Talk:Thought: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
I [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thought&diff=1088364167&oldid=1088367670 made an edit] to the Theories of thinking section, Platonism subject which was soon reverted by [[User:Phlsph7]], and returning later finding such [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thought&diff=1088430579&oldid=1088367670 made another], only to once more have undone by [[User:Phlsph7]]. I don't mean to suggest that the content of the original was necessarily problematic. I do know, however, that the plurality of antecedent ought find agreement with any subsequent usage of pronoun (viz Platonic forms implies original ones and not one), and that any supposed difficulty in thinking would arise most likely through an inability rather than ability (viz able should instead be written unable or ill-able). The edits caught my attention mainly because the structure was awkward to grasp, as opposed to any specific intention I had to add anything new to their content. [[User:Lispenard|Lispenard]] ([[User talk:Lispenard|talk]]) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC) [[User:Lispenard|Lispenard]] ([[User talk:Lispenard|talk]]) 07:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
I [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thought&diff=1088364167&oldid=1088367670 made an edit] to the Theories of thinking section, Platonism subject which was soon reverted by [[User:Phlsph7]], and returning later finding such [//en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thought&diff=1088430579&oldid=1088367670 made another], only to once more have undone by [[User:Phlsph7]]. I don't mean to suggest that the content of the original was necessarily problematic. I do know, however, that the plurality of antecedent ought find agreement with any subsequent usage of pronoun (viz Platonic forms implies original ones and not one), and that any supposed difficulty in thinking would arise most likely through an inability rather than ability (viz able should instead be written unable or ill-able). The edits caught my attention mainly because the structure was awkward to grasp, as opposed to any specific intention I had to add anything new to their content. [[User:Lispenard|Lispenard]] ([[User talk:Lispenard|talk]]) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC) [[User:Lispenard|Lispenard]] ([[User talk:Lispenard|talk]]) 07:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
||
:Hello {{u|Lispenard}}, I have already responded to your inquiry [[User_talk:Phlsph7#grammar%2C_grammar_again|on my talk page]]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 10:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
:Hello {{u|Lispenard}}, I have already responded to your inquiry [[User_talk:Phlsph7#grammar%2C_grammar_again|on my talk page]]. [[User:Phlsph7|Phlsph7]] ([[User talk:Phlsph7|talk]]) 10:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
||
so here's what I got so far: |
|||
Viewed as such, difficulty in the mind's realisation stems from being less than adept at grasping thought wherein Platonic forms might arise, and thus fail to behold in these their original Natures - distinct from the but mere glimpses we receive through the sensory world. Succeeding meant, to illustrate, being both able to experience Beauty herself - together, yet alone, and at once in harmony - with all her derivative manifestations in all their diverse attribute, variform aspect, and unremitting splendour. [[User:Lispenard|Lispenard]] ([[User talk:Lispenard|talk]]) 20:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:47, 18 May 2022
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Vital article
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Thought as an abstract form
The brain generates and uses countless abstract forms/objects. The elemental abstract forms are thoughts (as elemental organic forms are cells), the most complex are skills, sciences, languages etc. Abstract forms/objects, although non-dimensional (shapeless), are energetically real (not 'imaginary'), as material forms are real (telekinesis, moving material objects/forms with thoughts, is a direct proof of that). Quantum physicist David Bohm (see: Thought as a System) among many others, also realized this, and dedicated many of his efforts bringing up the importance of thoughts to humankind: "Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us..."
According to Rupert Sheldrake every abstract form, like every organic form, relates to a certain morphic field.
Unsigned comment
I came to this entry hoping to see various psychophysical, epigenetic, or perhaps esoteric(new thought, rosecrucians, theosophists etc.) hypotheses to the question "what is thought?" Surely a thought or abstraction is a thing composed of matter an energy. I found the entry to be quite unsatisfying.
merge with idea
what's the difference between a thought and an idea?!
That answer is online here - http://cnx.org/content/m14812/latest/
also, many differences and the relationship between thoughts, emotions and feelings is discussed in my online book "The Psychology of Emotions, Feelings and Thoughts" online here - http://cnx.org/content/m14358/latest/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.248.163.183 (talk)
Thinking effects
Result 1:
Favors in thinking comes from lacking of understanding how something works in life.
Example: Business Business owners use the limitations of human's education abilities as a tool for producing primary products for customers use for a profit range which changes as the economic cycle turns in stages.
Ex: TV mational and international People's lacking in knowing hoe electronics use electric energy for powering up a TV device.
So animation and vibraion from audio to reproduce a copy of a recording that will have fans amazed for centuries.
So this is one example that cause a business to be great from having people use there limits in understanding as a main source to buiness gains.
So everything is all about what people know and what people don't know. Key concept (patterns in life)
Cognitive Science
This subject EXPLICITLY studies the mind and its precesses. However, it is composed of many subjects including AI, Psychology, Philosophy, Linguistics etc... Should some of these subjects be replaced since cognitive science "absorbs" them? After all, the field is dedicated to it.
Changes to Therories of Thinking, Platonism section
I made an edit to the Theories of thinking section, Platonism subject which was soon reverted by User:Phlsph7, and returning later finding such made another, only to once more have undone by User:Phlsph7. I don't mean to suggest that the content of the original was necessarily problematic. I do know, however, that the plurality of antecedent ought find agreement with any subsequent usage of pronoun (viz Platonic forms implies original ones and not one), and that any supposed difficulty in thinking would arise most likely through an inability rather than ability (viz able should instead be written unable or ill-able). The edits caught my attention mainly because the structure was awkward to grasp, as opposed to any specific intention I had to add anything new to their content. Lispenard (talk) 07:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Lispenard (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Lispenard, I have already responded to your inquiry on my talk page. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
so here's what I got so far:
Viewed as such, difficulty in the mind's realisation stems from being less than adept at grasping thought wherein Platonic forms might arise, and thus fail to behold in these their original Natures - distinct from the but mere glimpses we receive through the sensory world. Succeeding meant, to illustrate, being both able to experience Beauty herself - together, yet alone, and at once in harmony - with all her derivative manifestations in all their diverse attribute, variform aspect, and unremitting splendour. Lispenard (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)