Reality is an Emergence

[Veritas Aequitas]

In any case, your 'numinous' is reducible to an illusion, while for me, all religions are reducible to something that is empirical and verifiable.

I bet, for you, that empirical and verifiable thing is always going to be a material thing. You are a materialist.

Note thoughts are empirical and verifiable but thoughts are not material things.

I do agree material things exists conditionally but as I had stated I am not into the ideology of materialism.

[tapaticmadness]

In any case, your 'numinous' is reducible to an illusion, while for me, all religions are reducible to something that is empirical and verifiable.

I bet, for you, that empirical and verifiable thing is always going to be a material thing. You are a materialist.

Note thoughts are empirical and verifiable but thoughts are not material things.

I do agree material things exists conditionally but as I had stated I am not into the ideology of materialism.

I agree that thoughts exist and they are not material things. What is a thought? Do they have structure? I think they do and that structure can be described.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I bet, for you, that empirical and verifiable thing is always going to be a material thing. You are a materialist.

Note thoughts are empirical and verifiable but thoughts are not material things.

I do agree material things exists conditionally but as I had stated I am not into the ideology of materialism.

I agree that thoughts exist and they are not material things. What is a thought? Do they have structure? I think they do and that structure can be described.

A thought is an emergence out of the mind, the whole physical self within an environment - the universe.

Not sure which 'structure' you are talking about?
You mean, are thoughts organized or not?
They are organized if one pre-organized them, otherwise they simply emerge randomly onto one's consciousness.

If you mean, do they emerged from neural structures, thought processes and activities.
Yes, definitely.
A thought is an awareness of the emergence of thought that is triggered onto one's waking consciousness.
In this case there are also half-processed thoughts and unconscious 'thoughts' which can be represented by mental activities.

[tapaticmadness]

A thought is an emergence out of the mind, the whole physical self within an environment - the universe.

Not sure which 'structure' you are talking about?
You mean, are thoughts organized or not?
They are organized if one pre-organized them, otherwise they simply emerge randomly onto one's consciousness.

If you mean, do they emerged from neural structures, thought processes and activities.
Yes, definitely.
A thought is an awareness of the emergence of thought that is triggered onto one's waking consciousness.
In this case there are also half-processed thoughts and unconscious 'thoughts' which can be represented by mental activities.
[/quote]
Let's say a thought has emerged. Perhaps the thought 'I think it's going to rain'. If I examine that thought, what will I find?

[tapaticmadness]

A thought is an emergence out of the mind, the whole physical self within an environment - the universe.

Not sure which 'structure' you are talking about?
You mean, are thoughts organized or not?
They are organized if one pre-organized them, otherwise they simply emerge randomly onto one's consciousness.

If you mean, do they emerged from neural structures, thought processes and activities.
Yes, definitely.
A thought is an awareness of the emergence of thought that is triggered onto one's waking consciousness.
In this case there are also half-processed thoughts and unconscious 'thoughts' which can be represented by mental activities.

Consider the thought 'My coffee is cold'. Examine it. It occurs all at once in an instant. I does not take time to put all its parts together. It has no parts. It is one simple thing. It can be expressed. It can be expressed in many different languages, human or machine. In writing or hieroglyphics or morse code. And in the language the internet uses. One and the same thought can be put in many different forms. Moreover, the same thought can be thought by many different people at different times. Still it remains a simple thing without parts. Also it fits onto the world. My thought fits onto the fact that my coffee is cold.

If you look all through the brain, you will not find a thought. You might find some neural structure that expresses it. Nonetheless, the thought and its expression are two, not one. The expression is not simple. And the one thought can fit with many different expressions. A thought is not in the brain. It is not in space. I see no meaning to the idea that it emerges out of brain activity. What could that possible mean? Nothing.

So thoughts exist. They are simple and they occur in a flash. Nonetheless, they have internal structure that matches a fact out in the world. They are "fused" with some language that expresses them. One and the same thought can be thought by many. They are not in space;

[Veritas Aequitas]

A thought is an emergence out of the mind, the whole physical self within an environment - the universe.

Not sure which 'structure' you are talking about?
You mean, are thoughts organized or not?
They are organized if one pre-organized them, otherwise they simply emerge randomly onto one's consciousness.

If you mean, do they emerged from neural structures, thought processes and activities.
Yes, definitely.
A thought is an awareness of the emergence of thought that is triggered onto one's waking consciousness.
In this case there are also half-processed thoughts and unconscious 'thoughts' which can be represented by mental activities.

Consider the thought 'My coffee is cold'. Examine it. It occurs all at once in an instant. I does not take time to put all its parts together. It has no parts. It is one simple thing. It can be expressed. It can be expressed in many different languages, human or machine. In writing or hieroglyphics or morse code. And in the language the internet uses. One and the same thought can be put in many different forms. Moreover, the same thought can be thought by many different people at different times. Still it remains a simple thing without parts. Also it fits onto the world. My thought fits onto the fact that my coffee is cold.

