This might read a little weird because ironically, im thinking of too many things right now. Physically, what is a thought? Im assuming its gotta be a chemical of some sort. How initially does a thought come to be? I dont really know if theres an answer to any of these questions… im not looking for an answer like “a neuron…” im looking for something a little more detailed and maybe some suggested reading if possible.
Thanks,
culov
A web of neurological reactions to your senses and memories. Simple as that!
i actually asked that back in the day when I studying neurobi at U.
you can break it down.
sensation of stimuli causes memory of stimuli (lower life forms drop off here)
memory of stimuli allows for pre-planning or foresight
infinite amount of stimuli memory allows for an infinite level of foresight. each minute thought is really part of contiguous stream of pre-planning.
i remember working with a grad student at MAC who was trying to locate the neuro pathway for memory. one did exist.
the mind really doesn’t exist without the physical brain.
so sorry, it really does come down to axons and dendrites and neurotransmitter. thought is just a concept.
but’s it been a long time so i probably botched the explanation
Traditionally the OP would be a question for philosophers, hence better suited for GD. I know you asked for a physical explanation, but you also asked for reading material, so I figured I could suggest some philosophical approaches to the problem. Among philosophers, two positions dominate the discussions of this topic. On the one hand you have the Cartesian dualists, who maintain that mind and matter are essentially different substances. On the other hand you have the materialists and reductionists, who believe that all mental processes are ultimately explainable in terms of physical, chemical, and biological phenomena. There are other positions one can take, but these two are the most common. Philosophers have struggled with these problems for centuries. Some modern authors who give a good overview of the various arguments in this field are Jerome Schaffer, Paul Churchland, Frank Jackson, and John Searle.
As I understand it memory is a carrier of thought, rather than a micro-chip of thought. ie memory strengthens the neurological web, so the stimuli becomes ‘familiar’ (as peppy mentioned). Having thought, in a way, enables you to control, to some extent, the neurological path. It allows the carrier to be able to try different cenarios (paths).
The difference between thought and reality can at times be a thin line. Imagine you were a real deep thinker and thought you saw, heard, etc yourself being run over by a bus (you could even feel pain). As far as you brain is concerned, that really did happen. And vice-vera ‘what you don’t know won’t hurt you’ (or didn’t happen).
It is simplified significantly here, but it realy does make you think about that tree falling in the forest.