Thought and Energy

Originally posted by Taoman
'Well recognized' by.... what?

It-"self"?
Awareness?
Emptiness recognized by emptiness?

Well recognized by the individual who seeks to develop a solid theory of reality
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Well recognized by the individual who seeks to develop a solid theory of reality
😵

I raise the white flag for the minute on keeping philosophy out of the science forum, they can just ignore if they like!

The issue of awareness is a serious one that keeps arising for me, and I would appreciate your valued thoughts in relation to sunyata.

Recognition or enlightenment enters into "Emptiness", a state of non-duality
Even these words fail as all do, but my closest description is "awareness without an object" (cf. Franklin Merrell-Wolff)?

The awareness is the emptiness, the "mirror". What think you?

Originally posted by Taoman
I raise the white flag for the minute on keeping philosophy out of the science forum, they can just ignore if they like!

The issue of awareness is a serious one that keeps arising for me, and I would appreciate your valued thoughts in relation to sunyata.

Recognition or enlightenment enters into "Emptiness", a state of non-duality
Even these words fail ...[text shortened]... Franklin Merrell-Wolff)?

The awareness is the emptiness, the "mirror". What think you?

I perceive enlightenment as the permanent shift of the point of attention of the individual regarding the essence of specific epistemic object/s (reality) that s/he observes by means of specific epistemic tools.
Methinks sunyata does not itself exist -it’s merely a notion, it is merely a corrective view of the essence of the reality of the physical world that surrounds us. The state of non-duality is just the state of mind that enables the individual to establish the above mentioned corrective view, therefore this understanding dew to this state of mind is relative and it must not be considered as “absolute truth”.

I do not deviate from the principle of the void and I cultivate no attachment to this principle, for in my opinion emptiness does not come out of the destruction of the Floating World -therefore the extinction and the destruction of an existing phenomenon is not nirvana. On the other hand, awareness is not emptiness, but an interface we are using for our successful interaction with our inner world, our ideas and the physical world.

Finally, methinks -our- awareness cannot exist separated from our body, although in specific conditions at a given locations in the karmic chain our awareness is the sole bond between our existence and reality. Seeking enlightenment or nirvana beyond the mind, is impossible. Over here, I use the word “mind” in order to describe the reality of your own nature. Nirvana is mind, there is no Buddha beyond the mind, sunyata succumbs neither to the superimposition nor to the denial; if your sixth strays away from this essence you do not understand the ultimate emptiness and you can neither realize nor reveal the non-conceptual expanse
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I perceive enlightenment as the permanent shift of the point of attention of the individual regarding the essence of specific epistemic object/s (reality) that s/he observes by means of specific epistemic tools.
Methinks sunyata does not itself exist -it’s merely a notion, it is merely a corrective view of the essence of the reality of the physical wor ...[text shortened]... d the ultimate emptiness and you can neither realize nor reveal the non-conceptual expanse
😵

Thank you BB.
I use the term awareness instead of consciousness which tends to link too strongly to subject-object mind in general understanding. I do not see awareness as an aspect of the sixth sense but rather as " Original Mind". I often capitalize Awareness, for to me it is the original unborn, undying THAT out of which any existence of the "six worlds" arises or may be known. Essentially to me nothing at all can be without awareness. Both subject and object arise out of awareness. It is prior to any arising of any sense of "I".
Terms such as spaciousness and open embracing expanse describe it, in fact the unobstructive "container" of all and essentially empty -space- is perhaps its greatest symbol.

Some of your care-ful explanation, on which I will further reflect and with much I agree, appears to depend on an underlying awareness, as I read.

"..enlightenment as the permanent shift of the point of attention.."

"..if your sixth strays away from this essence you do not understand the ultimate emptiness and you can neither realize nor reveal the non-conceptual expanse."

"realizing", "revealing","understand" - all of these words and phrases to me presuppose awareness, an awareness that must be for non-dual gnosis.

To me, Recognition is in detachment from "I" and letting go ("Nirvana"😉 into being Awareness, that is prior to any subject-object duality.

