Do thoughts affect reality?

[Terrapin Station]

I'm saying exactly what I said, thoughts (by which I assume Terrapin meant concepts and their use in reasoning) are not physical. The, "things," word is simply to refer to the fact my conscious concepts are, "something," not, "nothihg." ...and I have to make what I mean by thoughts clear because so many idiots think just anything that goes on in their head, like feelings, imagination, and dreams are all, "thoughts." They'r not.

By thoughts I mean only, "concepts," and the conscious intentional processes that use them: thinking, judging, and making conscious choices. None of those are physical, are explicable in terms of any physical attributes or actions, or can possibly be (exist) separate from human consciousness. When the last human consciousness ceases to exist (hypothetically), there will be no concepts or knowledge, no knowledge methods (language, mathematics, logic), no history, science, geography, or literature, except for whatever physical artifacts remain which human beings used for keeping utilizing that knowledge.

Concepts (thoughts) only exist epistemologically (psychologically); concepts have no ontological (material) existence.

I am not a, "physicalist," by the way, but only because I am not any kind of, "-ist." I embrace no ideology or pre-concieved philosophy or recognized explanations.

Ah, I don't agree with that view at all. I'm a physicalist. Mental content is simply a subset of brain function in my view.

Yes, it's a very popular view. I just cannot swallow the mystical nonsense used to justify it and regard it as superstitious as any religious views, and those who hold it, are just as adamant and intransigent as any supernaturalist.

I do not object to anyone else holding that view, anymore than I do anyone holding any other religion or ideology--it does me no harm.

What do you take to be "mystical nonsense" there, especially above positing nonphysical existents?

[Dimebag]

Here are my “thoughts”.

We have intentions, which are separate from thoughts. Intentions drive behaviour. Thoughts clarify intentions, as well as allow decisions to be made over conflicting intentions. First comes an intention. If the intention has no barrier toward producing a behaviour, a behaviour will occur.

If there is some conflict, or some reason why the intended behaviour must be delayed, this will become conscious, and a thought may arise to explain the conflict. Further thoughts may also arise in response to that initial thought, taking into account the situation. These thoughts might then determine the outcome of some conflicting intentions, or, a wholly new intention may arise in response to this thought process.

Sometimes, a thought might be “kept” in the mind for later, and will periodically arise as a reminder. In this case, it will re-enable a latent intention.

There is likely some feedback between thought and intention, and intention to behaviour. Furthermore, there is feedback between perception and intention.

What is intention? It is the priming of behaviour, felt as an impulse to act.

What is a thought? It is the conceptual (referring to verbal thought) understanding of a state of affairs relating to perception and the organism itself.

What does this say about the nature of thought? Or of intention?

Intentions do not arise of their own accord, they always have prior causes. Thoughts do not arise of their own accord, they have prior causes. The prior causes can be many different sources for both intention and thought. It may be a visual perception, a bodily sensation, the hearing of speech, etc, use your imagination.

Are thoughts physical or non physical? They are conscious expressions of the conceptual processing of those prior causes, existing as patterns of associations of concepts. Concepts are related to the categories of things and relationships perceived, which can be expressed with related verbal labels, relating certain meanings to those verbal labels. Concepts and perception are tightly bound. The concepts describe the possible landscape of perception, as well as wholly non perceptual abstract concepts, built using perceptual analogies, but having no one to one relationship with a single percept.

So thoughts are the verbal or internal verbiage expression of concepts and their relationships, heard internally within conscious experience. They arise due to the need of an organism to produce complex behaviours, tailored to specific situations, going beyond basic procedural memory. They allow the brain to reprogram itself in essence. They also allow learning to be explicit, a thought can also relate to memory, such that we know what we know, that is, they allow metaknowledge. But, thoughts are a translation of implicitly known conceptual relationships. Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves.

Interesting and detailed explanation.

When you say “ Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves”, who exactly are you referring to?
What is it that knows these thoughts? Are they generated/thought by a controlling entity who, after producing them, perceives/knows them? How exactly does this process work (based on your own direct experience of thinking)?

