Spinning Wheels

[Chesterton]

I think the planet Jupiter is larger than the planet Earth = true thought

I think a giant purple monkey is holding up the moon in the sky = false thought

 

[Jester4kicks]

I think the planet Jupiter is larger than the planet Earth = true thought

I think a giant purple monkey is holding up the moon in the sky = false thought

Ok, I think I see where we're getting mixed up.

You seem to think that the content of the thought somehow changes the nature of the physical action behind it.

Consider this: Two mountains. One is composed of mostly granite, the other is composed of mostly clay. Does their composition mean that either is not a mountain?

 

[Chesterton]

No, I don't think the content of the thought can change the physical action behind it, so of course both of your mountains are mountains.

Like you said, thought is (partly at least) electrical impulses, that is, the arrangement and movement of atoms, just as a mountain is an arrangement and movement of atoms. However the content of a thought can be true or false, but a mountain, regardless of its composition, cannot be true or false. A mountain just is.

 

[Jester4kicks]

No, I don't think the content of the thought can change the physical action behind it, so of course both of your mountains are mountains.

Like you said, thought is (partly at least) electrical impulses, that is, the arrangement and movement of atoms, just as a mountain is an arrangement and movement of atoms. However the content of a thought can be true or false, but a mountain, regardless of its composition, cannot be true or false. A mountain just is.

Ok, so we've established that the content of something does not change what it fundamentally is. (Feel free to correct me if we have not come to that agreement)

With that in mind, does a thought's status as "true" or "false" designate if it is actually a "thought"?

 

[Chesterton]

If I understand the question, no, the truth or falsity does not designate if it is a thought. A true thought and a false thought are both thoughts. Right?

 

[Jester4kicks]

If I understand the question, no, the truth or falsity does not designate if it is a thought. A true thought and a false thought are both thoughts. Right?

I agree. A thought could be about something real, or something imaginary. It could be true, or it could be false. No matter what it's about though, it's still a thought.

Now, I think you already agreed that a thought is the product of electrical impulses in the brain as it accesses the memory, analyzes information based on the individual's current understanding of the subject (also stored in the brain), and then drives an output (could be speach, movement, or even feelings).

So... if any thought, regardless of content, is still a "thought"... and if thought is the product of electrical impulses and (as you put it) the arrangement and movement of atoms, would you now agree that thought is a physical (biological) process?

 

[Chesterton]

So... if any thought, regardless of content, is still a "thought"... and if thought is the product of electrical impulses and (as you put it) the arrangement and movement of atoms, would you now agree that thought is a physical (biological) process?

My first post said this: "Thought is not physical. The mechanism by which thought is produced is physical." So yes I agree that the thinking process is accomplished by physical/biological means, but I stand by my first statement that the result, or content, is not physical, because it has the unique characteristic (the ability to be true or false) which other physical things or events do not have.

 

[Melethiel]

Seriously? It's basic human biology. Ok, allow me: True, muscles contract when you lift something.




Nope, can't prove it. Just like you can't prove that the giant purple monkey doesn't live on the far side of the moon.

It doesn't mean that either of us are actually right though...



1) Your idea that there was a witness
2) Your "quote" from that witness

Actually, it's neither true nor false. Some muscles contract, some muscles expand.

Our understanding of the brain is growing... practically by the day.

Yes, and more and more questions are being raised. I have read some articles in neurological journals which suggest that the "mind" may not reside entirely in the brain.

Out of curiosity, what is your science background?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Actually, it's neither true nor false. Some muscles contract, some muscles expand.

Sorry, guess I was defaulting to the most generalized question I could come up with. Since I didn't really specify which muscles though, the statement is still true.

Yes, and more and more questions are being raised. I have read some articles in neurological journals which suggest that the "mind" may not reside entirely in the brain.

Out of curiosity, what is your science background?

And that's the coolest part! Every time we make some progress, we unlock a whole bunch of NEW questions! Sometimes, we set out to answer one question, end up finding out our conclusions of something else were wrong... and end up with even more questions than we started with!

I love it!

As for my background... I'm pretty much a general geek. I've studied a little bit of everything. I was one of those kids that grew up with an encyclopedia, and if I ever didn't understand something, I ran to look it up! The only subject I've really stuggled with was chemistry, but I've gradually been developing my knowledge there too.

My first post said this: "Thought is not physical. The mechanism by which thought is produced is physical." So yes I agree that the thinking process is accomplished by physical/biological means, but I stand by my first statement that the result, or content, is not physical, because it has the unique characteristic (the ability to be true or false) which other physical things or events do not have.

Ok, I see where you're going with that. Let me ask you this though, what is the result of thought?

