the physicist and his thought

Physicists cannot observe particles
because they disappear into probability clouds.

After the observation
the physicist is a wave or the
physicist is a particle.

The particle is the same as a wave but not to the physicist that is/creates the difference.

.-=-
The mind cannot observe thoughts because
The mind is the thought (that it thus can never observe. Try it, in meditation.)
Or the mind is the memory of a thought.

The thought and the memory are the same but not to the mind that is/creates the difference.

Just like physics tells us:
the mind is everything it observes
and also everything it thinks it thinks
when there is no thinking because thinking
is just a thought, the mind.

Where is the flaw in this logic
that religions and universities
must have if they are to be "real"?

the physicist and his thought

me::or HER thought!

Physicists cannot observe particles
because they disappear into probability clouds.

me::well we physicist may EVEN be abstracting our 'particles'--as some physcists theorize. ie., that particles are really standing waves.

After the observation
the physicist is a wave or the
physicist is a particle.

me::'either/or' has to be seen through. i would say though tat i intuit many physicists still are stuck in amechancical-like 'particle' mode. for they are too specialized and no willing to dive in experientially wit exploring reality via psychdelic substances

The particle is the same as a wave but not to the physicist that is/creates the difference.

me::it is and isn't. there has to be a distinction. but wat indoctrination does is demand you pick one side and disregard the dynamic

.-=-
The mind cannot observe thoughts because
The mind is the thought (that it thus can never observe. Try it, in meditation.)
Or the mind is the memory of a thought.

The thought and the memory are the same but not to the mind that is/creates the difference.

Just like physics tells us:
the mind is everything it observes
and also everything it thinks it thinks
when there is no thinking because thinking
is just a thought, the mind.

Where is the flaw in this logic
that religions and universities
must have if they are to be "real"?
the mind observes thought naturally. but what has happened is that therr has ben created a psychological split between 'mind' and 'body'...hence in science now we have the 'mind/body problem'........ie., 'mind' identifying with itself and worshiping itself (as is evidenced in the history of myth, religion and philosophy a wit 'LOGOS--'God')) distances itself from BODY, which doesn't just include 'thoghts' as in words-flowing-through-mind, but also bodily sensations, sensuality, emotions, feelings.....to observe THAT!.....an emotion is wavy isn't it?...a stubborn resisyqnce is particle like--a static point which wont spread out kind of thing

the physicist and his thought

Physicists cannot observe particles
because they disappear into probability clouds.

After the observation
the physicist is a wave or the
physicist is a particle.

The particle is the same as a wave but not to the physicist that is/creates the difference.

.-=-
The mind cannot observe thoughts because
The mind is the thought (that it thus can never observe. Try it, in meditation.)
Or the mind is the memory of a thought.

The thought and the memory are the same but not to the mind that is/creates the difference.

Just like physics tells us:
the mind is everything it observes
and also everything it thinks it thinks
when there is no thinking because thinking
is just a thought, the mind.

Where is the flaw in this logic
that religions and universities
must have if they are to be "real"?Maybe the mind is needed to solve the paradoxes? Someone has to experiance so that equal options can be chosen.

Genep:

Can you lose the beatnick poetry/mystic "sermon in the mount" vibe? It does not add to the substance of your post.

Genep:

Physicists cannot observe particles
because they disappear into probability clouds.

Um, no. Physicists have observed particles very well, thank you. The Uncertainty Principle speaks of -before- observation and the -limits- of observation. The position of a particle -can- and is -routinely- known, just we cannot then know its momentum, and vice-versa. In fact, that is how a probability cloud even -exists-.

After the observation
the physicist is a wave or the
physicist is a particle.

No, physcists are not waves, nor particles. Physicsts are macroscopic matter mostly in solid or liquid form, not energy or small-mass units.

The particle is the same as a wave but not to the physicist that is/creates the difference.

This is unsubstantiated so far.

The mind cannot observe thoughts because
The mind is the thought (that it thus can never observe. Try it, in meditation.)
Or the mind is the memory of a thought.

I just observed thoughts right now. Moreover, the mind cannot simply be the thought, as it also retains memory, and produces said thoughts from it and sensory stimuli, which also adds the notion of awareness.

