reply to post by PhotonEffect
Sorry for the late reply.
Actually, if I may- Thought (as a verb) is the action of creating thoughts, ideas, opinions etc (the nouns). We certainly create thoughts. So I
will have to disagree with your assessment, simply on the grounds of it being incomplete.
That’s like saying swimming is the act of creating a swim, or jumping is the act of creating a jump. Try holding on to a thought or an idea.
Seriously try it. It is impossible unless one writes them down, or at the very least, subvocalizes them in some sort of inner-monologue, thereby
making them tangible. Ideas, thoughts and opinions are always expressed in some physical form. This is why we write things down as reminders, because
“thoughts” are nothing but an ever changing process.
I get what you're trying to say here but I'm not sure the analogy is accomplishing what you want. We may be able to see the results of
digestion, the mechanical process, in progress. Ideas and thoughts are the results of thinking, but will never be things we can see, unless we
consciously bring them into physical existence in some way. We don't idea an idea. We conjure ideas, and the mind is the "theatre" that allows us
to visualize them, and ponder them.
Ideas and thoughts are easy to see. You’re reading some right this moment.
You're logic would seem to suggest that thoughts or ideas don't exist.
I know they exist. You’re reading my thoughts at this moment.
This view is too deeply rooted in materialism for my taste. "If we can't see it then it must not exist." Can you see gravity?
All physical bodies attract each other. Physical bodies perform actions and processes. Processes aren’t things that exist, they are actions
performed by things that exist. Because you don’t like a view does not invalidate it.
I see myself, in my mind. Where do you think the image of yourself in the mirror is being displayed in the first place? Hint: not in your eyes.
Eyes are a part of the brain.
Maybe you can expound what it is you mean by "my entire being". It's a very broad concept, perhaps too broad for what we are discussing
here. In the physical sense- You don't use your feet to think. Or your small intestine to make a decision. So the term "entire being" would seem to
not apply then. And I'm fairly certain you're not talking about the metaphysical aspect of "being"
Without feet, you would be unable to know what it’s like to have feet. Without a small intestine, and other organs necessary to life, you would be
unable to make any decision. Without hands, you would be unable to know what it’s like to grasp or hold something in them. Without the nose, you
wouldn’t understand the smell of a rose, or bread, or perfume. Without eyes, you wouldn’t understand light, shapes, movement, or what something
looks like. The entire being, by which I mean everything contained within the outer boundary of a human, is a necessary prerequisite to understanding
anything about oneself.
What are the "faculties and abilities" that allow you to be self-aware? You don't feel the need to limit yourself to the non-physical(?),
but you're limiting yourself to the physical.
I’m limiting myself to myself. Nothing more.
This seems like another cop out to me. Certainly you have memories of your past, don't you? Certainly they are not blank?
What is your subjective experience of the color red, or the taste of pizza? "Your being"?
Yes. Experience, “mind”, “consciousness”, “body”—they’re all the same thing. There’s no need to assume otherwise. We are merely
abstracting ourselves into fictional entities because we’ve been conditioned to do so—thousands of years of conditioning. We’ve never seen or
felt a mind. We’ve only ever been taught and indoctrinated into believing we have one.
Like I said, it is assuming the initial point. It is circular reasoning to assume a mind when no evidence shows that there is one.