Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting

Expand Messages
  • eduardathome
    The body s chemistry is only another input to the brain. If we change the chemistry of the body ... say by a burn ... then this condition is reported to the
    Message 1 of 8 , Jan 2, 2013
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      The body's chemistry is only another input to the brain. If we change the
      chemistry of the body ... say by a burn ... then this condition is reported
      to the brain. It is the same as the sensation of touch or the sensation
      that our stomach is empty and you should search for food. In any case the
      chemistry does not of itself produce thought. This then is not an
      exception.

      The thoughts of other brains do indeed influence our brains. If Sartre
      thinks of something, then he writes a book: we read the book and our brain
      acquires the thought. Physical space has never been created by interaction
      of other brains. The only thing they can do is to conclude that the persons
      having these brains should stand further apart. This is not an exception to
      the principle that we think with our brains.

      Your statement ... "Our entire environment (body and other natural
      phenomena) is part of thinking, not just the brain" ... makes no sense.
      How does say a tree involve itself in my thinking?? I can think of a tree,
      and a tree my inspire my thinking, but a tree cannot think for me in place
      of my brain. Please give me an example of a thought that was produced by a
      tree that is separate from my [or your] brain.

      I have not read David Bohm, but I should think that he did not came right
      out and say that some of his thoughts were not produced by his brain.

      Yes, we are at an impasse. As I said at the beginning, there is a huge
      reluctance to accept that we actually think with our brains. Which, in a
      way, I find very surprising considering all the science that has gone into
      the subject in the past few years. The brain does our thinking. It's not a
      theory but a basic fact. And yes, the brain does for the most part seek out
      answers that are based on personal need to feel certain or happy. That is
      precisely what it does. A scientist uses his/her brain to conclude a
      solution for which there is an assumed certainty. Everyone ultimately tries
      to find answers that will result in happiness. But beyond this, the general
      public refuses to accept that they think with their brains.

      And yet the functioning of our brains gives explanation for all of our
      behaviour and philosophies and whatever else is the product of thinking. If
      you look up "Existentialism" on Wikipedia you get statements like ...

      "Authenticity, in the context of existentialism, is being true to one's own
      personality, spirit, or character." Personality, spirit and character are
      products of the brain. We all know that. It's a fact.

      Or ... "Søren Kierkegaard, generally considered to be the first
      existentialist philosopher, posited that it is the individual who is solely
      responsible for giving meaning to life and for living life passionately and
      sincerely. " An understanding of the meaning to life is a product of our
      thinking which is of the brain. It does not arise anywhere else.

      Or in regard to "Existence precedes essence" .... "Thus, human beings,
      through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a
      meaning to their life." Again, this is the workings of the brain. The
      environment in which we live cannot produce a thought. It might be able to
      do so if it had a brain, but it doesn't.

      Anyway I guess I have talked myself out. I see this subject as highly
      important, but it has been my experience that very few people want to
      recognize that they think with their brains.

      eduardathome


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Mary
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:39 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting

      Our body's chemistry influences our brain chemistry; that is outside the
      brain. The thoughts of other brains influence our brains; a physical space
      is created by the interaction of other brains. So yes, an individual brain
      seems the primary organ or mechanical part producing thoughts, but this is
      an illusion. Our entire environment (body and other natural phenomena) is
      part of thinking, not just the brain. David Bohm's "Thought As A System"
      doesn't pose some outside force influencing thought, rather that a system of
      thought unfolds from an implicate physical order but tends to think it is in
      charge of the unfolding. His work in theoretical physics led him to a
      holistic perspective in which parts of the whole (in this case
      neuro-chemical processes) are also themselves part of the order and not
      solely order producing.

      Eduard, we are at an impasse in which we each choose (or feel good about)
      our own perspectives. A theory is constructed with complex interrelated
      ideas and categories not simply a fantasy based in the personal need to feel
      certain or happy. A personal philosophy demands less vigor, because we tend
      to inertia when satisfied.

      Mary
    • Mary
      ... Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether specific chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings. ... What is
      Message 2 of 8 , Jan 2, 2013
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
        >
        > The body's chemistry is only another input to the brain. If we change the
        > chemistry of the body ... say by a burn ... then this condition is reported
        > to the brain. It is the same as the sensation of touch or the sensation
        > that our stomach is empty and you should search for food. In any case the
        > chemistry does not of itself produce thought. This then is not an
        > exception.

        Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether specific chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings.

        > The thoughts of other brains do indeed influence our brains. If Sartre
        > thinks of something, then he writes a book: we read the book and our brain
        > acquires the thought. Physical space has never been created by interaction
        > of other brains. The only thing they can do is to conclude that the persons
        > having these brains should stand further apart. This is not an exception to
        > the principle that we think with our brains.

        What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of neurons? A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely active brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during thought. Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions which can be stimulated externally?

        > Your statement ... "Our entire environment (body and other natural
        > phenomena) is part of thinking, not just the brain" ... makes no sense.
        > How does say a tree involve itself in my thinking?? I can think of a tree,
        > and a tree my inspire my thinking, but a tree cannot think for me in place
        > of my brain. Please give me an example of a thought that was produced by a
        > tree that is separate from my [or your] brain.

        I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in our bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found in nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought.

        > I have not read David Bohm, but I should think that he did not came right
        > out and say that some of his thoughts were not produced by his brain.

        What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily think only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work, but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach.

        > Yes, we are at an impasse. As I said at the beginning, there is a huge
        > reluctance to accept that we actually think with our brains. Which, in a
        > way, I find very surprising considering all the science that has gone into
        > the subject in the past few years. The brain does our thinking. It's not a
        > theory but a basic fact. And yes, the brain does for the most part seek out
        > answers that are based on personal need to feel certain or happy. That is
        > precisely what it does. A scientist uses his/her brain to conclude a
        > solution for which there is an assumed certainty. Everyone ultimately tries
        > to find answers that will result in happiness. But beyond this, the general
        > public refuses to accept that they think with their brains.

        I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of thought. They simply realize that the content of their thought is more important than the machinery.

        > And yet the functioning of our brains gives explanation for all of our
        > behaviour and philosophies and whatever else is the product of thinking. If
        > you look up "Existentialism" on Wikipedia you get statements like ...
        >
        > "Authenticity, in the context of existentialism, is being true to one's own
        > personality, spirit, or character." Personality, spirit and character are
        > products of the brain. We all know that. It's a fact.
        >
        > Or ... "Søren Kierkegaard, generally considered to be the first
        > existentialist philosopher, posited that it is the individual who is solely
        > responsible for giving meaning to life and for living life passionately and
        > sincerely. " An understanding of the meaning to life is a product of our
        > thinking which is of the brain. It does not arise anywhere else.
        >
        > Or in regard to "Existence precedes essence" .... "Thus, human beings,
        > through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a
        > meaning to their life." Again, this is the workings of the brain. The
        > environment in which we live cannot produce a thought. It might be able to
        > do so if it had a brain, but it doesn't.
        >
        > Anyway I guess I have talked myself out. I see this subject as highly
        > important, but it has been my experience that very few people want to
        > recognize that they think with their brains.

        I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of and learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was highly motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit psychological techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order to observe how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and creates disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus. He was a holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer from too much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent thoughts which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not interested in the mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted; thoughts themselves are the problem.

        > eduardathome

        Mary

        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mary
        > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:39 PM
        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting
        >
        > Our body's chemistry influences our brain chemistry; that is outside the
        > brain. The thoughts of other brains influence our brains; a physical space
        > is created by the interaction of other brains. So yes, an individual brain
        > seems the primary organ or mechanical part producing thoughts, but this is
        > an illusion. Our entire environment (body and other natural phenomena) is
        > part of thinking, not just the brain. David Bohm's "Thought As A System"
        > doesn't pose some outside force influencing thought, rather that a system of
        > thought unfolds from an implicate physical order but tends to think it is in
        > charge of the unfolding. His work in theoretical physics led him to a
        > holistic perspective in which parts of the whole (in this case
        > neuro-chemical processes) are also themselves part of the order and not
        > solely order producing.
        >
        > Eduard, we are at an impasse in which we each choose (or feel good about)
        > our own perspectives. A theory is constructed with complex interrelated
        > ideas and categories not simply a fantasy based in the personal need to feel
        > certain or happy. A personal philosophy demands less vigor, because we tend
        > to inertia when satisfied.
        >
        > Mary
        >
      • eduardathome
        (1) Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether specific chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings. I don t
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 3, 2013
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          (1) "Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether
          specific chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings."

