The theory of bullshit

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 4:50 PM | Message # 1

Emcees

Posts: 3979

Reputation: 1

Offline

So today I was in my history class, bored as usual, and I thought "Where do thoughts go after being thought? Do they go to a universe outside the physical universe? Can we go there?" and I came up with this. It really makes no sense and has no scientific meaning or anything but give feedback. Am I off my rocker or does this make any sense at all?

"Is existence possible outside of the physical universe?"
The physical universe is anything which can be detected using any of the 5 senses.
Anything outside of the physical universe is considered by me to be the Outer Universe. The outer universe is ANYTHING which is not in the physical universe. Things that may exist in the outer universe are things which can not be detected within the physical universe using the 5 senses.
We, as humans, and the world around us are all apart of the physical universe. However, does this mean the thoughts within our brains are apart of the physical universe?
No thought or idea can be directly predicted or guessed by someone else if they use their 5 senses or even with technology (Without clues and hints, of course). The only person who completley understands and comprehends the thought is the person thinking the thought. Thoughts may give off electrical energy within the brain, or may give off another sort of energy which we are not yet aware of, but either way, as of now: You cannot physically grab a thought, or know what a thought really is. Since you cannot detect a thought without further assistance by the person thinking the thought, the thought clearly cannot exist within the physical universe. This means that the thoughts go to some sort of spiritual realm, or some sort of outer universe after they are thought.
Now time for some variables and logic statements
Human:B
Outer Universe:O.U.
Physical Universe:P.U.
Anything within the physical universe besides humans(b):X
Anything within the Outer Universe besides thought: Q
Enviroment that supports life for humans within the Physical Universe: M
Thoughts done by Humans within the Physical Universe: A
Passage of time: T
Something which can cause death to a human within the physical universe: R
Being dead: Z

B+M+X=PU (Humans, various enviroments, and everything else make up the physical universe.)

B+M=A (Humans, put together with a suitable enviroment can create thoughts)

B+M+R+X+T=Z (Humans, put together with an enviroment which can support life, plus something which can kill them, plus everything else in the enviroment besides humans, plus passage of a finite amount of time, will someday result in the death of the human.)

^^^^After death occurs, than the human will not exsist as a living thing in the Physical universe. Since thought is within the brain, and cannot be detected directly by using the 5 senses, it does not exist within the Physical Universe. Does this mean that even though the human is dead within the Physical universe, that thought can still manifest within the Outer Universe??

T+R+M+B+X=Physical Universe,
A+Q=Outer Universe

Thought seems to exist only within the Outer Universe, meaning that after a human is deceased, thought still may occur within a separate universe.

So I know it might seem kinda confusing, and very irrelevant, but I want to know if anyone thought it made any sense what so ever. I know most of the logic is faulty, so please don't give any hard-criticism. I did this just for the heck of it cause I was bored, and I just want to see if any of my thinking actually had some merit. So feel free to correct, but don't be like "YOUR FUCKIN RETARDED!"

Life's a bitch and I'm just along for the ride.

I_Guy

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 5:21 PM | Message # 2

Heads

Posts: 1792

Reputation: 1

Offline

I'm not sure I'm convinced you wrote that. The syntax is a bit different then normal.

But to address the content, yes it does have some merit.

It is easily possible that there is an "ultrareality" beyond which we can sense or comprehend. We have to remember that if we evolved then we have extremely flawed features and evolved in no way suitable to detect an ultrareality (there was no need).

I've actually been working on some explanations of my own (not really explanations, just arguments that help me cope and better understand my frustrations with understanding the enormous unfathomablility of existence).

This argument you posted would actually coincide with my philosophical theory of "Realmism." Nowhere have I read an arguments that adequately satisfy what realmism does for me. Realmism can be applied to almost any philosophy to reach better conclusions.

Anyways the concept of an "outer universe" (ultrareality) is consistent. But the idea of "thoughts" going there, isn't. You have to first define "thoughts." It has generally been concluded by many that thoughts don't really exist in the first place. Thought is only concepts generated by the very concept itself. Beings it is only a concept, it can't go anywhere. Now sure maybe the energy from our brain goes somewhere, and maybe somehow it can be translated into something by some method of technology currently far beyond our grasp. But that's as close as thoughts can get to existing (and that's a big stretch.)

