[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 195 KB, 2048x3072, sicherheitsglaeser.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3456536 No.3456536 [Reply] [Original]

What is thought?

>> No.3456551

Who knows, but I think this thread should be about atheists vs. religion

>> No.3456547

I think OP is a fag.

>> No.3456553

electrical activity in the brain

>> No.3456570

>>3456553

thats a condition for it, not 1 to 1 isomorphic with it.

>> No.3456580

>>3456570
And on what knowledge can you possibly claim that?

The alternative to the idea that thought is the manifestation of electrical signals in the brain is either duality or chemical signals, which are a method of conveying electrical signals across synapses.

>> No.3456585

Baby don't hurt me

>> No.3456596

>>3456580
difference in quality of the phenomena, and the point of view from which they are observed.

electrical signals are 3rd person, thoughts are only open to 1st person point of view, and are qualitatively different, right there that shows they exist on different levels

software vs hardware, difference. sort of, yet far more profound.

>> No.3456600

Preprogrammed response to a specific stimuli, a fragment of "personality"

>> No.3456605

Anti-matter that creates white holes.

>> No.3456613

>>3456585
Don't hurt me
No more.
Tututu tu tutututu

>> No.3456625

>>3456596
It hurts my brain :s
>difference in quality of the phenomena,
Explain.

> and the point of view from which they are observed.
That's not an argument. No matter what the conscience arises from, it must be something physical, so no matter what it is it must be observable.
>electrical signals are 3rd person, thoughts are only open to 1st person point of view, and are qualitatively different, right there that shows they exist on different levels
I can think about myself doing things, in the third person, quite easily. Also, explain how this shows they're on different levels, and how those levels are in any way important.

>software vs hardware, difference. sort of, yet far more profound.
If you knew anything about computers, you would know that software is run on electrical signals between large numbers of connected nodes, while memory is either stored in the form of electron buckets or physically.

>> No.3456631

>>3456551
Atheism vs Religium .:
False vs Truth .:
Thought is the internal representation of features detected on the input neural signals coming from the sensorial neurons and the recurrent neural pathways.
These features are trained to maximize the body's homeostasis and reward center activities and probably some other neural networks' activities that regulate both body and avoid excess risk or future harm.

>> No.3456649

>>3456625

what so hard to understand differences in level of phenomena in physical terms?

Different properties emerge at different levels of reduction. Quantum phenomena don't appear for macro objects. Do they?

The wetness (surface tension) of water doesn't exist at the subatomic level, it's a molecular property that requires bonds and shit.

Genes don't exist at the atomic level either, they require DNA bonds...etc...

Thoughts require physical phenomena, I'm not a dualist, but they are obviously not electrical phenomena per se...just like genes require atoms but are much more COMPLEX and a higher order object than mere atoms. Etc.

>> No.3456653

According to identity theory,
metal events are all physical phenomena within the brain and central nervous system.
Notice that Identity theory doesn't claim that a thought is only correlated with or involves a neural process of some sort.. The claim is rather that thinking IS a neural process.
Identity theory holds that mind-states are brain-states.

>> No.3456686

>>3456631
Thoughts have all kinds of evolutionary uses besides homeostasis and defending from harm. Simply, I would say thoughts are neural processing activity primarily developed for genetic survival: finding food, shelter, predicting useful cycles (circadian rhythm, reproductive cycles of mates for example.), predicting the moves of predators etc.

>> No.3456687

>>3456653

ya thats a stupid theory

>> No.3456701

>>3456649
>what so hard to understand differences in level of phenomena in physical terms?
If you'd be so kind as to indicate where these levels exist outside of my head and why I'd be expected to know of them?
>Quantum phenomena don't appear for macro objects. Do they?
Yes. Decoherence stops us from being able to see significantly big stuff, but the phenomena are present and the lack at higher scales is explained. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18669-first-quantum-effects-seen-in-visible-object.html
>The wetness (surface tension) of water doesn't exist at the subatomic level, it's a molecular property that requires bonds and shit.
Obviously, bonds in molecules larger than atoms aren't visible on a sub-atomic level. Also, this isn't at a different "level" this is "bigger" or on a "larger scale".
>Genes don't exist at the atomic level either, they require DNA bonds...etc...
Lego buildings don't exist at the brick layer either, they require red 2*8 blocks, etc
Point: Just because something is on a smaller scale than an object, the object doesn't cease to exist. No idea where you're getting that idea from.
>Thoughts require physical phenomena, I'm not a dualist, but they are obviously not electrical phenomena per se...just like genes require atoms but are much more COMPLEX and a higher order object than mere atoms. Etc.
Explain to me how a computer can render a 4D image of fluid pouring into a jug, and I will explain to you how the brain can create consciousness with electrical signals. If you can't do this, please learn how it's possible before continuing.

>> No.3456705

>>3456631
Learn how it works, then you will know what it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyzOUbkUf3M
Its the neural networks feature detection on the sensorial neurons and recurrent networks (memory and intrinsic body reward/punishment).

