Thoughts and Its Parts

I believe in the whole entity of a thought as well as a soul existence. In one of Plato's dialogues "Phaedo" (if I spelled it correctly) Socrates was asked by his friends whether a soul was a composition: a complex structure? They thought if it were, how could it guarantee the aeternality (i.e. the endlessness, the eternity) of it for future life? If I could remember it right now, but I would be sure what Socrates answered. Despite the answer, the complexity of the soul might be quite the same as God's complexity. Some atheists as Dawkins (of course, he's very easy, and that wasn't the original argument of him) doubted God, because by their thought no complex structure could exist before the Big Bang (or something like that; right now, I am not certain about the details). Some modern theists as Richard Swinburne replied to such speeches that there were different kind of complexities. Some of such – as far as I know typical one was mentioned in the Phaedo – had stable structure. It means we cannot imagine a human whatever we like, as for instance as a Frankenstein's monster skinned or as a transformer with legs instead of a head, and a hand hanging from the chest. Fantasies have some barriers within existence, since the last one has its own rule. At least, some entities cannot exist long, or some changes require the things to act exactly. Like the speed of the things according to the Newton's force for any number of masses. And so on.

No, I am not against any saner theories, than the "brany ones" at all. Your theory of the aether looks preferable. I remember one priest told people that the scientists had been studying each cell of bodies, but had failed to find the mind. For example, how a scientist would answer the question where the mind was located?

The root of my question came from logic. Exactly from it. For years I read different books of logic, and never was satisfied about some things. Recently one thing painfully touched me – that was a problem of predicates behaviour in the first order logic or the predicate logic. I apologize for not introducing it here, while partially I posted few ones about that in the section of logic&computers. Briefly, it's about the collision of variables that occur very often and bring problems (at least semantic ones) to interpretations, plus the first order logic (or FOL) too softy cares about the opened or the halfed sentences (e.g. "Someone did that", "Peter said y"). If in math we accept formulas with variables as "x+y=4", but I'm not sure that for the trivial things or beyond math it works the same. At least it looks quite suspiciously.

Also here I try to hold the first part of Cartesian thought in his famous argument "Cogito ergo sum". In the beginning Descartes said "we doubt the doubt, therefore we are thinking", (or if we doubt something, we think). I cannot disagree with that. It doesn't seem to be wrong. An act of doubt is also a whole act.

Also, I find your very first argument about symbols or word-thoughts to be very useful. However I see it my way, so I think each time we have got a symbol within souls, we are not only carrying it, or staring at it, we are able to be aware (at least) about the other parts of it. What do I mean? Let's say Thomas Edison was thinking of a bulb. I am certain he didn't have solely a part of it, he had a whole idea of the bulb, but of course that concept of the bulb might be separated locally as a set of parts. Minimum during our conceptual brainwork we need a small time to view something within as a fantasy.

Finally, I can't be absolutely sure about doubting FOL so seriously, so what I am sure is that aiming thoughts as a primal deities is strategically preferable in philosophy. Cutting thoughts down might seem as a process of stabbing a living organism. The last names me agree that the whole exists before its parts or simultaneously with them.

But, how is it possible to be half-completed and half-incompleted, if anything that isn't complete is incomplete?

Honestly speaking, I don't really know the exact mechanism how thoughts appear in us, and where they're located. I agree with Jonbain about a soul, and that thoughts are not that matter.

Might be that partially the elements of a thought are hidden in one place, while another part is somewhere else. Even thought a thought is completed, since all the parts of a thought are necessary for for it to exist. Besides, how that would be possible to be aware of any separated elements of it? So, if one part of a thought is hidden, then how another part of it is aware, and how can we be sure about a thought's completeness? I understand that, let's call it the theory of hidden thought parts, this theory isn't impossible, and truly some elements might be outside. However, what would make us (considering the theory) to left that hidden part, and to focus on the known or the aware one? Just let me explain this: if all what I observe is A, while I claim there's B that's being unseen, how can I insist that there's B if all what I am able to demonstrate is A? Everyone would rather believe there was A, not B.

By the way, what makes you believe they're unconscious part of thoughts?

Seems like it was said by Socrates himself.

Surely, different languages, one destination – all and more risk to repeat the path of the Babel Tower builders.

Also I wonder what attracted Avicenna, Descartes, and some other mathematicians to prefer algebra to other forms? Descartes did analytic geometry, trying to find ways how to convert geometrical shapes, figures, and forms into algebraic sequences. Why that alphabet path was preferable? Sense? Thoughts correlation or something?

I know here I cannot be sure, it's nothing, but an intuition of mine. This, however, is what I think is hiding between the lines – the glue that ties the lines up together as the ether.

i think we can say that they have many different parts and layers and have an ever growing complexity of different meanings that are tagged on, some are occult, some not .