Thanks for your response.

Two points I think should be included. — NOS4A2

A lot more should be included! :grin:

We cannot separate the doer from the deed. ... Both the thinking being and that which is thought is the human organism — NOS4A2

I agree. I have read Nietzsche (extensively) quite a long time ago, so it is useless to consult my memory about him and his philosopy! But I remember well Krishnamurti's teaching: "The observer is the observed". Which I think is related to your "doer" and the "deed". But the "human organism" and the involvement of the brain in all this spoils things for me! :smile:

If you think like that then you mean to say that the information accessible to us is insufficient to conclude the presence of consciousness. So, here I am, talking to my friend and his conduct is identical in important respects to mine - he talks, acts just like me - and I, from that, make the following analogical inference:

1. I talk, act, initiate, respond in certain ways and I'm conscious.
2. My friend also does talk, act, initiate, respond in the same way as I do.
Ergo,
3. My friend is conscious. — TheMadFool

I don't think we're justified in making that inference. Two things are going on. One, we assume that we're all biological beings that are pretty much built the same way, so that if I have a body and I'm conscious, and you have a similar body, then you should also be conscious. But I'm not justified in assuming that matter even exists, let alone that you or I are made of it. The belief in the existence of some external non-conscious stuff is just that: a belief. It's equally likely, for all I can tell, that this is all a dream and your (and my) body is just part of a dream. If that's the case, then I should no more assume other people are conscious than I should assume people in my dreams are conscious.

The assumption that materialism is the case is also contradicted by the Hard Problem of Consciousness. At this point in time, we should have some scientific theory, if only a very primitive one, about how consciousness arises from non-conscious stuff, but of course, the theories are all over the place, from panpsychism to mysterianism to computationalism to outright denial of consciousness itself. This, I think, is evidence that materialism (and substance dualism) is not the case. That means that everyone I meet are probably dream figures who may or may not be conscious.

The other reason we assume other people are conscious is we don't want solipsism to be true.

Now, if I'm to doubt my argument from analogy above, there must be a relevant dissimilarity between my friend and me. If none can be found, the argument is cogent and I, perforce, must accept that my friend, like me, is too conscious.

Coming to AI, we seem reluctant to follow the same logic i.e. the following intriguing scenario is the case for AI:

4. I talk, act, initiate, respond in certain ways and I'm conscious.
5. An AI does act, initiate, respond in the same way as I do.
BUT...
6. I hesitate to conclude the AI is conscious.

We're trying to eat the cake and have it too. If you have doubts about the AI being conscious, this uncertainty automatically extends to your friend too and, conversely, if you believe your friend's conscious, the AI must also be conscious!

That doesn't necessarily follow. If I believe consciousness is only produced by organic brains, I could be sure my friend (who I believe has an organic brain) is conscious, yet doubt whether any machines are conscious.

Something about the evidence for consciousness is problematic. Either we believe it can be mimicked perfectly in which case there's no difference between your friend and a p-zombie and nonphysicalism is true or it can't be and AI that pass the Turing test are truly conscious.

The thing that's problematic about it is everything is filtered through our own minds, so it's impossible to verify whether any other minds exist. Solipsism will always be a viable option.

That's a good point. When I mediate and still my mind, I don't become unconscious so thinking and consciousness are not the same thing.

Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense. Common sense tells us to think of matter in terms of solid, indestructible stuff. But this kind of matter is not the matter that exists in the world. In fact, "solid" stuff, is by far, much more rare than non-solid matter.

Our common sense misleads us. We know so little about thoughts and brain, from a scientific perspective, because the topic is incredibly complicated. Just look at physics, the most successful of the sciences. It deals with the simplest things in existence: particles, "waves" in space and other small level phenomena.

A good deal of physics is trying to figure out how a few particles colliding could create certain strange effects. But if you consider a brain, you are speaking of billions of particles and a more complicated science, like biology.

And when you speak of persons, you enter sociology and here there are too many interactions between complex creatures to have much by way of insightful data. That's why I think we know so little about thoughts.

