The definition of free will

[Sair]

You are in fact a materialist who has not produced a solution to its insurmountable problems - such as the verification principle that is impossible to verify by sense observation and is itself intangible and unobservable.

Sense observation itself is impossible in the absence of extant phenomena to observe - thus is useless to a nonphysical entity.

The existence of the intangible mind is more certain than that of any material object

To a Cartesian, perhaps.

You are assuming you know how your brain is conscious, grasps abstract principles, makes decisions and controls itself

I am assuming nothing of the kind - I am merely assuming, provisionally, that we are wrong to suppose our minds are intangible, on the basis of the fact that all available evidence points to the necessity of physical phenomena to the existence of minds. You, by contrast, are assuming you already know what the mind is and how it works, and can thus reject, out of hand, the physicalist hypothesis.

You are assuming that we **know **our thoughts are merely electrical impulses

Do you have an alternative explanation for what thoughts actually are?

Symbols of what? What are symbols composed of? How does the brain encode symbols?
How does the brain understand symbols? If you cannot answer these questions your hypothesis is gratuitous.

Can you define a thought apart from the images or words that your consciousness presents? After all, if you cannot define the mind beyond saying that it is ‘nonphysical’, whatever that means, and cannot explain how nonphysical entities interact with physical ones - since it’s perfectly obvious, even from the supposedly sacred space of truth inside the mind, that minds and bodies interact on a daily basis - then your hypothesis is untenable.

“necessarily” gives the game away!

Only for those who are grasping at straws in order to cling to the hypothesis of supernatural minds.

“serious” in whose opinion and on what basis?

Based on the fact that the individuals in question have done extensive research on the subject, and have spent far more time and words than either of us explaining their examinations of consciousness and free will.

Belief in free will is not based on a feeling but on logic. Machines are not autonomous or responsible.

That assertion requires you to delineate the precise point of separation between machines and biological entities. I think you’ll find that the rejection of libertarian free will is at least equally based upon logic. The only difference between your logic and that of those who reject free will is that the latter take scientific investigation into account, rather than dismissing it because it doesn’t mesh with their beliefs.

A rational belief is not based on a negative proposition.

I rationally believe that I am not a male, based on the absence of certain bodily attributes.

A platitude!

Platitudes, due to their very obvious, ordinary nature, often indicate underlying truths - no-one doubts we are quite frequently mistaken in our unexamined beliefs, after all. If our ‘supernatural’ minds are so powerful and privileged in their access to truth, which, according to you, exists only in the mind, then why do we so often find ourselves standing corrected by evidence?

To avoid acting on a desire implies that you are controlling it!

Overriding it, perhaps, but not creating or destroying it. That is not the same as the idea that we consciously control our desires. We only consciously control our actions, at least when we don’t fail to do so.

As for your conscious choice to reject the evidence for the independence of the human mind to underlying physical phenomena, this too is serving a desire, an underlying motivation, even if you are not consciously aware of it!

Not that I have ever denied this - that, apparently, is your domain!

It does not follow that all our conscious choices are serving a desire, an underlying motivation - except a desire to discover the truth!

Then whence the desire to uncover the truth? Did you create this desire in yourself? If you didn’t, where is your free will? What about people who are afraid of the truth because it might contradict their cherished beliefs?

There is no evidence for the truth of these assertions

So you regularly pursue options that have never occurred to you, do you?

You are obviously attached to your opinion but that has no bearing on its validity.

I could say exactly the same about you, with at least equal validity.

How would you demonstrate that your opinion is not motivated by the desire to reject the objective reality of independent minds, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, love and purpose?

How do love, truth, goodness, freedom, justice and purpose exist objectively - that is, apart from the subjective perspective of conscious beings? I would know nothing about such things if my mind were not intimately and intricately connected to physical states of affairs that instantiate our comprehension of such concepts. Are you really saying that if you were a free-floating, independent mind, you would care about the wrenching gut reaction your body feels at the witnessing of injustice or cruelty? How would you care about a reality you were not part of? How would you perceive anything without the wherewithal to do so? Do you imagine the things that matter to you as a bodily being would still matter if you were an immortal, disconnected, supernatural mind? Aren’t you really trying to say, by insisting that your mind is nonphysical, that you’re above all that? And how would you demonstrate otherwise, without the physical capacity to do so?

