What is a thought?

[MagnetMan]

I'm not sure I agree that an idea is made of electrons.

Electrons are subject to gravity.

Who has shown an idea to be responsive to gravity?

or have weight in the physical sense?

If that were true wouldn't a philospher's head weigh

more than say, George Bush's head? :hihi:

LOL. If that was the only critera the electron theory wins hands down.;)

 

An idea certainly has an electrochemical foundation,

but when it "arises" in the mind, where is it, exactly?

Self-consciousness feels like it's in your head, but where?

Again, what space does it occupy? When you move through space

do you take the space in your body with you, or do you abandon

it for the new space you are moving through?

 

"arises in the mind" Therein lies the intuive insight to more than five thousand years of metaphsyical practice into discovering the origins and the nature of mind. The oldest recorded work on this is registered in the Opinishads and the Vedas.

 

Tantric yoga, via the chakra system, provides the clearest visualization of the subtle electro-magnetic generation of the thought process.

 

According to yogis, thought does no originate in the mind. The mind merely processes it. Modern split-brain studies show that intuitive ideation "arises" in the right brain and is then analyzed by the left brain.

 

The prime objective of the yogi is to generate pure thoughts, thoughts that are uncontaminated by gross desires, artifically indoctrinated ambitions, or the idle purposeless masturbations of a bored or uncreative psyche - and thereby experience the bliss and creative energy of pure beingness. The aura of pure energy that bursts out of the head of a realized yogi (portrayed as a white or yellow halo in our paintings of saints) and which is occassionaly seen but mostly sensed by ordinary folk when they are in close proximity to such a sanctified being, gives us some testament to this intense purification of the thought process that leads to Divine sight.

 

The first germ of each thought gains energy primarily via air intake and secondry via the atomic energy generated by water and food. Since oxygen constitutes more than 99% of the energy that sustains consciousness, most yogi's concentrate on the breath, by breathing alternatively through each nostril to a rythmical in and out count.

 

There are two psychic nadis situated at the base of each nostril. These nadis are connected to a psychic circuit that twists down through the torso to a coiled generator, called Kundulini, which is situated at the base of the spine

 

As the friction from the incoming air flows over the nadi, the oxygen atoms release a subtle electric current that flows down one side of the circuit and delivers energy to kudalini. During the outbreath, the other side of the circuit then takes the dioxidized carbon current back up through the torse and is released out of the other nostril.

 

The electro-magnetic activation of kundulini energy, sends an electric current up the spine through a central shaft called shushuma which then releases the energy into the seven-tiered chaklra system.

 

The first chakra is located at the sexual plexus and the energy delivered there arouses the first germ of thought before it passes on to the next chakra in the system and so on up through each chakra to the brain. Each chakra in turn gives that germ of thought, its own flavor - sex, courage, love, tonality and imagery - before it arrives in the brain as the first stiring of an idea.

 

Each successive breath builds on the object of the thought- which could be sexual fantasies, courageous fantasies, love fnatasies, song/poetry or the visual arts. All flavors arrive via this kundalini delivery sytem and are processed by the brain, then analysed and acted upon or not. The stronger that each flavor can be delibvered, the clearer and more creative the thought becomes. (It is for this reason that I have developed the Heartstart homeschool program that allows children time and opportunity to concentrate on building up each cultural attribute and thereby become more creatively dynamic in their thinking)

 

The object of the yogi is to intensify these fantasies to a high degree and then fight back the impusle to act upon them. In sexual yoga for instance, the male and female practitioner fight to hold back the orgasm for hours and try to send sexcual energy up the chakra system for further flavor and purifiction. Yogis who lie on a bed of nails, or sit through the extreme cramps of the lotus pose, or headstand for hours, fight back the pain and try to send that energy up for purification.

[Jehu]

When we ask “what is a thought”, there are two distinctly different questions involved, these being (1) what is it nature, and (2) what is its function. When we ask what is the function of a thing, we want to know what is the appropriate mode of activity whereby the thing fulfils its purpose, a purpose which is often implicit in the thing’s designation, i.e., can opener, lawnmower, baby buggy, etc. When we ask what is the nature of a thing, we want to known what are the elements that comprise it, and how these elements are related. Now, with regard to the question at hand, “what is a thought”, I believe we can settle both question by some simple reasoning. Let us begin with the nature of a thought.

