Is Thought the Actual Force Behind Creation

@richrf,

richrf;86379 wrote:

I would say that the brain manifested out of thought.

I can show you brains without thought.

Can you show me thought without a brain?

3 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;86373 wrote:

I love it when people reveal themselves.

Why is this something that brings you joy?

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;86434 wrote:

I can show you brains without thought.

Can you show me thought without a brain?

Look around you Aedes. Is creation not the thought of something far greater than yourself?

Does THAT, whatever it is, have a brain that is exactly the same as yours? Who knows!

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;86434 wrote:

I can show you brains without thought.

Can you show me thought without a brain?

If you mean you can show me a brain on a platter, I agree it's probably not thinking, since once you stop the blood supply, it dies.

But you know I can't show you a thought. And you also know that in the absence of thought, you can't show me anything.

My way of understanding reality is a set of contingent ideas. Fundamentally, it's similar to that described by the OP. I believe the world around me is dream like in character. It seems to have a history in the same way that within a dream, a history is assumed. History is essential to any meaning. If you had amnesia, you could look at your driver's license and see your name, but it wouldn't mean anything to you. Meaning depends on correlating the present to the past... even though by definition, the past is a figment of imagination... search the universe over and you'll never find it.

I didn't arrive at my mode of understanding through logic, though. As a small child I had the distinct impression that there was something behind everything: as if what I was seeing was a veil. I don't know where I got that idea, but I was absolutely convinced. During my teenage years, I was preoccupied with 'ultimate truth' which I defined as the world behind the veil. Partly because of exposure to philosophy, I came to believe that the world behind the veil is made of ideas.

As for the origin: the paradox is obvious. The dream character wonders what the origin of his world is. He tries to trace things back within his own framework. How could he guess that the origin of his world is not 'back in time' but in the present. His whole world is made of thought.

I wouldn't try to convince anyone that I'm right about the nature of reality. My way of thinking evolved out efforts to arrive at some cohesive outlook. It's necessary for me... to each his/her own. But at the same time I welcome criticism. I'm open to change.

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

See, I told you there were people out there that thought like this.

Arjunba , glad you drop in to help us understand this way of thinking.

What are your thoughst on what Bright Noon said in his post about the origin being something that is a myth and maybe the universe has simply always existed.

How does that thinking play with your ideology? Do you assume that there has always been some thought process in the work and that it has no beginning point?

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;86434 wrote:

I can show you brains without thought.

Can you show me thought without a brain?

No one can show thought. But we can observe it.

If I was watching a TV show, and someone pulled out a circuit board, then there would be no picture. Does this mean that the picture came from the circuit board? I differentiate a potential receiver from a potential source. The two can and often are different.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;86566 wrote:

No one can show thought.

The reason you would say this, is because you do not know what can be seen in neuron activity in real time. Yes, thought has been seen, richrf.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;86576 wrote:

The reason you would say this, is because you do not know what can be seen in neuron activity in real time. Yes, thought has been seen, richrf.

No KJ, what has been seen is the biological working of the brain attempting to program information that the organs send to it. you know that. That information is simply electrical signals transmitting between two organs of the human body. The body doing what it does biologically to interpret its bodily functions. that is the biological aspect of it.

Thought comes into play within the confines of something that is far deeper than your biological functioning and observation. You cannot see thought at all. thought is of the mind and the consciousness and you have NOT seen the consciousness of the human mind under any of your microscopes my firend. Not even close!

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86579 wrote:

thought is of the mind and the consciousness and you have NOT seen the consciousness of the human mind under any of your microscopes my firend. Not even close!

Yes, I would agree. One mustn't be too hasty in suggesting that the circuit board is the source of the picture.

Rich

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;85919 wrote:

It seems to me that the only logical explanation for the present existence of the universe is that the universe has always existed, albeit in various forms.

In saying this, we've escaped the problem of TO (the origin) requiring a preceeding origin. Our logic hasn't escaped undefined terms, however. This conclusion requires us to imagine an infinite amount of time leading backwards. Infinity is not conceivable. Neither answer to the question gives us a conceivable answer. Therefore, logic has no weight in choosing between the two.

I think the idea of origin arises from the fundamental demand for meaning. Pervasively, we use the idea of cause to make sense of our experience. The idea of ultimate cause is a natural extension of this.

My own home-base outlook explains it this way: there is one big NOW. Beyond that there are only fairy-tale like attempts to image the situation. The fact that we started with a question that has no meaningful answer is a sign that we've reached the boundaries of analysis. What follows doesn't belong in a science lab.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86490 wrote:

Is creation not the thought of something far greater than yourself?

I happen not to share this belief. It is what it is. It's great, but it's great because we're small. Just because something is "far greater" than me in size, extent, age, and complexity, doesn't mean it is a "thought".

Pathfinder;86490 wrote:

Does THAT, whatever it is, have a brain that is exactly the same as yours? Who knows!

I don't believe in "that". If my source of data is looking at the world, then to believe in a unifying, thinking "that" is arbitrary.

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 01:42 PM ----------

richrf;86566 wrote:

Does this mean that the picture came from the circuit board? I differentiate a potential receiver from a potential source.

If you sincerely mean to use this analogy, then you're being disingenuous by referring to the circuit board alone rather than what we know to be all of the underlying necessities.

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;86590 wrote:

In saying this, we've escaped the problem of TO (the origin) requiring a preceeding origin. Our logic hasn't escaped undefined terms, however. This conclusion requires us to imagine an infinite amount of time leading backwards. Infinity is not conceivable. Neither answer to the question gives us a conceivable answer. Therefore, logic has no weight in choosing between the two.

I think the idea of origin arises from the fundamental demand for meaning. Pervasively, we use the idea of cause to make sense of our experience. The idea of ultimate cause is a natural extension of this.

My own home-base outlook explains it this way: there is one big NOW. Beyond that there are only fairy-tale like attempts to image the situation. The fact that we started with a question that has no meaningful answer is a sign that we've reached the boundaries of analysis. What follows doesn't belong in a science lab.

Have to agree with you about the science lab, but how does this refusal to analyze play out in your thinking that it is thought that is creating the NOW?

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86608 wrote:

Have to agree with you about the science lab, but how does this refusal to analyze play out in your thinking that it is thought that is creating the NOW?

Did the universe have a beginning? Analysis reveals that in the context of sequential time, either answer is inconcievable.

I earnestly struggle to understand those who confidently launch from the assumption that we are blips of life in a dead, deterministic universe. I notice they interact with me as if I demonstrate a lack of coherent logic. I look for signs that they realize: that's not a logical argument they launched from: it's emotional bias, otherwise known as faith.

That's what we all have in common: faith.

Another thing I think we'll all agree on is this: the universe is an idea.

And uh.. I generally keep private the real reason I think life is a dream. I don't want to seem any more ridiculous than I already must.:whistling:

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Nothing can be seen as ridiculous when discussing the universe abd creation. Its all a mystery and everyone's thoughts on it are all supposition no matter how far fetched they may seem.

Personally I am always entertained by those scientist types who talk in big words about the universe and its laws as though they are speaking about facts and as though they have it all figured out. How does any intelligent person ever reach that sort of arrogance?

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

The whole thread here I see is about existence, the mind, the brain etc.; but the arguments back and forth can go on forever. I accept the thinking at first reflected at the beginning of the thread and also the idea of something arising from nothing. Quantum theory has provided evidence of quantum vacuum fluctuations appearing ... out of nothing, apparently. Kant's first antinomy is grounded on the common-sensed presumption that only nothing can follow from nothing (Kant interestingly disallowed judgments grounded upon what he called the magic wand of so-called common sense). This thread is a metaphysical one, based on metaphysical thinking, which I'm not opposed to. Further, speculation is the mother of all knowledge. Einstein said his own theory of relativity was largely the invention first and formost of his imagination. Yet I constantly witness in threads such as these, the put down of imagination ... calling it nothing but fantasy, etc. Imagination is the greatest gift bestowed upon us along with the ability to think. Also, what is the brain? What is Mind? No scientist has ever provided an adequate definition. So we're all talking at cross purposes here unless one of us can provide a critical definition of the brain and the mind that we can all agree on. And what are the chances of that happening. I'd say, the odds against are as great as the odds against our universe popping into existence as a freak quantum vacuum fluctuation. Mathematicians put the odds as one such universe as ours arising out of the void every 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 80 years. A conjecture that I found in John Gribbins book: "In Search of the Big Bang?" My own belief, grounded upon critical thinking that I won't expound here, is that the Big Bang came out about as the result of a preceding causal process that can account for why spacetime, mass, and Mind emerged into being, and became the universe we are now in. At the beginning there was nothing. But the idea we have of nothing is most likely, the definition found in Webster's dictionary. Not much use if we are trying to come to terms with an idea of the ultimate beginning of all things.