Our mind interface is in our perceptions and organising interpretation, but there is that which is aware of all this, that which is aware of any concept at all.

Perception and awareness of perception are not the same to me.
You cannot say it is a thing, existent apart, nor can you deny it is.
To me, without awareness there is no possibilty at all of any Phenomenon or Noumenon.

Originally posted by Taoman
Thank you BB.
I use the term awareness instead of consciousness which tends to link too strongly to subject-object mind in general understanding. I do not see awareness as an aspect of the sixth sense but rather as " Original Mind". I often capitalize Awareness, for to me it is the original unborn, undying THAT out of which any existence of the "six worlds" ...[text shortened]... out awareness there is no possibilty at all of any Phenomenon or Noumenon.

I bow
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I bow
😵

And to you.

i know this chick who went to the hospital, and it turns out that she has a ridiculously high metabolism. and should when compared to the amount of exercize she is doing shes houlkd be thin as a twig but she is overweight and isnt losing weight and all of the doctors are very puzzeld, she a prettly "intersesting" person, she's a total hippy. she thinks that all of the energy is being used up by her brain because she has a "higher vibration" or somthing, she has been quoted as saying to somone at centrelink (welfare office in austraila) that she has the mind of a small universere. kind of on topic?

Originally posted by daisychainsaw
i know this chick who went to the hospital, and it turns out that she has a ridiculously high metabolism. and should when compared to the amount of exercize she is doing shes houlkd be thin as a twig but she is overweight and isnt losing weight and all of the doctors are very puzzeld, she a prettly "intersesting" person, she's a total hippy. she thinks ...[text shortened]... welfare office in austraila) that she has the mind of a small universere. kind of on topic?

That just doesn't add up. If her brain is using extra energy, she should be loosing weight.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, however it is not evident that "thinking more" also increases the energy the brain uses (in any case, I think most energy is used simply to heat up the brain). It's also hard to quantify thought, which is something you need to do if you want to measure its energy usage.

In fact it is relatively easy to measure brain energy, the functional MRI measures where blood flow is strongest, which is a direct indicator of what part of the brain is active and blood is the means by which energy is transfered, via ATP reactions. So seeing where blood flows the strongest means that is the part of the brain using the most energy and responsible for whatever thought is going on.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In fact it is relatively easy to measure brain energy, the functional MRI measures where blood flow is strongest, which is a direct indicator of what part of the brain is active and blood is the means by which energy is transfered, via ATP reactions. So seeing where blood flows the strongest means that is the part of the brain using the most energy and responsible for whatever thought is going on.

I believe a recent study showed that cellphone radiation increases brain activity. Whether this is good or bad is not clear.

wow, you guys are all over the place on this topic but I must say with the exception of lausey, no-one is even close,,,Taoman sort of answered part of his own question in his original post, the key word being 'biological',,,the answer is indeed very basic so listen carefully now "thought is result of our brain cell doing WORK"
Now the question becomes: What is the source of energy supplied to our brain cells to do this mental work ('thinking'😉? and of course the answer to that is the energy we get from digesting food, which btw also provides the energy to do physical work? We are biological beings and of course we have to rely on food to supply energy for us,,,OK so that takes care of this 'thought and energy' issue...

But there is more to the energy story, you guys should know already but if you don't, then it's going to be a shocker,,,"the SUN is the initial source of all energy for biological and mechanical beings" and the basis for all of this is the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
energy chain for warm-blooded biological beings is as follows:
1. Sun energizes plants (light energy to chemical energy)
2. Plants energize animals and BOTH plants and animals energize humans (chemical to chemical)
3. Humans respire (chemical to thermal\chemical) and think (chemical to electrical) and work (chemical to mechanical\thermal) and even get fat (chemical to potential)

energy chain for machines is as follows:
1. Sun energized plants (light energy to chemical energy)
2. Plants energized animals and BOTH plants and animals turned into 'fuel' after billions of years of fossilization and fuels energizes machines (chemical to mechanical\electrical)
3. Machines work (mechanical\electrical to thermal)