 

[Melethiel]

Ah...I have a minor in Chemistry. Fascinating subject, but nowhere near so black and white as you seem to be portraying science to be. And, it is not entirely true that chemistry is "about matter". Most of our work is in fact related to energy.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Ah...I have a minor in Chemistry. Fascinating subject, but nowhere near so black and white as you seem to be portraying science to be. And, it is not entirely true that chemistry is "about matter". Most of our work is in fact related to energy.

I could make the argument that the two are interconnected... although I don't want people to confuse it with physics.

When I think about chemistry, I generally think of the basic elements and how they interact with each other. It's a general assessment, I know, but I think it's pretty fair.

Edit: Oh, and could you elaborate on why you think it is not as "black and white" as I have been describing science, in general, to be?

 

[Melethiel]

Well, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Chemistry. Most of my focus was in organic and biochem, so it's easier for me to talk in those paradigms. Are you familiar with the concepts of intermediate states, transition states, or molecular energy levels (as well as the concept of antibonding)? (And of course, there's always quantum...definitely the antithesis of straightforward or black and white)

To put it most simply, in our classes, a great deal of work was done around probabilities. The kind of black/white problems done in introductory general chemistry (ie., how much of Z do you get when you mix X and Y) almost disappear by the time you get to advanced inorganic.

 

[Chesterton]

Ok, I see where you're going with that. Let me ask you this though, what is the result of thought?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. If you're asking about physical/biological results in the brain during or because of thought, I don't know, I'm sure you know better than I do. Can you be more specific, or ask that another way?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Well, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Chemistry. Most of my focus was in organic and biochem, so it's easier for me to talk in those paradigms. Are you familiar with the concepts of intermediate states, transition states, or molecular energy levels (as well as the concept of antibonding)? (And of course, there's always quantum...definitely the antithesis of straightforward or black and white)

To put it most simply, in our classes, a great deal of work was done around probabilities. The kind of black/white problems done in introductory general chemistry (ie., how much of Z do you get when you mix X and Y) almost disappear by the time you get to advanced inorganic.

Ugh... I have never been able to really get into organic chemistry. I used to work with a guy that was majoring in it, and in our down time, he would sit at the desk and doodle bonds and structures. He almost seemed to enjoy it! LOL Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Quantum theory is definitely a big interest of mine... but, as I said in a different thread, I think too much focus on quantum theory can distract a person from the reality around them. In the other thread, I referenced Schrödinger's cat, and his assertion about quantum theory leading to impossible ideas about the natural world. I'm not saying the study of quantum theory is fruitless... but I think people (in ALL fields) need to keep their feet planted on the ground.

On the issue of black and white... I'm somewhat interested in your thoughts here. One of the things I remember about chemistry was balancing "equations" (not sure if that relates to the transitional-states point you mentioned)... I can certainly appreciate the complexity, but from a fundamental perspective, do you really think the issue is not black and white?

I'll put own thoughts out there just to give you an idea of what I mean.

One of the cornerstones of science is predictability. If I know all of the factors going into a given reaction, I should be able to accurately predict the result. If the result is different than the prediction, then either my understanding of the factors was flawed, or my process for testing the prediction was flawed.

Granted, there are a number of complex variables involved... but from a very fundamental level, I believe it is still very black and white.

 

[Melethiel]

Ugh... I have never been able to really get into organic chemistry. I used to work with a guy that was majoring in it, and in our down time, he would sit at the desk and doodle bonds and structures. He almost seemed to enjoy it! LOL Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Quantum theory is definitely a big interest of mine... but, as I said in a different thread, I think too much focus on quantum theory can distract a person from the reality around them. In the other thread, I referenced Schrödinger's cat, and his assertion about quantum theory leading to impossible ideas about the natural world. I'm not saying the study of quantum theory is fruitless... but I think people (in ALL fields) need to keep their feet planted on the ground.

On the issue of black and white... I'm somewhat interested in your thoughts here. One of the things I remember about chemistry was balancing "equations" (not sure if that relates to the transitional-states point you mentioned)... I can certainly appreciate the complexity, but from a fundamental perspective, do you really think the issue is not black and white?

I'll put own thoughts out there just to give you an idea of what I mean.

One of the cornerstones of science is predictability. If I know all of the factors going into a given reaction, I should be able to accurately predict the result. If the result is different than the prediction, then either my understanding of the factors was flawed, or my process for testing the prediction was flawed.

Granted, there are a number of complex variables involved... but from a very fundamental level, I believe it is still very black and white.

We never know all the different factors going into a reaction. If you ever spend any amount of time in a chem lab, you'll find that your result NEVER matches your prediction 100%. (If you're good, and control your environment a great deal, you can get close though.) (In organic synthesis, an outcome of 85% was considered very good.) Even in Analytical, which requires great precision, lab reports always required a section on possible areas where something may have caused the discrepancy.

