Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think the planet Jupiter is larger than the planet Earth = true thought
I think a giant purple monkey is holding up the moon in the sky = false thought
No, I don't think the content of the thought can change the physical action behind it, so of course both of your mountains are mountains.
Like you said, thought is (partly at least) electrical impulses, that is, the arrangement and movement of atoms, just as a mountain is an arrangement and movement of atoms. However the content of a thought can be true or false, but a mountain, regardless of its composition, cannot be true or false. A mountain just is.
If I understand the question, no, the truth or falsity does not designate if it is a thought. A true thought and a false thought are both thoughts. Right?
So... if any thought, regardless of content, is still a "thought"... and if thought is the product of electrical impulses and (as you put it) the arrangement and movement of atoms, would you now agree that thought is a physical (biological) process?
Actually, it's neither true nor false. Some muscles contract, some muscles expand.Seriously? It's basic human biology. Ok, allow me: True, muscles contract when you lift something.
Nope, can't prove it. Just like you can't prove that the giant purple monkey doesn't live on the far side of the moon.
It doesn't mean that either of us are actually right though...
1) Your idea that there was a witness
2) Your "quote" from that witness
Yes, and more and more questions are being raised. I have read some articles in neurological journals which suggest that the "mind" may not reside entirely in the brain.Our understanding of the brain is growing... practically by the day.
Actually, it's neither true nor false. Some muscles contract, some muscles expand.
Yes, and more and more questions are being raised. I have read some articles in neurological journals which suggest that the "mind" may not reside entirely in the brain.
Out of curiosity, what is your science background?
My first post said this: "Thought is not physical. The mechanism by which thought is produced is physical." So yes I agree that the thinking process is accomplished by physical/biological means, but I stand by my first statement that the result, or content, is not physical, because it has the unique characteristic (the ability to be true or false) which other physical things or events do not have.
Ah...I have a minor in Chemistry. Fascinating subject, but nowhere near so black and white as you seem to be portraying science to be. And, it is not entirely true that chemistry is "about matter". Most of our work is in fact related to energy.
Ok, I see where you're going with that. Let me ask you this though, what is the result of thought?
Well, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Chemistry. Most of my focus was in organic and biochem, so it's easier for me to talk in those paradigms. Are you familiar with the concepts of intermediate states, transition states, or molecular energy levels (as well as the concept of antibonding)? (And of course, there's always quantum...definitely the antithesis of straightforward or black and white)
To put it most simply, in our classes, a great deal of work was done around probabilities. The kind of black/white problems done in introductory general chemistry (ie., how much of Z do you get when you mix X and Y) almost disappear by the time you get to advanced inorganic.
We never know all the different factors going into a reaction. If you ever spend any amount of time in a chem lab, you'll find that your result NEVER matches your prediction 100%. (If you're good, and control your environment a great deal, you can get close though.) (In organic synthesis, an outcome of 85% was considered very good.) Even in Analytical, which requires great precision, lab reports always required a section on possible areas where something may have caused the discrepancy.Ugh... I have never been able to really get into organic chemistry. I used to work with a guy that was majoring in it, and in our down time, he would sit at the desk and doodle bonds and structures. He almost seemed to enjoy it! LOL Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Quantum theory is definitely a big interest of mine... but, as I said in a different thread, I think too much focus on quantum theory can distract a person from the reality around them. In the other thread, I referenced Schrödinger's cat, and his assertion about quantum theory leading to impossible ideas about the natural world. I'm not saying the study of quantum theory is fruitless... but I think people (in ALL fields) need to keep their feet planted on the ground.
On the issue of black and white... I'm somewhat interested in your thoughts here. One of the things I remember about chemistry was balancing "equations" (not sure if that relates to the transitional-states point you mentioned)... I can certainly appreciate the complexity, but from a fundamental perspective, do you really think the issue is not black and white?
I'll put own thoughts out there just to give you an idea of what I mean.
One of the cornerstones of science is predictability. If I know all of the factors going into a given reaction, I should be able to accurately predict the result. If the result is different than the prediction, then either my understanding of the factors was flawed, or my process for testing the prediction was flawed.
Granted, there are a number of complex variables involved... but from a very fundamental level, I believe it is still very black and white.
We never know all the different factors going into a reaction. If you ever spend any amount of time in a chem lab, you'll find that your result NEVER matches your prediction 100%. (If you're good, and control your environment a great deal, you can get close though.) (In organic synthesis, an outcome of 85% was considered very good.) Even in Analytical, which requires great precision, lab reports always required a section on possible areas where something may have caused the discrepancy.
As for balancing equations...that's the ideal, if reality obeyed our ideas for it. It hardly ever does. Even the numbers used in formulating those equations are estimates. Yes, it is very predictable. But it is never entirely accurate. The theoretical base can explain a lot of things (with sufficient calculation, we can even predict complex mixtures), but reality is much more difficult to manipulate than theory.
And no, at the fundamental level, I don't think it's black and white at all. Remember, the fundamental level is quantum...which is almost entirely probabilities.(We spent the first month of Inorganic discussing quantum structure. You can call it distracting if you want, but it is very much integral to modern chemistry.)
And yes, doodling organic mechanisms is very relaxing.
And, going back to the concept of thought...many neurologists will not agree with you that thought resides entirely in the brain, nor is there very much idea how exactly the electrical impulses in the neurons relate to the images (or sounds) we see in our mind. There is no possible way that I can comprehend a purely physical universe. There is so much that science simply cannot explain.
What structure are you referring to? Are those objects without such a structure not created?Mallon: I don't know who the other Creators were, or if there were others. I only know there was a structure- which is proof of a Creator(s), as it was obviously not of naturally-occurring construction.
To all: am I to understand, by the discussion in this thread, that what I have to say about the Creation will be determined as true or false by the matter of intelligent thought, and if said can be explained in physical terms/equation, or something else? If so, then I welcome such a game as that. However, let it not be confined to such as that. Yes, so enter the Soul. To those who doubt a Creator(s): checkmate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?