Agreed
Change , movement ...
Disagree
Duration is not time based , duration is based on interaction(s) , from a lone thing , to multiple , things , ONLY.
Does time exist?
- Thread starter Asexperia
- Start date
- Status
Agreed
Change , movement ...
Disagree
Duration is not time based , duration is based on interaction(s) , from a lone thing , to multiple , things , ONLY.
Thinking is a process
Extract the PROCESS out of the brain
Then extract the thought
I'll take 10 processes along with the thoughts
Make sure the thoughts are kept with the respective brains please
I take it the reference
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...-tea/201308/why-our-thoughts-are-not-real?amp
didn't mean much?
Why ?
I'll take 10 processes along with the thoughts
Make sure the thoughts are kept with the respective brains please
I take it the reference
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...-tea/201308/why-our-thoughts-are-not-real?amp
didn't mean much?
Explain better .
So I can see the PROCESS and examination it in detail
Same with the THOUGHT
Sorry cannot
Not enough words of one syllable to make it simpler
Why I canned my subscription to Psychology Today decades ago. 10% research 90% psychobabble. The Thought Process is real. But the content of Thought -- call it the Idea -- is information which may or may not be 'true'. We all have essentially the same biochemical TP and more or less the same set of senses feeding it. But nevertheless we all (excepting twins, apparentlyWell I am not alone
I have never worked as a definer for dictionary so I am indebted to those who have and provided the words and meanings by which everyone should agree on
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inviting-monkey-tea/201308/why-our-thoughts-are-not-real?amp
Why Our Thoughts Are Not Real
One physical world, but billions of different internal worlds
Hot off the Wiki and I have not seen this article until 5 minutes ago
) have radically different content. Radically differing TPs dips into the realm of mind/brain deficiency -- a whole different kettle of fish.A common conception of what makes an Idea (content) 'true' or 'false' is that it does or does not corresponds to some Existent thing in the Universe which is NOT the content of an Idea. So, e.g., even seven billion people believing the Earth is flat does not make or mean that the Earth is flat. The electron we think as an Idea is not real, but it may be 'true' to some degree, depending on correspondence to a real electron.
The PT article(s) -- an expression of somebody's Idea content -- does not make the Thought Process itself some imaginary thing. I suspect she's merely sloppy in her semantics. IF she is not in fact writing down to her imagined readership, I wonder How did this person get a degree in psychology?
Your point about the dictionary is well considered. We'd all have a better time if we would, could use the same damn dictionary. (The PT artice is a proof of that!) But unfortunately THAT dictionary version -- free of misinformation, error, illogic, simple ignorance (i.e. we don't know what we don't know) -- probably will never be written in our lifetimes or in the lifetime of our species. But what the heck.. gotta give it our best shot??
my two cents..
d.
Why I canned my subscription to Psychology Today decades ago. 10% research 90% psychobabble. The Thought Process is real. But the content of Thought -- call it the Idea -- is information which may or may not be 'true'. We all have essentially the same biochemical TP and more or less the same set of senses feeding it. But nevertheless we all (excepting twins, apparently
A common conception of what makes an Idea (content) 'true' or 'false' is that it does or does not corresponds to some Existent thing in the Universe which is NOT the content of an Idea. So, e.g., even seven billion people believing the Earth is flat does not make or mean that the Earth is flat. The electron we think as an Idea is not real, but it may be 'true' to some degree, depending on correspondence to a real electron.
The PT article(s) -- an expression of somebody's Idea content -- does not make the Thought Process itself some imaginary thing. I suspect she's merely sloppy in her semantics. IF she is not in fact writing down to her imagined readership, I wonder How did this person get a degree in psychology?
Your point about the dictionary is well considered. We'd all have a better time if we would, could use the same damn dictionary. (The PT artice is a proof of that!) But unfortunately THAT dictionary version -- free of misinformation, error, illogic, simple ignorance (i.e. we don't know what we don't know) -- probably will never be written in our lifetimes or in the lifetime of our species. But what the heck.. gotta give it our best shot??
my two cents..
d.
I have no concerns about something being true or not
7 billion people - flat Earth - who cares?
Being real - ie something tangible not just thoughts - different
As I have posted before when helping out with Electroencephalography we had fun (Nurse humour) pointing out to patients which of the squiggles was a good or bad thought
Ya right
Thoughts do not exist
Electrical activity along with chemical reactions produce an observable and a recordable process
But the thought associated with the process cannot be determined
You can ask the person "What are you thinking?"
But you have NO way of verifying the answer
I have no concerns about something being true or not
7 billion people - flat Earth - who cares?
Being real - ie something tangible not just thoughts - different
As I have posted before when helping out with Electroencephalography we had fun (Nurse humour) pointing out to patients which of the squiggles was a good or bad thought
Ya right
Thoughts do not exist
Electrical activity along with chemical reactions produce an observable and a recordable process
But the thought associated with the process cannot be determined
You can ask the person "What are you thinking?"
But you have NO way of verifying the answer
Yet thought produced the Electroencephalography electronic machine . Thought built the machine.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sure we do. That's what lie detector tests do. Not that it's 100% reliable, but we can still get answers that verify thoughts.Thoughts do not exist
Electrical activity along with chemical reactions produce an observable and a recordable process
But the thought associated with the process cannot be determined
You can ask the person "What are you thinking?"
But you have NO way of verifying the answer
I send a urgent email to all of the companies who produce EEG equipment
Will request the names of workers on the assembly line to see if the name Thought appears
You don't happen to know the gender do you?
