Do thoughts affect reality?

[RCSaunders]

Thought can steer the body into action. This is the only chance we have of using thought to affect reality.

Yes, and every artifact of human endeavor is evidence of how much human choice affects physical reality from every garden, building, and machine to all medicine and products in the world human life depends on. None of it would exist without human conscious intervention in physical reality.

[bahman]

Why? There is no other option?

"Matter behaves non-arbitrarily without following physical laws" is a third option.

When things are not non-arbitrary then it means that they are constrained which means that they follow some rules.

Physical laws exist as thoughts in the mind of intelligent agents only. Thought is a substance and has a form.

Right, so how exactly does, say, a star a million light years away from us obey our thoughts?

It obeys its nature and not what is going on in our mind.

[RCSaunders]

How? Could you control the electrons in your brain? How a conscious experience, such as thought, can affect the motion of the electrons in your brain?

What has that got to do with conscious control of living behavior. You are assuming the activity of the brain is consciousness. It isn't.

You are also assuming the physical properties of the material natural existence are all properties of existence there are, but life, consciousness, and the human mind are not physical attributes, thought perfectly natural ones.

This is the only chance we have of using thought to affect reality.

It is easy to say. Hard to prove.
[/quote]
Prove to who? Go sit in a chair and refuse to choose to do anything else. Until you consciously choose to move you will sit there and die. Except for those functions of your body which are strictly biological, everything else you do you must consciously choose to do, or you do nothing.

Prove that's not true--without making a conscious choice.

[bahman]

Thought can steer the body into action.

How? Could you control the electrons in your brain? How a conscious experience, such as thought, can affect the motion of the electrons in your brain?

How did you get up in the morning?

I cannot formulate it. I know that I wanted to get up. Then there was a motion in my body. There is however a gap between wanting and moving since wanting is a conscious phenomenon whereas the motion of my body is a physical phenomenon.

This is the only chance we have of using thought to affect reality.

It is easy to say. Hard to prove.

RUbbish. All you have to do is get our of bed

So you move the electron in your brain in order to move your body.

[RCSaunders]

Thought is a substance and has a form.

Really!? What color is it? What shape? Is it a solid, liquid, or gas? Does it have an odor or taste? All physical substances have attributes that can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. All substances have chemical properties.

So what are the physical properties of a thought and what is its shape?

Perhaps you are speaking metaphorically.

[bahman]

Of course, they do (we know the difference between a person who knows from the one who does not know). All conscious phenomena are irrelevant in what is going on in matter since matter behaves according to the laws of nature. Therefore, thoughts are irrelevant which is a contradiction since we know that thoughts affect reality.

Dear bahman

Is it not perhaps more accurate to say that thoughts affect perceptions?

No, perception is what we perceive including thoughts.

And, as one’s actions much depend on one’s perception, thoughts do affect what occurs in reality but not “reality” as in laws of physics.

Humbly
Hermit

The matter behaves according to the laws of physics whether there is a perception in it or not. Are you saying that matter does not act according to the laws of physics when there is perception?

[Hermit Philosopher]

Of course, they do (we know the difference between a person who knows from the one who does not know). All conscious phenomena are irrelevant in what is going on in matter since matter behaves according to the laws of nature. Therefore, thoughts are irrelevant which is a contradiction since we know that thoughts affect reality.

Dear bahman

Is it not perhaps more accurate to say that thoughts affect perceptions?

No, perception is what we perceive including thoughts.

And, as one’s actions much depend on one’s perception, thoughts do affect what occurs in reality but not “reality” as in laws of physics.

Humbly
Hermit

The matter behaves according to the laws of physics whether there is a perception in it or not. Are you saying that matter does not act according to the laws of physics when there is perception?

No, that’s absolutely not what I was saying bahman. Is that truly how you read that?

I meant that what you choose to do (in reality) is based on what you think, so your thoughts affect your actions (what occurs) - in reality.

I also meant that your perception of reality - i.e. what you notice about what you sense (see/hear/feel/taste/smell) and what you don’t notice about what is there to be sensed - does in fact sometimes depend on what you are thinking and on what you expect to sense.

I hope that’s more clear.


Humbly
Hermit

[bahman]

How? Could you control the electrons in your brain? How a conscious experience, such as thought, can affect the motion of the electrons in your brain?

What has that got to do with conscious control of living behavior.

You have to send a signal to your body in order to move it. This signal is electro-chemical and is initiated in different parts of the brain. How could you possibly can create that signal?

You are assuming the activity of the brain is consciousness. It isn't.

The underlying reality behaves according to the laws of nature.

You are also assuming the physical properties of the material natural existence are all properties of existence there are, but life, consciousness, and the human mind are not physical attributes, thought perfectly natural ones.

Where these properties come from? The hard problem of consciousness, remember.

This is the only chance we have of using thought to affect reality.

It is easy to say. Hard to prove.

Prove to who? Go sit in a chair and refuse to choose to do anything else. Until you consciously choose to move you will sit there and die. Except for those functions of your body which are strictly biological, everything else you do you must consciously choose to do, or you do nothing.

Prove that's not true--without making a conscious choice.

Yeah, we see the fantastic correlation between what we want to cause and what we cause. But thoughts are irrelevant since they are by-products of the matter process, where the process is according to the laws of nature. The heart of my argument is that how such a thing that is irrelevant can concede to what is happening in reality to such a fantastic precision.

[bahman]

Thought is a substance and has a form.

Really!? What color is it? What shape? Is it a solid, liquid, or gas? Does it have an odor or taste? All physical substances have attributes that can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or tasted. All substances have chemical properties.

