Do thoughts affect reality?

[AlexW]

Thought, itself, is what causes EVERY behavior of the human body.

I seriously doubt that
You don't have to think "beat, beat, beat..." approximately once every second to make your heart beat, do you?
But maybe I misinterpret you?

[Age]

It's possible for it to be a brute fact that matter behaves in a limited way without following any rules.

The matter is free or non-free?

Both are logically possible so that we have neither rule-following per se nor arbitrariness.

Each particle of matter is only partially free to move about. Matter is neither fully free nor fully non-free. Matter is absolutely free to move about, but matter is not completely and utterly free.

This, by the way, and off topic, also helps in explaining WHY there is neither free will nor determinism, only. Both of these co-exist together, equally.

You just wrote that physical laws exist as thoughts in the mind of intelligent agents only. So how can laws also be "its nature and not what is going on in our mind"?

It's like you can't remember what you claimed two seconds ago.

The laws of physics do not exist in matter. It only exists in minds of intelligent beings. The matter however behaves according to the laws of nature.

As with the other post, your comment here has nothing at all to do with the inconsistency I'm pointing out. You're completely ignoring that aspect (as if you read it and then immediately forgot about it and decided to just make a general comment instead--or you're intentionally ignoring the problem and you're trolling).

Is there no other possibility?

[Age]

The matter is free or non-free?

Both are logically possible so that we have neither rule-following per se nor arbitrariness.

The laws of physics do not exist in matter. It only exists in minds of intelligent beings. The matter however behaves according to the laws of nature.

As with the other post, your comment here has nothing at all to do with the inconsistency I'm pointing out. You're completely ignoring that aspect (as if you read it and then immediately forgot about it and decided to just make a general comment instead--or you're intentionally ignoring the problem and you're trolling).

I am saying three things. The laws of physics do not exist in matter. It only exists in minds of intelligent beings. The matter however behaves according to the laws of nature. What is inconsistent here?

What you just said here, for numerous reasons.

[Age]

I cannot formulate it. I know that I wanted to get up. Then there was a motion in my body. There is however a gap between wanting and moving since wanting is a conscious phenomenon whereas the motion of my body is a physical phenomenon.


So you move the electron in your brain in order to move your body.

Something like that. But I am not separate from the "electron", it is one of trillions of which I comprise.

I don't know how I affect the electrons of my brain.

If you do ever find out, or learn, then you will also discover and see just how self-explanatory all of this REALLY IS.

[Age]

Thought, itself, is what causes EVERY behavior of the human body.

I seriously doubt that

You are absolutely free to seriously doubt absolutely ANY thing.

You don't have to think "beat, beat, beat..." approximately once every second to make your heart beat, do you?

No. But a heart beating is NOT a 'behavior', to me.

See, to me, the body either acts, or reacts, or behaves, or misbehaves. An action/reaction is NOT controlled nor caused by a 'thought'. However, EVERY behavior/misbehavior is controlled or caused by a 'thought'.

But maybe I misinterpret you?

MANY have.

[Hermit Philosopher]

.../there is neither free will nor determinism, only. Both of these co-exist together, equally.

Yep, I’d say that a pretty good summary.
Thanks @Age.

That line addresses the part you’re struggling with @bahman; it clarifies why the paradox isn’t actually there.


Humbly
Hermit

[Sculptor]

I cannot formulate it. I know that I wanted to get up. Then there was a motion in my body. There is however a gap between wanting and moving since wanting is a conscious phenomenon whereas the motion of my body is a physical phenomenon.


So you move the electron in your brain in order to move your body.

Something like that. But I am not separate from the "electron", it is one of trillions of which I comprise.

I don't know how I affect the electrons of my brain.

Does that bother you?

[attofishpi]

Do thoughts affect reality?

Beyond our own control of our bodies, actually, YES they can. The 3rd party intelligence - that quite possibly is a key requirement for consciousness, can act - cause and effect - upon thoughts IT has interpreted within your mind.

[RCSaunders]

My thoughts are not physical things.

Do 'you' KNOW, for sure, that 'thoughts' are NOT physical things?

If yes, then HOW?

Yes I know my thoughts are not physical things. I know it in the same way I know I can see. I can't "see my seeing." I can't "prove it to anyone else," nor do I need to. I certainly cannot prove it to you, just as you cannot prove you see to anyone else.

Also, who and/or what does the "my" refer to in the saying, "my thoughts"?

Whomever you are asking your question of.

