Thought is Thought

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Friends, the scientific cult would have us believe thought, imagination, creativity, love, hate and all the rest of it is nothing more than an effect of “neurotransmitters” and chemistry. They assume this without being able to explain how or why, they assume this because it is their overt religion (reductionism). I’m going to go out on a limb and say just the reverse-- neurotransmitters and chemistry are an effect of thought. Whenever I think, neurotransmitters fire, whenever I cease thinking, neurotransmitters cease firing. My emotions manufacture chemicals and not the other way 'round.

Friends, we have all been indoctrinated with the venom of the serpent. This is a painful process I know, believe me, but a necessary one. What is the origin of thought you ask, why, other thoughts of course. Each thought is both an effect and an affect of other thoughts. 'Tis thought that shapes the texture of the brain, the scientific cult has got it all backwards.

At the highest echelons of their pyramid, they know all too well we can cure our negative thoughts, feelings and experiences with… positive thoughts, feelings and experiences. Thought is something in and of itself, and just as our bodies and brains came from somewhere, so to have our minds. You cannot discover this place with your five senses, no no no, but with your intuition, thought knows it’s origin and ultimate destination-- within the s o u r c e.

Occult is a Latin word meaning hidden, secreted knowledge. Afterall, knowledge is power, consequently those who have a monopoly on knowledge have a monopoly on power. They do not wish you to awaken to your true nature as a spiritual being, product of the almighty source, for this would empower you, embolden you.

When I examine my thoughts via introspection, I do not percieve millions of neurochemicals, I percieve thought. Why is introspection inferior to extrospection, especially in regards to the nature and origin of thought, you wouldn’t use introspection to examine and investigate the nature and origin of matter, now would you? Such is the absurd and topsy turvy world view of those who would practice occultism at our expense.

It is time to reveal what has been concealed, you are a spiritual being endowed with telos, a child of God. You are loved and capable of extending that love to others. What a horrible pack of lies we’ve been sold. Much like alcohol, the wizards of science (who worship demons behind closed doors) have concocted a worldview that is both a problem and a solution. We are told we are nothing more than chemical machines --depression-- we are told we can cure the resulting depression with, you guessed it, chemicals. It is time to tear down the curtains and demand the truth and nothing but the truth will suffice.

I have the power to affect matter with my consciousness (see “quantum physics” (that is, if quantum physics is really real), I am not a robot, I am a metaphysical being!

2

Point of detail: If you’re referring to collapsing waveforms through observation, robots can do that too.

3

Hey Lucis, there’s plenty of good stuff in your post. But why the title, “Thought is a Solid”? Why solid? Do you mean substantial? If you believe in substance, interactionism seems more sensible to me than either idealism or materialism.

4

Are you suggesting that thought is material because it can seemingly affect material? Is energy “material”?

If thought were material, everything we thought would be reality. Now, on the other hand, if you’re suggesting that thought involves energy and the manipulation thereof, I don’t think you’re disagreeing with science.

5

Perhaps robots, like bodies, are a vessel for thought, I don’t know, anyway, quantum physics be damned.

6

I suppose the title is misleading, I meant to say,

Thought is Thought, 'tisn’t anything but what it is.

7

I suppose I’m a dualist, although the last few topics have been rather extreme, though I still believe thought and wholism are higher in the order of things.

A hierarchical dualist, I am.

8

Why higher? Why not equal? Can you think without a body?

9

My intuition knows it to be true, but I cannot explain it at this time.

10

Maybe the quality of your experience, which is determined by the mind, is more important to you than the brute fact of your existence?

It’s not that you think your soul will live forever in heaven, is it?

11

Excellent OP (again).

I remember when I first tried to reconcile how my hardware device became software controlled. There is a hump in mental paradigm that one must get over to see the clear connection between the hardware activity and the software activity. The same is true of the wetware. Few people, and only recently, have made it over that hump. Most software engineers haven’t. Most psychologists and certainly psychiatrists haven’t.

But it isn’t an issue of black or white. It is a coexistence. Each creates the other much like the electric field and the magnetic field, as either changes it causes the other.

A thought or belief is more like the firmware, changable, but not without cause. So it can be said that thought or believe is a “solid” in that it is more solid than a perception or a desire. Memory and logic (from “log”) is what gives it endurance, more solidity.

Conservatism is about endurance and solidity. Liberalism is about changing. They eternally struggle. The hardware versus the software. The changing versus the unchangable.

A thought is only as solid as its foundation, its remembrance and its logic. Memory and Logic are both functions of the hardware AND the software, wetware AND the mind.

…and QM is a hoax. :wink:

12

Lucis,

You criticize “science” for its “They assume this without being able to explain how or why”, and then in defense of your own position here you offer this precious gem:

Well, then. =D> #-o :unamused:

Can I honestly ask how you can expect to be taken seriously here at all?

13

Most people really misunderstand the whole thing about observation’s effect:
in the famous experiment that “proved” it, the double-slit experiment, it wasn’t observation itself per-se that made it happen, the method of observation chosen interfered with the experiment. if they actually used their method of observation – but without observing it – the results would have been the same.

in short, yes, it was the method, not the observing, that did it.

14

I have always suspected that the universe is subordinate to a kind of sentience, and not that sentience is born mechanistically through plain inevitable physical process, but through a hybrid . . . some things which are difficult to sway as they operate “by design”, and some things that were consciously put into motion at the beginning of our measured time, and are continuously swayed further by consciousness whose evidence is always just a beyond our physical measurability. I suspect this partially based on Jung (so call me Jungian I guess), and (of all things, call me insane as well when you read this) the Lacerta Files.

In short, I resist two very grand persuasions that I see in this age which seems to be gripping the masses by storm. (1) Reality is whatever you make it, with your omnipotent mind, (2) Nobody ever has any power under any circumstance.

I again think the two are at irrational extremes. If you are implying that thought is ultimately more substantial than measurable physics, then I suspect the same. But remember that this means that measurable physics are the result of former thoughts. And if thoughts can make physical instances (that is: Rules of existence) then even thoughts can produce law. What if one of my ultimate thoughts was to “never imagine a purple antelope in a hundred years!” And voila! My ultimate thoughts congeal into reality and it is simply impossible to create a purple antelope by natural law, in a hundred years.

It is with this tact that I assert to people time after time . . .

(1) Yes. You are some product of divine creation in the cosmos, and so is everything else in a sense. You have power beyond measurable understanding.

(2) NO! You are not superman! Just chill, go to work, bitch about stupid things, “fight the power” if need be, and try to enjoy stuff.

15

True, but also realize that the “wave” that collapsed was merely the statistical graph. It “collapses” because you put in the new information from your observation, and thus “the wave collapses due to your observation”.

It is all a part of the game of “Reality is ONLY Perception”, The Matrix of Perception. {what you don’t see us do, we didn’t do - Magic)

16

Thank you for the encouragement James.

17

Intuition, conviction, and imagination are not always so easily discernible – especially for those who have a hard time accepting they actually know less than they like to think [and I am no exception].

18

My sentiments exactly. This is the philosophy section; why is this mysticism here?

19

Because while it is indeed mindless drivel, it is not threatening in any way. Therefore it can be included and encouraged.

20

I thought it was just honesty. There should be more of that.