Is it? If I thought about a brick appearing on the table in front of me, does that make that brick real? Of course not. The thought is real, the brick is not.

I'm not saying the content of the thought doesn't matter. The content of the thought likely shapes the nature of the thought. But the thought is not identification to its content, since it itself is a thought, not whatever thing the thought pertains to

How hard to understand is that? What is your worldview? If you're not dualist, why don't you understand monism?

The content of the thought is as real as the thought. Which is to say, not at all. There is no physicality to either. I don't have to be believe in disembodied minds in order to say such things.

If you say, anything that "exists" is physical - then you have to apply that to the content of thoughts. Surely those contests 'exist'. But of course they are not physical.

" What is your worldview?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

How the fuck do thoughts occur if they are not physical? Lmao. Do you also not believe in brain waves?

And I do apply it to the content of thought, watch how.

I draw an elephant on the wall using some charcoal. There is still no physical elephant, but there is a physical drawing of an elephant. When I think of an elephant, same thing. No actual elephant has been conjured, however there certainly is a human though about an elephant.

"How the fuck do thoughts occur if they are not physical? "

I'm not convinced thinking/consciousness exists.

"Do you also not believe in brain waves?"

On the contrary. However, I think it's all physical. There is no "thinking/consciousness" over and above that of neural processing. Mental states do not cause physical states.

"however there certainly is a human though about an elephant."

Explain to what the physiology of thinking about an elephant looks like.

well, it might depend on the color of the elephant...

It's no over and above neural processing. It *is* neural processing. What are you denying here? Sounds like you just don't like the words I'm using. Call things by their true names.

I don't know enough about neurology to know what an thought of an elephant looks like physiologically, ask an expert. With MRI technology though, we know a lot more about it now than we did recently.

I'm denying mental states exist.

That's like denying the brain exists. It's nonsense. Just because something is microscopic doesn't mean it doesn't exist lmao. Why do you cleave to such a blinded view?

No, I'm saying mental states like 'desire, belief, and intention/will' are myths, and that there is nothing but brain states which are the result of and can never cause physical processes. How the brain operates is very much different than how it is understood to operate according to these simplified mental state concepts.

It's so incredibly easy to prove you wrong, all I have to do is speak aloud "I intend to leave the house" and then stand up and do it. Now you know, as long as you understand the speech, that the brain activity going on while I was speaking was germane to the subsequent action. It's as simple as that. It's all physical, all interrelated, and thus all relevant. You're literally standing here trying to deny existence to something. By definition, you can't. Anything we talk about exists in at least that way, and that existence is proven literally just by talking about it.

Please explain why studies have shown that brain activity for "decision-making" precedes 'consciousness' of making a decision, then.

I'm referring to the findings of Kornhuber & Deecke, Libet, Haynes, and Fried in particular.

Electricity can be measured - such as baseline EEG activity - and even correlated with spontaneous emotional regulation - with different frequency bands predisposing to particular sets of potential spontaneous thought. And yet, the perception of and interpretation of these brain wave patterns only exists in the mind- a mind that is biased by all previous understandings and experiences. For neurons that fire together wire together and our ego is tied in closely with the free energy of our default network - so yes, we have free will to a very small degree- because there are some random oscillations that can take us down an unexpected pathway from a similar series of exposures, but this free will is not truly free - it is merely a variation from the predictability of our currently functioning connectome.

How did this become about free will? Whether free will exists in fact or not, the subjective experience, illusion or not, exists, and, since it exists, has a physical presence, likely as a complicated relationship of brain waves or something in that vein. How can you deny its existence? How can you literally make the claim that the thoughts you and I have do not have a physical correspondence to reality? What the fuck are they and where do they come from then?

Ignoring questions of free will, consciousness obviously has a causal effect on physical behavior, because here we are talking about it, by physically moving our fingers.

It became about free will because the notion of mental states having an impact on physical processes implies deliberate decision-making and free-will.

" illusion or not, exists, and, since it exists, has a physical presence"

So even illusions have physical presences, in your view?

"How can you deny its existence?"

I just explained.

Your arguments amount to a series of "self-evident" statements, which isn't an argument at all. And frankly the argument is surprising, because I've read upteen Thucy sermons about the importance of being open to other points of view, and how I'm a 'bitter man' and have a personality of 'pure poison' or something because I'm not as open-minded as Thucydides. And here I am and I can't even get a modicum of substantive response here. It's just a series of "how could you" questions, over and over again, combined with "isn't it obvious" statements.

No, the whole point is our understanding of neural processing is not at all obvious, and our conception of the "mind" rests on outdated concepts.

"What the fuck are they and where do they come from then?"

Disjointed neural residue that occur as a result of physical processes. Like the foam on the crest of a wave, or the steam-whistle on a train. Just like how memory and attention are fragmented and do not represent unified processes, so too is "thought". These ideas are just useful (although increasingly not so much) fictions to simplify experience.

Yes of course illusions have physical presences. Where do you think a mirage of an oasis that I see in a desert comes from? Thin air? How you can call yourself materialist and deny that thoughts physically exist is beyond me

Call it "disjointed neural residue" if you want, it still physically exists, it still means thought. I'm convinced you are just shy of the conventional words for it because you would prefer that thoughts didn't exist. Why I don't know. Even your preference against thoughts is a physical phenomenon.

Thanks everyone for your questionnaire answers, it's a big help.