[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: prisoner.jpg (6 KB, 225x225)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
Are thoughts material objects?
>>
>>10062478
the idea of a discrete thought isn't coherent or useful
>>
>>10062482
How should one conceive of it then?
>>
>>10062484
as information processing and biochemical reactions, introspection is essentially useless for description
>>
>>10062478
Probably.
>>
>>10062478
are the 1's and 0's that your computer has stored in its RAM so that it can display this webpage "material objects"?
>>
>>10062557
yes, that doesn't apply to thoughts though, computers don't have consciousness

a rock has information also, but not consciousness
>>
A brain can hypothetically be reproduced in a state that would reproduce a thought, so yes
>>
Unironic question/statement: aren’t thoughts just electrical impulses? OP I think you’re just asking if energy is an object
>>
>>10062489
I don't know of that's wholly true. You can certainly model a thought as a time series of electrochemical reactions, and conceive of hypothetical thought distributions that model some class of thought.
>>
>>10062576
I misread your post, disregard that.
>>
>>10062565
Define conciousness
>>
>>10062478
No, but they stem from a material object, and are directly manipulated by it.
>>
File: 1523999342384.jpg (38 KB, 500x376)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>10062478
dunno lol
>>
>>10062815
Other way around friend
>>
>>10062478
Your brain is a Material object so Yes.
>>
>>10062478
No, material objects are thoughts.
>>
>>10062565
You can't even prove that another human being has consciousness, how can you prove that a rock does or does not?

Of course you can get around this by saying that you PREFER to think that other people have consciousness and that rocks do not. But you can't prove it.
>>
>>10062478
This is /sci/
>>
>>10063837
you can't strictly prove or disprove it but we can make a reasonable argument that objects without the physical systems necessary for conscious or emotional thought, so a rock presumable is not conscious because it doesn't have a brain, nervous system, or computer from which to derive consciousness.

To answer your question OP, thoughts themselves are immaterial but the processes to produce them are material.
>>
>>10064377
>physical systems necessary for conscious or emotional thought,
But we don't know what that physical system is, or even if there needs to be a physical system
>>
>>10064439
well in practice we actually can, neurobiology lays out the system in humans and computer engineering lays it out for AI, though there absolutely could be other systems that we are unaware of.
>>
>>10062565
>>10063837
Probably the best indicator to whether a thing has consciousness is that if it came out of a woman's vagina or not.
>>
>>10062478
I think so.
Vesicles need to be actively transported extremely long distances, precisesly, in neurons in order for proper function. Certain thoughts can cause electrochemical cascades in different parts of the brain, based on the thought and the "emotion" behind it, and other factors. So thoughts definitely are comprised of material objects physically moving. But memory is harder, i like to think memory is physical in some subtle storage mechanism we just havnt discovered in cells yet, like tubulin PTMs or something.
>>
>>10064525
Wow I guess all those dildos your mom posses are living things.
>>
>>10064439
>well in practice we actually can
then prove a rock is not conscious.
>>
>>10064466
>though there absolutely could be other systems that we are unaware of.
Exactly, basic induction
>>10065087
Can't prove a negative.
Our concept of consciousness is rooted in our experience of our own consciousness, and we assume that is the only type of consciousness. Rocks may be completely conscious and intelligent only we don't see it because their thought processes take millions of years so to us they appear inert.
>>
>>10065631
You can prove a negative by proving something is impossible
>>
>>10062478
Define thoughts
>>
File: ug8vzw2h4c411.jpg (584 KB, 3264x2448)
584 KB
584 KB JPG
>>10065643
>You can prove a negative by proving something is impossible
>>
>>10062478
in a way, yes
>>
>>10062478
Shut up everyone. Matter = Energy = Thoughts, matter is truely just energy. Do your thought cause shifts in matter? Yes. Energy acting on energy, matter acting on matter
>>
>>10062557
electrons are not material?
>>
>>10062568
A bowl of fruit can be arranged so as to perform arithmetic computations. Are numbers material objects?
>>
>>10065631
>Can't prove a negative.
What happened to this board?
>>
>>10064525
>c-section babies don't have consciousness
Has anyone tested this?





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.