Can we describe thought by purely using terms of science?

Are our thoughts simply the result and culmination of some chemical and mechanistic reactions or is there something much more grand associated with what thought is?

Yes they are.

Neurons fire and that charge flows through a path in the brain that signals various things.
Any emotion we feel is simply the result of those neurons firing.  I suspect that if you were able to map every single neuron and it's path, you could precisely replicate a person's thought pattern.

Yes they are.

Neurons fire and that charge flows through a path in the brain that signals various things.
Any emotion we feel is simply the result of those neurons firing.  I suspect that if you were able to map every single neuron and it's path, you could precisely replicate a person's thought pattern.

Are you proposing that in theory, someone can tell exactly what I'm thinking based solely off of information on how my neurons are firing?

Quote from: Lorddave on February 09, 2011, 06:05:39 PM

Yes they are.

Neurons fire and that charge flows through a path in the brain that signals various things.
Any emotion we feel is simply the result of those neurons firing.  I suspect that if you were able to map every single neuron and it's path, you could precisely replicate a person's thought pattern.

Are you proposing that in theory, someone can tell exactly what I'm thinking based solely off of information on how my neurons are firing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

Yes.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 09, 2011, 06:08:32 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on February 09, 2011, 06:05:39 PM

Yes they are.

Neurons fire and that charge flows through a path in the brain that signals various things.
Any emotion we feel is simply the result of those neurons firing.  I suspect that if you were able to map every single neuron and it's path, you could precisely replicate a person's thought pattern.

Are you proposing that in theory, someone can tell exactly what I'm thinking based solely off of information on how my neurons are firing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

Yes.

Where does it say anything about determining what I'm thinking?

Quote from: Lorddave on February 09, 2011, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 09, 2011, 06:08:32 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on February 09, 2011, 06:05:39 PM

Yes they are.

Neurons fire and that charge flows through a path in the brain that signals various things.
Any emotion we feel is simply the result of those neurons firing.  I suspect that if you were able to map every single neuron and it's path, you could precisely replicate a person's thought pattern.

Are you proposing that in theory, someone can tell exactly what I'm thinking based solely off of information on how my neurons are firing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

Yes.

Where does it say anything about determining what I'm thinking?

I posted that to show that we can read a person's thoughts, once we know what they are, and react to them with accuracy.
So if I think really hard about the color Red, we can program a computer to know what that looks like and react to it by making the screen red.  Once we do this enough times with enough people, we'll likely start seeing a pattern that we can then pinpoint what "red" looks like in anyone's thought pattern.

Basically:
Your brain repeats itself and where there is repetition, there is predictability.

Is the person thinking about the word red, the actual color shade they picture as red, what they associate with red...how would you know?

Is the person thinking about the word red, the actual color shade they picture as red, what they associate with red...how would you know?

Refinement.

Eventually we'll have more sensitive equipment and more people to test it on.
Get 100 people and tell some of them to think of the word red, the shade red, and a red firetruck and some to not think of anything specific.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 09, 2011, 06:27:22 PM

Is the person thinking about the word red, the actual color shade they picture as red, what they associate with red...how would you know?

Refinement.

Eventually we'll have more sensitive equipment and more people to test it on.
Get 100 people and tell some of them to think of the word red, the shade red, and a red firetruck and some to not think of anything specific.

Can we control what people think?
Don't think about elephants slapping each other's butts with their trunks. Did you comply?

Quote from: Lorddave on February 09, 2011, 06:31:38 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 09, 2011, 06:27:22 PM

Is the person thinking about the word red, the actual color shade they picture as red, what they associate with red...how would you know?

Refinement.

Eventually we'll have more sensitive equipment and more people to test it on.
Get 100 people and tell some of them to think of the word red, the shade red, and a red firetruck and some to not think of anything specific.

Can we control what people think?
 Don't think about elephants slapping each other's butts with their trunks. Did you comply?

That's why we use a large sample size:
To help minimize errors like that.

You might as well complain about drug trails. 

"Did you take your pill the way I told you?"

Or psychiatry:
"Are you really depressed or are you lying to me for attention?"

How does sample size help at all with that problem  
Telling someone to only think about something in particular is a LOT different than telling them to take a pill a certain way.
It's simply not comparable.

