Do thoughts affect reality?

[bahman]

"Not what is going on in our minds" is different than "what's going on in our minds," right?

Sure.

Right. So you can't have physical laws both be ONLY what's going on in our minds AND not what is going on in our minds, can you?

If you know it then it exists in you.

[Terrapin Station]

Sure.

Right. So you can't have physical laws both be ONLY what's going on in our minds AND not what is going on in our minds, can you?

If you know it then it exists in you.

That has nothing at all to do with what I just wrote.

Yes or no, can you have physical laws be both

(a) ONLY what's going on in our minds

and

(b) not what is going on in our minds

?

[bahman]

Right. So you can't have physical laws both be ONLY what's going on in our minds AND not what is going on in our minds, can you?

If you know it then it exists in you.

That has nothing at all to do with what I just wrote.

Yes or no, can you have physical laws be both

(a) ONLY what's going on in our minds

and

(b) not what is going on in our minds

?

Yes.

[Terrapin Station]

If you know it then it exists in you.

That has nothing at all to do with what I just wrote.

Yes or no, can you have physical laws be both

(a) ONLY what's going on in our minds

and

(b) not what is going on in our minds

?

Yes.

So you do not see (a) and (b) as contradictory, or are you claiming that it's a contradiction that can obtain?

[bahman]

That has nothing at all to do with what I just wrote.

Yes or no, can you have physical laws be both

(a) ONLY what's going on in our minds

and

(b) not what is going on in our minds

?

Yes.

So you do not see (a) and (b) as contradictory, or are you claiming that it's a contradiction that can obtain?

Depends on what those questions refer to. We know what do you mean with (a). And (b) could be the way that matter behaves.

[Age]

Thought can steer the body into action.

How?

If the word 'action' here refers to how the human body behaves, or misbehaves, then how thought steers the human body into 'action' should not even be a question.

How the human body behaves is SOLELY because of thought, itself, and from thought, alone.

Could you control the electrons in your brain?

'you' do NOT YET even KNOW who nor what 'you' are, not who nor what the 'you' is. So, asking if 'you' can do something like 'you' are asking here is just nonsensical.

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

What EXACTLY affects the motion of the electrons in the human brain, to you?

For your information, when 'you' can look at these 'things'from a Truly objective perspective, then the answers become just obvious, while also fitting together perfectly.

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

It is easy to say. Hard to prove.

The movement of a human body, in behavioural ways, is produced by, or caused from, a thought.
Human behavior effects 'reality', in a way.
Therefore, in a way, thoughts effect 'reality'.

But, then again, what 'reality' actually is, is thought about very differently. Which therefore proves that thought, literally, effects 'reality'.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes.

So you do not see (a) and (b) as contradictory, or are you claiming that it's a contradiction that can obtain?

Depends on what those questions refer to. We know what do you mean with (a). And (b) could be the way that matter behaves.

Again, this has nothing to do with my comment. Are you not interested in understanding it?

[Age]

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.

Not sure what a Thought is or what Reality is,

I know what thought and reality are.

What are 'thought' and 'reality', to 'you'?

but Conscious Desires can affect the Physical World while they are being satisfied.

How something which is irrelevant can affect reality.

What are you saying here is 'irrelevant', and, what is that thing irrelevant to, exactly?

[Age]

Thoughts are part of reality in the broader, contemporary sense of "reality," and of course thoughts motivate actions. So yes.

Can we agree that the matter behaves according to the laws of physics?

I don't agree with that, no. I'm not a realist on physical laws.

If you do not agree that matter behaves according to the laws of physics, then what exactly do you agree to, which matter behaves according to?

[Age]

So matter behaves arbitrarily? That is the only option left.

No, "Either there are physical laws that matter behaves or it behaves arbitrarily" is a false dichotomy.

Why? There is no other option?

A big problem with "there are physical laws that matter behaves" is accounting for just what the heck physical laws ARE ontologically. I'm trying to get you to deal with that issue, since you accept that there are physical laws, but you're avoiding addressing it.

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

What is this 'substance', and, what is this 'form', which 'thought', supposedly, is?

[Age]

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.

WHY is there a perceived 'gap'?

