/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9188475]

What is a thought in physical terms?

Sure, we can describe the process of reproduction, digestion, and other bodily functions with chemistry and physics.
But how would you describe a thought or a memory?
Is it really just synapses and hormones being released in our brains or is there some other component?
If not, then would I be able to duplicate every single emotion, thought, memory, and personality trait of someone by mimicking the exact placement and structure of every molecule in their nervous system?

[Anonymous No.9188480]

>>9188475
someone please tell me why electromagnetic is the incorrect answer
>pls

[Anonymous No.9188493]

>>9188480
depends on whether or not you're a materialist.

I personally think materialism is unphysical, presumptuous bullshit, so while I think 'memory' or the structure thereof is physically based, the experience or awareness of it is not.

[Anonymous No.9188522]

>>9188493

This. We know the information processing underlying thoughts is based on the activity of neurons and how they adapt over short and long periods of time to each other's firing. However, we have no knowledge of what subjective experience 'is'. It could be another aspect of the material universe, it could be something immaterial. It could be that subjective experience (qualia) is necessary for computing things effectively, or it could be a by-product of the way the brain operates (an epiphenomenon).

[Anonymous No.9188527]

I'm pretty sure that we are nothing else but thoughts and emotions combined anyway.

[Anonymous No.9188530]

>>9188522
Subjective experience is all there is. That's why we can't answer the hard problem. Because it's nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.9188603]

>>9188530
>>9188522

These.

I personally don't care for the idea of it as a by-product or 'emergent' phenomenon, though. For any emergent properties, they can at least be predicted in theory from the fundamental components - water has no properties that can't be computed from the properties of hydrogen and oxygen or their subatomic components; no matter how complicated it is, it all boils down to objects moving with respect to one another (or wave functions, depending on how you want to get into it), interacting through the four fundamental forces.

For awareness/consciousness/'subjective-quality" to be an emergent phenomena, there has to be some way for subjective experience to be a product of the fundamental forces. But that honestly seems nonsensical and there's no logical connection between things moving with respect to one another and subjective experience, aside from "we experience awareness and we know that people stop acting normally when their brains get blown off'. We know that taking drugs can change the contents of consciousness, we know we can shut down memory storage, but that's all just working with the physical components of mind, and it says nothing of awareness or consciousness or the nature of mind-stuff.

it makes much more logical sense to make the assumption that 'its just what it is' - mind-stuff or awareness is just a property of the universe. We have the particular subjective experience we do when matter forms the pattern of a brain, or some other complex system. The universe as a shared whole would have its own kind of dispersed awareness, though it would have no mind or thoughts to speak of.

[Tengrist No.9188612]

Physics is what we make a description of.
Metaphysics is what we usually refer to as physics, its description.

Any kind of thing is the sum of all its contributors which is everything.

>What is a thought in physical terms?
So, it's just that, what it is.

>Sure, we can describe the process of reproduction, digestion, and other bodily functions with chemistry and physics.
That's our description and we can describe infinitely.

[Anonymous No.9188705]

>>9188475
AFAIU: chemical signals

[Anonymous No.9188708]

>>9188705
BTW, read about cybernetics and related stuff
I've only read a few books (if that), but I love
>tree of knowledge
by maturana and varela

[Anonymous No.9188727]

>>9188603

Yeah it seems that either the criteria for producing consciousness is related to informational content, such that the degree of complexity somehow relates to the level of consciousness... however I don't see how if everything is governed by the same wave equation that one part of the universe can be fundamentally more 'complex' than another ... in the same way that adding two super huge numbers isn't more 'complex' for your computer than adding 2 + 2. However its definitely a possibility. Also it would strongly hint towards some level of panpsychism.

Then there's the possibility that consciousness emerges from very specific reactions. E.g. the neurons representing the colour red fire slightly differently from those encoding other sensory information. That somehow effects the matter/space/dimensions around the neuron in such a way as to create/influence what ever dimension consciousness lies in. We know this process, if it exists, must be pretty immediate in relation to the firing of the neuron, as we don't experience some 'blur' effect when we close our eyes. In the future this will be falsifiable, as we could genetically manipulate certain neurons to fire in different ways and see what effect it has on consciousness. Interestingly this would imply a strong panpsychism as well, as when ever a similar electrical reaction would occur outside the brain, it would presumably also create such a subjective sensory experience. So it could be that everything in the universe is conscious, but never is persistently aware of that due to the lack of a memory system or reasoning skills.