Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Are Thoughts Causal?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
    This is absolutely not true at all. The reason there is such a strong belief in the theory that the mind is a product of the brain is not that the evidence points that way, but because the the prevailing assumption among the scientists studying this issue is that the mind is a product of the brain. But the evidence (if any) that exists for that assumption is not very convincing at all.
    There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other conclusion that the mind is not a product of the brain.

    If you have something please present it.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other conclusion that the mind is not a product of the brain.

      If you have something please present it.
      The only thing the evidence shows is that there is relation of dependence (of some sort) between the mind and the brain. Your supposed evidence that the mind is a product of the brain is just as absent as the evidence for any other theory.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Except I can make conscious detailed plans, considering the various options and carry them out. I don't think the subconscious is capable of detailed and deliberate planning.

        Also even if my subconscious brain came up with the thought it is still a thought that caused the action even if I wasn't consciously aware of it at the time. It wasn't the action that caused the thought.
        True, but the question would then be, is the thought that caused the action a mental state of what you would call your mind, which you see as a thing distinct from your brain, or was the thought that caused the action a mental state of the physical brain?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          The only thing the evidence shows is that there is relation of dependence (of some sort) between the mind and the brain. Your supposed evidence that the mind is a product of the brain is just as absent as the evidence for any other theory.
          I agree with shunya to a certain extent in that the mind is of the brain because the mind is a property of matter itself, not an emrgent property distinct from matter. It is emergent, but not in the sense of being created of, but rather, in the sense of it's evolution through complexity.
          Last edited by JimL; 07-02-2019, 10:34 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by JimL View Post
            True, but the question would then be, is the thought that caused the action a mental state of what you would call your mind, which you see as a thing distinct from your brain, or was the thought that caused the action a mental state of the physical brain?
            That wasn't the OP's assertion. It was that thoughts don't CAUSE behaviors, they are just some after effect. Like you move your leg, then afterwards think "I am going to move my leg" and fool yourself into thinking your thought caused the action when in fact the action caused the thought. THAT is what Huxley was claiming according to Seer's OP.

            If I can make advanced plans and then later carry them out, then that disproves that thesis.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              That wasn't the OP's assertion. It was that thoughts don't CAUSE behaviors, they are just some after effect. Like you move your leg, then afterwards think "I am going to move my leg" and fool yourself into thinking your thought caused the action when in fact the action caused the thought. THAT is what Huxley was claiming according to Seer's OP.
              Well, it wouldn't be the thought "I think i'll move my leg" that comes after the act of moving your leg, it would just be your consciousness of the choice made that would come after the choice was made to move your leg.

              If I can make advanced plans and then later carry them out, then that disproves that thesis.
              Well, not necessarily., The underlying premise of the OP is that a free willed mind, which is distinct from the brain, is the author of the thoughts that cause the behaviors. If the thoughts are the product of the brain itself, then they could be either freely made, if free will is an emergent property of matter/mind, or, if free will is not an emergent property, the thoughts could be determined. That you would be capable of making advanced plans would fit into either scenario.
              Last edited by JimL; 07-03-2019, 09:47 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Well, it wouldn't be the thought that comes after the act of moving your leg, it would just be your consciousness of the thought that would come after the moving of your leg.
                Don't argue with me, argue with Huxley.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  The only thing the evidence shows is that there is relation of dependence (of some sort) between the mind and the brain. Your supposed evidence that the mind is a product of the brain is just as absent as the evidence for any other theory.
                  That is all it shows, and any other argument is an 'argument from ignorance.' There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence of any other relationship, nor and independent relationship..
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-03-2019, 09:49 AM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Don't argue with me, argue with Huxley.
                    I sure will argue with Huxley, and any one else who cites antiquated sources, he has been long dead, and presents and asserts only a philosophical view.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I sure will argue with Huxley, and any one else who cites antiquated sources, he has been long dead, and presents and asserts only a philosophical view.
                      That's pretty much what I said. He had no understanding of how the brain even worked.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        That is all it shows, and any other argument is an 'argument from ignorance.' There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence of any other relationship, nor and independent relationship..
                        Neither is there any objective verifiable evidence for the theory that the mind is a product of the brain.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                          Neither is there any objective verifiable evidence for the theory that the mind is a product of the brain.
                          Actually, yes there is.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Actually, yes there is.
                            You're actually supposed to provide some of that supposed evidence after making such an assertion. So we can have a look at it and seeing if it actually points to the conclusion that you claim.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              You're actually supposed to provide some of that supposed evidence after making such an assertion. So we can have a look at it and seeing if it actually points to the conclusion that you claim.
                              JimL providing a source?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                That's pretty much what I said. He had no understanding of how the brain even worked.
                                There is no argument either way using an old philosophical view, and it is best to dialogue with more relevant contemporary sources including the science of neurology.

                                Also a philosophical view is just that, and the only argument is one from authority, or against an authority one opposes.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X