So I would disagree that "thoughts" go any where further than nowhere because there isn't anywhere for nothing to go.

We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 7:24 PM | Message # 3

Emcees

Posts: 3979

Reputation: 1

Offline

Quote (I_Guy)

I'm not sure I'm convinced you wrote that. The syntax is a bit different then normal.

I see how that seems wierd. If I were you, I wouldnt believe that I wrote that either. But basically, I went to see my english teacher from last year last wednesday. We usually discuss things like Physics and Time and all that shit, along with sociology and things along those lines. Last wednesday he explained what Logic Statements were, which if I undertand correctly is when you attatch words to variables and explain things by doing that. Ever since, I have been thinking of ways to explain how I see things using math. It's the first time I really feel like math and things like that are actually useful and almost fun for me. I have been thinking of these little "Logic statements" non stop ever since. They really get me WANTING to learn more math and things along the lines of Physics, how things work, and how numbers and shit function.
So I see where your coming from with that, but if you really don't believe me thats fine with me. I still have the piece of notebook paper I wrote it all on with the paragraphs and shit. I could scan it. Although even that wouldnt verify it's realness. But it's whatever. I wrote it so SUCK IT :P

Quote (I_Guy)

Thought is only concepts generated by the very concept itself

So basically what your saying is that "The thought of defining a thought is a thought in itself" type thing? like its a circle of redundancy?

Quote (I_Guy)

So I would disagree that "thoughts" go any where further than nowhere because there isn't anywhere for nothing to go.

But what I'm also trying to get at is: If thoughts ARE nothing, do they need a body to attach to? Do they need a brain to be thought into exsistance? Is the brain just something that sort harbors someones spirit/soul/whatever throughout this lifetime?
It's almost as if thoughts are a mind of it's own. A mind inside a mind, except the second mind is really a mind, meaning they are in face a mind of it's own? Fuck! I've been just thinking about this ALL DAY. It's one of those questions that simply can't be answered and it really really really irks me!

Life's a bitch and I'm just along for the ride.

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 7:28 PM | Message # 4

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

When I first started reading this I thought you were batshit crazy lol but as I read on, a lot of this makes sense. The biggest logical flaw you have is that you beg the question of the existence of this outer universe. In other words, you use circular logic by assuming that the OU exists and then trying to rationalize it's existence. It works the other way around. Upon conceptualizing it, you need to rationalize it before assuming it exists. Hope that helps. You, on the other hand, sort of in a more complex sense, say "it exists because it exists" and that doesn't work and is the essence of circular reasoning which automatically makes it fallacious.

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 7:35 PM | Message # 5

Emcees

Posts: 3979

Reputation: 1

Offline

Quote (eboyd)

The biggest logical flaw you have is that you beg the question of the existence of this outer universe. In other words, you use circular logic by assuming that the OU exists and then trying to rationalize it's existence.

So basically you mean I went from "It might exist but I dont know" to "Yeah it exists and heres why"?

Life's a bitch and I'm just along for the ride.

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 7:42 PM | Message # 6

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

Another thing you probably need to let go of is this concept of this soul/spirit/spirituality. The definitions given to such concepts are always different and they always define what a soul/spirit is not, rather than what it is. Soul is basically religious lingo for mind. Your mind is made up of the collective patterns of thought created within your brain over time (at least that is my definition).

Btw, I am glad your teacher is teaching you logic at such a young age. Such a tool is necessary and probably the most powerful tool he could have given you. Logic statements are actually statements based on mathematical equations like what you are talking about. In other words, a logic statement would be like this:

Steve is a bachelor.
All bachelors are single.
Therefore, Steve is single.

The evidence for such a claim would be the equation that you speak of:

S = Steve
B = Bachelor
U = Unmarried

B = U

And

S = B

Therefore

S = U

That is a VERY simple version of this.

Btw, I too do this ALL DAY

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 7:47 PM | Message # 7

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

No, you went from "I think that this exists" to "assuming that this exists, it exists". You seem a bit confused yourself about your logic. You may not catch it right away because you are conceptualizing something quite complex, but you did it. There's nothing wrong with that. I suggest you start studying philosophy. Philosopher posit similar things and it will help you get your logic straightened up. It's like a football player watching the NFL to learn how to play from the pros.

