Is thought a physical activity?

[blazeofglory]

I often wonder whether thought is a physical or non-physical activity.

I want to read your logical inferences on this subject.

[Uberzensch]

I don't have an answer, well, because I don't know...

(I am going to vear off a bit here.)

Why ask this question? What compulsion do we, as humans, have that we need to understand everything, or know how things work.

My guess is that this compulsion is a residue of enlightenment rationality and the need to control nature and solve everything. (Basically, the goal of science.)

Why is it not enough to know, only, that we do think? Or, if we decide we can't know that, then we agree to call whatever this sensation I have is called thinking?

Why do we endlessly insist on asking these impossible questions?

Unless, however, if it's just for sh!ts and giggles. In that case, proceed!

[Virgil]

I often wonder whether thought is a physical or non-physical activity.

I want to read your logical inferences on this subject.

:lol: How could it be a physical activity?

Nice to see you back Blaze. Have you been away? I don't recall seeing you around for a bit.

[papayahed]

I would call it "inner" physical activity or "barely there" physical activity. There are things happening - electrical impulses, whatever else happens - maybe that's where "exercising the brain" comes from...:lol:

[Scheherazade]

"Thought" is a noun; could it be an action (verb)?

"To think", on the other hand, might be an action.

[NikolaiI]

"Thought" is a noun; could it be an action (verb)?

"To think", on the other hand, might be an action.

Not sure of the authority of this, but... (from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O36-actionnoun.html)


action noun. A derived noun whose formation has the general meaning ‘act or process of…’

Since thought is an act or process...

[BienvenuJDC]

"Thought" is a noun; could it be an action (verb)?

"To think", on the other hand, might be an action.

I thought it was...a verb...at times at least!!

[RichardHresko]

"Thought" is a noun; could it be an action (verb)?

"To think", on the other hand, might be an action.

But then "fire," even when used as a noun, denotes a process or activity (oxidation) rather than a substance...

[billl]

if it is a physical activity, it's amazingly efficient. one day, somebody pointed this out to me, and i was surprised i'd never heard it discussed before. you can run a marathon or do whatever, and thinking always seems to come for free (energy-wise). hard to turn it off, actually.

but, to make another point, sometimes it might be reasonable to say we are thinking with our bodies, like when a dancer is trying to improvise to a melody, or i'm trying to find a dime (not a penny!) in my jeans pocket. the brain might be doing some simple judging there, but whatever is involved in that type of thinking, i think it'd be hard to say the body isn't involved.

[ShoutGrace]

I often wonder whether thought is a physical or non-physical activity.

This is one of the greater questions that humans have the privilege of asking.



Why ask this question? What compulsion do we, as humans, have that we need to understand everything, or know how things work. My guess is that this compulsion is a residue of enlightenment rationality and the need to control nature and solve everything. (Basically, the goal of science.)

I disagree. I think that our drive to understand has its origins in primitive man's fear of the world he discovers himself in during the first instance of full fledged “consciousness.” (I am thinking here more in broad evolutionary terms than in specific individual terms.) The world is an unpredictable, dangerous place, and presents complex challenges that are often lethal if not handled properly.

“The problem of knowledge surfaces as a real, practical imposition on life itself.” -Daniel Robinson

We have a need to understand because we have (or had) a need to survive in an unpredictable, dangerous arena.

At any rate:

“All men by nature desire to know; an example of this is the delight we take in our senses ...” - Aristotle, the opening line of the Metaphysics


:lol: How could it be a physical activity?

Virgil, it seems to me that if the physical world is all that exists, then of course thinking is a physical activity. Everything that exists or occurs is merely physical. Do you agree? At best, "the mind" is an epiphenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenon) of sorts - but I have yet to understand how the "mental world" in such a construal exists:

In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that mental phenomena are epiphenomena in that they can be caused by physical phenomena, but cannot cause physical phenomena. In strong epiphenomenalism, epiphenomena that are mental phenomena can only be caused by physical phenomena, not by other mental phenomena. In weak epiphenomenalism, epiphenomena that are mental phenomena can be caused by both physical phenomena and other mental phenomena, but mental phenomena cannot be the cause of any physical phenomenon. The physical world operates independently of the mental world in epiphenomenalism; the mental world exists as a derivative parallel world to the physical world, affected by the physical world (and by other epiphenomena in weak epiphenomenalism), but not able to have an effect on the physical world. - Wikipedia

[Scheherazade]

I have to admit here that my post was a midnight banter; did not expect anyone to take it seriously, let alone reply but now that some people have... :)
But then "fire," even when used as a noun, denotes a process or activity (oxidation) rather than a substance...
Not sure of the authority of this, but... (from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O36-actionnoun.html)
Since thought is an act or process...My understanding of "action nouns" was that they were the gerund forms of "verbs": Going, drinking, thinking...

