Cogito ergo sum. Thoughts and the act of thinking is (probably) the most powerful proof of my own existence.
If I think, then I exist. Therefore, I need thoughts to be sure about my own existence and circumstances.

Cogito ergo sum. Thoughts and the act of thinking is (probably) the most powerful proof of my own existence.
If I think, then I exist. Therefore, I need thoughts to be sure about my own existence and circumstances. — javi2541997

Now consider where your thoughts come from. What is the source and origin of thoughts?

Empiricism. I was taught when I was a kid the act of reasoning. Then, I elaborate my own thoughts. I'm not going to say they are "inherent"
The experience itself has taught me a basic principle that if I have thoughts then I can prove my existence.

Empiricism. I was taught when I was a kid the act of reasoning. Then, I elaborate my own thoughts. I'm not going to say they are "inherent"
The experience itself has taught me a basic principle that if I have thoughts then I can prove my existence. — javi2541997

Ah, but what entity is responsible for generating the conceptual framework of Empiricism? After all, Empiricism is little more than a cluster of coherent thoughts that are formed into an actionable group of concepts. So, where the hell do thoughts come from? From what computational device do they arise to be formulated into those concepts?

Those concepts come from the act of understanding. We need being taught through a good education what is the meaning of the world which is surrounded to us.
"thoughts" could be a general terms which involves many aspects of our ordinary lives.
For example: you mix with and black to get grease colour. This act came from the pure act of thinking but probably we weren't aware of it. Nevertheless, we were taught in class what is going on with the mix of colours

Are there determinate entities we might call "thoughts". I would say 'no' because thinking is a process. There is certainly thinking. When we say there are determinate entities it is usually because we can look at and examine them. Can we do this with thoughts? I don't think so, thoughts are known only in the thinking of them, or reflexively known only in remembering that we have thought them; which amounts to thinking them again.

I'm with the WTF group. Thoughts are your experience of Neural Activity, there is nothing mysterious about them.

And if a Consciousness proves your own existence, how about this? The Existence of your Consciousness proves the existence of the Objectively Extant, Material Universe that evolved you, for there is no way to create a consciousness through natural process except by evolving them in a Material World.

Created consciousness do not exist, and the notion that Consciousnesses were created by some powerful, non-material Being we've never had any proof of is just silly, and ignores the regression problem of the Creators Creators.....

So, the real Meditation One is I think, and therefore, All You Zombies exist.

And if a Consciousness proves your own existence, how about this? — Michael Sol

It proves your existence because thinking and reasoning are acts which involve human nature. It one of the aspects which differ from all the species in the world. I guess a dog does not realize he does "exist". We the humans are concern about it

Are there determinate entities we might call "thoughts". — Janus

Maybe not determinate entities. But there are thoughts. Thoughts exist.

Those concepts come from the act of understanding. We need being taught through a good education what is the meaning of the world which is surrounded to us.
"thoughts" could be a general terms which involves many aspects of our ordinary lives.
For example: you mix with and black to get grease colour. This act came from the pure act of thinking but probably we weren't aware of it. Nevertheless, we were taught in class what is going on with the mix of colours — javi2541997

Well, I'll stop hitting you with questions. I'm drawing attention to thet fact that, although you're correct, you are correct because you are equipped with computational hardware that in fact produces thought, understandings, datat accrual, and the production of concepts, among many millions of other things. I am of course talking about the brain. And, generally that's correct about colors/ There are numerous pathways that are used to interpret sight, the thalamus, a couple visual cortexes, and the occipital lobe all work togethor to piece things to gather rapidly in accordance with the natural properties of that being processes in sight.

However, given the nature of the original question, can such a question be applied to 'sight?' Is is 'sight' "real" or is it a self-contained, non-corporeal process? What do you think about that kind of question?

https://www.salk.edu/news-release/brain-recognizes-eye-sees/

And, generally that's correct about colors/ There are numerous pathways that are used to interpret sight, the thalamus, a couple visual cortexes, and the occipital lobe all work togethor to piece things to gather rapidly in accordance with the natural properties of that being processes in sight. — Garrett Travers

What is your position on Mary's Room?

Is is 'sight' "real" or is it a self-contained, non-corporeal process? What do you think about that kind of question? — Garrett Travers

I see your point and the article you shared is so interesting. They develop a scientific theory which explains what is going on when our sight receives lights and pixels. Yes I am agree that how our brain works in this context is innate. But, whether you would not believe it or not, empiricism takes part with big importance for the following argument:

What our eyes recieve in the nature is composed by a vocabulary created by the humans to establish an order. Thus, Jonh Locke, call them as "primary emotions" and "secondary emotions". We can say "light" or the pixels themselves are primary while the colours are secondary. The interesting fact comes when we match up the colours. Check this: imaginary color
Specially the following paragraph:

If we match up the color wheel with the electromagic spectrum of light, we have a considerable puzzle, for in the latter there is only one way to get from blue to red, and it passes through all the other colors, but not through purple. Violet may look a bit like purple, but it has nothing to do with red. What is going on? The discipline we need to understand this is not physics or art, but physiology. The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color.

