By creating an account, you agree to our terms of service.
More and more scientists are coming to the conclusion, that our thoughts are material. Some people don't even think about it. Our thoughts carry a certain information, they posses an energetics. All that we talk about, what we think about gives us those or other emotions. All our emotions have a force. As "destructive", and "constructive"All depends on how hard we "feel" our emotions, how exactly we try to express their.
What do you think about this?
I believe our thoughts are energy. A substance when we examine it up to the subatomic scale, it is just an energy because of the existence of 'electrons'. So I believe matter or material is the manifestation of energy in a compact form. Then we can answer the question; does energy generate the living form or the biochemical process (substance) generate energy, life or thoughts in the brain for example?
I am very glad for you that you started reverse motion on scale of Darween from a human to monkey:-)))
Your basic information is confused.
(a) There are no Scientific Measurements showing ENERGY differentials for THOUGHTS.
(b) THOUGHTS, in the context of Abstract Conceptions
(referred to as "Transcendental" conceptions such as Good/Evil, Right/Wrong/, Cowardice/Courage,
Hyporcrisy/Integrity, Vice/Virtue) are not known by any Scientific Means to exist in a Causal Relation to any Natural Phenomena.
(c) Your equation of both THOUGHT and EMOTION with FORCE is demonstrative of the common logical error designated the Fallacy of Equivocation.
(d) You have confused emotions with FORCE. There are no Scientific Measurements for anything designated a FORCE of EMOTION.
(e) There are no known Scientific Measurements for CONSTRUCTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE THOUGHTS or EMOTIONS showing a Causal Relation to any known Natural Phenomena.
(f) The context in which you refer to CONSTRUCTIVE and/or DESTRUTIVE Emotion is framed in a Metaphysical misunderstanding for Physical Phenomena.
(g) The MIND/BODY PROBLEM (MBP) has never been solved and you write in specific error when your public communications suggest to readers there is Scientific Consensus on the issue.
I addressed my response to Shil66 inadvertantly, but the arguments are intended for you to contemplate.
The obvious difficulty with your conclusions, are that you have no Scientific Evidences to support them.
(Neither does Shill66). You are publishing personal opinion, and you are inviting personal opinions, and you should know that Personal Opinions are never probative in the Natural Sciences.
If you are going to discuss Natural Phenomena, with Science as the basis of knowledge, you need to cite Scientific Facts, taken from Neuroscience, rather than attempt to pass off your confused personal opinion as some sort of Scientific Fact.
Your published conclusions are highly confused, and should not be mistaken for fact.
Bruce, I want to apologize to you before I'll start talking.Tell me please, if you have so outstanding knowledge, why do you take part in these discussions? Why don't you do it on other sites? I think, your knowledge might be able to be more appropriate there, than here?I only offered to discuss new topic, not more. And, you must be more respectful to the opinions of others.I can't agree with you and, at the same time, won't argue. Each view point worthy of respect and must exist.
"Tell me please, if you have so outstanding knowledge, why do you take part in these discussions?"---- Anastasiyah
You might begin by informing forum members Why---It---Is that you "take part in these discussions". After you clarify your intentions and purposes, I may be able to clarify my own reasons.
As it is, you published specific claims to start a discussion. It is your topic. What is your purpose?
(2) "Why don't you do it on other sites?
I think, your knowledge might be able to be more appropriate there, than here?"----Anastasiyah
In your initial post, you cited "scientists" as authoritative, and yet now, you cite your personal opinion as authoritative. You write that you "think" my "knowledge" might be "appropriate" but you have no clarification as to what IS or IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
It can be seen that you suggest that "science" knowledge is appropriate, and yet when I inform you as to Scientific Facts, you suggest that my remarks are not appropriate in a discussion of Neuroscience.
What exactly do you intend to discuss, and on what basis?
I wonder if you intend to practice discussion of a Science topic in English, or to engage in some kind of a superficial "spat," or do you want forum members to suppose that you are discussing Scientific Knowledge when actually, you aren't discussing Scientific Knowledge at all?
Dear Bruce, I've always interested in your opinion, I respect your scientific approach, but I please note, your approach is from the area of "Natural Sciences". And, what's the most interesting, you don't want to believe, that in our world there are not only Natural Sciences, and as well "Humanities science", as psychology. I expressed, in addition to "opinions of scientists", my own. You're on the side of "Natural Sciences", I'm not like you, I'm interested also in "Humanities science".
"You're on the side of "Natural Sciences", I'm not like you, I'm interested also in "Humanities science"."----Anastasiya
Sorry to have given you that impression my friend. I am "on the side of" all the Sciences, inclusive of Social Sciences and Neurosciences. The fact which remains is that you have no objective data from
any Science which substantiates your inquiry. You have no Scientific Evidence showing that THOUGHTS are MATERIAL.
Absent objective data, you are discussing nothing but your personal opinion, and it is highly confused and moreover, entirely unscientific.
If you have any Scientific Data whatseover, showing that THOUGHTS exist in a Causal Relation to any form of MATTER, or that any measurements of THOUGHTS exist, showing that THOUGHTS exert FORCE on MATTER, please identify your Scientific Data.
Our discussion reminds me of one out of our previous debates. When we were trying to figure "how our life is born" and "how we can return human to life after death". Then you couldn't explain me that it's real and exist some evidences, which can confirm that fact.
Ok, if you want, I can give an example, recently I've read some themes of Michael Laitman, are dedicated such a concept like "thought". Not only his works, of course.
This topic is not only my individual opinion. I tried to summarize some knowledge about this theme and express this one here, on this site.
Main purpose is I'd like to know opinions and thoughts of other people about it, and how people relate to such concepts.
"Ok, if you want, I can give an example, recently I've read some themes of Michael Laitman, are dedicated such a concept like "thought". Not only his works, of course.
This topic is not only my individual opinion. I tried to summarize some knowledge about this theme and express this one here, on this site."-----Anastasiya
Oh really? This is "not only" your "individual opinion"? What did you write that is anything other than your opinion to show that THOUGHTS----ARE---MATTER?
(a) You failed to cite any Scientific Evidence showing that THOUGHTS---ARE---MATTER.
(b) You failed to citany any Peer Reviewed Science Publication which informs people that
What are the books authored by Michael Laitman?
Are Michael Laitman's books Peer Reviewed Science Publications?
Do you know the difference between Peer Reviewed Science Publications and "Pop Science"?