Kind of redundant post, but more specific question on "thought".

[RJT]

Thought exists and we know it does, we have “empirical” evidence that it exists- we experience it. Can it be explained in scientific terms? Is it subject to the laws of science in the way physical things are? What does science actually have to say about thought?

Science of course can say alot about people’s thoughts, how the brain processes thought and things of that nature.

Can thought be explained, described? Is it mass or energy or something else?

If it is something else then what is it?

We know it exists because we have “seen”.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thought exists and we know it does, we have “empirical” evidence that it exists- we experience it. Can it be explained in scientific terms? Is it subject to the laws of science in the way physical things are? What does science actually have to say about thought?

Science of course can say alot about people’s thoughts, how the brain processes thought and things of that nature.

Can thought be explained, described? Is it mass or energy or something else?

If it is something else then what is it?

We know it exists because we have “seen”.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good topic. I take it by thought you mean mental sensation of some kind. Computers may 'think' in a similar way to us but are presumed to be without the experience.

I think the simple answer to your question is no it cannot be explained in scientific terms as yet, and no reason to believe there's a conventional scientific answer. It's the big problem for those who believe everything can be reduced to physical systems.

chez

[RJT]

Yep, that's how I meant it, mate. If I decide to develop this "thought" further, I know I can count on you to help edit my syllogism. (I'll need your knowledge on the technical language. I'd be embarrassed in my lack of science knowledge, if I hadn't my years behind me.)

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, that's how I meant it, mate. If I decide to develop this "thought" further, I know I can count on you to help edit my syllogism. (I'll need your knowledge on the technical language. I'd be embarrassed in my lack of science knowledge, if I hadn't my years behind me.)

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to help if I can but the problem of 'mind' is not something I know much about. I don't think its much to do with science either. From the point of view of science we might as well be zombies (exactly as we are but without mental experiences). I think there are some arguments that this isn't true but I don't know about them.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
...but the problem of 'mind' is not something I know much about...

chez

[/ QUOTE ]



Yeah, I am pretty brain dead too. Glad to see I am not the only one not afraid to admit it.

RJT

[einbert]

"Thought" exists in the general sense, sure. But it's hard to come up with a concrete definition of thought and then substantiate its existence.

As far as my understanding goes, we really don't know much about the human brain. We know a few things, and we know enough to know that there is a ton of knowledge outside our current grasp. But we don't really understand it, or thought, very well. The only real way we have to study thought is by using thought-behavior correlation, a sort of backwards science in that we address human behavior and use it to explain human thought. We can't really address thought directly right now, though, so that is what we are stuck with for the time being.

There is a world of literature available on this topic. You should check it out. I am in the middle of quite a good book on thought called The Essential Difference by Simon Baron-Cohen. It basically addresses scientifically the differences in the male and female brains (on average of course). It is quite intriguing and I think it could give you some good starting ground for understanding thought more.

[benkahuna]

This is the ultimate unanswered question in neuroscience. It's called the binding principle.
No one knows how our neurobiological processes produce consciousness. It's a complete mystery.

There's an incredible amount that is understood in neuroscience, but consciousness and how it arises is a mystery in many ways.
Take a neuroanatomy course and you'll be shocked what they've figured out (and sometimes how they figured it out).

Thought tends to be classified as an emergent property of our neurobiological processes.

Basically when you move up a level of organization, you have new rules that govern the behavior of that larger system not based strictly on the rules of the less complex lower system.

You could take as levels of organization:

quark, atom, molecule, organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism.

Beyond the concept of emergent property, it's just this funky, ephemeral, largely unclassifiable event. It's completely different from any other occurance in the
world of which we're aware. Computers crunch numbers and follow orders (sometimes in strangely efficient ways), but what they do and what the brain does are two completely different things. No computer has come close to passing the Turing Test.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
… But we don't really understand it [the brain], or thought, very well. The only real way we have to study thought is by using thought-behavior correlation, a sort of backwards science in that we address human behavior and use it to explain human thought. We can't really address thought directly right now, though, so that is what we are stuck with for the time being..

