world around us? Are there things that even the most intelligent among us cannot possibly comprehend or can this be overcome merely by continued species evolution and deposition of collectively accumulated knowledge with the hopeful subsequent building upon those products of intellectual toil? Still, the act of examining thought seems to involve slippery epistemological gymnastics. Like trying to examine a microscope using the very microscope you are trying to examine.

The second paragraph involves the question of whether or not our thoughts can be voluntarily controlled. Philosophical questions of "free will" implicitly loom large here but we can save those arguments for other threads and safely say that, yes, we can will or determine to "think" about various subjects. However, this conclusion is questionable, as others have pointed out, when we move backwards in search of origin .

But perhaps this search for the true origin of the thought that produces the thought is not infinitely regressive. There is a practical basis for original thought. The origin lies in us in the form of our senses, hormones, brain stem, and, of course, higher cerebral processes.

Our thoughts involving sex have their basis in chemicals produced by our own bodies. The levels of these hormones are regulated by feedback mechanisms but their main substrate is the lower brain or brain stem and other specific areas of the brain. These areas then act on higher centers in the central nervous system to create more specific thoughts or desires. In turn we can then act on or merely manipulate these higher thoughts to produce sexual fantasies. So the resultant complicated cerebral calisthenics, although voluntarily initiated at some point, have their basis in a basic biological imperative.

But the interesting thing about this example is that somewhere, somehow the individual makes a DECISION on whether to act on the impulse or to merely play with it in his/her head. So in answer to Individual's second paragraph, Yes... and No. There is a definite point at which we are responsible for decisions made and therefore our thoughts. The No answer, however, does not speak against individual responsibility. This part of thinking is that mystical involuntary one percent of genius that is the source of inspirations and epiphanies.

The absolutely marvelous thing is that we can experience such a high level of thought. It seems a purely evolutionary slight of hand...a "Good Trick" acquired merely by random processes and selection pressures. Are we "social creatures" because of evolutionary neurological changes, or did our brain develop as it has because of previous social interactions? Well, yes.

JM

0 Replies

James,

it's always nice to see you. BTW, it's easier and more accurate to refer to the post number (as times differ).

You can see a post number to the right of the date, and that is also a link to the specific post that can be copied.

0 Replies

twyvel,

If you think of thought in less abstract metaphorical terms and consider its physical existence (electricity) you can better understand how throught manipulates thought.

Thought can control muscles for example. When you flex a muscle it can be a deliberate choice to send the electronic order.

Since your mind has this power it can also control sensory input to some degree.

Controlling sensory input is just one way of manipulating thought.

Terry, as usual, has some other good examples in her posts.

I agree that on the lowest levels of conciousness there is little control. But at the forefront is the thought that is actively controlled by the mind.

0 Replies

Craven

Quote:

It [thought] can also be seen as little green men whispering. So what it "can be seen as" is of precious little consideration to me.

That appears to contradict your involvement in this discussion. But if it doesn't, it doesn't.

What thought can be seen, perceived, observed as can change ones whole outlook on this existence.

Quote:

Well since I do not agree that there was a problem in the first place I can't really comment on this beyond saying that trying to isolate a thought and question whether it has "will" or not is obviously going nowhere.

You are the one that said a collection of thoughts could will other thoughts, and this >collection of thoughts< is human, not I. And I am saying, calling a collection of thoughts human doesn't advance your argument that thoughts can will thoughts.

It's going no where because thoughts cannot be isolated from will, nor does a thought have will.

Quote:

But "will" exists. I happen to think it's a pretty silly word but it's application requires thought.

Take for example "will power", the power to "will" something. It is formed of a collection of thoughts.

Quote:

"Thought" describes mental activity as much as it describes "an individual little green guy".

You CAN direct thought, control some of its segues into other topics of thought and no there don't have to be little green guys with will power.

The individual's collective psyche can and does direct and voluntarily control certain levels of thought.

"little green guy".... is that a euphemism for will?

We are not talking about whether thoughts describe anything. We are talking about whether they are a choice.

Quote:

Below you ask what I mean by "double speak". Please refer to this parahraph that does not mean anything relevant.

That's a good tactic. You don't understand something so you call it doublespeak. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

For example, you are the only one describing individual thoughts and asking if they have "will power".

