I Have A Question

...that I’ve been pondering on for some time. The question is:

Where do thoughts come from?

They come and go, sometimes they make sense, sometimes not.
Sometimes we can’t believe we could have possibly thought them.

Are thoughts “ours”?

If not, where do they come from?

They go past us like on a conveyor belt, and we can choose to give them cred and validity or simply ignore them.

If our thoughts manage to trick us into believing them...they can cause a lot of trouble.

So, do thoughts belong to us, are they a part of us?

If not whose are they and where do they come from?

Tough questions.

I am inclined to believe thoughts are free and can spread from one to other individuals like birds fly from branches to branches. But hey how can I prove that?

Interesting..
I imediately visualised bare black trees and a few birds flying from one to the other.

Birds are certainly free, but even they fly with a purpose, not randomly.

Nice picture. Almost like a haiku.

Because what looked like bare black branches are now rapidly growing leaves!

From our brain would be short answer (apologies for the pedantic response).

If the question was around what drives them, then several answers come to mind:

- Chemical make up of one's brain. Size, balance of chemicals
- Social Environment. Believe that drives behavior which is derived from our thoughts

I think they if anything play the biggest part in our thoughts and why.

legendkillar wrote:From our brain would be short answer (apologies for the pedantic response).

If the question was around what drives them, then several answers come to mind:

- Chemical make up of one's brain. Size, balance of chemicals

Mmmmmm...
Are you sure that holds water?

Just remember all the thoughts that came to you today.

How many did you engage with and how many did you ignore?

Someone is sending them all into that brain giving you free choices all the time.

legendkillar wrote:
- Social Environment. Believe that drives behavior which is derived from our thoughts

I think they if anything play the biggest part in our thoughts and why.

I would express it like this: you are what you eat.

If you feed your mind on rubbish, your thoughts will be rubbish.

Thoughts? That’s how the brain evolved to process sensory information and turn it into actions.

Then it got really complex and sophisticated.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:From our brain would be short answer (apologies for the pedantic response).

If the question was around what drives them, then several answers come to mind:

- Chemical make up of one's brain. Size, balance of chemicals

Mmmmmm...
Are you sure that holds water?

Just remember all the thoughts that came to you today.

How many did you engage with and how many did you ignore?

Someone is sending them all into that brain giving you free choices all the time.

legendkillar wrote:
- Social Environment. Believe that drives behavior which is derived from our thoughts

I think they if anything play the biggest part in our thoughts and why.

I would express it like this: you are what you eat.

If you feed your mind on rubbish, your thoughts will be rubbish.

It does for me. Read some interesting articles on such and it does make a difference. Even the levels of dopamine for example. Easily influences the thought process between 2 different individuals. I'd say it's more likely than our identity determined by a soul. However, that is my view.

I think of the many thoughts I have during a day, whether it's a daydream (imagining something outside of my existence) or realization of things that will happen (like going to the shop for bread and milk) 2 different drivers where one being something built out of pure imagination and one being a more environment driven thought.

As for the rubbish on rubbish, well depends what your stance is. I'd say it's a romantic view to have if all we had to get by on and live by is some form of internal spirituality. I don't think as a species we are in tune that much with our natural instincts. Over the many millennia, despite mankind's achievement, its come at a hefty price much to the detriment of the world and ourselves.

legendkillar wrote:
It does for me. Read some interesting articles on such and it does make a difference. Even the levels of dopamine for example. Easily influences the thought process between 2 different individuals.

Yes, various physiological processes influence our emotions, moods and thoughts.
The three are independent and have a life of their own, though.

For me, thoughts are the most mysterious; they are random, unexpected and fascinatingly we can only have one thought at a time!

So that’s the first “why?”
Why only one?

Then where they come from as we can certainly not control our thoughts in terms when and which ones come to our mind.

All we can do is exercise our free choice whether to believe them or ignore them.

I’ll repeat the illustration from the OP where thoughts, (outside of us) appear in our mind like on a conveyer belt, one by one.