2 Replies

@Shostakovich phil,

Shostakovich;86727 wrote:

The whole thread here I see is about existence, the mind, the brain etc.; but the arguments back and forth can go on forever. I accept the thinking at first reflected at the beginning of the thread and also the idea of something arising from nothing. Quantum theory has provided evidence of quantum vacuum fluctuations appearing ... out of nothing, apparently. Kant's first antinomy is grounded on the common-sensed presumption that only nothing can follow from nothing (Kant interestingly disallowed judgments grounded upon what he called the magic wand of so-called common sense). This thread is a metaphysical one, based on metaphysical thinking, which I'm not opposed to. Further, speculation is the mother of all knowledge. Einstein said his own theory of relativity was largely the invention first and formost of his imagination. Yet I constantly witness in threads such as these, the put down of imagination ... calling it nothing but fantasy, etc. Imagination is the greatest gift bestowed upon us along with the ability to think. Also, what is the brain? What is Mind? No scientist has ever provided an adequate definition. So we're all talking at cross purposes here unless one of us can provide a critical definition of the brain and the mind that we can all agree on. And what are the chances of that happening. I'd say, the odds against are as great as the odds against our universe popping into existence as a freak quantum vacuum fluctuation. Mathematicians put the odds as one such universe as ours arising out of the void every 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 80 years. A conjecture that I found in John Gribbins book: "In Search of the Big Bang?" My own belief, grounded upon critical thinking that I won't expound here, is that the Big Bang came out about as the result of a preceding causal process that can account for why spacetime, mass, and Mind emerged into being, and became the universe we are now in. At the beginning there was nothing. But the idea we have of nothing is most likely, the definition found in Webster's dictionary. Not much use if we are trying to come to terms with an idea of the ultimate beginning of all things.

well well my friend you are missing the mother of all arguments on exactly that topic at this thread

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-mind/4403-consciousness-biological-problem-66.html#post86305

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86687 wrote:

Personally I am always entertained by those scientist types who talk in big words about the universe and its laws as though they are speaking about facts and as though they have it all figured out. How does any intelligent person ever reach that sort of arrogance?

If you learn those big words and the concepts and evidence behind them, maybe you won't think it's arrogant. Knowledge is power.

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 09:29 PM ----------

Shostakovich;86727 wrote:

Mathematicians put the odds as one such universe as ours arising out of the void every 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 80 years.

The denominator is 1 and the numerator is 1. There is only one universe we have observed. For all we know the odds are 100%, because as of yet there are no exceptions.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Knowledge is power, and for anyone to think that they have acquired enough knowledge to assume that they have answered the mystery of life and creation is powerfully ridiculous.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86755 wrote:

Knowledge is power, and for anyone to think that they have acquired enough knowledge to assume that they have answered the mystery of life and creation is powerfully ridiculous.

For you I'd suggest acquiring enough knowledge to know what scientists are talking about before casting your aspersions.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;86749 wrote:

The denominator is 1 and the numerator is 1. There is only one universe we have observed. For all we know the odds are 100%, because as of yet there are no exceptions.

Oh noooo! The 100% thing. Laughing

So what we have on our hands today is the same universe we had yesterday. That makes darn good sense to me.

I'll submit though: this conclusion isn't derived from observation. None of us has observed the universe of today, much less that of yesterday (since by definition the past can not be observed.) Just consider where you'd have to be to observe the universe. The universe is an idea.

0 Replies

Is Thought the Actual Force Behind Creation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know