I THINK therefore I AM

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74292 wrote:

The neurons are being discharged by the environment around the person. But how is that the issue?

It is something that amazes me.

Quote:

Isn't the issue whether the thought is identical with the discharge of neurons?

It may be. It is part of pondering life. I have a philosophy that helps me understand life by making thought the initiator of action and creativity. Not that it is different from neurons - but instead more ethereal. Therefore one and the same, just as the ocean may be considered one and the same as waves in a ocean yet still more fundamental.

Quote:

You said it could not be so. Why?

I don't believe I said this. My philosophy is that thought is one and the same as matter, matter being a more denser form of ethereal thought.

Quote:

Never mind how the neurons discharge. So the discharge of neurons in the body causes the other change in the body. What could be more reasonable, or obvious?

Could be. It is just, for me, I rather go the next step down and ponder what is it that causes the discharge. It helps me in many ways in life - such as understanding how to maintain better health.

Rich

@ACB,

ACB;74318 wrote:

If a thought is identical with a discharge of neurons, then everything that is true of one should be true of the other. But a discharge of neurons can be observed, whereas a thought (in the normal sense of the word) can only be experienced at first hand.

You can only claim to "observe" someone else's thought if you define thought and neuron discharge as identical in the first place, thus begging the question.

You are wrong. How we know something can be different, but what it is we know can be the same. I can know a ball is round through sight, or through feel, but in both cases, what I know is the same thing, that the ball is round. Acid reflux feels bad, and I can know it by feeling it. An X ray technician can observe the acid reflux by observing it. It is the very same thing I feel, and the technician, observes.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74325 wrote:

You are wrong. How we know something can be different, but what it is we know can be the same. I can know a ball is round through sight, or through feel, but in both cases, what I know is the same thing, that the ball is round. Acid reflux feels bad, and I can know it by feeling it. An X ray technician can observe the acid reflux by observing it. It is the very same thing I feel, and the technician, observes.

I can be wrong. I accept that. However, I would not trust you (this is my free choice) to decide what is true or right for me. In fact, I would be very troubled if such was the case as you might of me.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;74320 wrote:

It is something that amazes me.

It may be. It is part of pondering life. I have a philosophy that helps me understand life by making thought the initiator of action and creativity. Not that it is different from neurons - but instead more ethereal. Therefore one and the same, just as the ocean may be considered one and the same as waves in a ocean yet still more fundamental.

I don't believe I said this. My philosophy is that thought is one and the same as matter, matter being a more denser form of ethereal thought.

Could be. It is just, for me, I rather go the next step down and ponder what is it that causes the discharge. It helps me in many ways in life - such as understanding how to maintain better health.

Rich

So? That's like my saying, "I like Paris", and your saying, "I like Berlin". No dispute, no disagreement. Just different.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74327 wrote:

So? That's like my saying, "I like Paris", and your saying, "I like Berlin". No dispute, no disagreement. Just different.

Well, we can discuss why you like Paris and I like Chicago. It is a different kind of discussion rather than whether it is right for you to like Paris and whether it is wrong for me to like Chicago.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;74331 wrote:

Well, we can discuss why you like Paris and I like Chicago. It is a different kind of discussion rather than whether it is right for you to like Paris and whether it is wrong for me to like Chicago.

Rich

The point is, that there is no kind of cognitive disagreement between us if you like one city, and I like another.
There may be an attitudinal disagreement. But that is a different matter.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

richrf;74326 wrote:

I can be wrong. I accept that. However, I would not trust you (this is my free choice) to decide what is true or right for me. In fact, I would be very troubled if such was the case as you might of me.

Rich

Are you not wrong to argue that just because we know something in different ways, it follows that what we know is different? I gave you clear counter-examples to your principle of knowing the very same thing in different ways. I do not force you. The argument forces you, on pain of being irrational. (Unless you can show how my counter-examples are not correct counter-examples).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74333 wrote:

The point is, that there is no kind of cognitive disagreement between us if you like one city, and I like another.
There may be an attitudinal disagreement. But that is a different matter.

This is fine with me.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;74352 wrote:

This is fine with me.

Rich

Win one, lose one.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74369 wrote:

Win one, lose one.

Well, not so much win or lose, but more .... just trekking along.

Rich

@richrf,

Yeah. We can't win or lose unless we take part.

@richrf,

richrf;74385 wrote:

Well, not so much win or lose, but more .... just trekking along.

Rich

Are you not wrong to argue that just because we know something in different ways, it follows that what we know is different? I gave you clear counter-examples to your principle of knowing the very same thing in different ways. I do not force you. The argument forces you, on pain of being irrational. (Unless you can show how my counter-examples are not correct counter-examples).

You seem to have lost that one. You argued (argued) that since our internal (mental) states and our physical states are known in different ways, they cannot be identical. But I rebutted that with the above objection. You appear not to have had any reply to that objection, so I infer that you think that I am right, and that you are wrong. That is, you now believe that our physical states and our internal (mental) states can be identical. So that must be fine with you that you were wrong, and that I was right. Right? As Mohammed Ali used to say, "You can run, but you can't hide".

Logic and facts find you every time.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74505 wrote:

Are you not wrong to argue that just because we know something in different ways, it follows that what we know is different? I gave you clear counter-examples to your principle of knowing the very same thing in different ways. I do not force you. The argument forces you, on pain of being irrational. (Unless you can show how my counter-examples are not correct counter-examples).

