Why doesn’t anyone study thoughts today like physicists study their particles?

[genep]

The answer is supremely simple; so simple that there is no ego simple enough to understand it.

The answer: If we studied thoughts the same way physicists study their particles there would be no physics or anything else to study. This might sound supremely insane but only to the intellects or egos that think (they think) that they are sane.

The study of thoughts in meditation tells the student that the same thoughts the mind works with in its sleep dreams are the exact same thoughts it works with when it thinks it wakes up in the morning for its life, maya.

The joke of modern civilizations: even though the thoughts of our dreams are the exact same thoughts that make up our “life” we cannot accept that they must all be the same: dreams, or, at best, dreams inside of dreams.
If this is too simple to understand then let us turn to physics that tells us the EXACT same story.

In physics we learn that although molecules appear to be totally different from the atoms that make them up the differences are pure illusion because the atoms in molecules are EXACTLY the same as the ones that are not in molecules.

If a physicist would claim that since atoms are totally different from molecules then atoms have to be unreal and molecules real he would be considered insane by his academic cohorts. AND yet for over 5000 years even the greatest intellects of civilizations have been doing just that. They have been claiming that our sleep-dreams are unreal compared to life – EVEN THOUGHT THE THOUGHTS OF OUR SLEEP-DREAMS AND “LIFE” are EXACTLY THE SAME.

Most anyone can study thoughts. When the mind slows down in meditation even a relative fool, like me, can figure out what is supremely obvious:
1: thoughts cannot be controlled
2: thoughts cannot be observed (the mind is the thought – so it can never “observe” a thought that it is. IN other words, “observing” is just a thought, the mind)
3: there is an utter-VOID between thoughts. (This is the same utter-VOID between physics’ quantum-levels.)
4: The mind is not what it thinks but what it thinks it thinks. (thinking is just a thought)
5: The mind ALWAYS thinks it is AWAKE. ( A “lucid-dream” is just a dream inside of a dream. And a sleep-dream is just a dream inside, or outside, another dream we call life.)

And for over 5000 years even the greatest intellects of civilizations have been thinking that they were/are awake when OBVIOUSLY they had to be dreaming that they were/are awake.

And if all this is utter rot then which genius can prove that there is a duality so that the thoughts that make the mind think it is awake when it is sleep-dreaming are totally different from the thoughts the mind needs to think it woke up in the morning.

-- just thoughts

 

[KonradKorzenowski]

An interesting analogy.

 

[Canute]

genep - Welcome to the discussions. I'm with you on this one. Thoughts neither arise nor cease. Not sure I agree about the 'utter void' but no matter.

 

[genep]

utter-VOID

genep - Welcome to the discussions. I'm with you on this one. Thoughts neither arise nor cease. Not sure I agree about the 'utter void' but no matter.

The utter-VOID: think of quantum gaps that particles have to routinely pass through but can never/ever enter. IN this quantum-gap there is no space or time – there is no universe inside or even outside – it is an UTTER-VOID. (ie the Unified Field )

When the mind slows down in meditation the same utter-VOID surfaces.
IN meditation we have a thought AA and then the next thing “we” – the mind -- knows is that we have a memory of a thought mem-ZZ with this same utter-VOID between mem-ZZ and the original thought AA.

The mind then assumes that there must have been a (virtual?) thought ZZ between the AA and the mem-ZZ.

Between thoughts there is this same utter-VOID in-which/ from-which comes the “virtual-thoughts.” The way these thoughts work is that there are no thoughts only memory of thoughts … when there is no memory only thoughts.

Actually it is very simple to explain this utter-VOID between thoughts. The mind can never observe the thought ZZ because it is the thought-ZZ .. thus the non-duality cliché: the mind is what it thinks, which is wrong because it should be: THE MIND IS WHAT IT THINKS IT THINKS. This is because there is no thinking because thinking is just a thought, the mind.

