I am using the provided and approved method for referencing a quoted post.
Get with the program.
For the most part people do the #post program .
Why the resistence to # the posts you quote . Its not a big deal guy , really it isn't .
Does time exist?
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
- Status
For the most part people do the #post program .
Why the resistence to # the posts you quote . Its not a big deal guy , really it isn't .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Glad to help.
So if I gave you the electrical squiggles of electroencephalogram you would be able to tell me WHAT the THOUGHT was?
You would be able to pick it up for me and I can hang it on my large blank wall where I hang all of my collection of things which do not exist
Thanks because I have been missing a THOUGHT since I built the wall
The electrical squiggles can be monitored
The THOUGHT cannot
Is that a question to put to the subject whoes brain is being monitored?
So the words come out of his mouth in a solid physical form correct?
I'll try it on the next patient I have requiring a EEG
So if I gave you the electrical squiggles of electroencephalogram you would be able to tell me WHAT the THOUGHT was?
You would be able to pick it up for me and I can hang it on my large blank wall where I hang all of my collection of things which do not exist
Thanks because I have been missing a THOUGHT since I built the wall
The electrical squiggles can be monitored
The THOUGHT cannot
Is that a question to put to the subject whoes brain is being monitored?
So the words come out of his mouth in a solid physical form correct?
I'll try it on the next patient I have requiring a EEG
And all this , has to do with whether time exists or not .
I think the thread may have gone to a side track of existence
My position is well known about existence being a physical object and the other view of intangible constructs, like TIME and THOUGHT, having a physical presence
I reply to posts and do not pay much attention to where (or who posted) the post which from diversion began
I think the thread may have gone to a side track of existence
My position is well known about existence being a physical object and the other view of intangible constructs, like TIME and THOUGHT, having a physical presence
I reply to posts and do not pay much attention to where (or who posted) the post which from diversion began
So your comparing , time , to thought ?
So what do both have in common with each other , enough , to begin this comparison between the two ?
NO misrepresented
But what links TIME THOUGHT UNICORNS together
None have existence
Imagination , to time and unicorns
Thought is different , thought is real .
In ALL of the examples electrical and chemical processes are in operation
The thoughts produced for ALL examples are NOT real
The THOUGHTS do not have a PHYSICALITY to be classified as being REAL
In ALL of the examples electrical and chemical processes are in operation
The thoughts produced for ALL examples are NOT real
The THOUGHTS do not have a PHYSICALITY to be classified as being REAL
The material world , our material world is limited towards understanding of the Universe , as a whole .
You don't say?
So we DON'T know what we CANNOT know?
Who would have thought that?
That little nugget of wisdom is worthy of inclusion in a Christmas cracker
You don't say?
So we DON'T know what we CANNOT know?
Who would have thought that?
That little nugget of wisdom is worthy of inclusion in a Christmas cracker
I do say
We can know what we shut out , or could have listened to.
is different from
which presumes there IS something WITHIN the material world we have SHUT OUT
which is different from
which presumes SOMETHING outside of the our material world we DON'T have access to
We haven't shut it out we don't even know about it
How about that we DON'T know what we CANNOT know?
Where have I heard that before?
So which is it
1/ We know THINGS about our material world but we shut out THINGS we could know about
Thought bubble
How do we know about the things we shut out? Doesn't that mean we DO know about them? We must know about them otherwise we would not be able to pick them to shut them out right?
OR
2/ We, in our material world, cannot know about anything outside of our material world because we don't have access to it?
Thought bubble
Do we even KNOW if there is anything outside our material world? How CAN we KNOW if we have no access?
I need coffee and a box of Christmas crackers to check if those inserts really do make sense
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is key. Michael defines 'existing' as having to be 'physical'.The THOUGHTS do not have a PHYSICALITY to be classified as being REAL
Now he is adding a new word 'real' and defining it as having to be 'physical' too.
Again this is all simply semantic.
We all know thoughts exist, else we would not be having them. It means not a wit that Michael's definition of 'exist' excludes it. When asked 'what are you thinking right now', he will still have an answer. What he calls that answer is the semantic part.
We all know time exists, else we would not have clocks. It means not a wit that Michael uses a different word.
So, if Michael wants to use words to mean things that confuse the rest of us when he uses then, that's certainly his right. It changes nothing - except the length of the conversation.
Well I am not alone
I have never worked as a definer for dictionary so I am indebted to those who have and provided the words and meanings by which everyone should agree on
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...-tea/201308/why-our-thoughts-are-not-real?amp
Why Our Thoughts Are Not Real
One physical world, but billions of different internal worlds
Hot off the Wiki and I have not seen this article until 5 minutes ago
Well I am not alone
I have never worked as a definer for dictionary so I am indebted to those who have and provided the words and meanings by which everyone should agree on
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inviting-monkey-tea/201308/why-our-thoughts-are-not-real?amp
Why Our Thoughts Are Not Real
One physical world, but billions of different internal worlds
Hot off the Wiki and I have not seen this article until 5 minutes ago
Were not the most primative thoughts , thousands of years ago , based on experience ?
Therefore real thoughts about their immediate enviroment ?
No intrinsic Time in that thing. But you can define a duration for it relative to some other temporal frame of reference (aka 'clock') .. an "age" if you prefer. For instance, you could use the iron atom (rather than cesium) to measure some duration of an Atomos. The gross inaccuracy would be that the Atomos, presumed to be "eternal" would be infinitely older than any mortal iron atom possibly could be.
The intrinsic state of the Atomos would never change, i.e., the intrinsic state description would never change (immutable <==> eternal).
d.
- Status