Body Behavior And Thought

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by davidelkins, Sep 15, 2016.

  1. davidelkins Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    A man twitches his left big toe, slightly raises his left pointer finger and turns his head fractionally to the right. It can be argued that the man has had at least three thoughts, one to twitch his left big toe, one to slightly raise his left pointer finger and one to fractionally turn his head to the right. DE
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Okay. Do you have a point?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. davidelkins Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    But really, Daecon, do you have a point? If you are going to post a reply, at least add something. DE
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    He DID add something: rationality.
    Your premise is not only lacking any point (although, after checking, the majority of your posts suffer from this), it's also unsupported and (as written) demonstrably incorrect.
    A twitch is an involuntary movement: therefore it requires no thought.
     
  8. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,805
    Yes, a toe can be moved as a consequence of reflective thought or after a decision to do so. But as Dywyddyr pointed-out, that's not how "twitch" is usually defined.

    The thread seems to just be referencing the obvious: That body movements are sometimes the result of conscious intellective activity rather than being spasms, reflexes, and conditioned routines performed without awareness. Since "thinking" has the empirical correlate of neural activity in the physical sciences, construing the topic as concerning the power of an immaterial version of mind to control the body would not be the only available interpretation of the topic. Ergo, again, the thread can either be taken to lack sufficient stimulation for discourse or its purpose needs to be clarified / specified (even if it should be a very eccentric one).
     
    Yazata likes this.
  9. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    746
    You don't say if these actions are simultaneous or sequential? I can sing and dance to music (hear) and plan my path at the same time. Am I thinking all those thoughts simultaneously ? Or very fast sequentially? (In my dreams). Do you plan ahead to make this twitching toe, raising finger and turn head movements, or are you saying you can explain how you know their three instant simultaneous thoughts?
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2016
    Yazata likes this.
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    There are people whom you can pressure and cause their eye(s) to twitch. In this case, an induced thought sequences creates what appears to be an involuntary twitch.
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    "Induced thought sequences"?
    Do you ever get tired of making stuff up?
     
  12. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    No.

    Bullshitting is easier than learning.
     
    Daecon and Dywyddyr like this.
  13. davidelkins Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    108
    Alright, I should not have used the word 'twitch'. I had actually meant an intentional act, but twitch would confuse the readers into thinking otherwise. So there is the correction. I will just insert 'move' instead of twitch and it should be fine. As far as sequence or simultaneity, I meant sequence, but it did not occur to me to put that in there. That's a good point. As far as Daecon's extremely exhaustive argumentation, how would you, Dywyddyr, explain ten key points of his argument and why those ten arguments are so rational. DE
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    1) There is no apparent point to your post.
    2) It consists - solely - of claims.
    3) Philosophy consists of (per Wiki) "questioning, critical discussion, rational argument and systematic presentation". There is no question in your post. No rational argument (or any other sort). No systematic anything. And no apparent discussion proffered.
    4) You stated "it can be argued that..." but no such argumentation is given. Are we supposed to make your arguments for you?
    5) IF your (unsupported) claim is true what are the consequences? What does this indicate? Does it lead to insights?
    6) What relevance has your claim have with regard to (Wiki again) general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language?
    7) Apropos "sequence or simultaneity, I meant sequence" then, essentially, all you've said is "each voluntary act is the result of volition and we are capable of following one such act with another". Is this not blatantly obvious already? Why did you feel the need to point this out?
    8) I imagine (and Daecon will correct me if I'm wrong) that his post was somewhat predicated on your posting record: i.e. you have a history of pointless unsupported posts that you consistently fail to expand upon.
    9) His post prompted your response "But really, Daecon, do you have a point? If you are going to post a reply, at least add something" - which simply highlighted your ignorant hypocrisy. YOU failed to make a point. YOU didn't "add anything" in the OP (i.e. stating the bleedin' obvious[1] is neither helpful, productive or polite).
    10) His post was - possibly - a throttled-back version of what he (and, I suspect, many other posters here[2]) really wanted to say: "F*ck off and get an education" or "For the love of god stop posting crap".

    1 I'm channelling Basil Fawlty here.
    2 At least those capable of thoughts deeper than "And now it's time to breath out...".
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
    DaveC426913 and Daecon like this.
  15. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,048
    Indeed. It seemed like yet another of your train-of-thought blog style posts that, while consisting of words from the English language, doesn't actually say anything.
     
  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    When you deal with laymen, who know very little about the dynamics of the unconscious mind, this question may seem like a mystery. But if you know the basics, this can be addressed.

