Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
because thought precedes form
thought creates form
I suspect the opposite. "Form" is the logical conditions for the possibility of thought. Reality is, logically first and foremost, such that thought is possible. I really doubt that there are any truly "disembodied" thoughts that "created form". But I also suspect that embodied thoughts are eternal, which is to say, there was probably never a "first thought". Analogy: embodied thoughts are like rational numbers - infinite without beginning or end; the logical conditions for the possibility of thought are like real numbers - a larger infinity than the rational numbers. The possibilities for actuality are a larger infinity than the set of actualities. I doubt that either possibility or actuality "came first" in any temporal sense, but I suspect that, logically, possibility is "prior" to actuality in the sense that disembodied thoughts are never floating around creating actuality. Actual thoughts are always embodied, and probably are always rooted in something like a physical evolutionary process. Sorta like (and this is just an analogy) every whole number is preceded by an infinity of real numbers - as if the real numbers (various rational and irrational fractions, etc.) are the history of the emergence of each whole number (like unconscious physical conditions leading up to the actuality of each thought).
No thought just pops out of nothing. Each thought is part of a chain of physical evolution.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 09-10-2017 at 08:49 AM..
I suspect the opposite. "Form" is the logical conditions for the possibility of thought. Reality is, logically first and foremost, such that thought is possible. I really doubt that there are any truly "disembodied" thoughts that "created form". But I also suspect that embodied thoughts are eternal, which is to say, there was probably never a "first thought". Analogy: embodied thoughts are like rational numbers - infinite without beginning or end; the logical conditions for the possibility of thought are like real numbers - a larger infinity than the rational numbers. The possibilities for actuality are a larger infinity than the set of actualities. I doubt that either possibility or actuality "came first" in any temporal sense, but I suspect that, logically, possibility is "prior" to actuality in the sense that disembodied thoughts are never floating around creating actuality. Actual thoughts are always embodied, and probably are always rooted in something like a physical evolutionary process. Sorta like (and this is just an analogy) every whole number is preceded by an infinity of real numbers - as if the real numbers (various rational and irrational fractions, etc.) are the history of the emergence of each whole number (like unconscious physical conditions leading up to the actuality of each thought).
No thought just pops out of nothing. Each thought is part of a chain of physical evolution.
Let's talk only now about the here and now. In our actual world as we know it to make or create something new something tangible (house, spread sheet, symphony)....
....before that tangible "external" object or item comes into tangible form that can be verified and validated and measured by others....
....it first and always begins or starts with a thought or idea which is an internal reality .
The process of creating something physical external tangible starts with a thought.
For the moment thats all were looking at. Nothing else. Just that one principle or rule in "how physical things are created" in our daily life.
Does every thought take actual physical form? No my boss thought about several spread sheets before she decided on telling me to create one that specifically tracks respiratory equipment for a given population. Does every idea for a house get built? Of course not. Just the one we want. (Another internal reality that shapes and affects and changes external reality: desire yearning emotion feeling)
So not every thought takes external form and gets printed or built. But the external things around us and the new things we build, all began with a thought or idea first.
In that sense the external springs from the internal. Because the qualia of thoughts feeling perceptions ideas desire yearning the internal, are what change shape precede affect give rise to the external
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-10-2017 at 10:06 AM..
I suspect the opposite. "Form" is the logical conditions for the possibility of thought. Reality is, logically first and foremost, such that thought is possible. I really doubt that there are any truly "disembodied" thoughts that "created form". But I also suspect that embodied thoughts are eternal, which is to say, there was probably never a "first thought". Analogy: embodied thoughts are like rational numbers - infinite without beginning or end; the logical conditions for the possibility of thought are like real numbers - a larger infinity than the rational numbers. The possibilities for actuality are a larger infinity than the set of actualities. I doubt that either possibility or actuality "came first" in any temporal sense, but I suspect that, logically, possibility is "prior" to actuality in the sense that disembodied thoughts are never floating around creating actuality. Actual thoughts are always embodied, and probably are always rooted in something like a physical evolutionary process. Sorta like (and this is just an analogy) every whole number is preceded by an infinity of real numbers - as if the real numbers (various rational and irrational fractions, etc.) are the history of the emergence of each whole number (like unconscious physical conditions leading up to the actuality of each thought).
No thought just pops out of nothing. Each thought is part of a chain of physical evolution.
That was my thought to. It depends of the parameters, of course, but generally, (and it tickles me that it reminds me of my suggestion that Thought could exist after the death of the Bod. but the bod was needed before it could produce Thought) Form first; though second.
Also reminds me of a lot of the "Concrete" thinking I have about supposedly abstract ideas. Number is based on things. How we identify how many there are of them. Probably began with the need for fair barter and trade.
Even my rock and bush example of the solid basis of Occam's razor, and if that can be given a material basis, any logical rule can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
I have no desire to discuss any of these: religion, apologetics, rhetoric, football players; generals, priests, God, groups, identity symbols, faith, casting out of members, flags, rulers, the OT, presidents, pretending to believe, the Senate, the Crstian flag, destiny, religious leaders, evolution, the wishes of God, government, kings, the Church, or civil war. I'll leave those topics to others with an interest in them to discuss.
Self confidence and beliefs are pertinent because they touch upon how our inner reality (which is our qualitative direct experiences including beliefs thoughts feelings focus vision goals desire yearning) can and do affect and change the physical reality around us.
Instinct could be relevant but only if we can go beyond superficial shallow views and actually distinguish between instinct and intuition and survival and intellect. That would require a willingness and ability to look inward and explore the inner reality of each of those within us and how they appear and operate in our life.
