Thought and Energy

Originally posted by Taoman
There appears to me to be some sort of hiatus between the demonstrable brain electro-chemical energy, and the external active bodily energy, with this apparent energyless but highly necessary "field" of thought in between?

I think you are confusing cause / effect with energy change. The relationship you describe is hardly unique to thought. You yourself gave the analogy of a catalyst, which causes something but does not actually take part in the energy change.
I think part of the problem is you are attributing something special to the results of thought (like building a wall). It might be more understandable if we talked about say a tree falling down. A tree may fall down as a result of a person chopping it down, ants eating its roots, old age, a storm etc. All of those are possible causes, none of them is directly involved in the potential energy that is converted to other forms when the tree falls.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are confusing cause / effect with energy change. The relationship you describe is hardly unique to thought. You yourself gave the analogy of a catalyst, which causes something but does not actually take part in the energy change.
I think part of the problem is you are attributing something special to the results of thought (like building a wa ...[text shortened]... directly involved in the potential energy that is converted to other forms when the tree falls.

Yes, thanks. The catalyst analogy is better to go with. Its intriguing how we deal in thoughts in our head, our principal exchange currency, so to speak. Its an ancient question really, the nature of thought. They arise from a "pool of energy" yet I would agree they themselves have no energy at least not any that is demonsrtable. And from some, such as conscious planning deduction etc. thoughts more energetic brain activity occurs with further resulting thoughts.
I haven't considered fully the role of quantum processes, but I am persuaded they are active at some level. Perhaps the study of energetic flow in holistic emergence is the way to go.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Wow, you knew exactly what we were thinking when we saw your name and the name of the thread.

However, as you explain, you do have a very interesting question that is not all crapola mumbo jumbo.

Gee, thanks.

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh my agreement with our lausey means that his evaluation and mine regarding a specific matter is by and large the same.

I consider my brain a physical part of my body, and my thoughts a by-product of my brain-dependent mind. In my opinion, thoughts are to the mind just what the objects we are seeing are to our sense of sight; I argue that, just as t ...[text shortened]... etc. that are not familiar to me. If I misunderstand your question, kindly please rephrase;
😵

I am more persuaded that thoughts themselves probably have no known energy intrinsically. I will return in my thinking to the role of quantum process in thought.

My reaction to your statement was the same as the proposition of thought and consciousness being an epiphenomenon to a "nothing but" process of an evolved brain.
This understanding leaves us with seeing such things as agreement, decision, planning, inspiration, "enlightenment" as ultimately "nothing but" too, doesn't it?
If we inject any "meaning" at all, it too is "nothing but".

Edits:typographical

Originally posted by Taoman
Perhaps the study of energetic flow in holistic emergence is the way to go.

I think you are too caught up on 'energy'.
Thoughts from one point of view are nothing but information. Information itself is not physical at all and does not involve energy or physics, although it requires physical entities to be represented in the universe.

Originally posted by Taoman
I am more persuaded that thoughts themselves probably have no known energy intrinsically. I will return in my thinking to the role of quantum process in thought.

My reaction to your statement was the same as the proposition of thought and consciousness being an epiphenomenon to a "nothing but" process of an evolved brain.
This understanding leaves us wit ...[text shortened]...
If we inject any "meaning" at all, it too is "nothing but".

Edits:typographical

Thoughts are empty; and "nothing but" is empty too; and "meaning" is empty
😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are too caught up on 'energy'.
Thoughts from one point of view are nothing but information. Information itself is not physical at all and does not involve energy or physics, although it requires physical entities to be represented in the universe.

Yes, I am stepping back from seeing energy in thoughts per se, and information is a good handle when thinking about thought process indeed.

I still think a totally materialistic mechanical view of thought is missing something. It just doesn't feel like an automatonic process at all. It feels living and my decisions and changes of plans etc appear very much arising in a way that is totally the opposite to that of an automoton. Thanks for your thoughts tw, they do present further helpful perspectives.

Originally posted by black beetle
Thoughts are empty; and "nothing but" is empty too; and "meaning" is empty
😵

When we are referring to emptiness in the Buddhist sense, it is not nihilism, absolute nothingness that is meant, as I understand it. To me it means a "That", though seeming to exist as a separate entity, is ultimately unable to be grasped, pinpointed or described. It is so interconnected with everything else you cannot say one part or function of it is "IT". (cf, the chariot, and quantum holographic analogies).

There appears a relation to awareness and thought in that sense. Awareness and thoughts appear to be something not able to be located or described as to their final nature, although tw's posit of thought as information is viable as an important aspect I think. And the whole thinking process, neurones and thoughts (and energy), are difficult to separate finally. Thoughts are very strongly related to the brain and its processes and very much part of the Relative.

