Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
Greta wrote:
Our brain waves are never clean delta, alpha or whatever waves but a complex mix of all waves. When people's brains are said to be in an wave state, that only refers to the most dominant wave type.
My first thought (ha!) is that thoughts are the stories that the brain waves represent. All very abstract.
So let's see if I got this right. A thought is a complex brain wave which is interpreted by the brain as language. Does that sound about right?
I don't think stories necessarily need a language - the unspoken content and subtexts are huge. You could say that language can provide a skeleton on which all the unspoken material can hang from when it comes to recall.
But without the skeleton there is no body, and so the language is a necessary but not sufficient requirement of any narrative. Even mime requires body language.
sthitapragya wrote:
So let's see if I got this right. A thought is a complex brain wave which is interpreted by the brain as language. Does that sound about right?
I don't think stories necessarily need a language - the unspoken content and subtexts are huge. You could say that language can provide a skeleton on which all the unspoken material can hang from when it comes to recall.
But without the skeleton there is no body, and so the language is a necessary but not sufficient requirement of any narrative. Even mime requires body language.
Maybe not for the simplest of stories. For instance, a human might think, "a dog is there" in reference to a nearby dog. Meanwhile a cat or rat in the same circumstance would have an almost identical wordless narrative, perhaps akin to "one of those things is there". I agree that to construct a narrative beyond basic impressions needs some form of language to provide structure.
Don't know exactly, but it's the alpha and omega of who I am, and one of the few certainties of philosophy, perhaps the only one. Without it, the rest is pointless.
Greta wrote:
I don't think stories necessarily need a language - the unspoken content and subtexts are huge. You could say that language can provide a skeleton on which all the unspoken material can hang from when it comes to recall.
But without the skeleton there is no body, and so the language is a necessary but not sufficient requirement of any narrative. Even mime requires body language.
Maybe not for the simplest of stories. For instance, a human might think, "a dog is there" in reference to a nearby dog. Meanwhile a cat or rat in the same circumstance would have an almost identical wordless narrative, perhaps akin to "one of those things is there". I agree that to construct a narrative beyond basic impressions needs some form of language to provide structure.
There is no narrative at all without language to communicate it.
Dalek Prime wrote:Don't know exactly, but it's the alpha and omega of who I am, and one of the few certainties of philosophy, perhaps the only one. Without it, the rest is pointless.
Dalek Prime wrote:Don't know exactly, but it's the alpha and omega of who I am, and one of the few certainties of philosophy, perhaps the only one. Without it, the rest is pointless.
sthitapragya wrote:Is it a form of energy? Is it a particle or a wave? Does it have mass? Does it have a temperature? Velocity? Does it occupy space? What happens to it after it is created? Does it dissipate or decay? Does it have a life span? Does anyone have any idea? I have searched all over for something on this but there doesn't seem to be anything.
sthitapragya wrote:Is it a form of energy? Is it a particle or a wave? Does it have mass? Does it have a temperature? Velocity? Does it occupy space? What happens to it after it is created? Does it dissipate or decay? Does it have a life span? Does anyone have any idea? I have searched all over for something on this but there doesn't seem to be anything.
Thoughts are (sets of) brain states.
Yes. They have mass and energy. If they did not dissipate, you would always be thinking the same thought, chemically.
sthitapragya wrote:Woah! your girlfriend ran away with your dog or something? where is this rage coming from? What did I do to you? I suggest you deal with your anger issues, my friend.
You see, here I can't fire people for stupidity/incompetence I only can swear and curse at them. People not preforming cost millions, thus they must be replaced ..lucky for you, you don't have to deal with such horrors.
sthitapragya wrote:Is it a form of energy? Is it a particle or a wave? Does it have mass? Does it have a temperature? Velocity? Does it occupy space? What happens to it after it is created? Does it dissipate or decay? Does it have a life span? Does anyone have any idea? I have searched all over for something on this but there doesn't seem to be anything.
