Thread: thought

I think therefore I am.

1) Lots of neurons fire.
2) People fail to grasp sheer number of neurons and connections.
3) Thought becomes a mystery.

As Nietzsche said:

"I shall never tire of underlining a concise little fact which these superstitious people are loath to admit -- namely that a thought comes when 'it' wants, not when 'I' want."

I think therefore I will.

thoughts are really just the equivalent of crap for the mind, so when you think too much about a certain topic (let's say the topic is yourself), that's when people around you say "you're so full of crap"

Originally Posted by AirRick101

thoughts are really just the equivalent of crap for the mind, so when you think too much about a certain topic (let's say the topic is yourself), that's when people around you say "you're so full of crap"

This post is full of crap.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

This post is full of crap.

hahahaha, touche!

1) Lots of neurons fire.
2) People fail to grasp sheer number of neurons and connections.
3) Thought becomes a mystery.

Uh it's still a mystery.

You can't just say 'there are loads of neurons therefore there is thought'. That's not an explanation of anything; the workings of the cerebral cortex are still pretty much completely unknown to science.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

1) Lots of neurons fire.
2) People fail to grasp sheer number of neurons and connections.
3) Thought becomes a mystery.

Originally Posted by Xei

Uh it's still a mystery.

You can't just say 'there are loads of neurons therefore there is thought'. That's not an explanation of anything; the workings of the cerebral cortex are still pretty much completely unknown to science.

You are both correct.

makes me think about how animal thoughts and human thoughts might be different. It doesn't seem like animals would think straight sentences.

Personally I think you can have thought without language. Just try it; perform some kind of basic action like walking or picking something up or looking at a picture, without letting a single word cross through your mind. It's quite easy.

Originally Posted by Xei

the workings of the cerebral cortex are still pretty much completely unknown to science.

What does science know? Is science capable of knowing itself?

Your right!
I tried it, very interesting.

Originally Posted by Juritsu

Your right!
I tried it, very interesting.

Yeah, it's pretty cool; incidentally that's exactly the same mindset you've got to adopt when you try to WILD. It's easy now but as you go deeper it becomes ridiculously hard.

What does science know? Is science capable of knowing itself?

Make sense please.

Thank you, I think you just greatly helped me with WILD.

No probs, and good luck with it.

Originally Posted by Xei

Uh it's still a mystery.

You can't just say 'there are loads of neurons therefore there is thought'. That's not an explanation of anything; the workings of the cerebral cortex are still pretty much completely unknown to science.

Science has a pretty good grasp of how neurons fire. Anything beyond that has to do with connections.

No actually. They've not even got a basic picture of how information is encoded in the signals; they don't know whether the mean frequency over a period of time is what counts, or the specific voltage spikes in that period of time. And it's even worse regarding connections; any meaningful, coherent neural network theory, certainly for what we would consider to be 'brain activity', is virtually non-existent at the moment. They haven't even gotten all the data to start the work (which is what they're doing at Blue Brain IBM).

Originally Posted by Xei

Make sense please.

"completely unknown to science" What is known to science?

Don't take me too literally, Xei.

Scientific knowledge is known to science. :\

Originally Posted by Xei

Scientific knowledge is known to science. :\

Scientific knowledge is known to scientists.

Originally Posted by really

"completely unknown to science" What is known to science?

Things that can be explained with the scientific method? ...are known to science.

Originally Posted by Xei

No actually. They've not even got a basic picture of how information is encoded in the signals; they don't know whether the mean frequency over a period of time is what counts, or the specific voltage spikes in that period of time.

That's not true. Action potentials and all that are mechanistically understood. But I don't think there's any stopping the train of ignorance once it gets rolling...

Originally Posted by Xei

And it's even worse regarding connections; any meaningful, coherent neural network theory, certainly for what we would consider to be 'brain activity', is virtually non-existent at the moment. They haven't even gotten all the data to start the work (which is what they're doing at Blue Brain IBM).

Didn't I just say that connections were another matter? Are you now being deliberately dense?

Originally Posted by Xei

Personally I think you can have thought without language. Just try it; perform some kind of basic action like walking or picking something up or looking at a picture, without letting a single word cross through your mind. It's quite easy.

Yeah indeed language is only one form of thought... also very interesting link you made with WILDing, never looked at it that way, sure gonna try it out.

@drewmadam: feel free to explain the mechanics of thought to us.. sure science has seen that neurons fire by changing potential because of chemical reactions in the brain, but where does thought come in?

Afaik, the only thing that science has figured out so far about thoughts is the association of parts in the brain lighting up with certain specific actions. It's like having figured out what the little led's on your computer are for.. bravo!