'Thought' is an energy form.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Bogie becomes the 'God' of the crabs, they now elaborating myths about what the great encounter meant…

[labelwench]

Just an observation.

This forum has slightly different expectations than some of the others.

Forum Introduction

In this forum you must assume something to be true and then proceed with your argument. All other posters to the thread must not question the assumption since it has effectively been removed from the discussion. The goal is to place some constraints on reality to better focus on particular issues.

Please clearly state the assumption you are making in your thread title. In the body of your post you should give further elaboration on your assumption.

Though I have thanked the posts in appreciation of participation, I would ask that there be no further mention or use of the terms 'God' or 'consciousness' in this discussion. One may discuss those on other threads, s'il vous plait.

We are examining the premise of 'thought' as energy.

Pure physics, observable and even measurable, though we may not comprehend from whence it arises or all that it enables. I encourage participants to share observations, as Bogie with his encounter with the crustaceans or measurable uses of thought as in the prototype car, and it is those observable and measurable things that this topic is intended to pursue.

I don't want to know 'what' people think 'about' in this exercise, so much as I want to measure how this is done.

The premise is that thought is energy which enables action, communication and more, within and between species also being part of the premise.

[Bogie]

Bogie becomes the [censored]'God'[/censored] of the crabs, they now elaborating myths about what the great encounter meant…

Darn, I am no sooner elevated to a position of being worshiped by Fiddler crabs, when the kibosh comes down from a even higher authority, lol.

But your post does bring to mind the book, Lord of the Flies, written maybe fifty or sixty years ago I think. That story has some relevance to our topic. A leader can step up and influence the thinking of a group and direct them into actions that they would not have thought to be just and proper on their own. That influence seems to me to relate in a way to the topic; the leader transmits his directions in the accepted manner of cajoling or insisting that some inappropriate behavior be performed by the followers, and along with the verbal direction there is a flow of positive energy from the leader that connects with the followers in some way. (I use "positive" in the sense of some apparent influence beyond the verbal direction, and an not implying that inappropriate acts would be positive acts.)

[SteveA]

A single thought would seem more like a static unchanging object and not possess any form of internal "energy", though relative to some collection of thoughts, the process of thinking would be effectively creative of thought.

It also appears physical energies require a relationship to both the present and past exist.

Energy is basically defined as the (vague) ability to "work" ... whatever someone decides "work" happens to mean, though some measurements of energy can be more precisely defined, it seems unlikely all forms of energy can have a precise physical definition.

If "work" requires that some detected change occur, but change only occurs relative to the past and the past is not physically measurable except to the extent it exists in memory, then at least one aspect of energy is tied to memory and it appears there's no manner to place memory as something objectively existing "out there" without constructing a belief that whatever it is "out there" assumed to represent such memory is in fact representative of it ... how could you verify the accuracy of such external forms of memory? Memory or the past appears to always remain as something observer dependent, even if it's in the construction of a belief of the validity of some "external" form of representation for memory.

I tend to think of energy as something inherently dynamic, changing and creative and that something entirely rational/logical/structured doesn't possess these elements, but rational thought would appear to contain elements of both because of the specific "pathways" followed, which would contain elements of selection that could be considered as creative.

As an analogy, we might say that some mathematical equation only has a single solution, but this doesn't deny creativity in taking different (potentially never-ending, depending upon resources) pathways in "solving" it. Someone could begin with 1+1 and though the answer might be considered predetermined to be 2, it's possible to transform 1+1 into (1+(1+1-1)), for example and the fact that there are multiple options allows for the equivalent to a 'creative energy' to exist.

(I'd thank some more comments, though I'm on the computer at work which has some problems with scripts on the site. Maybe this post is a little closer to the intended subject?)

[labelwench]

The energy of 'thought' penetrates all space.

'Thought' has measurable biological and biochemical properties.

How to we define the difference between 'real' and 'imagined' thought, as both have a measurable frequency?

The following video has some interesting points, and so I place it here as I head off to work.



Working from the premise that 'thought' is energy, I may not respond to each and every poster in a personal dialogue on this thread, for the reason that, in this experiment, I am chasing the thought, and in the manner of a hunt, I must go where it leads, or I may attempt to head it off, if I am confident in the direction I perceive it to be heading.

I greatly appreciate the contributions of each, and would not want any to feel slighted, should I work with some thoughts or posters more than others at various times.

This is an experiment in 'energy' more than dialogue, and energy is diverse in form. Experiment with these forms of expression.

The precursor to any action is 'thought.'

