Sure it has.
It's just that you'll get different answers depending on who you ask.
A cognitivist will tell you 'thought' is the mental action of processing data and contextualizing it.
A neuropsychologist will tell you 'thought' is when neurons behave in a certain way.
And a physicist will tell you 'thought' is when atoms behave in a certain way.
There's no definitive answer as far as I know, but no definition really excludes the other.
Then again, nothing in science is really definitive.
Those are all descriptions of mechanisms. The qualia of thought are as of yet undefined.
WHAT?! do you actually base that on anything or did you come up with that yourself? That sounds utterly and totally insane.
Einstein is a man whom I've spent a great deal of time studying. He has a fantastic 800 page biography which I've read and re-read over a dozen times and he has been the inspiration for untold scientists. Having said that, he was most certainly a mystic and he spent over 20-30 years on relativity - which effectively altered our society forever. He then faced down the spectre of an equally important theory of physics which directly contradicted his theory and essentially created a yin-yang of physics theory.
Relativity is essentially a theory dealing in beauty and symmetry, it lends itself to an artists wonder at the beauty of nature and its no accident that relativity based physicists have Einstein-like ideas. He was a mystic to his very core. he completed general relativity in 1905. He completed special relativity about 10 years later. Both theories were based off the electromagentic theories and mathematical papers written in the 1800's and were extensions of Newton's basic questions of - "what is space,"
Newton was not only mystic, he was absolutely religious and saw the handiwork of God built into nature
Eisntein had years after his great theory was proven time and time again to reflect on the nature of knowing, nature itself and what was behind it all with the frustrating and maddening stimulus of his theory being imperfect in the face of the quantum. Of course, quantum mechanics and relativity working together makes perfect sense from the point of view of an ordered universe. If an electron spinning around an atoms nucleus didn't obey different laws that relativity, it would crash into the nucleus instead of orbiting it under the laws of wave collapse and the universe would a beam without rivets.
I personally find that to be WAY beyond "happy accident of nature" because that's not just finding an ordered universe in whcih life can happen to exist. That's finding a universe which is the extension of a room in the Marriot with your name on it, pictures of your family and a welocme note and a botte of champage on ice.
Onto Term's questions
My point is, since you are arguing for the "godly" side is, since you tout the Christian rhetoric of "the father, the son and the holy spirit" aka the Christian god, why is that? If you do not believe in the Christian god, or anything supernatural, then don't feel obligated to answer. But if you do believe in anything supernatural I ask "Why?". What makes your beliefs any more plausible than those that support other gods/supernatural events?
Please re-read my posts. I never mentioned anything supernatural - deliberately so. I never mentioned anything even close to " the father, son and the holy spirit," I'm Iewish and very much so. I speak Hebrew, my family is from Israel and I enjoy reading Hebrew sacred texts to find the mysticism in them
I willl answer though.
Supernatural literally means that something "above nature." I'm don't believe God is above nature. We perceive God as supernatural because the concept of God is so far above is that it has to be "supernatural." God is nothing more than a word for a concept of something so far above our ay grade that we had to coin a word for it that is sorely lacking in substance. Words themelves are at best imperfect constructs and the word God is in and f itself the epitome of that - words are limiting anfd God is our most important word
God brings baggage with it and anyone who says they believein God is actuallly saying that they believe in god "aa they imagine him to be."
