Deconstructing "thought" philosophizing

[aurum]

A thought is made of the same substance of everything else.

Pure consciousness.

[Nick_98]

11 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

What do you mean. Nothing is fictional concept? I don't understand 

"Nothing" is a fictional concept. What is nothing?

 

8 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

I think he was an AI bot.

Lol. I'm not an AI bot. I was legitimately questioning. The fact that you thought I'm AI , tells you how good AI have become so that you confused an actual human for AI. AI time has begun !

[Breakingthewall]

16 hours ago, Nick_98 said:

Seriously. What is the substance of a thought ? , DAMN! Here we go again , I have sent myself into a bubble of fantasy , What is "substance"? and What is "thought"?

The substance of thoughts is the same substance than everything else that exists: relation between states.

Edited 12 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Reciprocality]

16 hours ago, Nick_98 said:

I'm looking for someone to guide me finding the truth, Each time i question myself I get sent into a bigger bubble of fantasy , they do not POP . They keep sending me to the same loop. 

@Nick_98   Intersections and invariances

Your thoughts are the recurrent patterns of what you have witnessed, these become integrated and easily accessible, thoughts derived from one situation helps to dissect the variables of another situation such that you can finally reach a conclusion.

Thoughts are there as the motion necessary to reach the conclusions that reduces the distress from chaos and unpredictability.

 

We apply our private notion of the "whole world" as the backdrop against which we compare the difference of thoughts that we hold in the foreground, "ceteris paribus" or "everything else being equal" allows us the objective metric to make the relative difference of judgements to play themselves out.

There is no fantasy here, only your own undying demand for correct judgements, only now you have more direct access to the mere concepts of those judgements that were important in situations long gone, and can not help but to ask what all these concepts are for.

[Reciprocality]

You have been type-matching every minute since u were a couple of months old, it were what worked when object permanence and object identity were established, if something works at such a rudimentary level how could it fail at any other level, if all the other levels are entirely dependent on it?

 

There are several problems with types.

A primary one is that many of them do not contain or imply each other, this alone would make for the wandering tendency of thoughts you describe.

When one type does imply another there is the problem of the path and intermediate stages between them, which may have been socialised away, how do you re-access those?

Then there is the problem of the relationship between the type and the things that exemplifies it, sometimes this path too can not be fully drawn, such that you can not lucidly judge that if given enough time or context you could have abstracted the type from the example itself.

There is too the problem of the plurality of types that any one example can substitute for, or said simply: all the various properties of one and the same object. Not only in the sense that many of those properties have so much distinctness that it is hard to see precisely at which higher-order level they reconnect with a common type, but also the demand that precisely the least general common type is their only proper predicate, but also the lingering problem of whether they ever connect at all (pluralism).

There is then the fallacy of division and composition that all these endeavours will inevitably run across at every turn (often due to the intuition that intersections are typifying), particularly when you consider the rich composition of objects and episodes, the very things your types are here to flatten the turmoil of.

Then there is type-like behaviour, like idempotency, where a given abstraction is exhausted by the singular thing that exemplifies it, such that every example is such an abstraction thus that "copies" of it are nothing but "it", and yet since there is no separation of the extension and intension it is not really a type at all.

 

Do you have control of these things? can you map them out in a mental landscape? If I could not do that it would be proportional to an increase of distress.

[LastThursday]

Here are my thoughts, just some ideas to play with.

1. A thought is a category of experience which by its nature is made separate from the category of "world out there".  The stuff that happens that doesn't affect the world.

2. When you move your body is that a thought also? Can thoughts cross the boundary from one category to another?

3. Is thought just rational step-by-step goal oriented processing?

4. Does a thought depend on an internal voice? Does it need an auditory hallucination? Can you think in images, sounds etc?

5. Is a memory, thought?

6. Are hallucinations thoughts?

7. Are dreams thoughts?

8. Is reality thought? Why? Why not?