Original Thought

[nacci11235]

Are thoughts merely reactions to stimuli? By that I mean, are thoughts completely causal, or can we have thoughts that are not direct reactions to stimuli. If we can, that implies that we have free will, in the deterministic sense. If not, well, then determinism holds more weight, I guess.

nacci11235 Reviewed by nacci11235 on 06-27-2008. Original Thought Are thoughts merely reactions to stimuli? By that I mean, are thoughts completely causal, or can we have thoughts that are not direct reactions to stimuli. If we can, that implies that we have free will, in the deterministic sense. If not, well, then determinism holds more weight, I guess. Rating: 5

[Coelho]

Not only thoughts, but anything that may happen without a definable cause invalidates determinism.

[GreenDestiny]

I remember when someone told me that there's "no such thing as an original thought"

It drove me nuts thinking about it, and I can't believe that it's true. But I do believe that all thoughts are reactions to stimuli in some form, no matter how remote or indirect. Each thought comes from a completely different line of actions/reactions that lead us to have the thoughts, so in essence they are all unique, yet often times strikingly similar. Most things are governed by the same mathematical ratios, so it's no wonder that many thoughts end up being a lot alike which would lead people to believe that things were "destined" to be thought of... it's just really good probabilities at work.

[Esoteric416]

The fact that there exists a word like "epiphany" (sp?) shows that thoughts can come to us as a result of something that trancends simple outside stimuli. Not sure about all of you, but i've had plenty of thoughts that came from nowhere.

Maybe it's a case of your mind just sort of going over collections of old info and coming up with new connections between ideas that didn't have any connection before. Maybe you just heard some new tid bit of info that makes a connection between two bigger bits of info and the connection just hits you one day.

Not sure if i'm even making alot of sense, but i believe that our thought process if far more complicated than a simple stimulus and response system.

[nacci11235]

I'm just going to play devil's advocate.
To coelho: How do you determine whether or not something happens without a definable cause? The determinist would argue that all things are reactions to actions, but we are incapable of observing every one of those actions.
To esoteric: You described epiphanies as your mind drawing connections between ideas that it previously hadn't. Why is this outside of a deterministic viewpoint? Computers are processing thousands of things at once, yet they are still based on an action/reaction reality. The determinists would say that our minds are merely super developed computers.

[painretreat]

No computer up here (knock on empty head) (or I could use one better)! If you sit in a room long enough, exactly how much is happening at that time-so you use it to catch up on supercomputer thots to make it look computer or nudge it off to reactions to actions; like would this be the time you use to catch up?

If this is one of those perpetual mind masterbations that some like to play here, I think you need to post it as such. Or, is this someone trying to write a college paper and looking for views? Cause, you'll get a lot, if you aren't to busy stabbing each reply in the back! My point is-I hope there is a point to all this!

[Coelho]

To coelho: How do you determine whether or not something happens without a definable cause? The determinist would argue that all things are reactions to actions, but we are incapable of observing every one of those actions.

Determinism says that some cause x generate some consequence y. So, if we know that the event x (cause) happened, then determinism will say that it implies that the event y (consequence) will happen.
But if we can not define exactly the cause of an event, we can not predict deterministically its happening, and thus we may regard it as happening by chance as well.
If there is a cause for an event but we cant observe it, its useless to say that the event is deterministic. It may be deterministic only to some one who be able to observe the cause.

[nacci11235]

Coelho, I understand what you're saying. You could say the same about this question; what does it matter whether or not I have original thoughts? Will I not think the same regardless?
I believe that our perception of events does not define reality, and I think you'd agree. So there exists some truth as to whether or not the world is deterministic. It is impossible to discover whether or not it is, though. But I still like asking the question. It broadens my perspective of life, and ultimately effects other beliefs I hold, such as my spirituality.
Painretreat, I'm not stabbing replies in the back. I'm offering counter-arguments.

[Coelho]

Coelho, I understand what you're saying. You could say the same about this question; what does it matter whether or not I have original thoughts? Will I not think the same regardless?

Well... it would depend if you were able or not to notice the cause of your thoughts.
If you were not, then indeed it wouldnt matter, and you can say that you would think the same regardless.
But if you were, then you would notice the determinism of them, and it would affect how you think. So it would matter somehow.

I believe that our perception of events does not define reality, and I think you'd agree.

I dont know exactly what you meant... but for me our perception does define reality. Or rather, we define reality based on what we percieve.

So there exists some truth as to whether or not the world is deterministic. It is impossible to discover whether or not it is, though. But I still like asking the question. It broadens my perspective of life, and ultimately effects other beliefs I hold, such as my spirituality.

I also like thinking about questions... sometimes we learn more when we ask a question than when we answer it...