Hi sthitapragya,
I suggest that thought, and I assume you are talking about the apple that just appeared before your mind's eye upon the mere mention of the word "apple," or the vivid dream you may have had last night, is simply a "low-resolution," holographic-like manifestation of reality that is composed of the same fundamental substance that composes the "high-resolution," holographic-like reality of the universe.
Both of which are dependent upon the presence of consciousness to explicate their three-dimensional features (phenomena) from the correlated patterns of quantum information (noumena) that underpins and delineates their structures.
They merely exist in separate dimensions of reality - one being subjective, and the other being objective.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
But without the skeleton there is no body, and so the language is a necessary but not sufficient requirement of any narrative. Even mime requires body language.
Maybe not for the simplest of stories. For instance, a human might think, "a dog is there" in reference to a nearby dog. Meanwhile a cat or rat in the same circumstance would have an almost identical wordless narrative, perhaps akin to "one of those things is there". I agree that to construct a narrative beyond basic impressions needs some form of language to provide structure.
There is no narrative at all without language to communicate it.
Only if communicating to others. Internally things are different. During times when your mind is quiet wordless thoughts arrive in sensations and impressions. Little unexpressed stories in our minds like "I have a pain in my lower back" or "my hands feel cold" occur without words but are then translated.
On the other hand, you could say that the language of those basic impressions is found in the communication systems of the body - nerve impulses, hormones, oxygen delivery and, especially, the "language" of communicating neurons and other nerve cells. In that sense there must always be a language - and memory - for the continuity of a narrative over time. Otherwise we are left with a stream of chaotic impressions.
Dalek Prime wrote:Don't know exactly, but it's the alpha and omega of who I am, and one of the few certainties of philosophy, perhaps the only one. Without it, the rest is pointless.
Dalek, I was more concerned with the properties of thought. This might seem foolish but I cannot understand essentially how living beings can break the law of inertia. We are bodies at rest or in motion which can change our state of rest or motion with internal force and external stimuli. I understand that maybe some very basic science applies here, and I want to understand that. The key seemed to be in thought. From what Greta pointed out, it seems quite simple now, external stimuli produce electrical signals which propagate like a wave which sets of a neurochemical chain reaction which results in a thought, which in turn transmits its own set of signals which result in force being created to overcome inertia. Just something basic which I couldn't understand.
sthitapragya wrote:Woah! your girlfriend ran away with your dog or something? where is this rage coming from? What did I do to you? I suggest you deal with your anger issues, my friend.
You see, here I can't fire people for stupidity/incompetence I only can swear and curse at them. People not preforming cost millions, thus they must be replaced ..lucky for you, you don't have to deal with such horrors.
No, but that still does not explain the rage you have. Everyone comes across stupidity/ incompetence. Normal people don't react the way you do. You might not agree but you obviously have some hidden psychological issues. Your reactions are uncommonly angry. And that can only be personal dissatisfaction and denial, maybe guilt or shame, resulting in you lashing out at others. That is why I suggested that you look into it. You definitely have issues.
Dalek Prime wrote:Don't know exactly, but it's the alpha and omega of who I am, and one of the few certainties of philosophy, perhaps the only one. Without it, the rest is pointless.
Dalek, I was more concerned with the properties of thought. This might seem foolish but I cannot understand essentially how living beings can break the law of inertia. We are bodies at rest or in motion which can change our state of rest or motion with internal force and external stimuli. I understand that maybe some very basic science applies here, and I want to understand that. The key seemed to be in thought. From what Greta pointed out, it seems quite simple now, external stimuli produce electrical signals which propagate like a wave which sets of a neurochemical chain reaction which results in a thought, which in turn transmits its own set of signals which result in force being created to overcome inertia. Just something basic which I couldn't understand.
She's right, yes. Funny then that she's all science here, but then delves into esoterica when discussing consciousness with me, in arguing against antinatalism, like the simplicity of our wetworks is meaningless. I think she's a secret dualist; mind/body.
Is this the case Greta? (I'd best signal her with an empty quote.)
