Do thoughts affect reality?

[Terrapin Station]

I would certainly have no objection to the discovery of some aspect of physical existence that explained consciousness, but without such a discovery, there is simply no evidence that what are regarded as the principles that described the nature of physical existence can account for the phenomenon of consciousness.

The above is an argument based on explanations.

Do you disagree with that?

[RCSaunders]

Concluding that mentality isn't a physical phenomenon seems to be at least partially based on the supposed lack of an explanation for it being a physical phenomenon per your comments in those threads.

If I say, "there is no evidence that consciousness is supernatural," (which I do say)...

I'm not sure why physicalists are so afraid that there might actually be in this world any properties other than physical properties.

I can't reconcile these two claims, RC.

I'm sure you can't. That's because you assume the physical attributes of perceivable existence are all the possible natural attributes there are. It's the same mistake physicalists make. Life and consciousness are perfectly natural attributes of reality, they are just additional attributes to all the physical attributes. There is nothing supernatural about them.

You say, on the one hand, that consciousness is not supernatural, but a few sentences later, that there are consciousness properties that are not physical. How can you get both? It seems to me that if something is real-but-not-merely-physical, it's what we really mean definitionally by "super-natural."

You are equating, "physical," and, "natural." That's your own definition and that of most physicalists , but there is no reason to exclude other attributes from natural existence, especially since there is irrefutable evidence for those attributes. It just happens to be evidence that is only available to those agents that have them, i.e. life and consciousness.

Everything that exists independently of any particular individual's consciousness or knowledge of it, and has the nature it has whether that nature is known or not, is natural or ontological existence. All the attributes of natural existence are: the physical attributes, life attribute, consciousness attribute, and human mind (volition, intellect, reason) attribute. Life, consciousness, and mind are not physical attributes, but they are very definitely attributes of very real entities called organisms.

Maybe you can sort me out on that.

That's what I've tried to do.

[RCSaunders]

I would certainly have no objection to the discovery of some aspect of physical existence that explained consciousness, but without such a discovery, there is simply no evidence that what are regarded as the principles that described the nature of physical existence can account for the phenomenon of consciousness.

The above is an argument based on explanations.

Do you disagree with that?

I've already said what I think. You don't have to agree.

What is it you think I'm, "arguing," for. It's not my intention. What I'm trying to do is explain what I know is the case, and why, not to convince anyone else. Although I think anyone who really understood what I was saying would see it is obviously true.

[bahman]

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.

This sentence does not make sense to me.

But in case you are still UNAWARE 'thoughts' "obey the laws of nature", ALSO, just like EVERY thing else in the Universe does.

I mean thoughts are a different category than material. Matter behaves according to the laws of nature and does not need thoughts. How could we possibly claim that such an irrelevant thing as thought could affect material?

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.

There is NO "your thought", just as there is NO "your brain". This is because of who and what 'you' ARE.

When, and IF, 'you' ever discover, or take the time to learn, who and what the 'you' IS, EXACTLY, then 'you' would understand this FACT, and thus ALREADY KNOW this FACT.

Of course, my thoughts exist subjectively within materialism.

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.

To you, is there ANY thing that does not move according to the laws of physics?

If yes, then 'what'?

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.

So, the material, or physical, human body causes the thoughts, within, correct?

That is what materialists claim.

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

WHat do you mean?

What I mean is;
You say, "you wonder how thoughts can affect the motions of electrons in the brain [the physical]". I just asked you, 'do you also wonder about things the other way around' as well, and that is; 'how the physical [the motion of electrons in the brain] can affect thoughts?

You have now proposed that you know that thoughts are caused by the process of matter, and, vice-versa thoughts can also cause the process of matter, as ALREADY PROVEN.

Materialists owe an explanation for how the matter process could lead to consciousness.

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.

LOOK, I CAN say MANY other things. Is this UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?

And, just ONE of those things is; There is NO such REAL thing as "your thoughts".

If you begin with this FACT, then you can start moving and proceeding FORWARDS. Instead of being STUCK where you are now.

What is your problem? Do you lack understanding?