[/ QUOTE ]

Not unlike how we believers could (would) describe our God. I guess it is a matter of perspective or point of view.

Btw, thanks for the tip on further reading. I will check it out.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
No one knows how our neurobiological processes produce consciousness. It's a complete mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me that a “scientist” is “allowed” to make statements such as these. But, if a believer would, he often would be considered “silly”.

I do not disagree with you at all in your statement.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Beyond the concept of emergent property, it's just this funky, ephemeral, largely unclassifiable event. It's completely different from any other occurance in the
world of which we're aware. Computers crunch numbers and follow orders (sometimes in strangely efficient ways), but what they do and what the brain does are two completely different things. No computer has come close to passing the Turing Test.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that consciousness is required to pass the turing test. Clearly computers are getting nearer to pasing the test and eventually it seems likely a computer could pass itself off as human - but would it be have to be conscious to do so?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one knows how our neurobiological processes produce consciousness. It's a complete mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me that a “scientist” is “allowed” to make statements such as these. But, if a believer would, he often would be considered “silly”.

I do not disagree with you at all in your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes think this is the 'rational gap' between the religous and the rest.

The religous believe the irreligous think they can understand everything without resort to god. This is not true but it is also not a rational reason to believe in god.

chez

[splittter]

Dennet's book, "Conciousness Explained" (http://tinyurl.com/c342p), is an attempt to situate conciousness in a place open to science-like investigation and explanation. It's a very interesting read. He's an academic philosopher, but his books are intended for general readers.

His basic idea is that conciousness is not a single type of 'thing' that happens, and does not, of itself, play the role of a decider in mental processes. Rather, it's the result of many different, unconnected, mental processes, each of which has reached a level of complexity which provides specific evolutionary advantages.

Basically the idea that conciousness is an epi-phenomena of the brian, but being more specific about how and why that occurs.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Dennet's book, "Conciousness Explained" (http://tinyurl.com/c342p), is an attempt to situate conciousness in a place open to science-like investigation and explanation. It's a very interesting read. He's an academic philosopher, but his books are intended for general readers.

His basic idea is that conciousness is not a single type of 'thing' that happens, and does not, of itself, play the role of a decider in mental processes. Rather, it's the result of many different, unconnected, mental processes, each of which has reached a level of complexity which provides specific evolutionary advantages.

Basically the idea that conciousness is an epi-phenomena of the brian, but being more specific about how and why that occurs.

[/ QUOTE ]

His on my reading list. Am I correct in thinking:

He is not explaining how these conscious phenomena are caused.
He is not claiming they are necessary.

chez

[splittter]

Now you're asking /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

His on my reading list. Am I correct in thinking:

He is not explaining how these conscious phenomena are caused.
He is not claiming they are necessary.


[/ QUOTE ]

On the first point I'm not quite sure. He basically sketches his ideas about how seperate feedback mechanisms in the brain, of increasing complexity would be driven by an evolutionary process. For him the existence of said feedback mechanisms is enough to explain conciousness, as for Dennet conciousness is the extent to which the Brain takes account of its own state and responds to it.

What I think you're asking about is the status of the private, *felt* nature of conciousness, and what is it that causes that experience. Dennet doesn't think that the experience of conciousness is itself important to its functioning. Note, though that's different to saying that conciousness itself is not important to the functioning of the brain (which is the traditional epi-phenomena position, and which he he doesn't hold).

So, what I'm saying is he explains what causes conciousness, but does not explain what causes us to *feel* it. Reason being he doesn't think that we can have reliable statements about what it is to *feel* concious. Again, without going into massive detail, he thinks there would be no possible way to distinguish between someone who genuinely *felt* his conciousness and a 'zombie' (as the literature terms it) who says he does, but actually doesn't.

As for whether it is necessary. The mechanisms he posits for the brain, which constitute conciousness, he thinks are necessary for the evolutionary advantages we have. The private felt nature of conciousness he doesn't think is necessary because, as I said above, he thinks there is no logical way to distinguish between a person who has it and one who doesn't.

Hope that helps. Also, as it is years since I read him, if anyone can summarise his position better/correct errors feel free.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you're asking /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

His on my reading list. Am I correct in thinking:

He is not explaining how these conscious phenomena are caused.
He is not claiming they are necessary.


[/ QUOTE ]

On the first point I'm not quite sure. He basically sketches his ideas about how seperate feedback mechanisms in the brain, of increasing complexity would be driven by an evolutionary process. For him the existence of said feedback mechanisms is enough to explain conciousness, as for Dennet conciousness is the extent to which the Brain takes account of its own state and responds to it.

What I think you're asking about is the status of the private, *felt* nature of conciousness, and what is it that causes that experience. Dennet doesn't think that the experience of conciousness is itself important to its functioning. Note, though that's different to saying that conciousness itself is not important to the functioning of the brain (which is the traditional epi-phenomena position, and which he he doesn't hold).

So, what I'm saying is he explains what causes conciousness, but does not explain what causes us to *feel* it. Reason being he doesn't think that we can have reliable statements about what it is to *feel* concious. Again, without going into massive detail, he thinks there would be no possible way to distinguish between someone who genuinely *felt* his conciousness and a 'zombie' (as the literature terms it) who says he does, but actually doesn't.

As for whether it is necessary. The mechanisms he posits for the brain, which constitute conciousness, he thinks are necessary for the evolutionary advantages we have. The private felt nature of conciousness he doesn't think is necessary because, as I said above, he thinks there is no logical way to distinguish between a person who has it and one who doesn't.

Hope that helps. Also, as it is years since I read him, if anyone can summarise his position better/correct errors feel free.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its the *feel* that is the problem I think we are referring to here. Dennet's dealing with the 'easy' bit /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

chez

[splittter]

[ QUOTE ]


Its the *feel* that is the problem I think we are referring to here. Dennet's dealing with the 'easy' bit /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, and, to be honest I don't necessarily disagree with you. But, Dennet's book doesn't ignore the hard bit ... he argues that nothing profitable can be said of conciousness in just those terms, and that they're irrelevant when discussing the development, benefits and causes of conciousness.

I'd say his response to you would be: be careful that in focusing on the *felt* problem you don't artificially divide up what you're trying to investigate in a way which begs the question. In asking about purely the *felt* nature of conciousness you set yourself up to fail to be able to adequately explain it.

Not that I'm his biggest fan or anything, but I do think he has something there.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Its the *feel* that is the problem I think we are referring to here. Dennet's dealing with the 'easy' bit /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, and, to be honest I don't necessarily disagree with you. But, Dennet's book doesn't ignore the hard bit ... he argues that nothing profitable can be said of conciousness in just those terms, and that they're irrelevant when discussing the development, benefits and causes of conciousness.

I'd say his response to you would be: be careful that in focusing on the *felt* problem you don't artificially divide up what you're trying to investigate in a way which begs the question. In asking about purely the *felt* nature of conciousness you set yourself up to fail to be able to adequately explain it.

Not that I'm his biggest fan or anything, but I do think he has something there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think I'm in disagreement with Dennet's view. From what you said it sounds like we agree that there is no understanding as to why we are not zombies.

Despite that we know that we are not zombies because we know we experience *feelings*. That leaves *feelings* as real but inexplicable by science which is what RJT was asking about.

Where we go from there I have no idea.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one knows how our neurobiological processes produce consciousness. It's a complete mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me that a “scientist” is “allowed” to make statements such as these. But, if a believer would, he often would be considered “silly”.

I do not disagree with you at all in your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I sometimes think this is the 'rational gap' between the religous and the rest.

The religous believe the irreligous think they can understand everything without resort to god. This is not true but it is also not a rational reason to believe in god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I know chez. I was just saying if a believer calls things a mystery non-believers often think that answer is silly.

I wasn't saying therefore it must be from God. I was thinking that it was nice to hear "science" folk talk like this, too.

[theweatherman]

What empirical evidence exists to support the theory that we think?? our sense prove nothing and deliver no evidence towards the cause. As far as I can tell I am sure that I think based soley on rational, self evident truths.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the ultimate unanswered question in neuroscience. It's called the binding principle.
No one knows how our neurobiological processes produce consciousness. It's a complete mystery.