I didn’t go into the nature of the self/perceiver, and it’s relationship to all of this, because it tends to make things more complicated, but since you asked, I will elucidate as best I can.

The organism has awareness. This is as close as we can get to the subject. Awareness is not an entity. It is more of a faculty, or even facilitator.

Awareness is the common thread between all elements, known and unknown, between felt intentions, perceptions, and resulting behaviours, and indeed thoughts.

Awareness does not produce thoughts, nor intentions. Awareness, could be analogous to a “public accessway” for all information. It allows the transfer of information relating to perceptions, to systems involved in setting up behaviours. Not all information must pass through it to be used, some information can easily pass between perception and behaviour, if the perceptual information is predictable enough, and the required behaviours are simple enough. But, awareness is there ready and waiting to accept anything which goes beyond this simple stimulus response system. As such, awareness is the common feed to the rest of the system, especially the conceptual, and thus, thought.

But, again, awareness is passive in this respect, it allows broad communication.

Of course, because there is a need to represent the organism, both to itself, and in relation to the world, and other possible organisms, there must be a representation of the organism itself, as producer of action, as sufferer of pains, and seeker of pleasures, as producer of thoughts etc. This is a representation, but, awareness essentially “wears” this “self system”, and thus, takes on the role of agent, yet, it is purely symbolic. But, the self system is still effective in producing and limiting behaviours depending on the situation. The self system is very much tied up to the conceptual side of things, and takes on certain conceptual patterns, which might be called beliefs. The self system is not wholly self contained nor self generated, it exists as part of the broader system, and thus, all the controlling factors and limitations it imposes are determined and caused.

The self system also entails the bodily perception, and thus is strongly tied to the organism. Thus the self system aims to ensure the organism remains in favourable conditions.

The true knower of all knowledge, is itself the knowledge. There is no knower separate from the known. But, the self system assumes the role of knower, again, for purposes of working as a social being, to communicate concepts to others and to itself, that is, to its own conceptual system.

I would say, when a series of concepts arises, and becomes translated into thought, and thus knowledge, the self system recognises this knowledge, and assumes the role of knower, but it is a false knower of something which itself is knowing. Again, I explained prior why this is necessary.

[RCSaunders]

Yes I know my thoughts are not physical things.

But, for sure?

I know it in the same way I know I can see.

But these are two very different things, which are known in two very different ways.

No! My knowledge of both is by being directly conscious of them.

I certainly cannot prove it to you,

Why do you believe this is so?

If you are, so sure, you 'know' some 'thing', then, surely, you would have some sort of 'proof' for that 'thing', which you could share with 'me'and/or 'us'?

Because the proof is only available to me, because no one else can be conscious of my consciousness.

There is no reason to prove it to anyone else. The purpose of proof is not to convince other people but ensure one's own reasoning is correct. There is no reason to convince you of anything, especially if you choose not to understand.

By the way, you have FAILED to answer most of the ACTUAL questions that I have ALREADY asked you, let alone those questions, which you just assume I have.

Life's tough! You'll just have to live without the answers.

You certainly do not have to agree with them, but at least you'll know what you are arguing against if you don't agree.
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."

[Age]

No. But a heart beating is NOT a 'behavior', to me.

See, to me, the body either acts, or reacts, or behaves, or misbehaves. An action/reaction is NOT controlled nor caused by a 'thought'. However, EVERY behavior/misbehavior is controlled or caused by a 'thought'.

OK, thanks for explaining.

So what about thought itself?
Is the arising of a thought - which again might control/cause a behaviour or misbehaviour - itself controlled by someone or something?

To me, thought/s come/s from, rose, or is the result of, a bodily experience. So, what the body experiences is what causes, or creates, thoughts.

As to what actually controls the arising of a thought, which then controls the body to behave/misbehave in a particular way, I have not previously thought about nor wondered about, but my first response would be that all of the previous experiences, up to any moment, which have created all the thoughts to that moment, is what has, for lack of a better word for now, "controlled" the arising of a thought. Also, after giving this some thought, the wants, or bodily desires, may be what, again for lack of a better word, "controls" the arising of a thought.

