What "is" thought? What is the ontological status or

>>9916345
Analytic philosophy is the only tradition that has engaged with this question other than Husserl , who is one of the few continentals to engage in a dialogue with analytics. The answer is property dualism of course; the mental supervenes on the physical but is not reducible to it. You get to preserve your spooky magic

>>9916511
>The answer is property dualism of course; the mental supervenes on the physical but is not reducible to it.

that's not an answer you fuckstick

>>9916675
Of course it is. The physical is the only substance that exists but not the only property.

Daily reminder: Plato was right about everything.

>>9916345
You ever tried not to think? It's fucking hard, man. That's because "thinking" is essentially a byproduct of consciousness, and we are only ever conscious of being conscious. All we have is our perceptions, and the "thinking" that we think of as such usually involves attaching this perceptions to a projection of past, present, or future that is dissimilar to some degree with the sum total of the empirical data we are receiving at such a level as to describe our present "reality." We recognize patterns, calculate degrees of probability and odds of various scenarios occurring, and adjust our behavior according to the conclusions being drawn by our algorithmic processing. All of this is happening out of our control, automatically. It is an everpresent subroutine. And the truth is that knowing the limits of this empirically-defined reality is the first step toward breaking through it. There are many realities and points of observation, and we align ourselves with the one that we must in order to eventually get to the place we need to be. By recognizing that we only exist to the degree that we are defined by others, we learn that we are capable of defining much more about our reality than we may immediately think. Our imaginations are also a form of thought, and there is a consciousness for whom they are as real as anything else. We have to dare to let go of ourselves enough to become that consciousness, and accept that there is no amount of "thinking" we can do that will get us where we need to go.

>>9916748
>The physical is the only substance that exists

You have absolutely no way of proving this. Not even /x/.

Thought is the spontaneous creation of language by the brain.

Which is why thoughts are not identical to the mind.

I think 'attention' is closer to what can be argued is identical to mind.

>>9916511
Wrong, stop shitposting you child.

>>9917112
Physicalism is still false on account of ontologically irreducible mental properties

>>9916824
Literally this.

>>9917125
>Thought is the spontaneous creation of language by the brain.
one can't think without language?

"what is" questions assumes that we actually understand what it means for something to exist, it presupposes we understand what 'to exist' means

but do we?

what does it mean for something to exist?

what is existence?

>>9917125
What about mute and deaf people? How about you add blindness to that too, what they think in? Empty space.?

it's just god dude why make it difficult

>>9916345
>What "is" thought?
People will give you many incomplete answers. Here's a complete one: you know what a thought is. You don't need any written explanation and description to understand what a thought is.