volchok wrote: Disagree. I think you call info, info, when it just "sits there" so to speak.
And you call info a thought when that info is being processed.
In essence they seem to be the same thing but one goes trough a process and the other one doesn't.
Of course this is a bit speculative but if you want speculate under a naturalistic view of the world I don't know what else you could say...
I don’t consider this to be a naturalistic view, more an observational and considered one. You said thought is info while I maintained this is only sometimes [if et al] the case. There are two bodies in the equation irrespective of semantics, that of information and that of thought, where they are under certain circumstances interactive.
Something [thought/mind/perception/experience] understands info, info doesn’t understand itself otherwise we’d have to include something else within its context which has such an ability.
A process could be a mechanistic interaction of objects [like a computer processor or DNA] or of patterns, yet thinking is not merely that, no? if we can decide that as above info is not thought [specifically at least] and that thought is other than it [its reader], then processes in the mind ~ of the thinker, are different to mechanistic processes. Surely this postulation is reasoned?
Russiantank wrote: But there has been no evidence that I am aware of that there is any kind of "mind-space" phenomena that isn't theoretically manipulatable by poking around in our physical brains.
Naturally if the brain is the tool of the user [mind] then poking around will manipulate that. that’s what mind does! It manipulates its instrumentation [brain] thus it makes perfect sense that such can be manipulated! All science is doing is proving that, it is using that very fact, the very thing which mind does and the flexibility of the brain to be accessed and manipulated.
Russiantank wrote: There isn't any thought that arises only in the "mind-space" and is thus an "original cause." All thoughts are just links in the physical causal chain.
There isn’t any thought which arises in the physical space! There is an exchange between informations derived from the thinker/experiencer/knower and that of sensory and other cognitive info. It is that info which correlates the physical and the mental and is that what occurs in the space.
The causal chain includes what we perceive [even if incorrectly perceived] and what we know ~ in terms of the act of knowing rather than knowledge itself, that knowing experiencing and perceiving can and does change the information stored in the thought. Thinking then is both the physical mechanistic process and the non physical mental process combined.
I don’t know if informational thought even needs a physical counterpart, though I assume as it happens in the brain it probably does at least in part. Again this is something we need evidence for. I know that if you touch a certain part of the brain a memory occurs, but I don’t know if that is simply using the same interactive method which the mind utilises in order to interact with the memory anyway. We would have to find direct evidence of the very same memory as experienced by the mind, being within the chemicals and/or the electromagnetism in the brain. …I’d like to see that!