VendingMenace Posted January 19, 2004 Posted January 19, 2004 not in the professor X sort of way two part question... What i am wondering is this; do you think that you are in "control" of what you are thinking? Meaning, are your thoughts completely determined by outside processes? Or can you control, to some extent, what you are thinking about? if you can control what you are thinking about, then where does this impitus for control come from? If you belive in a god, then i think this answers the question. But if you do not belive in a god, then where do you think this abililty to control your thoughts comes from? just curious, i have been thinking about this for a while now, and i don't really know the answer to either question. Cool
YT2095 Posted January 19, 2004 Posted January 19, 2004 ok, think of a great big juicy lemon, bright yellow and shiney, it`s smell fills the room. you get a clean long sharp knife and put the lemon down in front of you on a table, you start to cut the lemon and as you get half way through you`ll smell the REALLY strong citrus arromas fill the air as your hands get covered in the fresh lemon juice that sprays out. pick up one half of the lemon and smell it, it`s a refreshing invigorating smell, take a bite from it now, feel the juices fill your mouth and the spray get in your eyes and the wonderfull smell. ok you can open your eyes now did that trigger a response at all? did your mouth fill with saliva, could you almost Smell the lemon? Who controled YOUR mind just? well, YOU did as well as control your own body responses as a result of vivid imigary, I just provided the stimulus, the same as reading a Take-Away menu when your Really hungry and you stomach starts to make noises You control YOUR mind, but it CAN be succeptible to outside stimuli
YT2095 Posted January 19, 2004 Posted January 19, 2004 sure dude, and most excellent with salt! not that it was actualy the point of the excersize however
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 19, 2004 Posted January 19, 2004 SALT! You must have strange taste buds! I prefer mine with parmesan cheese!
Kedas Posted January 19, 2004 Posted January 19, 2004 You ask do/can you control what you are thinking? It's actually a strange question because the thinking IS you. (there would be no you if there is no thinking) Your other question is could an external source change you (your thinking)? I hope so for you
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 19, 2004 Posted January 19, 2004 Yes, I bet one could. I don't know how, but it could. They can make monkeys control a robot arm with thoughts, so they could control your arm with thoughts!
VendingMenace Posted January 20, 2004 Author Posted January 20, 2004 yeah, so it seems like most people here belive that you can control your own thoughts. Right? Lets say that when you are controling what you are thinking it is "rational" thought. Meaning that you can use reasoning and you have control over your thoughts. SOund good? Ok, so then the weird part is this (or at least the wierd part, i think); if you can actaully control your own thoughts, that means that they are not controlled completely by nature. This must mean that your thinking (your rational thought) is outside of nature (given that it is not completely controlled by nature, it must have something that lies outside of nature). Ok, so that means that you rational thoughts lie outside of nature, or, in other words, are supernatural. So, if my reasoning is correct so far (if it is not, please point out where i have gone wrong -- not quite sure of this argument yet) then we are left with two questions; 1) Where does this "supernatural" stuff (ie. controlling of thoughts) come from? If you belive in a god, then this is all explained. But if you don't, then you are led to question two, namely... 2) How can one reconcile the existance of one supernatural thing with the belive in atheism? that is, if you are willing to admit to the existance of one supernatural thing, then how can you rule out another -- such as god? Just some questions that i was thinking about. Cool
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 20, 2004 Posted January 20, 2004 What I think of, is,"Where did that thought come from?" How does it come up in your mind? Does some energy surge get the neurons going or what? We should learn more about ourselves!
fafalone Posted January 20, 2004 Posted January 20, 2004 Anyone familiar with calculations about the impact of quantum mechanical uncertainties contributing to other factors to push a neurons potential difference into the range where it fires?
Skye Posted January 20, 2004 Posted January 20, 2004 Not really, I've heard ion channel behaviour is a little unpredictable because of quantum effects though. I don't think it would make much difference, the spatial and temporal scale things happen at probably means these things have little effect. I might be wrong though.
Glider Posted January 20, 2004 Posted January 20, 2004 Nope, you're not wrong. The behaviour of individual channels is unpredictable, but the behaviour of neurons is more influenced by the action of the behaviour of large numbers of channels. Temporal and spacial summation of many incoming signals dictate whether or not a neuron fires rather than the random action of its ion channels. i.e. it requires a relatively large 'net influence' to depolarise or hyperpolarise a membrane. The random behaviour of individual channels will largely cancel each other out. Even if (as randomness dictates is possible) all channels suddenly opened and the cell fired, the AP of one cell in the CNS is rarely enough on its own to trigger the next cell, though it may increase or decrease its membrane potential a little.
aommaster Posted January 20, 2004 Posted January 20, 2004 what does the 6 have to do with it? I yet didn't get it. I thought of cucumber!