The thought and the memory are the same but not to the mind that is/creates the difference.

Memory is the recollection of a prior experience. in what way is this the same way as a thought?

Just like physics tells us:
the mind is everything it observes
and also everything it thinks it thinks
when there is no thinking because thinking
is just a thought, the mind.

Physics tells us no such thing. Physics tells us, in fact, that everything is material. Moreover, see my "Refutation of Non-Transcendental Idealism" for a rejection of such IDealism.

Duendy:

In philosophy, not science. Science doesn't deal with the Mind-Body Problem.

I just observed thoughts right now.

Genep has a point about the mind's difficulty to observe thoughts. When you read these words, they become YOUR thoughts. When you think about these words, your thoughts are not doing observing; they are doing responding. To OBSERVE your own thoughts is to step back and ask, "where did that come from?" In other words, to examine your own assumptions that heretofore may not have been examined.

David Bohm referred to this as "proprioceptive thought," after the notion of physical proprioception (e.g., I am aware that my hand is moving. Watch it move up and down). The mind has a much harder time doing that. This is why physicist Bohm advocated large-group dialogue - dialogue that was not aimed at coming to any decisions must simply practiced continuously as a means of examining one's assumptions, peeling back the layers of the onion, and thus fostering proprioceptive thought as well as a mirror to the culture that the participants brought to the table. And in so doing, their culture would shift. (see Bohm's short book, "On Dialogue.")

Onefinity:

Genep has a point about the mind's difficulty to observe thoughts. When you read these words, they become YOUR thoughts. When you think about these words, your thoughts are not doing observing; they are doing responding. To OBSERVE your own thoughts is to step back and ask, "where did that come from?" In other words, to examine your own assumptions that heretofore may not have been examined.

Although, funny enough, to observe thoughts in such a manner is to use further thoughts to observe prior thoughts. But such is immaterial to our discussion. What would seem to be a more proper "observation of thought", is the very fact that one is aware of the content of one's thought as it is thought. FOr instance, I can right now conjure up "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band" and be aware of my thought-version of the song.

David Bohm referred to this as "proprioceptive thought," after the notion of physical proprioception (e.g., I am aware that my hand is moving. Watch it move up and down). The mind has a much harder time doing that. This is why physicist Bohm advocated large-group dialogue - dialogue that was not aimed at coming to any decisions must simply practiced continuously as a means of examining one's assumptions, peeling back the layers of the onion, and thus fostering proprioceptive thought as well as a mirror to the culture that the participants brought to the table. And in so doing, their culture would shift. (see Bohm's short book, "On Dialogue.")

In essence, to exercise the mind by constantly exposing it to philosophical inquiry?

In essence, to exercise the mind by constantly exposing it to philosophical inquiry?

Bohm didn't call it philosophical inquiry. It is just an exploration of one's own assumptions and a suspension of those in mid-air as they are felt and revealed. It is not an attempt to distill truths, or to reach agreements on the nature of things. One's emotional responses to ideas are also game, since there are assumptions behind those, too.

Bohm felt this was like "socio-therapy" because the size of the group (20 to 40) would be able to sweep in issues beyond individual experiences and small-group dynamics to place culture itself on the table. Bohm felt that it is unexamined assumptions that we all have - or, more importantly, our lack of ability and opportunity to see the thoughts that paint our thoughts - that underlie global problems today.

Onefinity:

Bohm didn't call it philosophical inquiry. It is just an exploration of one's own assumptions and a suspension of those in mid-air as they are felt and revealed. It is not an attempt to distill truths, or to reach agreements on the nature of things. One's emotional responses to ideas are also game, since there are assumptions behind those, too.

This is similar to philosophical processes.

Bohm felt this was like "socio-therapy" because the size of the group (20 to 40) would be able to sweep in issues beyond individual experiences and small-group dynamics to place culture itself on the table. Bohm felt that it is unexamined assumptions that we all have - or, more importantly, our lack of ability and opportunity to see the thoughts that paint our thoughts - that underlie global problems today.

A bit idealistic, but perhaps it could produce some results.

[QUOTE=Prince_James]Genep:



Um, no. Physicists have observed particles very well, thank you. The Uncertainty Principle speaks of -before- observation and the -limits- of observation. The position of a particle -can- and is -routinely- known, just we cannot then know its momentum, and vice-versa. In fact, that is how a probability cloud even -exists-.

You echo the same academic BS I was fed for over 4 years for my BS of Chemistry/Physics/Science -- if physicists could observe particles they would not need probability-clouds and uncertainty principles. And they would not have waves that are always particles -- except when they are observed and then they are what the observer determines and not what they observe.


The Hindus figured out over 5000 years ago that "the mind is what it thinks it thinks" (when there is no thinking only thoughts). You, and your knowledge of physics are living proof that they knew what they were talking about.

The mind cannot observe thoughts because
The mind is the thought (that it thus can never observe. Try it, in meditation.)

My wonderful native language solves the problem for me. The Slovene equivalent for "mind" is "misli", which literally means 'thoughts'.

The English word "mind" suggests that the mind is something solid, something that exists per se.
Yet not all languages understand things this way. I have just thoughts -- things that come and go. English keeps me back.

Prince James

Physics tells us, in fact, that everything is material.

But they don't know what matter is.

genep:

You echo the same academic BS I was fed for over 4 years for my BS of Chemistry/Physics/Science -- if physicists could observe particles they would not need probability-clouds and uncertainty principles. And they would not have waves that are always particles -- except when they are observed and then they are what the observer determines and not what they observe.

You do realize that they are capable of working with -individual- electrons, photons, and other particles, no? That is precisely how it was determined that, it does seem, a photon has aspects of both a wave and a particle. Moreover, whilst at present the very nature of the stuff we deal with is impacted by our measurements, eventually this could change.

The Hindus figured out over 5000 years ago that "the mind is what it thinks it thinks" (when there is no thinking only thoughts). You, and your knowledge of physics are living proof that they knew what they were talking about.

There is no such thing as "no thinking and only thoughts". To hold a thought in mind is to think. Now, if you want to add to this semi-ad hominen, I'll once again ask you to put up or shut up for your claims, and stop presenting them in a manner which tries to obfuscate the lack of content with a prophetic poetry guise.

water:

So Water, you assert that thoughts can exist without a mind to think them?

c7ityi_:

But they don't know what matter is.

Sure they do. Condensed energy.

Prince,


So Water, you assert that thoughts can exist without a mind to think them?

No, I'm not asserting that. I don't think that way. I don't have *both* "mind" and "thoughts".
Unless by "mind", a mere 'container of thoughts' is meant. (Might as well say that my skull is my mind.)

i think water means being 'minded'-------ie., there not actually being A 'psyche' as though a static object, but 'minded' is a verb......its what minds do

All is process but we tend to be indoctrinated to abstract out reality.........hence a materalistic science emerges from this premise. opposite to that we have the idealism of Eastern mysticism which denies the thingyness of things and claims that is illusion.

But BOTh thingyness and process are real...!

Sure they do. Condensed energy.

They don't know what energy is either.

But BOTh thingyness and process are real...!

Nothingness is "real" and the world is an illusion (since it is something else than it seems... in reality it is nothingness). The illusion cannot be an "illusion", it is real.

They don't know what energy is either.

me::well modern physics now use the terms 'matter' and 'energy' interchangeably, because they are same process!



Nothingness is "real" and the world is an illusion (since it is something else than it seems... in reality it is nothingness). The illusion cannot be an "illusion", it is real.

me::see what you do? you are ACTUALLY a human body living in a world of hard objects, to very subtle objects and subtle winds, and shivers etc. all manifested reality...YET choose to dismiss all of it and call 'nothing' real, and latter illusion. but it's as real as can be. so accept it. yes....nothing and something arise mutually....you cannot have one without the other

I don't see the problem here. One cannot reasonably dismiss one's own actuality (as duendy points out). 'Nothing' and 'something' are merely mental constructs, created by us . Our own facticity (or at the very least, one's own facticity) is more than sufficient to allow us to act. 'Nuff said.

me::well modern physics now use the terms 'matter' and 'energy' interchangeably, because they are same process!

And do you know what they are? They are nothing.

me::see what you do? you are ACTUALLY a human body living in a world of hard objects, to very subtle objects and subtle winds, and shivers etc.

