Where do thoughts “come from ...”? (And why is “science” afraid to ask)?

CaptFun · Nov 23, 2015

**Where do thoughts “come from …”? (And why is “science” afraid to ask)?

**

Afraid might be the wrong word. But the proposition that they might “come from” God or the devil or something beyond the dubious scientific loincloth “spontaneous generation” (or an honest “we don’t know …”) is something we don’t see taken up much by the men of “science” or “education” much, do we?

I chose the Apologetics/Philosophy section of CAF to post this – rather than the Popular Media section – due to the provocative questions the ethics of the situation raises … and the fact that Popular Media rather implies CONTEMPORARY Media.

It comes from the 1945 screenplay for the movie “The Body Snatcher” - itself based upon a Robert Louis Stevenson of the same name (1884) - based upon the famous (1824) English grave robbing case of “Burke and Hare,” functionaries who provided fresh bodies for medical research to a certain (also real life) Doctor Robert Knox. Burke and Hare (the screenplay reveals) were executed while “Doctor Knox” – who employed them – went on living in luxury and fame in London.

Historical background > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_Snatcher
The fictional Dr. Mac Farlane in the scene is a former student of Knox … now the head of a medical school.

Cab Driver (Body Snatcher) Gray (Boris Karloff) - is an old (and shady) acquaintence of Dr. Mac Farlane – sometimes clandestinely employed by the Doctor to “obtain fresh bodies” for his research.

Mac Farlane has just completed a successful operation on a little girl which SHOULD have restored the ability to walk to the child.

Gray - without specific instructions to do so - murdered a street person (a young woman) instead of robbing a church graveyard < because these were now being guarded from theft.

Yet it is Gray, the murderer, who lectures Mac Farlane on “Theology” here.

Mac Farlane assumes the “scientific atheism/agnosticism” position
in the discussion … but is perplexed that his successful operation is yet a (temporary) failure.

The unsavory Gray, who has power to blackmail the Doctor with knowledge of his past, exposes the incompleteness of Mac Farlane’s philosophy with reminders of what KNOWLEDGE the Doctor still lacks … and the UNDERSTANDING he seems not to even be seeking. < (Knowledge and Understanding are also two of the gifts of the Holy Spirit one receives at a Catholic Confirmation).

The line about “ … where thoughts come from …” is particularly pointed.

Knowledge without Understanding becomes a shadow of what it could be.

Regarding perhaps the great “knowledge” of the Temple leaders of his time, who nonetheless lacked the “understanding” to recognize the Messiah they were supposed to be awaiting (in their midst) … and who also revealed Himself as the “Light of the World” … Jesus once said …

**Matt 15:12 **

Then his disciples approached and said to him,

“Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?”

Click to expand...

13 He said in reply,

"Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.

Click to expand...

14 Let them alone; they are blind guides (of the blind). If a blind person leads a blind person, both will fall into a pit."

Today we are “taught” a sort of cultural atheism along with our science.

In the light of Christ IMO we must seek understanding to go with such “knowledge”.

On the next page is an excerpt from the 1945 screenplay of Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Body Snatcher - which precipitated my posting when I saw the movie on TCM this morning. :)

CaptFun · Nov 23, 2015

The following scene precipitated this thread. It’s from the 1945 movie version of Robert Louis Stevenson’s story “The Body Snatcher”.

The Philosophical aspect is a Doctor whose “ends justify the means” … in practice, and who stands accused by his illegal henchman of lacking UNDERSTANDING to go with his great KNOWLEDGE … and that he doesn’t know everything … or even as much as he might … as he is deliberately blind to some things.

Though it is a murderer in the story that sheds this “light” … I saw in it a connection between our time and the deliberate limiting of the questions science and medicine ask (or are “allowed” to ask as it were). See page 1 of the thread.

dailyscript.com/scripts/TheBodySnatcher.htm

MACFARLANE (CONT’D)

Code:

                     Then you can understand that the
                     backbone is a lot of little
                     blocks and those little blocks are
                     all held together, so that it works
                     like that whip of yours. You know
                     that, don't you?

