Do thoughts affect reality?

[bahman]

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.

I was asking whether consciousness can affect electrons. For example, you need to send a signal from a part of your brain to your finger if you want to move your finger. The location in the brain is unique and you don't know where it is the exact location. How consciously you can affect the electrons of your brain in order to move one finger.

That scenario is simply made up. You're asking me how I consciously choose to move my finger within the context of an incorrect view of the relationship between consciousness and the neurological system. Consciousness is not a thing or a substance and has not physical properties, like shape, or size, or location. Furthermore, consciousness itself doesn't, "do," anything, it is only awareness of what there is to be conscious of.

There is a relationship, however, between consciousness and what the neurological system does, and in turn, what the body does. If you are conscious of something frightening or threatening your body reacts to the consciousness causing you that feeling you call fear or terror. The reaction is entirely biological, the, "feeling," is only our consciousness of that reaction (called interoception). So the question is not, "how does consciousness initiate a physical action?" but, "how does the body react physically to consciousness?"

We know that the motion of your finger was initiated from a specific part of your brain. The question is that how an immaterial thing such as consciousness can affect that part of your brain.

[AlexW]

I do agree with a lot you say (eg that "There is no knower separate from the known"),

Although there is truth in this, there is still a LOT MORE to explain, and understand, in how this is ACTUALLY True. However, there is still a Knower, with a label, which VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY describes and explains this 'Thing', which KNOWS ALL, PERFECTLY.

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...

Here is a good reminder of how to obtain a description, or clarity, of some thing. Description, and clarity, can only be given, more accurately, AFTER people ask 'you' a specific question.

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:

Quite simply, WHY 'you', human beings, find it difficult and/or complicated to explain, describe, and/or understand topics of awareness/consciousness, perception and thought is because 'you' still do NOT YET FULLY KNOW who and what thee 'I' IS, which is what IS actually directly experiencing. Or, in other words, 'you' still do NOT YET KNOW who, and what, thee Awareness IS.

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).

Until who and what thee 'I' ACTUALLY IS is known and understood, FULLY, who and/or what, do 'you' think, creates, or causes, the behavior of the human body?

If conceptual thought is NOT creating an illusioned, or a real, perception of 'self', division, border, or separation, then WHY do 'you', human beings, INSIST that these 'things' ACTUALLY exist? Or, for those who do NOT insist these 'things' ACTUALLY exist, then WHY is the 'I' word used, like 'It' is a separate self?

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)

If there is NOT 'experiencing happening', then does 'it' exist, (as a thing)?

Also, did 'you' notice 'you' have used the words 'we' and 'our own', which infers, or at least implies, there is a 'self'?

Finding out that the separate self is actually not real

Does saying, "Finding out that the separate self is actually not real", really make sense?

Saying, "Finding out that 'the separate self' ...", infers that there was a 'separate self' to begin with, which, obviously, there never is.

(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?

The reason 'you', human beings, believe there is a 'self', and separated ones at that, is because of, and due to, the exact same reason 'you' come to believe anything. 'you' were taught 'this', was true, during your past experiences.

And, when the word 'we' is used, like above, does that word refer to individual different and separate 'selves', thee One unified 'Self', or some thing 'else'?

By the way, once that 'self' has been gotten rid of, or let go of, then the sooner the better. 'We' can then move on progressively and sufficiently towards a much better existence.

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...?

WHY do 'you', adult human beings, even bother believing ANY thing?

@Age: I am not sure why you reply to this post... it wasn't directed at you.

By the way: The reason why "'we', human beings" use the words "I", "you" and "we", is because proper use of language dictates it - otherwise we would all sound as if we didn't know how to use language properly (which is how you come across at times you mentioned previously that you are here to "learn how to communicate more efficiently" ... well... using the words "I", "you" and "we" is an essential part of it)

[Terrapin Station]

I was asking whether consciousness can affect electrons. For example, you need to send a signal from a part of your brain to your finger if you want to move your finger. The location in the brain is unique and you don't know where it is the exact location. How consciously you can affect the electrons of your brain in order to move one finger.

That scenario is simply made up. You're asking me how I consciously choose to move my finger within the context of an incorrect view of the relationship between consciousness and the neurological system. Consciousness is not a thing or a substance and has not physical properties, like shape, or size, or location. Furthermore, consciousness itself doesn't, "do," anything, it is only awareness of what there is to be conscious of.