It would be an interesting project to try and classify thoughts, as we all still share/have an overlap, but then that goes to a different realm of collective subconscious if such thing does exist.

legendkillar wrote:
I'd say it's more likely than our identity determined by a soul. However, that is my view.

To me our identity is our soul. It’s completely unique, just like our fingerprints.
I find that totally fascinating.

legendkillar wrote:
I think of the many thoughts I have during a day, whether it's a daydream (imagining something outside of my existence) or realization of things that will happen (like going to the shop for bread and milk) 2 different drivers where one being something built out of pure imagination and one being a more environment driven thought.

Again, this does not explain where they come from as such. There are thoughts that come from neither that you mention.
Especially the particullarly horrible ones.

legendkillar wrote:
As for the rubbish on rubbish, well depends what your stance is. I'd say it's a romantic view to have if all we had to get by on and live by is some form of internal spirituality. I don't think as a species we are in tune that much with our natural instincts. Over the many millennia, despite mankind's achievement, its come at a hefty price much to the detriment of the world and ourselves.

I am not sure what exactly you mean by “natural instincts”.

Looking around me, all I see is people doing just that - followong natural urges and instincts for self protection.
Very little of the opposite.

If you mean that men with their modern lifestyle have alienated  themselves from nature, than, sadly I agree.

We can learn so much more from walking across the field or looking at a starry sky than watching TV.

noleisthebest wrote:Yes, various physiological processes influence our emotions, moods and thoughts.
The three are independent and have a life of their own, though.

For me, thoughts are the most mysterious; they are random, unexpected and fascinatingly we can only have one thought at a time!

So that’s the first “why?”
Why only one?

Then where they come from as we can certainly not control our thoughts in terms when and which ones come to our mind.

All we can do is exercise our free choice whether to believe them or ignore them.

I’ll repeat the illustration from the OP where thoughts, (outside of us) appear in our mind like on a conveyer belt, one by one.

It would be an interesting project to try and classify thoughts, as we all still share/have an overlap, but then that goes to a different realm of collective subconscious if such thing does exist.

I wouldn't say they have a life of their own in dormant terms. Once they are identified by the brain that's essentially when they come alive. It purely depends on the individuals interpretation of them and their rationale for having them. For me it's a case I'd always say "It's me" my make up, my DNA. That's the main driver.

noleisthebest wrote:To me our identity is our soul. It’s completely unique, just like our fingerprints.
I find that totally fascinating.

I am not one for the soul train, but what I would say is our DNA is unique. I believe that's what grants us individuality. Our signature if you will.

noleisthebest wrote:Again, this does not explain where they come from as such. There are thoughts that come from neither that you mention.
Especially the particullarly horrible ones.

It did explain it. I did my best to distinguish what the catalyst for a thought could be. Conception and visualization are certainly the most fascinating elements of the process of thought. If you are talking something born out of pure imagination, I am sure if you traced the steps carefully, you would find the one driver that then branched out into several that underpin that thought. For example I could imagine myself in field with trees aplenty. Whilst that is unique to me, it doesn't alter the fact at some stage I would've seen a field or a tree that enabled me to visualize them. Like if I was writing poetry or a short story. The words were already there to begin with.

noleisthebest wrote:
I am not sure what exactly you mean by “natural instincts”.

Looking around me, all I see is people doing just that - followong natural urges and instincts for self protection.
Very little of the opposite.

If you mean that men with their modern lifestyle have alienated  themselves from nature, than, sadly I agree.

We can learn so much more from walking across the field or looking at a starry sky than watching TV.

When I say natural instincts, I'd say for example our senses. Sight, Sound, Touch, Taste. Humans reliance on artificial assistance I feel has taken away our ability to be all we can. For example hunting for food, we go to shops now. Imagine for example a shark popping into a shop for a tuna steak. Think of everything that makes that creature amazing. Sense of smell, taste, sight. All those features and tools for absolutely nothing.

I'd probably say I am too romantic too

legendkillar wrote:I wouldn't say they have a life of their own in dormant terms. Once they are identified by the brain that's essentially when they come alive. It purely depends on the individuals interpretation of them and their rationale for having them. For me it's a case I'd always say "It's me" my make up, my DNA. That's the main driver.