There's an incredible amount that is understood in neuroscience, but consciousness and how it arises is a mystery in many ways.
Take a neuroanatomy course and you'll be shocked what they've figured out (and sometimes how they figured it out).

Thought tends to be classified as an emergent property of our neurobiological processes.

Basically when you move up a level of organization, you have new rules that govern the behavior of that larger system not based strictly on the rules of the less complex lower system.

You could take as levels of organization:

quark, atom, molecule, organelle, cell, tissue, organ, organ system, organism.

Beyond the concept of emergent property, it's just this funky, ephemeral, largely unclassifiable event. It's completely different from any other occurance in the
world of which we're aware. Computers crunch numbers and follow orders (sometimes in strangely efficient ways), but what they do and what the brain does are two completely different things. No computer has come close to passing the Turing Test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me be clear when I say what follows. I am not saying therefore God.

When I read this whole post, I couldn’t help but think this is how I think when I think of God. I could insert the word God in a few places here and it would not be much different how I would try to explain God.

I do think after reading this that the more science learns about “thought”, the more believers will better understand their God. Perhaps too, science will better understand what believers think (feel?) when they think of God. This is not to say science will come to believe, too. But better understanding (of believers) might make the non-believer not think the believer is totally foolish. He would of course still think the believer wrong, but at least he might better know the believer.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
What empirical evidence exists to support the theory that we think?? our sense prove nothing and deliver no evidence towards the cause. As far as I can tell I am sure that I think based soley on rational, self evident truths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I "think" (lol) I just used the term "emperical evidence" wrong.

What you said then.

[benkahuna]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No one knows how our neurobiological processes produce consciousness. It's a complete mystery.

[/ QUOTE ]

It amazes me that a “scientist” is “allowed” to make statements such as these. But, if a believer would, he often would be considered “silly”.

I do not disagree with you at all in your statement.

[/ QUOTE ]


You make a good point. In a way it's not fair and in a way it is.

If you've actually studied something to a serious degree, you've given the subject a chance and met it on its own terms. If you haven't, it's usually not fair to make criticisms or major statements about the body of work. I think a lot of people feel entitled to make criticisms of particular areas of human research, theory, and endeavor with little experience with the field's best arguments, brightest minds, and most positive attributes. I've been in arguments with complete bullshitters on the net about science when it was clear they just googled something, weren't stupid, but didn't have enough background to really understand what they read.

I'm actually repeating what was told to me by one of my professors in neurobiology when I say we're clueless about how consciousness occurs. It is consistent with my own studies in the field. so I feel fairly confident in making the statement and I would be much less so in a field that I hadn't studied very seriously (like most branches of physics).

[David Sklansky]

"When I read this whole post, I couldn’t help but think this is how I think when I think of God."

Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion. (Without that you have similar thoughts to mine when I talk about the uncertainty of conscious computers ever existing.)

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
"When I read this whole post, I couldn’t help but think this is how I think when I think of God."

Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion. (Without that you have similar thoughts to mine when I talk about the uncertainty of conscious computers ever existing.)

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Cyrus]

Did you just call Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the Mother of The Son of God, our Virgin Mary, our Lady of The Immaculate Conception, a whore ?

May the Lord protect you.

http://www.iipg-queenofpeace.org/gospa.jpg

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
...Then don't add in stupid stuff about how some ho cheated on her husband and somehow got lucky enough to get out of it by starting a ridiculous religion...

[/ QUOTE ]

Them’s fightin’ words, Buddy. I’ll be a gentleman and give you the opportunity to make what I would consider an honorable move and take back the statement. If not, I’ll be ready with both barrels.

In the spirit of full discloser let me tell you this, so we don’t have to resort to all out war* needlessly, your statement shows your ignorance** of marriage customs during the time of Mary.

I await your response. ( Btw, I will be busy the better part of this evening.)