No one can really understand God except the people who have had transcendental religious experiences and to a one they have all told me that the first thing they felt in said experiences was that God does not do the idea justice
I begin my own construct of the issue with life after death. The first question that has to be asked is "what is life after death?" That reallly begs the question of what life is in the first place but that is a way bigger question than I have time for in this thread. My anser according to all evidence; yes we live on after death. I don't think the human brain is capable of creating the QUALIA of human experience and I suggest everyone google the word QUALIA. The brain is, in my opinion, no different than a modem or a radio which channels consciousness intoa physical body in a manner in which we can experience physical relaity in a localized consciounsesss. The source of consciousness is - IMO - non-local. Consciousness is "outside" and our r=brains take consciousness and stuff it into a limited form
Whn the brain malfunctions consciousness is altered and their is a disease where that happens, its called schizophrenia. Strangely, schizophrenics in the throes of madness have been known to identify very strange and unknowable things alongside the insanity they spout. Why is that? Schizophrenia is a disease in which every perception is indistinguishable as real or not real. Our brains are meant to act as intellgient filters, sperating out the information which we need for physcial life while sheletering us from the preception of thought formed, things that most people can't see and everything else that makes life here possible
So if you accept the premise that consciousness isn't sourced from inside the brain - you have to ask yourself whether or not there is a gost in the machine?
That is the question of dualistic versus monadic thought.
IMO its a largely insignificiant idea as dualism suggests God "animates" the body whereas Monadism suggests that God is the body and we simpl are aspects of him
I see it like this. God is the entirety of consciousness. Pure, loving consciousness and being. Consciousness is the template upon which the multiverse is written. Time is obviously malleable, as relaitivity shows and people are throwing around the idea of a multiverse enough that it has warranted a cover on Time magagzine and a celebrity scientist explaining it to the non-physisists.
I don't see why time cant move not only in a straigth line, but parallel, sideways, in bends and lopps and even stall all together
Thats really what the multiverse suggests, what string theory infers and the sciience speculation of people like Michio Kaku.
If that is true, and I am VERY sure it is. Most scientific hearay becomes scientific fact given enough time - Newtons ancestors believed space was filled with an ether which we was wildly dismissed as fantasy - we now have a big machine at CERN looking for the ether - its now called the Higgs Boson.
So if time is relative, to the point where we can exist as consciousness without needing time at all? If Consciounsess is the template unto which physical reality is written like a holographic universe, we are the individual avatars inisde that projection which bear sparks and shards of the consciousness which we recognize as life - as consciounsess is the animating force if you will.
When we die our bodies fade and our consciosness returs to source to experience a paradox. We don't lose our individual essences IMO but we are also one with everything. Think of being a raind drop while at the same time being part of the ocean. You don't cease to be a raindrop - you are only seperate when you are away from the ocean. When you retunr to th eocean you rmember that you are part of the ocean but you are still you, albeit in an expanded and far more aware form that would be dificult for your current, seperated from source self, to recognize and understand. If that sounds strange - try to remember what your thoughts wre like when you were 3 years old. You were self-aware, you were very obviously YOU, yet you would not be able to identify with the person you are today and your 3 year old self would find everything about you nearly mystical in power and nature.
So, what does this really mean? What does it answer?
Not much other than the fact that we live on after death.
Does God exist?
What does God mean? Is God the pure consciousness of everything that is? Is God somehow seperate from that consciousness? Is God something else entirely?
I think God is the pure consciounsess but since we are a part of that consciousne then perhaps our experience of that consciousness is how much of it we are able to access at any one time?? At the end of th day - we don't have a word to explain it all so we, orat least I. say God. Its a handy word that explaisn the whole conundrum but its woefully inadequate to epresss the sheer awe and divinity of what "God" is.
In order to discuss it though we need words and their painful limitations. So I say God and we start down the endlss road of semantics and focusing on the limitations
Can I answer any why's?
My belief is life is an experience meant for us to try and capture as much of the Godhead while living in the physical world for some inexplicable reason. We must survive, create, invent, experience life and follow our passions and the Mazlow heirarchy of needs. Other than that, we are meant to look for the answers, create a relationsip to divinity - even if non-belief is what constitutes our human experience - and live and die. When we die, we see that most of what we thought was important really wasnt although it is very imrtant while we are here
Everything is paradox and omehow I suspect it was constructed to be that way
There is nothing supernatural about anything other than the word supernatural itself which seeks to take what is nothing more than the natural actions of nature and assign it a word that makes it seem more difficult than it is.
That's a long and meandering answer but I could probably write a few hundred pages on the subject
So, so far what do you think?