Conceptual clarification is the task of philosophy.

Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense. Common sense tells us to think of matter in terms of solid, indestructible stuff. But this kind of matter is not the matter that exists in the world. In fact, "solid" stuff, is by far, much more rare than non-solid matter. — Manuel

That's so true indeed. Imo we examine matter in a very human-ish way. We almost always consider matter as something solid as you mentioned.But solid is only what we see. Our human eyes can see matter as solid.

You say that solid matters are rare. I say there isn't anything solid at all in all over universe. Everything is like huge "molecule-energy soup".
So could that be an indication that our brain's "matter" also is much more than what we can perceive?

A good deal of physics is trying to figure out how a few particles colliding could create certain strange effects. But if you consider a brain, you are speaking of billions of particles and a more complicated science, like biology — Manuel

So at the end is brain the only thing which gets involved in thinking? As NOS4A2 mentioned, at the end can brain "think" without heart, lungs etc?? For me seems kind of strange to separate mind (thinking etc) from all of the rest of the body.

Your approach is really different and interesting.

"Brainists" totally outnumber "Non-brainists". — Alkis Piskas

To identify yourself as a Brainist or Non-brainist you should have already run through the question of what is thought and answered the question. So I assume most have done this.
The question is close to the question of monism or dualism so most of us have an opinion on that.
I like to expand monism/physicalism to include mental content. I went over this idea in Pops thread 'What is information?'. Basically you take brain state and do an expansion...equal states but increasing detail such as:

Brain state = BRAIN(mental content) = BRAIN(specific mental content)

So I assume brain state includes thinking. By working backwards, knowing your birthday is evidence of a specific brain state.
To frame this problem we have known end points...a physical brain and observed mental content. The circumstances point to brains having the ability to contain mental content. A more difficult question is how the brain actually contains mental content, what is the physical process and is the thing contained physical or physically non-existent. From the Brainist view point it's not hopeless. There are puzzle pieces. Thoughts are associated with the cerebral cortex, memory with temperal lobes, there is centralization in the thalamas, a nested heirarchy in a brains overall structure and there is some ability to observe and correlate brain activity with imaging (MRI's).
If the point of this post is to point out there are huge gaps in what is known, I agree.
There seems to be a relation of the physical brain to physically non-existent subject matter that is a significant problem in philosophy.

So could that be an indication that our brain's "matter" also is much more than what we can perceive? — dimosthenis9

It depends on what you mean by "perceive", if by this word you mean our normal human perceptions without that aid of technology, then it's by now an established empirical fact.

If you include technology to perception, I think there are good reasons to suspect that there is more to the universe than what we can reveal about the world. We are human beings, not all-knowing creatures like God or something like that. So there must be a limit in what our senses and intellect tells us about the world.

So at the end is brain the only thing which gets involved in thinking? As NOS4A2 mentioned, at the end can brain "think" without heart, lungs etc?? For me seems kind of strange to separate mind (thinking etc) from all of the rest of the body. — dimosthenis9

It's hard to say. Obviously brains don't think in the sense that if you remove it out of the body, you'd still have these thoughts to examine. Which is why I say that it's people that think, not brains. So I'd agree with you.

It is difficult, it's almost impossible to get behind our ordinary intuitions which have been built-in to our mode of thinking for who knows how long.

Your approach is really different and interesting. — dimosthenis9

Thank you.

The mind thinks. It's takes the reference points created during our evolution and triangulates ideas. I think philosophy is this process being carried out on the stage with many different reference points. A three point structure that can build on it's own dialog or self coherence can create intelligence. At least enough to dominate the game of GO.

If you include technology to perception, I think there are good reasons to suspect that there is more to the universe than what we can reveal about the world. We are human beings, not all-knowing creatures like God or something like that. So there must be a limit in what our senses and intellect tells us about the world. — Manuel

Yeah I mean with technology's aid also.Even our technology is limited cause it is our "creation". But we humans are incredibly curious creatures. So who knows one day.

It is difficult, it's almost impossible to get behind our ordinary intuitions which have been built-in to our mode of thinking for who knows how long. — Manuel

Extremely difficult. But not impossible imo.

We've got science which isn't common sense, so we'd made progress.

How far we'll go, who knows?

I created this topic to see whether philosophical thinkers, like (most) TPFers, are "stuck" and obsessed (as you say) with the brain as almost everyone else in our culture. Indeed, Science --with all that it carries with and is implied by it: materialism, physicalism, monism, etc.-- is too strong, much stronger than "God". Well, I suspected the result, but I hoped it wouldn't be true. — Alkis Piskas

Don’t hold your breath.

The thing is, physics doesn't make any metaphysical claims about what matter ultimately is. "Particle" could refer to some mind-independent stuff or some dream stuff. Physics is equally compatible with materialism and idealism.

I agree. Physics is indeterminate in regards to metaphysics.

But I think the same can be said about the metaphysical status of the brain and even of mind too. All these things can be looked at without any metaphysical commitment.

I agree with your claim about metaphysical status, but I think mind and consciousness are in a different epistemological category than anything else. I think we know for certain that at least one conscious mind exists. We don't have that kind of certainty about the existence of anything else.

Epistemically, I can't disagree. Metaphysically, however, I think we still have all options available. One can't speak of mind realistically if we take away body.

So yes, in terms of knowledge mind is our only avenue to access the world, but mind itself can be interpreted many ways.

How do you figure that? (Airplanes don't make bird's wings unnecessary.) Examples of 'minds' without brains (CNS) please — 180 Proof

All I mean to say is thinking doesn't imply the existence of a brain. In the case of animals this is false of course - all animals that (look like they) are thinking have brains. Just because no one has seen an alien doesn't mean aliens don't exist. Just because the only kinda coffee you've drunk is hot coffee (you live in a cold place) doesn't mean there's no such thing as cold coffee (served in hot regions).

We cannot separate the doer from the deed — NOS4A2

Why not?

They are one and the same.

They are one and the same. — NOS4A2

So the deed of shooting a footbal is me?

They are one and the same. — NOS4A2

So doer and deed are synonyms?

One can't speak of mind realistically if we take away body. — Manuel

You can speak of it. But... The brain cant exist without a body to be in. The body cant exist without a physical world to live in. The three are interdependent.

True. Thinking doesn't "imply" a brain; however, based on all evidence to date, it presupposes one (re: embodied cognition). A brain, I might add, can be either neurological or, in principle, synthetic.

A brain, I might add, can be either neurological or, in principle, synthetic. — 180 Proof

In principle, a brain CANNOT be synthetic.

Thinking doesn't "imply" a brain; — 180 Proof

In fact, it DOES imply a brain. A brain, on the other hand, doesnt imply thinking, as becomes clear reading comments and discourses.

True. Thinking doesn't "imply" a brain; however, based on all evidence to date, it presupposes one (re: embodied cognition). A brain, I might add, can be either neurological or, in principle, synthetic. — 180 Proof

Dialysis :point: Artificial Kidneys. How long till we have Artificial brains? :chin:

Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense — Manuel

Can you please also bring in my quote that you are referring to? Thanks.
(Except of course if your commnet is not actually addressed to me.)

We may have them now. How would we know? They'd be too smart to pass a Turing Test and "out" themselves. Watch the movie Ex Machina and take note of the ending. If the Singularity can happen, maybe it's already happened (c1990) and the Dark Web is AIs' "Fortress of Solitude", until ... :victory: :nerd:

We may have them now. How would we know? They'd be too smart to pass a Turing Test and "out" themselves. Watch the movie Ex Machina and take note of the ending. If the Singularity can happen, maybe it's already happened (c1990) and the Dark Web is AIs' "Fortress of Solitude", until ... :victory: :nerd: — 180 Proof

In a sense, we are the singularity: inanimate matter -> animate matter -> animate, thinking matter (us) -> ???

