de Silentio;7183 wrote:
Is this statement valid: A thought comes from the different parts of my brain being configured and working in such a way as to produce thought?
Not from this perspective. Your 'thought' arises each moment with the rest of the universe. Your brain is 'created' (mnemonically) in toto, along with everything else in the universe of the momentary memory. New moment, new universe/memory. Just like still frames from a movie. Put all frames in a pile on a table, there is every moment, arisen synchronously, at the same moment, all sitting together. Now, take some frames and line them up in a particular order, viewed from a particular perspective, there is a 'motion' picture (life). Viewed from other perspectives, the 'movie' (life) will appear to be running backwards. From a trillion other perspectives, there will be a trillion different universes and lives, some that you could never comprehend as we as one simple 'perspective'. We are simply experiencing one particular 'pattern' of moments. There are almost infinite different 'patterns'/perspectives.
So, what is seen as thought 'self' arising from a particular beain is spurious. 'Thought' arises as the 'brain' arises, simultaneously. We do not 'produce' anything. Yes, in our world of 'make believe', it certainly seems so, that is the illusion, and a wondrous illusion it is.
I would even venture to extend this to the mind. If this statement is correct, then would thought not be the same 'thing' as an apple?
Your thought/concept/memory of an apple is
the only apple in existence. Memory=existence. 'Memory/'thought' = apple = life.
However, I do have very little experience with the philosophy of mind. But I can see no other way to reconcile what we know of the brain and what we 'know' of our minds.
Our minds?? *__-
How is life an illusion?
Actually, any 'spiritual' practice, any 'mystical' practice, Quantum theory...
Google "Life is an illusion" and read the first hundred sites to come up. Understanding is something that either comes from 'within' (arises with the universe (memory) of the moment), I cannot do more than throw words, pointers, and words are a poor form of communication at 'this' level. You can, however, 'experience' it for yourself.
I have different memories that are organized by my internal sense of time.
You ARE memory at any one moment. You ARE memory, arising with memory of memory (illusion of linearity and motion), memory of 'self', memory of a 'thought', a 'dream', a 'hamburger'... All arising as/in the 'moment'. Some moments, you arise with a 'sense of time' and a feeling of 'organizedness', a 'memory' of 'organized memories.
I am experiencing myself typing right now, I experienced my wife saying goodbye to me 10 minutes ago, I experienced by child going down for a nap 30 minutes ago, however, if I am to say that these events being organized in time is simply an illusion, how can we have experience at all?
A particular arising (momentary) memory appears as 'experience'. Arising with a particular new memory is what is often called an 'epiphany' or 'revelation' or 'genius', or 'brain fart', depending on the 'appearance' of the memory.
It is more like you ARE the experience (memory) and it is (the One) 'Consciousness' that is the 'Experiencer'.
Because, if I don't experience the world in the same manner that my wife or child does (sequentially through time) how can we ever relate to each other?
My friend, the only place that your wife and child reside as 'who they are' is in Mind, as memory. There is no 'wife and child' 'out there'. There is no 'out there' out there. Basically, your entire life is a mnemonic dream. You are created with the memory of family. Different every moment. All is memory, nothing 'needs' to have 'objective' existence. There is no such thing anyway.. doesn't need to be. Memory certainly seems to provide the entire enchilada, and so much more.
Perhaps it is becomming obvious by now that I have a slightly different 'definition' of 'memory'.
Part of the difficulty I am having with Kant right now is trying to understand how space and time are only subjective 'forms' of reality.
Subjective 'forms' of 'memory'. The illusion is that they/it is more than simple memory, and relates to some mystical objective 'out there'.
Bye the bye, it is considered 'spacetime' as there is no quantitative difference. The only difference is perspective.
Perspective; See this dot '.'? Looks like a dot, right? Wrong! It is an end view of a line!
See this line '______'? Looks like a line, right? Wrong! It is a side view of a plane, a circle, a triangle...
See this 'cube'? *__-
And that use of the term 'reality' indicates that the 'author' would (sloppily) use it interchangeably with 'existence'.
They must, out of necessity of a functioning universe, be objective properties of the universe.
One more time, the only place that 'the universe' exists is in/as 'Mind/memory. The only place it (seems to) 'function' is likewise in/as Mind/Memory.
If they were merely forms of my sensible intuition, how could one object interact with another?
All objects exist as objects
It seems to me that time is both an objective property of the universe and a subjective form of my experience.
I know that it 'seems' like that. The appearance of 'time' is an integral component of the memory of the universe of the moment. 'Time' must (appear to) 'be' so that 'space' might (appear to) 'be' so that 'we' might (appear to) 'be'. All memory. Nothing 'objective. Falling for the illusion/fantasy of 'objectivity' has been an anchor around the neck of science until now.
If I am correct in my above exposition of what thought is, then thought is truly linear,
Certainly... from a 'particular perspective, according to certain memory.
because my brain gets reconfigured sequentially,
Thats the appearance, but your (memory of a) 'brain' arises, synchronously, in each and every moment of 'you'. A whole new 'memorybrain' every (nonlinear) moment!
and thus my thoughts are sequential (linear).
Certainly seem like that, anyway.
Kant says that if we did not possess the knowledge of time, we could not organize our experience of objects.
It certainly seems like 'Kant' has his 'perspective', like everyone else...
I think the same goes for thoughts, it is necessary that they flow sequentially, otherwise we could not organize them as such.
There are other perspectives where the illusion of thought runs in all different kinds of direction, right up to all synchronous with no linearity at all. All perspectives 'make sense' to the perceiver, just as yours and mine and everyone else's. Hence egoic argument...