Are Thoughts Causal?

[seer]

...but no actual evidence.

Right there is no actual evidence that you are conscious...

[Jim B.]

Oh, you have actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain do you? Pray tell.

That's not at all what I wrote. Try reading again more carefully.

[Jim B.]

I just had a though that my cordless phone has been on my desk for several days. Had a thought to put on my reading glasses so I can see my monitor better. Had thought that the rag I use to clean tools at the end of the day of mudding drywall is pretty well shot, lots of holes.

There is no causal power, nor any reason for it that I can see in any of these thoughts.

But if I add more thoughts--I wonder if battery is low and phone needs charging (it did)...better put it on charging station....I should find the case and try glasses (messy desk, case under papers)….should throw away the rag and find new one. Now I've added at least one more though to the first of each, I have a set of thoughts that now form a belief. Causal movement in intellectual processing seems to require building thoughts to the level of a belief, and beliefs seem necessary to create reasons.

Well, all the thoughts you mention are 'propositional states', either beliefs or desires, and I agree that they are necessary for creating reasons. I believe my car keys are on the kitchen counter. I desire my car keys in order to go buy beer (my ultimate desire), so I grab my car keys in order to do so.

[Tassman]

QED

And no one was surprised.

And still no actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain.

[Tassman]

Right there is no actual evidence that you are conscious...

Your response to my post is evidence that I'm conscious.

[JonathanL]

And still no actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain.

The fact that consciousness even exists in the first place is evidence that it goes beyond the physical activity of the brain. There is no conceivable mechanism that could lead to physical matter or energy giving rise to beings with conscious first-person experiences as opposed to mindless automatons.

[Jim B.]

And still no actual evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the brain.

What do you mean by "beyond the physical activity of the brain"? Physical correlations alone don't justify ontological reduction without even a conceivable theory to explain the reduction, as I've said. That's how all of scientific reductions work. Otherwise, you'd be making a special exception for consciousness with no justification. Quite 'un-scientific' of you. A more 'scientific' approach would be at least to say that "It doesn't seem to fit the standard pattern seen throughout all of the rest of science, so perhaps it doesn't fit, for whatever reason. There's no compelling reason why one single epistemic approach of one species should be completely adequate for unlocking all the secrets of reality."

[Darth Executor]

The fact that consciousness even exists in the first place is evidence that it goes beyond the physical activity of the brain. There is no conceivable mechanism that could lead to physical matter or energy giving rise to beings with conscious first-person experiences as opposed to mindless automatons.

I don't know if I've brought it up on Tweb before but I've suspected for a while now that some people really ARE mindless automatons. Tassman wants evidence for what is self-evident to us because he doesn't have any actual consciousness. He's a philosophical zombie.

[JimL]

I don't know if I've brought it up on Tweb before but I've suspected for a while now that some people really ARE mindless automatons. Tassman wants evidence for what is self-evident to us because he doesn't have any actual consciousness. He's a philosophical zombie.

Except for the fact that a distinct consciousness apart from the physical brain is not self evident, and if consciousness doesn't exist apart from the physical brain, if it isn't a thing in itself, such as a mind, then you're argument for the existence of a soul, which I assume is the basis for your argument concerning consciousness, is baseless.

[Darth Executor]

Except for the fact that a distinct consciousness apart from the physical brain is not self evident

I have some bad news for you: if consciousness apart from the physical brain is not self-evident to you, you're not conscious.

[JimL]

I have some bad news for you: if consciousness apart from the physical brain is not self-evident to you, you're not conscious.

I think "fake news" would better define your assertion.

[Darth Executor]

I think "fake news" would better define your assertion.

Unfortunately, since you're not really conscious, your "opinion" on the subject doesn't matter since you can't have an opinion any more than a rock does.

[JimL]

Unfortunately, since you're not really conscious, your "opinion" on the subject doesn't matter since you can't have an opinion any more than a rock does.

You'd be conscious regardless of whether consciouness were a thing in itself, regardless of if it was distinct from the physical brain or not.

[Tassman]

What do you mean by "beyond the physical activity of the brain"?

Obviously, what I mean is that consciousness and intellect are solely determined by the physical activity of the brain. And you have no actual evidence to argue otherwise.

Physical correlations alone don't justify ontological reduction without even a conceivable theory to explain the reduction, as I've said. That's how all of scientific reductions work. Otherwise, you'd be making a special exception for consciousness with no justification.

It is you making a special exception for consciousness with no justification. Modern science has steadily dismantled such presumptions of non-natural explanations for ALL phenomena. There is no good reason why ‘consciousness’ should be an exception.

[Sparko]

Unfortunately, since you're not really conscious, your "opinion" on the subject doesn't matter since you can't have an opinion any more than a rock does.

Why do you keep arguing with these simulated people?