Kevin Conti Posted March 14, 2004 Posted March 14, 2004 You have invoked the classical behavioural debate of determinism vs. free-will. And in your case you are wondering whether or not we have autonomy in our thought ability. I would have to disagree and partly agree. In terms of the deterministic side, it can be said that a lot of your current mental feelings are heavily influenced by the way you feel (e.g. depressive person will not be inclined to be optimistic!). Neurologically speaking hence, the way and context in which you think is narrowed down depending on your neurotransmitter levels. Adding to that, studies into OCD show that affected patients tend to have significantly less white mater than control participants and the same applies to their levels of serotonin. Consequently, this highlights the neurological importance of thought control and suggests that it is at the mercy of our current mental factors. In a behavioural perspective, our thoughts are invoked through a process of associations. For example, every thing you think about is linked with another classical conditioning association and that leads you to your next topic. Nevertheless, I do think that to a degree we are able to control our thoughts or at least it appears to us subjectively we can. Kev
BrainMan Posted March 14, 2004 Posted March 14, 2004 Ok, so then the weird part is this (or at least the wierd part, i think); if you can actaully control your own thoughts, that means that they are not controlled completely by nature. This must mean that your thinking (your rational thought) is outside of nature (given that it is not completely controlled by nature, it must have something that lies outside of nature). The problem here is defining inside and outside with respect to yourself. Lets suppose, for the moment, that you ARE your body. That you control your own thinking could be takn as meaning that the internal states of your body (your brain) are more important in determining these processes than outside stimuli are. In this case, you are not controlled by any nature (the world outside yourself) other than your own nature (the part of the world that is you). No supernaturalism needed for self-controled thought. There are other ways to look at it without having to make the assumption that you are your body (arguably outside your mind, and thus simply making an identification right off the bat is question-begging). What we would have is a space, of many dinmensions, that constitutes your mind. A subspace of the mental space is your conscious (and controlled) thoughts. The space changes over time (it expands and contracts, changes shape, ect.), and you might even consider death to be a singularity (a black hole) in experiential space. *You*, as a self, are embedded in the space and changes of experience could be described as your having followed some path through the experiential space. Basically, you would be living in a "bubble" of consciousness. There is no distinction between experiencing a change of state of "the world" and hallucinating. LSD would take you through a path of experiential space no less real than living without LSD use, for instance. The only real difference is that of survivability- your ability to avoid the black holes. In this case, all of nature is the nature you attribute sucessfully to the world- where sucess is predictive ability, thus avoiding the black holes. But "the world" is a bit of an illusion, because it never needs to be identical to your own state- you just need to navigate it sucessfully. The question here is if you can sucessfully attribute controlled thought to inner space, but attribute the cause to something outside of that space- like the brain, which we hallucinate the world as containing. It is difficualt to see how. If your thoughts are caused by something outside your space, then how can you maintain that it is self-controlled given you are inbedded within the inside space. Either free will is an illusion, or, taking sucessful navigation as "truth", identifying self with brain is a sucessful strategy- which leads back to the fist case where free will is possible.
Neurocomp2003 Posted March 15, 2004 Posted March 15, 2004 its hard to argue such a question...becuase if everything was deterministic you really couldn't argue otherwise...you think you'd have free will but could it be that the region that embodies your body and self just be following laws of nature?
BrainMan Posted March 15, 2004 Posted March 15, 2004 you think you'd have free will but could it be that the region that embodies your body and self just be following laws of nature? The alternative is that if you are embodied, you no more follow the laws of nature than the laws of nature follow you. In other words, you would (in a very real sense) BE the laws of nature. What scientific test can you come up witht hat would distinguish between you (finite, embodied creature) following the laws of nature and you (again, embodied creature) BEING the laws of nature? There seems to be no real difference other than how we choose to develope our metaphysics- whether or not we choose to give ourslves free will. [Note that "choice" here make no metaphysical commitment- it is simply the word that describes the decision making process, be it determined or free...but again, Im not sure these are actually different anywhere other than in courtrooms.]