There is a relationship, however, between consciousness and what the neurological system does, and in turn, what the body does. If you are conscious of something frightening or threatening your body reacts to the consciousness causing you that feeling you call fear or terror. The reaction is entirely biological, the, "feeling," is only our consciousness of that reaction (called interoception). So the question is not, "how does consciousness initiate a physical action?" but, "how does the body react physically to consciousness?"

We know that the motion of your finger was initiated from a specific part of your brain. The question is that how an immaterial thing such as consciousness can affect that part of your brain.

Aside from it being curious why you should believe that consciousness is immaterial, you should be answering this question because you claim that physical laws are mental phenomena only, and you think that the physical world obeys that mental phenomena.

[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.

My response to the following questions is;

When you say “ Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves”, who exactly are you referring to?

There is only One who 'knows'. This One is thee Mind, of which there is only One, and One only.

How this One 'knows', for sure, is through agreement of ALL ("ourselves"). The word 'our-selves' refers to the collective of ALL, which is just this One's, (our), selves and, the word 'selves' just refers to all the illusioned, separated selfs, as discussed in nondualistic conversations. The separate 'selfs', (in the illusion) just refers to people, or human beings.

What is it that knows these thoughts?

Thee Mind, which is ALWAYS truly and FULLY OPEN. it is able to SEE and KNOW ALL things. Thee Mind, by the way, is just also known as Spirit, Allah, God, or Enlightenment (or SAGE) if It was not clearly noticed at first glance.

Contrary to popular belief, in the days when this was being written, there is NO human mind. There is just One Mind, which, gives human beings, the ability to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing.

This Truly OPEN Mind is what allows human beings to continually imagine ANY thing, and thus also be able to create absolutely EVERY thing, hitherto. This (Truly OPEN) Mind is thee Creator, as well as being thee SEER, and KNOWER, of ALL things.

But, this has to be understood in the context of how God, in the spiritual sense is thee Creator, as well as God, in the physical sense, is also thee Creator. Combined this God is thee Creator of ALL things. NOT in the past tense, but in the ALWAYS pre-sent tense.

Thee One and ONLY Self, 'I', or God is the WHO, who knows these thoughts. HOW this One and ONLY One knows these thoughts is through thee One and ONLY, invisible, Mind, which is WHAT can and does transcend ALL things, including these and ALL thoughts.

Are they generated/thought by a controlling entity who, after producing them, perceives/knows them?

This One and ONLY entity only 'produces' thought, free willingly and free ably, from both the visble body and its experiences, through any of the five senses, and the invisible Mind, which is WHAT allows ALL thoughts to arise.

How exactly does this process work (based on your own direct experience of thinking)?

Thee Truly OPEN Mind is what allows human beings to be able to imagine absolutely ANY, and EVERY, thing, as well as allowing them to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY, and EVERY, thing.

This is achieved by the physical senses of the physical body, and its ability, through the five senses, to 'sense' the 'world', or Universe, around it. The information obtained by these five senses is then held with the human brain, which has the amazing ability to grasp, or gather, this information, and then withhold, or store, this information, and huge amounts of it, and turn this information into knowledge, and then be able to share, or pass, this knowledge onto other brains. .

There is far more knowledge, or information, which backs up and supports all of this fully, and wholly

[bahman]

That scenario is simply made up. You're asking me how I consciously choose to move my finger within the context of an incorrect view of the relationship between consciousness and the neurological system. Consciousness is not a thing or a substance and has not physical properties, like shape, or size, or location. Furthermore, consciousness itself doesn't, "do," anything, it is only awareness of what there is to be conscious of.

There is a relationship, however, between consciousness and what the neurological system does, and in turn, what the body does. If you are conscious of something frightening or threatening your body reacts to the consciousness causing you that feeling you call fear or terror. The reaction is entirely biological, the, "feeling," is only our consciousness of that reaction (called interoception). So the question is not, "how does consciousness initiate a physical action?" but, "how does the body react physically to consciousness?"

We know that the motion of your finger was initiated from a specific part of your brain. The question is that how an immaterial thing such as consciousness can affect that part of your brain.

Aside from it being curious why you should believe that consciousness is immaterial,

The matter has a definition, has mass, charge, spin, etc. Consciousness does not have any of these properties. It is a different category. Call it what you like.

you should be answering this question because you claim that physical laws are mental phenomena only,

The laws of physics are mental only when it exists in the mind of an intelligent being.

and you think that the physical world obeys that mental phenomena.