The thing is, brain on its own is just an ugly grey blob.
What makes it able to "identify" and do its job eg - link thoughts, emotions and moods is mind, which roughly could be described as the brain which is alive.
Try to imagine any man, or just yourself on an atomic level, visualise yourself as billions of atoms.

Without life there would be no emotions, no thoughts, no moods.

That is the spiritual realm.

And because spirit is a bit difficult to submit to laws of physics and explain by scientific formulas, it is also difficult to find the answer to where thoughts come from.

Just one single alive man with all his thoughts, actions, feelings in one day...all those atoms doing their job without fail all the time.

The heart "knows" to beat regularly.

Baby "knows" to smile when he/she sees his/her mother.

legendkillar wrote:
I am not one for the soul train, but what I would say is our DNA is unique. I believe that's what grants us individuality. Our signature if you will.

Again, a corpse has DNA.
What is the main difference between a corpse and a living man?

Btw, the word "soul" doesn't bite, I promise!

legendkillar wrote:
It did explain it. I did my best to distinguish what the catalyst for a thought could be. Conception and visualization are certainly the most fascinating elements of the process of thought. If you are talking something born out of pure imagination, I am sure if you traced the steps carefully, you would find the one driver that then branched out into several that underpin that thought. For example I could imagine myself in field with trees aplenty. Whilst that is unique to me, it doesn't alter the fact at some stage I would've seen a field or a tree that enabled me to visualize them. Like if I was writing poetry or a short story. The words were already there to begin with.

That's the problem.
Many thoughts that come to us have nothing to do with us or our imagination.
And even imagination is almost some form of a thought, maybe creative one we believe and then allow it to develop.

As for visualisation, blind people also have thoughts. Do they visualise?
As for words, they have not been there to begin with.

A newborn is not able to speak.

A baby raised by animals or in a family will still have thoughts.

legendkillar wrote:
When I say natural instincts, I'd say for example our senses. Sight, Sound, Touch, Taste. Humans reliance on artificial assistance I feel has taken away our ability to be all we can. For example hunting for food, we go to shops now. Imagine for example a shark popping into a shop for a tuna steak. Think of everything that makes that creature amazing. Sense of smell, taste, sight. All those features and tools for absolutely nothing.

I'd probably say I am too romantic too

Yes, our alienation from nature is costly to us.
Is Bill Gates with all his billions and stuff coming to him with the click of his fingers happier than a simple farmer?

But regardless, we still use all our senses.

Not sure how we got to this paragraph regarding the origin of thoughts though, hehe.

noleisthebest wrote:The thing is, brain on its own is just an ugly grey blob.
What makes it able to "identify" and do its job eg - link thoughts, emotions and moods is mind, which roughly could be described as the brain which is alive.
Try to imagine any man, or just yourself on an atomic level, visualise yourself as billions of atoms.

Without life there would be no emotions, no thoughts, no moods.

That is the spiritual realm.

And because spirit is a bit difficult to submit to laws of physics and explain by scientific formulas, it is also difficult to find the answer to where thoughts come from.

Just one single alive man with all his thoughts, actions, feelings in one day...all those atoms doing their job without fail all the time.

The heart "knows" to beat regularly.

Baby "knows" to smile when he/she sees his/her mother.

The brain is an organ that carries out a function. Like the other organs. There are chemicals within the brain that carry out/drive those functions eg thoughts, emotions. Take mood stabilizing drugs. Their chemical make up as such interacts with the brain in way that then triggers and influences it to suppress and eradicate the moods. It doesn't just stop the bad moods, it stops all moods. Shuts it down. Hence why I'd never associate elements like thoughts, moods or emotions as something beyond what biology explains.

noleisthebest wrote:Again, a corpse has DNA.
What is the main difference between a corpse and a living man?

Btw, the word "soul" doesn't bite, I promise!