"To say there are no thoughts" (which is a thought) would be as nonsensical as someone saying 'I do not exist'.

If I think, then I exist. — javi2541997

Thinking, therfore thinking exists. :smirk:

What is your position on Mary's Room? — RogueAI

Proposition:

1.Mary knows everything there is to know about brain states and their properties.
2.It is not the case that Mary knows everything there is to know about sensations and their properties.
3.Therefore, sensations and their properties are not the same (≠) as the brain states and their properties.

Premise 1 and 2 of this proposition are contradictory according to modern neuroscience, therefore not true and invalid respectively: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124720311177

Or

1. Mary (before her release) knows everything physical there is to know about other people.
2. Mary (before her release) does not know everything there is to know about other people (because she learns something about them on her release).
3. Therefore, there are truths about other people (and herself) which escape the physicalist story

This proposition relies on the objective fact values that are implicit, i.e. "before her release." You see? This version of the proposition has objective reality as an implicit characteristic of its argument.

So, it needs real revision.

I see your point and the article you shared is so interesting. They develop a scientific theory which explains what is going on when our sight receives lights and pixels. Yes I am agree that how our brain works in this context is innate. — javi2541997

So, Cosm and I have been going back and forth about this for over week, on what appeared to him to be incompatible propositions. Such being: thoughts exist as opposed to thoughts do not exist. It took a bit, but I have explained to him that what we generally use the term "thoughts" to describe, are actually neuronal processes of computation by the brain, and that perception of those computations is also a function of the brain provide by the pre-frontal cortex. That the processes are objective and corporeal, but the perception that is "thoughts" themselves are not. But, it turns out that functionally, the two are the exact same process and can be embodied through behavior, which is why the brain produces them in the first place.

What our eyes recieve in the nature is composed by a vocabulary created by the humans to establish an order. — javi2541997

No, what our eyes recieve is data derived from naturally emergent material forces of nature, which are composed of matter, energy, quanta, time, and space, and language is the conceptual framework that consciousness develops as one of many means to navigate that domain of perceptual data to achieve and/or maximize homeostasis of the individual conscious perceiver(s) within the context of that domain.

Thus, Jonh Locke, call them as "primary emotions" and "secondary emotions". We can say "light" or the pixels themselves are primary while the colours are secondary. — javi2541997

John Locke was thinking well on the subject, but incorrect. "Emotion" is a computational system of interworking systems within the brain used to reinforce behavior. This is done primarily through the pleasure seeking mechanisms, for which there are many, including the ventral tegmental area which is comprised of about 70% dopiminergic neurons that coordinates behavior with the thalamus and the motor cortexes. And which also uses pain as a metric for its determination of what constitutes pleasure, interestingly enough. The more pleasurable, the more "primary" in the Lockean manner. The more displeasurable, the more such an experience is catalogued into the "domain of disinterest" protocols, as it were, and the more such disinterest is reinforced by negative emotions. Disgust being a very, very powerful emotion regarding disinterest and behavior thereby informed.

We can say "light" or the pixels themselves are primary while the colours are secondary. — javi2541997

Yes, there's data accrual which is basic information relay, or Primary, so to speak. Then there is distribution of data to numerous structures of the brain for computational assessment. Those assessments build actionable coherence in regards to said data, which informs more behavior, and thus more experience and the whole process strats again ad infinitum in feedbackloop. Which is why you need to take habitualiztion very seriously.

If we match up the color wheel with the electromagic spectrum of light, we have a considerable puzzle, for in the latter there is only one way to get from blue to red, and it passes through all the other colors, but not through purple. Violet may look a bit like purple, but it has nothing to do with red. What is going on? The discipline we need to understand this is not physics or art, but physiology. The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color.

Very cool idea. Color itself is imaginary. It's a bit like asking if thoughts are real. If color is not something that actually exists, but is instead correspondent to frequency of waves, then what do we make of the perception? Well, you determine of such a distinction made by the brain has actionable utility. Which, of course, color does to the perceiver, it allows us to understand reality with more clarity in the only way the brain has been developed to map those distinctions to perception itself for its own benefit. It's fucking amazing.

that what we generally use the term "thoughts" to describe, are actually neuronal processes of computation by the brain — Garrett Travers

So computation is the basis for thoughts (and presumably consciousness)?

John Locke was thinking well on the subject, but incorrect.

You are correct. Sorry, I was mistaken. Emotion is not the correct word here. What I wanted to argument were qualities. I think what Jonh Locke pretend to explain is that there are two groups of realties: Those with primary qualities (the first perception we have through the eyes) and then secondary qualities (when we match up colours and then we are able to even create imaginary colour as Violet, a pretty different colour from Magenta). Again, I want to quote John Locke:

2dly, Such Qualities, which in truth are nothing in the Objects themselves, but Powers to produce various Sensations in us by their primary Qualities, i.e. by the Bulk, Figure, Texture, and Motion of their insensible parts, as Colours, Sounds, Tasts, etc. These I call secondary Qualities. [An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book II, Chapter VIII]

The las year I had the same debate with @counterpunch in this thread: John Locke's imaginary colours. A psychical or physiological study?. I want to quote a good phrase from counterpunch that was so interesting:

In my view, construing colour as subjective in nature is a product of the "subjectivism industry" that characterises most of philosophy, religion, politics, the humanities, literature, culture. — Counterpunch

Conclusion: Despite the fact there is a physiological study of the stimulus we receive. We the humans also create imaginary and subjective aspects through empiricism.

So computation is the basis for thoughts (and presumably consciousness)? — RogueAI

As far as what is currently understood in modern cognitive neuroscience, and by that I mean every single piece of available data when analyzed together, beyond any question. There is literally not a single piece of evidence that suggests otherwise. And I have an absolute payload of research on hand to demonstrate it.

Therefore, I need thoughts to be sure about my own existence and circumstances. — javi2541997

Nope. Thoughts come into awareness and they drift away. So does all phenomena. The only thing you need to be sure about your existence is awareness.

Is this where you're coming from?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/

:up:

"There are no thoughts." <------ a thought.

Is this where you're coming from?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/ — RogueAI

Awesome question, dude. So, no, CTM is not where I'm coming from as an exclusive point of origin. CTM is an essential element of my philosophy that will, one day, have its own page on standford itself. Where I am coming from is my newly emergent, neuro-ethical, psycho-epistemological philosophy that is informed by much of what you'll find in sources of this kind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroeconomics

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6043598/

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00359/full

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5586212/

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Field_theories_of_consciousness

https://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_p/i_03_p_que/i_03_p_que.html

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-functions/visual-perception

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542184/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10870199/

Awesome!

Of course thoughts exist. They exist as certainly as anything can.Any argument against their existence would have at least one premise less plausible than the reality of thoughts and thus is doomed to fail.

And someo who thinks thoughts don't exist has, of course, demonstrated their own view to be false.

No. Awareness is made about thoughts. These precede to the first one. I think, therefore I exist.
Without thoughts I can get into awareness

You are correct. Sorry, I was mistaken. Emotion is not the correct word here. What I wanted to argument were qualities. I think what Jonh Locke pretend to explain is that there are two groups of realties: Those with primary qualities (the first perception we have through the eyes) and then secondary qualities (when we match up colours and then we are able to even create imaginary colour as Violet, a pretty different colour from Magenta). Again, I want to quote John Locke: — javi2541997

Yes, of course. Keep in mind I don't fault him on this, it's just we've only recently started really understanding the nature of cognition. But, yeah, from a low-resolution apprehension of the mind, it works well.

In my view, construing colour as subjective in nature is a product of the "subjectivism industry" that characterises most of philosophy, religion, politics, the humanities, literature, culture. — Counterpunch

Yes, subjectivity, which is actionable data accrual and production, is dependent on objective computational hardware (the brain), meaning subjectivity as a stand alone concept is quite literally bullshit. I have a play on words I made a while back:

Nothing is subjective.

Meaning, nothing in existence is subjective, but is instead objective. And the only thing that is subjective is the concept of nothing itself. What do you think?

Despite the fact there is a physiological study of the stimulus we receive. We the humans also create imaginary and subjective aspects through empiricism. — javi2541997

Yep, no question. Meaning subjectivity is dependent on objective facts.

I would say that Mary has complete knowledge of seeing red iff she has seen red. Learning the physical facts of seeing red alone is not sufficient. This seems irrefutable to me. It's the old saw that a blind person can read up on seeing as much as they want, but they'll still have no idea what seeing actually is until they experience it.

I am somewhat stumped by the physicalist move of the ability argument- Mary doesn't learn new information, she gains a new ability: what seeing red is. I tend to believe that after she sees red, she does have new propositional knowledge: seeing red [the broad experience] is like seeing red [Mary's experience], but this seems too tautological to be considered some new fact about that world. It also might not be true, since Mary doesn't know what seeing red [in the broad sense] is like. None of us do. We only have access to our own particular experiences.

Yes, I do agree that thoughts exist as processes of thinking.

Or a sentence?