    If you were walking along, and someone jumped out from behind a door and scared you, most people would jump and some will scream. These reactions are involuntary with respect to the ego or conscious mind, which is why it is funny and embarrassing. However, it is based on a sequence of thoughts at the level of the unconscious mind. It is directed action, that is not random, even if not subject to ego control. It is directed by instincts.

    The question becomes is it possible for the unconscious mind to generate what appears to be twitches, which are involuntary to the conscious mind, yet have a logic at an unconscious level? The answer is yes. This is sophomore level consciousness research.

    The gut feeing some feel, when making decisions, comes from an unconscious synthesis. It is not a random twitch of the gut, but is an output affect from the unconscious mind, after it has processed the data in a parallel subroutine. The unconscious mind has its own language called symbolism, which is how you translate such output.

    Left and right tells the source of the information. To the right means the conscious mind. To the left means the unconscious mind. The word for left in Latin is sinister. In western religions, one was not allowed to use the left hand, until recently, since the data from the unconscious mind was considered evil. This can be true of the personal unconscious where subroutines have been consciously deposited and often forgotten. These can make one react, like a twitch, to some people, no matter what they say. But as you go deeper, the twitches come from more natural unconscious subroutines, which can be useful.

    Symbolically, the body represents the four psychological functions; thoughts, feelings, sensations, intuitions. The arms are thought and feeling, with the left arm feeling and the right arm thought. Feeling is more like a twitch from the unconscious. Thinking needs more conscious participation. The legs represent instinct and sensation since they touch the earth. The right leg is connected to our more conscious instincts like hunger, desire. While the left leg is more connected to biochemistry and the sympathetic nervous system. The head is singular, compared to arms and legs, and represents intuition. This is where conscious and unconscious merge, with left and right, sort of showing which of the two is dominant in a particulate intuition.

    Symbolic analysis is junior level consciousness research. Sophomore level allows you to see that data exists, while junior level allows you to analyze the data you generate.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Citation needed.

    Citation needed.

    Nonsense.

    Really?
    As presented here it seems more like complete and utter boll*cks.
    What's your source?
     
  18. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,364
    I tend to see this section as not having to adhere to strict objective reasoning, much of philosophy is subjective.
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Nobody asked for objective reasoning.
    But I find the complete lack of reasoning in DE's posts objectionable.

    But it is, or should be, rational and supported (at least with far more than "Well this is what I think/ believe/ just pulled out of my ar*e).
     
    wegs likes this.
  20. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
    Does every bodily motion correspond to a "thought"? (Let's assume that we are talking about motions involved with intentional actions, not reflexes or spasms.)

    Think about walking. There are countless bodily movements involved in walking. Different muscles in the legs are contracted in different order. Our back is working to keep us upright. There is constant feedback occurring as we keep ourselves from toppling over, as we step over things and make course corrections. Our arms and shoulders are moving along with our walking motion.

    Or does walking constitute an entire package, where the only conscious thought that we have is to walk over to the refrigerator, and maybe more vaguely some conscious awareness of the obstacles in our path, and where the rest of the motions emerge from a motion subroutine of some sort? (I believe that the cerebellum is involved in that kind of stuff.)

    The underlying philosophical problem here might be individuating 'thoughts' (what constitutes one thought as opposed to two?) and correlating them with objectively observable body motions and neurological events.

    I'm not convinced that thoughts are distinct things in the same sense that marbles are. They are actions that the brain is performing and the brain is always performing actions. Separating individual actions from the constant activity of the brain is going to be a difficult task for neuroscience. We seemingly employ some criterion of intentionality in these cases, where an individual thought is perceived as being intended to achieve a particular end. But correlating folk-psychology (where ideas like 'thoughts' and 'intentions' reside) and neuroscience (where functional MRIs look at what's physically happening in our heads) in some plausible way, is going to be difficult.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2016
    Dywyddyr likes this.
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    Ah... marbles.
    Now there's an apposite word for the OP.
     
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,659
    I can imagine talking to you face-to-face, then glancing down towards your feet, recoiling slightly and exclaiming in a shocked tone of voice "What the hell is That??"

    I bet that your eyes will look down there too.

    Was there a thought implicit in your looking down? Maybe not a fully formed conscious one. But presumably you understood my words and interpreted them in a particular way, concluding that there may be something icky and/or dangerous down there that warranted your attention. So your looking down was intentional and directed towards an end.
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,629
    I.e. an "induced action".
    The thought however... It could be anything: "What's he seen?", "Why isn't he looking at me while talking to me?" "Have I got odd shoes on?"etc.
    MY thought on such an occurrence would probably be closer to the first.
     

Share This Page