 

[tonyrey]

Sense observation itself is impossible in the absence of extant phenomena to observe…

Sense observation is not the sole form of observation.

To a Cartesian, perhaps.

Can you detect your thoughts and emotions and decisions with your senses?

I am merely assuming, provisionally, that we are wrong to suppose our minds are intangible, on the basis of the fact that all available evidence points to the necessity of physical phenomena to the existence of minds.

All available evidence points to a relationship, nothing more.

You, by contrast, are assuming you already know what the mind is and how it works, and can thus reject, out of hand, the physicalist hypothesis.

False! I don’t know what the mind is or how it works but I do know it exists.

Do you have an alternative explanation for what thoughts actually are?

Thoughts, emotions, intuitions, purposes and decisions are aspects of personal activity.
What are symbols composed of?

Can you define a thought apart from the images or words that your consciousness presents?

Thoughts are indefinable but insight precedes language. Very often we cannot express our thoughts or emotions with words or images.

After all, if you cannot define the mind beyond saying that it is ‘nonphysical’, whatever that means, and cannot explain how nonphysical entities interact with physical ones - since it’s perfectly obvious, even from the supposedly sacred space of truth inside the mind, that minds and bodies interact on a daily basis - then your hypothesis is untenable.

The mind is the source of thoughts, emotions, intuitions, purposes and decisions. Even though we cannot explain how we control ourselves we know we are usually in command of our behaviour.

“necessarily” gives the game away!

Only for those who are grasping at straws in order to cling to the hypothesis of supernatural minds.

Why did you use the word?

Based on the fact that the individuals in question have done extensive research on the subject, and have spent far more time and words than either of us explaining their examinations of consciousness and free will.

Extensive research on the subject, time and words are no guarantee of success.

Machines are not autonomous or responsible.

That assertion requires you to delineate the precise point of separation between machines and biological entities.

Biological entities have an urge to survive, are purposeful and cannot be explained in terms of physics and chemistry.

The only difference between your logic and that of those who reject free will is that the latter take scientific investigation into account, rather than dismissing it because it doesn’t mesh with their beliefs.

There is no reason to believe scientific investigation is the sole source of knowledge.

I rationally believe that I am not a male, based on the absence of certain bodily attributes.

That is not the only reason.

If our ‘supernatural’ minds are so powerful and privileged in their access to truth, which, according to you, exists only in the mind, then why do we so often find ourselves standing corrected by evidence?

Power and privilege do not guarantee infallibility.

To avoid acting on a desire implies that you are controlling it!

Overriding it, perhaps, but not creating or destroying it.

Control does not necessitate creation or destruction.

We only consciously control our actions, at least when we don’t fail to do so.

!

Not that I have ever denied this - that, apparently, is your domain!

If all choices serve desires they are far more likely to be misleading than reliable guides to the truth. Wishful thinking, for example…

Then whence the desire to uncover the truth? Did you create this desire in yourself? If you didn’t, where is your free will?

The desire to discover the truth is evidence that we are fundamentally rational beings, not freaks of nature. Rationality and free will are interdependent. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

So you regularly pursue options that have never occurred to you, do you?

?

How would you demonstrate your opinion is not motivated by the desire to reject the objective reality of independent minds, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, love and purpose?

How do love, truth, goodness, freedom, justice and purpose exist objectively - that is, apart from the subjective perspective of conscious beings?

Do you think facts cease to exist if no one is aware of them? Didn’t animals act purposefully before we existed?

I would know nothing about such things if my mind were not intimately and intricately connected to physical states of affairs that instantiate our comprehension of such concepts.

What about your mental states?

Are you really saying that if you were a free-floating, independent mind, you would care about the wrenching gut reaction your body feels at the witnessing of injustice or cruelty?

Interaction doesn’t entail dependence.

How would you perceive anything without the wherewithal to do so?

You don’t need your senses to be aware of your thoughts and feelings.

Do you imagine the things that matter to you as a bodily being would still matter if you were an immortal, disconnected, supernatural mind?

Would the things that matter to you as a person still matter if you were a collection of particles?

Aren’t you really trying to say, by insisting that your mind is nonphysical, that you’re above all that?

Are you below all the intangible things that make life precious?