Maybe if specific thoughts were given, for us to look at and discuss, then we could work together to see what 'it' is that actually "controls", causes or creates, those specific thought/s.

Or does this thought simply arise uncontrolled (like an action/reaction to some kind of stimulus)?

Again, I would have to look at the specific thought/s in question here, to be able to see what "controlled" them. But on first thought I would say "this thought" simply arises "controlled" by previous experiences. For example, a body sees a chocolate bar, and the thought, 'I want some chocolate', arises. This might seemingly appear to be because of some kind of an uncontrolled stimuli, BUT because that body has tasted/experienced chocolate before and has seen/experienced a chocolate bar before, and/or maybe heard/experienced from "another" that these chocolate bars are yummy, then it was these previous experiences, which has caused, or created, this, 'I want some chocolate', thought, to arise, now.

There may, however, be (countless?) other examples of thoughts, which I have not yet thought about, that counter this example and view, which I would be very interested in looking at and seeing as well.

[Terrapin Station]

"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."

Skimming through those, it looks like you mostly take the "explanation" approach.

In my view, there are two big issues with that approach:

(1) Do you believe that every physical phenomenon is currently explainable? That is, if it's a physical phenomenon, we currently have an explanation. Thus, if there is no explanation for x, x must not be a physical phenomenon. (And what would the argument for this be?)

(2) I've yet to see one of these "arguments from explanation" (or rather "arguments from the lack of an explanation") set forth a plausible, rigorous set of criteria for just what counts as an explanation of anything (any arbitrary phenomenon that one considers explained) and why that counts as what an explanation is. So in other words, take any example where you'd say, "x is explained by ε." What are the criteria that ε meets in counting as an explanation for x? And why are those the criteria?

Or in other words, on my view, the "arguments from (a lack of an) explanation" hinge on very vague, largely unanalyzed ideas of just what explanations are, just how they work, etc. Which makes them not very good arguments. In order to be able to say that we do or do not currently have an explanation of something, where this forms the crux of an argument, we'd better have a damned good set of criteria for just what makes something an explanation and why. Otherwise it just becomes a Batman vs Superman argument.

I understand that people are trying to get at something that intuitively seems to be the case to them, but on my view, that intuition arises from a double-edged sword combination of (a) untenable background beliefs and/or norms about what consciousness is (and sometimes this stems from religious beliefs and the like, too), and (b) a lack of awareness of the relationship between any explanation and the phenomenon it's supposed to be explaining--that is, a lack of understanding what's literally going on with explanations/how they literally work, which includes a lot of unanalyzed and/or poorly analyzed beliefs about what language is (as well as what mathematics is) and how it works.

Arguments from explanation proceed as if explanations are some rigorously well-defined metric, and as if there aren't all sorts of linguistic and psychological issues a la semantic interpretation, acceptance or not based on background beliefs and communal norms, etc. at play, but that's not at all the case.

[Age]

Here are my “thoughts”.

We have intentions, which are separate from thoughts. Intentions drive behaviour.

Who and/or what is the 'we' here?

What are 'intentions', exactly, and, how are they separate from 'thoughts'?

How is an 'intention' known of, if not through 'thought'?

Thoughts clarify intentions, as well as allow decisions to be made over conflicting intentions.

Will you provide any examples for 'us' to look at, and discuss?

First comes an intention.

From WHERE, if it is NOT from 'thought'?

And, HOW does one know there is an 'intention', if 'intention' is NOT a 'thought'?

If the intention has no barrier toward producing a behaviour, a behaviour will occur.

Again, will you provide example/s for us to look at?

And, if a thought has no barrier toward producing a behavior, are you saying that it is still NOT the thought that makes a behavior occur?

If there is some conflict, or some reason why the intended behaviour must be delayed, this will become conscious, and a thought may arise to explain the conflict.

WHERE do 'you' propose these 'intentions', (which, supposedly, cause the behaviors of that body, which uses the identity "dimebag", here in this forum), come from, EXACTLY?

And, WHERE do 'you' propose these 'intentions' exist or reside, EXACTLY?

Also, WHY must there be some conflict, or some reason why the intended behavior must be delayed, before this become conscious?

