What is a thought?

[HappytheStripper]

So, to answer my own original question about what is the first thought of our first ancestor and of every infant - it is the naive realization of being separate- of being apart from the ONE. All further thought is structured on that illusory reality. Death ends the process and the ego merges with the ONE.

 

Yes I agree .. the first thought being one of dis-connection and seperation .. as after being a parent to 3 kids I can attest to this ..

 

You spend the first 2 years wishing ya could put em back in lol .. :)

 

Regards Ashley

[MagnetMan]

Yes I agree .. the first thought being one of dis-connection and seperation .. as after being a parent to 3 kids I can attest to this ..

 

You spend the first 2 years wishing ya could put em back in lol .. :doh:

 

Regards Ashley

 

There are other significant points that reveal the artificial nature of the individual ego. For instance: As each infant weans and begins the separation process, the self is initially refered to in the third person. IE. "Baby hungry" The concept of an "I", and even its own name, takes time to become established.

 

I have closely observed each of my own kids traverse this gradual relf-realization process. Over the years, as I watched all eight of them go from infant to child, a lot of other interesting, and I believe vital psychological facts regarding the formation of the future adult psyche began to surface.

 

From the start, twenty years ago, we made a point of rearing each child exactly the same way rural native women in Africa still mother infants from birth and through the weaning process. Unless there are obvious prenatal complications, each birth was natural, no drugs, with the babe kept in body contact with the mother. Breast fed until weaned and carried at all times, tied to the mother's back (or front) and they sleep together. The point we tried to make is that the babe should never left alone, not even when it is asleep. No separation must take place. There is a vital reason for this.

 

We all accept that baby's crying is natural, but this is not so. While among the Kalahari Busmen forty years ago, I had never heard a baby cry.This made me realize that babe's do not cry naturally. If it is not hunger pangs or some other pain, why do modern babies cry, some of them incessently? I came to the tentative conclusion that from the point of view of the infant psyche, the babe and mom are essentially one person. (the observer and observed are one and the same) The crying reflex is triggered by trauma (instinctive panic) - which happens when the babe awakes and finds the mother gone. (It will more often than not awake from sleep the instant the mother tries to leave) Via that loss of all sense contact, one could almost say that it is as though the baby experiences that a part of the its own body has been severed - something vital is missing. What we moderns do of course is rush back into the room where we left the babe and comfort it. Then when it is back alseep, we put it down and try to leave the room again. So it is that in order to get our chores done, we keep putting the babe down and the crying reflext keeps getting triggered and becomes habitual. Within the first year the infant has learned to manipulate the parents via crying for attention. This manipulaion is carried on in one form or another, to greater or lesser degrees in later life.

 

In fact, I believe that most all deep-seated psychosis in human behavior results from our fast-paced artificial life style that is not geared to natural infant rearing. The basic fact is that modern parents do not fully understand or appreciate exactly how or when the infant psyche begins the process of self-awarness, and starts to socialize with others via the thought process.

[InfiniteNow]

For instance: As each infant weans and begins the separation process, the self is initially refered to in the third person. IE. "Baby hungry" The concept of an "I", and even its own name, takes time to become established.

 

Close, but this is not quite accurate.

 

The baby only has an "I." What takes time to develop is a realization about what's "out there." When young, they see everything as part of self.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development

[MagnetMan]

Close, but this is not quite accurate.

 

The baby only has an "I." What takes time to develop is a realization about what's "out there." When young, they see everything as part of self.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development

 

Thanks for the reference. Seems that Erikson and myself have been working independently on parallel research. We have similar divisions of when each new stage of conscious development takes place. I have seven, he has eight. I do not agree with his assertion that weaning takes place in the second year and I therefore skip that as a definable stage. Also he does not specifically relate each stage of budding awareness to relative perceptions of space/time. This is key to a more complete understanding of how the thought process matures. Nor does he relate any stage to specfic ethical evocations. From the sound of it, he never studied preliterate societal development in Africa, which provides more accurate observations of the natural stages of human development. I will have to research his history before giving a complete critique of his work.