Originally posted by Taoman
I still think a totally materialistic mechanical view of thought is missing something. It just doesn't feel like an automatonic process at all. It feels living and my decisions and changes of plans etc appear very much arising in a way that is totally the opposite to that of an automoton. Thanks for your thoughts tw, they do present further helpful perspectives.

Maybe the problem is your understanding of automatons. Machines made by humans are usually very precise and follow strict mechanical rule sets because that makes it so much easier for us to manage them. But it is incorrect to assume that all non-living processes are equally precise and limited in variety.
Life in general does represent by far the most complicated organised processes in existence (that we know of) and we often associate that type of complexity with life - but that does not make it so.
I personally am of the opinion that computers will one day be capable of consciousness. I am also of the opinion that all the mechanics behind though processes and the functioning of our brains can be and will be described scientifically.

Originally posted by Taoman
When we are referring to emptiness in the Buddhist sense, it is not nihilism, absolute nothingness that is meant, as I understand it. To me it means a "That", though seeming to exist as a separate entity, is ultimately unable to be grasped, pinpointed or described. It is so interconnected with everything else you cannot say one part or function of it is "IT". ...[text shortened]... re very strongly related to the brain and its processes and very much part of the Relative.

Edit: "When we... ...analogies). "

It simply means that phenomena lack of svabhava.



Edit: "There appears… …the Relative."

Awareness is mind dependent, thoughts are awareness dependent, therefore thoughts lack of svabhava.
Furthermore, in my opinion these pieces of information (in the context of our twhitehead’s approach, which seems accurate to me) are again determined strictly by us, by our subjective awareness -I mean they have the form “0 or 1” according to our own evaluation alone, and they have this form not because they really and objectively exist the way we evaluate they exist- out of a wider 0/1 (undetermined) condition. Therefore, even when we attribute to the thoughts the nature of specific pieces of information, these pieces of info also lack of svabhava.
On the other hand, of course we agree that the dualism “body and mind” is a false approach.
Due to the above, the Madhyamika inside me claims that the ultimate nature of the related phenomena awareness/ thoughts is empty, and at the same time rejects the possibility that this claim is the “absolute truth”. At your answer to our Bosse de Nage at the other thread you accepted Ramachadran’s (amongst else, that is) thesis that “…We are all merely many reflections in a hall of mirrors of a single cosmic reality -Brahman or paramatman”. Well, methinks the universe the way we grasp it by means of our 6 senses is not the image of Brahman’s dream; methinks our reality the way we conceive it, is merely the image of the reflection of the cosmic reality on the surface of the mirror, a mirror that is constructed solely out of our own mind
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "When we... ...analogies). "

It simply means that phenomena lack of svabhava.



Edit: "There appears… …the Relative."

Awareness is mind dependent, thoughts are awareness dependent, therefore thoughts lack of svabhava.
Furthermore, in my opinion these pieces of information (in the context of our twhitehead’s approach, which seems accura ...[text shortened]... ty on the surface of the mirror, a mirror that is constructed solely out of our own mind
😵

"It simply means that phenomena lack of svabhava." [i.e. emptiness]

Yet according to the Dharma, "Form is indeed emptiness and emptiness form'.

How is svabhava different from form, in your understanding? I understand all phenomena as an aspect of its self nature and only "empty" in the sense I have referred to.

"...methinks the universe the way we grasp it by means of our 6 senses is not the image of Brahman’s dream; methinks our reality the way we conceive it, is merely the image of the reflection of the cosmic reality on the surface of the mirror, a mirror that is constructed solely out of our own mind."

I see a problemsome (for me) merging of thoughts and information, with the awareness of thought and information in various discussions on this topic. To me the "awareness" (This is the closest word I can use but to describe its real nature is beyond words) IS the "mirror". The mind and its operation is a sense, but it is operating and attenuating, within this "field of awareness" for want of a better term. It is from this awareness, that is even prior to thought, that any subjective sense of "I" arises. It sounds idealist in the sense that I appear to be saying awareness or "consciousness" is prior to manifestation, but "prior" is a mental time-based term, and all arises together, as our thoughts do.

Neither the idealist nor the materialist position fits this. Neither this nor that, neither existent (as self-existent entity) nor non-existent.

This is the Middle Way, is it not? One is always forced to use inadequate terms and often inaccurate in some sense, such as absolute/relative to discuss manifested phenomena, (and the more detailed aspect of phenomena such as thinking processes and energy), else we must but sit in silence, contemplating navels. 🙂

edit:typographical

Originally posted by Taoman
"It simply means that phenomena lack of svabhava." [i.e. emptiness]

Yet according to the Dharma, "Form is indeed emptiness and emptiness form'.