How does sample size help at all with that problem  
Telling someone to only think about something in particular is a LOT different than telling them to take a pill a certain way.
It's simply not comparable.

Telling someone to think about something is different from telling themnot to think about something, too.

As I already said in the red example, how do you know exactly what they are thinking when I tell them to think of red?

If we can't then there is probably something supernatural at work. That's your point isn't it?

not necessarily supernatural, but probably transcendent. It's possible that neurobiology can one day understand thought, as Dave thinks, but we are far from that point now. I also don't think it will be possible to know, but who can really predict the future with technology becoming ever-stranger by the day. But as for the idea that thought is the electrons moving through neurons and the like...what does that mean?! You can say that, but it means virtually nothing. Does that adequately describe the texture of anyones thoughts, dreams, feelings, etc? Consider the China Brain thought experiment.

But as for the idea that thought is the electrons moving through neurons and the like...what does that mean?! You can say that, but it means virtually nothing. Does that adequately describe the texture of anyones thoughts, dreams, feelings, etc?

i think the point is, that if a thought is just a physical process like some electrons moving from A to B then we are at least theoretically able to understand all basic principles that govern our thoughts. simulating a complete brain is then just a matter of computing power and getting along with the huge complexity of a brain. if a thought is more than just electron movement - from a scientific point of view - we will never be able to completely understand what is going on. 

How does sample size help at all with that problem  
Telling someone to only think about something in particular is a LOT different than telling them to take a pill a certain way.
It's simply not comparable.

True, but that's why you carefully define what to tell them to think about.  Survey questions go through rigorous revisions until they express the exact idea that the experimenter wants to.
This is really the same thing.  No good researcher is going to say "think about the color red".  It's more likely to say something like "Imagine a solid, texture-less, shadeless, red wall that matches the red color you see in this picture"

Secondly, the larger the sample size, the more data you have.  It's easier to find a common pattern that way.

Your assumption seems to be that if I say "imagine the picture that I'm holding up" that every single person in the world is going to have absolutely no common pattern.  So far I haven't seen any indication that this is false.  On the contrary, we seem to be very similar in how our brains think.  It's complex but there are many common patterns, especially in the less complex areas such as motor control, optics, ect...

Think about a computer. To someone who doesn't understand it, you'd think it was stupid that everything could be broken down into electrical current and digital storage. But it can be.

What Dave and Trekky have said.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 09, 2011, 06:38:22 PM

How does sample size help at all with that problem  
Telling someone to only think about something in particular is a LOT different than telling them to take a pill a certain way.
It's simply not comparable.

True, but that's why you carefully define what to tell them to think about.  Survey questions go through rigorous revisions until they express the exact idea that the experimenter wants to.
This is really the same thing.  No good researcher is going to say "think about the color red".  It's more likely to say something like "Imagine a solid, texture-less, shadeless, red wall that matches the red color you see in this picture"

Secondly, the larger the sample size, the more data you have.  It's easier to find a common pattern that way.

Your assumption seems to be that if I say "imagine the picture that I'm holding up" that every single person in the world is going to have absolutely no common pattern.  So far I haven't seen any indication that this is false.  On the contrary, we seem to be very similar in how our brains think.  It's complex but there are many common patterns, especially in the less complex areas such as motor control, optics, ect...

Since no one has exactly the same neuron paths, how would that even work with a specific wording? You still have no way of knowing exactly what a person is thinking.

Quote from: Lorddave on February 10, 2011, 02:56:15 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 09, 2011, 06:38:22 PM

How does sample size help at all with that problem  
Telling someone to only think about something in particular is a LOT different than telling them to take a pill a certain way.
It's simply not comparable.

True, but that's why you carefully define what to tell them to think about.  Survey questions go through rigorous revisions until they express the exact idea that the experimenter wants to.
This is really the same thing.  No good researcher is going to say "think about the color red".  It's more likely to say something like "Imagine a solid, texture-less, shadeless, red wall that matches the red color you see in this picture"

Secondly, the larger the sample size, the more data you have.  It's easier to find a common pattern that way.

