|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 12:45:46 [Permalink]
|
Big Papa Smurf.......
| I prefer to think of matter as condensated energy. Thought is more like a property of a particular matter configuration, like conductivity of a wire. |
Is your concept of Thought as a property of a matter configuration similar to Dave's exposition of G. H. Lewes, John Stuart Mill, C. D. Broad and many other's theory of emergent properties?
Dave
Thought = an emergent property of the (matter) Brain |
BPS
Thought = an property of a particular matter (Brain) configuration |
However, wiki cautions:This raises the possibility that the emergentist position is more a matter of epistemology than metaphysics.
More recently, however, physicist Erwin Schrodinger in his highly acclaimed work "What is Life?" pointed out that chemical isomers, which are composed of precisely the same individual atoms, though differently arranged, sometimes have similar properties and sometimes have completely different properties. This would seem to suggest that the emergentist position which Schrödinger argues is more a matter of metaphysics than epistemology. |
Any thoughts? Flip a coin, maybe? |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/30/2010 : 14:00:11 [Permalink]
|
Going back to this post by bngbuck. There is a significant difference in the definition of "force field" between chemistry and physics.
These two wikipedia articles are well written and up to date.
force field (chemistry)
force field (physics)
Given that biological systems are dynamic, and that the thinking of thoughts requires energy, I think I'm safe in saying that the idea of thought as "potential energy" can be set aside. It contradicts what we actually know about biology.
Thoughts are probably your brain actively processing information.
(edit to correct link, because I apparently suck at copy/paste) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/30/2010 21:57:54 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 18:23:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Good detective work on the force fields. Chemistry was quite specific, but the link to Force Field Physics only brings up| Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. |
Is there another link or way to the Physics Force Field Wiki article? I tried google direct in addition to your link, but could not get an article - same as the link.
Any suggestions?
Inconclusive, but interesting. Remember, my quote was:| I might want to suggest the possibility that Thought (and possibly Emotion, various mental states, etc.) could be considered as analogous to Potential Energy defined by classical Physics as: |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 19:01:13 [Permalink]
|
Don't know why the physics force field article link is non functional. Try this, if it fails just put force field into the wiki search field, several options will pop up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_%28physics%29
bng said:
Inconclusive, but interesting. Remember, my quote was:
| I might want to suggest the possibility that Thought (and possibly Emotion, various mental states, etc.) could be considered as analogous to Potential Energy defined by classical Physics as: |
|
A much more plausible idea is that thought is your brain actively processing data. We know that thinking is an active, energy intense process. Calling it "potential energy" is obviously wrong.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/30/2010 19:40:25 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2010 : 21:58:31 [Permalink]
|
Seems to have been a copy/paste failure. 
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 06:41:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Going back to this post by bngbuck. There is a significant difference in the definition of "force field" between chemistry and physics.
These two wikipedia articles are well written and up to date.
force field (chemistry)
force field (physics)
Given that biological systems are dynamic, and that the thinking of thoughts requires energy, I think I'm safe in saying that the idea of thought as "potential energy" can be set aside. It contradicts what we actually know about biology.
Thoughts are probably your brain actively processing information.
(edit to correct link, because I apparently suck at copy/paste)
|
Speaking of force fields (and please pardon the OT), check this out.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 13:39:58 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
As happens all too often, there is some miscommunication here. Your link to Chemistry Force Field.....| The usage of the term "force field" in chemistry and computational biology differs from the standard usage in physics. In chemistry usage a force field is defined as a potential function, while the term is used in physics to denote the negative gradient of a scalar potential. |
....clearly delineates a differentiation between the meaning of the phrase "force field" in chemistry as opposed to its meaning in physics. I presume that you thought my intent was to define "thought" as some type of emergence from a chemical 'field' in a biological setting (the human brain) - thereby associating "thought" with purely physical processes involving forms of mechanical energy.
This was not my intention. When I said | I might want to suggest the possibility that Thought (and possibly Emotion, various mental states, etc.) could be considered as analogous to Potential Energy defined by classical Physics as:... |
my emphasis was on the word analogous.
I was attempting to hypothesize a similar, but in no way identical, situation to that of of classical mechanics definition of Potential Energy - wherein the energy condition arises from the positioning of particles (matter) relative to one another. This concept is very similar, if not identical to, certain descriptions of energy phenomena as emergent properties of patterns of neurons - exactly as Dave suggested that Thought might be an emergentism of the brain.
But to me, simply merely labeling Thought as an "emergent property" adds little to understanding thought as an energy or matter form; nor does my theorizing as to possible similarities to particle movement or arrangement in a force field. However, either or both might well be a beginning to a path to a higher degree of qualification and specification as to what "Thought" really might be in scientific terminology and particle physics terminology.
I am trying to progress to a point where Thought could be clearly defined as a form of matter or energy, with understandable comparable parameters - such as transformation from one form or expression to another. As from potential energy (a state of mechanical energy) to "Emergent Energy" (a neologism I just coined to describe what such a thing might be called. No woo intended here, this is pure speculation)
Your statement was: | A much more plausible idea is that thought is your brain actively processing data. |
Granted, but that is a description of a activity, not an explanation of an entity. I am trying to integrate the idea of "brain" with the idea of "thought" and attempt to gain some insight into what is the nature of the "thing" called thought.