Further thoughts may also arise in response to that initial thought, taking into account the situation.

What is the 'initial thought' that you are talking about here now, which could produce, cause, or create 'further thoughts'?

These thoughts might then determine the outcome of some conflicting intentions, or, a wholly new intention may arise in response to this thought process.

This is all sounding more and more convoluted and more confusing the more 'you' bring into this now.

Sometimes, a thought might be “kept” in the mind for later, and will periodically arise as a reminder. In this case, it will re-enable a latent intention.

What is this 'mind' thing, which 'you' have now brought into the equation, and, how, EXACTLY, are 'thoughts' kept in this 'mind' thing?

There is likely some feedback between thought and intention, and intention to behaviour. Furthermore, there is feedback between perception and intention.

And, without examples or explanations, then there being 'likely some' is all rather moot.

What is intention? It is the priming of behaviour, felt as an impulse to act.

And what causes, creates, or controls 'intentions'?

Also, if you did not answer my clarifying question before, then WHERE does 'intention' actually reside or exist?

What is a thought? It is the conceptual (referring to verbal thought) understanding of a state of affairs relating to perception and the organism itself.

Seems, to me, like a very over complicated explanation of some 'thing', which is already very simple and easy to understand.

What does this say about the nature of thought? Or of intention?

Intentions do not arise of their own accord, they always have prior causes.

So, what is 'it', which causes 'intentions'? And, what are 'intentions', if not thought?

Also, does ANY thing in the Universe arise on its own accord?

If yes, then 'what'?

But if no, then WHY mention that intentions have prior causes?

Thoughts do not arise of their own accord, they have prior causes. The prior causes can be many different sources for both intention and thought. It may be a visual perception, a bodily sensation, the hearing of speech, etc, use your imagination.

But WHY NOT just say 'what', EXACTLY, causes 'thoughts'?

The One and ONLY True, Right, and Correct answer is VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to ascertain, and thus obtain.

Also, telling "others" to "use your imagination", when it is 'you' proposing that 'you' KNOW the answer, seems like a REAL and True 'cop out'.

Are thoughts physical or non physical? They are conscious expressions of the conceptual processing of those prior causes, existing as patterns of associations of concepts. Concepts are related to the categories of things and relationships perceived, which can be expressed with related verbal labels, relating certain meanings to those verbal labels. Concepts and perception are tightly bound. The concepts describe the possible landscape of perception, as well as wholly non perceptual abstract concepts, built using perceptual analogies, but having no one to one relationship with a single percept.

So thoughts are the verbal or internal verbiage expression of concepts and their relationships, heard internally within conscious experience. They arise due to the need of an organism to produce complex behaviours, tailored to specific situations, going beyond basic procedural memory. They allow the brain to reprogram itself in essence. They also allow learning to be explicit, a thought can also relate to memory, such that we know what we know, that is, they allow metaknowledge. But, thoughts are a translation of implicitly known conceptual relationships. Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves.

WHY did you propose the question; "Are thoughts physical or non physical?" and then proceed as though you were going to answer that question but NEVER saying a word in direct relation to that question?

Also, do you KNOW WHY 'you', adult human beings, commonly use the word 'complex' in your perceived answers, when 'you' OBVIOUSLY are NOT able to actually answer the question/s proposed?

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that is 'complex', (nor 'hard'), in Life, Itself, to 'me', and proposing some 'thing' is 'complex' as though that suffices in one's inability to KNOW some 'thing' is just ANOTHER 'cop out'.

[Age]

Yes. It bothers me to don't know.

Why?

I am like this.

Do 'you' KNOW WHY 'you' are like 'that'?

Thee ACTUAL answer, by the way, is Truly VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY to ascertain, and obtain.

[Sculptor]

Yes. It bothers me to don't know.

Why?

I am like this.

You do not know how electrons work at all do you?
Not in your computer, not in your sandwich.
Not anywhere.

[Age]

Here are my “thoughts”.

We have intentions, which are separate from thoughts. Intentions drive behaviour. Thoughts clarify intentions, as well as allow decisions to be made over conflicting intentions. First comes an intention. If the intention has no barrier toward producing a behaviour, a behaviour will occur.