* I have tried to be as objective as a believer could possibly be in the discourse here on the board. I think I would not be overreaching if I stated that I have been more objective (ironically) in general than some non-believers in particular. It does little good to have these types of discussions with totally closed minds on either side (this is not to say that either side would even think he could convince the other of much) - a total waste of time, and it has been done to death elsewhere. The “debate” thus far has been civil and interesting. Do you really want to change the integrity of the forum with insulting comments like the above? If so, then let’s "have at it", Brother.

** I use the word ignorant in its literal context. (Obviously, I think it ignorant in its figurative use also, but since that is a subjective point of view , totally irrelevant.)

[Piers]

I am not an expert on neurobiology, however I believe what thoughts are is moderately well understood. They can be considered as patterns within the neuro-network that exists inside the mind.

If you are thinking of the sensation associated with thinking, which one might loosely consider as ones consciousness. I believe that’s an extension of the more mundane sensory network that has triggered some sort of feedback loop to create something quite amazing. Nature is full of such surprises -&gt; Cue picture of snowflake.

To elaborate, sensations are very important in the running of a life from. Further there seems to be some form of central interface for handling sensory impute. It seems quite natural for thought to use the same interface.

So in the same way that we might feel pain to alert us to some external event, we might feel a similar feeling to alert us to a thought that requires further attention. Or a pleasant sensation might encourage us to repeat the experience; in a similar way thought process in a certain direction could be encouraged.

So a link between senses and thought is to be expected. We might think therefore as thought as an extra sense, however unlike the other senses, we have direct control on what is experienced. I think the potential for some form of feedback loop is clear. The exact details might be difficult to work out, but still perfectly attainable IMHO.

[Dan Mezick]

Take a close look at the books of Antonio Damasio (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-1589185-6325511).

Also, examine the emerging science of Consciousness Studies (http://www.imprint.co.uk/jcs.html)

You may find the short essay: The Brain and Field Theory (http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Clarke%20on%20Globus.pdf) of particular interest.

[David Sklansky]

"In the spirit of full discloser let me tell you this, so we don’t have to resort to all out war* needlessly, your statement shows your ignorance** of marriage customs during the time of Mary.

I await your response. ( Btw, I will be busy the better part of this evening.)"

If you are saying that even if Mary was not a virgin it didn't mean she cheated on her husband, (because she wasn't yet married or because Joseph was the father,) I stand corrected. If it did mean she cheated on him I will remind you that the Ten Commandments were already out there. If you are saying that she either cheated on her husband or she was a virgin, my statment stands.

Meanwhile I was actually paying you a compliment earlier. By pointing out that your intellectual stance on God makes a lot more sense than believing in silly religions.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are saying that even if Mary was not a virgin it didn't mean she cheated on her husband, (because she wasn't yet married or because Joseph was the father,) I stand corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer would have a something similar ring as to what you stated in the above quote. I am not being coy, it is just pointless to get into the whole thing, now.


[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile I was actually paying you a compliment earlier. By pointing out that your intellectual stance on God makes a lot more sense than believing in silly religions.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is how I understood you. I thank your for the compliment.

Regarding religions being silly, you might indeed be correct. I have always entered into the discussion with that assumption for the sake of discourse. I have only tried to point out to you on various occasions that your view of my religion has many basics wrong. In the context of God exists it really isn’t as silly as it seems (not to suggest that you would not still find it silly). Even many (most) Christians have only the basic understanding of their religion. (Not to suggest I have much more than that.) So, it is not surprising to see that in yourself.


Again, I thank you for the discussion regarding the subject. I told you before something similar to this: That your generosity with your time (and not to insult you, but to keep the metaphor on point) is indeed Christian. I also look forward to more discussions about other topics.

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Again, I thank you for the discussion regarding the subject. I told you before something similar to this: That your generosity with your time (and not to insult you, but to keep the metaphor on point) is indeed Christian. I also look forward to more discussions about other topics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hello RJT!

Thankyou for signing up to SDM's "Word of the Day" email mailing list.

Your word for today is naïve (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=naive).

Cheers!
SDM

* To be removed from this mailing list, open your eyes.