I understand that you see an identity between "process" and "thought". In your view, the process itself is the thought. I am speculating (yes, we all are doing that) that thought may be more objectifiable as another form of energy state - not just a process or activity no further defined, but a higher understanding of the product of that process as objectified as a thing -Thought.
"Process", to me, although possibly an "emergent property" (few things seem to be not), is a differently qualified entity than "energy" is. Inherent in the description of "process" is a time measurement, implicit motion of some sort, even if only molecular motion, and a change from a previous condition to a subsequent condition. I have difficulty in conceiving a Thought in all of these perspectives. However, in an clumsy example below, I have attempted to illustrate what model I am attempting to create to further an understanding of Thought as it relates to Perception (this is part of a long term literary effort)
I not only want to know it when I see it, I want to more fully know what I am seeing! And be able to describe it.
The essence here may well be epistemological only, or possibly metaphysical (as the article I quoted above suggests), or it may be ultimately shown to be as understandable and subject to manipulation (thought control?) as are the phenomena of the electromagnetic spectrum. | Calling it "potential energy" is obviously wrong. |
It may be wrong, but it is far from obvious to me.| We know that thinking is an active, energy intense process |
which might be analogous to the active, energy intense transformation process when high lake water[neurons] falls through a penstock pipe[nerve network in brain] and activates the blades of a turbine[neural synapse], producing electrical energy[thought] - the classical definition of potential energy (mass in a gravitational field) transformation into mechanical energy (spinning the turbine blades)transformation into electrical energy (movement of a coil of wire through a magnetic field).
Pure speculation. And analogy only. But a possible direction towards superior understanding of the question "What is Thought?" that does not involve angels pondering, head on harp, on the head of a pin.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 14:02:02 [Permalink]
|
Maybe you should head down to your nearest university and get going on a neuroscience degree. You are trying to entangle to different concepts I think. The activity in your brain and the concept of a "thought". One is a biological process, the other is a language construct.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 14:31:53 [Permalink]
|
Dude....
I guess one of the problems is that I see all language constructs as created by biological activity in the brain and not possible without such activity. Language is not matter, it can be labels for matter. Thought is more than a label. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 15:43:39 [Permalink]
|
There is a hypothesis that our consciousness and ability to think thoughts arises from increasingly complex layers of computation within the brain. There isn't much evidence to support it, but the science is still young. It is extremely difficult to study a living human brain and leave it intact. We are still at the level of trying to understand how certain large molecules, like neurotransmitters, effect consciousness and thinking, and determining what parts of the brain process specific inputs. To borrow an analogy from a friend of mine, we are still trying to make sure we know what parts make up the car before we try to disassemble and reproduce the car.
The idea is that data is received via the senses, transmitted to specific parts of the brain that process that sense, and after some undetermined amount of processing delivered to the prefrontal cortex for more processing yet. Each computational layer working with more and more complex input, or the result of processing in previous or different computational layers/areas. The eventual result is consciousness and thought. So the cognitive psychologists tell me.
I agree with you that language is the result of biological activity, and that thought is "more than a label", but then so is language. Language is how we transmit our thoughts from one person to another, isn't it? So thoughts are just information that has been processed by your brain. Probably.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 19:11:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Is it your opinion that animals, particularly the primates, are capable of thought? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 20:05:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dude.....
Is it your opinion that animals, particularly the primates, are capable of thought?
|
I don't know. Maybe. I would say that thought, as we are using the word here, relies on self awareness. It is questionable, especially in light of the Harvard neuroscience scandal, that primates actually have that quality.
Some of the higher primates probably do have that self awareness, chimps and great apes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 20:08:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Is it your opinion that animals, particularly the primates, are capable of thought? |
Until we figure out what "thought" is, that question is unanswerable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2010 : 23:12:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by bngbuck
Is it your opinion that animals, particularly the primates, are capable of thought? |
Until we figure out what "thought" is, that question is unanswerable.
|
For the purposes of this conversation I have been using it to mean- "thinking about a piece of information and relating it to other pieces of information and all the associated consequences of that process."
Bill is trying to (I think) quantize a thought and seperate it from the act somehow as a distinct entity. I'm not sure such a thing is possible.
In order to have a thought you have to think about something, right?
Now let me throw some mud on my own position here... there are some scary dudes who think they can use fMRI to determing the truth of something you say, and they may be able to do it. fMRI scans are starting to be tested as evidence in our courts (I'm pretty sure none have been admitted as evidence yet though). Maybe it is just a matter of scan resolution before we are able to have our minds literally read by an fMRI machine.
Then there is the use of EEG as a comunication tool. I have a EEG reader that lets me control a videogame on my computer right now. Apply saline to the contacts, put on silly hat, and I can move my virtual self around and perform a set of actions just by thinking them. There is a DARPA project that is aimed at EEG technology to provide spec-ops soldiers with a silent 100word vocabulary. You think the word and EEG contacts on your scalp detect and project that word to your radio net, the guy 20 feet away from you hears it in his earpiece. Still fiction, but the tech seems within reach now. If you can get words from an EEG pattern, maybe it is just a matter of the precision and sensitivity of your detector before you get images and more.
Neither of those really seperate a thought from the actual act of thinking though, so...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Atheist/Agnostic
