Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!


  1. Mar 2, 2004 #1
    What is human thought? Is it just a bunch of neurons firing? Or is it in a higher plane of existance? Do we form our own thoughts? I have been wracking my brain for a few days about this one and cant seem to finalise a theory.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 2, 2004 #2
    Human thought is a bunch of electrochemical signals zipping away in our brain. This does not make it less meaningful then the other ideas of what thought is.

    A song is just a bunch of sound waves flowing through the air, but it is still beautiful.

    A rose is just a clump of organic compounds with rudimentary DNA. Yet it still holds the power to captivate.
  4. Mar 3, 2004 #3
    them eltro-chemical firings are the way our physical brain processes an idea from our mind.

    our mind exists at or in an enviornment that we haven't scientifically proven exists.

  5. Mar 3, 2004 #4
    Validate your claim with facts
  6. Mar 3, 2004 #5
    Not to be nitpicky, but if it hasn't been shown to exist, how do you know it is there in the first place?
  7. Mar 3, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Consciousness cannot be shown to exist purely from the 3rd person perspective, but its existence is obvious from the 1st person perspective (in fact, "1st person perspective" and "consciousness" are synonymous).
  8. Mar 3, 2004 #7
    I wasn't referring to consciousness, I was addressing the idea that consiousness "exists at or in an enviornment that we haven't scientifically proven exists".
  9. Mar 4, 2004 #8
    Unless the 1st person perspective of the brain is biased by an evolutionary innovation that causes similar information to be integrated into seemingly coherent thought, while there is nothing there but that which is observable in the 3rd person perspective: computation.
  10. Mar 4, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hello, there is obviously something there that is not observable from the 3rd person perspective. You cannot observe my experience of redness. Perhaps you will say that you can view my experience of redness from a different perspective by observing my brain functions; but the point is that in order to do that you need to assume a different perspective. I occupy a certain perspective that you have no access to, and that in itself refutes your notion. If there were nothing but the 3rd person perspective, as you seem to suggest, then you would have complete access to everything that I have access to.
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2004
  11. Mar 4, 2004 #10
    I don't see what your are getting at.
  12. Mar 4, 2004 #11
    how do we prove that people that were declare brain dead, recovered to report an experience?

    their brain waves ceased, but they didn't.

    my brain is the communication device for my mind to the physical.

    sorry, can't be proven. BUT it can't be disproven EITHER.

    prove me wrong.

  13. Mar 5, 2004 #12
    memory molecules

    If thought was a result of brain functions, that were explained only on its funtioning parts, then replacement of memory molecules would leave us without thought.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2004
  14. Mar 5, 2004 #13
    Re: memory molecules

    Would it? You said replacement, if the replacement molecules were functioning, then you'd simply have different thoughts..

    But memories are very much part of what makes thought possible.

    But you statement is pretty much meaningless, since I have never heard of anybody "getting their memory molecules replaced."

    If, however, you lose your memories, you lose one of the primary things that makes you you.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2004
  15. Mar 5, 2004 #14
    Re: Re: memory molecules

    What about the old memory thoughts. How does a molecule know how to pass on information. Molecules are made from atoms and atoms seem to be have a irreducible complexity. So how is information stored and passed on?
  16. Mar 5, 2004 #15
    Re: Re: Re: memory molecules

    A couple things. First we already have a very clear example of how molecule(s) can store information. You are using a device that applies this technology as we speak.

    Science does not have to pretend to know the answer, it is okay and infact encouraged to admit what we do not know. The exact physiological process of memory is poorly understood, yet there is a great deal of research currently being conducted on this process. There are also some very informed scientific hypotheses as to the process of human memory. All these hypotheses involve a purely physical process.

    Atoms seem to be irreducibly complex to who? You? Are you saying anything made from atoms is also irreducible. If I were to write this on paper, these words would be nothing but light reflecting off atoms, would that make these words also irreducible?

    I think you have more than a few flaws in your line of thought.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2004
  17. Mar 6, 2004 #16
    Re: Re: Re: Re: memory molecules

    Is it because nothing is absolutely true. It seems were both perplexed you have not given me anything but more questions.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Thought
  1. Thoughts on death (Replies: 37)

  2. Thought experiment (Replies: 7)

  3. Food for thought (Replies: 8)

  4. Here's a Thought (Replies: 8)