Originally posted by Iere man
But there is more to the energy story, you guys should know already but if you don't, then it's going to be a shocker,,,"the SUN is the initial source of all energy for biological and mechanical beings" and the basis for all of this is the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

This is not entirely true. There are colonies of animals living on the ocean floor around vents. They derive their energy from chemicals escaping from those vents which may not necessarily have got their energy from the sun.
Also, a significant number of mechanical devices these days run off electricity generated from nuclear power stations: this energy does not come from the sun.
There are probably even cases of plants being grown under light from electricity from nuclear power.

Originally posted by twhitehead
This is not entirely true. There are colonies of animals living on the ocean floor around vents. They derive their energy from chemicals escaping from those vents which may not necessarily have got their energy from the sun.
Also, a significant number of mechanical devices these days run off electricity generated from nuclear power stations: this energy ...[text shortened]... e are probably even cases of plants being grown under light from electricity from nuclear power.

you are right, I modify my statement and change the word ALL to 'almost ALL'...

Originally posted by Iere man
wow, you guys are all over the place on this topic but I must say with the exception of lausey, no-one is even close,,,Taoman sort of answered part of his own question in his original post, the key word being 'biological',,,the answer is indeed very basic so listen carefully now "thought is result of our brain cell doing WORK"
Now the question becomes: Wh ...[text shortened]... to mechanical\electrical)
3. Machines work (mechanical\electrical to thermal)

edit:...""thought is result of our brain cell doing WORK"

Indeed. The post is not about the source of energy for cellular processes, of which I am well aware as a senior psychiatric nurse, who has occasionally lectured on the subject.
It is more a pondering about the relation of the energy input to the output that involves thought. You appear to simply equate the cellular energy process with the thoughts themselves. In which case thoughts are the energy of this conceived totally materialistic process. Not so sure about that idea. Nor it would seem were Kant or Descartes.

We know that energy is never destroyed or created, but transformed in some manner.

I don't know if there has been any work on the energy equation in relation to a singular thought process. I expect it would be a challenge to do so, because the energy flow of mental processes are highly complex and virtually impossible to examine in vivo.

Is all the energy going into the cells and its processes accounted for in a singular process, quite apart from the thoughts that rise from all that purely materialistic energetic activity? Does the awareness (distinct from any materialistic process energy involved) that is watching the thoughts also non-energetic?

If so, what is this so significant non-energetic added "thing" produced by all that apparently accounted for energy and which has such actual consequence?

Originally posted by Taoman
edit:...""thought is result of our brain cell doing WORK"

Indeed. The post is not about the source of energy for cellular processes, of which I am well aware as a senior psychiatric nurse, who has occasionally lectured on the subject.
It is more a pondering about the relation of the energy input to the output that involves thought. You appear to simply e ...[text shortened]... roduced by all that apparently accounted for energy and which has such actual consequence?

OK Taoman, I now have better understanding of your original queries...and I do have a couple of followup ideas which of course are my interpretation and should not be taken seriously unless it resonates with a lot of other posters...
firstly, we may keep the distinction I made between mental work and physical work, treat them as systems and then break down the systems into its basic components and compare\contrast; the answer may then lie in the details...

physical work: intestines\absorbtion (system input) brain (system controller) lungs\respiration (system processor) blood\circulation (system 'wiring'😉 fat\accumulation (system storage) muscles\action (system output)

mental work: sensory organs\sensation (system input) brain (system controller) medulla\regulation (system subprocessor - chemical) logic\creation,interpretation,simulation,decision,conclusion (system subprocessor - rational) whichever lobe it is\emotion (system subprocessor - emotional) nerves\transportation (system 'wiring'😉 memory\accumulation (system storage)

Alternatively, we simply remove the distinction because the two are actually dependant on each other; think about it! O_o
there is always some thought\series of thoughts that accompanies any physical activity we perform isn't there? So hence by that interlocking\association, we may then assume the same physical energy conversions as I mentioned before in previous post...