***The content of thought can be called an off shoot of physical processes***
Actually, I do agree with this statement literally. I also agree with the statement, "The content of fire can be called Phlogiston." I know that second statement is true because the content of fire was called Phlogiston by some pretty smart people for quite a while.
But you know what I mean. I mean that I am quite convinced that thought is not the off-shoot of physical processes. I am well aware that almost everyone else, both smart and dumb, think that thought is an emergent phenomenon of physical complexity. I think they are all wrong.
In fact, I think it is exactly the other way around. Physical processes are the off-shoot of thought.
If we had a shoot-off on the question, I would have to show how thought can produce physical processes. The other guys would have to show how physical processes can produce thought. I think I would win.
Just this morning, I sketched out for Alan at
how my claim might be possible. I have never heard anyone explain how the reverse could be possible.
Think about this. If I am right, and each of our consciousnesses is really part of the one-and-only consciousness that is busy creating this world of ours, wouldn't that give us an awesome responsibility on how we influence changes in the landscape?