 

Your comment about the "I" is moot. It has no subjective meaning if there is no sense of being a separate observer. In this sense the "I" and all else are the same "I". There can be no sense of self-awarness until the first thought arrives. The first thought is directly related to the awareness that there is separation. This usually takes place in the third year. This moment can be readily checked if it can be seen that there is no immediate panic if the mother is beyond all sense range. It takes almost another year for the ego to develop into a definate sense of "I am me."

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks for the reference. Seems that Erikson and myself have been working independently on parallel research.

 

I'm just going to venture a guess here that Erickson's work came well before yours... circa 1950.

 

 

Cheers. :embarass:

[Jehu]

Not nessecarily just ideas. Thoughts also consist of random bits of sensible or nonsensible bits of information, experience, possibilities, etc that keep hovering just behind our observing part.

 

If one has checked out Zen Buddhism(Check for Echart Tolle or some name like that) one begins to realise the process of working of thoughts. I am not asserting this rigidly, because even I am not sure.

 

According to this belief, or cult, or whatever, our mind is a not part of the true 'ourself'. We are different from our mind. This can be shown by the fact that we fail to quiten our mind with ease, and that it is not our will what it displays (better said 'thinks')

But the science can call this associated with the subconcious and all that.

 

Does anybody out there know the working of Zen Buddhism? Maybe he/she can correct me if I am very inaccurate.

 

According to the Buddhist doctrine, thoughts are merely one of the five types of phenomena (dharma) that inhabit what is an essentially cognizant reality. Thoughts, like all other things, are said to arise and persist as a result of the coming together of certain causes and conditions. The process whereby thoughts arise is held to be the same evolutionary process that gives rises to material objects, for in the Buddhist doctrine, all phenomena are devoid of any absolute or self-inherent substance, and thus are empty. This, however, should not be construed as nihilism, for they hold that there is a truly existent entity, the nature of which is cognizant. This is why is written in the Upanishads that it is not that which the eye can see that is reality, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is to say, cognizant awareness and knowledge. I hope that this is helpful.

 

Regards, Jehu

[arkain101]

In response to the Topic opening post,

 

I think thought is something that can rebell against, or break out of the natural events in nature and that seems to require will.

 

To explain this further, a rock on earth will remain at rest and continue to behave by fundamental laws that have been revield in physics.

 

A thought is something that has the capability to roam out of these fundemental laws of nature and operate under its own seperate such characteristics.

 

This something is information. Information is what thoughts are made of, and information is made of details that contain a purpose, a design, a message.

 

Thus, appearing to show evidence of Matter, Energy, and Information.

[MagnetMan]

I'm just going to venture a guess here that Erickson's work came well before yours... circa 1950.

 

 

Cheers. ;)

 

Have now had the chance to read further on Erikson and must thank you again for the reference. Knowing that there was somebody else on the same line of research, after so many years working alone on a radical new concept of human evolution is extremely encouraging. There are now two hands clapping and the sound will begin to echo as I sound my conclusions against his. I have made it a point not to be influenced by anybody from the start to finish. Now that I am concluded, I am glad to know of his existence and sorry to find that he is dead. It would have been nice to argue one on one. The are certain tiny elements in the development of new ideas that only orginators can share together :)

[MagnetMan]

In response to the Topic opening post,

 

I think thought is something that can rebell against, or break out of the natural events in nature and that seems to require will

A thought is something that has the capability to roam out of these fundemental laws of nature and operate under its own seperate such characteristics..

Exactly!

 

This something is information. Information is what thoughts are made of, and information is made of details that contain a purpose, a design, a message.

The first bit of information is the realization of separation - there is an observer - a self, observing another. After that the questions keep coming and coming and coming . ;)

[arkain101]

The first bit of information is the realization of separation - there is an observer - a self, observing another. After that the questions keep coming and coming and coming.

 

Thats for sure.

 

I also think language is one of the most important parts of thought, and consciousness evolution. Having an inner dialoge is a critical part of being human minded. I have seen documentaries on children raised in seclusion. If they are not taught how to speak and read before a certain age that part of the brain does not develope and never really will again naturally. These people go on through life without being able to speak to themselves in their mind with words -something we all do all the time without even meaning to sometimes-. They act very animal like and spastic, for they can not comprehend past the most simple of concepts. Very much so like a rabid wild animal, and probably worse since it would of most likely developed more of their communication part of their brain than the human had.

