Defining Physicalness: Inviting Physicalists to Weigh In

[Loren Booda]

No, really, I have found physics frustrating because of its distance from what I have found to be more real, the social sciences. As you said, there are realities other than those based on physics. Sorry for that curt response, I just feel that defining "physical" can be like beating a philosophical dead horse. The beauty I find in physics is not arguing over definitions, but finding true simplicity in its discovery. (You may wish to Google Bas C. van Fraassen for his definition of "reality" being limited to something like those things sensed unaided by measuring instruments).

 

[nameless]

I can truly understand your frustration. I find the social sciences a great 'ride'. I find nothing as interesting and entertaining as 'other people'. Even psychology, today, is being 'reformulated' by the findings of QM. Man's whole understanding of reality is going to have to change. It is the emotional aspects and the psychological aspects that make the 'change' difficult. Remember when people believed the Earth to be the center of the universe? The catholic church just recently re-communicated (!) Gallileo! Takes a long time. Read the science magazines in about 15 - 20 years! Thanx for the referrence, I'll check him out. Peace...

OK, I checked him out. Just another intelligent person arguing for the sole existence of his own limited material experience. He even rejects metaphysical demands for explanation and definition. I guess that makes it easier for him to support his limited perspective. Nothing new, and since he isn't here to defend his assertions, I'll let it go here. *__-

 

[Royce]

...Consciousness, as the basic 'Ground of All Being' ...

On this, at least you and I agree. As much as I liked the concept of Les' esse there is no need for it as Consciousness is all that is and all that is, is of that consciousness. I refer to that Consciousness as God. As a christian, I would, wouldn't I?

Where we do disagree seems mainly to be terminology. I disagree that we and the universe are dreams of a(the) sleeping mind. I believe that we, the universe, are conscious intentional mental constructs of The Consciousness within and of itself. That then being the case (or maybe better, my belief), we and the universe are therefore real and not dream stuff nor holograms.

 

[nameless]

On this, at least you and I agree. As much as I liked the concept of Les' esse there is no need for it as Consciousness is all that is and all that is, is of that consciousness.

I suggested to Les that Consciousness might just well fit the role of his 'esse' and eliminate almost all of his problems with the hypothesis. His 'experience' of consciousness is different than mine and hence his 'limited' understanding and placing that 'truncated' consciousness in a subordinate role.

I don't know if Consciousness is the 'Ultimate Reality', but that is what I have found, so far, at the 'bottom of the rabbit hole'. But, I thought that I was at the 'bottom' before also, but I found that I really wasn't, too many times, so... ?!

I refer to that Consciousness as God. As a christian, I would, wouldn't I?

It seems reasonable to me. The word 'God', though, seems so loaded with 'baggage' by all the users of that word that I would try to find another with more 'meaning'..
Howard?
'Our father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name'?
*__-

Where we do disagree seems mainly to be terminology. I disagree that we and the universe are dreams of a(the) sleeping mind.

I didnt say the the Mind was sleeping. Just 'dreaming'.

I believe that we, the universe, are conscious intentional mental constructs of The Consciousness within and of itself.

Yup, sounds like the definition of 'Dreams' to me! *__-

That then being the case (or maybe better, my belief), we and the universe are therefore real and not dream stuff nor holograms.

Perhaps this is why there are so many of us? So that all possible 'perspectives' can be 'manned'?
Like the seven blind men and the elephant. You've heard that parable, right?

 

[Les Sleeth]

If you knew Suzie like I know Suzie, you would no longer reason thusly. Why do you think that QM with all their vibro-strings and branes and Higgs fields, ad nauseum, finally states that Consciousness is the Ground of All Being? To what does QM refer when it speaks of Consciousness? Or the Sages through the millennia? It all comes together 'here'...
Within Consciousness there is 'ego/mind' that dreams our 'selves' and our 'universe'. Consciousness provides the 'raw material' of infinite POTENTIAL from which all 'else' (dreams of self and world) springeth.

You are lucky Tom or Zapper or Warren hasn't seen your association of QM with consciousness. QM doesn't speak of consciousness, it speaks of mechanics.