[labelwench]

'The essential STUFF of the universe in NON-STUFF'.

Now there's a sentence that is short and to the point.

Here's another short video on the concept of thought and energy.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Uh, oh, Mel might like that video. Deepak can't get rid of mass-energy by saying most things consist of empty space, because there are fields there, plus, mostly empty space would still leave some mass-energy, which can go a long way.

Thoughts do need energy to form from the brain's information, and they can lead to actions, which also use energy; so, have an energy drink on me.

[melanie]

Mel,

No brain, no consciousness.

Anesthesia to the brain, no consciousness.

Brain gets tired, consciousness fades into sleep.

Consciousness comes last, not first.

The consciousness ‘problem’ has been contained and localized to the brain, not just floating around on its own, but we still don’t know how it comes about or what it is.

We do know that it comes last, not first, as the brain needs some small amount of processing time, and that neural correlates and brain areas have been roughly identified to correspond to what appears in consciousness, but, again, ‘correspondences’ don’t say how the brain process of consciousness operates. Some think that the lastness of conscious witnessing makes them a kind of tourist just along for the ride on a brain having thoughts, but that’s another matter.

Yet, we know that it is a brain process, which is useful, for it further limits the possibilities. A worm or a snail probably has some degree of a smudge of consciousness, or at least high responsiveness, say, to light or dark, warm or cold, wet or dry, whereas a dog or a cat probably has more, but still as an extended-present kind of thing without self-reflection.

As for the brain’s results, it seems that it is able to go through scenarios of consequence rather quickly, and, of course, these may just be provisional, after coming into consciousness, getting ruminated on further, etc.

The purpose of consciousness would seem to be to know what we are doing, plus a way to imagine action without actual activation of it, this ‘consciousness’ extending beyond the brain proper even down to the nerve spindles throughout the body, but it is, of course, the brain that gets these reports. Also for learning, such as when learning to drive a car, one has to be very attentive, automatic pilot often taking over later when one has become experienced.

So what is a vague concept of what consciousness is? Seems to be kind of an ‘it from bit’ thing, as QM suggests about quantum information, or, as David Chalmers suggests, that information can be represented in two ways. This would be fundamental, such as mass or an electron is a fundamental, but we still don’t know what ‘it’ is. This is probably the last frontier of the big unknowns, along with ‘What animates the inanimate to become life, and why there is existence?”

Other ideas are that the brain literally makes a ‘map’, this map becoming the territory, which theory still needs more explanation, but I haven’t read the book ‘The Self Comes to Mind’ yet.

As for the pantheistic cosmos, a rose is still a rose the same by any other name, plus, ‘God’ would be limited and restricted in only being able to do what the universe could do.

'Universe' 'God' 'Consciousness' 'Brain' 'One mind' 'Awareness' 'Being' 'Nothingness'

'It' doesn't mind how its called, simply because its nothing and everything at the same time.

The consciousness ‘problem’ has been contained and localized to the brain, not just floating around on its own, but we still don’t know how it comes about or what it is.

The reason we do not know what it is is because it doesn't exist except as an idea/thought.

So yes 'Thought' is an energy form. But form is a phantom.
The mind tries to own consciousness as another experience of the mind and so who you really are is lost.

Consciousness is that which precedes the mind, it cannot be owned and it cannot be experienced by the mind.

It cannot be grasped by the mind, yet it is the essence of the mind.

It is the backdrop and essence of everything that arises and disappears.

The only reason you may not be aware of your true nature which is pure being (think of a baby)
is because you have taken a position in what is happening on top of it.

That position you have taken is just an idea/thought that has been processed by the brain that has manifested as an energy form.

But its no more real than a character in your nightly dream is real.

It only appears to be real, like an illusion.

[melanie]

Mel,

No brain, no consciousness.

Anesthesia to the brain, no consciousness.

Brain gets tired, consciousness fades into sleep.

Consciousness comes last, not first.

Austin, who and what is it that is conscious but consciousness itself?

There is no beginning or ending to consciousness.

The end is not near - it is now - and so is the beginning.

Within the dream of separation it appears that a person dies and their consciousness is switched off,
but death is only illusion like everything else.
The person was just an appearance in that which has never been born.

[melanie]

Uh, oh, Mel might like that video. Deepak can't get rid of mass-energy by saying most things consist of empty space, because there are fields there, plus, mostly empty space would still leave some mass-energy, which can go a long way.

Getting rid ..... of what and to where Austin?
We can't escape the space we're in, because we are the same thing (spaceless space)

I think Deepak sees it like that too.