We use the word all the time. We talk about thinking we talk about a thought we had a second ago, etc. We call our mental activities "thought(s)" when we're figuring things out. All this hub-ub about "I think" this or that and "it was once thought" this or that...

What does or language really point to when we talk about thinking and thought? I mean, a strict physicalist might say that it is the slight electric charges that are occurring in the brain... that those are what the brain is doing while thinking, and therefore those charges are the thoughts taking place. Perhaps, however it seems evident that thought is not able to be summed up so nicely, I mean it obviously takes more.

The light reflected into the eye through the pupil and onto the retina, etc. I mean, this most certainly cannot be left out of the description, afterall thought cannot pull itself up by it's own bootstraps. Thinking requires something to think about. Rather, I find it more reasonable to hold that thought, itself, is combination of other, more simple things. That it is a product of these things, much like an apple pie is a product of it's elementary constituents(ingredients). Now, mind you, we need not invoke the baker of our thoughts for it can only be us... we are the bakers, so to speak.

So anyhow... just putting it out there, we'll see where it goes.

Well for me that's the crux of it right there.

Once it is realized that we are not our thoughts we quickly recognize that thoughts are merely something that we do.

I personally feel that there are several different ways in which we can experience thoughts and therefore there are various different ways in which we can think. I also feel that we (as the bakers) can freely choose which style of thoughts and thinking to focus on.

Although, having said that, I think the baker analogy is quite good, because, just as it required skills to be a good baker, it also requires skills and exercise to be a good thinker. This is certainly widely recognized in the area of analytical thought. The more you practice and study it the better you get at it. Although the health of a physical brain may indeed play a role in that, just as the power of a physical computer can play a role in how well it can perform a computation.

I personally feel that there are also thoughts which are not analytical. And perhaps other psychic experiences that some may not even consider to be thoughts or thinking. None the less they are experiences of the psyche.

I have been studying various psychic techniques. The creation of thought-forms being one of those techniques. When we create a thought-form it becomes easy to "recall" it. It also become easier to bring it into greater mental focus thus making it quite lucid in the psychic realm.

For me, the creation of thought-forms is becoming an art form in itself. I feel like a baker who has learned of a whole new line of pastries.

So for me, thoughts and thinking are simply something that the baker does. And clearly using the physical brain as a biological computer is certainly part of that, if not all of it.

I personally have difficulty in viewing the actual biological computer as the baker itself. But just because I have difficulty with that idea certainly doesn't mean that it can't be the way things are.

I still separate the baker from the thoughts though. In other words, even if the baker is just an emergent property of a physical brain, then the thoughts would still just be something that the baker does. I just have difficulty in thinking of an 'emergent property as being the essence of the baker.

So my view is that thoughts are what we, as bakers focus on, most of the time. Although, I don't feel that thoughts are all we can focus on.

I'm convinced that we can also experience without actually 'thinking', or analyzing, but I also realize that such a position can easily become highly controversial and dependent upon what various people consider to be 'thoughts', 'thinking', and 'analyzing'. So I just offer this as a personal perspective and nothing more.

This is curious... could you expand?

On my view, nothing much controversial at all here James. I mean, it is fairly uncontroversial that we do not always think, at least not on a conscious level, like working our problems on an analytical level. However, we are always experiencing. Therefore, that is not at all that controversial, at least not as it is stated.

This would be difficult to put into words.

I've been studying and practicing various different techniques in meditations, dreamwork, shamanic journeying, and the art of creating spiritual thought-forms.

These various techniques require quite a bit of background. It's not something that can be easily be explained in a few words. In fact, I'm not sure if it can be explained in words at all. These are techniques that basically need to be practiced and experienced.

About the only thing I can actually share about this in words is to say that I have learned that I have far more psychic ability than I had previously realized. If the term "psychic" conjures up idea of the supernatural just replace the term with consciousness. I have far more conscious abilities than I had previously realized.

To try to explain these experiences in words would be a truly futile endeavor.

See, I have a hard time believing that one knows what they're talking about if they cannot talk about it.

Ya know?

I mean, nothing personal Abra, I think that you're brilliantly talented in many ways, but to posit that which cannot be spoken? The ineffable?

Abra, I don't want to speak for you in any way but I do see something in your words >>"...are several different ways in which we can experience thoughts."<< that is familiar to me, it's called 'state of mind'.

Although some may equate state of mind with physiological brain wave responses (alpha, beta, delta),which can often be detected during deep meditation, there are also other states of mind which often stem from emotion or deeply focused concentration or simply lack of awareness.

Lack of awareness is the state of mind in which thinking is below the level of conscious awareness. When we sleep, our dreams often include inforamtion or cognition that was accrued dureing the day just below the leve of conscious awareness.

Abra, do you think that I may have stumbled onto a partial explanation for your idea >>"...are several different ways in which we can experience thoughts."<< ??

Thought processes begin with sensory perception. While all of our senses are simply a redundant affect of natural selection, not all of those senses are required for thought processing to take place.

Humans are naturally curious, in psychology we often relate this curious nature to an innate need to be capable; capable means survival. Thus the motive of curiosity is to become capable of survival.

So our brains are stimulated through our senses and then through our curiosity we seek more stimulation.

The more we experience, the greater our ability for self-actualization or the ability to process thought via a state of mind rather than a new sensory perception.

I utilized information I have gathered over the years through the study of psychology, and reading of philosophy, and my own experiences to answer the OP question.

All other suggestions, refutes or additions are welcome.

I would tend to agree Di. I think thought begins with sensory perception. I mean it is necessary, but insufficient for thought/belief formation, on my view... which has Jungian influence by the way.

I find that there are three distinct elements which, when combined, produce a thought/belief.

