What do you think before you think?

Originally posted by whodey
Speaking of thoughts. I dream about someone I knew in my past and "poof", there they are in the near future.

It's happened too many times to be a coincidence and it is freaking me out!!! 😲

That sort of thing never happens to me. I wonder why. There are so many unexplained phenomena, but I believe there is an explanation none the less.

There are things going on in the realm of the spirit beyond the reach of our senses. Perhaps it is our good fortune not to be equipped for that kind of engagement. I don't know!

Originally posted by vistesd
I just want to springboard from the following August, 2011 Nature article to a discussion of the more introspective (intuitive) questions at the end of this post. (I posted this here, rather than in the science thread because I am more interested in the philosophical considerations.)

_______________________________________________________

http ...[text shortened]... quasi-koans; or—

Who is the I
who thinks “I”
before I know it?

"...a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven seconds."

I believe that thought is a function of the spirit, and that brain activity is subsequent to thought. I've brought this idea up before in this forum, but no one seems interested in it. Of course the idea that thought doesn't originate in the brain is as acceptable an idea as the idea that someone could actually rise from the dead.

The spirit and thought are way ahead of the brain.

My nine year old son asked me a question this morning. It was unsolicited and unprompted. He asked me, "how can I hear my thoughts"?

Indeed!

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"...a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven seconds."

I believe that thought is a function of the spirit, and that brain activity is subsequent to thought. I've brought this idea up before in this forum, but no one seems interested in it. Of course the idea that thought doesn't originate in the brain is as a ...[text shortened]... It was unsolicited and unprompted. He asked me, "how can I hear my thoughts"?

Indeed![/b]

I believe that thought is a function of the spirit, and that brain activity is subsequent to thought. I've brought this idea up before in this forum, but no one seems interested in it.

No one is interested because it is seems very implausible, not parsimonious, etc, and you offer no evidence to mitigate that. Also, are you under the delusion that the study suggests the existence of thought that precedes any brain activity? To the contrary, the article has to do with brain activity that precedes conscious awareness. So, take this work as another strike against your theory. Good god, man, you need the same kick in the pants that RJHinds got: you need to actually read the article before presuming that it is sympathetic to your pet ideas. If, on the other hand, I am misreading you; then sorry for that.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"...a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven seconds."

I believe that thought is a function of the spirit, and that brain activity is subsequent to thought. I've brought this idea up before in this forum, but no one seems interested in it. Of course the idea that thought doesn't originate in the brain is as a ...[text shortened]... It was unsolicited and unprompted. He asked me, "how can I hear my thoughts"?

Indeed![/b]

It might be better to start with the idea that thoughts are independent of brain activity. But the problem I see is that any manifestation -- observable evidence -- of thought, may require the brain as an intermediary, thus confounding the situation. This could be true even of the manifestation of thought to the thinker of that thought. Have you had an experience of thought in a situation where you have evidence you had no simultaneous brain activity? Is there evidence if thought in any being having no brain, or having a completely inactive brain? Of course any such evidence would move this idea to the Science forum.

Originally posted by JS357
It might be better to start with the idea that thoughts are independent of brain activity. But the problem I see is that any manifestation -- observable evidence -- of thought, may require the brain as an intermediary, thus confounding the situation. This could be true even of the manifestation of thought to the thinker of that thought. Have you had an experie ...[text shortened]... ompletely inactive brain? Of course any such evidence would move this idea to the Science forum.

I have often wondered why one person notices something simple that
everone else seems to ignore. Could it be that there is some intelligence
that awakens that one person's brain to that fact?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have often wondered why one person notices something simple that
everone else seems to ignore. Could it be that there is some intelligence
that awakens that one person's brain to that fact?

Oh, I think the story of the emperor who wore no clothes illustrates one reason. People do not want to risk disapproval (or worse) for pointing out a truth that has been avoided by everyone else.