They have no physical properties, cannot be observed by any physical means and cannot be explained in terms of any physical process.

I agree that thoughts cannot YET be observed by any physical means and cannot YET be explained in terms of any physical process, in the days when this is being written. However, this does NOT mean NOR prove that thoughts have NO physical properties.

Since there is no reason to assume they do have physical properties, why would you want them to?

If you do refer to the articles I referenced, most of the questions you have about my views will be answered. You certainly do not have to agree with them, but at least you'll know what you are arguing against if you don't agree.
My Philosophy Now Forum articles:

"The Physical, Life, Consciousness, and The Human Mind—A Preface"

"The Nature Of Life,"

"The Nature Of Consciousness,"

"The Nature of Mind,"

"An Analogy, From Physical To Mind."

[Terrapin Station]

Yes I know my thoughts are not physical things. I know it in the same way I know I can see. I can't "see my seeing." I can't "prove it to anyone else," nor do I need to. I certainly cannot prove it to you, just as you cannot prove you see to anyone else.

Are you saying that you're not a physicalist, or are you simply using "thing" in some "technical" way, where you're simply saying that thoughts aren't "independent entities"?

[RCSaunders]

Yes I know my thoughts are not physical things. I know it in the same way I know I can see. I can't "see my seeing." I can't "prove it to anyone else," nor do I need to. I certainly cannot prove it to you, just as you cannot prove you see to anyone else.

Are you saying that you're not a physicalist, or are you simply using "thing" in some "technical" way, where you're simply saying that thoughts aren't "independent entities"?

I'm saying exactly what I said, thoughts (by which I assume Terrapin meant concepts and their use in reasoning) are not physical. The, "things," word is simply to refer to the fact my conscious concepts are, "something," not, "nothihg." ...and I have to make what I mean by thoughts clear because so many idiots think just anything that goes on in their head, like feelings, imagination, and dreams are all, "thoughts." They'r not.

By thoughts I mean only, "concepts," and the conscious intentional processes that use them: thinking, judging, and making conscious choices. None of those are physical, or explicable in terms of any physical attributes or actions, or can possibly be (exist) separate from human consciousness. When the last human consciousness ceases to exist (hypothetically), there will be no concepts or knowledge, no knowledge methods (language, mathematics, logic), no history, science, geography, or literature, except for whatever physical artifacts remain which human beings used for keeping utilizing that knowledge.

Concepts (thoughts) only exist epistemologically (psychologically); concepts have no ontological (material) existence.

I am not a, "physicalist," by the way, but only because I am not any kind of, "-ist." I embrace no ideology or pre-concieved philosophy or recognized explanations.

[Terrapin Station]

Yes I know my thoughts are not physical things. I know it in the same way I know I can see. I can't "see my seeing." I can't "prove it to anyone else," nor do I need to. I certainly cannot prove it to you, just as you cannot prove you see to anyone else.

Are you saying that you're not a physicalist, or are you simply using "thing" in some "technical" way, where you're simply saying that thoughts aren't "independent entities"?

I'm saying exactly what I said, thoughts (by which I assume Terrapin meant concepts and their use in reasoning) are not physical. The, "things," word is simply to refer to the fact my conscious concepts are, "something," not, "nothihg." ...and I have to make what I mean by thoughts clear because so many idiots think just anything that goes on in their head, like feelings, imagination, and dreams are all, "thoughts." They'r not.

By thoughts I mean only, "concepts," and the conscious intentional processes that use them: thinking, judging, and making conscious choices. None of those are physical, are explicable in terms of any physical attributes or actions, or can possibly be (exist) separate from human consciousness. When the last human consciousness ceases to exist (hypothetically), there will be no concepts or knowledge, no knowledge methods (language, mathematics, logic), no history, science, geography, or literature, except for whatever physical artifacts remain which human beings used for keeping utilizing that knowledge.

Concepts (thoughts) only exist epistemologically (psychologically); concepts have no ontological (material) existence.

I am not a, "physicalist," by the way, but only because I am not any kind of, "-ist." I embrace no ideology or pre-concieved philosophy or recognized explanations.

Ah, I don't agree with that view at all. I'm a physicalist. Mental content is simply a subset of brain function in my view.

[bahman]

Thought can steer the body into action.

How?

If the word 'action' here refers to how the human body behaves, or misbehaves, then how thought steers the human body into 'action' should not even be a question.

It is an important question.

