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?
Yes, our thoughts are the material result of our body and brain chemistry responding to our environment. People may have differing thoughts in the same environment, because each person has his/her own unique body and brain chemistry caused by the person's unique DNA code.
We humans lack free will, because our thoughts are beyond our control. The unique thought process of each person is determined by the person's environment where they live and is the result of his/her brain chemistry which is pre-programmed by the person's DNA code. Once scientists have fully understood human biology and brain chemistry, then they will be able to accurately predict what each person would be thinking in each given situation.
Экологические факторы. Код ДНК. Химия мозга.
I hope I answered your question in your native Russian language. :)
Maybe now you have been persuaded to join my non-religious belief system of materialism. :)
У нас нет свободной воли. Наше поведение определяется факторами окружающей среды, ДНК код и мозг химия.
Здравствуйте Александр. Генеалогические ДНК тесты доказывают, что все люди являются потомками общего предка, жившего некоторые сотен тысяч лет назад в западном регионе центральной Африки. Все люди являются африканцами!
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?