It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Nominalist Method of Determining What Is

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

I was pretty much thinking out loud. I would like to hear Your input.

Would you answer the questions when you get a chance to think about them? Thank you.




posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: artistpoet

You're right I worded it wrong. thought is thinking, not thought. Thinking is made of that which thinks. Thoughts do not exist. Thinking is performed by that which does exist.

People do not make thought. Thinking is an action. Actions are not things. Actions are not made. Thinking begins at birth and ends at death.


Ah, well think about this:

Human beings are bio-electric machines. We are made up of atoms. Thoughts are produced within the brains of the humans. Thoughts are streams of electricity flowing between neurons. Thoughts contain atoms. Thoughts exist not just as an action, but as a physical phenomenon.

Thoughts do exists as a physical, measurable thing. Think of something, and it can be measured. Thoughts can be seen as brain activity. Electrical impulses that do have substance.

Nobody, I repeat NOBODY knows what happens after death, so until there is proof that one ceases to exist in some state post mortem, one cannot just assume that thoughts end at death (yes, they stop cycling through our electric brains, but we do not know where that energy goes after death).

We think using our electric brains. Our memories are thoughts and information stored, and when you access those memories, there is a pattern of electricity that is transferred, which is measurable. Yep, thoughts exist as a physical phenomenon. As to what this means...well...perhaps one day we will figure that out.

edit on 19-2-2015 by AutOmatIc because: reword

edit on 19-2-2015 by AutOmatIc because: spelling



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I went offline then thought more on my last response to you
And felt it only fair to come back and explain my own thinking of what we have been discussing

Then I find your request for me to answer your questions
However first to clarify ...
Are you asking me to answer the questions I asked of you
Or are you asking me to answer the request as to why I think as I do ... regarding such matters as the soul etc

I know sometimes that what is intended in posts does not always come across as intended

I will be more than happy to answer any questions you ask

Though we may disagree on several things ... I still respect your thinking and always give it my consideration

So just to clarify ... What questions would you like me to answer

Regards a/p




I was pretty much thinking out loud. I would like to hear Your input.

Would you answer the questions when you get a chance to think about them? Thank you.

edit on 19-2-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo

edit on 19-2-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: AutOmatIc




Human beings are bio-electric machines. We are made up of atoms. Thoughts are produced within the brains of the humans. Thoughts are streams of electricity flowing between neurons.


Yes I believe the human body can be likened to a machine
But I think the measuring of "Electrical activity" only indicates the brain being activated by thought and is not the electricity itself.

I also think it is fair to say that the thought itself is undetectable though the action of thought is manifest as you have described

For example ... Say with the so called "Big Bang" if we believe in such a thing ... then we are only measuring effect and the cause is still unknown ... The key to what I am attempting to say is Effect is not Cause

edit on 19-2-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Ah but the thought is the electricity itself, made from atoms and the quantum states of those atoms can lead us through an interdimensional rabbit hole of strange and inexplicable reasoning where logic doesn't quite apply like we think it does. The cause for the thought is the effect. In other words, the cause is the effect and at the same time, the effect is the cause. By simply existing we are cause and effect at the same time.

What we truly are is still a mystery, though if I were to guess, I would say that our bio-electric machine bodies are merely vessels that we occupy temporarily in order to experience this "game" of 3 dimensional existence. Therefore what we truly are cannot be quite measured, nor explained...yet. Though we can measure our effect...which is cause.


a reply to: artistpoet


edit on 19-2-2015 by AutOmatIc because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AutOmatIc

I kinda know what you are getting at ... The study of quantum physics is not my field so to speak.
I do agree that thought is form of highly refined energy
Understand I am speaking in lay man terms

I am afraid my question or point is not really answerable to my satisfaction ... nothing personal of course.

As for atoms or quantum particles ... My question is still the same ... What caused the said atoms or particles to be ...
This is the question I have always asked since being a child ... Some would say to me God made me and everything else ... But it only raised further questions such as ... Who made God etc

I hope you can follow my drift ... and not think I am being awkward
edit on 19-2-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Right on I followed just fine, and it's not awkward at all. The questions you have are questions that have plagued humans since as far back as we know. One day the answers will present themselves. Either someone finally figures it out, or we find out after we die. I believe either way we will find out. I personally find such things fascinating.
a reply to: artistpoet




posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A scenario: You're listening to someone pontificate about their philosophy—as you are wont to do—and they continually posit nothings as both purposes and answers to the universe's riddles. Their answers, as usual, feel pleasant to our human sensibilities, but alas, consist of nothing more than mere words, a sure sign a form of circular reasoning is at work behind the scenes. Maybe it's "love" or "consciousness" or "God" or "the soul," they speak of in usually seductive ways (the only way to acquire followers), but for the most part, they refuse to mention anything concrete in the off-chance that you may, as a sovereign individual, want to confirm for yourself.

