3 ms·

You cannot point to a neurotransmitter or neuron or synapse and say "that's a thought." Thoughts are not material. You might say they are not real. Even if you

You cannot point to a neurotransmitter or neuron or synapse and say "that's a thought." Thoughts are not material. You might say they are not real. Even if you can point to a group of neurons and processes in the brain and associate it with a particular thought, the thought itself is not real. The neurons and their behaviors are.

xpe 3y ago
First, saying "x is not real" is a proven way to make a mess of a conversation. I suggest we all would be better off avoiding that phrasing, unless we're willing to really dig in and carefully clarify our definitions. > You cannot point to a neurotransmitter or neuron or synapse and say "that's a thought." Are you claiming it is (a) categorically impossible or (b) practically impossible? Why not? > Thoughts are not material. To be clear, when modern philosophers talk about 'materialism' that tends to include all of the abstractions of physics: matter, energy, waves, etc. > You might say [thoughts] are not real. I wouldn't say that. Here is what I would say; there are at least three key different aspects of thoughts: 1. the perceptual level; i.e. the _experience_ of having a thought 2. the conceptual level; i.e. a _concept_ that people use 3. the physical level; the physical things that are happening; may be a set of things; not necessarily contiguous > Even if you can point to a group of neurons and processes in the brain and associate it with a particular thought, the thought itself is not real. My top-most paragraph explains that "X is not real" statements tend to have a lot of downsides. Am I missing something? Does this add something to the discussion?
- anon84873628 3y ago
  FWIW, when I said "thoughts" in the original comment, I really meant qualia / inner monologue / phenomenological experience, i.e. what you call #1 the perceptual level. Qualia are not part of materialism... which IMO makes them the most interesting thing in the universe, since they are categorically unlike everything else and yet so fundamental to our being.
pixl97 3y ago
I mean, yea, maybe in your world you don't want to point at an electromagnetic wave that is a wifi signal... but it is. Signals are just as real as the components that create them.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  Qualia are not a signal. You can't transmit and receive them, you can't physically detect them, there is no way to objectively describe them. When you and I both look at 450nm light there is no hope of ever knowing what the other perceives. You can say "the color of the sky on a clear day" but that is just a reference to yet more subjective experience.

xpe 3y ago

First, saying "x is not real" is a proven way to make a mess of a conversation. I suggest we all would be better off avoiding that phrasing, unless we're willing to really dig in and carefully clarify our definitions. > You cannot point to a neurotransmitter or neuron or synapse and say "that's a thought." Are you claiming it is (a) categorically impossible or (b) practically impossible? Why not? > Thoughts are not material. To be clear, when modern philosophers talk about 'materialism' that tends to include all of the abstractions of physics: matter, energy, waves, etc. > You might say [thoughts] are not real. I wouldn't say that. Here is what I would say; there are at least three key different aspects of thoughts: 1. the perceptual level; i.e. the _experience_ of having a thought 2. the conceptual level; i.e. a _concept_ that people use 3. the physical level; the physical things that are happening; may be a set of things; not necessarily contiguous > Even if you can point to a group of neurons and processes in the brain and associate it with a particular thought, the thought itself is not real. My top-most paragraph explains that "X is not real" statements tend to have a lot of downsides. Am I missing something? Does this add something to the discussion?

anon84873628 3y ago
FWIW, when I said "thoughts" in the original comment, I really meant qualia / inner monologue / phenomenological experience, i.e. what you call #1 the perceptual level. Qualia are not part of materialism... which IMO makes them the most interesting thing in the universe, since they are categorically unlike everything else and yet so fundamental to our being.

pixl97 3y ago

I mean, yea, maybe in your world you don't want to point at an electromagnetic wave that is a wifi signal... but it is. Signals are just as real as the components that create them.

anon84873628 3y ago
Qualia are not a signal. You can't transmit and receive them, you can't physically detect them, there is no way to objectively describe them. When you and I both look at 450nm light there is no hope of ever knowing what the other perceives. You can say "the color of the sky on a clear day" but that is just a reference to yet more subjective experience.