Ok, I'm interested; you don't have to be. Intuition and the Inner thing have to be explored, sure, but not starting from asumptions about what they are, but from the materiaist default, which has verification. That's the journey I'm on and you don't have to come. That's won't stop me. And that's why Theism is failing. It needs to stop questioning and it can't. it can only say "i don't want to know'. That's why it is getting left behind.
Sure the Spiritual Thing is flavour of the month right now. To me it is just like Quantum, indeterminacy and Consciousness plus recently NDE was or still is used to try to make gaps for God. They tried with I/D, (still do, sometimes ) and even had a look at the Higgs -Boson, but that did them no good.
....No thought just pops out of nothing. Each thought is part of a chain of physical evolution.
A thought is an internal reality in that no one except you can verify it.
Are you able to distinguish between in your own internal reality thoughts that you "work at" and come up with on your own in a deliberate manner? For instance writing a story according to a systematic formula.
As distinct and different from thoughts that just "pop into your head" and feel qualitatively different along the lines of "where did that come from" or "wow I would never have come up with that on my own". In the example of writing a story for instance a character appears in your thoughts and is talking and you just write down the dialogue you are hearing.
That process is an example of exploring and examining our inner reality. Are they all just thoughts ? Technically yes but that is a more superficial understanding than going deeper to distinguish between different kinds of thoughts, between intellect and intuition.
That is one example of how we become conversant and remedy ignorance of inner reality. Or we can keep our understanding at a more superficial level and just say "just all thoughts" or even more superficial "chemicals in the brain" or "evolution"
A thought is an internal reality in that no one except you can verify it.
Are you able to distinguish between in your own internal reality thoughts that you "work at" and come up with on your own in a deliberate manner? For instance writing a story according to a systematic formula.
As distinct and different from thoughts that just "pop into your head" and feel qualitatively different along the lines of "where did that come from" or "wow I would never have come up with that on my own". In the example of writing a story for instance a character appears in your thoughts and is talking and you just write down the dialogue you are hearing.
That process is an example of exploring and examining our inner reality. Are they all just thoughts ? Technically yes but that is a more superficial understanding than going deeper to distinguish between different kinds of thoughts, between intellect and intuition.
That is one example of how we become conversant and remedy ignorance of inner reality. Or we can keep our understanding at a more superficial level and just say "just all thoughts" or even more superficial "chemicals in the brain" or "evolution"
When you say internal or inner reality do you mean subjective reality? Do you believe in objective reality?
..... Intuition and the Inner thing have to be explored, sure, but not starting from assumptions about what they are, but from the materiaist default, which has verification. That's the journey I'm on and you don't have to come. That's won't stop me. And that's why Theism is failing. It needs to stop questioning and it can't. it can only say "i don't want to know'. That's why it is getting left behind. ....
i agree with you it is best to "not start from assumptions" because assumptions are often superficial and shallow.
to remedy this requires investigation, education, participation, exploration.
my observation is that the person who says they will only explore the external
and declines to explore the internal reality (or even takes it a step further and denies that an internal reality even exists)
is the person who is saying "I don't want to know"
That is why their understanding and views remain superficial.
if you are being left behind in this discussion of inner reality, then start where you are.
what is the (your words here) "materialist default which has verification" for intuition, intellect, and inner reality?
what are the ways in your own life you explore your inner reality and distinguish between ideas, thoughts, intuition, perceptions, feelings, beliefs, yearning, goals, and desires? the only person who can explore your "inner reality" is you. how do you do that? how do you increase your knowledge, information, experience, understanding of your own inner reality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
how can a person "critically examine" the "inner essence" of anything
if they exclude it from their area of investigation or exploration?
ignorance (of anything) is a lack of knowledge, information, experience
to remedy ignorance (of anything) requires investigation, exploration, education, participation
person A investigates reality only through exploring the superficial
person B investigates reality through exploring both the superficial and the inner essence of reality.
which person is more ignorant?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-10-2017 at 11:58 AM..
When you say internal or inner reality do you mean subjective reality? Do you believe in objective reality?
"external" can be verified by others
"internal" experienced only by you
that which is the "external" or at the "surface" is superficial.
that which is "internal" is beneath the surface, is at a greater depth.
inner reality; qualitative experiences; inner essence; that which is experienced internally but can not be verified by anyone else; going beneath the surface or behind the appearance, interior, deeper. includes thought, feelings, emotions, ideas, intuition, perceptions, goals, desires, yearning
observable properties of things; objective reality; external world; that which can be measured and verified by others; outer appearances or observations; what is apparent, on the surface, outer, exterior, superficial
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-10-2017 at 11:19 AM..
That was my thought to. It depends of the parameters, of course, but generally, (and it tickles me that it reminds me of my suggestion that Thought could exist after the death of the Bod. but the bod was needed before it could produce Thought) Form first; though second.
Also reminds me of a lot of the "Concrete" thinking I have about supposedly abstract ideas. Number is based on things. How we identify how many there are of them. Probably began with the need for fair barter and trade.
Even my rock and bush example of the solid basis of Occam's razor, and if that can be given a material basis, any logical rule can.
Ok, I'm interested; you don't have to be. Intuition and the Inner thing have to be explored, sure, but not starting from asumptions about what they are, but from the materiaist default, which has verification. That's the journey I'm on and you don't have to come. That's won't stop me. And that's why Theism is failing. It needs to stop questioning and it can't. it can only say "i don't want to know'. That's why it is getting left behind.
Sure the Spiritual Thing is flavour of the month right now. To me it is just like Quantum, indeterminacy and Consciousness plus recently NDE was or still is used to try to make gaps for God. They tried with I/D, (still do, sometimes ) and even had a look at the Higgs -Boson, but that did them no good.
Can you say that in words? What point are you making with the star picture, with "no" and "yes"?
.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-10-2017 at 12:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and even had a look at the Higgs -Boson, but that did them no good.