If this is all insane then what about the universe that exists but cannot exist because it has no anti-particles that it needs not to exist even better.
-- just thoughts

 

[neurocomp2003]

would you like someone to keep sticking electrodes in your brain for days or years or even keep you in a MRI machine? Its normally considered unethical...unless your willing to volunteer, then you can head over to your nearest psych lab/neuroimaging center and offer your services...physicists have it easy because their medium aren't considered individual organisms. Imagine if it was unethical to examine a particle for fear of the so called butterfly effect...boy would we get nowhere in science =].

 

[loseyourname]

Cognitive psychologists study thought, just as fervently as particle physicists study particles.

 

[James R]

You might also want to do a web search for "meme" or "memetics".

 

[Canute]

I feel that memes, memetics and psychology are not relevant here. Genep is talking about thoughts as directly observed, not thoughts as conceptualised by a third party and worked into theories.

genep- it still seems wrong to me to characterise the background to thoughts as an "utter void". It seems to suggest that there is nothing underlying or giving rise to thoughts. This seems to imply nihilism. Or is this not what you mean?

 

[genep]

Cognitive psychologists and their thinking

Cognitive psychologists study thought, just as fervently as particle physicists study particles.

If they did then they would be telling us the VERY obvious:
1: there is no such thing as thinking.
2: the mind is what it thinks it thinks, like the universe and everything in it.
3: physics has not come up with anything that was not known to sages around the Indus River who studied thoughts, the Supreme Science, over 5000 years ago.
4: there is absolutely no difference between physics' compounds and our sleep-dreams because both are just a collection of thoughts.
5: the exact same thoughts that make up our sleep-dreams make up the mortal-dream called life.

-- just thoughts

 

[LeonhardEuler]

5: The mind ALWAYS thinks it is AWAKE. ( A “lucid-dream” is just a dream inside of a dream. And a sleep-dream is just a dream inside, or outside, another dream we call life.)
-- just thoughts

Actually, the mind probably doesn't always think it is awake because it probably doesn't always think (for example durring sleep while not dreaming, after death, or before birth).

As for your point in general, I think your idea that "the same thoughts the mind works with in its sleep dreams are the exact same thoughts it works with when it thinks it wakes up in the morning for its life" is possible, but far from obvious or proven. It is true that the only thing we can observe directly is our own thoughts, but to say that the thoughts of sleep are the same as the thoughts of being awake is not really justified.

It is still plausible there is a world that exists independent of my perception of it. If I were to die, it is still possible that you would continue to exist, even though I would not percieve you anymore. However, it seems most probable that this is not the case for people I meet in my dreams: once I stop thinking about them, they are gone forever. This is the possible distinction between waking thought and sleep dreams : in one case the mind perceives objects that exist independant of its perception, while in the other case the objects do not have such an existence.

 

[genep]

utter-VOID = no-thoughts

genep- it still seems wrong to me to characterise the background to thoughts as an "utter void". It seems to suggest that there is nothing underlying or giving rise to thoughts. This seems to imply nihilism. Or is this not what you mean?

utter-VOID; If you try to understand it with thoughts it is a brick wall.
ONLY TO THE MIND is it an UTTER-VOID. But only because the mind is the nothings called thoughts and this UTTER_VOID is the EVERYTHING that the nothings called thoughts can never be.

The only way to try and explain it is the context of non-duality, Advaita, that has come down to us from the study of thoughts, Supreme Science. Or you can learn about it from the rare individuals who explode with JOY, Kundalini, that literally pickles their mind, like Buddha.

It happened to me: after this explosion of unfathomable JOY there is absolutely NO DOUBT that this life is an illusion, maya. Now, thoughts come and hands write for this maya, JOY that I AM.

IN over 50 years of VERY obsessive intellectual seeking there is only one absolute I have found: the limits of spirituality – of all religions – is the ABSOLUTE SAME: the unfathomable JOY of thoughtless-silence.

