Is the mind an organ of thought?

[John21]

In a similiar way that our eyes perceive light waves which we call sight, and our ears perceive sound waves which we call hearing - does our mind perceive (x) which we call thought?

So going back to "Cogito, ergo sum" would it be more accurate to say: I have thoughts, therefore I exist?

It seems to me all we can really say is that we experience/perceive thoughts, not that we are actually doing the thinking. And although we seem to be deciding what we will think, would it be more accurate to say that we simply focus our 'mind organ' on one thing or another in a similiar manner to how we focus our eyes on one object or another?

So if this holds remotely true or purely for speculative purposes: what is it akin to light/sound waves that we perceive that we call thought?

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
In a similiar way that our eyes perceive light waves which we call sight, and our ears perceive sound waves which we call hearing - does our mind perceive (x) which we call thought?

So going back to "Cogito, ergo sum" would it be more accurate to say: I have thoughts, therefore I exist?

It seems to me all we can really say is that we experience/perceive thoughts, not that we are actually doing the thinking. And although we seem to be deciding what we will think, would it be more accurate to say that we simply focus our 'mind organ' on one thing or another in a similiar manner to how we focus our eyes on one object or another?

So if this holds remotely true or purely for speculative purposes: what is it akin to light/sound waves that we perceive that we call thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

what do you mean by 'we are not actually doing the thinking?'

by using 'mind organ', are your assuming that the 'mind' is something physical? If so, then why?

[madnak]

Very possible, but there's no evidence of any such thing going on.

Also there are problems in that we do influence our own thoughts - in fact, chemicals and the like can influence our thoughts tremendously, to such a degree that the effects can't be written off as mere distortion. This is the primary problem with a dualistic approach: there's strong evidence of feedback between the "brain" and the "mind." Thus logically the communication must be two ways. But if, in fact, the physical organ is "sending" as well as receiving the "mental radiation," then some physical process should be expected. Moreover, the thoughts of one person don't affect the thoughts of another, which throws the mechanism into further question. We may just be using different "wavelengths," of course, but it's tenuous.

[John21]

I was attempting to slice away with Occam's razor.

If everything that we perceive is in someway sensory related, why do we stop when we get to thought?

[ QUOTE ]
what do you mean by 'we are not actually doing the thinking?'

[/ QUOTE ]

That it could be more of a passive activity than an active one. A form of perception. So while the direction it may go in would be active (like sight), the actual process (seeing) is passive.

I'm trying to look at thought as something we experience or perceive rather than something we do, in the same manner we approach other mental phenomena. So I may look at a tree and perceive it, but I'm not 'doing sight'.

[ QUOTE ]
by using 'mind organ', are your assuming that the 'mind' is something physical? If so, then why?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not that far along yet.

[luckyme]

There is no 'me' to perceive any thoughts. The thoughts are me. Stop the thoughts and you can unplug the support system.

"Does our mind perceive..." is assuming a thoughtless mind, that is me, receiving thoughts from where ever. That's a very false picture to try and build any argument on ??

luckyme

[Semtex]

I think this line of thinking is off. Our brain is an organ that assimilates and analyzes perceptions. I'm not sure if its outputs could be regarded as perceptions themselves.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
In a similiar way that our eyes perceive light waves which we call sight, and our ears perceive sound waves which we call hearing - does our mind perceive (x) which we call thought?

So going back to "Cogito, ergo sum" would it be more accurate to say: I have thoughts, therefore I exist?

It seems to me all we can really say is that we experience/perceive thoughts, not that we are actually doing the thinking. And although we seem to be deciding what we will think, would it be more accurate to say that we simply focus our 'mind organ' on one thing or another in a similiar manner to how we focus our eyes on one object or another?

So if this holds remotely true or purely for speculative purposes: what is it akin to light/sound waves that we perceive that we call thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have thoughts, therefore I am aware of my existence.

There is no way to prove/disprove if we are merely experiencing a thought or are the origin of a thought. You are aruging semantics here. We are hearing and we are seeing when we translate sound vibrations into words and light waves as sight. We interpret data in a form that is accessible to us. Our thoughts are data computed in our brain.

Your argument is that we merely experience/perceive thoughts instead of thinking them. Occam's razor actually works against your argument. It is simpler to assume that a human thinks his own thoughts, then for you to assume that a human perceives thoughts and the whole notion of "thinking" is merely a product of this perception.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
In a similiar way that our eyes perceive light waves which we call sight, and our ears perceive sound waves which we call hearing - does our mind perceive (x) which we call thought?

So going back to "Cogito, ergo sum" would it be more accurate to say: I have thoughts, therefore I exist?

It seems to me all we can really say is that we experience/perceive thoughts, not that we are actually doing the thinking. And although we seem to be deciding what we will think, would it be more accurate to say that we simply focus our 'mind organ' on one thing or another in a similiar manner to how we focus our eyes on one object or another?

So if this holds remotely true or purely for speculative purposes: what is it akin to light/sound waves that we perceive that we call thought?

[/ QUOTE ]

This line of reasoning argues against free will. That we are merely complex animals performing functions based on our environment. Yes we do think but it is a chemical response that our brain produces. The mind is physical yes.

How can it not be? We are physical entities. We can try to understand why we do certain things but we cannot control why we do them. Understanding not choice, is what separates us from everything else.

[FortunaMaximus]

I tend to think of the brain as the most complex biological computer thus far.

Even a quick riffle through how research into how it stores memories is fasicnating. It would seem they are stored holographically with multiple reference foci. Pretty sure I covered that, and not too long ago. If not, I can expand.

And the "cogito, ergo sum" state which people maintain gives you self-awareness is valid. Dr. Johnson's stubbed toes aside, and the common situation a few posters find themselves in where they feel they are the only self-aware entities they can see or know...

I think that lends validity to the fact that mind is a second-order emergent process in an organ that has increased in complexity to the point where quantum processes can be at work here.

Mapping of brain activity tells you where and what is used, but nothing thus yet has been able to capture the gestalt of mind. That may lend validity to the fact that it is an independent process that needs the brain to give the proper media to let it emerge.

And going on to pure whimsical conjecture at this point, it may be, like matter or energy, this process is incapable of being destroyed, but can be collected or dispersed, only to re-establish itself with self-recongizable attractors.

To make that postulate, one assumes that an individual mind is on a level of uniqueness comparable to or more complex than DNA. Which is to say it can share millions of reference points with another mind, such as colors, flavors, but its own unique signature gives it a personalized reference for the same stimuli.

[John21]

Could we say that, with the exception of thought, everything we perceive is generated by some type of sensory input?

As an aside:
Descartes is sitting in a bar, having a drink. The bartender asks him if he would like another. "I think not," he says, and vanishes.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Also there are problems in that we do influence our own thoughts - in fact, chemicals and the like can influence our thoughts tremendously, to such a degree that the effects can't be written off as mere distortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could this objection be overcome by saying that while what we think can be effected or even halted (in the case of sleep)- but we have or perceive thoughts just the same. Or say someone is taking acid and sees forms merging into one another - so what is being seen is effected, but the perception of sight remains.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also there are problems in that we do influence our own thoughts - in fact, chemicals and the like can influence our thoughts tremendously, to such a degree that the effects can't be written off as mere distortion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could this objection be overcome by saying that while what we think can be effected or even halted (in the case of sleep)- but we have or perceive thoughts just the same. Or say someone is taking acid and sees forms merging into one another - so what is being seen is effected, but the perception of sight remains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thoughts build on one another. Obviously when you hallucinate it's only your brain's interpretation of the light that is changing, not the actual wavelengths of light itself. But once you stop hallucinating, it all goes back to normal - it's impossible for the distortions in what you experienced to actually affect the light itself. But with thoughts, past thoughts influence future thoughts in a cumulative way.

I suppose if most of our interpretations of thought were internal, and just some very basic "thought energy" were external, then it would make some sense. But in that case the "thought energy" as it exists would bear little resemblance to thoughts as we think of them (just as electromagnetic radiation bears little resemblance to colors and shapes as we think of them). Also our reception of the thoughts would have to be rather "stretchy" and mutable.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to prove/disprove if we are merely experiencing a thought or are the origin of a thought. You are aruging semantics here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove the concept as much as I was trying to establish a corollary with other mental phenomena. And I think it is stretching boundries to describe a demarcation, between a doer and the deed, as semantics.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose if most of our interpretations of thought were internal, and just some very basic "thought energy" were external, then it would make some sense. But in that case the "thought energy" as it exists would bear little resemblance to thoughts as we think of them (just as electromagnetic radiation bears little resemblance to colors and shapes as we think of them). Also our reception of the thoughts would have to be rather "stretchy" and mutable.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know it's quite a leap, but as a thought experiment, what could that "thought energy" resemble? Or as an accepted premise, what would it infer?