 

We express our thoughts through the use of verbal or written sentences such as, “I’m hungry.”, “Where have I seen that person before?”, or “I like that new program on Tuesday nights.” Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that there is some correlation between the elements of a sentence, and the elements of the thought that the sentence signifies. Now, the elements of a sentence are the words (concepts) that comprise it, some signifying associations (objects) and other meanings (relationships). In the sentence, “I’m hungry”, “I” and “hungry” signify associations, while “am” signifies the logical relationship that binds them together as a thought. Therefore a thought is an amalgamation of subsidiary concepts that is bound together by some logical relationship to form a more complex concept.

 

As to the function of thought, this we cannot so easily say, however, we can say that a component of that function is to create more complex concepts, to aid us in our communications. I say this because, whether or not we actually express a thought outwardly, we do express it inwardly – to ourselves.

 

Now, if my reasoning is not flawed in some unforeseen way, the implication here is that it is a logical relationship that holds a thought together, and thus it follows that the elements (concepts) must be purely mental, and not physical. This would seem to rule out the notion that thought have their foundation is some chemical-electrical process in the brain.

 

Regards, Jehu

[ronthepon]

I'm not sure I agree that an idea is made of electrons.

Electrons are subject to gravity.

Who has shown an idea to be responsive to gravity?

or have weight in the physical sense?

If that were true wouldn't a philospher's head weigh

more than say, George Bush's head? :Confused:

 

 

An idea certainly has an electrochemical foundation,

but when it "arises" in the mind, where is it, exactly?

Self-consciousness feels like it's in your head, but where?

Again, what space does it occupy? When you move through space

do you take the space in your body with you, or do you abandon

it for the new space you are moving through?

 

Does your head hurt yet?

Is it getting heavier? :hihi:

:lol:

Ha! Ha!

 

Do you know how much an electron weighs? about [math]10^{-31}[/math]kg!

 

So... suppose there are [math]10^{25}[/math] electrons involved in a thought, it weighs [math]10^{-6}[/math]Kg!

 

Further, electrons don't teleport into our brains when we think. Those electrons were always there. They just start to move.

[billg]

Now, if my reasoning is not flawed in some unforeseen way, the implication here is that it is a logical relationship that holds a thought together, and thus it follows that the elements (concepts) must be purely mental, and not physical. This would seem to rule out the notion that thought have their foundation is some chemical-electrical process in the brain.

 

Your reasoning is flawed. You go through such an elaborate thought process only to assert that what is mental cannot by definition be physical, so thoughs are not physical. Nowhere do you say why "mental" processes cannot be essentially just a very complex, specific subset of normal physical processes.

[Jehu]

Nowhere do you say why "mental" processes cannot be essentially just a very complex, specific subset of normal physical processes.

 

With all due respect, I believe that I have indeed said “why "mental" processes cannot be essentially just a very complex, specific subset of normal physical processes.” I have demonstrated that is the rules of grammar that bind the subsidiary conceptual elements into a single coherent thought. Consequently, unless it is your contention that physical processes (even very complex ones) may be governed by grammatical rules, I would say that there is a logical dilemma here. Now, this is not to say that there are not complex physical processes associated with mental processes, but to assert that they are cause and effect is to go beyond what can be know with certainty, and into the realm of inductive inference. It is equally tenable, to assert that physical processes arise as a result of mental processes, although, it is not my intention to do so. What’s more, the burden of providing a logical demonstration falls to the one who is so bold as to assert that something ( e.g., that mental processes are essentially physical processes) is true, and not to the one who would question the assertions validity. In any event, it was my intention only to point out a logical inconsistency in the prevailing view.

 

Regards, Jehu

[Saitia]

suppose there are [math]10^{25}[/math] electrons involved in a thought, it weighs [math]10^{-6}[/math]Kg!

Cool. The point is they weigh something, which should then be subject to material gravity— if they (thoughts) are indeed material. I've never heard any evidence they are; has anyone?

 

 

Further, electrons don't teleport into our brains when we think. Those electrons were always there. They just start to move.

 

Why or how would movement create an idea? Or cause an idea that's a memory to recreate? What directs attention? What is it about electrons that might indicate they know where to look for a forgotten memory, say from childhood, or a long-ago girlfriend's name?

ronthepon, are you saying the electrons that originally composed such a thought never move in the brain, i.e., continue to "make-up" the memory no matter how long it may be in the mind?

 

Jehu, I agree will billg; your reasoning seems incomplete. Logic is an attribute of thinking; which hasn't been shown to occur without the electrochemical stimulus of the brain; brain dead, brain no think; i.e., no mind activity.:(

I do agree with you, however, that thought itself is not material; it is supermaterial, i.e., a spiritual "circuit." I don't think a resulting thought can be shown to occupy space just because some electrons are fired in a synapse.