Perception
Distinction
Correlation

Now each of these need to be carefully parsed out, however, I believe that it(sensory perception) is a good starting point.

Yes, I think so Di,

State of mind, or state of consciousness is indeed a good terminology to use. In fact, this is often the terminology that is used in the books on these topics.

However that description alone can be lost in the translation because there are many different facets to each state of consciousness. And sometimes people assume that those facets themselves are different states of consciousness.

In a sense they are. In fact, some people have described these states of consciousness as being like fractals. The way in which they can be faceted is basically endless.

Different authors have different ways of classifying the different states of consciousness.

The most common practice is to divide it into three main sections. The waking consciousness, the dream consciousness, and the cosmic consciousness. Of course different people use different terms. But it's usually divided into these three realms. Although some authors divide it up differently.

I have several very elaborate ways of dividing up states of consciousness. This isn't merely for the sake of classifying things, but it actually helps the consciousness to navigate through the different realms. It's like a psychic map.

Consciousness is imagination, whether being guided by a physical world at times or not. And it can actually help the imagination to create a map for it. Especially if it is our quest to take a specific journey through consciousness. We can even do this in the waking consciousness. In other words, it can have profound practical value associated with helping to guide the walking consciousness as we navigates through the imagination of the physical world.

We imagine a lot in our everyday physical life. We imagine what other people are thinking about us and how they perceive us. We imagine whether or not we are going to like some stranger we meet. Etc.

We actually imagine many of the interactions that we participate in and our imagination of them does indeed "create" profound affects as the interactions unfold to become our reality.

So imagination is paramount to our actually physical lives.

Dreamwork is a great place to work on imagination.

Spiritual work is when we set the imagination free to speak to us without any preconception of what we expect from it. That is when we engage the "mind of God" as they say. Or the "higher self".

Perhaps imagination itself is the cosmic consciousness that we try to pin down as "God".

But yes, states of consciousness is a good way to put it.

But if that's going to be taken too 'technically' in terms of what science might have to say about "states of consciousness" then maybe not. What they might actually be classifying are merely different facets of a single state of consciousness.

So while the term is abstractly useful, I wouldn't carve it in stone. If it's carved in stone, then it's not the concept that I'm attempting to get it.

Thoughts are dreams of the conscious mind.

You state that as though it is a known fact. Has anyone claimed to have shown this to be the case without question?

I have serious doubts that this is correct. My own experiences with thoughts would suggest this this is not the case.

Can you explain why you believe this to be the case?

~~~~

Having said that, I should clarify that I most certainly do understand how sensory perception can indeed be the food for thought. I use that quite often in my shamanic journeys. I will go to a physical place, "take in the physical sensations there" and then use that as food for thought to create a starting place for a shamanic journey.

However, that is certainly not a requirement. I have also started shamanic journeys from pure abstract ideas and concepts that can't even possible exist in the physical world. So where would be the sensory perception for those thoughts?

I concur.

Abra,

Can you give an example of a thought that is void of all content stemming from physiological sensory perception, that does not admit of anything empirical in it's description and/or it's effect/affect?

The mathematical idea of a dimensionless point.

If you can perceive that through physiological sensory perception you're doing better than most.

I think mathematicians have done a superb job over the years of rigorously defining many thoughts that are void of all content stemming from physiological sensory perception. Some of them are quite difficult for anyone to truly wrap their minds around in an intuitive sense. Yet there they are!

To attempt to describe my own personal thoughts that have no analogy to physiological sensory perception would be rather difficult would it not? What words could I used to describe my thoughts?

You'd have to jump into my mind and go for the ride. That's about the only way I would know how to share these things.

I think humans have a lot of things that they cannot put into words. How can love be put into words? And I'm not talking about superficial physical attraction here.

What does love have to do with physiological sensory perception?

What does personality have to do with physiological sensory perception? Personality transcends the physical.

I think there are probably a lot of things that we experience every day in terms of totally abstract thought that has no counterpart in terms of physiological sensory perception.

~~~~

Surely you can imagine two "pure abstract minds" communicating with each other telepathically with no physics involved at all.

Well, therein you have your answer!

I can certainly imagine that. It's not hard to do at all.

~~~~

It seems to me that you are thinking in terms of "objects", expecting me to describe and "object" that I can imagine that doesn't stem from physiological sensory perception.

I'm not sure if I could to that or not. I'm not that creative. But I think some artists probably could.

In fact, this is the basis of abstract art is it not?

Artists try desperately to use physiological sensory perception in their paintings and music to take the viewer beyond what is being physiological perceived. And many of them are said to have achieved this goal.

Words fail us in prose, and this is why we turn to things like music and art forms, or even poems. Even these forms have their limitations, but sometimes we can succeed in creating glimpses of what lies beneath the facade of physiological sensory perception.

The recognition that humans can indeed experience thoughts that transcend physiological sensory perception has been well recognized by humans for centuries.

So why are you asking me for a specific individual example?

This has been well established by mathematicians, artists, composers, and poets for centuries.

Read the poetry of poets like Rumi or Hafiz, if you don't see glimpses of that which lies beyond the physiological sensory perception then I just don't know what else to tell you.

1. Is a thought an idea?
2. What does dimensionless mean without dimension being known?

I do not think that that answer satisfies the question.

It's a satisfactory answer for me.

If you are suffering from dissatisfaction you'll have to deal with that on your own. That's not my problem.

Thoughts = a cog that may or may not be attached to a wheel of many in the mind.

Well Abra, if you believe that a thought and an idea are one in the same, and if you further believe that the idea of a dimensionless point can have any meaning whatsoever without first knowing what dimensions are then that is your problem, even if you do not own up to it.

That's cute, and can be quite humorous when considered in from various perspectives.

For example, I've met many people who seem to have many cogs but no wheel.