 

With the Information and language part of our brain developed, an inevitable evolution of consciousness and intelligence transpires, as long as proper childhood developement occurs. Inevitable because, once a mind begins thinking in highly structured and complex dialoguge systems it has a very hard time of doing anything other than continually laying out full string thoughts +/- 60,000 times a day.

 

As you said "The first bit of information is the realization of separation - there is an observer - a self, observing another". Then there comes an even further stage of self realization. Through childhood our minds have a realization of the self, there is an observer, an I AM. Next in the beginning of adult hood if the proper steps and effort are put into place that I AM can begin to realise itself aswell. So first we have the mind developing a now self realization, much like a child. Then there is a second stage of this evolution which is occuring now mre than ever in recent history, where that I am of our consciousness's is learning how to meet the I am of that I am. Its the connection to a self beyond the material. With a self realization as simple as realising I AM....an... I AM.

In history, this is how god presents itself to people in the bible. However true or false, their were many different records of something speaking to a person saying, I am who I am, and it can be no other. As if the inevitable reaction to the action of infinity is exactly this. Just realising there is an I and it is a profound truth of I AM.

 

Recently people have begun awakening to this stage in evolution. All previous ego driven consciousness seems to shatter in comparison to the pure truth they have managed to connect back to. Once a person has this amazing moment of waking up, there is NO going back. It all sounds far to remincent to the film 'the matrix', however though, in a different manner it is in fact the same basic concept.

 

We arrive here mysteriously and evolve at rates very much related to the general level of concsciousness that we connect with and interact with, which is now global through internet means and media. Then as we die we head off to another mystery like the mystery we appear in here. All thought to appear here must not exist for it to begin, and just the same as to leave and move into another mystery all thought must again fade away. Interesting though, that death and thought loss is a much faster process than thought growth and developement in appearence. Interest because it could suggest the change in death and the mystery it leads to could be a much faster transition. That however is a bit too far out there.

[hallenrm]

Interesting thoughts indeed, Magnetman and Arkain!

 

A thought keeps recurring in my mind, I have posted it here, but somehow, it appears it has got lost in the crowd.

 

It is about the conservation of thought! If this thought has any weight then the birth and the death of individuals is meaningless, at best, as meaningful as the packaging of water!!!

[hallenrm]

The most disturbing thought, is the thought that everything is not in our control, including knowledge!

[ronthepon]

The most disturbing thought, is the thought that everything is not in our control, including knowledge!

In fact, sometimes even our thoughts are'nt in control.

[Saitia]

Does the pattern— the reality— of an idea occupy space? :D

[ronthepon]

Does the pattern— the reality— of an idea occupy space? :hihi:

Indeed it should in any case, as even the electrons that form the thought in the form of nerve impulses in our brain occupy finite space. Atleast the collection of them does in a way.

[arkain101]

One thing that gets me is that electrons are everywhere! And they are always moving and doing things. In another persons body they are implusling, and on you they are, and in my brain they are. However what put ME in this brain and not in another. And you in yours in not in another. Its confusing to put into scientific terms. What assigns a self to a self so to speak?

[Saitia]

Indeed it should in any case, as even the electrons that form the thought in the form of nerve impulses in our brain occupy finite space. Atleast the collection of them does in a way.

 

I'm not sure I agree that an idea is made of electrons.

Electrons are subject to gravity.

Who has shown an idea to be responsive to gravity?

or have weight in the physical sense?

If that were true wouldn't a philospher's head weigh

more than say, George Bush's head? :hihi:

 

 

An idea certainly has an electrochemical foundation,

but when it "arises" in the mind, where is it, exactly?

Self-consciousness feels like it's in your head, but where?

Again, what space does it occupy? When you move through space

do you take the space in your body with you, or do you abandon

it for the new space you are moving through?

 

Does your head hurt yet?

Is it getting heavier? :hihi: