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