What I'm ultimately trying to get at is: say you were alive 1000 years ago, and for arguments sake, lets say you considered it a self-evident axiom that you had thoughts and you had sight, i.e. you could think and you could see. From that would you be able to infer and/or deduce, that because you had sight and could see, the existence of light waves?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
This line of reasoning argues against free will. That we are merely complex animals performing functions based on our environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but when framed in that way, we end up falling into that labyrinth of trying to validate an objective premise with a subjective proposition or vice-versa.

p.s. there's a recent thread about determinism not precluding free-will. (although someone forgot to establish their premises.)

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that lends validity to the fact that mind is a second-order emergent process in an organ that has increased in complexity to the point where quantum processes can be at work here.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering where in the chain of living oraganisms this process emerged. I'm aware of the sliced and diced salamander brain and the holographic properties established, but does it hold up in plants?
Does the process (holography) require a brain?
Or to leap tall buildings in a single bound: would the holographic attribute of thought require an 'organ' capable of perceiving it?

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that lends validity to the fact that mind is a second-order emergent process in an organ that has increased in complexity to the point where quantum processes can be at work here.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering where in the chain of living oraganisms this process emerged. I'm aware of the sliced and diced salamander brain and the holographic properties established, but does it hold up in plants?
Does the process (holography) require a brain?
Or to leap tall buildings in a single bound: would the holographic attribute of thought require an 'organ' capable of perceiving it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain the "sliced and diced salamander brain."

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way to prove/disprove if we are merely experiencing a thought or are the origin of a thought. You are aruging semantics here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove the concept as much as I was trying to establish a corollary with other mental phenomena. And I think it is stretching boundries to describe a demarcation, between a doer and the deed, as semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rescind that statement. I think having a background in physics/math would be necessary in fully understanding the depths of this concept.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that lends validity to the fact that mind is a second-order emergent process in an organ that has increased in complexity to the point where quantum processes can be at work here.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering where in the chain of living oraganisms this process emerged. I'm aware of the sliced and diced salamander brain and the holographic properties established, but does it hold up in plants?
Does the process (holography) require a brain?
Or to leap tall buildings in a single bound: would the holographic attribute of thought require an 'organ' capable of perceiving it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain the "sliced and diced salamander brain."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to experiments conducted by biologist Paul Pietsch.
He basically removed the brain of a salamander then replaced it - the salamander returned to normal behavior. Then he flip-flopped the brain and again its behaviour returned to normal. In a series of hundreds of experiments where the salamanders brain was sliced, flipped, shuffled, subtracted and even minced - its behavior and memories associated with learned feeding skills returned to normal.

So when a reductionist claims that mental activity is a chemical process, he's right in a sense of describing an effect, but research has proven it's a suspicious cause at best.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that lends validity to the fact that mind is a second-order emergent process in an organ that has increased in complexity to the point where quantum processes can be at work here.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm wondering where in the chain of living oraganisms this process emerged. I'm aware of the sliced and diced salamander brain and the holographic properties established, but does it hold up in plants?
Does the process (holography) require a brain?
Or to leap tall buildings in a single bound: would the holographic attribute of thought require an 'organ' capable of perceiving it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain the "sliced and diced salamander brain."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to experiments conducted by biologist Paul Pietsch.
He basically removed the brain of a salamander then replaced it - the salamander returned to normal behavior. Then he flip-flopped the brain and again its behaviour returned to normal. In a series of hundreds of experiments where the salamanders brain was sliced, flipped, shuffled, subtracted and even minced - its behavior and memories associated with learned feeding skills returned to normal.

So when a reductionist claims that mental activity is a chemical process, he's right in a sense of describing an effect, but research has proven it's a suspicious cause at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the conclusion from this experiment was that a salamander does not use his brain. Interesting.

Have biologists determined at what intellectual level consciousness is reached?

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
So the conclusion from this experiment was that a salamander does not use his brain.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. I was under the impression they concluded that mental activity and memory wasn't localized in a particular portion of the brain.

http://www.indiana.edu/~pietsch/shufflebrain.html

[untouchable]

"There is no 'me' to perceive any thoughts. The thoughts are me."

So you are a thought? So if for one second you stop thinking, you no longer exist! Meditation is not for you, lol. But wait a second. If you are a thought, and you think, then you create yourself, and are conscious of yourself at the same time? Now I don't get it anymore. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
If there is a period of no thoughts, what exists in between the thoughts? Who is conscious of the thought coming and going, if you are the thought itself?



"I have thoughts, therefore I am aware of my existence."
So if you stop thinking, you're no longer aware of anything! So you're saying thoughts are like the fuel on which awareness runs? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Isn't it pretty obvious that you are aware of thoughts?

"There is no way to prove/disprove if we are merely experiencing a thought or are the origin of a thought."
How do you know? Have you tried?


This all depends on what you think you are. Are the beliefs of what you think you are based on fact, or just assumptions?

[FortunaMaximus]

No, biologists haven't determined the cause of consciousness, that I've heard of, and I assume you mean self-awareness and not asleep/awake. In neurology, that's as difficult to prove as a soul is. The salmander experiments are interesting. But there's little to distinguish individuality in a salmander. And of course, it is the taboo of all taboos to conduct such experiments on humans. No, I don't want to quibble on that one, but I think the terminally ill could have the option to undergo painless experimentation. Anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a period of no thoughts, what exists in between the thoughts? Who is conscious of the thought coming and going, if you are the thought itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just the sum of you, existing.

I'm going to be severely disappointed if I'm the only one to feel this.

For me, at least, I feel my body, but what is me, I don't feel as my body, but occupying the whole of it. Stumbling block is, I'm not sure yet if I need the body or I have the strength and abilities to disassociate with it entirely when it can no longer be a supportive energy-consuming form for my mind. Well, I tend to think of it as animus or chi rather than a soul, but really, it's the same concept, with different names and opinions as to its origin.


untouchable, if you believe you are, is that fact or assumption? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it's quite a leap, but as a thought experiment, what could that "thought energy" resemble? Or as an accepted premise, what would it infer?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt I'll be able to answer this question adequately for another 10 years or so. Maybe a gauge boson? There's no empirical indicator, so I imagine the sky's the limit.

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm ultimately trying to get at is: say you were alive 1000 years ago, and for arguments sake, lets say you considered it a self-evident axiom that you had thoughts and you had sight, i.e. you could think and you could see. From that would you be able to infer and/or deduce, that because you had sight and could see, the existence of light waves?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Not without more experimental data. 1000 years ago it would be hard even to think in those terms.

[untouchable]

[ QUOTE ]

untouchable, if you believe you are, is that fact or assumption? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, some spiritual teachers that I've read about, say that the only thing you can ever be sure of is 'I am'. If it is not a fact that you are, you should be somehow be able to reason yourself out of existence. Saying "I don't exist" seems silly, because who says he doesn't exist? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Those same spiritual teachers that say that the only thing you can be sure of is 'I am', tell us to investigate any thoughts of 'I am this. I am that.' ('I am the body', 'I am the mind', 'I am a soul', etc.) They can't ever be true, they say, because you can't be what you're conscious of. You are consciousness itself.

The choice to investigate this or not is left to us. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

True enough. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Actually, I've been concerned in the past about reasoning myself out of existence, so there you go.

Such a powerful force, self-awareness.

[John21]

untouchable,

[ QUOTE ]
"I have thoughts, therefore I am aware of my existence."
So if you stop thinking, you're no longer aware of anything! So you're saying thoughts are like the fuel on which awareness runs?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really not what I was trying to say. Just that it wouldn't inherently alter the conclusion of our existence if we substitued "I think" with "I have thoughts."

My purpose for reframing the statement wasn't to validate existence, but to be able to ask the following questions:

Through our understanding of light-waves we can infer sight, but is it possible to infer the existence of light-waves from the premise of sight?

Or to use another example. We can infer a radio through our understanding of electro-magnetism, but can we infer electro-magnetism from the sound coming out of the radio?

My argument hinges on the answer to those questions. Because the conclusion reached would be that while the radio requires the existence of the e/m, e/m doesn't require the existence of the radio.

