is a thought as real as an apple?
can we sense a thought? can thoughts effect us ?

i was recently questioning what can be considered a part of reality. the external world(the universe) can definately be considered a part of reality, maybe even all of reality.(in the sense that reality is anything that is actually existant) but then i questioned whether a thought could be considered a part of reality. a thought can certainly effect and be effected(motive/experiance), but is the potential to effect or be effected all that reality entails?

any insight would be greatly appreciated

to quote a story from a much wiser man than myself a thought “is much more like the seeing of an apple than the apple itself. an apple can be perceived, but the event of your seeing the apple is not in itself seeable.”

You could have made your entrance with something glitzy and catchy, like “Is the thought of an apple as real as the apple itself”, or “what do the thought of an apple and the apple itself have in common ?”. This way, the question would have been more pop, but also a bit clearer, by accompanying the word thought with a determinant (“the thought of…”) and thus letting everyone else know what you’re on about. Now, I can only assume that your acception of thought is as synonym with “idea”, a finite product of the act of thinking - a mental object, nonetheless.

As to what concerns external reality, I guess it is safe to say that its object are the basis for any empirical object of the mind. Our reason then links/ expands what we know and what we deduct about these things, by doing what it is best at. Thoughts are basically what our mind works with and what our mind gets at, so they probably do have some substance.

so if reality includes anything which is existant, and i can only perceive a fraction of this reality when awake, what is more valuable; physical experiance or mental experiance? or is there a synergy which is experianced when we combine practical and theoretical training?

Yeah, an apple is as real as a thought, although I don’t have a very exciting explanation: A thought is just an interpretation of the states of certain brain cells and an apple is just the name we give to our interpretation of the states of certain plant cells. The difference between those interpretations is the perspective; a thought isn’t subject to nearly all of the senses that an apple is, both because it’s the result of more complex processes and because it’s mostly analogous to the components of anything that might examine it (namely, other people’s thoughts).

You can’t really compare physical experience and mental experience in terms of value: You are directed by your mental experience to interact based upon your physical experience, so action is a combination of the two.

what is the difference between mental experiance and physical experiance?
can we have a solely mental or physical experiance or is there always a combonation of physical and mental reaction to any experiance? i think theres always both in conjunction. does the mind in conjunction with the body
sense and experiance the external environment, or does the mind fabricate the external environment? obviously the mind experiances its environment in conjunction with the body and with the aid of the bodies sense organs. so if our mind/body/environment are the only things we can become aware of, and experiance comes solely from the mind/body reaction to its environment,
how can learn without experiance? i think its obviously impossible.

i think that 2 kinds of learning go hand in hand with the 2 kinds of experiance. some people learn better hands on and some learn better head on. finding the proper balance of practical and theoretical experiance in any field of study is essential to learning.

what motivates someone to learn?what motivates one to aspire?