And how would you demonstrate otherwise, without the physical capacity to do so?

And without the intellectual capacity?

 

[grannymh]

We are always subject to environmental influence - even staunch proponents of classical libertarian free will cannot legitimately deny this! We are also, I think - and to a greater extent than we often appreciate - creatures of instinct. Our responses to certain stimuli are often not “rational” in the sense of standing up to reflective, thoughtful explanation. An example is the disgust response, which appears to be responsible for quite a lot of the decisions we consider to be made on a sound moral basis - although we cannot articulate reasons for making these decisions.

I clicked your link but did not read it primarily because we appear to be on the same wave length even to the point that “disgust” can contribute to what could be considered moral issues. Actually, I have limited time and I wanted to see what you thought about these ideas regarding free will.

It is my observation that free will is an ability. Most of the time, one considers free will as the ability to make a choice between this or that; however, I believe that there is more to free will. To me, the value of free will is that we can overturn a personal decision based on any influence or even on rational thinking. There is something immaterial about us which gives us a freedom from material/physical controls. Even when we cannot escape from material/physical controls, there is something immaterial within us that knows we are superior.

 

[tonyrey]

I clicked your link but did not read it primarily because we appear to be on the same wave length even to the point that “disgust” can contribute to what could be considered moral issues. Actually, I have limited time and I wanted to see what you thought about these ideas regarding free will.

It is my observation that free will is an ability. Most of the time, one considers free will as the ability to make a choice between this or that; however, I believe that there is more to free will. To me, the value of free will is that we can overturn a personal decision based on any influence or even on rational thinking. There is something immaterial about us which gives us a freedom from material/physical controls. Even when we cannot escape from material/physical controls, there is something immaterial within us that knows we are superior.

We can even choose to be unreasonable!

 

[Sair]

I clicked your link but did not read it primarily because we appear to be on the same wave length even to the point that “disgust” can contribute to what could be considered moral issues. Actually, I have limited time and I wanted to see what you thought about these ideas regarding free will.

It is my observation that free will is an ability. Most of the time, one considers free will as the ability to make a choice between this or that; however, I believe that there is more to free will. To me, the value of free will is that we can overturn a personal decision based on any influence or even on rational thinking. There is something immaterial about us which gives us a freedom from material/physical controls. Even when we cannot escape from material/physical controls, there is something immaterial within us that knows we are superior.

My observation, since I have invested in considering the issue of free will, is that there are different definitions dependent upon one’s philosophical and (sometimes) theological position. Religious believers in general seem to be convinced that libertarian free will must exist, both because it appears to be necessary, from a religious perspective, for moral responsibility; and also, rather less attractively, because there is a desire to see humans as a special case of God’s creation, above and beyond the rest of the animal kingdom in value and significance (and no, I really don’t want to tar all believers with the same brush - of course there are variations in perspective, not to mention those who believe in predestination!)

Amongst nonreligious philosophers (be they atheist, agnostic or indifferent), there are those who take a hard determinist view and reject free will altogether; there are substance dualists, who believe mind-stuff is qualitatively different to body-stuff, and has very different capabilities; and there are compatibilists, who think that some form of free will, of the capacity for choice, can exist even if the mind is solely an emergent property of a functioning brain, and the universe is, generally speaking, deterministic (with a bit of quantum randomness thrown in to keep it interesting). Needless to say, the latter do not believe we are the conscious originators of our choices - but they (and I, for I am of the latter variety) believe that we ourselves maintain at least a considerable measure of responsibility for our actions, even if the classically-recognised we - that is to say, the conscious aspect of our ‘selves’ - are not the ultimate authors of those actions.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you define a thought apart from the images or words that your consciousness presents?

When I say a thought is indefinable I mean it cannot be pinned down like a word or electrical impulse. It is an ultimate aspect of reality that cannot be reduced to electrical activity. Can you define physical energy in terms of something else?

 

[tonyrey]

Needless to say, the latter do not believe we are the conscious originators of our choices - but they (and I, for I am of the latter variety) believe that we ourselves maintain at least a considerable measure of responsibility for our actions, even if the classically-recognised we - that is to say, the conscious aspect of our ‘selves’ - are not the ultimate authors of those actions.

The all-important question is “How?”

In your scheme of things mitigating circumstances have nothing to mitigate!

