Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote:

NielsBohr wrote:

Walker wrote:Some folks steer clear of belief, saying it’s a filter that influences perception of reality.

Some say different.

“What you are is a belief; if you let one belief go, you must replace it with another; otherwise, you will drop dead. I am telling you, a clinical death will occur. It is not the near death experience of those ‘near death’ scoundrels.”
- U.G. Krishnamurti

What do you think about belief?

Well,
I would say that - first of all - a filter does not ""influence" perception of reality", as a filter has no influence: it only diminishes what you get.

Some get angry, because they think that "belief" = "belief in God" = "belief in church" = anything else.

But in any work as well as in any task, the man wait for a result, what is a belief. To say - for some - that the belief is a filter is absurd, because in best case, they did not experience it, so prove their own belief,
and if they are part of those, they begin to tell us they have a belief and that it biases their view.

Hello.

Do you think the following is belief, and is your thinking about the following based on what U.G. says is the life-need to believe, or is it based in something else?

*

Only the physical exists.
Thoughts exist.
Therefore, thoughts are physical.
Belief is a thought, therefore belief is physical.

Humans and rocks are physical, but different.
Humans and thoughts are physical, but different.

Thoughts are not physical in the same way that rocks are physical.
Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical.

Two people can simultaneously hold the same thought in different locations.
Two people cannot simultaneously hold the same rock in different locations.

UG says that belief is necessary for life, just as lungs or heart or kidneys are necessary for life. That certainly bolsters the obvious physicality of thoughts.

Hi,
Thank you for your answer.

On what was based my reasoning? -On my own thoughts. Actually, I do not really care of "U. G.", since he is making vers particular and isolated truths. I did not really read him in your first message.

In your next sentences of him, I stopped after sentence 2.

I do not really know why the hell, were I about to consider that "only the physical exists". To be more precise, he could tell us that only matter existed, or to be even more precise, that only mass existed (as to say that electrical charge should be derived from mass (without pretending that such, Miles Mathis is near to show us that electrical charge were as a mass "derivative")). But U. G. won't tell us that there is only mass, since physics became the same as a church, (where Newton and Einstein are the popes, Franklin something between these popes and a priest, and Nature was supposed to be their God... (until some events to come rather probably))), which would argue against him that electrical charge exists, too, whenever they did not wholly understood it, (what these physicists will shut in a hurry under silence).

His conclusion is somewhat credible, but here again, I do not know at all why the necessity should yield to the so-called physicality. All seem to be based on "only the physical exists", but the use of "physics" in place of "Nature" or mass, and turned into an adjective to make it sweeter, only shows to us the "U. G." is not sure at all of himself; so... why should we?

In your next sentences of him, I stopped after sentence 2.

I may have caused confusion. My apologies.

These words are not from UG Krishnamurti. These words follow from, "Only the physical exists," which is an observation.
UG Krishnamurti's words support this reasoning.

Only the physical exists.
Thoughts exist.
Therefore, thoughts are physical.
Belief is a thought, therefore belief is physical.

Humans and rocks are physical, but different.
Humans and thoughts are physical, but different.

Thoughts are not physical in the same way that rocks are physical.
Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical.

Two people can simultaneously hold the same thought in different locations.
Two people cannot simultaneously hold the same rock in different locations.

UG says that belief is necessary for life, just as lungs or heart or kidneys are necessary for life. That certainly bolsters the obvious physicality of thoughts.

Okay, fine, but all depends on "physical".

Some psychosis are said to be physical phenomenons... and why should I faith the observation (in the strict sense, as it is used - even if you do not pretend to use it in the strict meaning) rather than the audition?

Several people really hear voices, which tell them things they did not think about. This audition is a kind of observation, then it is physical and exists... even if nobody in their proximity did not pay any attention to these voices.

Walker wrote:
Only the physical exists.
Thoughts exist.
Therefore, thoughts are physical.
Belief is a thought, therefore belief is physical.

Humans and rocks are physical, but different.
Humans and thoughts are physical, but different.

Thoughts are not physical in the same way that rocks are physical.
Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical.

Two people can simultaneously hold the same thought in different locations.
Two people cannot simultaneously hold the same rock in different locations.

UG says that belief is necessary for life, just as lungs or heart or kidneys are necessary for life. That certainly bolsters the obvious physicality of thoughts.

Hey Walker. So, I'm curious here...

What's so obvious about the ontological constitution of thought that one could be so certain in saying "the obvious physicality of thoughts"?



You've presupposed precisely what needs argued for. The first claim(which all the rest hinge upon) needs argued for. That's precisely what's in question. Furthermore, The claim that says "Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical" is a meaningfully empty utterance akin to saying 'A' are 'B' in the way that 'A' are 'B'. You need to explain how thoughts are physical in their elemental constitution. All things that are physical are so in that way... including rocks.

NielsBohr wrote:Okay, fine, but all depends on "physical".

Some psychosis are said to be physical phenomenons... and why should I faith the observation (in the strict sense, as it is used - even if you do not pretend to use it in the strict meaning) rather than the audition?

Several people really hear voices, which tell them things they did not think about. This audition is a kind of observation, then it is physical and exists... even if nobody in their proximity did not pay any attention to these voices.

I get your meaning. As I understand your words, sometimes people hear things when physical sounds are not actually present as physical vibrations moving through a medium. And you give generally accepted evidence and reasoning of why such people are actually hearing what they hear (psychosis).

Your observation suggests that mind itself is a physical sense, just as hearing, sight, etc. are physical senses. We know that mind perceives data from stimulated senses. In addition, as a receptor sense itself mind perceives types of physicality (such as thoughts) detectable by only one known instrument in the universe, i.e. the mind.

