Controlling your thoughts, or being controlled by them.

Post Reply New Topic

The reality is that the thoughts are part of you. You are made of thoughts.

I hold that you don't exist, NobelCynic. You're just a useful cognitive illusion created by your brain. You think you are substantive, but in actuality the brain could create many things just like you, all claiming ownership over you.

Just because he is a brain utility doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

Well, he doesn't exist as more than a mental program. Certainly not in the manner that we think of a person having an identity.

I mean, by convention we'll say that NobelCynic exists, but in actuality, there's nothing hard and concrete to identify as NobelCynic.

For many persons, an idea, over time, has the tendency to materialize/manifest. Only a few persons (my view) really control their thoughts; also, there can be neurological challenges where it may be difficult for a person to control all their thoughts, example, the many, many epilepsies (petit mal/absence/complex partial and so on). Thoughts are things and can become things (songs, books, cars, houses, inventions, etc.). N. Hill, Emile Coue, Jose Silva, Rev. Ike, Earl Nightingale. - http://www.memogendas.com/index.php - http://www.grove.com/ - http://www.daytimer.com/birk/ - http://www.chickensoup.com/ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pilgrim's_Progress - (Religious science fiction book - TPP - written as two separate dreams - On the path, off the path, narrow gate) - Vision boards/collages - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(2006_film) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_management - http://www.daytimer.com/ - etc.

Almost as important as a thought is a subsequent action (work ethic). There's a big difference between an architectural blueprint for an Egyptian pyramid and the action (over years) required by builders to build a large stone pyramid. Thoughts - Ideas - Pictures - Words - Numbers - Sequences - Engrams - Memes - Aim - Plans - Actions - Buildout - Achievement - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/ - Vision, Mission, Goals, Values

Do we know that for sure? I think of a thought as being more of an invisible thing with no possible physical correlation. It exists "out there," and there's no way we can physically qualify it. What we CAN do is observe physical manifestations of the thought, for instance the effect it has on stimulating neural pathways within the brain to action, a sort of echo effect. That thought may be further realized through some more complex physical action, but the creation that results from such action is an image of the thought, not the thought itself.

Nothing is ever known for sure. We can only assume from observed manifestations. No thought has ever appeared without a neuron complex supporting it so the two, it is assumed, must be solidly associated.

And you are certain of this?

On "thoughts", well, the problem with rigidly defining something is that we are starting off with some form of entity that was never rigidly defined in the first place, but rather merely used in a non-rigorous manner for centuries/millenia as was useful(English has only existed for centuries, but I don't know about the larger linguistic evolution). So, to say from our intuitive view of thoughts that we really established something about the nature of thoughts seems silly, it is just an intuition, but there is nothing to say that how our language developed is a sign of anything other than the easiest way for our brain to grab something/the best metaphors, and even then there is a question about the historical emergence.

As for Sand's lack of knowledge, well.... yes, the lack of certainty is the thing that we can be most certain about. Paradoxically enough, it may be even true that we can't be certain about that, which is only ironic given that our natural use of language is certainty centered despite how our reality is so radically uncertain. This says nothing about Sand, and more about human psychology. (Interestingly enough, psychologist Steven Pinker wrote a bit about this in his book "The Stuff of Thought")

There is an equilibrium, a person thinks their thoughts, and thoughts make a person. Neither can control the other. However people can consciously realise to some extent, what they are thinking. Yet there will always be "passive", subconscious thoughts underlying "active" thought. Language, for instance; or subconscious assumptions which a person doesn't even realise when they are thinking. The border between a person and their thoughts is so grey it's unfathomable.

There are many subatomic particles that we cannot physically qualify, because we cannot observe them directly, but that doesn't mean that they are any less real. We can observe them in much the same way, by observing the results of their interactions, which in turn IS directly observable.

I suspect we agree that there is a separation of self and thought, AngelRho. I suspect however we differ on just what that separation is. As thought is, imo, better described as a property of matter, I think, too, that whatever that other thing is that defines "self" is also a property, but a different property, emergent from the complexity not of matter, but the complexity of thought.

Complexity in the organization of thoughts is what defines the self. So, to me, to say that thought and self were the same, would be to say that the sun and light were the same, as light is a property of the sun.

If the self becomes sufficiently complex, what then?

AG you're quite right in your objection to rigidly defining thoughts. That's why in the OP I tried to avoid the use of the word "meme" though make the definition of thought as wide and broad as possible.

On the topic of certainty, is it possible that certainty is possible, but that our thoughts and selves together are not yet complex enough to define certainty? That there is in fact a level of truth, hidden behind the mask of relativity and imprecision in measurements that we are not yet evolved enough to comprehend? Could a property of the self emerge from it's complexity that would allow us to?

Thought is an abstraction of such physical processes, we usually tend to give them an essence, thoughts and similar processes, may not be that much different than a mouse pointer, a push button, a dialog box that you often see on the screen of your computer, as they are not actual entities.

I won't debate it overly much. Suffice it to say that I reject the idea that chemical reactions are the root cause of thoughts under normal circumstances. I'd rather say the opposite, that thoughts are the root cause of the chemical reactions. Now, when I say "normal circumstances," I don't mean to say that the effects of chemicals on neural pathways MAKE something real, but rather they cause illusions which the self must make up its mind about and decide how to respond. If I were, for example, to begin experimenting with salvia or acid, having no experience with psychoactive drugs, I'd want a partner to help me stay "grounded" until the effects of the drugs wear off (I hear this is not uncommon and a wise choice). That way I can enjoy the effects without fear of falling into the drugs influence and hurting myself as a result.

The idea of certainty is a different topic and not really relevant to the discussion. I have a high regard for Sand, and he doesn't hesitate to expose what he perceives as nonsense in others' arguments. I happen to know (it's not a big secret) that Sand is a pragmatist, which is not NECESSARILY a bad thing, but does have some drawbacks. I DO understand why Sand feels the way he does regarding the issue of certainty and the problem of knowing or perceiving things. What Sand means is that those things which we think we see is nothing more than chemical responses to external stimulation. That's high school A&P.

What Sand said that I do take contention with is "Nothing is ever known for sure." Sand is making a gross error in logic here. It's self-defeating. Sand is stating something he believes he knows, which is "nothing is ever known." How does he know? If "nothing can be known," then he can't know that nothing can be known. So just by applying principles of logic, we CAN say there are things we can know for sure. As to the nature of those things or how we may know them--that IS a matter of debate.

I know Sand to be a reasonable guy, and I'm sure he'll admit to at least this one logical flaw and correct it in future argumentation.

The basic problem is how to know what you know. Even if standard situations end in standard results the train of action is always theoretical. The statement that the Sun always appears every morning does not ring true because there is always the possibility that it will not. I would like an example of absolute knowledge.

If I were in his shoes, I wouldn't admit to the flaw.

I mean, for one, what was said is "Nothing is ever known for sure.", which although it isn't qualified as in adding "as far as we know", but the issue is that I don't think that this is necessary because qualifying things all the time is a pain, even though it really does seem universally necessary.

Also, your own logic on the matter isn't working.

You see, Sand said "Nothing is ever known for sure", you are turning this into "Nothing is ever known". Sand said the former, not the latter, and the two different sentences have different meanings. So, Sand is not responsible for something that he didn't actually say. As well, even if "Nothing is ever known" is self-refuting, it does not entail that we know some things with any certainty, all it means is that we cannot claim to know that we know nothing, even if we do actually know nothing. The paradox is about the speaker, and not reality.

So, Sand is fine, your logic is failing in this matter, and so I have to take Sand's side if I want to be honest in as far as I perceive the truth about this.