You, and I am going to include Royce in this criticism, haven't explained how consciousness can be the ground state for eternity, yet is still learning. Don't you see a problem with an eternally existing consciousness that still has anything to learn? Yet, here you and I are, dumb as posts.

Eternity would have no beginning, and that creates a major paradox. God consciousness would have had an infinite amount of time to develop, so he/she/it must already have developed all that can be developed. How can there still be something to learn? We humans are consciousness, and rather stupid as you must admit. It is quite obvious that learning is still going on, so to me it means consciousness, including God consciousness, must have had a beginning.

If we reject something-from-nothing, then if God exists it must have had a beginning, and that means there must be something more basic than God.

My opinion is, those who reject a limited God are afraid to allow God any sort of weakness. So they insist God is a ALL powerful, ALL knowing, always existing, etc. Me, I don't care a lick whether God isn't "all" anything, I am just grateful to exist, and if God had a hand in that, then I love my creator with all my heart, all powerful/knowing or not.

 

[nameless]

You are lucky Tom or Zapper or Warren hasn't seen your association of QM with consciousness. QM doesn't speak of consciousness, it speaks of mechanics.

Yes, I consider myself lucky when people with a 'bit' of knowledge, who stand the loudest in arguement, don't try to 'sharpen their egos on me. If you are sure enough of your understanding of QM to make a little wager here? It does speak of consciousness, many times, many places, and from the highest gurus in the field. I'd even be happy to0 include 'T', 'Z', or 'W' in the wager. One would think that staying on the cutting edge of 'Q' for almost 35years that I might have some idea of what's going on... Y'all might like to do some Googling before taking me up on that wager. Perhaps it is the 'mechanics' part of QM that bothers you, do you think that Quantum Physics is all that separate from Quantum Mechanics? Are you trying to trick me somehow? Well, the point is that 'Q' DOES speak of consciousness. I've done my homework...

You, and I am going to include Royce in this criticism, haven't explained how consciousness can be the ground state for eternity, yet is still learning. Don't you see a problem with an eternally existing consciousness that still has anything to learn? Yet, here you and I are, dumb as posts.

Mind/ego is the only thing that is prideful/arrogant enough to think that it is learning anything..
Consciousness/Awareness 'learns' nothing. Does nothing. Is no-'thing'. Learning and knowing, learners and knowers, are temporal, are linear. 'Consciousness' is not. Therefore not being 'tempo-linear', you would be safe to posit 'eternality' as a sort of 'quality' of Consciousness (except that the 'Eternal' has no 'qualities' to speak of), though, I really think that positing this 'quality' is quite unnecessary and provocative of unnecessary problems.

Eternity would have no beginning, and that creates a major paradox.

See? That is the problem with this 'alien to the human mind' concept that cannot be conceptualized, of 'Eternity'! I think the whole 'Eternal' stuff came from those busily inventing Gods with abilities and qualities far beyond Their Makers'! Only things IN TIME can have beginnings or ends. 'Eternity' is not a 'subset' within Time.

If we reject something-from-nothing, then if God exists it must have had a beginning, and that means there must be something more basic than God.

We can avoid the confusion by positing that all apparent 'something' is no more than a 'dream' of consciousness. So there really IS nothing coming from Nothing. You certainly aren't worrying where the 'material world' of your 'night dream' is coming from. You know (right?) that it is of 'dream/mindstuff', and awaken into this 'Dream', yet you are not yet lucid within this dream. So you wonder .. "where does all this 'stuff' come from? Etc..."

My opinion is, those who reject a limited God are afraid to allow God any sort of weakness. So they insist God is a ALL powerful, ALL knowing, always existing, etc. Me, I don't care a lick whether God isn't "all" anything, I am just grateful to exist, and if God had a hand in that, then I love my creator with all my heart, all powerful/knowing or not.

My opinion is that... I like your opinion. Sounds good.
I posit that it is your true 'Self' that you 'love' and to whom you are 'grateful'.
We externalize only to internalize and integrate once again.
Throw the terrifying confuzing 'puzzle' into the air and, as the pieces slowly float back to earth, we can examine the pieces, heal any 'problems' and re-configure the puzzle into a wondrous, integrated, powerful Life.
Wherever you stand, Les, is Holy Ground, as far as I am concerned!
Peace

 

[Royce]

I don't know if Consciousness is the 'Ultimate Reality', but that is what I have found, so far, at the 'bottom of the rabbit hole'. But, I thought that I was at the 'bottom' before also, but I found that I really wasn't, too many times, so... ?!

It is my present understanding, and it has been for some time, that He/She/It is the ultimate reality.

It seems reasonable to me. The word 'God', though, seems so loaded with 'baggage' by all the users of that word that I would try to find another with more 'meaning'..
Howard?
'Our father who art in heaven, Howard be thy name'?
*__-

I shed most of all that baggage years ago; but, your right, the term is still loaded, I was speaking of my own personal terminology. However, some years ago I had a boss named Howard and while he and others thought he could walk on water, I personally witnessed his ankles getting wet. I opt for The One (Consciousness).

I didn't say the the Mind was sleeping. Just 'dreaming'.

Where you mentioned sleeping mind, I wasn't clear if you where referring to our sleeping mind or The Sleeping Mind.

Perhaps this is why there are so many of us? So that all possible 'perspectives' can be 'manned'?
Like the seven blind men and the elephant. You've heard that parable, right?

Yeah, I've heard it. I agree that manning all the perspectives to experience those different perspectives is one possible reason. However, it is not the only reason. I do not know yet why but there is a reason and purpose for our being.

 

[nameless]

It is my present understanding, and it has been for some time, that He/She/It is the ultimate reality.

From whence comes this 'understanding', definition?
Every time that I thought that I had 'found' an 'ultimate', there was always a time that I was shown vain in my assumptions. To call something 'ultimate' discounts that which may be learned in the 'future'. It was ultimate truth, once, that the Earth was the center of the universe! Perhaps 'ultimate' according to our present knowledge?

I shed most of all that baggage years ago;

By 'baggage', I mean personal definitions, concepts, personal 'experience', constructs, qualities, assumptions, etc... that come 'attached' to the word/concept of 'God'.

... is one possible reason. However, it is not the only reason. I do not know yet why but there is a reason and purpose for our being.

If you have no evidence, or 'why', why would you 'insist'? that there IS some (objective?) 'reason/meaning' (other than what we choose to conceive/believe in our own minds) for our 'existence'? Is it an 'emotional need'? It certainly is not 'logical'.

 

[Royce]

Most of my understanding in this subject is derived from what I 'learn' while meditating. It is a work in progress and much of what I understand changes over time and as my understanding become deeper. Just as I used to understand what was meant by the physical world or realm is illusion. I now understand that illusion is not accurate, at least not as accurate as the one consciousness, one reality and one universe position that I now hold.

 

[nameless]

Royce, you gave me a bit of a chuckle. You went from thinking 'illusion' to 'reality' and I went from (never really thinking that what I 'saw' was) 'reality' to understanding all as 'illusion'. If there is a God at the bottom of all this, he must be 'laughing all the way to the bank'! *__-

 

[Royce]

Well when I was young, in my twenties, I was a full blown physicalist, atheist, agnostic and was studying Tao and Zen and attempting to meditate. It took me 10+ years to finally come across a method that worked for me and I finally learned to meditate and also found my God. In time I realized that all of the physical realm was illusion and most if not all that we are taught in our earlier lives is delusion. It has only been this last year that I have gone beyond that or was is back from that and began to 'see' the oneness of it all, especially the one consciousness, one universe and one reality that are all the same One. This one I would have in the past called the ultimate reality; but, that too is an illusion as all is one there is no ultimate anything nor illusion or delusion. If God or the One is real then all is real because the One is all that there is. As my understanding of this grows and deepens the firmer it becomes and the more convicted I become that it is THE TRUTH.
Only time will tell. Another year or two from now I may be convinced that this is all delusion and something else is the ultimate truth or that there is no "ultimate truth."

 

[nameless]

If God or the One is real then all is real because the One is all that there is.

Is this not 'Pantheism'? A reasonable position. Googling 'scientific pantheism' is a very interesting read.

Yeah, everytime that I turn a corner and think, "Eureka! Truth!" the next corner seems to reveal my 'error'. Ain't life grand??
*__-

 

[Leah]

My idea of it all is that Life and Universe may be someday explained by the study of dimensional beings (light formations), and/or Spirits. The One and Only Holy Spirit has been referenced to many times in the Bible. Is the Holy Spirit the God of all denominational religions? I don't know, I think it has to do with Spirit, here, there, everywhere. In the Bible, I think are revelations giving clues; i.e., Satan and God. Two forces, which in the middle lies Man on Earth. Definitely to me at least this means dimension exists. Leah

 

[dubmugga]

physical - anything locked into our 3d plus time universe

 

[Les Sleeth]

physical - anything locked into our 3d plus time universe

Well, isn't time physical? Aren't the three dimensions the directions of extension physicalness takes in space?

It doesn't seem to tell us what physical is if we define it in terms of other physical properties.

 

[dubmugga]

I don't know that time is physical now that you mention it after all it only serves to give physicality a frame of reference with regard to motion...

...but for something to be not physical it would have to exist outside of our 4d perceived universe

is a thought physical ?

 

[Les Sleeth]

. . . is a thought physical ?

Great question. The way I've argued what physical is here, I'd have to answer yes because a thought seems like a type of "mass."

You might start a thread to ask this quesion.

 

[dubmugga]

I don't get what you mean Les by, a thought is a type of 'mass' and hence is physical in nature ?

 

[Loren Booda]

If only we could lose weight by thinking...

 

[nameless]

If that were true, I might begin to believe that thought is not simply waste matter from a functioning brain, of no nutritive value whatsoever! Toxic! Now THAT'S a pipe dream... *__-

 

[Royce]

Great question. The way I've argued what physical is here, I'd have to answer yes because a thought seems like a type of "mass."

If not a type of mass, thought is either an effect of mass/matter and/or can and does effect mass. Therefore by your definition thought is physical. As no one so far has come up with a better definition of physical then I think that we can conclude that thought is indeed physical.

As far as your definition is concerned, I agree with it with one reservation. Mass seems to be at least as much a function of energy as it does matter. How to include this of rationalize it I have no idea.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If only we could lose weight by thinking...

Hmmm . . . wouldn't that be by not thinking?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't get what you mean Les by, a thought is a type of 'mass' and hence is physical in nature ?

Well, I have been suggesting that "physical" is determined by mass and its effects. If you think about it, thoughts result from types of concentration; mass too is a concentration of something we call energy. So it seems to me it is consistant with physicalness (as I defined it) to at least consider it possible that thought is physical.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As far as your definition is concerned, I agree with it with one reservation. Mass seems to be at least as much a function of energy as it does matter. How to include this of rationalize it I have no idea.

The energy issue is interesting because if you have mass, you can observe lots of properties. Think about the variety of properties demonstrated by all the forms of mass and it pretty amazing (e.g., diamonds, water, neon, wood, gold, plasmas . . .). But when it comes to energy, we find far fewer traits to observe. We see movement/change and heat.

Over in my neutral substance monism thread, several have complained that just one "base" substance can't account for all the stuff and principles we see in our universe, yet energy, apparently the most basic aspect of the physical universe is something rather simple, but when energy is in the form of mass, we find it becomes a huge variety of characteristics.

I think the concept of thought as physical is also interesting. We debate if consciousness might have created the universe, but if thought is physical, then it doesn't seem unreasonable that a mega-evolved consciousness could have developed the ability to think physical things into various shapes and forms (like an atom, for example).

 

[Royce]

Over in my neutral substance monism thread, several have complained that just one "base" substance can't account for all the stuff and principles we see in our universe, yet energy, apparently the most basic aspect of the physical universe is something rather simple, but when energy is in the form of mass, we find it becomes a huge variety of characteristics.

I think this is where string theory or M theory comes in so handy. Energy gets curled up, "condensed", in different dimensions and vibrates in different ways and this can account for all the different types of matter. Brian Greene's book "The Elegant Universe" explains this particularly well I thought.
As I understand it M Theory attempts to unite the five versions of string theory by showing that they are the same theory from different views. I don't claim to understand it all but it was a start for me at least.

I think the concept of thought as physical is also interesting. We debate if consciousness might have created the universe, but if thought is physical, then it doesn't seem unreasonable that a mega-evolved consciousness could have developed the ability to think physical things into various shapes and forms (like an atom, for example).

I really think that thinking of thought as physical is stretching the concept to the point of loosing its meaning; however, it is obvious and clearly shown that thought does effect matter and energy so in that way it must be physical. I prefer to think of it as all one phenomena in different forms or states, different aspects or facets of the same stuff. If that stuff's origin is consciousness, which I think that it is, then this would be the way that it is all interactive. That consciousness is necessary for rational, aware thought is a given, I think.

So we have consciousness as the origin of thought then, or and, energy, then mass, then matter. I don't think that that is unreasonable at all, but it is pure speculation even if it does fit what both of us have seen and experienced.

As for your neutral substance monism hypothesis, while it is an interesting idea and may well be possible, I personally don't see it as necessary. Obviously something is eternal. Is it your neutral substance base from which consciousness evolved or is it the consciousness itself that is eternal? I don't know but as a christian I tend to lean toward the consciousness as being eternal. It is hard to throw off and away a lifetime of conditioning and teachings. I admit that I am biased but willing to hear and be convinced of something better and more reasonable.

 

[Lars Laborious]

Here goes. I think the problem is that we intuitivly tend to think of physical stuff as something intrinsically solid and unbreakable. And non-physical stuff as what religions call spiritual - something not solid, something that transcend solid matter.
Now, we don’t know anything but our consciousness since the whole knowing process is happening in our minds, so “physicalness” might only exist as an idea. On the other hand, there might exist something separate from our minds, but that’s another issue. The point is, physicalness is not necessarily something that exists outside our minds. Therefore it is meaningless to treat physicalness as if it were something other than a mathematical idea used in physics. As far as I know, the universe do not possesses any basic hardness. Mass is nothing but resistance to force, and resistance is nothing in itself. In short, all we know of are our feelings, and within that, knowledge of a system of predictable qualia that are referred to as physical facts.

 

[ak416]

I would say physical is anything that takes up space. For example a proton, is physical because it has a probability distribution of being found somewhere in space, and by taking measurements, you can find it somewhere in space. Same goes for any other particle/wavepaket. But things like energy, mass, momentum; they're not physical, they're just properties of physical things. Same with numbers, they;re not physical, theyre just things we made up. Just because we can manipulate them using mathematical laws, it doesn't make them physical. Also, lines and planes, they're not physical, as they do not take up space. There's also the question of how do you know if something takes up space. Well I am pretty sure this chair in front of me is taking up space, because if i try to stick my hand through it, i can't (only one physical things can occupy the same point in space at the same time). Please state me if I'm wrong. So i don't know who said that everything is physical, because according to the way I define it, its not. Anyways, I hope I am not stating the obvious, this is a really long thread I didnt really read everything..

 

[moving finger]

I really think that thinking of thought as physical

Wow….. do you think so?
Sorry about that, I will try to be more serious from now on…..

it is obvious and clearly shown that thought does effect matter and energy so in that way it must be physical.

Thought obviously affects matter and energy? Hmmmm. May I ask, where is the evidence for this obvious fact?
To my mind, “conscious thought” is a particular process of information transfer that takes place within a conscious (human) brain.
Now, it is entirely possible that such conscious thought could be “epiphenomenal” in the sense that there is no causal relationship of the form “conscious thought causes action”.
Can you provide any evidence that “conscious thought causes action”, as opposed to “conscious thought being purely epiphenomenal"?

I prefer to think of it as all one phenomena in different forms or states, different aspects or facets of the same stuff.

That may be the case. It may also be the case that “thought” is a by-product of action, and not a cause of such action.

If that stuff's origin is consciousness, which I think that it is, then this would be the way that it is all interactive. That consciousness is necessary for rational, aware thought is a given, I think.

This becomes (in part) a tautology if one defines “awareness” as synonymous with “consciousness”.
However I would dispute that “rational thought” necessarily requires “conscious thought”. Can you defend that statement?

So we have consciousness as the origin of thought

I would suggest that it could equally be argued that “thought” is in a sense the origin of consciousness.

then, or and, energy, then mass, then matter.

And it could be argued that there is no evidence that either thought or consciousness are causal agents with respect to energy or mass (they may be epiphenomenal).

Obviously something is eternal

Why “obviously”? Can you rationally defend this statement?
MF

 

[Les Sleeth]

Now, it is entirely possible that such conscious thought could be “epiphenomenal” in the sense that there is no causal relationship of the form “conscious thought causes action”.

It is entirely possible that the brain has a coorespondant response when consciousness thinks, just like my computer screen responds when I push buttons on my keyboard. To know what consciousness is, one has to learn to directly experience it; and epiphenomenalists, in my opinion, are sorely lacking in that sort of self knowledge.

Can you provide any evidence that “conscious thought causes action”, as opposed to “conscious thought being purely epiphenomenal"?

You surely must know that as of now the experience of consciousness is a subjective affair (I assume by "proof" you mean empirical, which requires externalizable experience to practice). We can objectively observe some brain functioning, but we can't experience another's experience of consciousness.

Can you objectively prove consciousness is epiphenomenal?

I would suggest that it could equally be argued that “thought” is in a sense the origin of consciousness.

How do you explain, then, that experienced meditators can stop thinking? I know for a fact that when one stops thinking one does NOT become less consciousnes, but more conscious.

 

[moving finger]

To know what consciousness is, one has to learn to directly experience it; and epiphenomenalists, in my opinion, are sorely lacking in that sort of self knowledge.

This could be a valid criticism of the perspective of "epiphenomenalists" - but epiphenomenalism may be true nevertheless
(it is not Nature’s obligation to behave how we would like, it is rather our duty to understand Nature)

Can you provide any evidence that “conscious thought causes action”, as opposed to “conscious thought being purely epiphenomenal"?

You surely must know that as of now the experience of consciousness is a subjective affair (I assume by "proof" you mean empirical, which requires externalizable experience to practice).

I asked simply whether any “evidence” can be provided to support the suggestion that conscious thought causes action. I did not ask for proof.

We can objectively observe some brain functioning, but we can't experience another's experience of consciousness.

I am not suggesting we must experience another’s consciousness.
But does the hypothesis that “conscious thought causes action” make any predictions which can be tested in practice?

Can you objectively prove consciousness is epiphenomenal?

I am not suggesting it is – only that it “may be”. As far as I can see no evidence has been provided thus far that would allow us either to rule out epiphenomenalism, or rule it in.

I would suggest that it could equally be argued that “thought” is in a sense the origin of consciousness.

How do you explain, then, that experienced meditators can stop thinking? I know for a fact that when one stops thinking one does NOT become less consciousnes, but more conscious.

In a case such as this, is one sure that one has actually stopped thinking, or is it just that one thinks that one has stopped thinking? Perhaps all that has happened is that one's thinking has become more directly focussed, and as a result one is less conscious of the fact that one is actually having thoughts. How would one propose to tell which is true?

With respect
MF

 

[nameless]

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html"

 

[Lars Laborious]

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html"

I guess this makes me a bothersome smart-ass, but still... :
http://www.randi.org/jr/072905beenthere.html"

 

[nameless]

Hey Lars, are you suggesting that real scientists should or would prostitute themselves for filthy lucre on a dog and pony show? *__-
Are you suggesting that any and all psi phenomena are non-existent because they cannot/will not perform like a trained seal for the Agendized Debunker Show? Is Randi the sole arbiter? Are you serious?

Besides, I find just a tad more credibility in extensive Princeton University research than the self-serving antics of a stage performer.

Besides, not everything registers on a triple-beam, or behaves the same every time.

Bye the bye, did you read the article and disagree with the findings or are you just being a "bothersome smart-ass"?
*__-

 

[Les Sleeth]

I asked simply whether any “evidence” can be provided to support the suggestion that conscious thought causes action. . . . does the hypothesis that “conscious thought causes action” make any predictions which can be tested in practice?

Sorry, I was basically ignoring your question to Royce and focusing on some of your side comments.

In a case such as this, is one sure that one has actually stopped thinking, or is it just that one thinks that one has stopped thinking? Perhaps all that has happened is that one's thinking has become more directly focussed, and as a result one is less conscious of the fact that one is actually having thoughts. How would one propose to tell which is true?
With respect.

This cracks me up every time I hear someone suggest it. How do one think one isn't thinking? Besides, if after 32 years of a hour a day practice I am still being fooled, I should be incapable of making any sense whatsoever.

Perhaps all that has happened is that one's thinking has become more directly focussed, and as a result one is less conscious of the fact that one is actually having thoughts. How would one propose to tell which is true?

It is clear you haven't experienced the beauty and power of stillness. You aren't less conscious in stillness, you are hyperconscious really. It's like how a perfectly still pond will show a minute drop on its surface much more clearly than a pond being sloshed about by the wind. The incessantly thinking mind sacrifices a certain sensitivity that is regained in stillness. What was so subtle as to be beyond perception now is made available for your perception and enjoyment. It is very easy to detect a thought in that condition.

 

[Royce]

Thought obviously affects matter and energy? Hmmmm. May I ask, where is the evidence for this obvious fact?

First my post was in response to previous posts in this thread and especially in response to Les' previous post. Les is familiar with most of my work here as I am with his. It was in the form of an ongoing conversation that he and I have been having off and on for nearly three years now.

I have written and posted this so many times I assumed that everyone has read it and observed it at least once by now.

The evidence is right there on your computer screen and all around you and the rest of us. If I have to spell it out again, we have thoughts, ideas, theories etc. and propose to share them with other here at PFs. By our intent and will we cause our fingers to move and type the characters into our computers via a keyboard and our computer send off the resulting electrical impulses onto the INTERNET and eventual to all of our computer monitors all created designed and built by thought and will. You move your finger by and act of will which is a form of thought.

To my mind, “conscious thought” is a particular process of information transfer that takes place within a conscious (human) brain.
Now, it is entirely possible that such conscious thought could be “epiphenomenal” in the sense that there is no causal relationship of the form “conscious thought causes action”.
Can you provide any evidence that “conscious thought causes action”, as opposed to “conscious thought being purely epiphenomenal"?
That may be the case. It may also be the case that “thought” is a by-product of action, and not a cause of such action.

First, if you will, define, “epiphenomenal” for me.

Every time you consciously and intentionally cause your body to move you are experiencing and observing conscious thought cause action.

By the last sentence in the quote above are you actually suggesting that our bodies move in a controlled and purposeful way all by themselves and then cause conscious thought to occur? Excuse me, but that is totally absurd and putting the cart before the horse.

This becomes (in part) a tautology if one defines “awareness” as synonymous with “consciousness”.

I did not say that awareness is synonymous with consciousness but that it is a necessary part of consciousness i.e. if one is not aware one is not conscious; if one is not conscious one is not aware and visa versa.

However I would dispute that “rational thought” necessarily requires “conscious thought”. Can you defend that statement?

Never having experience a conscious thought, rational or not, while unconscious, I cannot conceive of anyway one could have, be aware of and conscious of an unconscious thought, rational or irrational. Isn't that an oxymoron?

I would suggest that it could equally be argued that “thought” is in a sense the origin of consciousness.

If you insist on putting the cart before the horse, then, yes, you can argue it all you want. I don't know that anyone would listen; but, I know that, that wouldn't stop you from arguing anything. I suggest that it is intuitively obvious that one must be conscious first to have a conscious thought. I suppose it is possible for one to have any number of thoughts if one is unconscious but would one be aware of it? How would thought create consciousness if one is not conscious or aware of ones thoughts?

And it could be argued that there is no evidence that either thought or consciousness are causal agents with respect to energy or mass (they may be epiphenomenal).
Why “obviously”? Can you rationally defend this statement?
MF

Nor is there any evidence physical matter is a causal agent of mass and energy.

Within the context of subject of the posts it obviously followed. Taken out of context of that thought stream I cannot defend the statement nor do I feel it necessary to defend it because it was and is an ongoing philosophical speculation.

If your going to continue to pick everybodies comments apart at least read and understand the subject matter to which the statements are directed.