The matter behaves. Its behaver is according to the laws of physics.

[Terrapin Station]

The laws of physics are mental only when it exists in the mind of an intelligent being.

That's not what you said earlier. But okay. So what are the laws of physics aside from mental content in that case?

[bahman]

The laws of physics are mental only when it exists in the mind of an intelligent being.

That's not what you said earlier. But okay. So what are the laws of physics aside from mental content in that case?

The way that the matter behaves.

[Age]

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.

Until you provide actual PROOF that thoughts, consciousness, and/or life have NO physical properties AT ALL, then WHY would those who really do understand what you are JUST 'saying', then, supposedly suddenly, 'see' that what you are just saying is obviously true.

LOOK, to me, there is absolutely NOTHING that I have seen that shows me that thoughts, for example, have ANY physical properties AT ALL. So, to me, as far as I am aware and know thoughts are NOT physical. However, in saying that I have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for this, therefore I will just REMAIN OPEN.

'you', "yourself", even wrote;
If someone asserts some phenomenon has some attribute or characteristic or works in some particular way without providing any evidence whatsoever for that assertion beyond one's guess or conjecture, there is no reason to accept that assertion, is there?

Which works the EXACT SAME if we add the word 'NO' in between the 'has' and the 'some' word above.

You believe, assert, and claim that the phenomenon, thought, has NO physical attributes, without providing ANY evidence nor proof whatsoever, beyond your own guess or conjecture, right?

[AlexW]

There is only One who 'knows'. This One is thee Mind, of which there is only One, and One only.

How this One 'knows', for sure, is through agreement of ALL ("ourselves"). The word 'our-selves' refers to the collective of ALL, which is just this One's, (our), selves and, the word 'selves' just refers to all the illusioned, separated selfs, as discussed in nondualistic conversations. The separate 'selfs', (in the illusion) just refers to people, or human beings.

OK, agree - even I would use the word "consciousness" instead of "thee Mind" - but I guess "mind" is just equally valid.
Many Buddhist texts use three Sanskrit words: manas ('mental power' or 'mental faculty'), vijñāna ('consciousness faculty') and citta ('mind' or 'thought') - all together commonly translated into English as "mind"...

I would also add that "this One 'knows'" not only through "people", but through everything that exists (animals, plants etc...) - simply because everything is it, there is nothing outside it.

Contrary to popular belief, in the days when this was being written, there is NO human mind. There is just One Mind, which, gives human beings, the ability to learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing.

This Truly OPEN Mind is what allows human beings to continually imagine ANY thing, and thus also be able to create absolutely EVERY thing, hitherto. This (Truly OPEN) Mind is thee Creator, as well as being thee SEER, and KNOWER, of ALL things.

Agree, but I would add that, as a result, it is not really the "human being" who knows and creates - it is the "Mind" creating within itself and knowing only itself (and in the case of conceptual thought: in a dualistic "mirror/illusion of objectivity").

Thee Truly OPEN Mind is what allows human beings to be able to imagine absolutely ANY, and EVERY, thing, as well as allowing them to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY, and EVERY, thing.

Well, yes, in a way... but it seems to me, that as long as the "Truly OPEN Mind" uses concepts, based on language, in its attempt to "imagine absolutely ANY, and EVERY, thing", it will always come up short of real understanding, which is, to me, non verbal and non conceptual.
Sure, this understanding/realisation can again be expressed and communicated using language (which is happening right here, right now), but no matter how well one explains the understanding, it can and will always be misinterpreted (simply because every "person" is really not more than a conditioned collection of memories, beliefs, likes and dislikes etc... which color and warp every explanation - no matter how detailed - into something that fits into the person's conceptual framework... I think that the conventional use of language makes it impossible to avoid misunderstandings which again lead to arguments, strife and even war).

[Age]

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.

Why do you mean that?

What proof do you have that thoughts are a different category than material?

What category do you propose thoughts are?

Matter behaves according to the laws of nature and does not need thoughts.

Of course matter does not need thoughts. ALL of prior existence before human beings is proof of this fact.

Now, if you just answered my previous clarifying questions to you, OPENLY and Honestly, instead of just re-repeating your own current and distorted beliefs, then you would stop rshowing and exposing your inabilities to learn more and anew.

Look, thoughts, just like matter, behaves according to the laws of nature. In fact, is there ANY thing that does not?

If you will NOT clarify if there is ANY thing that does NOT follow the laws of nature, then you will HAVE TO ADMIT, that thoughts follow the laws of nature.

How could we possibly claim that such an irrelevant thing as thought could affect material?

Very EASILY and very SIMPLY as already shown, and thus ALREADY PROVEN above.

Also, I have asked you to CLARIFY what this 'irrelevant' word is in relation to EXACTLY. I still await YOUR clarification.

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.

From conversing with 'you', "bahman", I reckon you misunderstand over 90% of what I say and mean.

There is NO 'you', which "has" thoughts. So, this means, the saying, "my thoughts", is a misnomer. Unless, of course, you can clarify who it is EXACTY who has its thoughts?

See, 'you' do NOT "have", nor own, thoughts, a brain, not a body. If the Truth be told, 'you' are caused from, and because, of a brain and body. 'you' ARE the thoughts, within, which are the result of, sum of, or creation of, what that body has experienced.

Besides this FACT I NEVER mentioned ANY thing about where thoughts exist NOR if they were subjectively within materialism or not.

The way 'you', "bahman", respond, especially to me, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who ASSUMES, before they CLARIFY, and the reason WHY one should NEVER assume.

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'?

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.

AND, what do 'you' claim?

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

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.

Why do those "ones"? And, who do they "owe" this explanation to, exactly?

Of course, it does.


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?

How can I get 'you', adult human beings to become Truly OPEN and truly inquisitive AGAIN? Just like you ALL once were. That is 'a problem', which I am working on. Now, what is "your problem"?

Do you lack understanding?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

By the way, have you ever considered that "others" might be wondering the exact same thing about you?

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.

What do you imagine could be the odds of this?

Also, so you REALLY do BELIEVE that thoughts, themselves, participate in NO WAY, AT ALL, in creating nor in causing the way the human body behaves, correct?

If yes, then what would you say does cause human bodies to behave, and misbehave, the way they do?

Look, consciousness is irrelevant.

To 'what', EXACTLY?

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.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one STUCK, completely and utterly, in BELIEF.

[Terrapin Station]

The laws of physics are mental only when it exists in the mind of an intelligent being.

That's not what you said earlier. But okay. So what are the laws of physics aside from mental content in that case?

The way that the matter behaves.

So matter doesn't obey the laws of physics?

[RCSaunders]

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.

Until you provide actual PROOF that thoughts, consciousness, and/or life have NO physical properties AT ALL, then WHY would those who really do understand what you are JUST 'saying', then, supposedly suddenly, 'see' that what you are just saying is obviously true.

...

LOOK, to me, there is absolutely NOTHING that I have seen that shows me that thoughts, for example, have ANY physical properties AT ALL. So, to me, as far as I am aware and know thoughts are NOT physical. However, in saying that I have absolutely NO proof AT ALL for this, therefore I will just REMAIN OPEN.

Why would you or anyone feel they have to seriously consider anything for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Doesn't that leave you open to just anything anyone wants to claim for which there is evidence. Isn't that the basis for every religion and superstition people embrace--"there's no proof magnets and sticking pins into people will not cure cancer."

All knowledge is always only in the context of that for which there is known evidence. There is always the possibility for the discovery of new evidence of things that have never before been encountered, though they have become much more rare. In light of all we do know there is no evidence that consciousness is physical, or any reason to want it to be.

Why do so many so desperately want for consciousness to be physical? I think it's because the philosophers have made the mistake of insisting that whatever is not physical is supernatural, that, "physical," means the same as, "natural." But there is no principle that says nature cannot have any properties buy physical properties. As far as I'm concerned, the physicalists are attempting to evade evidence by ignoring their own life and consciousness.

'you', "yourself", even wrote;
If someone asserts some phenomenon has some attribute or characteristic or works in some particular way without providing any evidence whatsoever for that assertion beyond one's guess or conjecture, there is no reason to accept that assertion, is there?

Except that I'm not asserting anything. If anything, I'm only denying what other's assert on the basis that there is no evidence for it.

[bahman]

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.

Why do you mean that?

The matter has mass, charge, sping, etc as properties. Thoughts do not have any of these properties. Therefore people consider it as a different category. Thought also considered to be the result of the process in the matter.

What proof do you have that thoughts are a different category than material?

It is a matter of definition.