If there is some conflict, or some reason why the intended behaviour must be delayed, this will become conscious, and a thought may arise to explain the conflict. Further thoughts may also arise in response to that initial thought, taking into account the situation. These thoughts might then determine the outcome of some conflicting intentions, or, a wholly new intention may arise in response to this thought process.

Sometimes, a thought might be “kept” in the mind for later, and will periodically arise as a reminder. In this case, it will re-enable a latent intention.

There is likely some feedback between thought and intention, and intention to behaviour. Furthermore, there is feedback between perception and intention.

What is intention? It is the priming of behaviour, felt as an impulse to act.

What is a thought? It is the conceptual (referring to verbal thought) understanding of a state of affairs relating to perception and the organism itself.

What does this say about the nature of thought? Or of intention?

Intentions do not arise of their own accord, they always have prior causes. Thoughts do not arise of their own accord, they have prior causes. The prior causes can be many different sources for both intention and thought. It may be a visual perception, a bodily sensation, the hearing of speech, etc, use your imagination.

Are thoughts physical or non physical? They are conscious expressions of the conceptual processing of those prior causes, existing as patterns of associations of concepts. Concepts are related to the categories of things and relationships perceived, which can be expressed with related verbal labels, relating certain meanings to those verbal labels. Concepts and perception are tightly bound. The concepts describe the possible landscape of perception, as well as wholly non perceptual abstract concepts, built using perceptual analogies, but having no one to one relationship with a single percept.

So thoughts are the verbal or internal verbiage expression of concepts and their relationships, heard internally within conscious experience. They arise due to the need of an organism to produce complex behaviours, tailored to specific situations, going beyond basic procedural memory. They allow the brain to reprogram itself in essence. They also allow learning to be explicit, a thought can also relate to memory, such that we know what we know, that is, they allow metaknowledge. But, thoughts are a translation of implicitly known conceptual relationships. Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves.

Interesting and detailed explanation.

When you say “ Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves”, who exactly are you referring to?
What is it that knows these thoughts? Are they generated/thought by a controlling entity who, after producing them, perceives/knows them? How exactly does this process work (based on your own direct experience of thinking)?

I didn’t go into the nature of the self/perceiver, and it’s relationship to all of this, because it tends to make things more complicated, but since you asked, I will elucidate as best I can.

The organism has awareness.

'What' organism has awareness?

This is as close as we can get to the subject.

LOL 'you' are joking here, right?

'I' can, and will, tell 'you' now, that 'we' have ALREADY got FAR, FAR closer than that, to this subject.

Awareness is not an entity. It is more of a faculty, or even facilitator.

Awareness is the common thread between all elements, known and unknown, between felt intentions, perceptions, and resulting behaviours, and indeed thoughts.

Awareness does not produce thoughts, nor intentions. Awareness, could be analogous to a “public accessway” for all information. It allows the transfer of information relating to perceptions, to systems involved in setting up behaviours.

Is there information not relation to perceptions?

And, what are these 'systems', which are involved in setting up behaviors?

Not all information must pass through it to be used, some information can easily pass between perception and behaviour, if the perceptual information is predictable enough, and the required behaviours are simple enough.

The FACT that 'you', human beings, in the days when this was written, could NOT answer, properly and correctly, the question, 'Who am 'I'?, including thousands upon thousands of other EASILY KNOWN answers is, literally, PROOF that NOT ALL information must pass through 'Awareness', Itself.

'you', human beings, also literally do things without EVERY KNOWING EXACTLY WHY. Therefore, information is OBVIOUSLY getting passed on between perception and behavior without ANY awareness by 'you'.

However, in saying this, there still exists 'Awareness', Itself, which NOTHING can pass through or get past. Therefore, ALL information is KNOWN by this 'Awareness'.

But, awareness is there ready and waiting to accept anything which goes beyond this simple stimulus response system. As such, awareness is the common feed to the rest of the system, especially the conceptual, and thus, thought.

But, again, awareness is passive in this respect, it allows broad communication.

