Okay, fair enough. What are you saying? — Garrett Travers

My sense is that you're too entrenched in a position you feel is justified by science to catch a glimpse of my perspective.

My sense is that you're too far removed from my vista to understand me.

The end of the line.

I think it's acceptable to say my experience of a thought justifies my saying there are thoughts. My experience of a thought justifies saying thoughts exist. Further, my experience of pain, joy, discomfort, justifies my saying pain, joy and discomfort exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm

What's cool about this, dude, is that our positions are compatible. We operate on the acceptance of thoughts being real, because they are functional, even if they are not actually what it is that is happening. It's the brain doing all of it. But, the brain is designed to produce abstractions from data (thoughts), for executive function to use in implementing behaviors that ensure homeostasis with greater proficiency. They don't have to be corporeal for us to embody them, you see? There is no argument between us other than the dismisal of the nature of the production of thoughts, not really anyway.

My sense is that you're too entrenched in a position you feel is justified by science to catch a glimpse of my perspective.

My sense is that you're too far removed from my vista to understand me.

The end of the line. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I think I can whole-heartedly agree with this statement.

our positions are compatible — Garrett Travers

That's when I've been aiming at since the start of this exchange. Good.

cherry-picking fallacy — Garrett Travers

Wasn't trying to cherry pick. Trying to make sense of your saying there are thoughts but thoughts are X and also saying there are no thoughts and thoughts do not exist.

Wasn't trying to cherry pick. Trying to make sense of your saying there are thoughts but thoughts are X and also saying there are no thoughts and thoughts do not exist. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It's very simple:

Thought is a word we ascribed to a prticular kind of perception, before understanding what the function and source of that perception was. That being the brain, which does the thinking, as well as the perceiving. That brain also happens to be the production center of behavior. It uses computation of sensory data to inform said behavior. That Computation is what we regard as thought, which can be embodied in behavior. Thus, the two seemingly opposed positions, are actually one and the same. They do not exist, but can be brought forth into existence as embodied behavior by the mind producing the computations that it has itself perceived as thoughts.

That's when I've been aiming at since the start of this exchange. Good. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The price one pays, however, is that a full dismissal of either position renders the understanding incomplete, or reduced. It's a bit like Relativity and Quantum mechanics. The two are incompatible in relation to one another, but not to the fabric of reality that they both contribute to the emergence of. One must incorporate all known points of fact into their corpus of views, even if some of it seems contradictory from the point of individual ignorance. I don't have to understand bosons to know that I can smash them to pieces using macroscopic, materially constructed machines, built on classical and relativistic principles of physics. There's a compatibility to things that is awesome in our universe.

They do not exist — Garrett Travers

I get it. Your position is clear.

But your formulations need refinement.

The phrase "thoughts do not exist" misrepresents your position. The phrase is too strong. It's not accurate. I would recommend rethinking your language here to avoid pointless frustrating miscommunications.

But I get it and I'm happy we found some compatibility.

The phrase "thoughts do not exist" misrepresents your position. The phrase is too strong. It's not accurate. I would recommend rethinking your language here to avoid pointless frustrating miscommunications. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Now, we're talking. See, from my mind, such was clear from language. However, you did not detect such. So, as the one who didn't detect such, what would have been more clear, linguistically? As in, relay to me an accurate account of my position for me, using only the type of language that would have been accessible to you, and I'll try to incorporate the lesson into my approach.

@Enrique Good post!

The price one pays, however, is that a full dismissal of either position renders the understanding incomplete, or reduced. — Garrett Travers

I don't see a reason to dismiss either side of the story.

...what would have been more clear, linguistically? — Garrett Travers

Let me take some time and get back to you.

Let me take some time and get back to you. — ZzzoneiroCosm

At your leisure, friend.

@Enrique, excellent post!

@Enrique Good job! :up:

The fact that two people could exchange information about their minds without also exchanging information about their brains suggests minds aren't brains.

Now, we're talking. See, from my mind, such was clear from language. However, you did not detect such. So, as the one who didn't detect such, what would have been more clear, linguistically? — Garrett Travers

Instead of the phrase "thoughts do not exist" (which I think misrepresents your position) why not try something like: Thoughts exist but only in the form of X.

X will be something like neuronal interactions or however you want to say it. Not my field.