Philosophy Now Forum

Think about not thinking about something. Is it still there?

If the 'it' is in relation to the 'thing', which is being thought about not thinking about, then 'it' is still there.

For example, if I were to think about not thinking about 'an elephant', then, as long as 'that elephant' is one that exists somewhere, then 'it' is still 'there'.

But, maybe if you have 'another example', which I have not yet thought about, that shows and/or proves otherwise, or 'it' is not there, and you provide 'that example', then 'we' will have some thing to 'look at', and to 'discuss'.

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 12:43 am Think about not thinking about something. Is it still there?

What "is not" is the limit of what "is" thus necessitating what "is" by degree of manifesting its definition.

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 12:43 am Think about not thinking about something. Is it still there?

can you think of nothing? when you think of nothing once more, is it larger?

-Imp

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 12:43 am Think about not thinking about something. Is it still there?

Of course something is still there. Because you’re not thinking ABOUT SOMETHING there is still an object referenced by what you are not thinking.

I guess I got confused between an objects referencing and the referenced…

If you have id(x) it represents what points to x
x is simply x itself

There should be a third “x.rep()” for what x represents

To compare and contrast a thought with thinking it

Because it’s not saying it that makes it true or false is the actual thing that it represents being true or false that matters

every algorithm is representative of some kind of entity

What are the similarities and differences between Boolean true and thought itself?

I mean if you keep adding more and more code until it reaches specified dimensions you’ve achieved the calculation of wonder, but the wonder itself is not calculating

You’d have to calculate calculation to extract it from what you are thinking of…

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 11:51 am

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 12:43 am Think about not thinking about something. Is it still there?

can you think of nothing? when you think of nothing once more, is it larger?

-Imp

Yes, in what way dies it become “larger”

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Wed Sep 24, 2025 4:25 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Sep 20, 2025 11:51 am

Ollie.ha wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 12:43 am Think about not thinking about something. Is it still there?

can you think of nothing? when you think of nothing once more, is it larger?

-Imp

Yes, in what way dies it become “larger”

I suppose that it is like infinity

infinity = infinity + 1

nothing = nothing +1

-Imp

On another thread a Forum member stated that infants have no thoughts. But maybe they do. Maybe they just don’t have the capacity to remember their thoughts. If an infant has no memory of a thought, there could not be an awareness that the thought had occurred. Fleeting awareness of a thought that occurs during the instant it occurs but disappears during the same instant, leaves no trace of occurring.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 6:31 pm On another thread a Forum member stated that infants have no thoughts. But maybe they do. Maybe they just don’t have the capacity to remember their thoughts. If an infant has no memory of a thought, there could not be an awareness that the thought had occurred. Fleeting awareness of a thought that occurs during the instant it occurs but disappears during the same instant, leaves no trace of occurring.

I think memory is too large a claim... articulation sure, but I think the same memories of pain or discomfort exist in the same portions of the brain, it's just that the infant cannot articulate the thoughts (and through articulation, further categorization...)

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 7:39 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Sep 25, 2025 6:31 pm On another thread a Forum member stated that infants have no thoughts. But maybe they do. Maybe they just don’t have the capacity to remember their thoughts. If an infant has no memory of a thought, there could not be an awareness that the thought had occurred. Fleeting awareness of a thought that occurs during the instant it occurs but disappears during the same instant, leaves no trace of occurring.

I think memory is too large a claim... articulation sure, but I think the same memories of pain or discomfort exist in the same portions of the brain, it's just that the infant cannot articulate the thoughts (and through articulation, further categorization...)

-Imp

Yes, but I think that articulation is hindered by lack of memory and lack of language, which depends in part on memory.

Edit: actually I think I may be quibbling over semantics, and as such, I must agree with your comment.

The brain degrades through lack of proper communication. Memory is all we have.