I think it is safe to conclude that if light-waves didn't exist we wouldn't have eyes and if sound waves didn't exist we wouldn't have ears. Without the existence of those external stimuli, the perception we experience wouldn't exist.

So while every mental perception we have is generated by an external stimulus, why do we suddenly draw a line with thought and say we do it?

I'm not trying to offer a proof, just posing/exploring a hypothesis. But if it doesn't hold up inductively, I'd like to hear why.

[untouchable]

[ QUOTE ]
untouchable,

[ QUOTE ]
"I have thoughts, therefore I am aware of my existence."
So if you stop thinking, you're no longer aware of anything! So you're saying thoughts are like the fuel on which awareness runs?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's really not what I was trying to say. Just that it wouldn't inherently alter the conclusion of our existence if we substitued "I think" with "I have thoughts."

My purpose for reframing the statement wasn't to validate existence, but to be able to ask the following questions:

Through our understanding of light-waves we can infer sight, but is it possible to infer the existence of light-waves from the premise of sight?

Or to use another example. We can infer a radio through our understanding of electro-magnetism, but can we infer electro-magnetism from the sound coming out of the radio?

My argument hinges on the answer to those questions. Because the conclusion reached would be that while the radio requires the existence of the e/m, e/m doesn't require the existence of the radio.

I think it is safe to conclude that if light-waves didn't exist we wouldn't have eyes and if sound waves didn't exist we wouldn't have ears. Without the existence of those external stimuli, the perception we experience wouldn't exist.

So while every mental perception we have is generated by an external stimulus, why do we suddenly draw a line with thought and say we do it?

I'm not trying to offer a proof, just posing/exploring a hypothesis. But if it doesn't hold up inductively, I'd like to hear why.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is complicated, man. /images/graemlins/grin.gif I don't know if I really understand it, but you're basically saying that all senses 'depend' on the outside world, and we do not control what happens 'in' our senses. But we think that our thoughts do not depend on anything, and that we in fact create them, and you think this may be wrong?

I'd say almost all 'normal' people believe in a seperate self, who creates the thoughts we are conscious of. Of a seperate 'me'. But there are some who, usually after some kind of (spiritual) practice for years or even decades, no longer have the experience of being some seperate self. It sucks to keep referring to people who are supposedly 'enlightened', but this is not like a discussion on the existence of God, where one side believes he exists and the other doesn't. This is like one side says they had a chat with God, and that you can too, if only you earnestly look for him. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

This link (http://nonduality.com/goode.htm) might be relevant.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is safe to conclude that if light-waves didn't exist we wouldn't have eyes and if sound waves didn't exist we wouldn't have ears. Without the existence of those external stimuli, the perception we experience wouldn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as we know it, and there are other animals with different sensorium organs that recieve and interpret external stimuli in different ways.

So why did we develop mind? To find other minds or was it a necessary long-term defensive mechanism that got triggered in lemurs when they crawled out of their holes after that cosmic dodgeball, and, went, whoa, the giants are dead, out DNA better do something so it doesn't happen to us.

I don't know for certain. You can be sure I'm glad to have the mind. And that there are other minds. Regardless of the source of origin, this level of mutual self-awareness has incredible implications, for this is not a process that can be reversed.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
This is complicated, man. I don't know if I really understand it, but you're basically saying that all senses 'depend' on the outside world, and we do not control what happens 'in' our senses. But we think that our thoughts do not depend on anything, and that we in fact create them, and you think this may be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the form of a syllogism:

(M)All mental perceptions result from external stimuli
(m)Thought is a mental perception
__________________________________________________ __

(c)Therefore, thought is a result of external stimuli

With the exception of thought, I felt the major premise could be established deductively, but since 'thought' was contained in the conclusion, I believe we're supposed to leave it in the inductive form.

But with the minor premise, I was relying on a self-evident axiom. Hence, my perhaps futile attempt to distinguish 'thinking' from 'having thoughts'.

[madnak]

But all mental perceptions don't result from extrenal stimuli, even if thoughts do.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
It sucks to keep referring to people who are supposedly 'enlightened', but this is not like a discussion on the existence of God, where one side believes he exists and the other doesn't. This is like one side says they had a chat with God, and that you can too, if only you earnestly look for him.