Of course, because there is a need to represent the organism, both to itself, and in relation to the world, and other possible organisms, there must be a representation of the organism itself, as producer of action, as sufferer of pains, and seeker of pleasures, as producer of thoughts etc. This is a representation, but, awareness essentially “wears” this “self system”, and thus, takes on the role of agent, yet, it is purely symbolic. But, the self system is still effective in producing and limiting behaviours depending on the situation. The self system is very much tied up to the conceptual side of things, and takes on certain conceptual patterns, which might be called beliefs. The self system is not wholly self contained nor self generated, it exists as part of the broader system, and thus, all the controlling factors and limitations it imposes are determined and caused.

The self system also entails the bodily perception, and thus is strongly tied to the organism. Thus the self system aims to ensure the organism remains in favourable conditions.

When 'you' say, "self system", here, and 'you' are referring to the 'human being', then I KNOW you would find that the adult human being, in the days when this was written, did NOT ALWAYS "ensure the organism remains in favorable conditions".

The true knower of all knowledge, is itself the knowledge. There is no knower separate from the known. But, the self system assumes the role of knower, again, for purposes of working as a social being, to communicate concepts to others and to itself, that is, to its own conceptual system.

I would say, when a series of concepts arises, and becomes translated into thought,

How does the one known as "dimebag" here differentiate between a 'concept' and a 'thought'?

What is a 'concept', and how does 'it' "translate into thought"?

and thus knowledge, the self system recognises this knowledge, and assumes the role of knower, but it is a false knower of something which itself is knowing. Again, I explained prior why this is necessary.

WHY do so many of 'you', adult human beings', just re-repeat what 'you' have heard or seen "others" say and write, like 'you' KNOW what 'they' were talking about?

If 'you' can NOT explain some 'thing' from YOUR OWN CONCEPTION, or KNOWING, of 'things', then, REALLY, HOW much of 'it' do 'you' REALLY KNOW?

Also, WHY do 'you', the one known as "dimebag" here, PRETEND that 'you' KNOW 'things'?

By the way, 'I" MISSED WHY 'this' is necessary. So, 'what' is 'this', which 'you' CLAIM to KNOW 'is necessary'? And, what is that 'thing' 'necessary' in relation to, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Yes I know my thoughts are not physical things.

But, for sure?

I know it in the same way I know I can see.

But these are two very different things, which are known in two very different ways.

No! My knowledge of both is by being directly conscious of them.

Firstly, you did NOT answer my first question.

Secondly, you are conflating things here. Let us take this back.

You CLAIMED that "your thoughts are NOT physical things", and you, supposedly, KNOW this in the same way that you KNOW you can see.

Now, to me, you can more accurately CLAIM that you KNOW "you can think" in the same way that you KNOW "you can see". But, to CLAIM that you KNOW "your thoughts are NOT physical things" is REALLY NOT the same as KNOWING "you can see".

I agree that your knowledge of both "you can think" and "you can see" is because of being directly conscious to both 'thinking' and 'seeing'. But, HOW just because 'you' are directly conscious of 'thoughts' do you KNOW that 'thoughts', themselves, are NOT physical things?

Where is the ACTUAL PROOF that 'thoughts' are NOT physical things?

I certainly cannot prove it to you,

Why do you believe this is so?

If you are, so sure, you 'know' some 'thing', then, surely, you would have some sort of 'proof' for that 'thing', which you could share with 'me'and/or 'us'?

Because the proof is only available to me, because no one else can be conscious of my consciousness.

WHAT 'proof'?

You say and claim here; "the proof is only available to you", so WHAT proof is that?

There is no reason to prove it to anyone else.

Sounds like a 'cop out'.

Do you NEED a 'reason' to share what 'proof' you CLAIM to have?

The purpose of proof is not to convince other people but ensure one's own reasoning is correct.

LOL

Since WHEN has there been a "purpose of proof", itself?

Also, if there is 'proof', then there is NOTHING to 'convince'. If there is 'proof', then 'it' would just be PLAIN IRREFUTABLE anyway.

Furthermore, to me, 'proof', itself, does NOT have the purpose of to; "ensuring one's own reasoning is correct", and this is because a Truly rational person would NOT have reasoned some 'thing' out prior to having the proof in the first place.

