Do thoughts affect reality?

[bahman]

No, "Either there are physical laws that matter behaves or it behaves arbitrarily" is a false dichotomy.

Why? There is no other option?

A big problem with "there are physical laws that matter behaves" is accounting for just what the heck physical laws ARE ontologically. I'm trying to get you to deal with that issue, since you accept that there are physical laws, but you're avoiding addressing it.

Physical laws exist as thoughts in the mind of intelligent agents only. Thought is a substance and has a form.

What is this 'substance', and, what is this 'form', which 'thought', supposedly, is?

The substance is something that exists and can affect the mind. The form is form, like, color, shape, taste, etc. Thought in materialism is different. It is a sort of experience.

[bahman]

How did you get up in the morning?

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.

WHY is there a perceived 'gap'?

There is a metaphysical gap rather than a physical one which can be observed.

And WHY does this, so called, "gap" exist in that body only? In other words WHY is that 'thought'that there is an actual 'gap' exist in that body only here?

And, WHERE, exactly, is that perceived 'gap'? I KNOW that the perceived "gap" is in the 'thought' only within that body, but WHERE is the perceived "gap", itself, meant to be existing?

WHEN, and if, 'you' answer these questions accurately, then 'you' will be and understand WHERE the confusion and misunderstanding is laying.

Can you move the electrons of your brain?

RUbbish. All you have to do is get our of bed

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

Who and/or what is this 'you' thing, which is being mentioned, and talked about, here?

If 'you' are suggesting here that a leg or an arm, for example, moves because an electron in the brain has moved, then what moves those electrons in the brain is 'thought', itself.

You in here is conscious experience, so-called thought.

[Age]

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.

Being a 'thing', which ends with an 'ist', then OBVIOUSLY 'you' would NOT agree with ANY thing that opposes that 'ist'.

Being an 'ist' means you BELIEVE very particular certain 'things' are absolutely and irrefutably true, and as such 'you' are NOT OPEN AT ALL to ANY 'thing' counter.

Mental content is simply a subset of brain function in my view.

Does ANY one here, in this forum, not agree that mental content is simply a subset of brain function?

If yes, then WHY?

Also, being a subset of a physical thing does NOT mean that the 'subset' HAS TO BE a physical thing also.

I have YET to be shown ANY evidence or proof that 'thoughts', themselves, have any physical property.

[bahman]

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?

Yes. It bothers me to don't know.

[bahman]

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.

Can you control electrons in your mind?

[Sculptor]

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

Does that bother you?

Yes. It bothers me to don't know.

Why?

[bahman]

Does that bother you?

Yes. It bothers me to don't know.

Why?

I am like this.

[Age]

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?

Name 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.

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?

Could 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.

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.

And, what EXACTLY is an 'electron', to you, and, are these electrons completely arbitrary to ANY other thing, and thus act/react completely arbitrarily to ANY thing else, to you?

Also, do 'you' also wonder how thoughts are caused or an affect of the motion of electrons as well? Or do you only look at and wonder about 'this' from one way 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?

To 'what', SPECIFICALLY?

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.

Does it?

Is that all, and only, what 'you' can take from what 'I' said and wrote here?

Also, HOW does it correlate? By chance, or by some other means?

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.

[Age]

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.

Then now there is no wonder why 'you' are still so lost and confused, and still wondering so much here.

If these are what 'thought' and 'reality's are, to 'you', the 'you' really do have a LOT MORE to learn and/or discover.

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.
[/quote]

But 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.

[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.

WHY is there a perceived 'gap'?

There is a metaphysical gap rather than a physical one which can be observed.

There is a 'gap' because 'thoughts', themselves, are NOT caused, nor cause, INSTANTOUSLY.

Also, a gap does NOT mean, NOR even infer nor imply one does NOT cause, create the other.

And WHY does this, so called, "gap" exist in that body only? In other words WHY is that 'thought'that there is an actual 'gap' exist in that body only here?

And, WHERE, exactly, is that perceived 'gap'? I KNOW that the perceived "gap" is in the 'thought' only within that body, but WHERE is the perceived "gap", itself, meant to be existing?

WHEN, and if, 'you' answer these questions accurately, then 'you' will be and understand WHERE the confusion and misunderstanding is laying.

Can you move the electrons of your brain?

How many times do 'I' have to point out and show 'you' that it is IMPOSSIBLE for 'you' to discover or learn the answer to these type of questions BECAUSE 'you' do NOT YET even KNOW what the word 'you' means or is referring to, EXACTLY, before 'you' will understand this FACT?

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

Who and/or what is this 'you' thing, which is being mentioned, and talked about, here?

If 'you' are suggesting here that a leg or an arm, for example, moves because an electron in the brain has moved, then what moves those electrons in the brain is 'thought', itself.

You in here is conscious experience, so-called thought.

Okay, so 'your' question is asking how do 'you', the thought or conscious experience, (which actually occurs through, from, or with the movement of electrons within the brain), move the electrons within the brain?

Thee ANSWER is JUST PLAIN OBVIOUS. 'you' are moving 'you'.

Even the one known as "bahman" here clearly stated that;
Electrons are known to affect each other only.

AND, because 'you', thought/conscious experience, are thee actual result of electrons 'moving' within the brain, then is PLAINLY clear that it is 'you', "yourself" who is moving thee electrons, which in turn moves the body, or caused the body to behave, or misbehave, the way it does.

'you' are, literally, the invisible thoughts (and emotions) within a human body.

'you' do NOT nor could NOT have/own a mind, a brain, nor a body. This is because 'you' are, literally, a result of thee Mind and of what the body has previously experienced.

