|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: tata Date: Oct 25, 2006 20:28
That is, are they substantial?
|
| |
|
| | 66 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Oct 25, 2006 20:35
On 25 Oct 2006 20:28:44 -0700, "ta" nc.rr.com> wrote:
>That is, are they substantial?
They are in the same way as the pattern on a CD is substantial.
|
| |
|
| | 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: tata Date: Oct 25, 2006 20:43
Sir Frederick wrote:
> On 25 Oct 2006 20:28:44 -0700, "ta" nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>That is, are they substantial?
>
> They are in the same way as the pattern on a CD is substantial.
What does the pattern consist of?
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: darwinistdarwinist Date: Oct 25, 2006 20:45
ta wrote:
> That is, are they substantial?
I think a thought is analogous to the text of your written question
here. It exists now on my comptuer, as well as on yours, and on
google's servers. It's in hard disk particles, and ram-states, and
screen-pixels, but we think of it as "a question", as a thing.
The particular substance is not so important as the function. Likewise
thoughts are another kind of information, but while the function is
still what's important, the substance is more mysterious and harder to
explore it (but we have realised that it's something to do with the
brain). Because it's directly "seen" inside our mind, rather than in
the world around us, it's harder to run substantive tests on.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: donstockbauerdonstockbauer Date: Oct 25, 2006 21:07
darwinist wrote:
> ta wrote:
>> That is, are they substantial?
>
> I think a thought is analogous to the text of your written question
> here. It exists now on my comptuer, as well as on yours, and on
> google's servers. It's in hard disk particles, and ram-states, and
> screen-pixels, but we think of it as "a question", as a thing.
>
> The particular substance is not so important as the function. Likewise
> thoughts are another kind of information, but while the function is
> still what's important, the substance is more mysterious and harder to
> explore it (but we have realised that it's something to do with the
> brain). Because it's directly "seen" inside our mind, rather than in
> the world around us, it's harder to run substantive tests on.
Thoughts are memes activated.
Meme activation is done through neural firings.
Yes, thoughts are substantial, physical activities.
I think.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick Date: Oct 25, 2006 21:13
On 25 Oct 2006 20:43:55 -0700, "ta" nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>Sir Frederick wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2006 20:28:44 -0700, "ta" nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>That is, are they substantial?
>>
>> They are in the same way as the pattern on a CD is substantial.
>
>What does the pattern consist of?
In this case information with originating and terminating
contexts. In my words : "a story". (Singer, recording (CD), listener)
In other words the contexts of "thoughts" are required considerations.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Mark EarnestMark Earnest Date: Oct 25, 2006 21:29
> That is, are they substantial?
Thoughts are spirit.
Spirits have substance, but only in the spirit of things.
|
| |
| 8 Comments |
|
|
Author: donstockbauerdonstockbauer Date: Oct 25, 2006 23:03
Mark Earnest wrote:
>> That is, are they substantial?
>
>
> Thoughts are spirit.
> Spirits have substance, but only in the spirit of things.
That's the spirit!
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SammybabySammybaby Date: Oct 26, 2006 05:53
ta wrote:
> That is, are they substantial?
What is substantial?
Before QM we were considered to be made up of constantly replaced
atoms.
Now there are fields and particles that are waves that move back and
forward in time are often in potentia suddenly becoming real only
to....and so on.
And if we approach it phenomenologically we also arrive at shifting
sensory perceptions that are not substantial, whether we describe our
experiences of chairs or of thoughts.
I think they have as much right to be called things an any thing else.
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Oct 26, 2006 05:58
>ta asks:
>
>Are thoughts things?
>
>That is, are they substantial?
>
Not in a physical sense of thingness like rocks, but it's difficult for
some to accept the idea of non-thingness that is spirit, soul, or mind.
Thoughts are as substantial as thinkers' consciousness. From a
materialistic perspective, the concept can be approximated but never
reached, like an asymptote approaches a limit. It can be imagined in
several ways:
Statically as space.
Dynamically as time.
Psychologically as will.
|
| Show full article (2.78Kb) |
| 9 Comments |
|
|
|
|