One's own reasoning can be correct WITH PROOF. And, if one, supposedly, ALREADY has the proof, then WHY would they not want to share it with "others"?

There is no reason to convince you of anything, especially if you choose not to understand.

I do NOT want to be, so called, "convinced" of ANY thing.

If you have forgotten, 'you' made a CLAIM, and 'I' am just challenging and/or asking you clarifying questions about that CLAIM.

You have CLAIMED that 'thoughts' are non physical. I am just seeking out what proof you have for that CLAIM.

Oh, and by the way, from what you have written here you appear to have absolutely NO clue AT ALL about what my ACTUAL VIEW is on this. What do you think or believe 'it' is here that I am, supposedly, "choosing not to understand"?

By the way, you have FAILED to answer most of the ACTUAL questions that I have ALREADY asked you, let alone those questions, which you just assume I have.

Life's tough! You'll just have to live without the answers.

What do you think or believe 'life is tough' in relation to exactly?

Also, what answers do you think or believe that I will just have to live without?

You CLAIM to KNOW that 'thoughts' are non physical. I just want to KNOW what proof you have.

If you have NONE, then so be it. But if you have SOME, then great, I can use IT.

[RCSaunders]

"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."

Skimming through those, it looks like you mostly take the "explanation" approach.

In my view, there are two big issues with that approach:

(1) Do you believe that every physical phenomenon is currently explainable? That is, if it's a physical phenomenon, we currently have an explanation. Thus, if there is no explanation for x, x must not be a physical phenomenon. (And what would the argument for this be?)

I do not know what you mean by, "explainable." I believe every physical phenomenon can be identified and it's nature described, that a great deal of that existence and nature has been identified and described (by the physical sciences), but that knowledge of everything is not possible. I do not use the word, "explain," because, though I'm sure it's not what you mean, the mistaken view that science (or any other discipline) must discover, "why," things are what they are, and not only, "what," they are, leads to every kind of superstitious notion of a supernatural, "cause," of things.

(2) I've yet to see one of these "arguments from explanation" (or rather "arguments from the lack of an explanation") set forth a plausible, rigorous set of criteria for just what counts as an explanation of anything (any arbitrary phenomenon that one considers explained) and why that counts as what an explanation is. So in other words, take any example where you'd say, "x is explained by ε." What are the criteria that ε meets in counting as an explanation for x? And why are those the criteria?

That is exactly what I would never do. There is no mystical reason behind what things are, no, "explanation," for why there is existence or why it has the nature it has. Existence is what it is and has the nature it has and all that can be known about it is what it is and what it's nature is. That is the explanation, if you require one, for everything else.

Or in other words, on my view, the "arguments from (a lack of an) explanation" hinge on very vague, largely unanalyzed ideas of just what explanations are, just how they work, etc. Which makes them not very good arguments. I understand that people are trying to get at something that intuitively seems to be the case to them, but on my view, that intuition arises from a double-edged sword combination of (a) untenable background beliefs and/or norms about what consciousness is (and sometimes this stems from religious beliefs and the like, too), and (b) a lack of awareness of the relationship between any explanation and the phenomenon it's supposed to be explaining--that is, a lack of understanding what's literally going on with explanations/how they literally work, which includes a lot of unanalyzed and/or poorly analyzed beliefs about what language is (as well as what mathematics is) and how it works.

I do not make any arguments from, "lack of explanation," except to point out some baseless assumptions made that are without any actual evidence. Otherwise, I only describe what is evidence available to anyone to observe. I do not attempt to explain why things are what they are, only what they are. Attempts to explain why things are what they always devolve into some kind assumptions without evidence, like the view that consciousness can be explained by some unspecified magical physical process from which life, or consciousess, just emerges.

Arguments from explanation proceed as if explanations are some rigorously well-defined metric, and as if there aren't all sorts of linguistic and psychological issues a la semantic interpretation, acceptance or not based on background beliefs and communal norms, etc. at play, but that's not at all the case.