Yes, well ummmmmm, that's the topic of this thread Craven.

Quote:

I earlier said "no duh" and perhaps I should explain. "No duh!" was a reference to the obvious fact that a thought does not have conciousness. So no, it can't have a "will". But "will" is comprised of thought in a counciousness and the concious being retains the ability to direct it to some degree.

When I talk of "double speak" I talk of this incoherence due to tangiental exploration.

Quote:

Thoughts can be summoned and directed by a conciousness, which is a collective of thought.

For the most part they are not controlled, but like breathing it can be influenced and directed to a certain degree by the conciousness.

No, thoughts cannot be directed by consciousness. Consciousness doesn't do anything. Consciousness is observation or observing, that is all.

Quote:

To use a very crude example, come a bit closer < picks up bat >, I can help you summon thoughts about pain.

Or we can try happy thought, then really angry ones < picks up Chinese feather torture kit>.

Your example makes my argument, i.e. feeling the pain is a spontaneous reaction of which I have no control over.

Quote:

We can't control the mind (and thought) completely. But we do exercise control to some degree.

The "we" and the "mind" are one and the same.

Quote:

See above.

I don't think so.

Quote:

Ok, this is just more of your double speak. I referred to "will" being formed of a collection of thought. Now you are still one the tangent of your own creation in which humans are supposed to be thought.

If we are to discuss this on a level above a stoner's mental meanderings (which can be fun) we will need to avoid such tangiental and irrelevent doublespeak.

I refer to convoluted sentences that mean nothing relevant to anything but the tangent that launched them.

You and your doublespeak.

It has nothing to do with doublespeak, but has everything to do with you not following the conversation.

You wrote:

The one doing the "willing" (BTW, this is a really silly word choice) is the human. And that is a group of collective thoughts. Not an individual thought.

Quote:

Do you assert that I can't manipulate your thoughts to some degree? For example, were I to expose my beastly and hairy posterior and were you to think of, say, a gorilla, would your thought have been influenced by the sensory input that my mind's collection of thoughts decided to subjugate you to?

That my thoughts are effected by external stimuli says nothing about my thoughts having will to control my thoughts. Matter of fact it demonstrates a lack of any control.

Quote:

And for example, if your mind decides to continue this discussion and further expound on this topic would you not have voluntarily made a decision to control some sensory input and subsequently influence thought?

No, not if thoughts cannot will other thoughts.

Quote:

I am sticking to an easy one. You can't deny that sensory input influences thought. I am simply illustrating that we each have control to some degree of our sensory input.

Try sensory deprivation, it can produce marvelous inreospection and very strong paranoia. I tried to do it and while not complete it was interesting.

Quote:

If you think of thought in less abstract metaphorical terms and consider its physical existence (electricity) you can better understand how throught manipulates thought.

No, I don't think thoughts have never been show to have physical existence and I do not think they do.

Quote:

Thought can control muscles for example. When you flex a muscle it can be a deliberate choice to send the electronic order.

0 Replies

Between birth and death our thoughts never cease. We learn to control the flow of the stream, but the stream always exists.

It is the same for every mammal, reptile, amphibian and possibly insect (depending on how you define thought) which has ever lived.

Thoughts can be controlled, but thinking is involuntary.

Best Regards,

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Quote:
It [thought] can also be seen as little green men whispering. So what it "can be seen as" is of precious little consideration to me.

That appears to contradict your involvement in this discussion. But if it doesn't, it doesn't.

What thought can be seen, perceived, observed as can change ones whole outlook on this existence.

You missed my point. In simple words: people can have all kinds of idiotic opinions. Many of them get very little credence from me.

Quote:

You are the one that said a collection of thoughts could will other thoughts, and this >collection of thoughts< is human, not I.

Incorrect. I said humans have willpower and not thoughts, and you kept blindly exploring the tangent of your creation about whether individual thoughts have will power. Rolling Eyes

Craven wrote:

The one doing the "willing" (BTW, this is a really silly word choice) is the human. And that is a group of collective thoughts. Not an individual thought.

Let's break this down again.

1) Humans do the "willing", not the absurd concept of individual thoughts like you have been talking about.

2) "Willing" something is a group of thoughts, and not an individual "thought".

