Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are thoughts transcendant?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 142 (423377)
09-21-2007 3:57 PM


I was just standing in my kitchen cleaning the dishes when a thought came over me. I started thinking about the nature of thinking. (For some reason, doing the dishes gives me time to reflect. Hey, I'm sure my wife won't complain about that)
Neurology has made strident advances over the decades helping us to understand all of the intricacies of the brain. But there is still so much not yet understood about the human mind.
This got me thinking about an old argument I had with a true skeptic who simply had to rationalize everything with biology. The argument was about love. I asked him what love was. He proceeded to give me some canned, unemotional response about areas of the brain light up under an MRI when shown pictures of loved ones. This, apparently, was tantamount to love to him-- firing synapses.
I countered that what was detected surely was not itself love, only evidence of the brain reacting to love. Sure, the pictures likely gave him pleasant thoughts which released endorphins, thus culminating in an ultimate happy and euphoric state. But that explained nothing about love itself, and moreover, what exactly it is.
More than that, it did nothing to explain thoughts.
Thoughts... What are they, really?
We've never witnessed anyone's thoughts. At most we see evidence of someone in the process of thinking. We understand cognitive maps, especially since most us have the ability to retain them. But there is still so much about thoughts that seem almost transcendent-- separate from the brain.
Is the mind and the brain different? Sure, they are intimately connected. But is it possible that where the brain dies, the mind transcends?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-21-2007 4:49 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 09-21-2007 10:06 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 09-22-2007 2:19 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 09-22-2007 2:21 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 9 by nator, posted 09-22-2007 7:43 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 09-22-2007 10:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 11 by Kitsune, posted 09-22-2007 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-22-2007 2:45 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 45 by Phat, posted 10-14-2007 7:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 142 (423384)
09-21-2007 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 3:57 PM


Sonnets or Synapsis
Do you wish to approach this topic scientifically or philosophically?
or a wee bit of both. Miss topics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 5:00 PM AdminPhat has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 142 (423388)
09-21-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
09-21-2007 4:49 PM


Re: Sonnets or Synapsis
A wee bit of both, good sir.
MiscTop is fine. I can't think of anywhere more appropriate.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-21-2007 4:49 PM AdminPhat has not replied

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 142 (423405)
09-21-2007 8:59 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 5 of 142 (423412)
09-21-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
09-21-2007 3:57 PM


Symbolism
This linguistics book I am reading suggests that words are just symbols rather than the thing they represent itself.
As an example, stop is represented by the color red in the form of a light or a sign. We know that the color and signal is a symbol for Stopping.
By the same token, the word "thought": is a symbol for the actual concept of a thought.
NJ writes:
Is the mind and the brain different? Sure, they are intimately connected. But is it possible that where the brain dies, the mind transcends?
  • v. - exceed, transcend, surpass -- (go beyond; "Their loyalty exceeds their national bonds")
  • v. - exceed, transcend, overstep, pass, go past, top -- (go beyond; "She exceeded our expectations"; "She topped her performance of last year")
    So....what do you mean by "transcends...?

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by Jon, posted 09-22-2007 2:09 AM Phat has not replied
     Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 2:38 PM Phat has not replied

      
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 6 of 142 (423430)
    09-22-2007 2:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
    09-21-2007 10:06 PM


    Re: Symbolism
    ...words are just symbols rather than the thing they represent itself.
    Well, of course. But isn't that rather irrelevant?
    So....what do you mean by "transcends...?
    quote:
    Dictionary.com
    tran·scend /trænsnd/
    -verb (used with object)
    1. to rise above or go beyond; overpass; exceed: to transcend the limits of thought; kindness transcends courtesy.
    Jon

    In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
    A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Phat, posted 09-21-2007 10:06 PM Phat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by jar, posted 09-22-2007 2:44 PM Jon has not replied

      
    Taz
    Member (Idle past 3291 days)
    Posts: 5069
    From: Zerus
    Joined: 07-18-2006


    Message 7 of 142 (423435)
    09-22-2007 2:19 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
    09-21-2007 3:57 PM


    I'm confused about something. How did you get from
    At most we see evidence of someone in the process of thinking.
    to
    But is it possible that where the brain dies, the mind transcends?
    ?

    Disclaimer:
    Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
    He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 3:02 PM Taz has not replied

      
    Jon
    Inactive Member


    Message 8 of 142 (423436)
    09-22-2007 2:21 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
    09-21-2007 3:57 PM


    Is the mind and the brain different? Sure, they are intimately connected. But is it possible that where the brain dies, the mind transcends?
    So, do thoughts transcend the mind? Well, I like to think of the brain as the physical matter that exists in the skull... that slushy substance up there. The mind, on the other hand, I see as the workings of that brain, those shootings and zaps that move through, which aren't necessarily physical or permanent, nor entirely comprehensible or graspable. I see the mind as a collection of these things. Think of the leg being the physical brain, and running being the mind.
    Does this make the thoughts/mind transcendent? Well, not any more than exercise is transcendent to leg. It really all boils down to whether you are willing to accept that there is an ultimate physical reality behind everything, or if you think there is something higher in the mind. Until we have enough evidence to tell us whether it is all physical or not, you can sort of understand things how you want. However, I think it's safe to notice that all discoveries we've made in the realm of science show us more and more that everything boils down to 'simple' physical interactions... if we are to call the quantum world 'simple'.
    Anyway... that's just my two cents. Nice question to ponder, but I don't know what meaning it ultimately has.
    Jon

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 2169 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 9 of 142 (423446)
    09-22-2007 7:43 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
    09-21-2007 3:57 PM


    quote:
    But there is still so much about thoughts that seem almost transcendent-- separate from the brain.
    Like what?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    sidelined
    Member (Idle past 5907 days)
    Posts: 3435
    From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
    Joined: 08-30-2003


    Message 10 of 142 (423452)
    09-22-2007 10:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
    09-21-2007 3:57 PM


    nemesis_juggernaut
    This got me thinking about an old argument I had with a true skeptic who simply had to rationalize everything with biology. The argument was about love. I asked him what love was. He proceeded to give me some canned, unemotional response about areas of the brain light up under an MRI when shown pictures of loved ones. This, apparently, was tantamount to love to him-- firing synapses.
    I countered that what was detected surely was not itself love, only evidence of the brain reacting to love. Sure, the pictures likely gave him pleasant thoughts which released endorphins, thus culminating in an ultimate happy and euphoric state. But that explained nothing about love itself, and moreover, what exactly it is.
    I think perhaps you have misunderstood your friend the skeptic{ I could be wrong of course} since all he did was answer your question on what love is by giving you a physical picture of the biological activity underlying the emotion.
    You say he gave a canned unemotional response yet what biological explanation would you give for love?
    Indeed I will ask you the same question. What is love?
    Is it the giddy feeling you get when a friend whom you know well says something to you that hints at or reveals a deep caring,even love, for you?
    Is it the action of caring for people who are down on their luck and are helped by your efforts and who, without the efforts you make, would be lost to despair and loneliness?
    Is it the bond felt by soldiers who ,under the terror of battle, feel intensely how completely dependent they are one upon one another and find themselves in love with those members who risk everything and stand their ground?
    Is it the tenderness of being close to another as you relax after a hard day of caring for your young family and snuggle in one anothers arms to stare out the living room window at a thickening snow storm as a fire crackles in the fireplace while reflecting on how life could not be any better than the moment you now share?
    Is it the physical intimacy you have with another human being and the pleasures that such relations produce?
    If the physical firing of synapses accounts for these does that make the explanation invalid or just shallow? Or does it reflect that the firing of synapses entails such complex interactions of biology that the mind is staggered by the results? The explanation your friend gives is only dry and shallow if you look at it out of context with what it means in the real world.
    Thoughts... What are they, really?
    That would depend on what you consider thoughts {and love} to be.
    If you consider that thoughts can be derailed by the application of chemicals or by physical trauma then the explanation that they are the result of electrochemical activity of the brain tissue in our skulls takes on meaning.
    This is not to say that they are just electrochemical activity separate from the context of life but just the underlying structure that allows for the phenomena to occur.
    In the same way that the alphabet and rules of grammar are not the same as Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream but only the explanation of that which allows for the story to be told in a physical sense so,too, is the explanation your skeptic offered you.
    That you chose to view it out of context means that you have made it dry and shallow not him.
    But there is still so much about thoughts that seem almost transcendent-- separate from the brain.
    Ar you referring to the impression that our ideas and thoughts seem to float free in our skulls ,disconnected to our bodies? If so, a possible explanation would be that the brain has no nervous system within its tissues. Since we cannot get feedback from the brain through such a system it does not seem odd that the mind gives us the impression of being separate does it?

    God does not exist until there is proof he does.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Kitsune
    Member (Idle past 4300 days)
    Posts: 788
    From: Leicester, UK
    Joined: 09-16-2007


    Message 11 of 142 (423483)
    09-22-2007 2:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
    09-21-2007 3:57 PM


    Thoughts... What are they, really?
    One definition is that thoughts are electrical activity in the brain. We can observe different areas of the brain "lighting up" when different thought processes are occurring. When you think about the things that electricity is capable of doing, and how it can interact the environment; and particularly what we still don't understand about it, things get interesting. We know pretty well how electricity behaves when it runs through a cable. But how it functions at low levels in the human body-? Largely a mystery still, to science, though those who do e.g. reiki or acupuncture would say they know one or two things.
    Some people believe that one's thoughts help to create the very reality that one lives in. If you are full of negativity then you draw negative events into your life, and the converse is true for positive thoughts. I think this idea has some validity, though of course it's difficult to prove in any way with science. If it is valid, it would suggest that our thoughts are indeed transcendent of ourselves in some way, and can interact with the universe in some way, as yet not understood.
    Telepathy may be some good evidence of this. It's likely that many of us here have had experiences where we've been thinking about a certain person, maybe someone we haven't thought about in a long time, and suddenly the phone rings and we find we are talking to them. Some people have dreams or visions of friends or loved ones when they are in a crisis or are dying. Can we send our thoughts out in such a way that others can pick up on them? I think there is evidence that yes, we can.
    Does this mean that thoughts are spiritual in nature? Or does it mean that some mechanism is at work in the physical world which science is currently at a loss to understand?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by nator, posted 09-22-2007 7:05 PM Kitsune has not replied
     Message 35 by Larni, posted 09-26-2007 5:25 AM Kitsune has replied
     Message 40 by sidelined, posted 09-26-2007 7:14 AM Kitsune has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 12 of 142 (423489)
    09-22-2007 2:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
    09-21-2007 10:06 PM


    Re: Symbolism
    I'm gonna have to echo Jon's sentiments here, Phat.

    "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Phat, posted 09-21-2007 10:06 PM Phat has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 393 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 13 of 142 (423491)
    09-22-2007 2:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Jon
    09-22-2007 2:09 AM


    Re: Symbolism
    to transcend the limits of thought
    Huh?
    Let's think about that.

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Jon, posted 09-22-2007 2:09 AM Jon has not replied

      
    jar
    Member (Idle past 393 days)
    Posts: 34026
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 14 of 142 (423492)
    09-22-2007 2:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
    09-21-2007 3:57 PM


    Jabberwocky?
    But is it possible that where the brain dies, the mind transcends?
    What the hell does that mean?

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-21-2007 3:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Hyroglyphx
    Inactive Member


    Message 15 of 142 (423497)
    09-22-2007 3:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
    09-22-2007 2:19 AM


    Mary's Room experiment
    I'm confused about something. How did you get from
    quote:
    At most we see evidence of someone in the process of thinking.
    to
    quote:
    But is it possible that where the brain dies, the mind transcends?
    Sorry for the confusion. I'm wondering if perhaps the mind and the brain are different things-- that the mind needs the brain in the physical in order to express itself, but that when the brain dies, the mind can live on. Of course, this is all pretty much conjecture. But I wanted to know what you guys might think about it.
    Apparently I'm not the only one to have thought of such a concept. I just discovered this website on it.
    Through my quest for an answer, I have found an interesting experiment referred to as, Mary's Room. It doesn't exactly coincide with the current questions about the mind/brain, but it does correspond to my question about material and transcendental.
    The hypothetical scenario asks us to think of a highly intelligent scientist named Mary. Mary, though, has been locked away in a color deprived world her whole life. Her studies include neurophysiology, vision and electromagnetics, to include the study of color themselves. So she has an intellectual understanding of something like color, but has never experienced color. Eventually Mary is released from her room and experiences colors for the first time.
    The question is, did she learn something new?
    Your answer helps dictate how you view the world.

    "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Taz, posted 09-22-2007 2:19 AM Taz has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2007 3:09 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 22 by nator, posted 09-22-2007 7:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
     Message 36 by Larni, posted 09-26-2007 5:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024