As for balancing equations...that's the ideal, if reality obeyed our ideas for it. It hardly ever does. Even the numbers used in formulating those equations are estimates. Yes, it is very predictable. But it is never entirely accurate. The theoretical base can explain a lot of things (with sufficient calculation, we can even predict complex mixtures), but reality is much more difficult to manipulate than theory.

And no, at the fundamental level, I don't think it's black and white at all. Remember, the fundamental level is quantum...which is almost entirely probabilities. (We spent the first month of Inorganic discussing quantum structure. You can call it distracting if you want, but it is very much integral to modern chemistry.)

And yes, doodling organic mechanisms is very relaxing.

And, going back to the concept of thought...many neurologists will not agree with you that thought resides entirely in the brain, nor is there very much idea how exactly the electrical impulses in the neurons relate to the images (or sounds) we see in our mind. There is no possible way that I can comprehend a purely physical universe. There is so much that science simply cannot explain.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Sorry to keep breaking your posts up... but you REALLY make some cool points, and I have this compulsion for addressing them directly.

We never know all the different factors going into a reaction. If you ever spend any amount of time in a chem lab, you'll find that your result NEVER matches your prediction 100%. (If you're good, and control your environment a great deal, you can get close though.) (In organic synthesis, an outcome of 85% was considered very good.) Even in Analytical, which requires great precision, lab reports always required a section on possible areas where something may have caused the discrepancy.

But isn't that the beauty of the science? We actually expect errors! You would never write a lab report, let alone a theory, that didn't address the areas where things could have been distorted or affected by other sources. It's the imperfection that actually makes it perfect!

Maybe I'm just a total geek... but I've always been of the opinion that being able to say that you don't know all the answers was the very quality that gives science the ability to continue developing. Heck, I'll freely admit that I don't have all the answers (obviously you know WAY more about Chemistry than I do)... but it's the recognition of that and the human ability to learn that absolutely fascinates me.

As for balancing equations...that's the ideal, if reality obeyed our ideas for it. It hardly ever does. Even the numbers used in formulating those equations are estimates. Yes, it is very predictable. But it is never entirely accurate. The theoretical base can explain a lot of things (with sufficient calculation, we can even predict complex mixtures), but reality is much more difficult to manipulate than theory.

And no, at the fundamental level, I don't think it's black and white at all. Remember, the fundamental level is quantum...which is almost entirely probabilities. (We spent the first month of Inorganic discussing quantum structure. You can call it distracting if you want, but it is very much integral to modern chemistry.)

I was using the term "fundamental" as an expression of simplicity, not a literal expression of matter's composition as an arrangement of protons, electrons, and neutrons. I believe you just went uber-geek-lvl-9 on me.

I guess I have a generally difficult time thinking about things "in the gray area". Even in terms of quantum theory, I still think in terms of black and white. We either know the position of an atomic particle, or we know its velocity. Schroedinger's cat is either dead, or alive. Even when talking about probabilities... we can look at all the factors and calculate the probability of something occuring... either our calculation is right, or it's not. If it's not, we need to examine the data and recalculate.

Ever read an Ayn Rand? Maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from.

And yes, doodling organic mechanisms is very relaxing.

Geek. I'm not one to talk though... I still get a kick out of a really tough sudoku.

And, going back to the concept of thought...many neurologists will not agree with you that thought resides entirely in the brain, nor is there very much idea how exactly the electrical impulses in the neurons relate to the images (or sounds) we see in our mind. There is no possible way that I can comprehend a purely physical universe. There is so much that science simply cannot explain.

You'll get no argument from me that the brain is the most complex super-computer mainkind has ever explored... but that doesn't mean we'll never be able to explain it, only that we can't explain it yet.

30 Years ago, nobody thought we would be able to produce 3-D images of internal organs... and while 3-D images of unborn babies are kinda creepy, 3-D imaging of the heart is absolutely amazing!

My point is that we currently have a general idea about how thought and memory work, and our understading will only continue to grow. I've seen people make the statement that exploring these aspects of life somehow takes the "magic" out of it... but the more I look at it, the more amazing I think it all is.

 

[Senachwine]

Yup

 

[Mallon]

Mallon: I don't know who the other Creators were, or if there were others. I only know there was a structure- which is proof of a Creator(s), as it was obviously not of naturally-occurring construction.

What structure are you referring to? Are those objects without such a structure not created?

 

[Jester4kicks]

To all: am I to understand, by the discussion in this thread, that what I have to say about the Creation will be determined as true or false by the matter of intelligent thought, and if said can be explained in physical terms/equation, or something else? If so, then I welcome such a game as that. However, let it not be confined to such as that. Yes, so enter the Soul. To those who doubt a Creator(s): checkmate.

Umm... if you honestly think you were a witness to the creation... you have more to worry about than a couple folks on the net that follow science.

 

[Senachwine]

Yup