 

According to yogis, thought does no originate in the mind. The mind merely processes it.

Interesting idea, Magnetman, and I suspect it is closer to the truth of spirit-mind consciousness as it is directed by freewill personality identity, than attributing all these abilities to electrons, amazing as they are. . .

 

Anyway I appreciate your thoughts whether they're material or not. ;)

 

Cheers,

Saitia

[Jehu]

Cool.

Jehu, I agree will billg; your reasoning seems incomplete. Logic is an attribute of thinking; which hasn't been shown to occur without the electrochemical stimulus of the brain; brain dead, brain no think; i.e., no mind activity.

Logic is not truly an attribute of thinking, that is, it is not a quality or characteristic of thinking, but the very principle whereby we are able to think. By principle, I mean that it is the law whereby the elements of thought are bound together. Just as it is thought that physical elements are bound together by physical forces, thoughts are bound together by the force of reason. Now, let me ask you this, The laws that govern the “physical” are reasonable, are they not? If they were not reasonable, then we would have no hope, whatsoever, of understanding how the physical universe operates, is this not true? Thus the laws of nature (physical laws) must obey the rules of logic. But if this is true, how can we then assert that the rules of logic evolve epiphenomenally from the laws of nature? Would this no be putting the horse before the cart?

 

Regards, Jehu

[ronthepon]

Cool. The point is they weigh something, which should then be subject to material gravity— if they (thoughts) are indeed material. I've never heard any evidence they are; has anyone?

You wan't the slightest proof? PET scans.

 

Why or how would movement create an idea? Or cause an idea that's a memory to recreate? What directs attention? What is it about electrons that might indicate they know where to look for a forgotten memory, say from childhood, or a long-ago girlfriend's name?

ronthepon, are you saying the electrons that originally composed such a thought never move in the brain, i.e., continue to "make-up" the memory no matter how long it may be in the mind?

 

I am sure that you are aware that our brain is an extremely complex network of neurons.

I have been frequently told that all our mentality is built by this network. Not by electrons present inside.

The nerve impulses (aka travelling electrons) are what constitue working, or 'happening' thoughts. In fact, the thoughts may also involve new wiring in the brain.

 

Now, science says that this complex network is constantly being rewired to accomodate new memories, understand new concepts. So the memory is not stored in some extra cerebral reigon. It is in the wiring of the brain itself.

[HappytheStripper]

You wan't the slightest proof? PET scans.

 

 

 

I am sure that you are aware that our brain is an extremely complex network of neurons.

I have been frequently told that all our mentality is built by this network. Not by electrons present inside.

The nerve impulses (aka travelling electrons) are what constitue working, or 'happening' thoughts. In fact, the thoughts may also involve new wiring in the brain.

 

Now, science says that this complex network is constantly being rewired to accomodate new memories, understand new concepts. So the memory is not stored in some extra cerebral reigon. It is in the wiring of the brain itself.

 

That is correct .. the estimated average amount of neuron connecters and receptors is around 365,000,000 this also includes nerve cell endings which are the transporters of these super-information-highways .. which are all interconnected ..

 

It is a chemical reaction which sets off the connectors ..

 

The mind is much like a super computer ..

[ughaibu]

Jehu: Physical laws describe the way that things behave, logic prescribes behaviour that removes controversy from communication. You are attempting to equate two incompatible meanings of the word 'law'. This in itself is a logical fallacy and sufficient proof that thought independent of the rules (not laws) of logic is possible.

[IDMclean]

Don't forget that the nerves aren't the only thing that is communicating. the gila are shown to listen in on the nerve's communications and possibly communicate with chemical signals themselves.

[Jehu]

Jehu: Physical laws describe the way that things behave, logic prescribes behaviour that removes controversy from communication. You are attempting to equate two incompatible meanings of the word 'law'. This in itself is a logical fallacy and sufficient proof that thought independent of the rules (not laws) of logic is possible.