I send a urgent email to all of the companies who produce EEG equipment
Will request the names of workers on the assembly line to see if the name Thought appears
You don't happen to know the gender do you?
Regardless the machine is built , on thought . Engineers .
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That's it? Just nuh-uh?No they very much do not sorry
They, in fact, do. You can ask a specific question, and get a response (such as 'no I did not kill him'), and you can verify that they are lying (or not lying). Sure it's not perfect - no measurement is.
Yep that's it
So called lie detectors
The instrument typically used to conduct polygraph tests consists of a physiological recorder that assesses three indicators of autonomic arousal: heart rate/blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
After the readings are checked
THE EXAMINER
makes a guess about the veracity of the
results
There is NOTHING in the QUESTIONS to
which the machine can RESOLVE the
ANSWERS to be truthful or lies
No GREEN light for TRUTH
No RED light for LIE
Until a machine is developed which reads the brain activity and extracts thoughts putting the readings though a voice process so the observers can hear the suspects thoughts the current lie detectors remain high tech voodoo on the boundary of Woo Woo
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Nope. You're trying to move the goalposts. Every time you assert why we can't verify thoughts, I show you that we can - and then you move the goalpost back further, saying 'no no this is what I really meant'.Until a machine is developed which reads the brain activity and extracts thoughts putting the readings though a voice process so the observers can hear the suspects thoughts the current lie detectors remain high tech voodoo on the boundary of Woo Woo
Lie detectors are able to verify aspects of thoughts. You didn't like that, now you put a ridiculous constraint on it that it must use red and green lights. And that somehow humans aren't allowed to participate in the measurement.
I guess that means nothing is real - cars, air, rocks, stars - none of these meet your requirements, since they all require humans to experience them.
Nooooo
You are describing a MACHINE as a lie detector
The Green / Red lights was only a way of indicating that the machine had detected a lie
I could have use a voice which yelled LIE or whispered truth
Point is the MACHINE does not make ANY determination of truth or LIE
If I sold you a machine that I called a ROAD SWEEPER and
you returned it next day telling me
It doesn't sweep roads it only takes photos of roads
I would reply
Oh you have to add a human with a broom to actually sweep the road
The machine doesn't KNOW what a road is let alone a dirty road
Lie detectors are able to verify aspects of thoughts
The instrument typically used to conduct polygraph tests consists of a physiological recorder that assesses three indicators of autonomic arousal: heart rate/blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity
None of those reactions are exclusive to a LIE or non reaction to truth but only create squiggles on paper
It takes a human to interpret if the squiggle is a LIE or not
Like a road sweeper which takes photos of roads it only produces a photo
I takes a human to interpret if the road is dirty
I guess that means nothing is real - cars, air, rocks, stars - none of these meet your requirements, since they all require humans to experience them
Real things made of stuff are real
Concepts like TIME and THOUGHT which are not made of stuff are not real
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
They are significantly more than mere concepts.
God is a concept.
A land where everything is paved with gold is a concept.
Thoughts are an emergent* result of an electrochemical network, that can directly result in action - such as pressing a button to detonate a bomb.
*emergent means more than the sum of its parts.
Time is a dimension through which everything with mass is moving at all times. It is what clocks measure.
What you mean is: they are not physical.
physical
ˈfɪzɪk(ə)l/
adjective
1.
relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
"a range of physical and mental challenges"
synonyms: bodily, corporeal, corporal, fleshly, in the flesh;
rare somatic
"mental and physical well-being"
2.
relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
"the physical world"
synonyms: material, substantial, solid, concrete, tangible, palpable, visible, real, actual
"everything physical in the universe"
***
concept
ˈkɒnsɛpt/
noun
an abstract idea.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"
synonyms:idea, notion, conception, abstraction, conceptualization; More
a plan or intention.
"the centre has kept firmly to its original concept"
an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity.
"a new concept in corporate hospitality"
***
emergent
ɪˈməːdʒ(ə)nt/
adjective
1.
in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent.
"the emergent democracies of eastern Europe"
synonyms:emerging, beginning, coming out, arising, dawning;
***
phrase
If you say that something is more than the sum of its parts or greater than the sum of its parts, you mean that it is better than you would expect from the individual parts, because the way they combine adds a different quality.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/more-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts
I mean what I say and I say what I mean so all of Post #896 stands AS IS
Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Humpty Dumpty
Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll
When I use a word what I choose the word to mean is the dictionary meaning
Now there's a knockdown argument for you
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
If what we're discussing is determined by a generic dictionary definition, then it's not worth discussing - certainly not 900 posts worth.
But hey - it certainly means you'll be accepting the generic dictionary definition of time:
- the continuous passage of existence in which events pass from a state of potentiality in the future, through the present, to a state of finality in the past
- a quantity measuring duration, usually with reference to a periodic process such as the rotation of the earth or the vibration of electromagnetic radiation emitted from certain atoms. In classical mechanics, time is absolute in the sense that the time of an event is independent of the observer. According to the theory of relativity it depends on the observer's frame of reference. Time is considered as a fourthcoordinate required, along with three spatial coordinates, to specify an event
- a definite and measurable portion of this continuum
- etc.
No problem. It is rejected AS IS.
Indeed. That is what I've been saying all along. You use words to mean what you choose them to mean.
Like 'time', and 'age' and 'exists'.
It's just that the rest of the world has already chosen different meanings.
Last edited:
You forgot to mention
I am not making up new definetions
All the definetions are as per current dictionaries
I would be happy for you to pick ANY dictionary you want and both follow only the meanings found within that dictionary
My preference would be plain ol Google or Mirriam-Webster
But your choice
- Status