Ch. 7: When Does a Thought Begin?
Please use this thread for discussing Ch. 7: When Does a Thought Begin?
-
In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1000 on Sun Jun 30, 2024 12:23 am
Ch. 7: When Does a Thought Begin?
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17034
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 22
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3521 times
- Been thanked: 1313 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
-
-
Masters
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:28 am
- 18
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
I found this chapter to be unsatisfying. Something didn't seem right about it, and I'm trying to figure out what it is.
One problem is that the question "When does a thought begin?" assumes that a thought is a distinct entity with a distinct starting point. Since neither of those premises is obvious, it seems like you must first ask "What is a thought?"
My own mind is full of ideas, premises, worldviews, feelings, sensations, etc., some conscious and some unconscious, many changing over time. There's often an inner monologue, and when talking or writing various self-contained statements will emerge. Still, viewing my mental activity as a sequence of thoughts with definite start times seems like an oversimplification.
As part of daily life, I frequently observe things or gain insights, and I'm often aware of that happening. Since lots happens at a subconscious level, and the brain is an imperfect machine with a skewed model of everything, including itself, it's not clean that the timing my perceptions is particularly meaningful.
In other words, the human brain imposes a structure on the world, chronologically and in other ways, that has only a partial correlation with reality.
One problem is that the question "When does a thought begin?" assumes that a thought is a distinct entity with a distinct starting point. Since neither of those premises is obvious, it seems like you must first ask "What is a thought?"
My own mind is full of ideas, premises, worldviews, feelings, sensations, etc., some conscious and some unconscious, many changing over time. There's often an inner monologue, and when talking or writing various self-contained statements will emerge. Still, viewing my mental activity as a sequence of thoughts with definite start times seems like an oversimplification.
As part of daily life, I frequently observe things or gain insights, and I'm often aware of that happening. Since lots happens at a subconscious level, and the brain is an imperfect machine with a skewed model of everything, including itself, it's not clean that the timing my perceptions is particularly meaningful.
In other words, the human brain imposes a structure on the world, chronologically and in other ways, that has only a partial correlation with reality.
- Grim
-
- Brilliant
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:59 pm
- 15
- Has thanked: 17 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
I seem to recall the image of a senseless brain being incapable of thought because it was unable to analyze inputs.
Was the author suggesting that we are an input driven machine?
I also relate the image of the robotic alien shocked at the idea of thinking meat to this topic, where we are more than the sum of our fleshy parts.
Could the inputs to the flesh be the impetus of idea?
This is like asking which came first the object or the observation.
Was the author suggesting that we are an input driven machine?
I also relate the image of the robotic alien shocked at the idea of thinking meat to this topic, where we are more than the sum of our fleshy parts.
Could the inputs to the flesh be the impetus of idea?
This is like asking which came first the object or the observation.
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
You seemed to get a handle on the issue. He appears to be saying something like the above, using simple examples. I don't know if he's implying that what seems the case with simple perceptions or thoughts is also the case with our more complex ideas; if he is, he hasn't told us yet how this plays out. I'm still wondering if the reductionist approach of the scientist will end up working with certainty in all its forms.JulianTheApostate wrote: In other words, the human brain imposes a structure on the world, chronologically and in other ways, that has only a partial correlation with reality.
DWill