So what are the physical properties of a thought and what is its shape?

Perhaps you are speaking metaphorically.

How thoughts could be distinguished from each other if they don't have different forms? How such a thing that has form could not exist. It exists, therefore it is a substance.

[bahman]

Dear bahman

Is it not perhaps more accurate to say that thoughts affect perceptions?

No, perception is what we perceive including thoughts.

And, as one’s actions much depend on one’s perception, thoughts do affect what occurs in reality but not “reality” as in laws of physics.

Humbly
Hermit

The matter behaves according to the laws of physics whether there is a perception in it or not. Are you saying that matter does not act according to the laws of physics when there is perception?

No, that’s absolutely not what I was saying bahman. Is that truly how you read that?

I meant that what you choose to do (in reality) is based on what you think, so your thoughts affect your actions (what occurs) - in reality.

True. The question is how you cause? We have two things, matter that process according to the laws of nature and conscious phenomena. The question is that how the second could affect the former when the former behaves according to the laws of nature, only.

I also meant that your perception of reality - i.e. what you notice about what you sense (see/hear/feel/taste/smell) and what you don’t notice about what is there to be sensed - does in fact sometimes depend on what you are thinking and on what you expect to sense.

I hope that’s more clear.


Humbly
Hermit

Yes, when only you get involved in doing something consciously then you observe that reality around you are the way they are.

[Terrapin Station]

Why? There is no other option?

"Matter behaves non-arbitrarily without following physical laws" is a third option.

When things are not non-arbitrary then it means that they are constrained which means that they follow some rules.

It's possible for it to be a brute fact that matter behaves in a limited way without following any rules.

Physical laws exist as thoughts in the mind of intelligent agents only. Thought is a substance and has a form.

Right, so how exactly does, say, a star a million light years away from us obey our thoughts?

It obeys its nature and not what is going on in our mind.

You just wrote that physical laws exist as thoughts in the mind of intelligent agents only. So how can laws also be "its nature and not what is going on in our mind"?

It's like you can't remember what you claimed two seconds ago.

[bahman]

"Matter behaves non-arbitrarily without following physical laws" is a third option.

When things are not non-arbitrary then it means that they are constrained which means that they follow some rules.

It's possible for it to be a brute fact that matter behaves in a limited way without following any rules.

The matter is free or non-free?

Right, so how exactly does, say, a star a million light years away from us obey our thoughts?

It obeys its nature and not what is going on in our mind.

You just wrote that physical laws exist as thoughts in the mind of intelligent agents only. So how can laws also be "its nature and not what is going on in our mind"?

It's like you can't remember what you claimed two seconds ago.

The laws of physics do not exist in matter. It only exists in minds of intelligent beings. The matter however behaves according to the laws of nature.

[RCSaunders]

But thoughts are irrelevant since they are by-products of the matter process, where the process is according to the laws of nature.

In philosophy, and even more in science, it is not valid to just guess or assume something. Unless you can explain exactly what the, "matter process," is or how they can possibly produce thoughts, you are just guessing. To claim there is a process you must be able to describe exactly what it is and how it does what you claim it does.

My thoughts are not physical things. They have no physical properties, cannot be observed by any physical means and cannot be explained in terms of any physical process. The fact that some physiological events seem related to some conscious experience is only evidence of a correlation between the physical aspects of an organism, and the non-physical aspects called life and consciousness.

Please see my Philosophy Now Forum articles:

"The Physical, Life, Consciousness, and The Human Mind—A Preface"

"The Nature Of Life,"

"The Nature Of Consciousness,"

"The Nature of Mind,"

"An Analogy, From Physical To Mind."

[RCSaunders]

How thoughts could be distinguished from each other if they don't have different forms? How such a thing that has form could not exist. It exists, therefore it is a substance.

You have confused material (ontological existence) with psychological (epistemological) existence. Material (or ontological) existence is all that exists and has the nature it has, whether anyone is aware of that existence or not. It includes all physical things, all living organisms, a conscious organisms, and all human beings. Only physical entities have form, or any other physical properties. Everything else that exists only exists as the content and product of human consciousness and has no material existence.

That psychological (or epistemological) existence includes all knowledge, all knowledge methods like language, logic, and mathematics, all intellectual products like history, geography, all the sciences, all literature, all art, and all the ideas of invention and technology, none of which exist physically or independently of human minds. If human beings should cease to exist, all epistemological existents would also cease to exist, but material existence would remain.

[bahman]

But thoughts are irrelevant since they are by-products of the matter process, where the process is according to the laws of nature.

In philosophy, and even more in science, it is not valid to just guess or assume something. Unless you can explain exactly what the, "matter process," is or how they can possibly produce thoughts, you are just guessing. To claim there is a process you must be able to describe exactly what it is and how it does what you claim it does.

That is not my guess. It is materialistic belief. I don't owe you to prove any of these since I am not a materislist.

My thoughts are not physical things. They have no physical properties, cannot be observed by any physical means and cannot be explained in terms of any physical process. The fact that some physiological events seem related to some conscious experience is only evidence of a correlation between the physical aspects of an organism, and the non-physical aspects called life and consciousness.

Please see my Philosophy Now Forum articles:

"The Physical, Life, Consciousness, and The Human Mind—A Preface"

"The Nature Of Life,"

"The Nature Of Consciousness,"

"The Nature of Mind,"

"An Analogy, From Physical To Mind."

I put thought in the category of mental. Mental however exist as a substance.

Thanks for the links. I read them later when I have time.