The evidence suggests formless physicality but that’s a paradox. Scientists resolve paradoxes of observation by creating theoretical things. They say that theoretical dark matter and dark energy are the glue of the universe, and then enumerate the qualities of that glue that would be necessary to hold the universe together. Folks read that and say, these are the properties of dark matter, but actually they are the properties of an inference that allows the impossible to co-exist with the known possible.

creativesoul wrote:

Walker wrote:
Only the physical exists.
Thoughts exist.
Therefore, thoughts are physical.
Belief is a thought, therefore belief is physical.

Humans and rocks are physical, but different.
Humans and thoughts are physical, but different.

Thoughts are not physical in the same way that rocks are physical.
Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical.

Two people can simultaneously hold the same thought in different locations.
Two people cannot simultaneously hold the same rock in different locations.

UG says that belief is necessary for life, just as lungs or heart or kidneys are necessary for life. That certainly bolsters the obvious physicality of thoughts.

Hey Walker. So, I'm curious here...

What's so obvious about the ontological constitution of thought that one could be so certain in saying "the obvious physicality of thoughts"?



You've presupposed precisely what needs argued for. The first claim(which all the rest hinge upon) needs argued for. That's precisely what's in question. Furthermore, The claim that says "Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical" is a meaningfully empty utterance akin to saying 'A' are 'B' in the way that 'A' are 'B'. You need to explain how thoughts are physical in their elemental constitution. All things that are physical are so in that way... including rocks.

Only the physical exists is an observation.
One cannot observe what does not exist.
This is obvious.

Everyone who thinks has experienced the properties of thoughts. Thoughts appear, thoughts disappear, they influence emotions and the body, they can change from physical form of thought into physical form of sound waves, into writing, or blueprints, sometimes objects d’art, and other man-made objects.

Dark matter is an inference created by scientists to explain paradoxes in the observed universe.

No need for jargon to fabricate an equivalent type of theoretical “dark matter” that resolves the paradox of formless, existent, observable and therefore physical thoughts.

Walker wrote:Humans and rocks are physical, but different.
Humans and thoughts are physical, but different.

In the second case, one is part of the other.

Thoughts are not physical in the same way that rocks are physical.

That would only be the case if we could likewise say, "Rocks are not physical in the same way that clouds are physical."

Two people can simultaneously hold the same thought in different locations.

It's not literally the same.

Not literally the same, because thought is a different state of matter than rock.

Thought matter has more in common with photonic matter than rock matter.

As the Wiki tells us:
Photonic matter: Inside a quantum nonlinear medium, photons can behave as if they had mass, and can interact with each other, forming photonic "molecules".

Thoughts have mass more like photons have mass, not like rocks have mass.

From the view of rock mass, photons and thoughts have no mass, and yet they exist.

*

You can load a whole library that weighs 16 tons into a laptop, and what do you get?

Because the laptop gains no mass other than the thought mass, the laptop gains none of the material mass required to warehouse all those written derivatives of thought. The laptop doesn’t gain a gram in weight, yet those words exist in there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ktmN0wvHQs

Only the physical exists.
Thoughts exist.
Therefore, thoughts are physical.
Belief is a thought, therefore belief is physical.

I am aware that what might broadly be described as 'thoughts' come in different kinds.

Some thoughts impose themselves upon me, I cannot will them away. They are also have a persistency. For example, each time I look through my window I see (more or less) the same thing, I cannot choose to see something else.

Because of their special nature, I posit the idea that this sort of thought has an external cause. I say their cause is 'physical'.

So the situation with 'physical' is that I posit that some of my thoughts relate to something which is not thought.

Or one could make the same point by looking at 'exist'. The criteria by which we would demonstrate that a physical things 'exists' is not the same as that we would use to show a thought 'exists'. Same word, different meanings.

Walker wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Walker wrote:
Only the physical exists.
Thoughts exist.
Therefore, thoughts are physical.
Belief is a thought, therefore belief is physical.

Humans and rocks are physical, but different.
Humans and thoughts are physical, but different.

Thoughts are not physical in the same way that rocks are physical.
Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical.

Two people can simultaneously hold the same thought in different locations.
Two people cannot simultaneously hold the same rock in different locations.

UG says that belief is necessary for life, just as lungs or heart or kidneys are necessary for life. That certainly bolsters the obvious physicality of thoughts.

Hey Walker. So, I'm curious here...

What's so obvious about the ontological constitution of thought that one could be so certain in saying "the obvious physicality of thoughts"?



You've presupposed precisely what needs argued for. The first claim(which all the rest hinge upon) needs argued for. That's precisely what's in question. Furthermore, The claim that says "Thoughts are physical in the way that thoughts are physical" is a meaningfully empty utterance akin to saying 'A' are 'B' in the way that 'A' are 'B'. You need to explain how thoughts are physical in their elemental constitution. All things that are physical are so in that way... including rocks.

Only the physical exists is an observation.
One cannot observe what does not exist.
This is obvious.

Everyone who thinks has experienced the properties of thoughts. Thoughts appear, thoughts disappear, they influence emotions and the body, they can change from physical form of thought into physical form of sound waves, into writing, or blueprints, sometimes objects d’art, and other man-made objects.

Dark matter is an inference created by scientists to explain paradoxes in the observed universe.

No need for jargon to fabricate an equivalent type of theoretical “dark matter” that resolves the paradox of formless, existent, observable and therefore physical thoughts.

Blather. Nothing wrong with being consistent and contrary to my own worldview on this matter, but at least be consistent.

I'm mulling over some other thoughts here, one's that I'm not writing. How are those observable, and if they're not, then it follows from what you've written here that my unspoken thoughts do not exist. You ok with that, or am I wrong?

They exist. You observe by "mulling," as you say.

Blather? You’re pressing your luck.

Observation by recollection...

One can recollect what does not exist.

I enjoy pressing my luck.