And WHY does this, so called, "gap" exist in that body only? In other words WHY is that 'thought'that there is an actual 'gap' exist in that body only here?

And, WHERE, exactly, is that perceived 'gap'? I KNOW that the perceived "gap" is in the 'thought' only within that body, but WHERE is the perceived "gap", itself, meant to be existing?

WHEN, and if, 'you' answer these questions accurately, then 'you' will be and understand WHERE the confusion and misunderstanding is laying.

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.

Who and/or what is this 'you' thing, which is being mentioned, and talked about, here?

If 'you' are suggesting here that a leg or an arm, for example, moves because an electron in the brain has moved, then what moves those electrons in the brain is 'thought', itself.

[Age]

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?

ONCE MORE, this 'you' thing is talked about here like what 'it' is EXACTLY is ALREADY KNOWN.

Discover, or learn, who and what the 'you' is, EXACTLY, then the answers being sought here become just PLAIN CLEAR and OBVIOUS.

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.

Where these 'properties' come from is just PLAIN OBVIOUS.

They either come from bodily experiences, through any of the five senses, or from thee One and ONLY Mind.

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.

Are 'you' trying to suggest here that 'thoughts', themselves, are NOT something that follow the 'laws of nature'?

If 'you' are, then 'you' have e some serious explain to do.

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.

Wondering what is happening is NOT 'an argument'.

An 'argument' proves or supports some thing.

Also, do not forget that 'your' conclusion, and belief, that 'thoughts', themselves are "irrelevant" are 'yours' only, and that it is this BELIEF itself, which is what is stopping 'you' from seeing, and understanding, what thee ACTUAL Truth is, here.

The reason WHY 'you' keep MISSING, and thus can not yet SEE, what is being POINTED OUT, to 'you', by "others" is because of that current "conclusion" and BELIEF of 'yours'.

[Age]

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?

Instead of counter questioning, what 'you', "yourself", can not yet evenanswer, how about just answering the question/s posed to you?

The VERY SIMPLE and EASY answer to this question is;
How thoughts can be, and ARE, distinguished from each is by their DIFFERENCE.

OBVIOUSLY, if there are DIFFERENT thoughts, then they can be distinguished from each other. BUT, just as OBVIOUS is the fact if they are the EXACT SAME thought/s, then they could NOT be ANY distinguishment.

How such a thing that has form could not exist.

'you' are here just saying just about absolutely any thing in the hope that it will back up and support your already held current belief and conclusion

It exists, therefore it is a substance.

Please STOP 'trying to' back up and support what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is true, and just answer the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to 'you'.

The reason you can not and will not answer the clarifying questions is because if you did, Honestly and OPENLY, then you would contradict "yourself". Or, if 'you' just can not formulate the right answers, then this is a sign that you are just plain wrong or not actually fully right at all.

[Age]

No, perception is what we perceive including thoughts.


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?

Through the thought, itself.

For example the thought, 'I want to eat an apple', causes the body to start moving in the direction of where the apple is, which, let us say, "is on a table".

That thought causes the legs to move one step in front of the other, until the body reaches the table, and then causes the arm to reach out and grab the apple, which then causes movement of the apple towards the mouth.

Thought, itself, is what causes EVERY behavior of the human body.

And, EVERY thought, by the way, has came from what that body previously experienced, through any of the five senses.

We have two things, matter that process according to the laws of nature and conscious phenomena.

You say this as though 'conscious phenomena' is some thing that is not natural or does not follow the laws of nature. Which is; just purely illogical AND irrational.

The question is that how the second could affect the former when the former behaves according to the laws of nature, only.

How could ANY thing, within the Universe, including the second or latter, behave not according to the laws of nature?

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.

[Age]

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.

Do 'you' KNOW, for sure, that 'thoughts' are NOT physical things?

If yes, then HOW?

But if no, then WHY did you make this assumption or guess?

Also, who and/or what does the "my" refer to in the saying, "my thoughts"?

They have no physical properties, cannot be observed by any physical means and cannot be explained in terms of any physical process.

I agree that thoughts cannot YET be observed by any physical means and cannot YET be explained in terms of any physical process, in the days when this is being written. However, this does NOT mean NOR prove that thoughts have NO physical properties.

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."