          I don't dispute this. However, what you are saying is that these chemicals
          produce "thoughts and feelings". Where are these thoughts?? They are
          obviously in your brain. They are not in the chemicals or anywhere else.
          This is not an exception to the point that we think with our brains, even
          though its thinking can be triggered by something outside of itself.

          (2) "What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of
          neurons? A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely
          active brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during
          thought. Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions
          which can be stimulated externally?"

          Active brains do not become more wrinkled. The wrinkles are there from the
          start. You simply use the existing neurons and create new connections.
          Nothing physical happens during thought. Thought is the processing of
          neurons. If anything you could say that the ion exchange at synapses is
          physical, but I doubt that this is what you mean. I agree that that the
          brain can be stimulated externally. Wilder Penfield of McGill University
          showed that back in the early 1950s, by probing a live brain. Of course
          that isn't exactly the same as say reacting to an external noise but the
          point is made. But if the brain is stimulated externally to release memory,
          stored images [actually the elements of images ... the brain does store
          images] and emotions, then this simply says that the external stimulus
          causes thinking and this occurs in the brain. This is not an exception to
          the point that we think with our brains.

          (3) "I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in
          our bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found
          in nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought."

          It seemed you were saying that. But if nature affects thought, then it is
          thought which occurs in the brain. This is not an exception.

          (4) "What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily
          think only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains
          partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because
          we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work,
          but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and
          pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach."

          The issue is whether the brain is doing any thinking. My sole point is that
          this thinking occurs in the brain. As you put it, I fully accept that
          thought is contagious, but we do not think someone else's thoughts. We
          think our own thoughts which may adopt what others are thinking. That's a
          huge difference. We may well be subject to environment or to pathology, but
          this does not mean that we do not think with our brains. What we perceive
          is our brain's interpretation of things out there.

          (5) "I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of
          thought. They simply realize that the content of their thought is more
          important than the machinery."

          And there in is the difficulty and the stumbling block. People want to
          separate out the content of their thought from the means by which this
          thought is produced. They advocate that the content is more important than
          the machinery, but what they are really saying is that the content is too
          important to be produced by machinery. How can a piece of machinery ever
          produce a book on philosophy such as that by Sartre. But the reality is
          that the machinery does exactly that. We are born with a brain which is
          full of neurons. Over time, those neurons learn mental scripts that are
          capable of producing thoughts with a wide range of content. Granted, to say
          that there is a neural script is very simplistic. A thought may require the
          use of millions of neurons and thousands if not tens of thousands of
          scripts. That is why the brain is wrinkled ... the neurons are on the
          surface and wrinkling increases the surface area and thus the number of
          available neurons.

          (6) "I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of
          and learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was
          highly motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit
          psychological techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order
          to observe how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and
          creates disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus.
          He was a holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer
          from too much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent
          thoughts which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not
          interested in the mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted;
          thoughts themselves are the problem."

          As much as I have now read about David Bohm's ideas, it doesn't appear that
          he is saying that the brain can't think or produce thoughts. What he is
          saying that the human brain [my brain, your brain, everyone's brain] is part
          of a system. As much as a company may have different departments which must
          work in unison and exchange information. I completely agree.

          But when we started out on this subject, my point was that it is the brain
          which thinks and produces our thoughts. Your counterpoint was that the
          brain can only observe and measure. I object to that, as my position is
          that the brain is capable of producing all our thoughts, whether this be to
          express appreciation for a chocolate or to write a philosophical text or
          compose a symphony. I would suggest that the faults supposed by Bohm in the
          "system" cannot be found as long as we deny the fact that it is the brain
          that thinks. Similarly we can't know how the system itself works without
          being aware of how the brains of individuals function.

          eduardathome


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Mary
          Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:10 PM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome <yeoman@...> wrote:
          >
          > The body's chemistry is only another input to the brain. If we change the
          > chemistry of the body ... say by a burn ... then this condition is
          > reported
          > to the brain. It is the same as the sensation of touch or the sensation
          > that our stomach is empty and you should search for food. In any case the
          > chemistry does not of itself produce thought. This then is not an
          > exception.

          Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether specific
          chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings.