What category do you propose thoughts are?

Mental.

Matter behaves according to the laws of nature and does not need thoughts.

Of course matter does not need thoughts. ALL of prior existence before human beings is proof of this fact.

Now, if you just answered my previous clarifying questions to you, OPENLY and Honestly, instead of just re-repeating your own current and distorted beliefs, then you would stop rshowing and exposing your inabilities to learn more and anew.

Look, thoughts, just like matter, behaves according to the laws of nature. In fact, is there ANY thing that does not?

If you will NOT clarify if there is ANY thing that does NOT follow the laws of nature, then you will HAVE TO ADMIT, that thoughts follow the laws of nature.

So you are claiming that thought behaves according to the laws of nature. What is thought is your opion in which it obeys the laws of nature.

How could we possibly claim that such an irrelevant thing as thought could affect material?

Very EASILY and very SIMPLY as already shown, and thus ALREADY PROVEN above.

Also, I have asked you to CLARIFY what this 'irrelevant' word is in relation to EXACTLY. I still await YOUR clarification.

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.

From conversing with 'you', "bahman", I reckon you misunderstand over 90% of what I say and mean.

There is NO 'you', which "has" thoughts. So, this means, the saying, "my thoughts", is a misnomer. Unless, of course, you can clarify who it is EXACTY who has its thoughts?

See, 'you' do NOT "have", nor own, thoughts, a brain, not a body. If the Truth be told, 'you' are caused from, and because, of a brain and body. 'you' ARE the thoughts, within, which are the result of, sum of, or creation of, what that body has experienced.

Besides this FACT I NEVER mentioned ANY thing about where thoughts exist NOR if they were subjectively within materialism or not.

The way 'you', "bahman", respond, especially to me, is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who ASSUMES, before they CLARIFY, and the reason WHY one should NEVER assume.

There is no you as mind in materialism. There is only matter. Thoughts are produced in the brain. They are there floating without any use since matter acts according to the laws of nature. That is the picture that materialists present and agree with.

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

If yes, then 'what'?

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

That is what materialists claim.

AND, what do 'you' claim?

There are two substances, minds and mental.

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

I am not a materialist and I believe in minds which does not depend on the laws of physics.

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.

Why do those "ones"? And, who do they "owe" this explanation to, exactly?

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?

How can I get 'you', adult human beings to become Truly OPEN and truly inquisitive AGAIN? Just like you ALL once were. That is 'a problem', which I am working on. Now, what is "your problem"?

Do you lack understanding?

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

By the way, have you ever considered that "others" might be wondering the exact same thing about you?

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.

What do you imagine could be the odds of this?

Also, so you REALLY do BELIEVE that thoughts, themselves, participate in NO WAY, AT ALL, in creating nor in causing the way the human body behaves, correct?

If yes, then what would you say does cause human bodies to behave, and misbehave, the way they do?

Look, consciousness is irrelevant.

To 'what', EXACTLY?

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.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one STUCK, completely and utterly, in BELIEF.

I hope things are clear more.

[bahman]

That's not what you said earlier. But okay. So what are the laws of physics aside from mental content in that case?

The way that the matter behaves.

So matter doesn't obey the laws of physics?

Matter behaves according to the laws of physics. Not all sorts of matter are conscious like you in materialism. So they follow instead of obeying.

[Age]

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?

On first memory;

1. Accept responsibility for the wrong, which 'you', as an adult, do, to child/ren.
2. Take responsibility for that wrong, which you do, by being Truly open and honest, and seriously wanting, or willing, to change, for the better.
3. Learn what the word 'abuse' means, and refers to.
4. Learn what is Truly Right and Wrong, in Life, and how to KNOW the difference.
5. Gain the ability to be able to answer ALL the meaningful/philosophical questions, almost immediately, and KNOW that they are the Right answers.
6. Learn how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY work.
7. Understand 'understanding'.
8. Realize HOW and WHY 'we', human beings, became sick, and are able to heal, while also learning and realizing how to heal all the ills of this 'world', so that this 'sick world' ends, once and for ALL, and thee True 'world', which 'we' ALL want to live in, becomes forever more.
9. Once one KNOWS who, and what, thee 'I' IS, then that One is able to have FULL control over, and can be FULLY responsibility for, this Life, and also be able to start helping "others" to learn and understand more and anew in regards to making Life better, for EVERY one, and creating a Heaven for Everyone.