Your assumption seems to be that if I say "imagine the picture that I'm holding up" that every single person in the world is going to have absolutely no common pattern.  So far I haven't seen any indication that this is false.  On the contrary, we seem to be very similar in how our brains think.  It's complex but there are many common patterns, especially in the less complex areas such as motor control, optics, ect...

Since no one has exactly the same neuron paths, how would that even work with a specific wording? You still have no way of knowing exactly what a person is thinking.

How do you know?
We haven't developed the technology to map specific neuron paths yet.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3096929.stm

Everyone's brain is different, a different shape and size and organised differently.

Actual study source: Laboratory of Neuro Imaging, at the David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA

Since everyone's brain is organized and composed differently, there are different neural paths.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3096929.stm

Quote

Everyone's brain is different, a different shape and size and organised differently.

Actual study source: Laboratory of Neuro Imaging, at the David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA

Since everyone's brain is organized and composed differently, there are different neural paths.

That doesn't prohibit what I said.

Let me give you an analogy with computers.
Microsoft Windows and Debian are two very different Operating systems.  They're different sizes, handle data differently, and are organized differently. 
However, they are both built on the same basic principals.  They both have common patterns associated.  The binary code to run a comparison (basically an IF statement) is the exact same.  The code to store data in a registry is the same.
The difference lies in what leads to those items.

So did you want an answer to your question, or did you just want to argue with anyone who tried to give you one?

You can't describe the human mind as a computer, other than a very loose analogy. With all of the talk of neuro-receptors and all that, you're talking about the physiological reflection of mind. But you are certainly not describing mind itself. With all the talk of chemical reactions and electrons, mind is left out of the equation.

Mind is a metaphysical part of the universe in particular ways, whereas the brian is part of the physical universe. Think of them like the opposite sides of one coin.

You can't describe the human mind as a computer, other than a very loose analogy. With all of the talk of neuro-receptors and all that, you're talking about the physiological reflection of mind. But you are certainly not describing mind itself. With all the talk of chemical reactions and electrons, mind is left out of the equation.

Mind is a metaphysical part of the universe in particular ways, whereas the brian is part of the physical universe. Think of them like the opposite sides of one coin.

Well, the mind is like the Operating System of a computer. None of the stuff you see on the screen is actually happening in a physical sense. Just like thoughts and ideas are only very loosely physical things in that they are caused by physical processes.

Alright, I guess this is time to break out my theory of mind texts. I'll do some consideration and research then get back to you.

As I already said in the red example, how do you know exactly what they are thinking when I tell them to think of red?

If they are part of a scientific study in which what they think truly matters, they'll probably be thinking of red.

Are our thoughts simply the result and culmination of some chemical and mechanistic reactions or is there something much more grand associated with what thought is?

If they were more than just neuron's how would we find out? any biopsies at that level would surely kill the person along with any trace of a soul. I'd be like searching for the invisible man. I'd like to think that thoughts are, maybe it has to do with the quantum randomness. But of course as soon as we can create a machine that can think like a human, thought could be theoretically reduced to turing machine.


but on this same idea, I feel like people might be beyond Turing complete. As in possibly, we could know things or think of things beyond what a machine could ever do, as all purely mechanical processes, whether run by cells or silicon, are only glorified Turing machines.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 09, 2011, 06:20:50 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on February 09, 2011, 06:15:16 PM

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 09, 2011, 06:08:32 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on February 09, 2011, 06:05:39 PM

Yes they are.

Neurons fire and that charge flows through a path in the brain that signals various things.
Any emotion we feel is simply the result of those neurons firing.  I suspect that if you were able to map every single neuron and it's path, you could precisely replicate a person's thought pattern.

Are you proposing that in theory, someone can tell exactly what I'm thinking based solely off of information on how my neurons are firing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

Yes.

Where does it say anything about determining what I'm thinking?

I posted that to show that we can read a person's thoughts, once we know what they are, and react to them with accuracy.
So if I think really hard about the color Red, we can program a computer to know what that looks like and react to it by making the screen red.  Once we do this enough times with enough people, we'll likely start seeing a pattern that we can then pinpoint what "red" looks like in anyone's thought pattern.

Basically:
Your brain repeats itself and where there is repetition, there is predictability.

Assuming the world is determinant is a dangerous assumption