However, I am not the absolutely authority on the issue and I am sure someone will be more than happy to set me right! ;)
I thought it was...a verb...at times at least!!"Thought" in this incidence is still the verb "to think" only it is in the past form. However, in the question posed in the OP, it is not used in that sense.

So, in my opinion, "to think" and "thinking" (even though in noun form) can be considered actions.

On that note, I will leave this discussion to those who are more knowledgeable and have more worthy things to share on the issue.

[NikolaiI]

if it is a physical activity, it's amazingly efficient. one day, somebody pointed this out to me, and i was surprised i'd never heard it discussed before. you can run a marathon or do whatever, and thinking always seems to come for free (energy-wise). hard to turn it off, actually.

but, to make another point, sometimes it might be reasonable to say we are thinking with our bodies, like when a dancer is trying to improvise to a melody, or i'm trying to find a dime (not a penny!) in my jeans pocket. the brain might be doing some simple judging there, but whatever is involved in that type of thinking, i think it'd be hard to say the body isn't involved.

Actually, "thinking" burns a great deal of calories. Consider chess grandmasters, or masters, or even just serious tournament players. When they play a tournament game, which is usually 5-7 hours, it takes a great deal of energy. I used to play in tournaments and I can tell you, thinking burns a lot of energy.

[billl]

hmm... i've gotten myself mentally exhausted before, but never lost any weight from it or anything.

did you have trouble walking after playing chess, apart from stiff knees/back, maybe an adrenaline rush, etc.?

things like playing chess can be stressful, which has physical effects, but right now, I'm chalking that up to all the adrenaline and other stuff burning calories. the brain realizes it's in conflict, or in an uncomfortable situation, and tells the body to get ready for action or whatever.

but considering this chemical "connection" between body and mind does shine a light on the fact that chemicals can affect the quality of our thinking (maybe acetyl-choline helps memory, some drugs are good for depression, psychedlics affect consciousness, ritalin increases mental focus). so, if these physical things (drugs, vitamins, etc.) can affect thinking, well, that's more ammunition for those who'd suggest that thinking is a physical activity.

also, i know this is maybe a silly question (sorry), but when you were in tournament chess for 5-7 hours at a time, was it difficult to find time for eating?

[The Atheist]

I often wonder whether thought is a physical or non-physical activity.

I want to read your logical inferences on this subject.

Physical.

It is the result of extremely tiny, but measurable, electrical currents passing through the brain.


Why do we endlessly insist on asking these impossible questions?

Impossible? "Why do we think?" is a bit trickier, but the physical process of thinking isn't that hard nowadays.


Actually, "thinking" burns a great deal of calories. Consider chess grandmasters, or masters, or even just serious tournament players. When they play a tournament game, which is usually 5-7 hours, it takes a great deal of energy. I used to play in tournaments and I can tell you, thinking burns a lot of energy.

Not quite right.

What is tiring you is the intense concentration, which results in the body doing physical work - sitting still, holding your eyes in one place, increased heartbeat for oxygen supply - all these things burn calories. The amount of energy required to fuel the elctrical impulses is tiny. You could run a brain for a month on an Energiser battery, but the rest of your body won't be in too good a shape.

[Taliesin]

Actually, I have heard that brain is a very energy-greedy organ and that it takes about a fifth of our energy needs despite it's mass being a couple of per cents or so of our body mass.

On thinking - I have the impression that it is physical but also could be non-physical - I do believe that thought is a phenomenon arising from neurons firing etc. but I also think that what counts is not whether the things that fire are neurons or something else -it is the structure that counts and I would rather think of structure as a non-physical thing.

[RichardHresko]

[QUOTE=Taliesin;717561]Actually, I have heard that brain is a very energy-greedy organ and that it takes about a fifth of our energy needs despite it's mass being a couple of per cents or so of our body mass.

QUOTE]

Ounce per ounce, the kidneys are more energy intensive. Which, considering humanity, somehow makes sense...