If you look all through the brain, you will not find a thought. You might find some neural structure that expresses it. Nonetheless, the thought and its expression are two, not one. The expression is not simple. And the one thought can fit with many different expressions. A thought is not in the brain. It is not in space. I see no meaning to the idea that it emerges out of brain activity. What could that possible mean? Nothing.

So thoughts exist. They are simple and they occur in a flash. Nonetheless, they have internal structure that matches a fact out in the world. They are "fused" with some language that expresses them. One and the same thought can be thought by many. They are not in space;

Humans can have the thought of a "perfect" circle.
Does a thought of a perfect circle exists as a fact in reality?
No!
If you insist, find me one.

It is the same with the thought of a perfect God but such a perfect God is impossible to exists as a fact in reality.

To further understand the above you'll need to brush up on the Philosophy, neuroscience and psychology of thinking and thoughts. It too long a story for me to delve into it.

[tapaticmadness]

Humans can have the thought of a "perfect" circle.
Does a thought of a perfect circle exists as a fact in reality?
No!
If you insist, find me one.

It is the same with the thought of a perfect God but such a perfect God is impossible to exists as a fact in reality.

To further understand the above you'll need to brush up on the Philosophy, neuroscience and psychology of thinking and thoughts. It too long a story for me to delve into it.

You have rigged your argument in your favor. You have stated that when we think of a “perfect” circle we are thinking of a thought. You want me to accept the perfect circle as a thought. I would never do that. When I think of a perfect circle, I am thinking of a perfect circle, not the thought of a perfect circle. The circle and the thought of it are two, not one. Secondly, you, I think, are implying that the reality you speak of is our everyday physical reality. And you are implying that that is the only reality. That there is no really real realm of perfect circles.

If I were to grant that I can think of a perfect circle, I would not grant you that the perfect circle and the thought of it are one and the same thing. Nor would I grant you that the everyday physical world is the only reality that I can directly know.

Actually, I don't think we can think of a perfect circle. What would that be? I can think of circularity and nothing can be more circular than circularity and it is therefore perfect. But does it make sense to say that circularity is circular? I don't think so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Humans can have the thought of a "perfect" circle.
Does a thought of a perfect circle exists as a fact in reality?
No!
If you insist, find me one.

It is the same with the thought of a perfect God but such a perfect God is impossible to exists as a fact in reality.

To further understand the above you'll need to brush up on the Philosophy, neuroscience and psychology of thinking and thoughts. It too long a story for me to delve into it.

You have rigged your argument in your favor. You have stated that when we think of a “perfect” circle we are thinking of a thought. You want me to accept the perfect circle as a thought. I would never do that. When I think of a perfect circle, I am thinking of a perfect circle, not the thought of a perfect circle. The circle and the thought of it are two, not one. Secondly, you, I think, are implying that the reality you speak of is our everyday physical reality. And you are implying that that is the only reality. That there is no really real realm of perfect circles.

If I were to grant that I can think of a perfect circle, I would not grant you that the perfect circle and the thought of it are one and the same thing. Nor would I grant you that the everyday physical world is the only reality that I can directly know.

Actually, I don't think we can think of a perfect circle. What would that be? I can think of circularity and nothing can be more circular than circularity and it is therefore perfect. But does it make sense to say that circularity is circular? I don't think so.

You are thinking of a "perfect circle" in the above explanation.
The "perfect circle" can be reasoned and quantified and thus can be thought.
Thus that is the thought of a 'perfect circle' inside your brain/mind.

The perfect circle can be thought, i.e. an empirical-idea but cannot be imagined as a figure or shape.
You can imagine [image-ing] and see in your mind an image of a circle but can never imagine a perfect circle.

To bring back to OP,
thoughts are emergence out of the thinking process, which is an emergence of the nature of the whole person within a universe.
The universe is also an emergence within humanity within a universe. This is not a circularity but a spiral.

[tapaticmadness]

You are thinking of a "perfect circle" in the above explanation.
The "perfect circle" can be reasoned and quantified and thus can be thought.
Thus that is the thought of a 'perfect circle' inside your brain/mind.

The perfect circle can be thought, i.e. an empirical-idea but cannot be imagined as a figure or shape.
You can imagine [image-ing] and see in your mind an image of a circle but can never imagine a perfect circle.

To bring back to OP,
thoughts are emergence out of the thinking process, which is an emergence of the nature of the whole person within a universe.
The universe is also an emergence within humanity within a universe. This is not a circularity but a spiral.

I have already dealt with your argument. I have challenged it and shown it to be faulty, but you have paid no attention to what I wrote, so it would be pointless to repeat it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are thinking of a "perfect circle" in the above explanation.
The "perfect circle" can be reasoned and quantified and thus can be thought.
Thus that is the thought of a 'perfect circle' inside your brain/mind.

The perfect circle can be thought, i.e. an empirical-idea but cannot be imagined as a figure or shape.
You can imagine [image-ing] and see in your mind an image of a circle but can never imagine a perfect circle.