 

[Sair]

The all-important question is “How?”

In your scheme of things mitigating circumstances have nothing to mitigate!

“How?” is the question naturalists pursue, and the question supernaturalists generally ignore.

Do you dismiss the possibility that our legal systems are based upon inaccurate premises? A system based upon consideration of circumstances and causes of intentions and actions, rehabilitation of those who can be, and minimisation of harm from those who can’t be (most likely through incarceration) would surely not be worse than a system based upon retribution.

 

[grannymh]

My observation, since I have invested in considering the issue of free will, is that there are different definitions dependent upon one’s philosophical and (sometimes) theological position. Religious believers in general seem to be convinced that libertarian free will must exist, both because it appears to be necessary, from a religious perspective, for moral responsibility; and also, rather less attractively, because there is a desire to see humans as a special case of God’s creation, above and beyond the rest of the animal kingdom in value and significance (and no, I really don’t want to tar all believers with the same brush - of course there are variations in perspective, not to mention those who believe in predestination!)

Amongst nonreligious philosophers (be they atheist, agnostic or indifferent), there are those who take a hard determinist view and reject free will altogether; there are substance dualists, who believe mind-stuff is qualitatively different to body-stuff, and has very different capabilities; and there are compatibilists, who think that some form of free will, of the capacity for choice, can exist even if the mind is solely an emergent property of a functioning brain, and the universe is, generally speaking, deterministic (with a bit of quantum randomness thrown in to keep it interesting). Needless to say, the latter do not believe we are the conscious originators of our choices - but they (and I, for I am of the latter variety) believe that we ourselves maintain at least a considerable measure of responsibility for our actions, even if the classically-recognised we - that is to say, the conscious aspect of our ‘selves’ - are not the ultimate authors of those actions.

Yes, the issue of free will certainly has different definitions. I did relate to the one which indicates the necessity of free will for religious believers in general. But, my all-time favorite comment on free will goes back years. It was from a CAF atheist who mentioned his experience of free will. Unfortunately for me, I let slip the opportunity to learn more about his experience.

Since then, I have come across a definition of will which says it is that which seeks God. It was from a Catholic who called our will our appetite for ultimate goodness. Maybe it is time for me to go deeper into Catholicism…

Practically speaking, since our intellective powers apparently have the capability to recognize the spiritual or supernatural, there should be a corresponding action which seeks the supernatural. Recognizing the possibility of the supernatural would come before one could accept or deny. Yet, seeking the supernatural would be a primary inherent human instinct.

A side note-- I have been thinking about the fact that a being, dog, human, plant, etc., acts according to its nature. In my mind, this relates to your valid comment that there is a desire to see humans as a special case of God’s creation, above and beyond the rest of the animal kingdom in value and significance. However, if each being acted according to its nature, then each being would have as much value and significance that is possible. What I am trying to rephrase is the idea that yes, human nature is beyond animal and plant natures, but that humans have life responsibilities and possibilities that are different from the rest of creation.

What I am doing is throwing different free will definition possibilities into the pot. I am coming from a position of general human experience. What is it that I experience when I am presented actual choices?

 

[Sair]

Sense observation is not the sole form of observation.
Can you detect your thoughts and emotions and decisions with your senses?

Thoughts are couched in terms of sensory experience. Can you think of any thought that is not directly connected to something you might see (words, images), or feel (emotions, sensations)?

All available evidence points to a relationship, nothing more.

Which is still vastly more than any supernaturalist philosopher has come up with.

False! I don’t know what the mind is or how it works but I do know it exists.

You don’t know what the mind is but you know it is not physically caused? Interesting.

Thoughts, emotions, intuitions, purposes and decisions are aspects of personal activity.

Which means what, exactly? What is personal activity that makes it inexplicable in terms of physical phenomena?

What are symbols composed of?

Images that represent states of affairs in the external world, or mental states, or concepts (which are, in themselves, physically instantiated - good luck explaining ‘justice’ without reference to actual worldly situations)

Thoughts are indefinable but insight precedes language. Very often we cannot express our thoughts or emotions with words or images.

Wow, that’s an easy out if ever I saw one.

The mind is the source of thoughts, emotions, intuitions, purposes and decisions. Even though we cannot explain how we control ourselves we know we are usually in command of our behaviour.