Code:

                         (disregarding the sarcasm)
                     I set those blocks together,
                     patched the muscles. I put the
                     nerves where they should be -- I
                     did it and I did it right -- and
                     she won't walk --

Code:

                     I fitted them together like this --
                         (he puts the two glasses
                          together)
                     -- so that it was right. Yet she
                     won't walk.

Code:

                     Like Knox taught you? Like I taught
                     you? In cellars and graveyards? Did
                     Knox teach you what makes the blood flow?

Code:

                     You don't know and you'll never
                     know or understand, Toddy. Not from
                     me or from Knox would you learn
                     those things. Look --

Code:

                     Look at yourself, Toddy, could you
                     be a doctor -- a healing man --
                     with the things those eyes have
                     seen? ***There's a lot of knowledge*** in
                     those eyes, but there's no
                     ***understanding***. You'd not get that
                     from me.

CaptFun · Nov 23, 2015

Conclusion: While there are times when professionally one must ignore even some obvious TRUTHS to perform one’s job …

… think of a visiting pitcher ignoring the reality of a crowd screaming against his efforts so that he can better strike out the popular home team batter …

… it would not be so good to ignore truth forever … and pretend that there never was a crowd at the game (so to speak).

In the scene that cited “great knowledge … without understanding” as a blindness … I saw the dangers of contemporary science and education (in some quarters) interdicting against the use of the knowledge and understanding that comes from God.

That is to say … IF (as He claims, and I believe) Jesus Christ is “the way and the truth and the life … " and also " … the light of the world” … then forever excluding Him and the knowledge, wisdom, understanding and counsel He brings would be like deliberately working in the dark.

This is not to say that Science classes ought to be Theology classes … but neither should they subvert themselves to a sort of assumed atheism/agnosticism that presumes to exclude any additional insights into truth that might come from Theology. After all, Mathematics is not excluded from Science … but integrated with it in the search for truth. Language as well.

Exiled_Child · Nov 23, 2015

Thoughts come from nowhere. Literally from nowhere.

I carry a super-tiny composition book the size of a pack of cigarettes in order to capture them whenever they appear out of the blue.

Good ideas are just snatched from the void.

GEddie · Nov 23, 2015

They come from our heads. At least, that is where they reside.

Now, whether or not something “spiritual” occurs to initiate them within a head, is something science cannot answer. “Spiritual” events aren’t easily discerned by science.

ICXC NIKA.

edwest2 · Nov 23, 2015

Thoughts are part of our brain function. We were made that way. As far as ideas, I believe they are a fragment of God’s creativity, but thanks to our fallen natures, ideas can be used for good and evil.

And science is looking at thinking and learning very intensely as it develops artificial intelligence. Self-programming robots built on a framework based on observational parameters. An imperfect example: an AI watches human beings playing 100 baseball games. It then analyzes all the body movements, visual cues, actions and reactions. As a pitcher, it merely copies the actions it has seen to deliver all the various types of pitches. As a batter, it computes angles and trajectories and hits the ball. No programming.

AIs that “think” are different, but they would still need a large library of possible response actions, followed by improvisation, if possible/desirable. Desire being an abstract idea boiled down to a possible choice. An AI will not freeze up when a horrific car accident occurs in front of it. It will analyze, organize and select, then act.

Thoughts are just a collection of possible response scenarios. And most humans are quite predictable.

Daydreaming doesn’t count.

Ed

eazyduzit · Nov 23, 2015

God gives ideas if you ask. George Washington Carver asked and God showed him 100 uses for the peanut, and then many other things. The only thing he took into the lab was his bible.

feed_me · Nov 23, 2015

Thoughts come from everywhere, God, angels, demons, you.

Kurisu35712 · Nov 24, 2015

CaptFun said:
Conclusion: While there are times when professionally one must ignore even some obvious TRUTHS to perform one’s job …

… think of a visiting pitcher ignoring the reality of a crowd screaming against his efforts so that he can better strike out the popular home team batter …

… it would not be so good to ignore truth forever … and pretend that there never was a crowd at the game (so to speak).

In the scene that cited “great knowledge … without understanding” as a blindness … I saw the dangers of contemporary science and education (in some quarters) interdicting against the use of the knowledge and understanding that comes from God.

That is to say … IF (as He claims, and I believe) Jesus Christ is “the way and the truth and the life … " and also " … the light of the world” … then forever excluding Him and the knowledge, wisdom, understanding and counsel He brings would be like deliberately working in the dark.

This is not to say that Science classes ought to be Theology classes … but neither should they subvert themselves to a sort of assumed atheism/agnosticism that presumes to exclude any additional insights into truth that might come from Theology. After all, Mathematics is not excluded from Science … but integrated with it in the search for truth. Language as well.

I actually attended a lecture at my university by Fr. Andrew Pinsent, a priest, quantum physicist, and philosopher/theologian regarding science and divine action, wherein he spoke about the absurdity, from a Catholic perspective, of attempting to divorce truth in science from Truth in God. I took a good 4 pages worth of notes during the one hour lecture. The most pertinent topic he discussed for this thread would be his section on insight. We cannot force ourselves to have an “aha” moment. They just come to us. We can create favorable conditions for those things, but the most reliable way to come to these realizations are from learning of alternate perspectives to our own.

At about this point, he also made the very wise remark that we shouldn’t be so open minded that our brains fall out, but the point was that we need to be willing to accept that every individual person has a different perspective on the world and other people and their relationship with God, and that only with God’s grace can we truly experience understanding.

With regards to the title, I do not personally think science is afraid to ask such questions. Many of history’s most brilliant scientists were exceptionally faithful individuals. Mendel and Lemaitre are two prominent examples. It’s only since the rise in atheistic ideals in philosophical thought, which also influenced art, and then by extension culture as a whole, that the idea of “science vs. religion” even became much of a thing. It really began earlier than that, around the industrial revolution if not even earlier, but the shift in art from the Middle Ages, where much of it was very Saint and Sacrament oriented, to the Renaissance where it became more about the ideals of beauty and realism, and then proceeded from there until you get to where Modern art today is all about challenging convention. Of course, none of that in itself is bad, but it is a gradual cultural shift away from religious life in the West towards more objective, empirical perspective. My point being that it isn’t science that’s afraid to ask questions regarding thought and our origins and whatnot, so much as it is that science as a professional field has gradually distanced itself from the broad, creative, experimental and hobbyist type of pursuit it once was to a very regulated, empirical, post-professional field. Part of that is due to a gradual increase in specialization in one’s studies. For example, I’m and architecture student. I’ve taken no business, philosophy, horticulture, or medical classes, as I don’t have time, considering the other requirements I have. I don’t have time for religion classes, philosophy classes, etc. unless I force that time into my schedule. As it is, my field is as close as you can effectively get to being both scientific/analytical and artistic/creative. Most scientists can’t take art classes though, and most artists don’t study complex physics. It results in specialized people surrounded by specialized people who are never exposed to viewpoints outside of their norm.

I digressed a lot on this post, but it has a lot of information I feel like someone could respond to.

inocente · Nov 24, 2015

CaptFun said:
Where do thoughts “come from …”? (And why is “science” afraid to ask)?

Afraid might be the wrong word. But the proposition that they might “come from” God or the devil or something beyond the dubious scientific loincloth “spontaneous generation” (or an honest “we don’t know …”) is something we don’t see taken up much by the men of “science” or “education” much, do we?

You appear to be claiming that Catholics must be against science. There are around one billion Catholics in the world. If only one in a thousand is a neuroscientist, neurosurgeon, psychiatrist or psychologist, that makes one million Catholics trained in science who are not afraid to answer your question.