Negative. I am not a body, I am IN a body.

all manifested reality...YET choose to dismiss all of it and call 'nothing' real, and latter illusion.

No. It is called illusion because it is made of nothing. Divide a small particle. Divide the divided. You'll find no indivisible particle. The world conscists of nothing. Of the two aspects of mind. The magnetic energy. The sum. Nothing.

but it's as real as can be. so accept it.

No way in hell. It is the role of consciousness to refuse things which it thinks do not belong to it. If I accepted everything everyone says, I would become infinite, unconscious and nonexistent. It is the role of consciousness to limit itself to a certain part of the world (mind). What if all particles would accept the other particles, the earth would fall into unity.

yes....nothing and something arise mutually....you cannot have one without the other

Wrong. Only nothing exists. The something exist only in illusion.

which is what YOU believe. THA is someTHING for you not me....ie., your VIEW of it.

i LOVE thingyness. my nature is really earthy rm what i hear of yo, your nature isn't. itsounds more amorphous to me.

i dont feel IN body but am bodywhiltalso'knowing' that on certain ocassions my senseuality might feel interelated with sex, music, Nature...in an ecstatic mode. when i die is for then. live and be merry

http://whereintheworld.blogs.com/photos/animals/img_2702.JPG

The deal is that there exists an abstract plane of existence. It is perpendicular to space-time and interacts with it, though it in itself is "immaterial" to space-time. Matter however, can have abstract consequences and vice-versa.

Logic, for instance. It has no bearing at all on space-time. There is no space in space-time for it to exist. Yet we can notice that logic seems to be at work all around us. DNA is based in fundamental principles of space-time plus fundamental abstract organizational principles. It is expressed in the combination of like 64 "words" from "letters" provided from like 8 (or is it 4?) different chemicals. All life is an expression of this language, which in and of itself doesn't really exist (in space-time, as language is an idea).

I'm just saying abstracts are part of the universe. There are 'possible abstracts' and 'actual abstracts', none of which actually exist. The essence of purple for instance, is the resultant of a chemical process in a brain. The resultant itself has an element of physicality in the physical storing of the associated images in your mind. However, the component that is meaningful, as in what your mind currently experiences as purple when recalling it.. its physicality is reflective of something purely non-physical: an idea.

Meh. Something like that.

~~~Beautyfull picture, water, thanks

Well said wesmorris. However, my only issue is with this notion of an 'other' existence. You yourself have pointed out how untenable the idea is:

The deal is that there exists an abstract plane of existence. .... its physicality is reflective of something purely non-physical: an idea.
.

It is we alone, through our thoughts and acts, that create anything that could be described as existing 'beyond' reality. This is kind of creeping into ontology here but.... would you say that without human life, purple would still exist?

No, but the potential for purple would... which is why I simply insist on a degree of freedom to account for that. Further I think that logic in and of itself, itself being purely abstract - plays a role as an organizing principle in space-time.

Everything that we think, feel, touch... study, learn and know is just as real in our sleep-dreams as it is when the mind thinks it wakes up in the morning.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE accept that the mind thinks it wakes up in the morning when in fact it just dreams that it wakes up in the morning.

From every imaginable direction: the mind is always dreaming that it is awake.

Wemorris:

So essentially, you place your abstracts on a level almost like a Platonic Heaven?

Wemorris:

So essentially, you place your abstracts on a level almost like a Platonic Heaven?

I don't think so, but then again I'm not familiar with the Platonic Heaven.

I think of abstracts as "members of abstract space" for lack of a better way to say it. It is the space that allows the possibility of the abstract - for patterns to have meaning (significance). I simply think of it as a degree of freedom perpendicular to normal time. I say "imaginary time" in the other thread because it's hypothesized as perpendicular to normal time in Hawking's book "The universe in a nutshell".

I have written thousands and thousands of words about "my theories" here on sci. I have not however, compiled a list of pertinent links. If I remember to do so and have the time, I'll do it up for you.

Wesmorris:

My thanks in advance for any links on such a matter. I'd be most obliged.

Tell me more about the nature, as you see it, of this abstract space?

Prince James:

I started a thread for weslinkage: Hypothewes (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=904109#post904109).