How is svabhava different from form, in your understanding? I understand all phenomena as an aspect of its self nature and only "empty" in the sense I have referred to.

"...methinks the universe the way we ...[text shortened]... e we must but sit in silence, contemplating navels. 🙂

edit:typographical

Edit: “Yet according to... …I have referred to.”

The chain of the ontological dependence has no end-point. I even reject the hypothesis that the sole reality that takes place is merely the chain of the atomic moments of consciousness, because these moments of consciousness are merely an aggregation constructed by our conceptualizing mind. Existing with svabhava means to be a part of the basic element of the world, independent of anything else that happen to exist. Therefore “Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness” means that “the svabhava-lacking phenomena are aggregations that they have the form of Rupa, Rupa is empty of svabhava”.



Edit: “I see a problemsome……our thoughts do.”

Awareness alone is not the Mirror -the Mirror is the BodyMind. The “I” is a delusion promoted by the false belief that the so called personal self has own being (svabhava).


Edit: “Neither the idealist nor the materialist position fits this. Neither this nor that, neither existent (as self-existent entity) nor non-existent.
This is the Middle Way, is it not? …navels.”

The Middle Way is the negation of the superimpositions of svabhava wherever they arise
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “Yet according to... …I have referred to.”

The chain of the ontological dependence has no end-point. I even reject the hypothesis that the sole reality that takes place is merely the chain of the atomic moments of consciousness, because these moments of consciousness are merely an aggregation constructed by our conceptualizing mind. Existing wi ...[text shortened]... .”

The Middle Way is the negation of the superimpositions of svabhava wherever they arise
😵

"The chain of ontological dependence has no end point."

>>> No, only that which is linear has an endpoint. Emptiness contains no lines, or chains. It is the One Zero.

"... Therefore “Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness” means that “the svabhava-lacking phenomena are aggregations that they have the form of Rupa, Rupa is empty of svabhava”.

>>> And, is not Sabhava as empty of itself as it is of Rupa? Where is this thing, sabhava? Yet Sabhava and Rupa are.

"Awareness alone is not the Mirror -the Mirror is the BodyMind. The “I” is a delusion promoted by the false belief that the so called personal self has own being (svabhava)".

>>> The "I" is but a functional mind-formed "gearstick", (not with any sense of demeaning beings of the human kind) enabling the Experience. Awareness is so seeming empty and impossible to ever grasp, as we are seeking with that which we seek. This is the very Source of ALL. Awareness is the highest and most sacred part of any human being, as it is of any being.
The one and only certainty and necessity is that we be aware. Without awareness no distinction arises to any Buddha of the trillion worlds, nor the hardness of any rock. And awareness is able to be focussed very intentionally with marked increase of mental mental perception and response. Awareness is moveable beyond the body.

There is the Mind-Body

-and there is the Awareness, in the three modes, as one, flowing through it, making the body mind alive and experiencing every different resonance by tuning to the entities of form.
Some call Awareness, "Presence".

And what about qualia and meanings? Talking too definitely of all these things brings loss of the inherent subtleties. By seeking to be as verbally precise as possible, and seeking to convey it, the magic mistiness and mystery of life dulls in experience and tends towards stagnation, and serious distraction and confusion (by that very precision) of the already illusioned arises.

This is as it appears to me at present. It appears also that we are in some disagreement. So it is thus.

"The wind is soft, the moon is serene.
Calmly I read the True Word of no letters"

Zenkai Shibayama


"Each thing becomes and grows and fulfills itself,
and then returns to the nameless beginning.
This is the Way things are."

Lao Tzu.

Originally posted by Taoman
"The chain of ontological dependence has no end point."

>>> No, only that which is linear has an endpoint. Emptiness contains no lines, or chains. It is the One Zero.

"... Therefore “Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness” means that “the svabhava-lacking phenomena are aggregations that they have the form of Rupa, Rupa is empty of svabhava”.

>>> And then returns to the nameless beginning.
This is the Way things are."

Lao Tzu.

Alright guys and gals, although philisophical thought can be entertaining, the conversation has certainly crossed the threshold of things scientific. Is there any way to bring it back from the murky depths of subjectively interpreted ancient religious texts to the here, now, and possibly "original" realm of thought?

Originally posted by Taoman
"The chain of ontological dependence has no end point."

>>> No, only that which is linear has an endpoint. Emptiness contains no lines, or chains. It is the One Zero.

"... Therefore “Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness” means that “the svabhava-lacking phenomena are aggregations that they have the form of Rupa, Rupa is empty of svabhava”.

>>> And ...[text shortened]... then returns to the nameless beginning.
This is the Way things are."

Lao Tzu.

I see no disagreement but the observation of a specific epistemic object from different perspectives
😵