Since I don't explain anything, only describe what is, I make no arguments at all, really, because I have no interest in proving anything to anyone else, only ensuring my own reasoning is correct.

If you examine what I wrote carefully, I think you will see, I haven't attempted to argue for any particular view of anything and have only described what is obvious to anyone's honest careful observation. An honest observation requires admitting nothing without evidence and evading no evidence there is. Perhaps the most common evasion of evidence by most, "intellectuals," today is the evidence of their own life and consciousness.

[Terrapin Station]

I do not know what you mean by, "explainable." . . . That is exactly what I would never do.

Okay, hold on. Your argument in the one thread begins, "There is one thing I can observe that cannot be explained in terms of the physical."

[RCSaunders]

I do not know what you mean by, "explainable." . . . That is exactly what I would never do.

Okay, hold on. Your argument in the one thread begins, "There is one thing I can observe that cannot be explained in terms of the physical."

The context was quite different, but nevertheless, I'm not explaining even there, just providing an example of what cannot be explained.

When I taught digital electronics and telephony I did lot's of explaining.

I only reject, "explaining," when it means answering the question, "why," any fundamental aspect of reality is what it is. If you want to call describing reality and it's nature, "explaining," what it is, I'd have no objection to that. I'm not interested in the semantics.

[Terrapin Station]

I do not know what you mean by, "explainable." . . . That is exactly what I would never do.

Okay, hold on. Your argument in the one thread begins, "There is one thing I can observe that cannot be explained in terms of the physical."

The context was quite different, but nevertheless, I'm not explaining even there, just providing an example of what cannot be explained.

When I taught digital electronics and telephony I did lot's of explaining.

I only reject, "explaining," when it means answering the question, "why," any fundamental aspect of reality is what it is. If you want to call describing reality and it's nature, "explaining," what it is, I'd have no objection to that. I'm not interested in the semantics.

So again, if we're going to hinge on argument on what "can't be explained," we'd better have a set of criteria for what counts as an explanation, exactly, and why those criteria count.

[bahman]

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.

It is an important question.

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

How?

Name a behavior that 'you' think, or believe, is not controlled or caused by a 'thought', and then think about what else could control or cause that behavior, and then let us know what conclusion 'you' arrive at.

Then we can take a look at that conclusion, and see HOW 'that thing' could control/cause a behavior.

Otherwise, how else do you think the body goes in the direction it does if it was NOT motivated to go there by 'thought', itself?

Work out WHAT actually happens first, then you can work out the HOW, VERY simply and VERY EASILY.

The question is how thought can affect the material being a completely different category and while the material obeys the laws of nature.

'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.

Could you move?

Could who or what move?

Who or what, exactly, are 'you' talking about and referring to here?

When 'you' KNOW accurately and correctly who and what the 'you' is, exactly, then 'you' will also KNOW, accurately and correctly, the answer to 'your' question here.

Until then, if by using the word 'move' 'you' mean 'change', then the answer is YES OBVIOUSLY.

Could your thought affect or moves the electron of your brain? That is necessary for any action.

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

I am wondering that how thoughts can affect the motion of electrons in the brain. Electrons are known to affect each other only.

And, what EXACTLY is an 'electron', to you, and, are these electrons completely arbitrary to ANY other thing, and thus act/react completely arbitrarily to ANY thing else, to you?

An electron is an elementary particle. It moves according to the laws of physics.

Also, do 'you' also wonder how thoughts are caused or an affect of the motion of electrons as well?

Within materialism, thoughts are caused by the process of matter.

Or do you only look at and wonder about 'this' from one way only?

WHat do you mean?

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'.

That just says that thought correlates with the behavior.

Does it?

Of course, it does.

Is that all, and only, what 'you' can take from what 'I' said and wrote here?

I mean you can only say that your thought correlates with the behavior from introspection.

Also, HOW does it correlate? By chance, or by some other means?

In materialism, it is just by chance.

If the latter, then HOW? Because one causes/creates the other, or by some other means?

When, and if, you discover or learn some other things FIRST, then the correct and proper answer to ALL of these questions just become PLAIN OBVIOUS and KNOWN, almost immediately also by the way.

Ok.