You seem to have lost that one. You argued (argued) that since our internal (mental) states and our physical states are known in different ways, they cannot be identical. But I rebutted that with the above objection. You appear not to have had any reply to that objection, so I infer that you think that I am right, and that you are wrong. That is, you now believe that our physical states and our internal (mental) states can be identical. So that must be fine with you that you were wrong, and that I was right. Right? As Mohammed Ali used to say, "You can run, but you can't hide".

Logic and facts find you every time.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I think there is a misunderstanding in communication but I cannot be sure. However, it does appear that you think you won something. In which case, let me extend to you my congratulations.

Rich

@richrf,

What sparks the neuron?

;-j

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;74584 wrote:

What sparks the neuron?

;-j

Yes, there is this question behind the answer.

I am interested in what is behind the motion? The impetus for it all to begin.

In my own cosmology, I envision stillness (the Dao, Logos, etc.) that uses Will to turn in an look upon itself. This, for me, is the beginning of motion - the Universe trying to take a peek at itself. Sort of like a baby looking into a mirror. Smile

In Chinese cosmology, the Universal Consciousness (the ocean) would be liked to the Shen and Will would be the Zhi. Creativity and exploratory nature would be the Yi. The Individual Consciousness (the wave in the Ocean) would be the Hun. The physical body would be the Po.

Will appears to be what drives humans (Individual Consciousness) to continue searching and exploring - itself. What is Will? And what is the Consciousness that houses the Will?

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;74516 wrote:

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. I think there is a misunderstanding in communication but I cannot be sure. However, it does appear that you think you won something. In which case, let me extend to you my congratulations.

Rich

You are right. I had you mixed up with ACB. I apologize. I should have known that it was not you, since the person it was presented an argument.

---------- Post added 07-03-2009 at 02:59 PM ----------

Poseidon;74584 wrote:

What sparks the neuron?

;-j

I suppose you would have to ask a physiologist. Why would a philosopher know the answer. I would suppose that some other physiological event cause the neuron to fire off. It might be, for instance, the person (whose thought it was) seeing something happening in his immediate environment. Say a tiger charging at him, which might result in the thought that the person had better get moving. It would me, I am sure.

@richrf,

More scary than tigers :

the way in which the mind convinces itself out of existence,
reducing itself
to tiny sparks of electricity,
apparantly
merely caused by other sparks of electricity,

and the sheer ISNESS of conscious being is reduced to an entity, called 'epiphenomenon',
that is to say
a thing which is more like a vague shadow
than an enlightened locutive mind

a vague shadow of a tiger stalking,
behind the fire-brilliance of the hidden dragon-mind

@Poseidon,

Poseidon;74606 wrote:

More scary than tigers :

the way in which the mind convinces itself out of existence,
reducing itself
to tiny sparks of electricity,
apparantly
merely caused by other sparks of electricity,

and the sheer ISNESS of conscious being is reduced to an entity, called 'epiphenomenon',
that is to say
a thing which is more like a vague shadow
than an enlightened locutive mind

a vague shadow of a tiger stalking,
behind the fire-brilliance of the hidden dragon-mind

A very nice poem. But I disagree with it, since if the mind is the brain, and if the brain exists, then why does the mind which acknowledges it is identical with the brain "convince itself out of existence"?

@richrf,

it does not completely convince itself out of existence,
it hides from its nature,
cloaks itself in coarse ideas
as a means to discovering itself

it does this by developing a subconscious alter ego,
playing out the inner dialogue, often projected outward,
arguing the point of atheist nihilism, over and over again,
in order to provoke the authentic answers
from self and other

not unlike
ignoring a girl you like to see if she is interested in you

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;74325 wrote:

You are wrong. How we know something can be different, but what it is we know can be the same. I can know a ball is round through sight, or through feel, but in both cases, what I know is the same thing, that the ball is round. Acid reflux feels bad, and I can know it by feeling it. An X ray technician can observe the acid reflux by observing it. It is the very same thing I feel, and the technician, observes.

All you have proved is that there are two different ways of knowing about a discharge of neurons (external observation and internal thought/feeling). You have not proved that a thought/feeling is identical with a discharge of neurons. How could they be identical, if the former is a means of knowing, and the latter the object of the knowing? It is like saying that the seeing of a ball, or the feeling of a ball, is identical to the ball itself. Let us test the logic of your example:

1. The feel of acid reflux is one way of knowing the physical phenomenon of acid reflux.
2. The feel of acid reflux is identical with the physical phenomenon of acid reflux. (This corresponds to the proposition that thought/feeling is identical to discharge of neurons.)
Therefore, by substitution:
3. The feel of acid reflux is one way of knowing the feel of acid reflux.

So premises (1) and (2) together lead to a tautology. But (1) is non-trivially true, so there must be something wrong with (2). Hence it must be wrong to claim that thought/feeling is identical to discharge of neurons.

@richrf,

richrf;74040 wrote:

What or who is firing the neutrons? That is the mystery. The impetus. That which initiates. That which is looking through the eyes.

Rich

Hi Rich that which we call the mind or soul, I see it as a sort of RAM random access memory, the quantum mind, the part of us the act and reacts to every other part in the universe. Some refer to it as our higher self

It ceaselessly downloads information from a pure energy state into the physical brain,The eyes are the windows of the soul

Quantum entanglement and nonlocality, that leaks and gives and us brief paranormal experiences into other dimensions

Philosophy Forum

I THINK therefore I AM

Quick Links

My Account

able2know