For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
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.
I don't believe in this, materialism. I am arguing against it.
Thoughts are irrelevant since we cannot affect the matter with it. We cannot even move electrons inside our brains.Age wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:18 amBut 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.
No you do not. You might think you do.
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?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 12:09 amNo 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?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 12:09 amNo 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 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?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:34 pmSo 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.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:12 pmThe context was quite different, but nevertheless, I'm not explaining even there, just providing an example of what cannot be explained.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 5:41 pm
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."
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.
This sentence does not make sense to me.bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:40 pmThe question is how thought can affect the material being a completely different category and while the material obeys the laws of nature.Age wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:05 amName 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.
There is NO "your thought", just as there is NO "your brain". This is because of who and what 'you' ARE.bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:40 pmCould your thought affect or moves the electron of your brain? That is necessary for any action.Age wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:47 pmCould 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.
To you, is there ANY thing that does not move according to the laws of physics?bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:40 pmAn electron is an elementary particle. It moves according to the laws of physics.
So, the material, or physical, human body causes the thoughts, within, correct?
What I mean is;
LOOK, I CAN say MANY other things. Is this UNDERSTOOD, by 'you'?
LOL
bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:40 pmOk.Age wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 10:47 pm 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.
Who and/or what "has thoughts"?
Thoughts can, and do, affect the body, more or less in the EXACT SAME WAY that the body can, and does, affect thoughts.
You KNOW that the Universe works, correct?
But I NEVER said ANY thing about 'materialism'.bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:54 pmI don't believe in this, materialism. I am arguing against it.
If we can NOT affect matter with thoughts, then WHY keep asking;bahman wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 10:54 pmThoughts are irrelevant since we cannot affect the matter with it.Age wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 1:18 amBut 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.
If we can NOT do this, then, again, WHY ask; "How can we do this?"
If I say: MONKEY or BANANA - what happens?
Yes.
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.AlexW wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 10:46 am 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?
Thee 'I' is, of which there is only One.
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.
It could be.
And most people, in the days when this is being written, still do not yet know 'who 'they' are, nor who 'I' am.
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 had not thought about this previously, but this sounds VERY right.
What are you whatting about?bahman wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 12:58 amWhat?Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 12:09 amNo 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.
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 wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 1:03 amWhat 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?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 9:34 pmSo 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.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 22, 2021 6:12 pm
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.
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?"Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 12:00 pm 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.
I can't reconcile these two claims, RC.RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 2:13 pmIf I say, "there is no evidence that consciousness is supernatural," (which I do say)...Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun May 23, 2021 12:00 pm 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.
I'm not sure why physicalists are so afraid that there might actually be in this world any properties other than physical properties.