This void is UTTER because it is like an ocean of unfathomable JOY in which the universe is not even an imaginary drop. IN THIS VOID there is absolutely no thoughts – it is like the quantum-gaps which the thoughts called particles can never enter.
This utter-VOID (of all thoughts) is this JOY that is so unimaginably intense that it makes literally everything else utterly meaningless. It is a universe-vanishing JOY.
IN other words: this utter-Void is the Reality of dreamless-sleep.
We are ALL this SAME Reality of dreamless-sleep but our mind wake-up in the morning to think otherwise.
With (its) death the mind does not have to wake-up to think it thinks otherwise.
-- just thoughts

 

[sneez]

1: there is no such thing as thinking.
2: the mind is what it thinks it thinks, like the universe and everything in it.
3: physics has not come up with anything that was not known to sages around the Indus River who studied thoughts, the Supreme Science, over 5000 years ago.
4: there is absolutely no difference between physics' compounds and our sleep-dreams because both are just a collection of thoughts.
5: the exact same thoughts that make up our sleep-dreams make up the mortal-dream called life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: what faculty did u use to make this claim ? (if you could eleaborate appart from your 1st post how thinking does not exists)

How some minds are superior to another ones in therms of IQ, ethics etc.

3: what sages are you referring to, can you back this statement up?

4: Thoughts do not arise in the brain spontaniously. To think one needs certain quantity and some quality of information. Thinking starts during interaction with external objects. There is no learning without thinking. (appart from imitating and memorizing, but not new information is created though this process).

5: Could you ellaborate further how you support this conclusion?

thanx sneez

 

[genep]

thoughts are all the same: just thoughts

... but to say that the thoughts of sleep are the same as the thoughts of being awake is not really justified.

When the mind slows down in meditation there is a time when the mind is a thought “AA” which means “there is no thoughts.” The next thing that happens is that there is a memory of a thought like – mem-ZZ.

THERE IS AN UTTER-VOID between the thought AA and the mem-ZZ – the mind then fills in the gap with “there must have been a (virtual) thought “ZZ” in this VOID because I have this thought mem-ZZ.”
ONCE YOU OBSERVE THIS AND FIGURE IT OUT THE laughter might just kill you.
If we try to figure out what is happening with the mind: the mind is actually working with memories of thoughts and not the thoughts themselves. But memories are thoughts.
The simple answer to the VOID that created the thought “ZZ” is: the mind could not be aware of the ZZ thought because it was the ZZ thought so the best it can do is assume the ZZ thought existed because there is a mem-ZZ thought. And thus the non-duality cliche: the mind is what it thinks it is.

The mind works like a movie. A movie is made up of pictures that when running appear to be continuous. The mind works the same way. The continuity of thoughts is an illusion. And the VOID-between thoughts is proof BECAUSE when the mind slows down:
1: there is no way the next thought can be predicted any more than we can predict when sub-atomic particles are going to appear out of nothing. And if one-thought cannot be predicted then nor can all the others that appear to be connected.
2: this VOID is such that there can be no connections between the one thought and the next. This becomes every OBVIOUS when the mind slows down. IN other words, the connection between thoughts is pure illusion. i.e. thinking is an illusion.

These “observations” are so mind-blowing that I find it comical that few people, if any, use mediation to make these rather obvious mind-blowing observations.
There is nothing subtle about this VOID. It might take a long time to figure out what is happening – but that is only because it is so mind-boggling that it is difficult to put it all into its obvious and super-simple perspective.
What helped me is the movie-analogy. I don’t think it is a coincidence that the movie is a perfect-analogy, after all – both are pure fiction.
-=-
As far as justifying that sleep-dreams and being-awake have the same thoughts.
If they are different then why doesn’t the mind know the difference?
My sleep-dreams are routinely more real than when I am awake. So much so that I have to think I’m awake when I’m sleep-dreaming, and yet when I get up in the morning I would be a fool to think that life is anything else but a dream; after all my sleep dreams are never as surreal as what is going on in the world with its suicide-bombers etc.

But physics tells us the exact same story: molecules and their atoms are utterly different but physics tells us that they are all the same: just neutrons. The universe is made up of nothing but neutrons; think neutron stars. So too the thoughts of sleep-dream, atoms, might appear totally different to our awake thoughts, molecules, but just like in physics they have to be the same, thoughts -- the differences are illusion.
-- just thoughts
[Edited by Nereid: fixed mismatched tags]

 

[genep]

the absurd need for experts

1: there is no such thing as thinking.
2: the mind is what it thinks it thinks, like the universe and everything in it.
...
5: Could you ellaborate further how you support this conclusion?

thanx sneez

Dearest sneez -- it all comes from the study of thoughts, the Supreme Science, that was originally practiced 5000 years ago by sages around the Indus River. They gave us the non-duality of the Unified Field, Atman.