Do the answers and the words about nothing feel pleasant to the senses? If so why not just stay with that instead of trying to understand with the mind? The mind wants to solidify the nothing and then that's it poof it is gone.
It is the wanting to pin it down and put a line around it that keeps the seeking going.
It is here already - 'it'??? Nothing.






edit on 19-2-2015 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AutOmatIc

Thanks for your reply

I also believe we will know more once we die ... Of course I have no proof of this

Maybe even if it still remains mystery as to how all came to be ... We might just accept that it is and be happy with that

Any how thanks for your posts as the science you speak of indicates certain ideas I hold concerning the soul



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Much to my chagrin, there are very few nominalists in the world anymore, and because of this, deep conversation is a mine-field for anyone who cares about reality. Yet we keep sauntering through in no particular direction, quite unsure of where to step next, but quite sure that it is only a matter of time before we are cleaning our boots after stepping in someone's newest turd.

Those who routinely push (or even relieve oneself of) the abstract and universal into our discourse, thereby obfuscating any sort of consistency, immediately hinder any sort of mutual dialogue in favor of their own nugatory trifles. Perhaps it is innocent, but in my eyes such realism and platonism (more philosophical jargon for those who care) is at best nothing short of mere linguistic convenience for a lazy species, and at worst, the favoring of things that do not exist over things that do.

A scenario: You're listening to someone pontificate about their philosophy—as you are wont to do—and they continually posit nothings as both purposes and answers to the universe's riddles. Their answers, as usual, feel pleasant to our human sensibilities, but alas, consist of nothing more than mere words, a sure sign a form of circular reasoning is at work behind the scenes. Maybe it's "love" or "consciousness" or "God" or "the soul," they speak of in usually seductive ways (the only way to acquire followers), but for the most part, they refuse to mention anything concrete in the off-chance that you may, as a sovereign individual, want to confirm for yourself.

This is easily avoidable. If you are not yet lulled to sleep by their soporific speech, and as usual, your caution convinces you to sleep suspiciously with one eye open, try this simple trick to dispel the fluff and see what, if anything, they are actually talking about.

Imagine a string tied between the word and what the word is supposed to be about. If the string, however long it may be, can be tied from the word to what its about, then we are speaking about reality. If, however, the word sits ashamed in the corner with the string dangling timidly to nothing, then nothing is exactly what they are talking about. If the string is tied to nothing, then it can be reasonably assumed that they have not witnessed, perceived, understood, examined, viewed or beheld any such thing, and what they are in fact speaking about is something different entirely.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis


if i may ask, where is the other end of the string attached to this thread?



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AutOmatIc


Human beings are bio-electric machines. We are made up of atoms. Thoughts are produced within the brains of the humans. Thoughts are streams of electricity flowing between neurons. Thoughts contain atoms. Thoughts exist not just as an action, but as a physical phenomenon.

Thoughts do exists as a physical, measurable thing. Think of something, and it can be measured. Thoughts can be seen as brain activity. Electrical impulses that do have substance.

Nobody, I repeat NOBODY knows what happens after death, so until there is proof that one ceases to exist in some state post mortem, one cannot just assume that thoughts end at death (yes, they stop cycling through our electric brains, but we do not know where that energy goes after death).

We think using our electric brains. Our memories are thoughts and information stored, and when you access those memories, there is a pattern of electricity that is transferred, which is measurable. Yep, thoughts exist as a physical phenomenon. As to what this means...well...perhaps one day we will figure that out.


To say there are thoughts is to say thinking is binary, that there is an end to one thought before another begins, and necessarily, a separation between thoughts. That simply isn’t the case, for binary thoughts would imply that between thoughts, brain activity ceases. It is not thoughts, but brain activity that can be measured, which does not cease until death.

We know exactly what happens after death. To say we don’t know is to assume we are something other than our body, a line of reasoning that is wholly invalid, illogical, and without any evidence. We’ve watched people die, and witnessed exactly what happens to them after they do since the beginning of human history. The evidence for what happens to us after death is staggering, yet for some reason, it’s ok to assert that we do not know, when we clearly do.

I disagree.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

Yes. The same questions you asked me.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
and what version of nominalism are you posting about here?



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That sort of thinking leads to hallucinogenic use...



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: lostgirl

You and I both know you are dealing with your own memories, your own loss, your own body. No string is necessary.

Yes, that is true subjectively to me, but my intent was to provide an 'example', with which I hoped to spark discussion relating the 'tying a string 'definition' of reality' to a genuine type of experience, which I think most people would both objectively and subjectively agree does, as a reality (or perhaps as a 'phenomenon' of reality), exist...

I will say here that I am limited in my ability to put my thoughts into words which accurately explain my thinking, so the above may not be adequately conveying my meaning.

The thing is - I feel exactly as you do about conversation which centers on "circular reasoning", "fluff", and topics of pontification such as 'ascent to higher dimensions' and the like...

...Consequently, it is to such logical thinkers as yourself that I look for rational discussion and opinion (as opposed to argumentative debate) on the more esoteric aspects of existence...

Ugh - words, words, words...it is in attempting to use them correctly that I most wish it were possible to discourse on certain subjects telepathically.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

OK will consider said questions before I post
Please be patient (I am sure you will) as I have some commitments to deal with also



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Determining what is, what...reality? Who's reality? My realities are experienced in both the physical and metaphysical, and I don't seek followers, just kindred spirits that may experience the same realities and wish to share. If two people experience the same metaphysical realities does that mean that we are connected universally? I will answer that...yes, it does. Is everything connected? Yes it is.



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

1. What is thought ...

Thought has several facets or descriptions...

Imagination for example ... As an artist I use imagination in an attempt to create a picture of something that does not exist in Reality ... Say for example ... an illustration of a passage of writing by myself or others ... I get a mental picture first which I also consider as thought...
Of course a painting is merely paint moved about by a brush or other implement on a canvas
The painting being a manifestation of my imagination/my thoughts
Also the attempt of creating an illusion of a third dimension

Some thoughts are not used ... say after consideration of kicking a policeman up the butt ... I choose to not actuate that thought

2. What is it made of ... I honestly do not know for sure but here are my thoughts/beliefs
It is the most refined substance unknown to Man though I believe thoughts themselves can be different states of that refinement ... by which I mean the emotion of violence or bullying is a more base thought ... True inspiration is most refined thought ... You know the sort of thing that we describe as a bolt out of the blue
Why I say this is that without thought we are dead
Some might say for example an atom bomb is far more powerful than thought ... Yet an atom bomb could not be made without thought ... In that way thought is the instigator of the builder of an atom bomb .. if you follow me

3. Where does it go ... Once used it is no more

4. How is it made ... I have no idea but do not believe it is made by us ... we simply receive it ... or become aware of it/them as an idea to be used or not

5. Where is it made ... In a big factory on cloud 9 ... Just kidding ... Honestly I do not know but believe it has a source

I hope these answers are clear even though you may disagree with them... I am happy to expand on them


edit on 19-2-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo

edit on 19-2-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2015 by artistpoet because: Typo



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The evidence for what happens to us after death is staggering

Actually, don't you think it would be more accurate to say, "The evidence for what happens to" our bodies "after death is staggering"?

To which, it seems to me it follows that - while it is true that we have absolutely nothing on which to base the assumption that "we are something other than our body", neither do we have any way at all to prove the opposite to be true.

While I'm not a proponent of the cliche "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", I have to admit that it certainly seems to be a truism when it comes to the question of whether there is any part of a human being's consciousness which exists (or can exist) once the body dies.

When I ponder over this particular question, I find myself considering the fact that physicists now posit that entire universes 'could' exist separate from our own...Therefore, can we really (with absolute certainty) rule out the possibility that our 'minds' (in some form) 'could' exist separate from our brains/bodies?

Regarding Physics:
I found it amusing that in the first book I read by Dr. Brian Greene, "The Fabric of the Cosmos", he expresses that he finds multiple/parallel universes to be somewhat unlikely; yet his subsequent book (10 years later), "The Hidden Reality", is entirely written on the subject of 'what kinds of' (and why) multiple/parallel universes 'are' most likely to exist.


I'm sorry if I've taken the thread off on an irrelevant tangent.


edit on 19-2-2015 by lostgirl because: attempting to clarify intended meaning..

edit on 19-2-2015 by lostgirl because: to take out the emoticon



posted on Feb, 19 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: lostgirl




Actually, don't you think it would be more accurate to say, "The evidence for what happens to" our bodies "after death is staggering"?


I think you make a most important point
Once the track of thought is used up ... then that is the point of death
If you have witnessed someone die ... that fact is tangible ... Like a light being turned off
The being is no more ... what occurs to that being is obviously debatable
Once death occurs ... the body begins the natural process of breaking back down into the elements of what it is made of I
I.E. The same substances found in the earth/soil
Only the bones remain

Death is as natural a process as birth ...

I think that if one sets one's intention to understand what happens after death ... You will receive your own proof
However if you dismiss that search and just take things on face value then you will assume Death is the end of the being
Which indeed it is on Earth


edit on 19-2-2015 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join