Is it not we (cognizant beings) who attempt to describe the way that things appear to behave, and then call those descriptions the “physical laws”? Is it not we who having taken certain appearances to be independent and real, then reasoned (rightly or wrongly) our way to those “physical laws”? When Descartes undertook to discover what could be know for certain, he came to the realization that it was only our own cognitive awareness (cogito, ergo sum). Nevertheless, he immediately fell into error by positing the existence of his own body, and by extension, the existence of an objective world, for this went beyond what could be logically deduced, and into the realm of inductive inference. Now, although modern Realists do not hold with Descartes’ dualistic metaphysical stance, the do hold that there is a reality that is independent of our cognizance. In doing so, such thinkers have rejected the very thing that Descartes demonstrated that they might be certain of in the world, in favour of what is no more that a supposition based upon the appearance things. As a philosopher, I have tried not to hobble myself by adhering to one metaphysical stance or another, and have thought deeply on the notion of a cognitive reality. I have studied the work of many eastern thinkers, and I have come to realize that an essentially cognizant reality could not only account for the observations of science, but could provide a comprehensive and coherent world-view that was free of logical absurdities. Now, I do not expect that you should simply discard your present beliefs, but ask only that you shelve them long enough to take an unbiased look at the logical evidence against the prevailing view of reality.

 

Regards, Jehu

[hallenrm]

All that we are is a result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.

 

The Buddha

[hallenrm]

A thought, even a possibility, can shatter and transform us.

 

Friedrich Nietzsche

[hallenrm]

As a single footstep will not make a path on the Earth, So a single thought will not make a pathway in the mind. To make a deep physical path, we walk again and again. To make a deep mental path we must think over and over the kind of thoughts we wish to dominate our lives.

 

Henry Thoreau

[hallenrm]

A man's private thoughts can never be a lie; what he thinks, is to him the truth always.

 

Mark Twain

[hallenrm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Your experience [infamous’s scanning of AstronomyCafe?] is an evidence for my hypothesis, that thoughts are not created or destroyed, they move across space, all that is neccesary to catch a thought, is a mind properly tuned for it.

 

How does Infy’s experience, or information about the gravitational gradient near the event horizons of black holes, support the hypothesis that thoughts exist independently of brains or other “thinking hardware”?

 

(This should, I think, be a separate thread)

 

That's the reason for my renewed interest in this thread.

 

In past several months, there have been several instances, when it appeared that some reputable members of Hypography discovered that the thoughts expressed by them had paralells in several discoveries without their prior conscious knowledge.

 

For example, in the thread Gravity with mass or density Infamous discovered that his random thoughts in fact resonated with those expressed by someone else in the website AstronomyCafe.

 

Similarly, in course of postings on the thread What biologists don't know Boerseun said:

 

We should find samples of all the extremophile bacteria out there that are heat- and cold-loving, that thrive under UV, eat rocks, and can live on minimal water.

 

We should breed them in vast numbers and fill hundreds of rockets with them.

 

We should launch these rockets to Mars. We've been there, and found no life. So there aren't any moral issues.

 

These bacteria should be randomly distributed all over the planet.

 

Within a few days there was a news posted on HSF itself that suggested that he was really not alone in thinking so! :pirate:

 

This and many such personal experiences led me to post in the thread:Do you know what meme is?

This opinion:

 

I have many thoughts, as I proclaim my present location is in the world of thoughts. Now, when I try to think about the genesis of these thoughts, I can safely say that it is definitely not the memory of something I had seen, heard or read. These thoughts somehow occur to me spontaneously. While it may be true that my past and present vocation and studies may sometimes facilitate some kinds of thoughts, I am sure most of my thoughts are not originally mine. As I often discover on reading some posts here or my reading of classic literature. Often I can see that many people, who are either living or had lived across the globe (that incidentally is something contrary to what Buffy appears to be saying that memes are localized in space) have had expressed similar thoughts in past and present.

 

That is indeed the reason for my belief that thoughts are conserved some what like energy. This belief recently got support when I was reading an article in the New Scientist. In this article,author quotes a renowned physicist Sussikind to say that All of physics as we know it is conditioned on the fact that information is conserved, even if it's badly scrambled,". Thus perhaps information is also a synonyme to meme or thoughts that have been handed over to the humanity over the ages. :beer:

 

Memes or (thoughts as I call them) survive the vagaries of time and somehow survive in the universe by a mechanism we do not know (but can only guess). In this context an idea (thought? meme?) occured to me right now, In Bhagwad Gita Lord Krishna is said to have said Soul is immortal.

Did he have memes; thoughts; information in mind when he said so?:hihi:

 

So, let me come back to the point I began with, What is thought? Can thoughts exist independently of brains or other “thinking hardware?

 

My hypothesis is that thoughts do exist independent of brains or any other thinking hardware?

 

Come on! refute or support it! :dog: :edizzy: