Human thought is a powerful concept. As the old saying goes, “I think, therefore I am” (Descartes). In his philosophical proposition, Descartes observes the foundation for human existence— thinking. In a world of uncertainty, a person’s ability to think is the only factor that can confirm his own living presence. Without thinking, individuals cease to exist. By eliminating any doubt that we exist, our thoughts influence our beliefs pertaining to ourselves, others, and the world as a whole. Studying the ownership of these thoughts is necessary for understanding Descartes’ observations and the value placed on such human capabilities. The question of whether or not people own their thoughts, if we can even call them theirs, is one that is heavily debated. The idea of ownership, as some may argue, is a human-invented concept, preventing people from declaring anything solely theirs. When discussing the ownership of thoughts, one must first determine what ownership means and how it is established. Is it innate? What gives certain people the power to own different things? To what extent does ownership exist

The standard definition, provided by Dictionary.com, is “the act, state, or right of possessing something.” The controversy, unfortunately, is more complicated than a simple black-and-white argument. There are multiple components to take into account when defining ownership, including physical possession, abstract control, and outside influence; it is crucial to thoroughly research the roles each play in establishing ownership. Individuals physically own their thoughts, but their ownership over them is limited by their surroundings and external factors. The formulation of thoughts and how they arise aid in examining the degree to which humans can refer to thoughts as their own.
To a certain degree, people do own their thoughts in a literal, material sense.

According to Steven Frankland of The Harvard Gazette, “What makes human thinking so powerful is that we have this library of concepts that we can use to formulate an effectively infinite number of thoughts [...] Humans can read or hear a string of concepts and immediately put those concepts together to form some new idea” (Reuell). The concepts we gather from our experiences and the surrounding environment are stored in our minds for later use. Deducing from the information from Frankland, the individuality of each person appears to arise from one’s ability to connect these gathered concepts in a unique way, leading to the production of original thoughts. Individuals own their thoughts in the sense that their minds craft the distinct connections that formulate their own ideas.

John Campbell’s “The Ownership of Thoughts” contributes to these inferences, “In generating a particular token thought, you may be subject to all sorts of influences. Nonetheless, when we consider how your individual token thoughts are being brought about, you play a proximal role in their formation that no one else does.” Campbell’s philosophy supports the idea that individual thoughts are unique, even when derived from external influence, because the actual process of crafting the thought only occurs in the mind of the person thinking, making it exclusive to him/her and thus giving the person ownership.

Campbell’s argument, however, needs some clarifications. He asserts, “The owner of a thought [...] is the one with some especially direct access to that thought, who can self-ascribe it otherwise than on the basis of observation.” It is necessary to question whether or not self-ascription and introspective access to one’s thoughts truly establish ownership. An inconsistency with Campbell’s claims lies within “thought insertion” experienced by schizophrenics, to name one example. The U.S. National Library of Medicine provides a brief overview of this phenomenon, “‘Thought insertion’ in schizophrenia involves somehow experiencing one’s own thoughts as someone else’s [...] one still experiences oneself as the owner of an inserted thought but attributes it to another agency” (Ratcliffe, Wilkinson). In the case of schizophrenics, it is worth differentiating between a sense of agency and a sense of ownership. Those who undergo “thought insertion” believe the thoughts in their mind belong to someone else and therefore have no sense of agency. They physically own the thoughts that are processed and produced in their head, but they lack the introspective awareness Campbell argues is necessary in order to own something. The thoughts, however, are still theirs nonetheless, because, from a scientific standpoint, the unique processes in their own brain still wire the thought. Therefore, when considering ownership in a literal sense, one should exempt self-ascription from the definition.