Quote:

And I am saying, calling a collection of thoughts human doesn't advance your argument that thoughts can will thoughts.

And I am saying that I never did so and that your tangent is tedious.

Quote:

It's going no where because thoughts cannot be isolated from will, nor does a thought have will.

No duh! Are we past this tangent yet?

Quote:

And, again, I thin k the whole "individual thought with consciousness" line of thinking is comically absurd and would love to know how to get you off that tangent.

I said that "will" is comprised of a group of thoughts. I never said thoughts themselves have will.

I will try, yet again, to explain it in very simple language.

Thoughts do not think, they are thought. Thoughts do not have will. Will is composed of thought. Humans can will, and when they do so it is formed of a group of thoughts and usually a decision.

Quote:

"little green guy".... is that a euphemism for will?

No, it's your "but thoughts can't have will" tangent. It's my way of saying "no duh!"

You keep acting like someone else is discussing thought with you as if they were individual little green guys with consciousness.

You question whether they have "will" etc. And while you seem to be trying to divest me of a position along those lines I have done all I can do to assure you that I find both the concept and your harping on it absurd.

Maybe I can use a colloquialism:

"You are preaching to the choir" and I do not think thoughts are individually conscious.

Whew, i hope that works.

Quote:

Quote:
Below you ask what I mean by "double speak". Please refer to this parahraph that does not mean anything relevant.

That's a good tactic. You don't understand something so you call it doublespeak.

I understand it perfectly. When I don't I seek clarification so as not to make a fool of myself (see the tangents and incessant insistence that I am saying that humans are a group of thoughts above).

I understood what you wrote, and I am calling it gibberish, and not because of the words it was couched in.

Quote:

Quote:
For example, you are the only one describing individual thoughts and asking if they have "will power".

Yes, well ummmmmm, that's the topic of this thread Craven.

Perhaps for you. I have yet to see anyone else bring up individual thoughts having will power. I was discussing humans having will power, and the power to control some of their thought.

If this is a discussion about individual thoughts having "will power" I will have to excuse myself.

About now is a good time to note that I have used "will power" in the sense of the idiom and not the individual words paired.

Quote:

Yes of course thought is not conscious.

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. Whew, glad that's over.

Quote:

I never once used it as a circular argument. I do indeed contend that thoughts can create thought, but a circular argument refers to using the premise to prove itself. That is not something I have relied on.

I used an example of machines, but you didn't get it and i didn't feel like explaining. So I guess I have to do it now, it really sums up the differences we have.

E.G.

Can machines self-generate?

1) Ultimately there has to be a machine (or machines) that were externally created.

The above is the point you harp on to the exclusion of the second, equally valid point.

2) A machine can indeed create a machine (watch a car being built).

So yes, while raw thought is an incessant stream of electronic activity in the brain and while most of it is aleatory and not controlled one can very easily stimulate the brain and create said electronic impulses, thereby generating and controlling certain levels of thought.

I will explain this further but in the past I have referred to the physical aspect of the brain being a good way for you to understand this. I'll expound later.

Quote:

A thought is just a thought, it has no volition.

Are we back on this old haggard horse? You'll have to keep that tangent alive by yourself after this brief message from our sponsor.

"No duh" "little green men" "preaching to the choir" "irrelevant tangent"

Quote:

No, thoughts cannot be directed by consciousness. Consciousness doesn't do anything. Consciousness is observation or observing, that is all.

Fine, replace it with mind just so I don't have to argue that with you as well.

Quote:

Your example makes my argument, i.e. feeling the pain is a spontaneous reaction of which I have no control over.

Bullshit! Pick up a gun and shoot me. Then you preclude the sensory input that results in predictable thoughts. Therein lies a bit of control. You can try to control your sensory input.

I am illustrating that through the control of sensory input you can control thought.

For example, merely by choosing what to look at you can influence thought to some degree.

Quote:

The "we" and the "mind" are one and the same.

More doublespeak. Watch:

"We and the arm are the same thing". That doesn't mean we can't control our arms and neither does the "we are one" line say anything relevant to the issue.

Yes, the mind is a part of us, but that in no way precludes the possibility of it being controlled by us.

Again, look at the other body parts that are a part of us and also controlled by us.

Quote:

You and your doublespeak.