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

In materialism, it is just by chance.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, "just by chance", EVERY thought within this, and EVERY other, human body just, "by chance", happens to correlate EXACTLY with EVERY behavior of ALL these physical bodies, correct?

Yes. Look, consciousness is irrelevant. It is the by-product of the matter process. Matter act according to the laws of nature regardless of the existence of an irrelevant thing, so-called consciousness.

[bahman]

Then now there is no wonder why 'you' are still so lost and confused, and still wondering so much here.

If these are what 'thought' and 'reality's are, to 'you', the 'you' really do have a LOT MORE to learn and/or discover.

I don't believe in this, materialism. I am arguing against it.

But I NEVER said ANY thing about 'materialism'.

But WHERE did this LUDICROUS ASSUMPTION, and-or BELIEF, of 'yours' that, "thoughts are irrelevant", come from, EXACTLY?

Also, I ASKED 'you' what do you propose thoughts are irrelevant to?

Until you CLEAR UP and CLARIFY, EXACTLY, what 'it' IS that you are asking, then you will NEVER get thee True, Right, Accurate, and Correct answer/s.

Also, and furthermore, you are NEVER going to get the answers that you are LOOKING and HOPING FOR, which could back up and support your currently held BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. Well not through ANY logical reasoning, anyway.

Thoughts are irrelevant since we cannot affect the matter with it.

If we can NOT affect matter with thoughts, then WHY keep asking;
How thoughts can affect matter?

What you are doing, and asking, is even MORE irrational and nonsensical if thoughts can NOT do what you asking "How can they?"

We cannot even move electrons inside our brains.

If we can NOT do this, then, again, WHY ask; "How can we do this?"

From your VERY FIRST POST, in this thread that YOU STARTED your BELIEFS were OBVIOUS.

Now that you have CLEARLY STATED your BELIEFS, then EVERY one "else" can also SEE, VERY CLEARLY, just how NONSENSICAL and IRRATIONAL your questioning is here.

If some thing can NOT even happen, then there is absolutely NO use AT ALL in asking, "How can that thing happen?" Unless, of course, you are just 'trolling'.

Can you move the electrons of your brain?

[bahman]

No you do not. You might think you do.
Whatever understanding you have it is, is the same for brains as it is for electrons elsewhere.

What?

What are you whatting about?

I don't understand what you said?

[Sculptor]

What?

What are you whatting about?

I don't understand what you said?

Why is there a question mark? Are you asking or telling?

What is so difficult to understand? I said you did not understand electrons. You do not.

[bahman]

What are you whatting about?

I don't understand what you said?

Why is there a question mark? Are you asking or telling?

What is so difficult to understand? I said you did not understand electrons. You do not.

The question mark is a mistake. What is an electron in your opinion?

[AlexW]

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.

I do agree with a lot you say (eg that "There is no knower separate from the known"), but your description seems very complicated...
It's a bit like someone asking you to describe a car - you can either simply state: "It has four wheels, seats, a motor and a steering wheel - one can use it to drive from A to B" - or you can go into all sorts of details about the technical makeup, its specific qualities and use cases etc etc... while the first explanation makes it clear what a car is good for, the second explanation might be interesting for a technician, but the average person might still have no clue what a car might even look like or what it can be used for...

I think – especially when discussing topics of awareness/consciousness, perception and thought - we tend to get lost in complicated theories rather than stating it in all its simplicity. Simplicity comes from describing what is actually directly experienced:
I do not experience a “public accessway” for all information. I simply experience color, sound, smell, taste, touch and thought - that's all. While I do experience thought, I do not experience what conceptual thought might be "creating" (eg: any sort of object or thing - including a self or other; any sort of division, border or separation).

But, yes, sure, a separate, personal self is something that seems necessary for social interaction - but when we look for this self in our own direct experience (or rather: when simply observing the flow of thought and perceptions)... it is nowhere to be found... (by the way: we could also call this silent witness: "awareness" - it "exists" (not as a thing) as long as there is experiencing happening)
Finding out that the separate self is actually not real (at least not based on directly experienced "reality") the question arises: Is this self really necessary for social interaction or is it only something we believe in and that we could do without? Something that is not more than a persistent thought stating "I like/dislike/love/hate/want..."?
What happens when we stop to believe? Will "we" die? Or will we actually live better once the belief is seen through...?