How the human body behaves is SOLELY because of thought, itself, and from thought, alone.

How?

Could you control the electrons in your brain?

'you' do NOT YET even KNOW who nor what 'you' are, not who nor what the 'you' is. So, asking if 'you' can do something like 'you' are asking here is just nonsensical.

Could you move?

How a conscious experience, such as thought, can affect the motion of the electrons in your brain?

What EXACTLY affects the motion of the electrons in the human brain, to you?

I am wondering that how thoughts can affect the motion of electrons in the brain. Electrons are known to affect each other only.

For your information, when 'you' can look at these 'things'from a Truly objective perspective, then the answers become just obvious, while also fitting together perfectly.

What is the answer?

This is the only chance we have of using thought to affect reality.

It is easy to say. Hard to prove.

The movement of a human body, in behavioural ways, is produced by, or caused from, a thought.
Human behavior effects 'reality', in a way.
Therefore, in a way, thoughts effect 'reality'.

But, then again, what 'reality' actually is, is thought about very differently. Which therefore proves that thought, literally, effects 'reality'.

That just says that thought correlates with the behavior.

[bahman]

Not sure what a Thought is or what Reality is,

I know what thought and reality are.

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.

but Conscious Desires can affect the Physical World while they are being satisfied.

How something which is irrelevant can affect reality.

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.

[Age]

My thoughts are not physical things.

Do 'you' KNOW, for sure, that 'thoughts' are NOT physical things?

If yes, then HOW?

Yes I know my thoughts are not physical things.

But, for sure?

I know it in the same way I know I can see.

But these are two very different things, which are known in two very different ways.

I can't "see my seeing."

Okay. But this is like saying, " I cannot "think my thinking" ", which is very different from knowing, for sure, if some thing is physical or not.

I can't "prove it to anyone else," nor do I need to.

If you believe so, then so be it.

I certainly cannot prove it to you,

Why do you believe this is so?

If you are, so sure, you 'know' some 'thing', then, surely, you would have some sort of 'proof' for that 'thing', which you could share with 'me'and/or 'us'?

just as you cannot prove you see to anyone else.

But I could very simply and very easily proof this to those who do NOT believe otherwise.

Also, who and/or what does the "my" refer to in the saying, "my thoughts"?

Whomever you are asking your question of.

This is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of how the people's in the days when this was being written still had absolutely NO clue NOR idea about who 'they' were not who 'I' am. YET they would stop speaking and pretending that they actually did.

These human beings had still not learned how to look at things objectively, and as such spoke subjectively, as though each one of them KNEW, for sure, what they were talking about. But when challenged, as proven and shown above, they DID NOT.

By the way 'I' am asking 'you'. So, who are 'you', which to you supposedly has 'its' thoughts.

They have no physical properties, cannot be observed by any physical means and cannot be explained in terms of any physical process.

I agree that thoughts cannot YET be observed by any physical means and cannot YET be explained in terms of any physical process, in the days when this is being written. However, this does NOT mean NOR prove that thoughts have NO physical properties.

Since there is no reason to assume they do have physical properties, why would you want them to?

Lol WHY would you assume that I would "want them to"?

Also, just as there is NO reason to assume that thoughts do have physical properties is there ANY reason to just begin to start assuming that thoughts do not have physical properties?

If yes, then okay.

But I suggest NOT assuming ANY thing.

If you do refer to the articles I referenced, most of the questions you have about my views will be answered.

How do 'you' supposedly KNOW what "most of the questions 'I' have" ARE?

By the way, you have FAILED to answer most of the ACTUAL questions that I have ALREADY asked you, let alone those questions, which you just assume I have.

You certainly do not have to agree with them, but at least you'll know what you are arguing against if you don't agree.
My Philosophy Now Forum articles:

"The Physical, Life, Consciousness, and The Human Mind—A Preface"

"The Nature Of Life,"

"The Nature Of Consciousness,"

"The Nature of Mind,"

"An Analogy, From Physical To Mind."

'you' do NOT YET even KNOW the correct and accurate answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?', nor do 'you' KNOW how the brain and thee Mind work, so the rest of what 'you' wrote in those articles is moot.

Also, WHY do 'you' ASSUME that 'I' am arguing 'against' ANY thing?

You made the CLAIM that "thoughts are NOT physical", I am just trying to CLARIFY how you can KNOW this, for sure. I am also just finding out, or seeing, if you can actually back up and support what you CLAIM is absolutely true.