It has nothing to do with doublespeak, but has everything to do with you not following the conversation.

You wrote:

The one doing the "willing" (BTW, this is a really silly word choice) is the human. And that is a group of collective thoughts. Not an individual thought.

So according to you a human is a collection of thoughts.

NOPE! Who is not following the conversation? I refer to the above mention of not ploughing ahead without being sure you know what the person is saying.

I said that the one doing the "willing" is the human. Not an individual thought. I went on to say that "it" is a "group" of thoughts. The "it" being referred to is "will". I am saying it is not an individual thought.

Now you've run with this since then, insisting that I said humans were a "group of thoughts" and accused me of not following the conversation.

So if you wish to continue to argue against something I never said or meant you will have to do that without me.

Quote:

And I again call bullshit. Thoughts are electronic impulses, and said electronic impulses are manipulated by a plethora of things.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you assert that I can't manipulate your thoughts to some degree? For example, were I to expose my beastly and hairy posterior and were you to think of, say, a gorilla, would your thought have been influenced by the sensory input that my mind's collection of thoughts decided to subjugate you to?

That my thoughts are effected by external stimuli says nothing about my thoughts having will to control my thoughts. Matter of fact it demonstrates a lack of any control.

Yes, it illustrates a lack of control in response to sensory input, but it also illustrates that sensory input can be controlled. So if you control sensory input you control thought to some degree.

Something so simple as the choice to open or close the eyes can control sensory input which as you note can directly influence thought.

Quote:

No, not if thoughts cannot will other thoughts.

Who's using a circular argument here twyvel?

Thoughts are ultimately electronic impulses. Electronic impulses can generate reactions (read thought).

Quote:

Consider looking at it this way. If all knowledge is mental then we are in a sense living in a mental environment which can be likened to an illusion or dream. As a dreamt character do you have any control over thoughts, (or anything else for that matter.)?

No. The thoughts are not even yours, eee gad,

Consider that I am not a "dreamt" character and ponder the sheer irrelevance.

Quote:

No, I don't think thoughts have never been show to have physical existence and I do not think they do.

You do not think thought has a physical manifestation in the form of electronic impulses within the brain? Shocked

Quote:

Please make this coherent. Please first explain how you assert that the electronic impulses of a thought do not send signals through the nervous system thereby controlling certain muscular activity.

If you want to explain the subsequent meandering that's fine, but I'd just like you to clarify why you think a thought can't control muscles through the use of the nervous system and electrical impulses.

0 Replies

Craven,

Thanks for the tip.

JM

0 Replies

Quote:

The one doing the "willing" (BTW, this is a really silly word choice) is the human. And that is a group of collective thoughts. Not an individual thought.

Quote:

Let's break this down again.

1) Humans do the "willing", not the absurd concept of individual thoughts like you have been talking about.

2) "Willing" something is a group of thoughts, and not an individual "thought".

Quote:

I said that "will" is comprised of a group of thoughts. I never said thoughts themselves have will.

I will try, yet again, to explain it in very simple language.

Thoughts do not think, they are thought. Thoughts do not have will. Will is composed of thought. Humans can will, and when they do so it is formed of a group of thoughts and usually a decision.

What I understand of what you are saying is that even though will is composed of thought you are making a distinction between will and thought. There is an aspect of will that is something other then thought. From my perspective you are making a distinction between will and thought where there is none.

However if that is incorrect then what is the distinction? What is will?

I see will as a drive, an assertive force to choose X and not Y, to have this experience and not that

Quote:

Yes, the mind is a part of us, but that in no way precludes the possibility of it being controlled by us.

Again, look at the other body parts that are a part of us and also controlled by us.

Quote:

And I again call bullshit. Thoughts are electronic impulses, and said electronic impulses are manipulated by a plethora of things.

Quote:

Thoughts are ultimately electronic impulses. Electronic impulses can generate reactions (read thought).

Quote:

You do not think thought has a physical manifestation in the form of electronic impulses within the brain?

No, thoughts have never been shown to be electrical or physical in any way, and I think they never will. The reason is all knowledge is mental. Even Bertrand Russell a materialist said, "When the surgeon thinks he is looking at the brain of the person he is operating on, he is mistaken, all he has is an image in his own mind."