The difference is the amount of primary functions. Now this was a bone of contention in another thread I've avoided about dead atoms and what have you. I have a more simplified way of explaining it. A corpse will decay. For the decaying process to occur, requires activity. So when talking about what is 'dead' can be subjective depending on beliefs. Whilst decaying is not the most glamourous action, it still requires activity to be present. However, I am not wanting to be drawn into that discussion.

noleisthebest wrote:That's the problem.
Many thoughts that come to us have nothing to do with us or our imagination.
And even imagination is almost some form of a thought, maybe creative one we believe and then allow it to develop.

As for visualisation, blind people also have thoughts. Do they visualise?
As for words, they have not been there to begin with.

A newborn is not able to speak.

A baby raised by animals or in a family will still have thoughts.

I do wish sometimes there was structure to your posts. Just so it's easier to attack one step at a time. Blind people can visualize in their minds. They still have the power of touch (unless they are a blind amputee) It's not to say what they visualize is an accurate representation of what they are visualizing. It's context.

As for the words are not there. The English dictionary existed before my lifetime and I am guessing before yours too. So words have been there. A baby of course would not be able to speak or even comprehend. Hence why learn and develop comes into play. A baby isn't the finished article so to speak. Yes babies will have thoughts, driven by the factors mentioned earlier.

noleisthebest wrote:Yes, our alienation from nature is costly to us.
Is Bill Gates with all his billions and stuff coming to him with the click of his fingers happier than a simple farmer?

But regardless, we still use all our senses.

Not sure how we got to this paragraph regarding the origin of thoughts though, hehe.

You'd have to ask Bill and a farmer and draw conclusions from that. Odd comparison.

We got to this paragraph by progression of discussion. The clear differences are is we see the origin of thought differently. It's not a bad thing.

legendkillar” wrote:The brain is an organ that carries out a function. Like the other organs. There are chemicals within the brain that carry out/drive those functions eg thoughts, emotions. Take mood stabilizing drugs. Their chemical make up as such interacts with the brain in way that then triggers and influences it to suppress and eradicate the moods. It doesn't just stop the bad moods, it stops all moods. Shuts it down. Hence why I'd never associate elements like thoughts, moods or emotions as something beyond what biology explains.

But that very chemical makeup exists in a corpse, yet a corpse can’t think.
And since you like chemistry, what is the chemical formula of a thought?
When you get up in the morning and look through the window, see the sunshine and blue sky, which chemical formula informs you - oh what a lovely day!

And why lovely and not horrible?

Your description there suggests you view men as robots.

And in a strange way, we probably are. Just an amazingly sophisticated ones. Run by our creator, just like ordinary robots are run by the scientist who made them.

legendakiler” wrote:
The difference is the amount of primary functions. Now this was a bone of contention in another thread I've avoided about dead atoms and what have you. I have a more simplified way of explaining it. A corpse will decay. For the decaying process to occur, requires activity. So when talking about what is 'dead' can be subjective depending on beliefs. Whilst decaying is not the most glamourous action, it still requires activity to be present. However, I am not wanting to be drawn into that discussion.

I see your point, however, it is confusing why relatives and friends cry so much after a “living” (chemically speaking) decomposing corpse at his/her funeral.
And why are people scared and desperste to avoid the beginning of that decomposing process?
Innfact, they all do the very opposite - try to revert that process and ve/look young as long as possible.

What does the word “die”mean?, then?

And since you seem to be fond of poetry, what on earth did Hamlet have in mind when he asked that famous question: “ To be or not to be?”

legendakillar” wrote:
I do wish sometimes there was structure to your posts. Just so it's easier to attack one step at a time. Blind people can visualize in their minds. They still have the power of touch (unless they are a blind amputee) It's not to say what they visualize is an accurate representation of what they are visualizing. It's context.

But visualisation is meant to be about eyesight, isn’t it...and the blind can’t see, yet they can think.
You are the one that introduced “visualisation” in your argument anyway, so I just commented in it.

legendakillar” wrote:
As for the words are not there. The English dictionary existed before my lifetime and I am guessing before yours too. So words have been there. A baby of course would not be able to speak or even comprehend. Hence why learn and develop comes into play. A baby isn't the finished article so to speak. Yes babies will have thoughts, driven by the factors mentioned earlier.