Another common argument against the ownership of thoughts deals with those with disorders such as depression, extreme anxiety, or OCD. Dr. Eda Gorbis sums up her approach to behavioral therapy when dealing with OCD patients, "It's not me--it's my OCD.” Gorbis and other critics claim the unwanted, intrusive thoughts faced by those with mental disorders come from the disorder itself, not the person. Gorbis believes her patients benefit from dissociating themselves from the “OCD thoughts.” Since these people cannot control their impulses, the disturbing thoughts they often come up with are not truly theirs. In support of Gorbis’s argument, when examining a map of our brain’s programming, approximately 90% of brain activity is subconscious (Mace). The subconscious mind stores all of the life experiences, skills, beliefs, and memories gathered during one’s lifetime. To summarize the role of this section of the mind, “Everything is controlled in the back of your head” (Mayer). People lack direct involvement in the subconscious processes that occur in their brains. Communication between the subconscious mind and the conscious mind occurs passively, and on numerous occasions, the decisions people make are nearly automatic based on the data stored subconsciously. If most of our thoughts are produced beyond our conscious awareness, are they really ours?

Before addressing Gorbis’s case, one must first address the relationship between ownership and control. What does ownership really mean? Referring back to our definition of ownership, it is considered an act or state of possession. People often make the mistake of confusing control with ownership. When individuals own something, they hold it under their possession, but they do not necessarily maintain influence over it. A basic example of this distinction, outside the realm of thoughts, involves businesses, “The separation of ownership and control refers to the phenomenon associated with publicly held business corporations in which the shareholders possess little or no direct control over management decisions” (Cheffins). When dealing with the management of corporations, shareholders own the firms but only play a passive role in decision-making. In simpler words, they possess ownership but lack control. The separation of ownership and control, however, is not limited solely to the corporate world.

Refuting Gorbis’s argument, the OCD patients do own their thoughts, but like shareholders in a firm, they have little to no control over their mindset. Professor Stan B. Klein of UC Santa Barbara comments on the sense of ownership regarding those with mental illnesses, “In cases involving disruption of personal ownership, the “mental glue” that normally cements consciousness to its content in a relation of “personal belonging” loses its potency.” Mental disorders disrupt the power of conscious awareness tied to one’s own mind. Those suffering from impulsive, or in some extreme cases, suicidal thoughts, possess those thoughts, even if undesired, but their control over their mental state is weakened. As Klein puts it, their “mental glue” loses its power. Going back to the definition of ownership, these individuals still own their thoughts because they physically hold them in their heads. Although victims of disturbing thoughts may have separate moral beliefs to what their brains tell them, the thoughts exist and are produced in their own minds regardless, making them theirs.

Additionally, dissociating oneself from his own thoughts can be harmful in the long run. Jon Hershfield, director of The OCD and Anxiety Center of Greater Baltimore, details a better approach to treat OCD and related disorders, “If your first response to any thought is to disown it (i.e. “that’s not my thought”), then you are starting off by framing your thought as a threat and this is what kicks off the obsessive-compulsive loop.” In the case with intrusive thoughts, it is healthier to take ownership of them rather than pushing them away. A sufferer of OCD, in owning his thoughts, only needs to accept their existence instead of attributing them to the disorder. As stated before, ownership and control are separate concepts, so the shameful thoughts do not necessarily reflect the identity of the person.

There are, however, limitations to the argument in favor of the ownership of thoughts. Although individuals may physically possess the ideas in their brains, external factors play a large role in their formation. David Eagleman, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine, describes the linkage between our brains and culture, “Our opinions on normality, custom, dress codes, and local superstitions are absorbed into our neural circuitry from the social forest around us” (Eagleman, Tallis). Society plays a large role in the relationship between an individual and his thoughts. With exposure to different situations and opinions, people store these new experiences that will eventually help fabricate their “own” ideas. Often times, however, such prolonged exposure overwhelms and hinders independent thinking. One’s thoughts, because his mind is so heavily influenced by his surroundings, reflect less of his personal viewpoint.

Mark Twain notes this connection between individuals and outside influence. In a letter written to Helen Keller after she was accused of plagiarizing a short story, he comments on the issue with originality, “All ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily use by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them.” As Twain asserts, most, if not all, ideas first come from another source, even if unintentional or unaware. Companies often create knock-off products to mimic other companies; in literature, authors often take material from different writers to help develop their own stories; in music, artists often look to other artists for inspiration. The same concept applies to thinking in general. Human thoughts are heavily influenced by the ideas held by others. It is difficult to measure the number of thoughts produced that are original, if, by any chance, they even exist. If our thoughts are merely the reflection of others, it is problematic to claim them completely as ours.

Furthermore, an individual’s mindset is frequently shaped by the attitudes and ideals held by society. Stereotypes and the spread of them serve as an example of this concept. “The problem lies with how stereotypes overgeneralize about an entire group and blind us to those characteristics in others and other characteristics in the stereotyped groups” (Raskoff). When individuals listen to and adopt preconceived notions held by society, their own thoughts on others become plagued by the generalizations they hear. The resulting prejudice and discrimination arise from society’s assertive viewpoints suppressing independent thought. As with Twain’s argument regarding plagiarism, is complicated to distinguish how much of our thoughts is genuinely ours and how much is an imitation of our environment. Relying heavily on stereotypes “blinds” individuals to the true characteristics of people and negatively influences them by preventing their own thoughts and opinions from forming.

The detrimental effects of stereotypes on the ownership of thoughts are also highlighted in a situational predicament known as “stereotype threat.” An experiment conducted by Stanford University studied the effects of stereotypes on the test subjects’ mentality, “Black students performed worse than white students on a standardized achievement test when they were told that the test measured intelligence. But when the same test was simply presented as a problem-solving exercise, black students performed as well as white students” (UA News Services). As demonstrated in the study, the race of the students have no direct correlation with their education levels; it is only when the researchers describe the test based on a common stereotype do the black students perform poorly in comparison to their white counterparts. This scenario, showcasing “stereotype threat,” exemplifies the impact stereotypes can have on a person’s thoughts regarding himself. When the black students go into the exam thinking it measures intelligence, their own thoughts on their intellect become distorted by society’s beliefs and expectations. In effect, their thoughts are no longer theirs; they are a manifestation of outside influence.

The idea of individuality traces back to the beginning of Western history, “For there is a point at which a state may attain such a degree of unity as to be no longer a state, or at which, without actually ceasing to exist, it will become an inferior state, like harmony passing into unison [...]” (Aristotle). The Greek philosopher, in his reasoning against common property, criticizes fellow philosopher Plato’s concept of complete unity; it leads to dullness, lack of uniqueness, and a threat to originality. Aristotle’s argument against unity, however, extends beyond property ownership and applies to the modern issue of stereotypes. When people conform to the beliefs held by others in their environment, and thus become uniform in thought, they lose possession of their own thoughts and their individuality. In the same way states become “inferior” or “less of a state” in the presence of too much unity, one’s ownership over his thoughts becomes weaker in the confinement of society.

An individual’s life is in a constant state of developing, learning, and interacting; the way we view the world and our perspectives on different things adjust as we gather new experiences and information. When studying the ownership of thoughts, two aspects arise. Firstly, human thought as a physical substance is a given. Everyone is capable of producing thoughts unique to their personal brain mechanism. Secondly, our minds heavily reflect the ideas from mass media, popular culture, and our surrounding environment. The result is a paradox, revealing a more daunting truth— to what extent are we truly agents in the world we live in? To what extent are we merely objects manufactured by outside inputs? The ownership of thoughts is a complicated matter, reinforced by the complexity of human beings themselves. From a scientific standpoint, we are composed of hundreds of trillions of cells, these microscopic pieces that combine to create our physical entity. Our brains contain hundreds of billions of neurons connected to thousands of other neurons running through our bodies. We are, in essence, a system of individual parts and wires woven and linked together to produce something so elaborate and difficult to study. Since humans are physiologically complex, it makes sense that our minds and thoughts also work in a similar, intricate way— a way that is beyond possible comprehension. We are interdependent on each other but still individualistic. There are endless possibilities to human capabilities and little limit to our intellectual capacity; it is in this sense that humans are extraordinary.