|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 4, 2023 15:52:31 GMT
While thinking we're bearing a thought in the mind. Whether or not it's separated or plugged somehow into our brains, or maybe it's planted there, or the structure of the thought looks like a wire mesh, it is not what I am asking, but what I want to ask is – can a thought be partial there, in the mind?
Or shortly, can we think partially? Can we bear a half of a thought in our mind? My intuition says me it's impossible. On the other hand, why not to try to imagine this, especially having some close to it examples?
"What does that?" "Someone did something" "He went there"
These and similar phrases are almost empty without any contexts.
Okay, at least we can understand what "Who is the one?" or "That does it" mean in some situations. What about these cases:
"That". "He". "Went?"
We can try to comprehend these ones, but I doubt it helps much.
Besides, we get our thoughts in a head to go fluently. I mean for a thought it must be completed. Any incomplete thoughts don't look as we understand them by ourselves.
I guess this last point is a key one: no halfed thoughts can be understood by ourselves. Since that is true, incomplete thoughts are not thoughts. Doesn't it mean each though that appears within heads of ours does it simulateously as a whole?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 9, 2023 22:04:32 GMT
Not all minds think in the same manner. For some, words ARE thoughts, whereas for others, words are just symbols of thoughts.
But that still does not answer the question asked as to how a thought exists paradoxically as a singular entity, but also part of the stream of consciousness.
But your problem is that you still believe in 'brain' theory, whereas the brain's only real purpose is to cool the blood.
The central nervous system, and spine, are the physical nexus closest to the seat of awareness.
That still does not answer the question, because all existing theories in biology deny the existence of a life force, so we have little common terms to lay down an existential foundation of the connection between mind and body.
Unless we accept the 'aether' as the substance of mind... something intangible to physics as we know it, but clearly the only medium through which meaning can pass psychically - the quasi-substance that is the interface between symbolic messages and consciousness.
Aether must consist of at least 4 dimensions of space and also contain the 'blueprints' of the soul, of which our 'DNA' is but a superficial facet.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 10, 2023 7:03:33 GMT
Not all minds think in the same manner. For some, words ARE thoughts, whereas for others, words are just symbols of thoughts. But that still does not answer the question asked as to how a thought exists paradoxically as a singular entity, but also part of the stream of consciousness. But your problem is that you still believe in 'brain' theory, whereas the brain's only real purpose is to cool the blood. The central nervous system, and spine, are the physical nexus closest to the seat of awareness. That still does not answer the question, because all existing theories in biology deny the existence of a life force, so we have little common terms to lay down an existential foundation of the connection between mind and body. Unless we accept the 'aether' as the substance of mind... something intangible to physics as we know it, but clearly the only medium through which meaning can pass psychically - the quasi-substance that is the interface between symbolic messages and consciousness. Aether must consist of at least 4 dimensions of space and also contain the 'blueprints' of the soul, of which our 'DNA' is but a superficial facet. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Oct 13, 2023 15:49:33 GMT
While thinking we're bearing a thought in the mind. Whether or not it's separated or plugged somehow into our brains, or maybe it's planted there, or the structure of the thought looks like a wire mesh, it is not what I am asking, but what I want to ask is – can a thought be partial there, in the mind? Or shortly, can we think partially? Can we bear a half of a thought in our mind? My intuition says me it's impossible. On the other hand, why not to try to imagine this, especially having some close to it examples? "What does that?" "Someone did something" "He went there" These and similar phrases are almost empty without any contexts. Okay, at least we can understand what "Who is the one?" or "That does it" mean in some situations. What about these cases: "That". "He". "Went?" We can try to comprehend these ones, but I doubt it helps much. Besides, we get our thoughts in a head to go fluently. I mean for a thought it must be completed. Any incomplete thoughts don't look as we understand them by ourselves. I guess this last point is a key one: no halfed thoughts can be understood by ourselves. Since that is true, incomplete thoughts are not thoughts. Doesn't it mean each though that appears within heads of ours does it simulateously as a whole? I think human mind neither accepts nor dismisses an incomplete idea. it remains in the state hibernation probably in the subconscious but it could come to surface later in the form of curiosity when something related is summoned.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 13, 2023 15:59:17 GMT
While thinking we're bearing a thought in the mind. Whether or not it's separated or plugged somehow into our brains, or maybe it's planted there, or the structure of the thought looks like a wire mesh, it is not what I am asking, but what I want to ask is – can a thought be partial there, in the mind? Or shortly, can we think partially? Can we bear a half of a thought in our mind? My intuition says me it's impossible. On the other hand, why not to try to imagine this, especially having some close to it examples? "What does that?" "Someone did something" "He went there" These and similar phrases are almost empty without any contexts. Okay, at least we can understand what "Who is the one?" or "That does it" mean in some situations. What about these cases: "That". "He". "Went?" We can try to comprehend these ones, but I doubt it helps much. Besides, we get our thoughts in a head to go fluently. I mean for a thought it must be completed. Any incomplete thoughts don't look as we understand them by ourselves. I guess this last point is a key one: no halfed thoughts can be understood by ourselves. Since that is true, incomplete thoughts are not thoughts. Doesn't it mean each though that appears within heads of ours does it simulateously as a whole? I think human mind neither accepts nor dismisses an incomplete idea. it remains in the state hibernation probably in the subconscious but it could come to surface later in the form of curiosity when something related is summoned. But, how is it possible to be half-completed and half-incompleted, if anything that isn't complete is incomplete?
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Oct 13, 2023 16:09:36 GMT
I think human mind neither accepts nor dismisses an incomplete idea. it remains in the state hibernation probably in the subconscious but it could come to surface later in the form of curiosity when something related is summoned. But, how is it possible to be half-completed and half-incompleted, if anything that isn't complete is incomplete? I mean it is reduced to a state of non-existence (hibernation) until it is summoned later when similar context arises. It is given another trial, if it is completed sensibly it becomes active; if it is not completed justifiably, then it is pushed to the state of hibernation again, and so forth. I think the whole thing is an unconscious defense mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 13, 2023 17:17:40 GMT
But, how is it possible to be half-completed and half-incompleted, if anything that isn't complete is incomplete? I mean it is reduced to a state of non-existence (hibernation) until it is summoned later when similar context arises. It is given another trial, if it is completed sensibly it becomes active; if it is not completed justifiably, then it is pushed to the state of hibernation again, and so forth. I think the whole thing is an unconscious defense mechanism. 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?
|
|
|
Post by Polaris on Oct 13, 2023 17:44:29 GMT
I mean it is reduced to a state of non-existence (hibernation) until it is summoned later when similar context arises. It is given another trial, if it is completed sensibly it becomes active; if it is not completed justifiably, then it is pushed to the state of hibernation again, and so forth. I think the whole thing is an unconscious defense mechanism. 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? I think thoughts spring from an unknown place inside us. A thought is already half-way through before we are conscious of it.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 15, 2023 19:03:24 GMT
Not all minds think in the same manner. For some, words ARE thoughts, whereas for others, words are just symbols of thoughts. But that still does not answer the question asked as to how a thought exists paradoxically as a singular entity, but also part of the stream of consciousness. But your problem is that you still believe in 'brain' theory, whereas the brain's only real purpose is to cool the blood. The central nervous system, and spine, are the physical nexus closest to the seat of awareness. That still does not answer the question, because all existing theories in biology deny the existence of a life force, so we have little common terms to lay down an existential foundation of the connection between mind and body. Unless we accept the 'aether' as the substance of mind... something intangible to physics as we know it, but clearly the only medium through which meaning can pass psychically - the quasi-substance that is the interface between symbolic messages and consciousness. Aether must consist of at least 4 dimensions of space and also contain the 'blueprints' of the soul, of which our 'DNA' is but a superficial facet. 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. Thats the whole problem. There is no point where logic, computers and philosophy separate. Only those words are separate.
The reality flows from one to the other, but its easy to be fobbed off by category obsession.
Philosophers say I am not doing philosophy,
physicists says its not physics, neither is it maths nor computers.
Its all of those and more. Read between the lines.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Oct 16, 2023 1:46:17 GMT
One of the occult views is that God is where thoughts come from and that the spirit of God is the thought itself and when we speak the thought that is the word become flesh which the bible refers to as jesus the "living word of god" , the bible hints to this all throughout the old and new testament it just seems to go unnoticed by the majority of readers but if you look it becomes obvious all throughout the bible
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 16, 2023 18:05:20 GMT
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. Thats the whole problem. There is no point where logic, computers and philosophy separate. Only those words are separate.
The reality flows from one to the other, but its easy to be fobbed off by category obsession.
Philosophers say I am not doing philosophy,
physicists says its not physics, neither is it maths nor computers.
Its all of those and more. Read between the lines.
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.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 16, 2023 18:20:58 GMT
One of the occult views is that God is where thoughts come from and that the spirit of God is the thought itself and when we speak the thought that is the word become flesh which the bible refers to as jesus the "living word of god" , the bible hints to this all throughout the old and new testament it just seems to go unnoticed by the majority of readers but if you look it becomes obvious all throughout the bible Oh, this is a truly inspiring notification. Indeed, a word becomes flesh, it obtains contours, shades, and skeleton that supports it. Like, for instance, if we decide to consider thoughts to be just numbers of letters, words, or symbols, which are curved or straight, punctured or continuous, we'll get unexplainable nothing, since our own thoughts must turned into a lined swamp, a mesh with no beginnings ot no ends. A sense or a meaning of a word, as far as I understand, must suppose something firm, otherwise what kind of unrecognisable mind landscape we're going to cross? Here I ask myself, let's suppose there are meaning behind some words. Not necessarily firm, they are conventional, but along with it we are – people who think about it – mentioning certain meaning. So, what is the tiniest or the smaller part of the meaning? If a certain word, let's say 'sands' has meaning, can we say that that meaning has parts? Or there are no parts for meaning?
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Oct 18, 2023 10:13:30 GMT
One of the occult views is that God is where thoughts come from and that the spirit of God is the thought itself and when we speak the thought that is the word become flesh which the bible refers to as jesus the "living word of god" , the bible hints to this all throughout the old and new testament it just seems to go unnoticed by the majority of readers but if you look it becomes obvious all throughout the bible Oh, this is a truly inspiring notification. Indeed, a word becomes flesh, it obtains contours, shades, and skeleton that supports it. Like, for instance, if we decide to consider thoughts to be just numbers of letters, words, or symbols, which are curved or straight, punctured or continuous, we'll get unexplainable nothing, since our own thoughts must turned into a lined swamp, a mesh with no beginnings ot no ends. A sense or a meaning of a word, as far as I understand, must suppose something firm, otherwise what kind of unrecognisable mind landscape we're going to cross? Here I ask myself, let's suppose there are meaning behind some words. Not necessarily firm, they are conventional, but along with it we are – people who think about it – mentioning certain meaning. So, what is the tiniest or the smaller part of the meaning? If a certain word, let's say 'sands' has meaning, can we say that that meaning has parts? Or there are no parts for meaning? 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 .
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 18, 2023 11:38:09 GMT
Oh, this is a truly inspiring notification. Indeed, a word becomes flesh, it obtains contours, shades, and skeleton that supports it. Like, for instance, if we decide to consider thoughts to be just numbers of letters, words, or symbols, which are curved or straight, punctured or continuous, we'll get unexplainable nothing, since our own thoughts must turned into a lined swamp, a mesh with no beginnings ot no ends. A sense or a meaning of a word, as far as I understand, must suppose something firm, otherwise what kind of unrecognisable mind landscape we're going to cross? Here I ask myself, let's suppose there are meaning behind some words. Not necessarily firm, they are conventional, but along with it we are – people who think about it – mentioning certain meaning. So, what is the tiniest or the smaller part of the meaning? If a certain word, let's say 'sands' has meaning, can we say that that meaning has parts? Or there are no parts for meaning? 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 . By the way, why certain symbols trap into the sieve of the occult lexicon, while the others not? Who's "the boss" to decide which of which should be used for those rituals, and many different things?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Oct 19, 2023 19:24:10 GMT
Thats the whole problem. There is no point where logic, computers and philosophy separate. Only those words are separate.
The reality flows from one to the other, but its easy to be fobbed off by category obsession.
Philosophers say I am not doing philosophy,
physicists says its not physics, neither is it maths nor computers.
Its all of those and more. Read between the lines.
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.
Real geometry is perfection at its simplest. So those that cannot appreciate it as a foundation, will lack essential logic in all their thinking.
In real terms, geometry is just the easiest way to visibly demonstrate set theory.
|
|