Neurocomp2003 Posted March 15, 2004 Posted March 15, 2004 its all about cellular automatons and dynamical systems
Crash Posted March 15, 2004 Posted March 15, 2004 Sounds like "Pavlovs dogs" on a human scale sorta thing
Dokta Posted March 15, 2004 Posted March 15, 2004 What is really interesting about thought is that when you think of a song you can think of it perfectly to how it sounds. It is like it is playing in your head. I can't wait for scientists to understand how thought works.
Radical Edward Posted March 15, 2004 Posted March 15, 2004 I have to ask, what is "you". As has been pointed out, this is a question of free will in many ways. So let us take a decision and think about what prior things can affect that decision. One set of things is caused, i.e. past events and so on lead you to a state where you make a decision, and another is random, i.e. fafalone's postulate that quantum mechanics might push the neurons over the brink in some way. Neither of these are controlled. What other options are there? Even any "supernatural" hypothesis would just follow the same rules, of caused or random.
eloi Posted April 10, 2004 Posted April 10, 2004 hey everyone, i beleive we can control our thoughts. An example i give is two people have exactly the same stimulus at the same time but react different, if we have no control then both should have reacted the same way. Another example is how many times have you been in a situation and got a thought but realised it wasnt appropriate so you pushed it away and started again. With regards to depression, the problem with depression is that emotion triguer thoughts and thoughts triger emotions so it becomes a vicious circle until we break the pattern and start to control either the thoughts or the emotions. It is hard at first but with enough will power slowly we start to eliminate all the thoughts and ultimatle the emotions we are not happy with. Until we are what we want to be and therefore in total control of our mind.
Glider Posted April 10, 2004 Posted April 10, 2004 hey everyone, i beleive we can control our thoughts. An example i give is two people have exactly the same stimulus at the same time but react different, if we have no control then both should have reacted the same way. This assumes that the two people started from exactly the same point, i.e. that they were psychologically identical in every way. This is never the case. Peoples' responses to stimuli are determined not only by the nature of the stimulus, but their own perceptions of the stimulus, the situation and the context. This, in turn, depends on their cognitive make-up which will have been determined by their individual psychological histories. Another example is how many times have you been in a situation and got a thought but realised it wasnt appropriate so you pushed it away and started again. This is not really an argument against determinism, as modern determinism acknowledges that we (the conscious 'us') have ultimate executive control and can override our initial impulses. In fact, this comment is actually an argument for determinism. You say "...how many times have you been in a situation and got a thought but realised it wasn't appropriate...". It was getting that original thought that was determined for you and the initial impulses that are non-volitional (i.e. determined). As your comment implies, it requires conscious and deliberate intervention to override that initial impulse. Determinism refers to our initial psychological and emotional responses and our behavioural propensities. Usually we have time for 'cognitive intervention', i.e. to consider the possible implications of our actions, and modify them as we see fit, but our initial (affective-motivational) responses, and subsequent behavioural 'readiness' to perfom certain actions (behavioural propensity) are not under our control. The degree to which or ultimate thoughts and behaviours are determined depends on the degree to which we self-monitor (checking for the social acceptability and probable outcomes of our behaviour). In stressful situations (for example) self monitoring becomes impaired. To paraphrase your own question; How many times have you been in a situation where you said or did something that you immediately wished you hadn't? This is an example of us following our initial impulse, prior to applying our social/cognitive 'filters'. If we really were under our own control, would that ever happen? With regards to depression, the problem with depression is that emotion triguer thoughts and thoughts triger emotions so it becomes a vicious circle until we break the pattern and start to control either the thoughts or the emotions. It is hard at first but with enough will power slowly we start to eliminate all the thoughts and ultimatle the emotions we are not happy with. Until we are what we want to be and therefore in total control of our mind. We are never in total control of our own minds.
eloi Posted April 10, 2004 Posted April 10, 2004 in regards to ur first answer i agree that people react different according to their perception of the event. My point being that we choose to react or not to react. If we have no control then criminals or padophiles would have no hope of ever being cured, phobias would never be dominated. At every miute of every day we have dozens of thoughts go through our heads but we choose what we want and don't want to react to. To say that something is impossible without trying would be pretty arrogant. I beleive we can control our thoughts and emotions because i have made a strong effort to eradicate my mind of any thought that i deemed hazourdous or unproductive to my wellbeing. Where do u think the term peace of mind comes from.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now