There are absolutely no authorities with this Supreme Science.
WHEN the mind slows down in meditation anyone can make observations. YOU DON”T need authorities on this study because it is very simple: if you cannot observe what is happening when the mind slows down then it is utter BS.
So fundamentally there is no BS in this Supreme Science because everyone is their own judge and jury. The joke is that they all agree.
I can tell you about the universal observations but every intellect on Earth will claim I am insane. And I can tell you that you would also be insane if you believed me -- until you observe for yourself. And then it might just blow your mind – like it did mine.

What the sages discovered about this Supreme Science five-thousand years ago: when the mind slows down ALL minds work exactly the same. And thus they all agreed: the mind is what it thinks it thinks.

To echo a modern analogy: when the movie slows down they all work the same, so too with minds.
-- just thoughts

 

[loseyourname]

I feel that memes, memetics and psychology are not relevant here. Genep is talking about thoughts as directly observed, not thoughts as conceptualised by a third party and worked into theories.

Oh, you mean people studying their own thoughts, not thoughts in general.

If they did then they would be telling us the VERY obvious:
1: there is no such thing as thinking.
2: the mind is what it thinks it thinks, like the universe and everything in it.
3: physics has not come up with anything that was not known to sages around the Indus River who studied thoughts, the Supreme Science, over 5000 years ago.
4: there is absolutely no difference between physics' compounds and our sleep-dreams because both are just a collection of thoughts.
5: the exact same thoughts that make up our sleep-dreams make up the mortal-dream called life.

1. What am I doing when I formulate thoughts? Whatever it is, why should it be wrong to call it 'thinking?'

2. How does the mind 'think' if there is no such thing as 'thinking?'

3. Sages in the Indus valley could quantitatively predict the behavior of subatomic systems? Could they build a space shuttle and fly it into orbit? Could they build the computer you are typing on?

4. There is no such thing as a "physics compound," so what on Earth do you mean by this?

5. The exact same thoughts? Why are the rules of each world so different from one another then? Heck, I don't even know that there any 'rules' in the dream world. I do know that I cannot fly or spontaneously shift my bodily position halfway around the world without moving and that people don't spontaneously morph into other people in the living world (all things that have occurred in my dream world).

-- just thoughts

Two things:

1) You don't seem to be presenting these as 'just thoughts.' You seem to be presenting them as obvious gospel truth that the scientific world is idiotic for not acknowledging.

2) What is a thought if there is no such thing as thinking? Who or what creates the thought and how do they create thought without thinking (given that one definition of thinking would seem to be simply the creation of thoughts)?

 

[hypnagogue]

This thread is on thin ice. genep, you are not doing a very good job of making clear what you are trying to say, the logic behind your arguments is dubious and at times apparently self-contradictory, and some of your claims are even blatantly false. For starters: What is the relevant methodology that has been applied to the study of particles but not thoughts? In what ways are the thoughts of dreams similar to the thoughts of waking life, and how is this relevant to your argument?

I'll give you a chance to respond to these questions and the ones posed by loseyourname, but if you cannot do so in a clear and coherent fashion, then there will be no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Canute]

Oh, you mean people studying their own thoughts, not thoughts in general.

Yes. We can know nothing about other people's thoughts other than what they report.

I think Hypnagogue has a point here. I agree entirely with genep, but I'm not sure, genep, that you can get away with just stating what is true rather than giving a reasoned argument. A statement that we can all know the truth about our thoughts is ultimately untestable by physics or reason alone. All you can say is that the truth about thoughts can be known and just leave it there as an affirmation. If people don't believe this, and don't believe that testing this assertion is worthwhile, there's little else one can say. If someone does test it, and verifies it, then there's will then be nothing more that they can say either except to affirm it.