This link might be relevant.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a problem with non-duality when discussing absolute reality. I just can't help thinking that even if we could understand reality at 0>1 Plank time, and conclude "all is one," then what? Unless that's It.

But my gut tells me that maybe if we understand thought and/or consciousness better, and perhaps consider it as emanating from some undiscovered force, like we look at other phenomena and occurances of nature, we may gain a better understanding of the big G.U.T.

It just seems like we're missing a piece of the puzzle and rather than looking 'out there' for it, it might be right in front of, or better yet, right behind our noses.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

So while every mental perception we have is generated by an external stimulus, why do we suddenly draw a line with thought and say we do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure that people don't hear voices or have a vision/hallucination or dream while floating in a sensory deprivation tank?

luckyme

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
But all mental perceptions don't result from extrenal stimuli, even if thoughts do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping no one would notice that. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I was using the following definition:
The philosophy of perception is mainly concerned with exteroception. When philosophers use the word perception they usually mean exteroception, and the word is used in that sense everywhere.
External or Sensory perception (exteroception), tells us about the world outside our bodies. Using our senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste, we discover colors, sounds, textures, etc. of the world at large.

But nonetheless, I can see the premise requires some work or qualifying. However there is a similarity between seeing something and the forming process which takes place and having a thought of something. It's more of that quality that I'm looking at to describe perception.

But at least the conclusion held up.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So while every mental perception we have is generated by an external stimulus, why do we suddenly draw a line with thought and say we do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure that people don't hear voices or have a vision/hallucination or dream while floating in a sensory deprivation tank?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously my proof fell apart. But I think the general hypothesis of an analogy between how we percieve sight/sound and how we perceive thought might still hold merit.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So while every mental perception we have is generated by an external stimulus, why do we suddenly draw a line with thought and say we do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure that people don't hear voices or have a vision/hallucination or dream while floating in a sensory deprivation tank?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not, John. As far as we know, we can only account for external stimuli for five senses. It hasn't been disproved that consciousness does not draw on more than just the obvious stimuli.

It isn't sound or touch that tells animals an earthquake's coming.

[vhawk01]

It isnt? I thought it was. Seriously.

[FortunaMaximus]

Birds use magnetism to migrate in the right direction, and this is a fairly recent discovery. I don't know, the deeper science gets into bioresearch, the more it seems traditional assumptions have to be thrown out of the window.

How do we detect seimisic movements? If I'm not mistaken, the analysis of an approaching earthquake's strength relies on signals from three different waves, and even now the technologies aren't polished enough to anticipate and send out earthquake warnings.

But animals seem to anticipate the severity of an earthquake even before all the conclusive data is in.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe not, John.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it seems the only thing I can claim so far is:

Sight and sound are produced from external stimuli
Thought 'may be' similiar to sight and sound
Therefore, thought 'may be' produced by external stimuli

(to be honest the 'may be' part might cause a few peer review journals to be a little reluctant in publishing it.)

But if I could establish that thought was a wave, it might hold up inductively.

[evolvedForm]

I haven't read the other replies yet, but I can say this.

The problem with the cogito is that there are so many bad interpretations. The only interpretation of the cogito that is true is that during the act of doubting, I grasp that I am doubting, and I cannot not be existing. I have eliminated all other doubts. However, nothing ensures that I will be existing the next moment.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
(to be honest the 'may be' part might cause a few peer review journals to be a little reluctant in publishing it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and with good reason. But if it passes peer review, it's gotten through one of the most difficult hurdles a theory must get through, I think.

I suppose brain activity != thought waves.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(to be honest the 'may be' part might cause a few peer review journals to be a little reluctant in publishing it.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and with good reason. But if it passes peer review, it's gotten through one of the most difficult hurdles a theory must get through, I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was joking

[FortunaMaximus]

Pop this thread in a time capsule, fastforward half a century, ya never know. Nice avatar, by the way.

[Bill Haywood]

going back to "Cogito, ergo sum" would it be more accurate to say: I have thoughts, therefore I exist?

That's actually what Descarte meant. He was not saying, "I think great, brilliant, thoughts, therefore I exist, and boy do I." He just meant that the fact that he had brain activity, that he posessed consciousness, proved something interesting was going on -- existence.