Do thoughts affect reality?

[bahman]

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.

I am a physicist and know-how electrons on my computer work. But my computer does not have thought and obeys the laws of physics when it comes to its behavior. I however have thoughts. The question is how thoughts can affect the body if the body follows the laws of physics. Another question is that how thought can control the material.

[bahman]

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

Thought is a sort of experience that conveys a meaning too. The reality in here, the subject of discussion which is materialism, are matter and thoughts.

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.

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

I am asking how thoughts that are irrelevant can affect reality.

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. We cannot even move electrons inside our brains.

[Sculptor]

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.

I am a physicist and know-how electrons on my computer work.

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.

But my computer does not have thought and obeys the laws of physics when it comes to its behavior. I however have thoughts. The question is how thoughts can affect the body if the body follows the laws of physics. Another question is that how thought can control the material.

[bahman]

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

I am a physicist and know-how electrons on my computer work.

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.

But my computer does not have thought and obeys the laws of physics when it comes to its behavior. I however have thoughts. The question is how thoughts can affect the body if the body follows the laws of physics. Another question is that how thought can control the material.

What?

[bahman]

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

I am a physicist and know-how electrons on my computer work.

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.

But my computer does not have thought and obeys the laws of physics when it comes to its behavior. I however have thoughts. The question is how thoughts can affect the body if the body follows the laws of physics. Another question is that how thought can control the material.

What?

[RCSaunders]

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.

What argument do you think I'm hinging on what, "can't be explained?" Do you think pointing out that an assertion based on no explanation is an argument? 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?

[Age]

It is an important question.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Age]

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.

I am a physicist and know-how electrons on my computer work. But my computer does not have thought and obeys the laws of physics when it comes to its behavior. I however have thoughts.

Who and/or what "has thoughts"?

The question is how thoughts can affect the body if the body follows the laws of physics.

Thoughts can, and do, affect the body, more or less in the EXACT SAME WAY that the body can, and does, affect thoughts.

The statement, "if the body follows the laws of physics" is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY redundant BECAUSE, OF COURSE, the body follows the laws of physics, JUST LIKE thoughts follow the laws of physics. That is; IF the laws of physics follow the NATURAL law of Nature, Itself.

Another question is that how thought can control the material.

You KNOW that the Universe works, correct?

If yes, then you also KNOW that thoughts control the material, correct?

If yes, then another question is, how does the Universe work?

Although explaining exactly HOW the Universe works is EXTREMELY SIMPLE and EASY, explaining exactly HOW thoughts control the material may not be as simple and as easy, BUT 'we' do KNOW that thoughts can control the material, correct?

If you do NOT KNOW this FACT, then what do 'you' say controls the material human body?

What makes that material body pick up the remote and change the channel on the television, if it is NOT thought?

[Age]

Thought is a sort of experience that conveys a meaning too. The reality in here, the subject of discussion which is materialism, are matter and thoughts.

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'.

I am asking how thoughts that are irrelevant can affect reality.

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'.

[AlexW]

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.

If I say: MONKEY or BANANA - what happens?

There are thoughts about these objects arising, right?

So it seems straightforward to conclude: thought is triggered by the momentary experience/perception - of course also determined/flavoured by what your previous experience of MONKEY or BANANA was like.
You might think of a chimpanzee or a gorilla, or some other kind of monkey - you might think: "I like bananas" or "I hate them" - which is based on previous experiences etc etc...

It seems "all right" like that... but... the question is:
Do we have any control over these thoughts arising? And if so, who is the one in control?

Is it sufficient to say that thought is "controlled" by previous experiences?
Isn't this the same as saying: There is no control at all (simply as a previous experience is not a controlling entity).

Most people think that they are in control (of thought, the body etc etc) - but at the same time, most people also think that they are not completely in control, that they are only partially in control... sometimes they are, other times they are not (sometimes negative thoughts overwhelm them, sometimes happy thoughts are present).

I personally think this points to an illusion of control - control is either absolute or not at all (its like with life itself, one is either alive or dead - one can't be half alive - half in control - ... right?)

[Age]

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.

If I say: MONKEY or BANANA - what happens?

There are thoughts about these objects arising, right?

Yes.

So it seems straightforward to conclude: thought is triggered by the momentary experience/perception - of course also determined/flavoured by what your previous experience of MONKEY or BANANA was like.
You might think of a chimpanzee or a gorilla, or some other kind of monkey - you might think: "I like bananas" or "I hate them" - which is based on previous experiences etc etc...

It seems "all right" like that... but... the question is:
Do we have any control over these thoughts arising?

If this is "the question", now, then, again, to understand and know if 'we' have any control over these thoughts arising or not, then 'you' have to first discover, and/or learn, who and what the 'we' is here, which is being referred to in that very thought, itself.

'I' have control over ALL thoughts arising.

So, once the individual 'you', in each and every human body, learns and knows the, proper and correct, answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', then if 'we' have any control over these thoughts arising or not is also known. Who and/or what the 'we' is just needs to be defined and agreed with.

And if so, who is the one in control?

Thee 'I' is, of which there is only One.

And it is best to NEVER misconstrue this 'I' with any perceived individual "I" associated with any human body.

Is it sufficient to say that thought is "controlled" by previous experiences?

I would suggest that the word 'controlled' here is not really sufficient. However the word 'caused' would be far more sufficient. But, 'I' do have a very particular and specific view of things, which can be very different from peoples in the days when this is being written.

Isn't this the same as saying: There is no control at all (simply as a previous experience is not a controlling entity).

It could be.

Most people think that they are in control (of thought, the body etc etc)

And most people, in the days when this is being written, still do not yet know 'who 'they' are, nor who 'I' am.

Also, these same people still do not yet know why they do, all of what they do.

- but at the same time, most people also think that they are not completely in control, that they are only partially in control... sometimes they are, other times they are not (sometimes negative thoughts overwhelm them, sometimes happy thoughts are present).

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.

Also, learning how to control thoughts, themselves, also becomes 'everyday' or 'common' knowledge.

I personally think this points to an illusion of control - control is either absolute or not at all (its like with life itself, one is either alive or dead - one can't be half alive - half in control - ... right?)

I had not thought about this previously, but this sounds VERY right.

Control is absolute, and obtained gradually, through each human being learning more. There is a series of nine steps, which leads to learning how to obtain this (FULL) control.

[Sculptor]

I am a physicist and know-how electrons on my computer work.

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.

But my computer does not have thought and obeys the laws of physics when it comes to its behavior. I however have thoughts. The question is how thoughts can affect the body if the body follows the laws of physics. Another question is that how thought can control the material.

What?

What are you whatting about?

[Terrapin Station]

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.

What argument do you think I'm hinging on what, "can't be explained?" Do you think pointing out that an assertion based on no explanation is an argument? 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?

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.

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

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.

There is nothing supernatural about life and consciousness. 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.

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

[Immanuel Can]

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.

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."

Maybe you can sort me out on that.