1. What am I doing when I formulate thoughts? Whatever it is, why should it be wrong to call it 'thinking?'

Genep's view is what is known as the doctrine of dependent existence or relative phenomenalism. This is often discussed in relation to the idea that our phenomenal universe is an illusion, a collection of epihenomena emanating from an underlying phenomenon, which might be called true Reality or true Self. These epiphenomena, puffs of smoke from the whistle of the train, include not just what appear to us as corporeal phenomena but also what appear to us as mental phenomena. The claim of mystics and meditators like genep is that it is possible to know that these are only epiphenomena, not ultimately real, by direct experience of the one and only phenomenon that is truly real. Some philosophers call this 'non-intuitive immediate knowledge'.

This ultimate phenomenon might sometimes be called God, as Erwin Scroedinger calls it, but generally it is not, since the term is misleading given the current naive views of God outside mysticism. In truth this is 'something' nondual, thus not representable or conceivable, only knowable. In the mystical literature it may be called Godhead, Nirvana, Bliss, Emptiness, Allah, the Tao, Unicity, the peace that passeth all understanding, the Kingdom of Heaven and many other things. Sufi's have 99 names for it, all of which are not what it is.

2. How does the mind 'think' if there is no such thing as 'thinking?'

How do planets move if there is no such thing as movement? How do human beings exist if there is no such thing as spacetime? It seems an absurd idea on the surface. But no meditator says these things do not exist. Rather they say they are mere appearances, which is a rather different thing.

3. Sages in the Indus valley could quantitatively predict the behavior of subatomic systems? Could they build a space shuttle and fly it into orbit? Could they build the computer you are typing on?

Why would they bother? If you knew you were God would you waste your time building computers, unless it paid the rent?

5. The exact same thoughts? Why are the rules of each world so different from one another then? Heck, I don't even know that there any 'rules' in the dream world. I do know that I cannot fly or spontaneously shift my bodily position halfway around the world without moving and that people don't spontaneously morph into other people in the living world (all things that have occurred in my dream world).

To Genep dreams are dreams within dreams within dreams. When Neo woke up in the morning inside the Matrix was his world more real than his dreams? When he discovered the reality behind the appearance of reality, the alien battery-farm in which his brain really existed, was this new reality any more real that his old one? How could he know? (This was where the film became inconsistent with the doctrine from which it was derived).

1) You don't seem to be presenting these as 'just thoughts.' You seem to be presenting them as obvious gospel truth that the scientific world is idiotic for not acknowledging.

I agree. These cannot be called 'just thoughts,' they are a very serious claim to knowledge. Genep is being overly modest. Mind you, it does seem a bit idiotic that the scientific community, with some notable exceptions, refuse to investigate the claims of mystics. It cannot be just a coincidence that they've all affirmed the same knowledge for five thousand years. To call it a coincidence seems to contravene the principle of parsimony.

2) What is a thought if there is no such thing as thinking? Who or what creates the thought and how do they create thought without thinking (given that one definition of thinking would seem to be simply the creation of thoughts)?

I'd say it was innacurate to say that there is no such thing as thinking. It would be like saying that there's no such thing as a mirage. Clearly mirages exist in some way or other. But an analysis of mirages shows that they are not things, just mere appearances. This is what genep is saying thoughts are. (Pardon me genep for speaking on your behalf, thought you might like some support).

To illustrate genep's point about the early mystical writings, which are not widely read these days, here is an extract.

My mysterious cloud of appearances is hard to pass beyond; but those who in truth come to me go beyond the world of shadows.

Bhagavad Gita
Chap. 7

By 'shadows' here is meant all corporeal and mental phenomena. I.e., all the things that make up Plato's famous allegorical cave, including thoughts, and which together stand as a barrier to a knowledge of true reality, which lies not outside the cave but inside it, within each of the prisoners.

Hypnagogue, in case you come back, I agree with you that this sort of discussion is innapropriate here. Might it be possible to have a section where it is allowable to discuss religion, science, philosophy and mysticism all at once, and seriously, without always having to tread so warily?