And again, you insist we cannot explain how our minds operate, whist at the same time denying the most promising avenue for doing so! How do you know the mind is the source for thoughts and emotions etc, and that we control these things, without being able to explain how this is so? How do you know that this much-vaunted ‘control’ is not illusory if you cannot explain why we [sometimes] feel like we have it? What would you think about if you had no physical senses? How would you control your actions without a physical link between mind and body? And how would the mind exert any influence whatsoever on the physical body if it were ultimately nonphysical?

Extensive research on the subject, time and words are no guarantee of success.

No, but they do denote serious, rather than frivolous, effort.

Biological entities have an urge to survive, are purposeful and cannot be explained in terms of physics and chemistry.

Why are you so sure this is the case?

There is no reason to believe scientific investigation is the sole source of knowledge.

Well, I don’t think scientific investigation will increase my knowledge of literature, for example, but the only way I’ll do that is through reading, which is itself a physical process - empirical, even.

That [lack of male bodily features] is not the only reason [to suppose one is female].

But you’d have to agree it’s the most convincing reason.

 

[Sair]

Control does not necessitate creation or destruction.

So you’d be quite happy to concede that your thoughts, intentions, impulses, desires etc arise from physical causes, but your independent, detached, supernatural mind has the power of veto? As some have called it, “free won’t”?

If all choices serve desires they are far more likely to be misleading than reliable guides to the truth. Wishful thinking, for example…

Why would this necessarily be the case? It’s obvious that some of our desires are perfectly rational and purposive - such as the desire for food or water, the desire for safety and companionship. Do you think it’s invariably wrong in a practical and/or moral sense to act upon desire?

The desire to discover the truth is evidence that we are fundamentally rational beings, not freaks of nature. Rationality and free will are interdependent.

We’re hardly ‘freaks’ of nature - hominids have been evolving for millions of years, through the same processes of natural selection that operate on all organisms. Rationality relies upon perception of cause and effect. By your account, free will relies upon disconnection from the physical universe. How could these two things possibly interact?

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

Well, that’s a fine catch-22, isn’t it?

How would you demonstrate your opinion is not motivated by the desire to reject the objective reality of independent minds, truth, goodness, freedom, justice, love and purpose?

Actually, it’s based on doubt that there are such things as independent minds, and the conviction that our concepts of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, love and purpose are directly related to physical states of affairs which we perceive through our sensory experiences. As to demonstrating my lack of desire to reject such concepts, I could only do so by reiterating my actual desire to understand why we have such concepts, and what they mean in reality. I have no desire to reify such things as if they ultimately have nothing to do with our physical existence - that would be like saying they don’t really matter.

Do you think facts cease to exist if no one is aware of them? Didn’t animals act purposefully before we existed?

Facts of subjective experience would cease to exist if there were no subjective beings. Of course other animals act purposefully - I have never denied that other animals are subjective, conscious beings; but I get the impression you would be amongst the first to reject the notion that other animals could have anything like free will.

What about your mental states?

As far as I or anyone else can tell, mental states arise from physical states of the brain.

Interaction doesn’t entail dependence.

So you keep saying - but you’ve yet to offer an example of mental phenomena that exist entirely apart from physical phenomena.

You don’t need your senses to be aware of your thoughts and feelings.

I would go so far as to suggest that you need your senses to actually have thoughts and feelings - otherwise, what would you have thoughts or feelings about? We are receptors of experience through our senses long before we are able to consciously consider the (name removed by moderator)uts we receive.

Would the things that matter to you as a person still matter if you were a collection of particles?

Well, the thing is, as far as I or anyone else can tell, I am a collection of particles - be they ever so interactive and interdependent during my life, I will undoubtedly decompose into my component parts after death, and if enough of those component parts are missing during my lifetime, I will cease to function in some way. The really interesting question is, given this, how do my experiences arise? It does nothing by way of explanation to say, “Well, since I have personal experiences, I can’t be a physical being,” which is, after all, the sum total of your claim. Of course the feelings and experiences I have matter to me - but why should it be the case that I have to be somehow supernatural, or have a supernatural component, in order for that to be so?

Are you below all the intangible things that make life precious?

What intangible things?

And without the intellectual capacity?

