Causes and mechanisms

[Stranger]

Of course I can choose what to think.
It is what I do.

And you do that, how? By thinking about what you want to think? How do you do that? By thinking about what you want to think about what you want to think? How do you do that?

[Alan Burns]

And you do that, how? By thinking about what you want to think? How do you do that? By thinking about what you want to think about what you want to think? How do you do that?

I just do it.

[Nearly Sane]

I just do it.

Idiotic

[Stranger]

I just do it.

So, once again, the most simplistic, thought-free, superficial, first impression. No hint of rational analysis.

[torridon]

Of course I can choose what to think.
It is what I do.

Yes, but, choosing what to think is itself, a thought process.  Can you really not understand this ?

[Sebastian Toe]

Such patterns are certainly seen to correlate with conscious thought activity, but alone, they do not explain how such activity can define the conscious thought we all experience.Use of such technical jargon comes nowhere near to explaining the source of conscious thought.Which all boils down to physically defined reactions in material elements - so no definable source of manipulation - just the end results of physically defined cause and effect reactions.which reduces whatever comprises "you" to be just the inevitable unavoidable end result of physical reactionsOne day I sincerely hope and pray you will come to realise what comprises the real "you".

It's all you Alan, your biological brain..
....how?
..........it just does it!

[Gordon]

I just do it.

Not very well.

[Alan Burns]

It's all you Alan, your biological brain..
....how?
..........it just does it!

Not "it" that does it - "I" do it.
Are you not aware of the fundamental difference between "it" and "I" ?

[Alan Burns]

So, once again, the most simplistic, thought-free, superficial, first impression. No hint of rational analysis.

Do you need rational analysis to know what you are capable of doing?
Can rational analysis take away your God given freedom?

[Nearly Sane]

Do you need rational analysis to know what you are capable of doing?
Can rational analysis take away your God given freedom?

Idiotic illogical begging the question.

[torridon]

But the fact remains that we have the ability to manipulate our thought processes.  Without such manipulative ability, our thoughts would just be inevitable reactions with no means to contemplate and make logical deductions.  You may persist in sticking to your claim that all thoughts are just inevitable reaction, but your ability to consciously make such a claim is evidence that the claim is patently wrong.

You cannot 'manipulate' a thought, this doesn't make any sense. Describe some way in which you manipulated a thought such that it happened differently as a result of your manipulation.  Can you make a thought go backwards instead of forwards ? No, you cannot. Can you think two thoughts at the same time ? No, you cannot. Can you schedule a good idea to occur to you at 3pm tomorrow afternoon ? Can you think a thought in a language you don't know ? Can you choose a route through cortex for a thought to pass through ? can you unrealise something you have just realised ? Can you choose to forget something on demand ? Can you alter the speed at which a thought happens.  No, we can do none of these things; we cannot exert any primary fundamental control over the way that thoughts flow through a mind. The way thoughts flow in a mind is entirely consistent with the neurological functioning of a biological brain operating within and bounded by the principle of cause and effect.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not "it" that does it - "I" do it.
Are you not aware of the fundamental difference between "it" and "I" ?

Your brain, produces your conciousness, you.
How?
...it just does it.
If it's a good enough explanation for you to use then it's good enough for me.
No need now to continue with your , science hadn't yet produced a definition of conciousness, you have solved all of that with...just does it!

[Alan Burns]

You cannot 'manipulate' a thought, this doesn't make any sense. Describe some way in which you manipulated a thought such that it happened differently as a result of your manipulation.  Can you make a thought go backwards instead of forwards ? No, you cannot. Can you think two thoughts at the same time ? No, you cannot. Can you schedule a good idea to occur to you at 3pm tomorrow afternoon ? Can you think a thought in a language you don't know ? Can you choose a route through cortex for a thought to pass through ? can you unrealise something you have just realised ? Can you choose to forget something on demand ? Can you alter the speed at which a thought happens.  No, we can do none of these things; we cannot exert any primary fundamental control over the way that thoughts flow through a mind. The way thoughts flow in a mind is entirely consistent with the neurological functioning of a biological brain operating within and bounded by the principle of cause and effect.

What is at the heart of your thinking?

German philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand offers much insight into what motivates people:
 1.   We can be motivated by the subjectively satisfying, that is, by what is pleasing to us as individuals, without consideration of what objectively fulfils our nature or is important in itself.
 2.  We can be motivated by the objective good for persons, that is, by what objectively fulfils the needs, abilities, appetites, and desires that we have insofar as we have human nature.
 3.   We can be motivated by values or what is important in itself, that is, by what calls for a certain response as due to it, without reference to our own fulfilment or satisfaction.

The Heart
In addition to the traditionally-distinguished intellect and will, Hildebrand argues in The Heart that some feelings or affective acts are properly personal acts. A personal or spiritual act is one that is not just caused in us, but is motivated by intentional awareness of its object. While Hildebrand grants that many feelings are purely bodily acts, which are caused by physiological or other physical events, he also argues that many feelings are intentional (that is, object-directed) acts.These include feelings of love, reverence, gratitude, disgust, hatred, and pride. Many such affective acts are responses to values; some values call for feelings as their proper response. It is a sign that some feelings are properly speaking personal or spiritual that they are meaningful, motivated responses to values. A person is not fully virtuous until he or she gives valuable goods their proper affective response; to merely perform morally right acts or hold true beliefs is not sufficient for full virtue, or for giving objects and persons all that is due to them. Feelings must be received as a gift, and cannot be forced by our own volitions, but we can encourage the right feelings to arise by voluntarily sanctioning them and by voluntarily disavowing undue feelings. As in his discussion of values, Hildebrand writes a lot about distinguishing kinds of feelings, and about analyzing their place in the moral life, as well as in the Christian life--something he emphasizes by a careful analysis of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

(extracted from Wiki article)

[torridon]

What is at the heart of your thinking?

German philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand offers much insight into what motivates people:
 1.   We can be motivated by the subjectively satisfying, that is, by what is pleasing to us as individuals, without consideration of what objectively fulfils our nature or is important in itself.
 2.  We can be motivated by the objective good for persons, that is, by what objectively fulfils the needs, abilities, appetites, and desires that we have insofar as we have human nature.
 3.   We can be motivated by values or what is important in itself, that is, by what calls for a certain response as due to it, without reference to our own fulfilment or satisfaction.

The Heart
In addition to the traditionally-distinguished intellect and will, Hildebrand argues in The Heart that some feelings or affective acts are properly personal acts. A personal or spiritual act is one that is not just caused in us, but is motivated by intentional awareness of its object. While Hildebrand grants that many feelings are purely bodily acts, which are caused by physiological or other physical events, he also argues that many feelings are intentional (that is, object-directed) acts.These include feelings of love, reverence, gratitude, disgust, hatred, and pride. Many such affective acts are responses to values; some values call for feelings as their proper response. It is a sign that some feelings are properly speaking personal or spiritual that they are meaningful, motivated responses to values. A person is not fully virtuous until he or she gives valuable goods their proper affective response; to merely perform morally right acts or hold true beliefs is not sufficient for full virtue, or for giving objects and persons all that is due to them. Feelings must be received as a gift, and cannot be forced by our own volitions, but we can encourage the right feelings to arise by voluntarily sanctioning them and by voluntarily disavowing undue feelings. As in his discussion of values, Hildebrand writes a lot about distinguishing kinds of feelings, and about analyzing their place in the moral life, as well as in the Christian life--something he emphasizes by a careful analysis of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

(extracted from Wiki article)

None of which addresses the point, which is that we cannot manipulate our fundamental brain function; and this not merely because it is difficult or challenging or requires too much oxygen and glucose, we cannot do this because it is an irrational proposition to even claim.  For me to alter the way my brain functions would require some sort of third party intervention, perhaps a surgical intervention as might happen with epileptic patients for instance.  But for me to alter my own brain function merely by use of my own brain function, willpower, say, is obviously circular.  The same applies to the claim that you can choose which thoughts to think - the act of choosing a thought is itself a thought process.  This whole way of understanding mind function is flawed by its inherent circularity.

[Sriram]

None of which addresses the point, which is that we cannot manipulate our fundamental brain function; and this not merely because it is difficult or challenging or requires too much oxygen and glucose, we cannot do this because it is an irrational proposition to even claim.  For me to alter the way my brain functions would require some sort of third party intervention, perhaps a surgical intervention as might happen with epileptic patients for instance.  But for me to alter my own brain function merely by use of my own brain function, willpower, say, is obviously circular.  The same applies to the claim that you can choose which thoughts to think - the act of choosing a thought is itself a thought process.  This whole way of understanding mind function is flawed by its inherent circularity.

Of course, we do change our thoughts, emotions and behavior on a regular basis. this is what learning and training is all about.  If you learn meditations you can learn to change your moods and reactions willfully.

You seem to be stuck with the 'predetermined based on natural laws' view. Predetermination is obviously just a platform, preset stage...like a computer game. But we are free to play as we wish and win or lose. 
.

[torridon]

Of course, we do change our thoughts, emotions and behavior on a regular basis. this is what learning and training is all about.  If you learn meditations you can learn to change your moods and reactions willfully.

You seem to be stuck with the 'predetermined based on natural laws' view. Predetermination is obviously just a platform, preset stage...like a computer game. But we are free to play as we wish and win or lose. 
.

Learning and training are all within the regular flow of mind function; they do not constitute a fundamental altering of the way your mind works.  If you want to learn something new, you can; but you cannot want to learn something new if you don't want to.  The buck stops there.

[Sriram]

Learning and training are all within the regular flow of mind function; they do not constitute a fundamental altering of the way your mind works.  If you want to learn something new, you can; but you cannot want to learn something new if you don't want to.  The buck stops there.

What you mean is that....we are not free to play some other game if we want. That is true. We are stuck with whatever game is going on and whatever processes or mechanisms or values that are a part of the game.

But within the game that we are a part of, we have the choice to do things one way or the other.  It is not predetermined in an absolute sense.

[Stranger]

Do you need rational analysis to know what you are capable of doing?

It's not about what, it's about how. We all 'just do' all sorts of things but if you're interested in what is actually going on, that requires some reasoning and evidence.

Can rational analysis take away your God given freedom?

You can't take away something that was never there in the first place.   

[Enki]

Of course I can choose what to think.
It is what I do.

Basically if I am my brain then you are quite correct.

Of course my brain can *choose what to think. It is what my brain does.

* definition of choice - an act of choosing between two or more possibilities. Note there is no mention on how a choice is made.

[Enki]

Not "it" that does it - "I" do it.
Are you not aware of the fundamental difference between "it" and "I" ?

There is no reason to think that there is a 'you'. If so, where is it located and how does it interact with your brain? I suggest that it is much more sensible to describe the 'you' as a projection emanating from the workings of the brain.

[Enki]

Do you need rational analysis to know what you are capable of doing?
Can rational analysis take away your God given freedom?

Rational analysis and evidence based research shows that the brain is capable of doing all sorts of things whether we are conscious of them or not. Can it take away our God given freedom? 'God given' presumes that our freedom comes from some sort of god, a conjecture that has no evidence and is therefore not pertinent to the basic question. As to whether rational analysis takes away our freedom. I would suggest that far from  taking away our freedom, it is a quality of thinking which is capable of enhancing such abilities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no reason to think that there is a 'you'. If so, where is it located and how does it interact with your brain? I suggest that it is much more sensible to describe the 'you' as a projection emanating from the workings of the brain.

It is an emergent property of the brain. Because it doesn't seem to reside anywhere is just a problem for materialism which unsuccessfully tries to harness the word illusion while wanting it to be simultaneously a property of the brain.

[Alan Burns]

There is no reason to think that there is a 'you'. If so, where is it located and how does it interact with your brain? I suggest that it is much more sensible to describe the 'you' as a projection emanating from the workings of the brain.

You imply that "I" am something emerging from physical reactions of material elements.
Nothing actually "emerges" from physical reactions.
The only thing a reaction produces is a reaction - nothing else.
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function.  But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions.  So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.

[Gordon]

You imply that "I" am something emerging from physical reactions of material elements.
Nothing actually "emerges" from physical reactions.
The only thing a reaction produces is a reaction - nothing else.
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function.  But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions.  So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.

That is because, Alan, you are mired in fallacious thinking yourself (in this case the fallacies of 'consequences' and 'composition' are fairly obvious)._

[Sebastian Toe]

You imply that "I" am something emerging from physical reactions of material elements.
Nothing actually "emerges" from physical reactions.
The only thing a reaction produces is a reaction - nothing else.
So am I the end result of lots of reactions?
But the end result of reactions can only be another reaction.
When, as an outside observer, we consider the concept of "emergence" coming from complex reactions, the concept appears in our perception as a single entity - such as a pattern or a function.  But outside our perception there is no single entity - just lots of individual interactions.  So the idea of a single entity of perception (ie, you) emerging from lots of complex reactions does not make any sense to me.

Funny that, what doesn't make any sense to me is your version of reality...
I.e. a soul, which exists in a place, not inside this spacetime manifold, also not in 'heaven' (at least whilst your physical body is alive). Said 'place' is also seemingly devoid of any concept of time.
This soul interacts, from its timeless realm, with spacetime, specifically only with one body. It only 'visits' when you are concious and somehow is able to, in real time, interpret your physical brain patterns, think/make decisions and (using a method, yet to be described) tells your brain what to do based on aforementioned "thinking".
I could go on and I have so many questions but if you could just confirm firstly if any of the above is incorrect....if so, please explain?