AND, if ANY one wants to challenge and/or question 'me' on ANY of this, then please feel free and go ahead.

[RCSaunders]

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.

Yes, it's a very popular view. I just cannot swallow the mystical nonsense used to justify it and regard it as superstitious as any religious views, and those who hold it, are just as adamant and intransigent as any supernaturalist.

I do not object to anyone else holding that view, anymore than I do anyone holding any other religion or ideology--it does me no harm.

[Age]

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.

Can you control electrons in your mind?

LOOK 'you' OBVIOUSLY have NO idea what thee Mind IS, so asking questions like this IS NONSENSICAL.

[AlexW]

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'.

OK, thanks for explaining.

So what about thought itself?
Is the arising of a thought - which again might control/cause a behaviour or misbehaviour - itself controlled by someone or something? Or does this thought simply arise uncontrolled (like an action/reaction to some kind of stimulus)?

[Dimebag]

Here are my “thoughts”.

We have intentions, which are separate from thoughts. Intentions drive behaviour. Thoughts clarify intentions, as well as allow decisions to be made over conflicting intentions. First comes an intention. If the intention has no barrier toward producing a behaviour, a behaviour will occur.

If there is some conflict, or some reason why the intended behaviour must be delayed, this will become conscious, and a thought may arise to explain the conflict. Further thoughts may also arise in response to that initial thought, taking into account the situation. These thoughts might then determine the outcome of some conflicting intentions, or, a wholly new intention may arise in response to this thought process.

Sometimes, a thought might be “kept” in the mind for later, and will periodically arise as a reminder. In this case, it will re-enable a latent intention.

There is likely some feedback between thought and intention, and intention to behaviour. Furthermore, there is feedback between perception and intention.

What is intention? It is the priming of behaviour, felt as an impulse to act.

What is a thought? It is the conceptual (referring to verbal thought) understanding of a state of affairs relating to perception and the organism itself.

What does this say about the nature of thought? Or of intention?

Intentions do not arise of their own accord, they always have prior causes. Thoughts do not arise of their own accord, they have prior causes. The prior causes can be many different sources for both intention and thought. It may be a visual perception, a bodily sensation, the hearing of speech, etc, use your imagination.

Are thoughts physical or non physical? They are conscious expressions of the conceptual processing of those prior causes, existing as patterns of associations of concepts. Concepts are related to the categories of things and relationships perceived, which can be expressed with related verbal labels, relating certain meanings to those verbal labels. Concepts and perception are tightly bound. The concepts describe the possible landscape of perception, as well as wholly non perceptual abstract concepts, built using perceptual analogies, but having no one to one relationship with a single percept.

So thoughts are the verbal or internal verbiage expression of concepts and their relationships, heard internally within conscious experience. They arise due to the need of an organism to produce complex behaviours, tailored to specific situations, going beyond basic procedural memory. They allow the brain to reprogram itself in essence. They also allow learning to be explicit, a thought can also relate to memory, such that we know what we know, that is, they allow metaknowledge. But, thoughts are a translation of implicitly known conceptual relationships. Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves.

[AlexW]

Here are my “thoughts”.

We have intentions, which are separate from thoughts. Intentions drive behaviour. Thoughts clarify intentions, as well as allow decisions to be made over conflicting intentions. First comes an intention. If the intention has no barrier toward producing a behaviour, a behaviour will occur.

If there is some conflict, or some reason why the intended behaviour must be delayed, this will become conscious, and a thought may arise to explain the conflict. Further thoughts may also arise in response to that initial thought, taking into account the situation. These thoughts might then determine the outcome of some conflicting intentions, or, a wholly new intention may arise in response to this thought process.

Sometimes, a thought might be “kept” in the mind for later, and will periodically arise as a reminder. In this case, it will re-enable a latent intention.

There is likely some feedback between thought and intention, and intention to behaviour. Furthermore, there is feedback between perception and intention.

What is intention? It is the priming of behaviour, felt as an impulse to act.

What is a thought? It is the conceptual (referring to verbal thought) understanding of a state of affairs relating to perception and the organism itself.

What does this say about the nature of thought? Or of intention?

Intentions do not arise of their own accord, they always have prior causes. Thoughts do not arise of their own accord, they have prior causes. The prior causes can be many different sources for both intention and thought. It may be a visual perception, a bodily sensation, the hearing of speech, etc, use your imagination.

Are thoughts physical or non physical? They are conscious expressions of the conceptual processing of those prior causes, existing as patterns of associations of concepts. Concepts are related to the categories of things and relationships perceived, which can be expressed with related verbal labels, relating certain meanings to those verbal labels. Concepts and perception are tightly bound. The concepts describe the possible landscape of perception, as well as wholly non perceptual abstract concepts, built using perceptual analogies, but having no one to one relationship with a single percept.

So thoughts are the verbal or internal verbiage expression of concepts and their relationships, heard internally within conscious experience. They arise due to the need of an organism to produce complex behaviours, tailored to specific situations, going beyond basic procedural memory. They allow the brain to reprogram itself in essence. They also allow learning to be explicit, a thought can also relate to memory, such that we know what we know, that is, they allow metaknowledge. But, thoughts are a translation of implicitly known conceptual relationships. Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves.

Interesting and detailed explanation.

When you say “ Thoughts take the implicit, and make it explicitly known to ourselves”, who exactly are you referring to?
What is it that knows these thoughts? Are they generated/thought by a controlling entity who, after producing them, perceives/knows them? How exactly does this process work (based on your own direct experience of thinking)?