          > The thoughts of other brains do indeed influence our brains. If Sartre
          > thinks of something, then he writes a book: we read the book and our brain
          > acquires the thought. Physical space has never been created by
          > interaction
          > of other brains. The only thing they can do is to conclude that the
          > persons
          > having these brains should stand further apart. This is not an exception
          > to
          > the principle that we think with our brains.

          What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of neurons?
          A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely active
          brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during thought.
          Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions which
          can be stimulated externally?

          > Your statement ... "Our entire environment (body and other natural
          > phenomena) is part of thinking, not just the brain" ... makes no sense.
          > How does say a tree involve itself in my thinking?? I can think of a
          > tree,
          > and a tree my inspire my thinking, but a tree cannot think for me in place
          > of my brain. Please give me an example of a thought that was produced by
          > a
          > tree that is separate from my [or your] brain.

          I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in our
          bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found in
          nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought.

          > I have not read David Bohm, but I should think that he did not came right
          > out and say that some of his thoughts were not produced by his brain.

          What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily think
          only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains
          partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because
          we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work,
          but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and
          pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach.

          > Yes, we are at an impasse. As I said at the beginning, there is a huge
          > reluctance to accept that we actually think with our brains. Which, in a
          > way, I find very surprising considering all the science that has gone into
          > the subject in the past few years. The brain does our thinking. It's not
          > a
          > theory but a basic fact. And yes, the brain does for the most part seek
          > out
          > answers that are based on personal need to feel certain or happy. That is
          > precisely what it does. A scientist uses his/her brain to conclude a
          > solution for which there is an assumed certainty. Everyone ultimately
          > tries
          > to find answers that will result in happiness. But beyond this, the
          > general
          > public refuses to accept that they think with their brains.

          I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of thought.
          They simply realize that the content of their thought is more important than
          the machinery.

          > And yet the functioning of our brains gives explanation for all of our
          > behaviour and philosophies and whatever else is the product of thinking.
          > If
          > you look up "Existentialism" on Wikipedia you get statements like ...
          >
          > "Authenticity, in the context of existentialism, is being true to one's
          > own
          > personality, spirit, or character." Personality, spirit and character are
          > products of the brain. We all know that. It's a fact.
          >
          > Or ... "Søren Kierkegaard, generally considered to be the first
          > existentialist philosopher, posited that it is the individual who is
          > solely
          > responsible for giving meaning to life and for living life passionately
          > and
          > sincerely. " An understanding of the meaning to life is a product of our
          > thinking which is of the brain. It does not arise anywhere else.
          >
          > Or in regard to "Existence precedes essence" .... "Thus, human beings,
          > through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a
          > meaning to their life." Again, this is the workings of the brain. The
          > environment in which we live cannot produce a thought. It might be able
          > to
          > do so if it had a brain, but it doesn't.
          >
          > Anyway I guess I have talked myself out. I see this subject as highly
          > important, but it has been my experience that very few people want to
          > recognize that they think with their brains.

          I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of and
          learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was highly
          motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit psychological
          techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order to observe
          how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and creates
          disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus. He was a
          holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer from too
          much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent thoughts
          which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not interested in the
          mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted; thoughts themselves
          are the problem.

          > eduardathome

          Mary

          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Mary
          > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:39 PM
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting
          >
          > Our body's chemistry influences our brain chemistry; that is outside the
          > brain. The thoughts of other brains influence our brains; a physical space
          > is created by the interaction of other brains. So yes, an individual brain
          > seems the primary organ or mechanical part producing thoughts, but this is
          > an illusion. Our entire environment (body and other natural phenomena) is
          > part of thinking, not just the brain. David Bohm's "Thought As A System"
          > doesn't pose some outside force influencing thought, rather that a system
          > of
          > thought unfolds from an implicate physical order but tends to think it is
          > in
          > charge of the unfolding. His work in theoretical physics led him to a
          > holistic perspective in which parts of the whole (in this case
          > neuro-chemical processes) are also themselves part of the order and not
          > solely order producing.
          >
          > Eduard, we are at an impasse in which we each choose (or feel good about)
          > our own perspectives. A theory is constructed with complex interrelated
          > ideas and categories not simply a fantasy based in the personal need to
          > feel
          > certain or happy. A personal philosophy demands less vigor, because we
          > tend
          > to inertia when satisfied.
          >
          > Mary
          >




          ------------------------------------

          Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

          Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        • Mary
          eduard, Well argued and presented. You emphasize the brain (science) and I the larger system of thought (philosophy) or how to apply what we think we know
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 3, 2013
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            eduard,

            Well argued and presented. You emphasize the brain (science) and I the larger system of thought (philosophy) or how to apply what we think we know about the brain, which falls in the domain of ethics.

            Mary

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
            >
            > (1) "Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether
            > specific chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings."
            >
            > I don't dispute this. However, what you are saying is that these chemicals
            > produce "thoughts and feelings". Where are these thoughts?? They are
            > obviously in your brain. They are not in the chemicals or anywhere else.
            > This is not an exception to the point that we think with our brains, even
            > though its thinking can be triggered by something outside of itself.
            >
            > (2) "What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of
            > neurons? A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely
            > active brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during
            > thought. Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions
            > which can be stimulated externally?"
            >
            > Active brains do not become more wrinkled. The wrinkles are there from the
            > start. You simply use the existing neurons and create new connections.
            > Nothing physical happens during thought. Thought is the processing of
            > neurons. If anything you could say that the ion exchange at synapses is
            > physical, but I doubt that this is what you mean. I agree that that the
            > brain can be stimulated externally. Wilder Penfield of McGill University
            > showed that back in the early 1950s, by probing a live brain. Of course
            > that isn't exactly the same as say reacting to an external noise but the
            > point is made. But if the brain is stimulated externally to release memory,
            > stored images [actually the elements of images ... the brain does store
            > images] and emotions, then this simply says that the external stimulus
            > causes thinking and this occurs in the brain. This is not an exception to
            > the point that we think with our brains.
            >
            > (3) "I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in
            > our bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found
            > in nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought."
            >
            > It seemed you were saying that. But if nature affects thought, then it is
            > thought which occurs in the brain. This is not an exception.
            >
            > (4) "What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily
            > think only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains
            > partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because
            > we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work,
            > but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and
            > pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach."
            >
            > The issue is whether the brain is doing any thinking. My sole point is that
            > this thinking occurs in the brain. As you put it, I fully accept that
            > thought is contagious, but we do not think someone else's thoughts. We
            > think our own thoughts which may adopt what others are thinking. That's a
            > huge difference. We may well be subject to environment or to pathology, but
            > this does not mean that we do not think with our brains. What we perceive
            > is our brain's interpretation of things out there.
            >
            > (5) "I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of
            > thought. They simply realize that the content of their thought is more
            > important than the machinery."
            >
            > And there in is the difficulty and the stumbling block. People want to
            > separate out the content of their thought from the means by which this
            > thought is produced. They advocate that the content is more important than
            > the machinery, but what they are really saying is that the content is too
            > important to be produced by machinery. How can a piece of machinery ever
            > produce a book on philosophy such as that by Sartre. But the reality is
            > that the machinery does exactly that. We are born with a brain which is
            > full of neurons. Over time, those neurons learn mental scripts that are
            > capable of producing thoughts with a wide range of content. Granted, to say
            > that there is a neural script is very simplistic. A thought may require the
            > use of millions of neurons and thousands if not tens of thousands of
            > scripts. That is why the brain is wrinkled ... the neurons are on the
            > surface and wrinkling increases the surface area and thus the number of
            > available neurons.
            >
            > (6) "I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of
            > and learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was
            > highly motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit
            > psychological techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order
            > to observe how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and
            > creates disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus.
            > He was a holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer
            > from too much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent
            > thoughts which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not
            > interested in the mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted;
            > thoughts themselves are the problem."
            >
            > As much as I have now read about David Bohm's ideas, it doesn't appear that
            > he is saying that the brain can't think or produce thoughts. What he is
            > saying that the human brain [my brain, your brain, everyone's brain] is part
            > of a system. As much as a company may have different departments which must
            > work in unison and exchange information. I completely agree.
            >
            > But when we started out on this subject, my point was that it is the brain
            > which thinks and produces our thoughts. Your counterpoint was that the
            > brain can only observe and measure. I object to that, as my position is
            > that the brain is capable of producing all our thoughts, whether this be to
            > express appreciation for a chocolate or to write a philosophical text or
            > compose a symphony. I would suggest that the faults supposed by Bohm in the
            > "system" cannot be found as long as we deny the fact that it is the brain
            > that thinks. Similarly we can't know how the system itself works without
            > being aware of how the brains of individuals function.
            >
            > eduardathome
            >
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: Mary
            > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 10:10 PM
            > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eduardathome wrote:
            > >
            > > The body's chemistry is only another input to the brain. If we change the
            > > chemistry of the body ... say by a burn ... then this condition is
            > > reported
            > > to the brain. It is the same as the sensation of touch or the sensation
            > > that our stomach is empty and you should search for food. In any case the
            > > chemistry does not of itself produce thought. This then is not an
            > > exception.
            >
            > Ask any person who is subject to anxiety or panic triggers whether specific
            > chemicals produce anxious and/or paranoid thoughts and feelings.
            >
            > > The thoughts of other brains do indeed influence our brains. If Sartre
            > > thinks of something, then he writes a book: we read the book and our brain
            > > acquires the thought. Physical space has never been created by
            > > interaction
            > > of other brains. The only thing they can do is to conclude that the
            > > persons
            > > having these brains should stand further apart. This is not an exception
            > > to
            > > the principle that we think with our brains.
            >
            > What is the acquisition of a thought but the building/connecting of neurons?
            > A thought occupies a physical space in the brain? Why do intensely active
            > brains become more wrinkled if nothing physical happens during thought.
            > Don't parts of the brain contain memory, stored images and emotions which
            > can be stimulated externally?
            >
            > > Your statement ... "Our entire environment (body and other natural
            > > phenomena) is part of thinking, not just the brain" ... makes no sense.
            > > How does say a tree involve itself in my thinking?? I can think of a
            > > tree,
            > > and a tree my inspire my thinking, but a tree cannot think for me in place
            > > of my brain. Please give me an example of a thought that was produced by
            > > a
            > > tree that is separate from my [or your] brain.
            >
            > I'm not saying the tree is thinking; chemicals found in nature, and in our
            > bodies can adversely affect the brain, and the beauty and terror found in
            > nature (including other people) affects mood which affects thought.
            >
            > > I have not read David Bohm, but I should think that he did not came right
            > > out and say that some of his thoughts were not produced by his brain.
            >
            > What he said was thought is contagious and that we don't necessarily think
            > only our own thoughts. The system of thought, of which our own brains
            > partake and influence, leads us to believe whatever we think is true because
            > we are thinking it. Naturally, the machinery of the brain is doing the work,
            > but what we perceive and what we are subjected to environmentally and
            > pathologically are part of the system. This is a holistic approach.
            >
            > > Yes, we are at an impasse. As I said at the beginning, there is a huge
            > > reluctance to accept that we actually think with our brains. Which, in a
            > > way, I find very surprising considering all the science that has gone into
            > > the subject in the past few years. The brain does our thinking. It's not
            > > a
            > > theory but a basic fact. And yes, the brain does for the most part seek
            > > out
            > > answers that are based on personal need to feel certain or happy. That is
            > > precisely what it does. A scientist uses his/her brain to conclude a
            > > solution for which there is an assumed certainty. Everyone ultimately
            > > tries
            > > to find answers that will result in happiness. But beyond this, the
            > > general
            > > public refuses to accept that they think with their brains.
            >
            > I disagree with you that people reject the brain as the source of thought.
            > They simply realize that the content of their thought is more important than
            > the machinery.
            >
            > > And yet the functioning of our brains gives explanation for all of our
            > > behaviour and philosophies and whatever else is the product of thinking.
            > > If
            > > you look up "Existentialism" on Wikipedia you get statements like ...
            > >
            > > "Authenticity, in the context of existentialism, is being true to one's
            > > own
            > > personality, spirit, or character." Personality, spirit and character are
            > > products of the brain. We all know that. It's a fact.
            > >
            > > Or ... "Søren Kierkegaard, generally considered to be the first
            > > existentialist philosopher, posited that it is the individual who is
            > > solely
            > > responsible for giving meaning to life and for living life passionately
            > > and
            > > sincerely. " An understanding of the meaning to life is a product of our
            > > thinking which is of the brain. It does not arise anywhere else.
            > >
            > > Or in regard to "Existence precedes essence" .... "Thus, human beings,
            > > through their own consciousness, create their own values and determine a
            > > meaning to their life." Again, this is the workings of the brain. The
            > > environment in which we live cannot produce a thought. It might be able
            > > to
            > > do so if it had a brain, but it doesn't.
            > >
            > > Anyway I guess I have talked myself out. I see this subject as highly
            > > important, but it has been my experience that very few people want to
            > > recognize that they think with their brains.
            >
            > I suppose part of authenticity is intentionally becoming more aware of and
            > learning to change thinking habits which are destructive. Bohm was highly
            > motivated in this regard, though he didn't overtly credit psychological
            > techniques as you have. He advocated formal dialogues in order to observe
            > how thought moves between participants, how it threatens and creates
            > disagreement or makes thought makes us happy and creates consensus. He was a
            > holistic thinker, in his physics as well, and suggested we suffer from too
            > much cognitive dissonance. We hold too many conflicting, incoherent thoughts
            > which only dialogue can tease out and make us face. I not interested in the
            > mechanics of the brain, since I take them for granted; thoughts themselves
            > are the problem.
            >
            > > eduardathome
            >
            > Mary
            >
            > >
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Mary
            > > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:39 PM
            > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
            > > Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting
            > >
            > > Our body's chemistry influences our brain chemistry; that is outside the
            > > brain. The thoughts of other brains influence our brains; a physical space
            > > is created by the interaction of other brains. So yes, an individual brain
            > > seems the primary organ or mechanical part producing thoughts, but this is
            > > an illusion. Our entire environment (body and other natural phenomena) is
            > > part of thinking, not just the brain. David Bohm's "Thought As A System"
            > > doesn't pose some outside force influencing thought, rather that a system
            > > of
            > > thought unfolds from an implicate physical order but tends to think it is
            > > in
            > > charge of the unfolding. His work in theoretical physics led him to a
            > > holistic perspective in which parts of the whole (in this case
            > > neuro-chemical processes) are also themselves part of the order and not
            > > solely order producing.
            > >
            > > Eduard, we are at an impasse in which we each choose (or feel good about)
            > > our own perspectives. A theory is constructed with complex interrelated
            > > ideas and categories not simply a fantasy based in the personal need to
            > > feel
            > > certain or happy. A personal philosophy demands less vigor, because we
            > > tend
            > > to inertia when satisfied.
            > >
            > > Mary
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
            >
            > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
            >
          • eduardathome
            But I don t limit the domain of the brain. It s everything. I find myself asking of someone ... what script is he/she running? And in a way the corollary of
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 3, 2013
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              But I don't limit the domain of the brain. It's everything. I find myself
              asking of someone ... what script is he/she running? And in a way the
              corollary of where or how did they get that script? For example, I ask the
              question of politicians [of course not directly as they would not know what
              I was talking about]. It is like some say when querying why people do
              whatever ... "follow the money". That assumes a particular motive, but it
              is similar. Or we might ask ... "what's in it for them".

              The "what's in it for him" is really to ask what is the conclusion of the
              script he/she is running.

              Try it. It will give you a completely different perspective on people.

              The one I am presently working on is to ask what script was Saint Paul
              running when he choose to promote Christianity instead of persecuting the
              Christians? What did he expect to get out of it?? Of course some might say
              that one shouldn't ask such questions of a saint. The standard answer is
              that Christ chose him on the way to Damascus. But my view is that people
              are people and they do things in their own interest, even if it is running a
              charity or a religion.

              Although perhaps arguable otherwise, I don't think that the brain is
              inclined to run a script that would have a negative impact upon the person.
              Yes, there are scripts that are negative [for example, suicide] but there
              has to be a side benefit that is more positive. "I kill myself [negative]
              because this will end my suffering [positive].

              I think that Jesus prior to being arrested by the Jewish priests and praying
              in earnest, in the Gospel of Luke, is an example of someone who is trying
              to maintain their mental script against second thoughts.

              eduardathome

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Mary
              Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:49 PM
              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [existlist] Re: philosophical thoughting

              eduard,

              Well argued and presented. You emphasize the brain (science) and I the
              larger system of thought (philosophy) or how to apply what we think we know
              about the brain, which falls in the domain of ethics.

              Mary
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.