going beyond the abstract: thought

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by genep, Oct 25, 2005.

  1. genep Guest

    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"?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. duendy Registered Senior Member

    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
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Maybe the mind is needed to solve the paradoxes? Someone has to experiance so that equal options can be chosen.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member


    Can you lose the beatnick poetry/mystic "sermon in the mount" vibe? It does not add to the substance of your post.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2005
  8. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member


    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-.

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

    This is unsubstantiated so far.

    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.

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

    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.


    In philosophy, not science. Science doesn't deal with the Mind-Body Problem.
  9. Onefinity Registered Senior Member

    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.")
  10. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member


    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.

    In essence, to exercise the mind by constantly exposing it to philosophical inquiry?
  11. Onefinity Registered Senior Member

    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.
  12. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member


    This is similar to philosophical processes.

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

  14. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    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.
  15. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Prince James

    But they don't know what matter is.
  16. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member


    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.

    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.


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


    Sure they do. Condensed energy.
  17. water the sea Registered Senior Member


    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.)
  18. duendy Registered Senior Member

    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...!
  19. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    They don't know what energy is either.

    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.
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2005
  20. duendy Registered Senior Member

    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
  21. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    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.
  22. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

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

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

    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.

    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.

    Wrong. Only nothing exists. The something exist only in illusion.
  23. duendy Registered Senior Member

    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

Share This Page