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 7:52 PM | Message # 8

Heads

Posts: 11464

Reputation: 8

Offline

Quote (ilikebacon3000)

So today I was in my history class, bored as usual, and I thought "Where do thoughts go after being thought? Do they go to a universe outside the physical universe?

reminds me of this

"That's why I compose these verses
Audible worlds my thoughts are now universes" - Jeru The Damaja

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot

YANHAP1

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 8:09 PM | Message # 9

DJs

Posts: 337

Reputation: 0

Offline

Thoughts can't exist in a universe that does not exist.
Positive energy(matter) + Negative energy(gravity)=0

who killed bambi?

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 8:17 PM | Message # 10

Heads

Posts: 11464

Reputation: 8

Offline

this sounds pretty interesting Bacon,

Quote (I_Guy)

I'm not sure I'm convinced you wrote that

i always knew he was smarter then what people thought, i think he's only 14 or 15

its interesting coz the mind can be so powerful but i agree with what I_Guy said.

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 8:23 PM | Message # 11

Heads

Posts: 11464

Reputation: 8

Offline

seriously though you could convince some mid 40 year old house wives that this shit is real and sell them a bunch of bullshit, so many others do that all the time sadly

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 8:27 PM | Message # 12

Emcees

Posts: 3979

Reputation: 1

Offline

Quote (EmSeeD)

i always knew he was smarter then what people thought, i think he's only 14 or 15

14. I know that was sarcasm but seriously lately I have been really into Physics and Philosophy. I don't even know actual theorys in physics beyond basic stuff.

And eboyd, I also joined the Philosophy club at my school. I'm the only freshman so it's sorta awkward for me but it's a good learning experience.

Anyone know where I can study philosophy very broadly for now, then get more in depth?
I only know basic stuff like Taoism, the teachings of Confusious, and basically the broad ones they teach in school. Any pointers?

Life's a bitch and I'm just along for the ride.

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 9:46 PM | Message # 13

Heads

Posts: 13145

Reputation: 2

Offline

I'd basically do what we did in my intro to philosophy class:

The starting point is where you are now -- learning how to understand and construct logical statements. Next, you learn about different types of arguments: inductive and deductive. Then you learn about logical fallacies (to avoid making them and point them out when an opposing viewpoint uses them). Next is learning about the types of philosophical claims (epistemology, etc.). Finally, you can go on to study different philosophical arguments. It may seem weird, but the place we began was actually the arguments for or against the existence of God. Here is where you can further affirm where you align yourself on this argument. Are you a deist? An atheist? An agnostic? A gnostic? A theist? Pantheist? Etc. Learn here about the various arguments for God's existence and why they are fallacious. Learn about Pascal's Wager. Learn about Anselm's Ontological Argument. Learn about the Watchmaker Argument. Etc. Then learn about Occam's Razor. With that knowledge, you can learn about the claims that rebuke them. Now that you have found out what you believe in that regard, you can move on to knowledge claims. Learn about the cogito. That is the basic building block of knowledge. Everything has to begin there. Some ideologies based around the cogito and knowledge claims are idealism, materialism, etc. From there the logical next step is moving on to claims about the mind. This includes the following: mind-body dualism, monism, solipsism, etc. Other topics include free will (one of my favorites. Ideologies include: determinism [both hard and soft], fatalism, compatibilism, existentialism, libertarian free will, etc.), morals/ethics, etc. It's really up to you to just do the research from there. Make sure to study the important philosophers along the way and also the current philosophers so you keep up with the big issues of today. Some names to remember are of course Aristotle and Plato (and all the Greeks for that matter), Immanuel Kant, St. Anselm, Pascal, Descartes (credited with the cogito and many other things in philosophy. Probably the main philosopher you will study), David Hume, Jean-Paul Sartre, Fredrich Neitzsche (spelling may be off), and for one contemporary, Daniel Dennett. I hope this helps.

erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Date: Tuesday, 20/Oct/09, 9:49 PM | Message # 14

Heads

Posts: 11464

Reputation: 8

Offline

Quote (ilikebacon3000)

14. I know that was sarcasm but seriously lately I have been really into Physics and Philosophy. I don't even know actual theorys in physics beyond basic stuff.

nah i wasn't sarcastic

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot