"You Are What You Think"

Originally posted by JS357
"But, it seems your point is that a skeptic with respect to 'I' could simply deny the antecedent; whereas the same skeptic would not be able to deny your alternative "thinking is happening". Is this what you mean? "

That's pretty much it. I'm denying that "thinking is happening" implies "a thinker exists" all by itself. There is needing something to be sho ...[text shortened]... GB's ideas stated here.

Sorry to be so brief, your comments deserve more.

That's pretty much it. I'm denying that "thinking is happening" implies "a thinker exists" all by itself. There is needing something to be shown to make the action of thinking imply the existence of a thinker, while not evoking dualism.

I think one could make a counter-argument that some sort of mind is analytic to thought. That is, they could claim that it is just a definitional matter that thinking is sourced from some mind. And since 'thinker' here is proxy for a mind (or a subject), it would follow that a thinker is analytic to thinking. Based on this reasoning, it follows that "thinking is happening" entails that there is some thinker sourcing it.

Putting that aside, though, even if it is true that thought entails a thinker, this doesn't have to evoke dualism. It's a further question whether or not the thought and the thinker are fundamentally different in kind. One can simply hold that thinking entails a thinker and yet the thought and the thinker are not disparate, which is consistent with monism. No problem.

If statements like "I think" are consistent with monism, it follows that thinker and thought are of the same substance, and are of the same substance as everything else if there is anything else, for example, if there is a "thought about" to distinguish from the other two." Right?

Yes.

I don't know how it works for GB's ideas stated here.

GB's commentary is at the very best rigorously vague and cryptic. So who knows.... I'd like to say that I agree with his general point, but like everyone else I don't really know what his general point is and he seems too lazy to respond in substance to direct calls for clarification (even though he started the thread in a manner that purports to initiate discussion). It's a shame, since it's a potentially very interesting thread topic. I guess the rest of us can pick up the topic and just work around him.

Originally posted by LemonJello

That's pretty much it. I'm denying that "thinking is happening" implies "a thinker exists" all by itself. There is needing something to be shown to make the action of thinking imply the existence of a thinker, while not evoking dualism.

I think one could make a counter-argument that some sort of mind is analytic to thought. That is, the ...[text shortened]... I guess the rest of us can pick up the topic and just work around him.

You Are What You Think"

"You may be judged by others for your overt behavior but you are what you think. You are not what you do; your acts and deeds reflect who and what you are within the mentality of your soul. Your attitudes and values influence, motivate and determine your verbal expression and social behavior. The human soul is the seat of our self consciousness, mentality, conscience and volition. There's a correlation between mind and body. "I'm worried sick" is a telling common phrase. Fear, worry, anxiety cause tensions which affect the body. Sins such as pride, jealousy, bitterness, vindictiveness, implacability, hatred and guilt will inevitably result in self induced misery. Disorientation to grace leads to needless agony of soul.

Some people live their entire lives cleverly attempting to hide from family members and friends. They deceive themselves. Others eventually see through the camouflage and sham. The scene played out precisely the same in ancient times. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9 | "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee." Proverbs 23:7 (KJV) (op)

If "you" see "yourself" defined in some other terms, please describe them. We're here to learn, not complain. Bob

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
... excused by whom?

Sorry, did my hypothetical point go over your head?

Originally posted by LemonJello

That's pretty much it. I'm denying that "thinking is happening" implies "a thinker exists" all by itself. There is needing something to be shown to make the action of thinking imply the existence of a thinker, while not evoking dualism.

I think one could make a counter-argument that some sort of mind is analytic to thought. That is, the ...[text shortened]... I guess the rest of us can pick up the topic and just work around him.

"...it follows that "thinking is happening" entails that there is some thinker sourcing it."

This entailment is only supported if the two (raining is happening and some rainer is now sourcing raining) are identical in terms of content and entailments; that is, neither has meaning including entailed meaning that the other lacks.

But this equivalence leads to attributing agency to everything that happens. This could be a theistic conclusion.

One who does not attribute agency to everything that happens, has the task of justifying his attribution of agency to some things and not others.

I am attracted to the idea that I-ness is an illusion, or I wouldn't go on like this.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Neuroplasticity enables the brain to rewire its 'cortical real estate' [wiki] and change, as new information is obtained + assimilated. The 'You' in "You Are What You Think" is dynamic and evolving as learning and new discovery occurs. (gb)

Odd that you seem to accept this, yet still hold to what seems to me to be the totally incompatible idea that the soul or mind, can continue after death.

Originally posted by JS357
"...it follows that "thinking is happening" entails that there is some thinker sourcing it."

This entailment is only supported if the two (raining is happening and some rainer is now sourcing raining) are identical in terms of content and entailments; that is, neither has meaning including entailed meaning that the other lacks.

But this equivalence leads ...[text shortened]... s.

I am attracted to the idea that I-ness is an illusion, or I wouldn't go on like this.

This entailment is only supported if the two (raining is happening and some rainer is now sourcing raining) are identical in terms of content and entailments; that is, neither has meaning including entailed meaning that the other lacks.

But this equivalence leads to attributing agency to everything that happens. This could be a theistic conclusion.

One who does not attribute agency to everything that happens, has the task of justifying his attribution of agency to some things and not others.

Again, the claim would be that it simply follows analytically that the thinking at issue entails a thinker. I don't know what "equivalence" you think there is here, but there is none with respect to the establishing of subjectivity. It would be absurd to claim that raining analytically entails subjectivity in the form of a rainer, since raining has nothing analytically to do with mental or conscious states, which are what definitionally tie into subjectivity. Of course, one could for example attribute subjectivity and agency in the form of a rainer as, say, an explanatory program to address why or how it is raining (although, as you point out, one would have the task of justifying this as a better explanation than competing ones); but it would be absurd to suggest that there is a link just in virtue of the definition of raining. On the other hand, is it absurd to claim that thinking analytically entails subjectivity in the form of a thinker? Prima facie, I don't think so, since the thinking at issue involves conscious and mental states, which again is exactly what definitionally ties into subjectivity. It's not so much an "attribution" of subjectivity here as it is simply a claim that there is an analytic link between thought and a subject. Does this make the argument any more convincing to you?

I am attracted to the idea that I-ness is an illusion, or I wouldn't go on like this.

What's the 'I' that feels this attraction to the idea that there is no 'I'? This sort of reminds me of a koan:

"
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Originally posted by twhitehead
Odd that you seem to accept this, yet still hold to what seems to me to be the totally incompatible idea that the soul or mind, can continue after death.

Word.

I don't pretend to be able to follow the depths of the conversation, but what would it take for a computer to 'think' and thus contain a 'thinker'?
Is consciousness required?
Is a worm, that responds to stimuli, a 'thinker'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't pretend to be able to follow the depths of the conversation, but what would it take for a computer to 'think' and thus contain a 'thinker'?
Is consciousness required?
Is a worm, that responds to stimuli, a 'thinker'?

Good questions. I think it should certainly be possible to instantiate mental and conscious states into, say, silicon technology. In fact, I recently sat through an incredibly interesting talk by a gentleman who was the lead on the Watson project at IBM (the computer that readily won the TV gameshow Jeopardy! against the best known human players), and his message was that the next great generational thing in computing will be "cognitive" computing and architecture, in which computers can basically think, learn, reason, etc. But this raises a bunch of tough questions like yours.

Why hang out here if spirituality isn't your bag? Do yourself a favor. Posers and Puzzles (For chess related, or off-topic, puzzles, riddles, games and other challenges...); Clans (Taunt, goad or ridicule rival clans, or just discuss this team based feature.); Debates (Potentially heated discussions on topics such as world affairs, politics and other such areas of interest.); Science (Scientific discussion and debate); Culture (Discussion forum for the arts.) are all looking for articulate intellects to join the fray. (gb)

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Why hang out here if spirituality isn't your bag? Do yourself a favor. Posers and Puzzles (For chess related, or off-topic, puzzles, riddles, games and other challenges...); Clans (Taunt, goad or ridicule rival clans, or just discuss this team based feature.); Debates (Potentially heated discussions on topics such as world affairs, politics and other su ...[text shortened]... iscussion forum for the arts.) are all looking for articulate intellects to join the fray. (gb)

Because (apart from anything else) the spirituality forum is the de-facto philosophy forum on this site.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Why hang out here if spirituality isn't your bag? Do yourself a favor.

Why hang out here if discussion isn't your bag? Do yourself a favour. Head over to your local Church and do your one-sided preaching there.
Here, expect your views to be questioned, challenged and clarification asked for.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Good questions. I think it should certainly be possible to instantiate mental and conscious states into, say, silicon technology. In fact, I recently sat through an incredibly interesting talk by a gentleman who was the lead on the Watson project at IBM (the computer that readily won the TV gameshow Jeopardy! against the best known human players) ...[text shortened]... n basically think, learn, reason, etc. But this raises a bunch of tough questions like yours.

"I think therefore I am."

Pretty much the only thing Descartes got right.

The fact that there are thoughts means that there must be something having those thoughts.

This is compatible with both dualist and non-dualist views of the world as the something doesn't have to be the bodies we perceive ourselves as inhabiting.

It works whether we are computer programs running in a simulation or coherent sub-thoughts of some greater mind.

The fact that I am having thoughts means I can be sure that there is something having those thoughts and that that something is me...
The rest of you I am less sure about 😉


I am of course a non-dualist and don't believe that the mind is separate from the brain but is a function of it. However I can only claim to know that probabilistically (albeit with a very high degree of certainty), whereas I can know that I exist absolutely.

Originally posted by LemonJello

This entailment is only supported if the two (raining is happening and some rainer is now sourcing raining) are identical in terms of content and entailments; that is, neither has meaning including entailed meaning that the other lacks.

But this equivalence leads to attributing agency to everything that happens. This could be a theistic conclusi ...[text shortened]... hing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"[/i]

These ancillary, intellectualized tirades aren't helping.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
These ancillary, intellectualized tirades aren't helping.

What tirades?
Helping what?

This is quite an interesting discussion.
You should try joining in.