One obvious answer is we have an unconscious mind and thoughts can bubble up from there into consciousness. Another obvious answer is we are not puppets forced to think whatever Satan or God puts in our head, we have free will.

tonyrey · Nov 24, 2015

According to materialists, from electrical impulses which don’t know what they’re doing. Just another example of atheists’ list of “natural miracles”…

CaptFun · Nov 24, 2015

CaptFun responds in RED

inocente said:
You appear to be claiming that Catholics must be against science. < More the other way around. Some speaking for “science” exclude Christianity (as superstition, an anachronism, etc. - at any rate these see “it” as opposed to science) - rather than as I do, as a window and a light by which we can better evaluate the truths of science.

There are around one billion Catholics in the world. If only one in a thousand is a neuroscientist, neurosurgeon, psychiatrist or psychologist, that makes one million Catholics trained in science who are not afraid to answer your question. < At the times when people of faith are pictured as opposed to science, we rarely hear from these. Those who oppose “religion” as a roadblock to “science” tend to get the TV specials, spots on news panels, etc. THESE would feel uncomfortable with even the thought of entertaining any aspect of theology in their version of science (and in academia this prejudice was exposed in Ben Stein’s Movie “Expelled”) wherein Darwin’s theory was seen as “settled science” in some quarters … and those who speculated otherwise (counter theories or one’s which included religious possibilities - e.g. “Intelligent Design” theories of the origins of the species and universe) were vitiated against unto such teachers losing their college level jobs.

youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g < Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

One obvious answer is we have an unconscious mind and thoughts can bubble up from there into consciousness. :sad_yes: < It’s the HOW of this we don’t (often/ever?) hear expounded upon by “science”. One “theory” is … is that **God **created the universe, including all people WITH their brains, personalities, and the powers to think, reason, process information, and integrate all that with emotions, relationships, learning, etc. God Himself not being merely a Star Wars “Force” without a personality, but a someone who was the first cause of all that followed.

Another obvious answer is we are not puppets forced to think whatever Satan or God puts in our head, we have free will. < - on the "we are not puppets … and the free will observations. On the “forced to think” front, considering that separately for a moment - well - I cannot seem to stop doing it. And in dreams I seem not to control my thoughts as much as when I’m awake and desire to (say) scratch my nose … and then do so per coordination that emanates initially from a conscious thought.

Considered from an inclusive scientific perspective on the possibilities of “temptation” and “inspiration” (and thoughts planted there by … ?) … well … I’ve BEEN tempted in my thoughts, and also inspired in them … and frankly it SEEMS sometimes as if such thoughts DON’T originate from me (though they occur IN me) as they are more EVIL or more GOOD than I usually am. And sometimes “enter” as non-sequiturs to the ordered things I was consciously thinking up until their hmmm: intrusion? rescuing arrival?).

Anyway, thanks for weighing in inocente. It took things in a new direction for me … which as I think of it … expands the conversation.

CaptFun · Nov 24, 2015

tonyrey said:
According to materialists, from electrical impulses which don’t know what they’re doing. Just another example of atheists’ list of “natural miracles”…

– And one supposes some of them would (or do!) > speculate similarly that a “fertilized egg” just beginning to split into two, then three, then four …

… and nonetheless “builds” a new human being from scratch

… without architectural plans, an anatomy chart …

… nor any “grey matter” of its own to consider the task before its “teams” of cells …

– can have no “programmer” (e.g. God) – no matter how much more complex the body is than mere buildings. < Which do not of course appear miraculously, without a builder or builders, as a group of “randomly formed collections of atoms” … spontaneously generated … from nowhere into the “here” without intelligent design OR an intelligent designer.

CaptFun · Nov 24, 2015

Kurisu35712 said:
I actually attended a lecture at my university by Fr. Andrew Pinsent, a priest, quantum physicist, and philosopher/theologian regarding science and divine action, wherein he spoke about the absurdity, from a Catholic perspective, of attempting to divorce truth in science from Truth in God. I took a good 4 pages worth of notes during the one hour lecture. The most pertinent topic he discussed for this thread would be his section on insight. We cannot force ourselves to have an “aha” moment. They just come to us. We can create favorable conditions for those things, but the most reliable way to come to these realizations are from learning of alternate perspectives to our own.