To bring back to OP,
thoughts are emergence out of the thinking process, which is an emergence of the nature of the whole person within a universe.
The universe is also an emergence within humanity within a universe. This is not a circularity but a spiral.

I have already dealt with your argument. I have challenged it and shown it to be faulty, but you have paid no attention to what I wrote, so it would be pointless to repeat it.

My earlier response addressed your argument.
I stated earlier,

• "You are thinking of a "perfect circle" in the above explanation."

I don't think I missed your point,
if so, which?

When I think of a perfect circle, I am thinking of a perfect circle, not the thought of a perfect circle.

Can you see the logic?
When you think of a perfect circle [impossible fact] the resultant of the process of thinking is a thought of a perfect circle [an impossibility].
How can this be wrong.

When you think of an apple, the resultant is a thought of an apple within your conscious mind.
What is wrong with this?
This is exactly the same with the resultant thought of the perfect circle [an impossibility].

Note you can think of anything [God, unicorns, other illusory things] and have the resultant thought of them but whether they are such real things in reality is a different matter.

[tapaticmadness]

When you think of an apple, the resultant is a thought of an apple within your conscious mind.
What is wrong with this?
This is exactly the same with the resultant thought of the perfect circle [an impossibility].

Note you can think of anything [God, unicorns, other illusory things] and have the resultant thought of them but whether they are such real things in reality is a different matter.

You can't see that a thought and the object of thought are two, not one. A thought of an apple is NOT one thing. And the object thought is not IN the mind.

[Veritas Aequitas]

When you think of an apple, the resultant is a thought of an apple within your conscious mind.
What is wrong with this?
This is exactly the same with the resultant thought of the perfect circle [an impossibility].

Note you can think of anything [God, unicorns, other illusory things] and have the resultant thought of them but whether they are such real things in reality is a different matter.

You can't see that a thought and the object of thought are two, not one. A thought of an apple is NOT one thing. And the object thought is not IN the mind.

In the common perspective, yes, the object that is thought is definitely NOT "in" the mind.
Your mother-in-USA you think of is a physical person at home somewhere in the US, not in your mind.

But when you are thinking of your mother, the resultant of the thinking process is the thought-of-your-mother. Note the thought is the 'resultant' from a thinking process.

Note the common point we hear often,
'a thought came to mind'
which is a resultant of one's thinking process.

• Thought = an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.

Can you see the simplicity of the above?
Surprised we have to waste so much time and writing on something so simple like the above.

[tapaticmadness]

When you think of an apple, the resultant is a thought of an apple within your conscious mind.
What is wrong with this?
This is exactly the same with the resultant thought of the perfect circle [an impossibility].

Note you can think of anything [God, unicorns, other illusory things] and have the resultant thought of them but whether they are such real things in reality is a different matter.

You can't see that a thought and the object of thought are two, not one. A thought of an apple is NOT one thing. And the object thought is not IN the mind.

In the common perspective, yes, the object that is thought is definitely NOT "in" the mind.
Your mother-in-USA you think of is a physical person at home somewhere in the US, not in your mind.

But when you are thinking of your mother, the resultant of the thinking process is the thought-of-your-mother.

Can you see the simplicity of the above?

No, if I think of or remember something far away and of another time, the object of my thought is that thing far away and of another time. There is no representative of that thing in my mind. Can you see the simplicity of that? A materialist would of course think that the object thought of is a pattern of neural activity in the brain. I am not a materialist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can't see that a thought and the object of thought are two, not one. A thought of an apple is NOT one thing. And the object thought is not IN the mind.

In the common perspective, yes, the object that is thought is definitely NOT "in" the mind.
Your mother-in-USA you think of is a physical person at home somewhere in the US, not in your mind.

But when you are thinking of your mother, the resultant of the thinking process is the thought-of-your-mother.

Can you see the simplicity of the above?

No, if I think of or remember something far away and of another time, the object of my thought is that thing far away and of another time. There is no representative of that thing in my mind. Can you see the simplicity of that? A materialist would of course think that the object thought of is a pattern of neural activity in the brain. I am not a materialist.

You missed this point I wrote earlier;

But when you are thinking of your mother, the resultant of the thinking process is the thought-of-your-mother.

Do you dispute this point?

I added this later;

Note the common point we hear often,
'a thought came to mind'
which is a resultant of one's thinking process.

• Thought = an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.
  Google Dictionary

[tapaticmadness]

You missed this point I wrote earlier;

But when you are thinking of your mother, the resultant of the thinking process is the thought-of-your-mother.

Do you dispute this point?

I added this later;

Note the common point we hear often,
'a thought came to mind'
which is a resultant of one's thinking process.

• Thought = an idea or opinion produced by thinking, or occurring suddenly in the mind.
  Google Dictionary

If I think of a perfect circle, the thinking and the perfect circle are two separate things. That circle is not a part of my thinking of it. It is not in my mind.