What is Thinking? Theories & Content Explored

  • Context: Medical 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rasp
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thinking
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the nature of thinking, including its mechanistic and physical theories, the content of thoughts, and the processes involved in thought formation. Participants consider both philosophical and scientific perspectives, with a focus on potential physical explanations and the role of the brain in thinking.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the existence of a mechanistic, physical theory of thinking, expressing skepticism about spiritual or quantum theories often labeled as pseudoscience.
  • Another participant suggests that the discussion may be more suited for philosophy forums, while also referencing an older thread that contains relevant philosophical information.
  • A participant emphasizes the need for a physical understanding of thought processes, particularly in light of advancements in imaging techniques.
  • One viewpoint describes the brain as a data-collecting and processing entity that forms new data sets by checking them against reality and discarding ineffective ones.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that the brain has executive power, suggesting that the processes described are more akin to will, which remains poorly understood.
  • A reference is made to a theory of auditory object recognition and decision-making in neuronal circuits, providing links to relevant academic papers.
  • One participant proposes looking into logical programming as a model for understanding brain function, and introduces the concept of drives, particularly curiosity, as a motivating factor in human behavior.
  • A later reply reiterates the idea of drives, suggesting that work is often viewed as a means to an end rather than a fulfilling activity.
  • Another participant expresses appreciation for the responses received, indicating ongoing reflection and learning from the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of thinking, with no clear consensus on a mechanistic theory. The discussion includes both philosophical and scientific perspectives, highlighting differing opinions on the role of the brain and the concept of will.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about the nature of thought and the brain's functions, and there are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of terms like "will" and "drives." The discussion also touches on the limitations of current understanding in both philosophical and scientific contexts.

rasp
Messages
117
Reaction score
3
Does anyone know a mechanistic, physical theory of the process of thinking? It seems to involve observation - emotion and so much more, that I have no handle on it.

The only theories I have heard are not physical but involve some spiritual or quantum tunneling out of spacetime and into a nether world of Hilbert possibility. These are usually (and probably rightfully) decried as pseudoscience.

Also, besides the process of thinking, which I'm "thinking" of as analogious to the envelope, what can be said about the thought itself, i.e. the content of the letter?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Sorry! said:
I'm sure this should probably go into the philosophy forums.
Anyways here's an old thread about:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=114825

pretty good information in there.

Yes, good info from a philosophical standpoint, but I was asking more from a physical standpoint. Wondering if new techniques in imaging etc. have revealed the mechanics of thought?
 
The brain is collecting a lot of data such from reading, observing, interacting, listening etc, and then is shuffling these data sets to form new ones. Then it checks it against reality and stores whatever works, and discards whatever doesn't work or is useless. Then it tries to combine the new data sets again with whatever worked before to form even newer data sets. Then repeat.
 
what said:
The brain is collecting a lot of data such from reading, observing, interacting, listening etc, and then is shuffling these data sets to form new ones. Then it checks it against reality and stores whatever works, and discards whatever doesn't work or is useless. Then it tries to combine the new data sets again with whatever worked before to form even newer data sets. Then repeat.

Yeah,that would be a good answer, IF the brain had executive power. What you ascribe to the brain is more like the will, but nobody knows what that is.
 
A theory of elementary "stream segregation", a form of auditory object recognition:

Micheyl C., Tian B., Carlyon R.P., Rauschecker J.P. (2005) Perceptual organization of sound sequences in the auditory cortex of awake macaques. Neuron 6, 139-148
Paper at http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cmicheyl/publis.html
Cool demos at http://www.tc.umn.edu/~cmicheyl/demos.html A review of theories of "decision making":

Wang X-J (2008)
Decision making in recurrent neuronal circuits
Neuron 60: 215-234
http://wanglab.med.yale.edu/webpages/publications.shtml
 
Last edited by a moderator:
look up 'logical programming' or 'prolog'. that should give you some idea of what the brain is doing.

as for the question of 'will', it would be better to think in terms of 'drives'. the first drive is curiosity. it would be nice if we had a 'work' drive. then we could get up in the moring and say 'yay, I get to go to work today' but we dont. work seems to be an afterthought. something that we just do so we can then afford to do the things we really enjoy.
 
granpa said:
look up 'logical programming' or 'prolog'. that should give you some idea of what the brain is doing.

as for the question of 'will', it would be better to think in terms of 'drives'. the first drive is curiosity. it would be nice if we had a 'work' drive. then we could get up in the moring and say 'yay, I get to go to work today' but we dont. work seems to be an afterthought. something that we just do so we can then afford to do the things we really enjoy.

Thanks everyone for your responses. I am still reviewing them, but I'm confident that I will know more soon than when I first asked the questions.

BTW granpa, I think we work for recognition.. a stroke of the old ego, yeah and also to keep the rats from our food..and the rain and cold from soaking our cardboard beds.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K