I have ended my topic with the question: "What is thinking, how thought is created and where does it take place?".
The description of the topic was already quite loaded so I have not added my own answer to the question, which I do here:

Thinking is done by and in the mind. The mind is not the brain. The mind is a communication and control system between the spirit (soul) and its environment. In order to achieve this, it uses the brain. One way in which this is done is by thinking. Thought has no mass or energy --so it is not part of the physical universe-- but it can produce mass and energy. This mass and energy is transmitted as signals and/or waves to the brain. The brain then process them and according to their kind, it sends itself signals and/or waves through neurons to the remaining body or as feedback, back to the mind.

This is how the system mind-brain-body works in general. It is of course much more complicated than it sounds!

I give a simple example below. Before that, I have to clarify one thing: When I say "you" I mean YOU as a person (spirit, soul), yourself, YOU as an awareness unit, who can be aware of being aware. You can think of it simply as a point of view (not "viewpoint"), a point from which you can be aware, observe, communicate, etc.

You are looking around in a park and you put your attention on a tree. You observe that tree. In order to do that, you need to use your eyes. You do that via your brain (communication system). Automatically, an image is formed in your mind. This image is also automatically compared to other similar images of trees. If you have seen this kind of tree in the past and/or you have some knowledge about that tree, you will recognize it as something familiar. If you have never seen that tree, it will be added to your "group" of known trees. This is one way of how knowledge is created. The process that the mind used for comparison, etc. is thinking. It may be very simple, i.e. it may end just there and you continue your walk in the park. But it may develop to a more complicated process. Examples:

You might not be sure if you have seen or know that tree. You might start thinking "This tree reminds me of something", "Where have I seen this tree before? Think! Think!", etc. And then you start a whole process of trying to identify that tree ... And, if the tree were something more important, e.g. a person, it could even become on obsession and you get stuck with thinking about it, trying to remember where have you seen that person atc. We know that well!

Now, if the tree is very familiar to you, you might remember that you have fell from such a tree when you were young, and start feeling some fear or other unpleasant emotion, pictures coming to your mind, and so on. On the other hand, that tree might remind you of a romantic place, a time you were in love, etc. which will create pleasant emotions.

This what one of the things a thought (thinking) can do. It can create energy in the form of emotions (waves) that you can feel in your body. The more "negative" these emotions are, the more dense is the energy felt in the body. It can be so dense so as to create a mass: intense anxiety produces adrenaline.

On the contrary, the more "positive" emotions are, the more fine the energy is. When you are happy, you feel very "light", even as if you are "flying". Yet, this is still an energy.

These energies are created my thought, which is created in and by the mind, which is part of the spirit, not the brain.

***

This is how I view and can explain what thinking is, how it us created and works and where it takes place. But if you want a more "standard" view, I will refer you to Descartes' and dualism. I use him as a reference because he is well known in here. (I could use philosophers and philosophic systems that are much nearer to my views, but they belong to the Eastern philosophy, which does not belong in here, as I can see from my 2+ months experience with TPF.)

Note: I am not a follower of Descartes or cartesianism. This is only a second view, in which mind is separated from the body-brain. These are not my views, which I have already described.

I include below just a few of quotations regarding Descartes, which I find representative of the subject of "thought".

*********************************************************************************************************************

"Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Meditations on First Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum, (I think, therefore I am)."
(https://grants.hhp.uh.edu/clayne/HistoryofMC/HistoryMC/DescartesI.htm)

"Descartes defines thought (cogitatio) as what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes)

"And so something that I thought I was seeing with my eyes is grasped solely by the faculty of judgment which is in my mind."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes)

"Descartes tries to give a definition of thought in his Principles: By thought he means to refer to anything marked by awareness or consciousness. This does not just include reasoning or other such intellectual activities but also imagining, sensing, willing, believing, doubting, hoping, dreading, and all other mental operations."
(https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/principles/section3/)