[AlexW]

But this is only what happens and occurs in the days hitherto, when this was written. Not to far in the future from those days peoples came to realize who and what is is FULL control. They also learn how to not let emotions control, nor override, thoughts and thinking.

I hope you are right

There is a series of nine steps, which leads to learning how to obtain this (FULL) control.

Sounds interesting - would you mind providing some detail regarding these nine steps?

[RCSaunders]

Can you move the electrons of your brain?

What are you asking? When you move your head you move all the electrons in every atom of your head, including those in your brain.

Perhaps you are asking how consciousness determines physical behavior, demanding some simple answer. There is an answer, but it is not simple, but I will point out you are making a baseless assumption. You have no idea how anything moves any electron.

So let me ask you a question. How does one electron repel another electron? No one knows. Science can only describe the phenomenon, in terms of, "fields," but what a field actually is, no one really knows. Since we don't know how electrons cause other electrons to move at the physical level, it's a bit of stretch to insist one explain how consciousness moves electrons, isn't it?

How does one mass cause another mass to move toward it? It is known masses attract one another and that behavior is called gravity, but what gravity is and how it works is not really known. we don't know how one mass makes another mass move. It is enough for science to simply accept it does what it does.

How does consciousness cause an electron, or atom, or anything else to move? Probably in some way analagous to gravity, electromagnetism, or electron charge, but like all of physics, it is enough to know it happens.

[Immanuel Can]

If I say, "there is no evidence that consciousness is supernatural," (which I do say)...

I'm not sure why physicalists are so afraid that there might actually be in this world any properties other than physical properties.

I can't reconcile these two claims, RC.

I'm sure you can't. That's because you assume the physical attributes of perceivable existence are all the possible natural attributes there are.

Dead wrong. I don't assume that at all.

You say, on the one hand, that consciousness is not supernatural, but a few sentences later, that there are consciousness properties that are not physical. How can you get both? It seems to me that if something is real-but-not-merely-physical, it's what we really mean definitionally by "super-natural."

Everything that exists independently of any particular individual's consciousness or knowledge of it, and has the nature it has

That's a tautology.

Life, consciousness, and mind are not physical attributes, but they are very definitely attributes of very real entities called organisms.

Yes, I know. But I don't know why you call them "not-supernatural," except that you've redefined "natural."

I think maybe you're using the word in its casual, informal sense, but not at all as it is used in things like Naturalism, or the phrase "the natural world." You seem to think that eliminates the idea of the supernatural...

But it seems to me you're a supernaturalist, and don't really know it. That is, you just redefine entities such as mind, identity, consciousness, abstractions, rationality, etc. as (informally) "natural." What you really seem to mean is merely that they are "real," and nothing more than that.

[Age]

Concluding that mentality isn't a physical phenomenon seems to be at least partially based on the supposed lack of an explanation for it being a physical phenomenon per your comments in those threads.

If I say, "there is no evidence that consciousness is supernatural," (which I do say),

Is there ANY evidence that ANY thing is supernatural? Remembering the fact that 'we' have NOT agreed upon and accepted a definition for the word 'supernatural', YET.

how is that different from saying, "there is no evidence that consciousness is physical?"

That is different because 'we' KNOW what physical is, or refers to, while 'we' do NOT YET KNOW what is 'supernatural', nor what that word even refers to, to you.

I would certainly have no objection to the discovery of some aspect of physical existence that explained consciousness, but without such a discovery, there is simply no evidence that what are regarded as the principles that described the nature of physical existence can account for the phenomenon of consciousness.

The reason I regard physicalism as a form of superstition, is because it assumes, that the physical properties are all the properties reality can have, just as the mystic assume there must be a supernatural basis for consciousness. Essentially, physicalism, as I understand it, is the view that all that can be is what organisms with perception can perceive, while ignoring the fact that life and perception cannot be perceived and have no physical properties. It is essentially a truncated view of reality.

Although, those with a 'physicalism' view, hold a belief that mat well be proven False, so to the view and belief that life and perception cannot be perceived and has NO physical properties may well be proven False, as well.

