|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2011 1:56:14 GMT -5
I would say that pain doesnt necessarily require a 'thought', but it does require an interpretation, even if the interpretation is not at conscious mind level (which is where thought happens). So I would say that babies and dogs are interpretative, but not 'thinking'. If I was going to define 'thinking' I would say it is something along the lines of 'rationalization and reasoning'. It is the ability to ask 'why'.
I resonate with the idea that God can run your life more effectively than you can. Then, on the flip side of the coin, we are God.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 26, 2011 1:59:27 GMT -5
That's what thoughts do, spin around going deeper and deeper into different levels of thought. But they are simply perceptions arising in the awareness and for now there doesn't seem to be the interest in chasing them... What is interesting is THIS, this awareness that doesn't spin like that puke wheel... I like this. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 26, 2011 7:13:24 GMT -5
so I said, "Jim, if you're walking down the sidewalk and a car swerves toward you, you don't have to think any thoughts in order to take an evasive action." He assured me that thoughts were necessary in order for a body to move. Maybe the guy considered that thinking is the same as brain activity. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 26, 2011 7:38:21 GMT -5
so I said, "Jim, if you're walking down the sidewalk and a car swerves toward you, you don't have to think any thoughts in order to take an evasive action." He assured me that thoughts were necessary in order for a body to move. Maybe the guy considered that thinking is the same as brain activity. That's highly possible, but when I've tried to explain that "roofbrain chatter" and abstract thought is a rather recent evolutionary development, peeps who are totally lost in their heads usually won't spend a second contemplating the implications of that. I've explained to peeps like my friend that amoebas don't have abstract thought (as far as we know, ha ha), but they respond intelligently to their environment. In the same way the human body is unified with the same intelligence that moves amobas around. Thoughts are not ncessary for pumping blood or reacting to external stimuli, but understanding the implications of this can be a stretch if you live in the prefrontal cortex. lOL |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 26, 2011 12:30:28 GMT -5
Maybe the guy considered that thinking is the same as brain activity. That's highly possible, but when I've tried to explain that "roofbrain chatter" and abstract thought is a rather recent evolutionary development, peeps who are totally lost in their heads usually won't spend a second contemplating the implications of that. I've explained to peeps like my friend that amoebas don't have abstract thought (as far as we know, ha ha), but they respond intelligently to their environment. In the same way the human body is unified with the same intelligence that moves amobas around. Thoughts are not ncessary for pumping blood or reacting to external stimuli, but understanding the implications of this can be a stretch if you live in the prefrontal cortex. lOL Right. Recognizing that conscious thinking is only the top of the iceberg doesn't necessarily relax the grip on thoughts. Most people are simply too busy and focused attending to some of the thoughts, that the rest is simply ignored. We can even say that electrons respond intelligently to incoming photons, though I doubt this will impress the frontal cortex. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 26, 2011 16:03:04 GMT -5
That's highly possible, but when I've tried to explain that "roofbrain chatter" and abstract thought is a rather recent evolutionary development, peeps who are totally lost in their heads usually won't spend a second contemplating the implications of that. I've explained to peeps like my friend that amoebas don't have abstract thought (as far as we know, ha ha), but they respond intelligently to their environment. In the same way the human body is unified with the same intelligence that moves amobas around. Thoughts are not ncessary for pumping blood or reacting to external stimuli, but understanding the implications of this can be a stretch if you live in the prefrontal cortex. lOL Right. Recognizing that conscious thinking is only the top of the iceberg doesn't necessarily relax the grip on thoughts. Most people are simply too busy and focused attending to some of the thoughts, that the rest is simply ignored. We can even say that electrons respond intelligently to incoming photons, though I doubt this will impress the frontal cortex. There's also the desire to be in control, and so the tendency to imagine that nothing really happens without MY prior conscious authorization. Therefore I MUST have a thought about it before it can happen. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 26, 2011 18:03:06 GMT -5
There's also the desire to be in control, and so the tendency to imagine that nothing really happens without MY prior conscious authorization. Therefore I MUST have a thought about it before it can happen. ;D This is 'doership extremism.' I haven't seen it anywhere in a long while, so I almost forgot about it. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 26, 2011 18:49:52 GMT -5
Right. Recognizing that conscious thinking is only the top of the iceberg doesn't necessarily relax the grip on thoughts. Most people are simply too busy and focused attending to some of the thoughts, that the rest is simply ignored. We can even say that electrons respond intelligently to incoming photons, though I doubt this will impress the frontal cortex. There's also the desire to be in control, and so the tendency to imagine that nothing really happens without MY prior conscious authorization. Therefore I MUST have a thought about it before it can happen. No thing exists without thought....but most of thought is unconcious thought taking the form of belief. Jesus said: If you say to this mountain, " carry yourself into the sea" and you absolutely believe that the mountain will carry intself into the sea...it will carry itself into the sea. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 26, 2011 18:54:58 GMT -5
What is the perception of not knowing what a knee is, except as a "thought"? You have to be aware of the "thought" of what a knee "is" to be aware of the "thought" of not knowing what a knee is... If your not aware of the "thought" of what a knee is, your probably not going to be aware of "thoughts" about what a body is either...heh Which makes being aware of walking around pretty difficult... Do you not know that we're not talking about knowing the thought of not knowing? Yer spinning faster than a gerbil on crack. ;D If you don't slow down, this is what can happen:  Haha...for a few moments after he hit the ground he was a budha lol |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 27, 2011 2:15:12 GMT -5
There's also the desire to be in control, and so the tendency to imagine that nothing really happens without MY prior conscious authorization. Therefore I MUST have a thought about it before it can happen. No thing exists without thought....but most of thought is unconcious thought taking the form of belief. Jesus said: If you say to this mountain, " carry yourself into the sea" and you absolutely believe that the mountain will carry intself into the sea...it will carry itself into the sea. Yes, thats the funny thing. Its almost as if there is a difference between believing something to be absolutely true, and absolutely believing. Absolutely believing is more like having absolute faith and trust. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 27, 2011 13:10:35 GMT -5
Went to the Post Office a few minutes ago, and didn't see any faith, trust, or belief along the way. All I saw was THIS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 27, 2011 15:14:19 GMT -5
Went to the Post Office a few minutes ago, and didn't see any faith, trust, or belief along the way. All I saw was THIS. What about billboards? There must've been one with the word 'faith' on it! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 29, 2011 14:43:34 GMT -5
Yes. The idea that sensory perception is in a different category from thoughts is just another conceptual bifurcation, like mind vs body. In the latter case, body is mind expressing in form; body is the sensory form of thought. Maybe we can get a sense of this when we notice that thought leads to feeling which is experienced in the body as a physical sensation. IOW, thought has a sensory component. Funda-mentally, space and time are ideas. These ideas make the perception of objects and movement possible, not as a means of perceiving the actuality of objects, but rather experiencing the sensory form of thoughts. There is no space in which the objects are positioned, and no temporal framework in which they move. The objects and the frameworks are in mind only, and so there is no outside. Without an outside, there also is no inside. Time, space, subject, object, here, there, inside, outside all collapse into what I sometimes call intelligence. I agree that thoughts and sensory perceptions are in the same category, but I don't see how one could categorize sensory perceptions as thoughts. To me it looks like a category mistake. Thoughts are sensory perceptions, but not all sensory perceptions are thoughts. 'Yellow' is a sensory perception, but not all sensory perceptions are yellow. I agree that space and time are ideas, but when we perceive qualia, then even though some of them may have an aspect that we could translate as spatial or temporal, ideas of time and space fundamentally don't fit the actual exprericence of the pattern that feels like it's spatial or temporal. So again, thoughts are thoughts, perceptions are perceptions, thoughts tihnk about perceptions, but that doesn't mean that perceptions thereby morph into thoughts, or that thoughts create all perceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 29, 2011 18:50:51 GMT -5
Yes. The idea that sensory perception is in a different category from thoughts is just another conceptual bifurcation, like mind vs body. In the latter case, body is mind expressing in form; body is the sensory form of thought. Maybe we can get a sense of this when we notice that thought leads to feeling which is experienced in the body as a physical sensation. IOW, thought has a sensory component. Funda-mentally, space and time are ideas. These ideas make the perception of objects and movement possible, not as a means of perceiving the actuality of objects, but rather experiencing the sensory form of thoughts. There is no space in which the objects are positioned, and no temporal framework in which they move. The objects and the frameworks are in mind only, and so there is no outside. Without an outside, there also is no inside. Time, space, subject, object, here, there, inside, outside all collapse into what I sometimes call intelligence. I agree that thoughts and sensory perceptions are in the same category, but I don't see how one could categorize sensory perceptions as thoughts. To me it looks like a category mistake. Thoughts are sensory perceptions, but not all sensory perceptions are thoughts. 'Yellow' is a sensory perception, but not all sensory perceptions are yellow. I agree that space and time are ideas, but when we perceive qualia, then even though some of them may have an aspect that we could translate as spatial or temporal, ideas of time and space fundamentally don't fit the actual exprericence of the pattern that feels like it's spatial or temporal. So again, thoughts are thoughts, perceptions are perceptions, thoughts tihnk about perceptions, but that doesn't mean that perceptions thereby morph into thoughts, or that thoughts create all perceptions. How so? |
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 29, 2011 19:13:53 GMT -5
We can have an experience of a pattern that we can call time/space. We can think about time/space. The thoughts remain thoughts. It's pretty straightforward. I can see a yellow colour. I can think about a yellow colour, the latter will remain a thought. Even if after intense focus on the thought 'yellow' I start actually seeing a yellow colour, the colour that is then seen is not the thought. It may have been caused by the thought (or maybe not, who knows), but when I see the colour, I am not seeing 'thought: 'yellow''. I have a visual and mental experience at the same time.
|
|
