Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure what you mean by equal, but thought forms can be called ideas, concepts, models and have varying degrees of complexity or be a simple image like a jam sandwich.

and are any one of those in some way not a thought?

[torridon]

So when I am solving a complex crossword, the solution just happens to pop up in my brain?

Consider, if you wish, how a process of memory retrieval works.  It is like a pull request for information that is stored in subconscious mind.  If we are lucky we get the answer, if we are not lucky, we give up and move on, probably. We have to work with whatever lower levels of mind deliver up.  When Archimedes jumped out of his bath and ran naked down the road shouting 'Eureka', it was the joy at having received a wonderful present from his subconscious mind; a sublimely easy way to measure the volume of irregular solids had just popped into his (conscious) mind. Mostly all cognition and perception happens principally subconscious mind, research shows we can do simple arithmetic and parse grammar for instance completely without the need for conscious mind. Conscious mind is often in the loop, so to speak, and it might be hard to disentangle at which point a thought (or intention) becomes conscious.

[ekim]

ekim,

Jam sandwiches soak up casserole [7]

Damn you, I can't get that thought out of my head now. 

[ekim]

and are any one of those in some way not a thought?

Not to my way of thinking, no.

[Nearly Sane]

Not to my way of thinking, no.

So what is it that you are trying to say? I don't see how you can have thinking that isn't involving a thought or thoughts.

[ekim]

So what is it that you are trying to say? I don't see how you can have thinking that isn't involving a thought or thoughts.

Perhaps you could be more specific .... trying to say about what?  Alan?, the language I am using?  I've just been summoned by 'She who must be obeyed' so the my reply may be tomorrow.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Damn you, I can't get that thought out of my head now. 

Sorry. The answer is "stewpot" and it takes a bit of working out. Nice clue though.

[Alan Burns]

Consider, if you wish, how a process of memory retrieval works.  It is like a pull request for information that is stored in subconscious mind.  If we are lucky we get the answer, if we are not lucky, we give up and move on, probably. We have to work with whatever lower levels of mind deliver up.  When Archimedes jumped out of his bath and ran naked down the road shouting 'Eureka', it was the joy at having received a wonderful present from his subconscious mind; a sublimely easy way to measure the volume of irregular solids had just popped into his (conscious) mind. Mostly all cognition and perception happens principally subconscious mind, research shows we can do simple arithmetic and parse grammar for instance completely without the need for conscious mind. Conscious mind is often in the loop, so to speak, and it might be hard to disentangle at which point a thought (or intention) becomes conscious.

But the question I was raising was about our ability to guide our own thoughts.  You seem to be suggesting that it is mostly or all done sub consciously.

When I was doing research for my PhD, I wanted to develop a new method of performing optimum minimum cost designs for certain types of structural steelwork.  I consciously thought of the goal I wished to achieve, then I did some research to find out what had already been done in this field, then I deliberately formulated a method which I implemented and tested.  Throughout this whole process I was constantly guiding my own thoughts in order to achieve a specific goal.

And the solution I came up with was a discrete combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm with a two tier search.

[wigginhall]

But the question I was raising was about our ability to guide our own thoughts.  You seem to be suggesting that it is mostly or all done sub consciously.

When I was doing research for my PhD, I wanted to develop a new method of performing optimum minimum cost designs for certain types of structural steelwork.  I consciously thought of the goal I wished to achieve, then I did some research to find out what had already been done in this field, then I deliberately formulated a method which I implemented and tested.  Throughout this whole process I was constantly guiding my own thoughts in order to achieve a specific goal.

And the solution I came up with was a discrete combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm with a two tier search.

So your soul does all that?   Why do you need a brain?

[Shaker]

So your soul does all that?   Why do you need a brain?

Must ... resist ... 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Fallacy number tweeelve!

How is making a list plucked extra anally irrelevant in a reply to a post where a list has been plucked extra anally?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

How is making a list plucked extra anally irrelevant in a reply to a post where a list has been plucked extra anally?

Fallacy number twooooooo!

Hey, this is working - it really is saving time.

Go on, try another one...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the question I was raising was about our ability to guide our own thoughts.  You seem to be suggesting that it is mostly or all done sub consciously.

Not only was torri suggesting it but that’s pretty much what every scrap of the available evidence tells us too.

When I was doing research for my PhD, I wanted to develop a new method of performing optimum minimum cost designs for certain types of structural steelwork.  I consciously thought of the goal I wished to achieve, then I did some research to find out what had already been done in this field, then I deliberately formulated a method which I implemented and tested.  Throughout this whole process I was constantly guiding my own thoughts in order to achieve a specific goal.

And the solution I came up with was a discrete combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm with a two tier search.

No doubt. But you do yourself a disservice when you propose a little man at the controls (that you can’t define, whose methods you can’t describe, and that you can’t make a cogent argument for) to take the credit while dopey old “just perceiving” you only gathered the requisite data. It was actually “you” – ie, the complex ecosystem of interacting components and the emergent properties they produced – that did it.

Well done “you”!   

[Alan Burns]

But you do yourself a disservice when you propose a little man at the controls (that you can’t define, whose methods you can’t describe, and that you can’t make a cogent argument for) to take the credit while dopey old “just perceiving” you only gathered the requisite data. It was actually “you” – ie, the complex ecosystem of interacting components and the emergent properties they produced – that did it.

Well done “you”!

But was it the conscious "me" who guided my thoughts, or was it the unavoidable consequences of previous physical events?

[wigginhall]

False dichotomy. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But was it the conscious "me" who guided my thoughts, or was it the unavoidable consequences of previous physical events?

The "conscious you" and the deterministic you are the same thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Fallacy number twooooooo!

Hey, this is working - it really is saving time.

Go on, try another one...

Nothing fallacious about the patently obvious. Your output has been arse pull since I've been around.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Nothing fallacious about the patently obvious. Your output has been arse pull since I've been around.

Fallacy number twooooo...

....agaaaiiiian.

Plus the bonus of a new fallacy to add to the list – the appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing).

Fallacy number thirrrrteeeeeen!

Keep 'em coming FB, you'll be up to 20 in no time!



Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Fallacy number twooooo...

....agaaaiiiian.

Plus the bonus of a new fallacy to add to the list – the appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing).

Fallacy number thirrrrteeeeeen!

Keep 'em coming FB, you'll be up to 20 in no time!



Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

You're just putting a list down you silly man.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

You're just putting a list down you silly man.

Fallacies numbers twwooooo and tweeeeeeelve!

Agaaaaaaain!

Keep 'em coming!

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The "conscious you" and the deterministic you are the same thing.

Yes, but what determines what I choose to do?
If it is unavoidable consequences to previous events, I can take no credit for it.
I take credit only if I can wilfully interact with my brain.

[Alan Burns]

Fallacy Boy,

Fallacies numbers twwooooo and tweeeeeeelve!

Agaaaaaaain!

Keep 'em coming!

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

You appear to be getting a worrying addiction to fallacy labels.
It may be advisable to seek some help.

[BeRational]

You appear to be getting a worrying addiction to fallacy labels.
It may be advisable to seek some help.

You need to learn them so as not to look stupid every time you try to make a logical argument.

Something you keep failing to do.

[Shaker]

You appear to be getting a worrying addiction to fallacy labels.
It may be advisable to seek some help.

No ... the worrying addiction with regard to fallacies is with those who keep committing them and either don't know it or know but don't care about it, e.g. you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Fallacies numbers twwooooo and tweeeeeeelve!

Agaaaaaaain!

Keep 'em coming!

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

How can stating the obvious, say, you are acting like a twat, be fallacious?
On the other hand, put me down for another number two you great W****r.