WHY do you think or believe that life and perception cannot be perceived, especially considering the fact that some have ALREADY perceived life and perception?

So, half of what you claim here is False, and the half may well be False as well.

Do you have actual proof that life and consciousness have no physical properties? Or, is this just what you have assumed and concluded is true? Do you BELIEVE this to be true?

Also, the way you have written here implies that you KNOW what the proper and correct view of reality is, is this correct?

There is nothing supernatural about life and consciousness.

Does ANY here in this forum think or believe that there is some 'thing', which is, so called, "supernatural" about life and/or consciousness?

If yes, then how do 'you' define the word 'supernatural', here?

They are perfectly natural attributes, like all the physical attributes, in addition to the physical attributes. Simply stated, consciouness and what conciousness is conscious of cannot be the same thing.

Some BELIEVE the EXACT OPPOSITE.

I'm not sure why physicalists are so afraid that there might actually be in this world any properties other than physical properties.

They are so afraid because if this is true, then that goes against their very beliefs, and in essence their very "self", as well.

That life and consciousness are not physical properties certainly does no damage to any physical principles and are only manifest in a tiny fraction of physical entities. If those rare living conscious organisms did not exist, nothing would matter. Nothing matters to the mere physical.

As far as I'm concerned, from a physicalist point of view, nothing does matter. But, if that's your view, I'll not try to convince you otherwise.

Could 'you' be 'convinced' that life and consciousness is actually made of matter/ the physical?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[Sculptor]

I don't understand what you said?

Why is there a question mark? Are you asking or telling?

What is so difficult to understand? I said you did not understand electrons. You do not.

The question mark is a mistake. What is an electron in your opinion?

I do not need an opinion on the matter, the notion of an electron is based on Niels Bohr's atomic model.

[Dimebag]

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.

I do agree with a lot you say (eg that "There is no knower separate from the known"), but your description seems very complicated...
It's a bit like someone asking you to describe a car - you can either simply state: "It has four wheels, seats, a motor and a steering wheel - one can use it to drive from A to B" - or you can go into all sorts of details about the technical makeup, its specific qualities and use cases etc etc... while the first explanation makes it clear what a car is good for, the second explanation might be interesting for a technician, but the average person might still have no clue what a car might even look like or what it can be used for...

I think – especially when discussing topics of awareness/consciousness, perception and thought - we tend to get lost in complicated theories rather than stating it in all its simplicity. Simplicity comes from describing what is actually directly experienced:
I do not experience a “public accessway” for all information. I simply experience color, sound, smell, taste, touch and thought - that's all. While I do experience thought, I do not experience what conceptual thought might be "creating" (eg: any sort of object or thing - including a self or other; any sort of division, border or separation).

But, yes, sure, a separate, personal self is something that seems necessary for social interaction - but when we look for this self in our own direct experience (or rather: when simply observing the flow of thought and perceptions)... it is nowhere to be found... (by the way: we could also call this silent witness: "awareness" - it "exists" (not as a thing) as long as there is experiencing happening)
Finding out that the separate self is actually not real (at least not based on directly experienced "reality") the question arises: Is this self really necessary for social interaction or is it only something we believe in and that we could do without? Something that is not more than a persistent thought stating "I like/dislike/love/hate/want..."?
What happens when we stop to believe? Will "we" die? Or will we actually live better once the belief is seen through...?

That’s fair enough. I do agree I sometimes go into detail. As far as if it’s too much, that depends on the person and what they want to know. For me, I dislike simplified answers which “gloss over” important technical complexities and interrelations. I think much of that detail is where the mystery hides, so to neglect it, is to essentially keep the mystery mysterious. And sometimes, it’s in those mysterious, uninvestigated, undefined areas, that people lay their claims in regards to what’s true. But again, it depends on what you really want to know.

I want to know about our consciousness, and the way it interfaces with our organism. To really know about those things, I think, requires us to both investigate, and possibly build new understandings, as we are not currently at a full understanding of these relationships. To do that, requires much fleshing out, much trial and of course error. It requires both the exploration of what we currently know, and the extending via creativity into the unknown, and then to test these ideas critically and sceptically.