July 21, 2019 at 8:39 pm #303870
I mean not real in the physical sense sure, but they are real in the sense that they certainly have an impact in the way we experience and live our lives. I don’t know what this lady is thinking, believing there is something mystical to the thoughts that we have when it’s likely that some are occurring below our awareness and others are not.July 22, 2019 at 8:48 am #303894
Define “real.”July 22, 2019 at 4:01 pm #303909
I guess real in that it exists. The article means something that is “out there”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the only way to describe real.August 3, 2019 at 12:08 pm #304209
This is called the “mind body problem” or at least its an aspect of it.
Perhaps ‘real’ here means verifiable my multiple observers, this is the definition we use for defining scientific objectivity anyway. But of course there are events and experiences that are totally private, inaccessible to others yet these are tangible to each of us. A dream is real to me but inaccessible to any other human.
So the above definition of ‘real’ will not work for such subjective experiences.
The article fails to define ‘thought’ – to say thoughts exist yet are not real should be seen as an alarm bell, clearly there is something wrong with the writers explanation.August 3, 2019 at 6:00 pm #304222
But when it comes to the way that certain thoughts make us feel or empower us is it really the thought or the value that we attach to it? In a sense could we just say that we make ourselves feel a certain way and attribute it to the thought? Because aren’t thoughts inherently empty of value and such, and if so then how can they empower us or hurt us?August 4, 2019 at 10:12 am #304267
@Xain – I don’t know, we haven’t defined what a “thought” is or what “feel” means. Do we actually “feel” emotionally or do we “think we feel”? I can say from the outset that the brain and mind bear no resemblance to digital computers, have no stored program, no stack etc. So analogies with these devices must be avoided.
I’m not saying you are doing that but someone else might if they jump into the discussion. Once we allow that we then begin to describe the mind in terms of machines and cut ourselves off from the truth.August 4, 2019 at 5:10 pm #304295
I think the mind is pretty mechanical, but I heard that likening it to a computer isn’t true.August 5, 2019 at 9:27 am #304323
When I read the article you cited, it seems to me that the author is not saying that thoughts aren’t “real”; she is merely cautioning us not to get obsessively caught up with them to the point to the point that we ignore the reality around us. We’ve all known people who get caught up with one idea (whether it be global climate change or some conspiracy theory they just heard) and that all they talk about any more. They seem to think that if this idea is so important to them, it MUST be important to us too or we are wearing blinders. She’s just saying that the thoughts in your head don’t change the world around you in their own image. That’s the sense I get out of the article at least.August 5, 2019 at 11:19 am #304335
Yes likening the brain to a computer and the mind to software is extremely misleading and unhelpful but unfortunately this concept has become more or less entrenched in modern society.
Roger Penrose in The Emperor’s New Mind seems to show that the human mind can perform non-algorithmic activities, computers are 100% algorithmic so the brain/mind cannot be a computer – a computer can ONLY execute algorithms so it cannot do what a mind does nor is there any hope of it even simulating a mind.August 5, 2019 at 1:17 pm #304352
SOunds more like the rambling of someone who doesn’t want to admit that humans are more mechanical than he wishes .August 6, 2019 at 10:11 am #304424
SOunds more like the rambling of someone who doesn’t want to admit that humans are more mechanical than he wishes.
If you’re referring to Penrose then you are quite wrong. Penrose’s position is based on sound reasoning, I have no idea why you’d write that.August 6, 2019 at 10:59 am #304432
If you’re referring to Penrose then you are quite wrong. Penrose’s position is based on sound reasoning, I have no idea why you’d write that.
Its actually not. I knew it was fishy as soon as I saw the quantum bit in it. Not to mention that using the incompleteness theorem for your argument dooms him from the start.
So no, not sound, more like just another human who doesn’t want to admit humans are basically machines.August 6, 2019 at 11:09 am #304435
You refer to the “quantum bit” – since Penrose is an established theoretical physicist with a deep understanding of quantum physics, I don’t see it as remarkable or sensational that he refer to it, a subject he’s contributed to deeply for decades.
So no, not sound, more like just another human who doesn’t want to admit humans are basically machines.
But Penrose never says we are not “machines”, clearly your getting carried away here. All he says is that the human mind seems to be capable of non-algorithmic activities and so something alien to us seems to be at work here – he regards this as something deep in physics and discusses at length microtubulues, you’ll find there’s considerable interest in this among many respected scientists.August 9, 2019 at 3:15 pm #304693
Tee Bryan PeneguyParticipant
In what way the author suggesting thoughts are something mystical? I read it exactly opposite.August 9, 2019 at 6:38 pm #304698
I’m sorry but from what I gather from those who read the book is that he is out of his depth on this one, linking topics that aren’t connected in any way to each other. Apparently the quantum argument he makes is weak.
He is smart, I’ll give him that, but he dropped the ball here.
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Xain.
- This reply was modified 1 month ago by Xain.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.