Apparently babies have thoughts even in uterus.
When I was 3 and in nursery, the teacher asked us what we did in mummy’s tummy, and I said: “I was picking flowers.”
And I even had a picture of myself doing it at the time.

That was all probably just a product of my imagination, but maybe it wasn’t!

legendakillar” wrote:
You'd have to ask Bill and a farmer and draw conclusions from that. Odd comparison.

We got to this paragraph by progression of discussion. The clear differences are is we see the origin of thought differently. It's not a bad thing.

Well, thoughts still come and go and we still have a free choice to believe them or not, which to me is the most interesting aspect, anyway.

That I think most would agree on.

noleisthebest wrote:But that very chemical makeup exists in a corpse, yet a corpse can’t think.
And since you like chemistry, what is the chemical formula of a thought?
When you get up in the morning and look through the window, see the sunshine and blue sky, which chemical formula informs you - oh what a lovely day!

And why lovely and not horrible?

Your description there suggests you view men as robots.

And in a strange way, we probably are. Just an amazingly sophisticated ones. Run by our creator, just like ordinary robots are run by the scientist who made them.

Hence why they use a term when recording deaths "Brain Stem Death" but believe it or not, people can actually still be alive and have other organs function and have no brain stem function. Does that mean they are dead?

I can provide you a formula based on components required for thoughts:

Dopamine/Glutamate/Gamma-Aminobutyric acid (GABA)/Serotonin/Acetylcholine/Endocannabinoids/Opiods

All those a factors in thoughts.

I don't view humans as robots. I view them as animals.

noleisthebest wrote:I see your point, however, it is confusing why relatives and friends cry so much after a “living” (chemically speaking) decomposing corpse at his/her funeral.
And why are people scared and desperste to avoid the beginning of that decomposing process?
Innfact, they all do the very opposite - try to revert that process and ve/look young as long as possible.

What does the word “die”mean?, then?

And since you seem to be fond of poetry, what on earth did Hamlet have in mind when he asked that famous question: “ To be or not to be?”

Animals mourn. Mammals for example are known to display emotional responses when their young die. Why is it confusing? It's not to me.

What does it mean to die? Simply I'd say a loss of all primary functions. If you are seeking meaning, then as I said earlier, it's opinions and beliefs.

What did Hamlet have in mind? He was a fictional character!! Did you mean Shakespeare.

noleisthebest wrote:But visualisation is meant to be about eyesight, isn’t it...and the blind can’t see, yet they can think.
You are the one that introduced “visualisation” in your argument anyway, so I just commented in it.

Have you looked up the visualization? It's not eyesight.

noleisthebest wrote:Apparently babies have thoughts even in uterus.
When I was 3 and in nursery, the teacher asked us what we did in mummy’s tummy, and I said: “I was picking flowers.”
And I even had a picture of myself doing it at the time.

That was all probably just a product of my imagination, but maybe it wasn’t!

Granted and if you were picking flowers, it's a nice thought.

noleisthebest wrote:Well, thoughts still come and go and we still have a free choice to believe them or not, which to me is the most interesting aspect, anyway.

That I think most would agree on.

Many psychiatrists I know would call that insanity

However, I disagree with them.

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I see your point, however, it is confusing why relatives and friends cry so much after a “living” (chemically speaking) decomposing corpse at his/her funeral.
And why are people scared and desperste to avoid the beginning of that decomposing process?
Innfact, they all do the very opposite - try to revert that process and ve/look young as long as possible.

What does the word “die”mean?, then?

And since you seem to be fond of poetry, what on earth did Hamlet have in mind when he asked that famous question: “ To be or not to be?”

Animals mourn. Mammals for example are known to display emotional responses when their young die. Why is it confusing? It's not to me.

What does it mean to die? Simply I'd say a loss of all primary functions. If you are seeking meaning, then as I said earlier, it's opinions and beliefs.

What did Hamlet have in mind? He was a fictional character!! Did you mean Shakespeare.

If you insist...yes, what did Shakespeare have in mind when he posed that question through the mouth of one of his most famous characters?

It’s incredibly difficult trying to find the answers to questions that have groundless premises.

There’s a straightforward reason why it’s so obscure.