>> No.3456707

>>3456687
Well what do you believe?

>> No.3456716

>>3456705
I get the impression you don't speak english as a first language

>> No.3456760

>>3456707

I don't know what to think, I just know it's not so simple. Otherwise my thought of a unicorn would be 1 to 1 mapped on my brain and you could see a unicorn on my brain as I think of it. This obviously never happens.

At the very least there's some sort of extrapolation or interpolation process that makes thought-information totally different than brain-chemical information.

>> No.3456767

>>3456701
>Genes don't exist at the atomic level either, they require DNA bonds...etc...
Lego buildings don't exist at the brick layer either, they require red 2*8 blocks, etc

I laughed with joy as logic defeats ignorance!

>> No.3456770

>>3456701

I don't know what you are still confused about.

Thoughts are higher order functions, they depend on electricity, and atoms and neurons, etc...

But they aren't "just" those parts. They require a specific STRUCTURE, among other things we have no clue about.

>> No.3456777

>>3456767

a lego building doesn't exist at the single lego level...it requires a complex structure of lego parts. among other things to keep it together.

reductionism can miss the forest for the trees very easily if you aren't careful

>> No.3456784

>>3456760
If you saved a picture of a unicorn onto a computer, its data in binary code would not be in the shape of a unicorn.

>> No.3456788

>>3456760
THAT ALSO HURTS
How is your computer displaying the image on your screen right now, does it have a tiny copy of it inside? No. It store the information in memory, and processes it with small electrical switches connected to others.
>>3456767
I would trade my real life house/family for one made of those blocks. Fuck modern lego where the set is two pieces you push together.
>>3456770
>They require a specific STRUCTURE, among other things we have no clue about
We know that structure consists of neurons. We know they exchange signals between each other. We know the signals are transferred chemically. We know how many connections these neurons normally have. We know the brain has seperate areas with different densities and proportions of cells that we can literally map onto different functions, such as visual memory, emotion, and logic. All of this is structure, all of it is structure we're aware of.

>> No.3456877

dead thread?

>> No.3457144

>>3456788
>can literally map onto different functions, such as visual memory, emotion, and logic. All of this is structure, all of it is structure we're aware of.

it's not so simple, different brains and CNS' map things differently and change through time.
The brain is like an immune system in this sense, each one is unique and tailored in different ways.

Another problem is that thoughts are emergent phenomena that aren't observable with 3rd person empirical science.

You have to somehow communicate with the patient and take their word for it, kind of like psychology bullshit. So, that's a huge gap that science may never cross...and even with the best maps and explanations of neurons, if you can't link it to "thoughts" themselves then the maps are useless....


Good luck with your faulty reductionism though, I think we are saying similar things, except I'm just more precise and accurate.

>> No.3457183

Definition of THOUGHT

1
a : the action or process of thinking : cogitation
b : serious consideration : regard
c archaic : recollection, remembrance
2
a : reasoning power
b : the power to imagine : conception
3
: something that is thought: as
a : an individual act or product of thinking
b : a developed intention or plan <had no thought of leaving home>
c : something (as an opinion or belief) in the mind <he spoke his thoughts freely>
d : the intellectual product or the organized views and principles of a period, place, group, or individual <contemporary Western thought>

>> No.3457193

thought is a byproduct of consciousness, and consciousness is the universe experiencing itsself.

>> No.3457257

>>3457193
consciousness is false

>> No.3458311

>>3457257
>>3457193
this board is for discussing science and math

>> No.3458324
File: 10 KB, 480x360, what is love.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3458324

>>3456536
baby don't hurt me, no more

>> No.3458328

>>3457257
What does that mean? Can you give a falsifiable prediction from your factual claim?

>> No.3458336

ITT: people stating their subjective opinions on a subjective matter as fact

>> No.3458345

Thought is the product of conciousness, which is the result of a highly sophisticated and complex neural network.

Also, if God exists, then God is highly intelligent. If intelligence is simply the result of a complex neural network, then God is a neural network! If that's the case, where do these neurons exist? In another dimension? If God is truly omniscient, then does he know about the state of each of his neurons at all times? How can he know about each neuron when every possible thought requires the activation of more than one neuron? This is one argument against God you've probably never heard. I think it's interesting, but people will probably simply shun it and say "you don't need a NN to be intelligent!" But how can intelligence exist without a NN? (this isn't a rhetorical question...I'm curious if there's an answer out there).

>> No.3458631

>>3458345
Intelligence does not need a neurol network. FINITE intelligence need a ALGORITH, probably similar in workings and results to a neural network. Not necessarily neurons, but matrixes, numbers, states, operations that work like a neural net.

God is transcendental. He reveals us he does processes similar to FINITE sentient reasoning we can understand. But he reseves himself power to transcend that. Not to mean he can transcend logic or self-contradiction. But he can 'understand' and 'know' things we cannot begin to comprehend even when we reach the tenth and twelveth technological singularity.