Electrical impulses like everything else are mental objects and as such are not the basis of thought but are thought/ideas themselves.

Quote:

Please make this coherent. Please first explain how you assert that the electronic impulses of a thought do not send signals through the nervous system thereby controlling certain muscular activity.

From a materialist, dualist perspective, thought and material are not casually related; thought is not a link in the chain of cause and effect, because, as mentioned, thought has never been shown to be electrical/physical.

0 Replies

If one says, "Thoughts are ultimately electronic impulses", the person can also say, "Swimming is ultimately a motion of arms and legs in the water."
Well, what rich contents the statements have! But without human "will" one cannot think nor swim. Thought is a complex of interactions of multiple consciousness, and swimming is the outcome of multiple interaction of human will, arms, legs (which are under human control to some extent), and the water (or even air).
And music is not simply a vibration of the string of a violin.

0 Replies

satt_focusable in his Post: 517117 -,
has raised a good point.

Thought might be described as electronic impulses but this merely invites further reductionist description involving the actual chemical release of neurotransmitters involved in inter-neuronal communication and those electrolytes involved in intra-neuronal conduction of impulses which invokes further explanations involving quantum effects and so on.

But, inherently, reductionism seems the wrong path to describe the phenomenon of thought. Perhaps we might say that the action or process of thought is a side effect or product of increasing complexity. Just as life is the product of increased chemical complexity due to natural design processes we can view thought itself as the result, from what we view so far, as the ultimate result of evolutionary processes leading to the complexity involving present sophisticated neuronal tissue organization.

So it's some kind of magic, right? Well, no. Mysticism is merely a poor stop gap mechanism to attempt an explanation for that which we don't completely understand. For those who really want to know how things work ambiguity, via spells and prestidigitation, just don't cut the mustard.

But fear not, most of us do not know exactly how cell phones or pagers work, but it is a safe bet none of the users of said devices feel that those to whom they remit payment for such services deserve deification. So, I believe that thought processes can be "explained". This resolution of cause would be in general terms at first and then, ultimately, more specifically. However, I still feel the definition of thought becomes meaningless at some point using full blown reductionism. After all, how useful is an athlete's knowledge of a complete record of each muscle fiber's contraction resulting in a successful basket ball shot?

Perhaps a more interesting question can be posed: Can human "will" be distilled down? If the term "will" is replaced with that of "desire" can we find "will" in basic human or biological need? Can we present an argument for, say, an individual's need for societal acceptance, based upon a strong desire for procreation? Is it possible a man's basic desire to impress women for the short term goal of coitus counterbalanced with the women's long term goal of successful child rearing might be responsible for human civilization? Before pooh-poohing this, think of all the hoops men are willing to jump thru merely to obtain a few minutes of sexual gratification! Have these "hoops" become increasingly more intellectually demanding? Is Henry Kissinger's statement that "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" a telling manifestation of primitive human desires driving intellectualism?

JM

0 Replies

What is this thing called love

I was a humdrum person
Leading a life apart
When love flew in through my window wide
And quickened my humdrum heart.
Love flew in through my window
I was so happy then.
But after love had stayed a little while
Love flew out again.
What is this thing called love?
Just who can solve its mystery?
Why should it make a fool of me?
I saw you there one wonderful day.
You took my heart and threw it away.
That's why I ask the Lawd in Heaven above
What is this thing called love?

-- Cole Porter

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Craven.

It's apparent that we are working from different paradigms and philosophies and are talking past each other. So enough of this tit-for-tat, lets try to understand each other, because if we don't we are not arguing against each others position; we are arguing a strawman, or straw womyn of our own making.

It's probably not worth pursuing. The paradigims are so different that this would be a very tedious chore.

To summarize I disagree with the "mystical" approach wherein you call physical things "mental".

twyvel wrote:

Electrical impulses like everything else are mental objects and as such are not the basis of thought but are thought/ideas themselves.

You also said that the mind is only thought, while I think it has a very real and present physical manifestation in the form of a brain.

In short, we live in very different worlds. Mine is not as abstract and mystical.

In my world physical things exist and are not merely "mental". Our understanding of them is mental but that does not mean their physical existence is denied.

0 Replies

Is Thinking a Voluntary or Involuntary Action?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know