[WS:] I am not sure if I follow. Does this mean that (a) when your thoughts change, so do your neuron connections or (b) when your thoughts change, so does the world around you?
(a) is factually true, but (c) is true only metaphorically i.e. change of thought may (but does not have to) prompt humans to action which in turn may change their material environment.
My objection is against certain interpretations of (b). I have nothing against ideas moving people to action that changes their environment. This is what agit prop is for - and what a revo would be without agit prop? My problem is with ideas moving people into inaction or perhaps dismissal of action.
There is a well established tradition on the Left that goes back to the Comintern and Euro Communist parties (of which our own Carroll and a few others seem to be representatives), that espouses a certain notion of modern political and economic institutions as a more or less coherent system ruled by its own inherent logic, which they call "capitalism." Based on this "essentialist" perception, they dismiss any action that they perceive as "reformist" i.e. aiming to alter some attributes of that system, as they perceive such changes as contradictory to the nature of capitalism and thus futile.
As long as this kind of thinking is confined to the realm of philosophy or the internet, it is basically tantamount to semantic arguments, as most philosophical arguments are anyway. I find them useless and boring, but this is just my personal taste. But it is a different story when such ideas guide people to action or rather inaction. For example, guided by this kind of thinking the left wing of the Italian Communist party refused to form a united front against fascists with the center and right wings of socialists and social democrats. The end result was a complete fascist takeover and the elimination of any left or liberal opposition.
One can never be sure if an alternative history, in which the left wing of the Italian CP would abandon its idealistic stance and behavior stemming from it, and instead adopted a less grand-standing and more pragmatic position (as the Comintern was urging them) would avert the fascist takeover of Italy. I happen to believe it would, based on comparisons to other European countries in the same period, where socialist and labor adopted a reformist strategy and won big time (e.g. Sweden or Norway.) But there is at least some empirical evidence that warrant taking the pragmatic/reformist position seriously.
I personally do not believe that camping out in public places or setting buildings on fire will accomplish much as far as political change is concerned. I personally would not waste my time on such activities, but I also appreciate the efforts of those who engage in them. If am right in my assessment of the prospects of such actions and they are wrong, there is nothing to celebrate. However, if by any chance this kind of actions brings a success, that would be a cause for celebration, even if my views were proved wrong. I have no problems adjusting or changing them anyway. Likewise, those who do not see much prospects in reformism should take a similar position and stop cannibalizing a greater movement of which they are a part.
Wojtek