 

[genep]

1: there is no such thing as thinking.
2: the mind is what it thinks it thinks, like the universe and everything in it.
3...

1: what faculty did u use to make this claim ? (if you could eleaborate appart from your 1st post how thinking does not exists)

How some minds are superior to another ones in therms of IQ, ethics etc.

3: what sages are you referring to, can you back this statement up?

4: Thoughts do not arise in the brain spontaniously. To think one needs certain quantity and some quality of information. Thinking starts during interaction with external objects. There is no learning without thinking. (appart from imitating and memorizing, but not new information is created though this process).

5: Could you ellaborate further how you support this conclusion?

thanx sneez

please see the thread: "Can words pop an imaginary balloon? "
-- just thoughts

 

[genep]

can words pop an imaginary balloon?

Two things:
re:
1) You don't seem to be presenting these as 'just thoughts.' You seem to be presenting them as obvious gospel truth that the scientific world is idiotic for not acknowledging.

2) What is a thought if there is no such thing as thinking? Who or what creates the thought and how do they create thought without thinking (given that one definition of thinking would seem to be simply the creation of thoughts)?
-=-


No matter how much experts and intellects think they think otherwise: ALL FICTION WORKS THE SAME. It has to because it is all the same Nothing, fiction, thoughts, words.

The fiction called language works exactly like thoughts; and the fiction of moving-pictures works exactly the same; TV works the same; and the fiction of binary-language in computers work the same. And the fiction of physics SCREAMS the loudest that it works exactly the same.

All fiction works the same to give us the SAME universe-vanishing message: The fiction, “the message,” is ALWAYS Nothing and the Silence inside and outside the fiction is EVERYTHING.

This EVERYTHING is Joy of ENTERTAINMENT, where the Entertainment is fiction, Nothing.
This JOY is timeless and so it is also the thoughtless-silence before, inside and after fiction. Without this Silence all fiction would be impossible. And for fiction to be Silence is also impossible.

Inside fiction there is no doer. There is nothing going on in fiction. In the Nothing called fiction action and doing in fiction is imaginary – just thoughts.

Over 5000 years ago sages around the Indus River in India studied how the fiction called language worked and they got the universe-vanishing message. This universe-vanishing message told them that language was the Nothing called fiction and the Silence (that was before and after and between words) was the EVERYTHING without which there could be no fiction.
These sages of old got help before they got this universe-vanishing message. This help came in the form of lethal-laughter. This lethal-laughter came from another fiction we call thoughts. This lethal-laughter convinced these sages that without a doubt thoughts were fiction. This lethal-laughter was so potent that when doubt surfaced then it came with/was/is this lethal-laughter.

These sages meditated. In meditation the mind slows down and thoughts can be studied – they cannot be observed but they can be studied. When these sages studied their thoughts they observed that thoughts worked exactly like the fiction called language. They realized that thoughts were the same Nothing called fiction, and the gap or Silence – between thoughts -- was EVERYTHING.
Some of these sages observed that some thoughts somehow arrived with or was/is a bolus of JOY. Thoughts were the JOY of Entertainment. This JOY that was Entertainment they called maya, illusion, dream, fiction.

When this bolus of JOY rarely exploded out of the GAP-between thoughts it was this lethal-Laughter that these Hindus called Kundalini. In its undiluted or thoughtless form this Kundalini – lethal-laughter they called Samadhi which is just another name for physics’ Unified Field.
The Unified Field of physics is just the Reality of dreamless-sleep.

These sages of old observed that the fiction called thoughts worked exactly like the fiction of language – there was no doer. There was no thinking in thoughts – thoughts just were; like words in novels just are. They observed that the void or gap between thoughts prevented thoughts from being connected in the same way words are not connected in language. The connection is pure illusion – the illusion that creates action, and the action creates doers. But in fiction there is no doer.
These sages would give us the cliché: the mind is what it thinks it thinks. Physics would give us its own version of this cliché: the observer determines the observations. Physics however stops short of Realizing fiction because it does not tell us: the observer determines the observations because it is the observations; i.e. :the mind is what it thinks.

5000 years later we have at least four more types of fiction that works exactly the same: moving pictures, TV, computers and Physics. THEY ALL WORK THE SAME because all fiction has to be the same Nothing in which the message, fiction, is Nothing and the Joy called Silence is EVERYTHING.

Turn the TV off and you have EVERYTHING that the TV will never be: Silence. Without this Silence there would be no fiction called TV. Turn the TV on and you have fiction – there is no doer. There is no Johnny Carson inside the TV or Big Bird, nor anything else – it is all thoughts, imagination. Not only is there no doer in the TV but it would be impossible for anything to get inside a TV set to be a doer.
IN a movie there is nothing going on – there is no doer on the movie-screen. The action and doing is pure illusion, thoughts. The EVERYTHING that the movie can never be is the Silence before and after and between the picture-frames of the movie. IN the case of the movie the SILENCE is personified by the movie-screen. Without the movie-screen there would be no fiction, movie; and ALSO – no matter what goes on in the movie, be it fire, flood or nuclear holocaust, the movie-screen is untouched.

COMPUTERS give us the exact same story of fiction. Before the COMPUTER is turned on there is the EVERYTHING, the Silence, without which there can be no computer. Turn the computer on and you have fiction in the form of binary-language of plus-minus. When the computer slows down we find the same gap or silence between each plus/minus of the binary language.
Again the computer can “create” moving pictures of anything but what it creates is pure fiction – there are no doers inside computers – all is binary-code that works like words, thoughts. AND the Computer tells us a lot more about its fiction. A computer can be hooked up to a brain for virtual-reality .. the mind/brain cannot tell the difference because thoughts are the same whether they come from a brain, a computer, hypnosis or drugs.. this is because they are all the same Nothing called fiction, thoughts. The mind, brain, after all, is just a thought that cannot tell the difference between its memories and thoughts because they are also the same. And because memories are thoughts, the thought called the brain can limitlessly “exchange” one for the other. The “brain-mind” routinely exchanges memories and thoughts in its sleep-dreams, and there is nothing real in life that is not just as real and certain in the sleep-dreams when everything in the dream has to be the Nothings called thoughts.

The next fiction is physics and it SCREAMS at us the loudest – FROM ALL ITS DIRECTIONS -- that it has to be fiction because everything about physics is not only impossible but impossible on top of limitless levels of impossibilities. These impossibilities all SCREAM: only thoughts are possible but only because they are fiction, Nothings.

Physics SCREAMS at us that it is fiction because the particles that make up the universe are impossible. Particles work exactly like the binary-language of computers. IN computers you cannot have a plus with a minus somewhere. Physics tells us the exact same story with its particles. You cannot have particles without an antiparticle. And the universe cannot exist because there are no anti-particles. And if this impossibility is not enough then physics SCREAMS even louder with yet another impossibility on top of its impossibility: if by some change particles did find their antiparticles then they would both vanish to not exist even better.

Physics also tells us that particles have to be thoughts because they come and go out of thoughtless-Silence to return into the Silence that is EVERYTHING. This apparent coming and going is totally random -- order is illusion, fiction, Nothing.

Thus we have Physics' Uncertainty Principle. The closer the observer gets to these particles the more certainly they turn into, at best, probability clouds. In other words, particles are just like thoughts: you can no more catch and define a particle than you can catch to examine a though. But PHYSICS does not stop its impossibilities here – it tells us that the observer determines the observations: This is an Impossibility #?? but only if the observer is “real” and its observations are fiction and thus just thoughts. Impossibility # ?? you, the observer cannot catch a particle and you certainly cannot catch light, energy. The more the observer tries to catch light the more obvious it gets that the observer is stationary. IMPOSSIBILLITY #?? light has no time so it cannot travel and yet it travels so fast that it makes everything else, with time, stationary and thus timeless. IMPOSSIBLILITY #?? When mass, which is the same as energy, light = particles and waves, tries to catch what it is energy, light, it cannot do it because all it can do is increase its mass and shrink its space and slow time … as it stays stationary.

PHYSICS SCREAMS at us that particles, waves, mass, energy, time, space are all impossible because they are all the same: thoughts, fiction.
Then Physics/ Science SCREAMS even louder with is expanding-universe that has no center because it is an expanding sphere with an imaginary past for an inside and an imaginary future for the outside.

PHYSICS SCREAMS its universe-vanishing message (“the message is Nothing and the Silence is EVERYTHING”) perhaps the loudest with its quantum-gaps. Physics SCREAMS at us that particles can routinely go from one quantum-level to another but in such a way that they can NEVER EVER enter these quantum-gaps. Physics is thus SCREAMING: the quantum-gaps is the Silence that is EVERYTHING and the particles are the Nothings, fiction, thoughts that can never be in/the Silence called quantum-gaps.

AND if the SCREAMING of physics is not loud enough then along comes Thermodynamics to summarize all of physics’ impossibilities. Thermodynamics tells us that the observer can only create disorder and chaos when the observer tries to find order in fiction. The Hindus called this “looking for order creates/is disorder” karma, chaos.

Fiction is limitless numbers of impossibilities – seeking order in one impossibility would make the seeking futile.

This Thermodynamics multiplies all of Physics’ SCREAMS when it gives us the SUPREME COMEDY : take one thought, fiction, Nothing, seriously – like “the universe exists” – and others will follow to expand the universe just as fast as the thoughts that feed it to create it.

This Supreme Comedy is “life” in which most of us are just imaginary egos Entertaining the Dreamer that is the JOY and its laughter that is eternally the Now.

This Now I AM and YOU ARE and ALL IS and only imaginary egos, like Physicists can keep this JOY entertained because they are deaf to the SCREAMING and so they keep fighting the futility of creating chaos by looking for order in the fiction they create as fast as they make the universe expand for the JOY called Entertainment, fiction maya.

-- just thoughts

 

[genep]

Oh, you mean people studying their own thoughts, not thoughts in general.

...

Two things:

1) You don't seem to be presenting these as 'just thoughts.' You seem to be presenting them as obvious gospel truth that the scientific world is idiotic for not acknowledging.

2) What is a thought if there is no such thing as thinking? Who or what creates the thought and how do they create thought without thinking (given that one definition of thinking would seem to be simply the creation of thoughts)?

You might want to read the thread: "can words pop an imaginary balloon?" Its the best these thoughts can do.
regards

 

[genep]

laughter

Yes. We can know nothing about other people's thoughts other than what they report.

(Pardon me genep for speaking on your behalf, thought you might like some support).

Far, far beyond my wildest dreams:

IF you can't laugh with ME then laugh AT ME
so we can all laugh at the same thing: ME

this JOY and laughter YOU ARE, I AM and ALL IS
=-=

personally: Dearest Canute: your words make me laugh even more than the words my hands think they write.

 

[genep]

Quote:
1) You don't seem to be presenting these as 'just thoughts.' You seem to be presenting them as obvious gospel truth that the scientific world is idiotic for not acknowledging.

I agree. These cannot be called 'just thoughts,' they are a very serious claim to knowledge. Genep is being overly modest. ...

?

there is a lot more to “just thoughts.”

Years ago I would read what my hands wrote and laughed at what they said – BECAUSE there was no way they could have come from this mind of mine.

This acceptance is total freedom of “there is no doer.”
In “Reality” thoughts just are – they are the mind. The mind is nothing but thoughts. It does not think these thoughts because it is these thoughts. THINKING is just a thought.

THE MIND is its sleep-dreams as it is the universe when it thinks it wakes up in the morning.

For a mind to take credit for thinking is an absurdity because it is the thoughts, like thinking.

It is in this context of the “no doer” that I take no claim for the thoughts that just are.
The subject gets more absurd the further we look.
These words, thoughts, have nothing to do with what they mean or say because – each mind is what it thinks it thinks which has nothing to do with what these words say or mean.
And then even more absurd: there is no other that needs these words because the OBSERVER, the Dreamer, is all there is. And so there is no other to need words or anything else imaginable.
With the non-duality of “no doer” communication is an utter absurdity except for the JOY of Entertainment, maya.
-- just thoughts