Again, as far as I or anyone else can determine, thus far, intellectual capacity has a physical basis. What use would a free-floating mind be, without the ability to perceive or communicate, for which you require physical, bodily structures? To repeat my earlier question, what would you have to think about, for a start?

 

[tonyrey]

So you’d be quite happy to concede that your thoughts, intentions, impulses, desires etc arise from physical causes, but your independent, detached, supernatural mind has the power of veto?

Some have physical causes but we are responsible for many.

It’s obvious that some of our desires are perfectly rational and purposive - such as the desire for food or water, the desire for safety and companionship.

“some” is not “all”.

Do you think it’s invariably wrong in a practical and/or moral sense to act upon desire?

No.

We’re hardly ‘freaks’ of nature - hominids have been evolving for millions of years, through the same processes of natural selection that operate on all organisms.

If life originated fortuitously all life is a freak.

By your account, free will relies upon disconnection from the physical universe. How could these two things possibly interact?

Free will doesn’t rely on disconnection but insight and self-control.

The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

Well, that’s a fine catch-22, isn’t it?

Many aspects of reality are interdependent.

Actually, [my opinion] is based on doubt that there are such things as independent minds, and the conviction that our concepts of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, love and purpose are directly related to physical states of affairs which we perceive through our sensory experiences.

According to you your opinion has a physical cause. There is no room for doubt in the determinist’s scheme of things!

As to demonstrating my lack of desire to reject such concepts, I could only do so by reiterating my actual desire to understand why we have such concepts, and what they mean in reality.

Your desire is unrelated to survival.

I have no desire to reify such things as if they ultimately have nothing to do with our physical existence - that would be like saying they don’t really matter.

If truth, goodness and freedom don’t exist you are referring to nothing and your ideas are non-existent!

Of course other animals act purposefully - I have never denied that other animals are subjective, conscious beings…

Do we invent or discover scientific facts?

As far as I or anyone else can tell, mental states arise from physical states of the brain.

How do they differ? Or are they identical?

Interaction doesn’t entail dependence.

So you keep saying - but you’ve yet to offer an example of mental phenomena that exist entirely apart from physical phenomena.

You’ve yet to offer an example of physical phenomena that exist apart from your knowledge!

I would go so far as to suggest that you need your senses to actually have thoughts and feelings - otherwise, what would you have thoughts or feelings about?

Yourself - the basis of all knowledge and experience.

We are receptors of experience through our senses long before we are able to consciously consider the (name removed by moderator)uts we receive.

Only the receptors interpret its significance.

Well, the thing is, as far as I or anyone else can tell, I am a collection of particles - be they ever so interactive and interdependent during my life, I will undoubtedly decompose into my component parts after death, and if enough of those component parts are missing during my lifetime, I will cease to function in some way.

No one has ever explained how particles interact and know they are particles.

The really interesting question is, given this, how do my experiences arise? It does nothing by way of explanation to say, “Well, since I have personal experiences, I can’t be a physical being,” which is, after all, the sum total of your claim.

It does nothing by way of explanation to say, “Well, since I have a body I can’t be a person,” which is, after all, the sum total of your claim. Thoughts, intuitions, emotions, decisions and purposes are in an entirely different category from inanimate particles.

Of course the feelings and experiences I have matter to me…

If your feelings and experiences are aspects of matter they don’t matter because “you” don’t even exist! There is no entity to which the terms “I” or “you” apply. There is only a collection of diverse elements which have somehow assembled themselves to produce strange results which have no significance.

… but why should it be the case that I have to be somehow supernatural, or have a supernatural component, in order for that to be so?

Electricity is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of personality.

Are you below all the intangible things that make life precious?

What intangible things?

Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, love and purpose.

Again, as far as I or anyone else can determine, thus far, intellectual capacity has a physical basis.

So chemical elements ingeniously acquired intellectual capacity for themselves, by themselves and from themselves without any external assistance? Do you have any idea how they achieved that incredible feat? Did they also design and create themselves? I mistakenly thought you don’t believe in miracles!

What use would a free-floating mind be, without the ability to perceive or communicate, for which you require physical, bodily structures?

You are once again assuming that all our activity consists solely of electro-chemical events.

To repeat my earlier question, what would you have to think about, for a start?

Myself! Is your mind always full of external objects?

You are also assuming that perception and communication are restricted to bodies…