At about this point, he also made the very wise remark that we shouldn’t be so open minded that our brains fall out, but the point was that we need to be willing to accept that every individual person has a different perspective on the world and other people and their relationship with God, and that only with God’s grace can we truly experience understanding.

With regards to the title, I do not personally think science is afraid to ask such questions. Many of history’s most brilliant scientists were exceptionally faithful individuals. Mendel and Lemaitre are two prominent examples. It’s only since the rise in atheistic ideals in philosophical thought, which also influenced art, and then by extension culture as a whole, that the idea of “science vs. religion” even became much of a thing. It really began earlier than that, around the industrial revolution if not even earlier, but the shift in art from the Middle Ages, where much of it was very Saint and Sacrament oriented, to the Renaissance where it became more about the ideals of beauty and realism, and then proceeded from there until you get to where Modern art today is all about challenging convention. Of course, none of that in itself is bad, but it is a gradual cultural shift away from religious life in the West towards more objective, empirical perspective. My point being that it isn’t science that’s afraid to ask questions regarding thought and our origins and whatnot, so much as it is that science as a professional field has gradually distanced itself from the broad, creative, experimental and hobbyist type of pursuit it once was to a very regulated, empirical, post-professional field. Part of that is due to a gradual increase in specialization in one’s studies. For example, I’m and architecture student. I’ve taken no business, philosophy, horticulture, or medical classes, as I don’t have time, considering the other requirements I have. I don’t have time for religion classes, philosophy classes, etc. unless I force that time into my schedule. As it is, my field is as close as you can effectively get to being both scientific/analytical and artistic/creative. Most scientists can’t take art classes though, and most artists don’t study complex physics. It results in specialized people surrounded by specialized people who are never exposed to viewpoints outside of their norm.

I digressed a lot on this post, but it has a lot of information I feel like someone could respond to.

I would consider Fr. Pinsent’s lecture as being both scientific and religious. AND consider that a possibility (that the two things can be blended within the set of “all truth”).

Thanks for expanding the subject to a consideration of “insight,” Kurisu.

I imagine Fr. Pinsent, being a quantum physicist (scientist) as well as a philosopher/theologian (and a priest) was able to seamlessly express an intellectual insight or two simultaneously on “science and faith” without the intellectual or forensic gymnastics of changing hats for every sentence … as if they could never (or SHOULD never) be unified.

If you consider your excellent post is to be “digression” – I accuse you of … humility.

“Digress” away please.

The parameters of where thoughts come from and their consideration from the perspectives of science and faith are pretty broad as I see them. And IMO your expansive insights were quite pertinent and instructive. :tiphat:

edwest2 · Nov 24, 2015

“I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

Albert Einstein

Ed

tonyrey · Nov 24, 2015

CaptFun said:
According to materialists, from electrical impulses which don’t know what they’re doing. Just another example of atheists’ list of “natural miracles”…

Click to expand...

In other words atheism is an appeal to ignorance rather than fact. It takes purposeful activity for granted even though there is no reason why it must exist. Its fatal flaw is that it takes everything for granted and attributes it to physical necessity - which amounts to a meaningless abstraction!.

fisherman_carl · Nov 25, 2015

tonyrey said:
In other words atheism is an appeal to ignorance rather than fact. It takes purposeful activity for granted even though there is no reason why it must exist. Its fatal flaw is that it takes everything for granted and attributes it to physical necessity - which amounts to a meaningless abstraction!.

Where do thoughts “come from ...”? (And why is “science” afraid to ask)?

CaptFun

Guest

CaptFun

Guest

CaptFun

Guest

Exiled_Child

Guest

GEddie

Guest

edwest2

Guest

eazyduzit

Guest

feed_me

Guest

Kurisu35712

Guest

inocente

Guest

tonyrey

Guest

CaptFun

Guest

CaptFun

Guest

CaptFun

Guest

edwest2

Guest

tonyrey

Guest

fisherman_carl

Guest