This is just something i was thinking about lately. I wanted some other point of views. what is a thought? your thinking it an it kind of talks in your voice, but all it really is is an electronic signal, so what actually are you thinking? or are all our thoughts just nothing more than signals between nerves.
I swear its because of all these types of threads that im fucking insane. my head is always cloudy and i always feel empty without a purpose and think about thinking. i just want to be normal. shit
it vibrations of consciousness master mediators can pace their thoughts , slow the vibration, etc, just feel better
Yeah its fuckin trippy haha. Imma spit an idea out here. What if "awareness" is the result of acquiring a seemingly infinitely complex blueprint of reality through our senses; and with this arises the 'illusion' of awareness by combining the seemingly infinite concepts to make the illusion possible. I mean say you use your 5 senses to observe an apple on a table. If our understanding was extremely basic, then we wouldn't be 'aware' of it, we would just observe it. But then you increase your understanding to a new level by integrating concepts such as what it means to exist into your understanding; then you take it even further, and further, and further, until you put an infinitely complex number of concepts together to create the illusion of "I am aware of this apple, I know what this apple is, etc." I mean don't see us as having 'true awareness', more so just being able to include this infinite number of concepts into our understanding in a way that 'makes sense'. I dunno if anyone will understand what I'm trying to say, but this idea has been on my mind for awhile...
there are different types of thoughts... for example...you talking to yourself in your mind, picturing things, intuition, imagination, etc
I'd say a thought is an observation of a physiological impulse caused by either sensory input or a stored memory(s).
I am not sure if they are just signals. If they were sense based signals I am not sure how arguments could be accomplished. Someone can say something, and you can know it is wrong. You remember a piece of info and know that it is the right answer, compared to thiers. That could be a signal. But when it comes down to explaining why you are right, simply stating your answer will not convince someone. You have to then think about other ways of disproving them through observable methods, or relating to a common situation that you share. For example, if you were argueing about moss growing on the North side of trees in sunny areas, and your friend was saying moss grows on the Southern side, you would know that was incorrect. But then you have to think of a way of proving your claim, because it is just as valid as his. So if you were in a forest, you could go to trees, observe moss on one side, then wait for the sun to set to find North. Now it could have been a signal that told you that moss grows on the North, based on memory, but what was it that had you "connect" the dots to come up with the previously mentioned solution of disproving his claim. Sure you may have seen the moss before and related it to the Northern side based on sunrise, sunset posistion. But what was that that enabled you to connect those two un-related pieces of memory, to come up with a feesable way of disprovement?