I was not ignoring your comment, but simply had not got the chance to reply to the comments. I don't necessarily believe in a soul. I think that it is a term, like most others which we are accustomed to using, which is dubious. I was certainly believe in souls, but that was in the context of my Catholic upbringing. I do use the term on occasions like that of the self, or even the mind, but they are all abstract approximations. So, when I say that the thoughts come from some source, it is a statement which implies that there is something beyond the physical brain, but this could be more like Jung's collective unconscious. Or, it could be like Bergson's idea of 'mind at large'. I am just not convinced that consciousness and the brain are identical.

Holding a mirror up of the universe and all our own previous thoughts does in some ways sound a bit like the cross between the day of judgement and an acid trip. However, I do think that in a way we do hold up such a mirror, because no matter what model of the mind we adopt we do have a certain impression of the universe and the history of our own thoughts somewhere in our consciousness....

However, the question is how accurate our mirror is and, if we carry the mirror analogy further, we have to remember that the mirror image which we see of ourselves is round the wrong way and not really accurate because most of us are not really completely symmetrical.

It is questionable at what point experience becomes thought. We are facing sense impressions and coping with the stream of thought at the same time. In some ways, perhaps we could say that the dialogue may be like a war with the possible competing demands for attention going on.

Your point about non verbal aspects of communication is important because in the processing of thought we are mostly taking more in than we can process consciously. Of course, that doesn't mean that it is forgotten. We may be asked to recall aspects of experience which we had not really thought about, such as the colour of the eyes of the person we are speaking to, and we may or may not be able to remember the correct detail. But, it does seem important to see how our thinking process involves aspects of which we are aware as well as subliminal aspects of perception. The question is whether such parts of perception are thoughts until we try to think about them?

I can see the relevance of the idea of a mirror as a way of seeing the whole process of thinking. It is also easy to see the danger of thinking in a narcissistic way, or of just in ways which enable us to buffer up our own egos. I would imagine that the one way we have of preventing this from happening is that we share our thoughts through conversing with others, and this exchange of thoughts probably stops us from living in our own little thought bubbles.

I think that knowledge is important, but it depends what we do with the knowledge. It is a bit difficult to narrow goals down to the main one and, so, my choice of creativity probably includes knowledge, because that involves the creative interpretation of information into knowledge. I believe that creativity probably includes most aspects of our existence.

I am sorry if I appear to be referring to specific ideas of particular writers and this is just because they seem to have thought so much about the subconscious or systems. I see your point about a database and how we could be like databases. However, while the model of information may have some usefulness for considering our processing, but it is a picture based on our particular perspective, whereas people who lived in different historical eras may have thought in an animistic way, or in connection with the planets and stars as a basic construct for viewing and explaining the content of thoughts.

It is interesting to know at what point thoughts arise whether we adopt a naturalistic approach or otherwise. Part of it probably comes down to the role of language although images and sense impressions are probably important too. I am sure that people do have some sensory impressions. However, I imagine that reflection on thoughts in the development of memory plays an ongoing role.

I can definitely remember my own life in connection with the thoughts which I had about it. I am often surprised by the way many people don't seem to remember aspects of life, like their first day at school, and it is probably connected to it not having been internalised as a thought. A little while ago, I met a woman on a bus who I sat next to on my first day at school and I mentioned that to her and she was astounded by me telling her this. I can probably remember because I have always been someone who thinks a lot.

I think that goals in life probably fluctuate at various points in our lives. When I was working in mental health care, I remember part of my work involved sitting down with people and helping them to identify their goals in order to work towards them.

On a personal level, I have a lot to sort out on a practical level, including getting a job, and many mundane aspects of life. However, on a deeper level than finding work to support myself financially and even the fulfilment of basic pleasures I think that one of my main goals is always creativity. I am not saying that the social aspects of life aren't important but having creative outlets is essential for me.

I will have a look at your thread and try to put in a response in the next half hour.

I think that it is a very helpful quote and I feel that my thoughts seem like they are from some underlying source, such as that of a soul. One aspect of this is the way in which thoughts seem to rush in, like stimuli from the brain and senses and it is as if one's highest consciousness has to shift and select from them, as the guiding force. I believe that Plato believed in the idea of a 'daimon' as being the higher aspect which is able to oversee the thinking process.

The area of the subconscious is a large one indeed because it does involve many interpretive viewpoints. I have come across psychology texts which see the subconscious as more of a processing of data and I think that it is possible that you see it in this way because you mentioned data and systems.

However, we do have to bear in mind that ideas about the subconscious also emerge within psychoanalytic thought. In particular, both Freud and Jung speak of it, and their approaches are extremely different from one another. I am aware that many may see the ideas of both these thinkers as being outdated and not evidence based to be worthy of serious debate. However, they do provide frameworks.I think that both writers would probably see nightmares as material which is repressed and surface.

One aspect which I am aware of is how I often notice that I begin having nightmares, or even hypopompic and hypnagogic experience when I am in stressful life situations and I know many other people who have found this too. This probably points to chemicals which are triggered by stress.

Also, I think that the systems approach of Fritjof Capra is very useful and that thoughts, including those which are consciousness and those emerging from the subconscious can be viewed as arising within us as living systems, and as parts of larger systems.

I just wish to add that I do hope to be able to read to follow through any discussion with reading, but just waiting to see if the thread is even going to work at all, because it may be that it fizzles within less than a day. I do wish to make it work, and will try to do further reading when I can work out a picture of the way in which the thread may develop.

I would certainly not wish to leave psychology out of the discussion, because I do believe that it has so much to offer. It also has a variety of perspectives. Also, I am certainly not opposed to neuroscience, but just feel that it is almost being seen as of such importance in questions of consciousness as if it probably has all the answers.

I added an edit to the post which I wrote to you. I am not saying that I think that you should focus too much on questions like Atlantis or writers such as Sitchkin. The reason I brought it in is because I am sure it has to come in at some point in the topic which you are discussing, so I thought that it may as well be addressed sooner rather than later.

One aspect which I do consider to be extremely important is the nature of sources of information and the need for critical examination of these. I did study a term module on Hinduism and I remember one aspect which the tutor drew attention to, which was a certain limitation through not being able to read Sanskrit. However, I don't think that we should stop trying to understand but approach it with the best authoritative knowledge sources, and perhaps my own digression into the more outlandish areas of points to the way that there is so much material available which is mostly speculation. I see the area you raise as being important but it will probably need backing up with various sources and texts. However, you have given a couple already and it may be that others will be able to add more.

About a month ago, someone wrote a thread on esoteric knowledge, although that was based more on the idea of the knowledge as being part of power elitism rather than the ideas of the esoteric knowledge. However, it does seem to me that the underlying traditions underlying Egyptian, Indian and Greek thought can be traced back to knowledge as esoteric wisdom. I believe that Sumerian knowledge, especially Hinduism was important in the development of these ideas, but I do think that it is probably also useful to frame these partly in the historical contexts in which they arose and passed into other traditions.

Edit: I just thought that you may be interested to know that there is a website called 'Forgotten Books', which is a way of accessing books on esoteric wisdom. One particular book which I downloaded was one by Plato on the lost civilisations of Atlantis. I know that many people do not believe in the historical existence of the idea of Atlantis, but in considered lost knowledge and wisdom I do believe that question such as the existence of Atlantis do seem to come into the picture. For example, I am aware of writers, such as Zachariah Sitchkin, who saw early human beings as communicating directly with the 'gods'. However, some of this writing is far fetched, but it seems to have some importance in the consideration of the early traditions of spiritual and philosophical thought.

I am planning to read more on phenomenology because I do see this as a missing link, but not quite sure where to start exactly. I just see such divergent approaches to the nature of thoughts. In many ways, the various perspectives are only models, but, nevertheless, I do believe that there is a great bias within current philosophy to that of the neuroscientists, and it is almost overlooked how that in itself is only a model. It is from the outside looking in, with a possible claim to being objective. It all seems to me to be about angles of viewing. We have metaphysical systems which looked from the consideration of a divine order to perspectives of mind which are self organising. I am sure that they all contain elements of truth, and it all comes down to different starting points or frames of reference.

I think that your discussion is extremely interesting but one underlying issue which is also applicable is the nature of early civilisations. It seems that the early thinkers were so advanced, and I wonder about the epistemological foundations of their knowledge.

I am glad that you have raised the topic of the subconscious because I do feel that many discussions about consciousness don't go into enough focus on the subconscious. We are most aware of the subconscious in our experiences of dreams and the role of the 'I' consciousness here is interesting. Certainly, in my own dreams I am still consciously related to my own waking identity. But, it seems to me that we retain the same witness consciousness in most dreams, even if events of dreams are fragmented in unusual ways.

It is interesting to think about thoughts in connection with the whole debate about matter, mind and spirit. I certainly would not have written my question in the thread on spirit because I believe that person is merely looking for a brief definition. However, that thread alongside the article which I looked at this morning got me thinking about the nature and role of thoughts.

I think that it is possible to reduce thoughts to spirit, and certainly that was probably how it was seen in some historical contexts, but that was probably in the context of dualism, or even idealism. I believe that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and, now, it has almost thrown spirit out of the picture entirely. It was interesting that some replies in the thread on spirit saw breath. Of course, we could ask what is breath, and it is probably the underlying source of life itself.

I do feel that many materialistic pictures of consciousness are so reductive that they appear to leave awareness out partially or entirely. As far as I can see there is a whole spectrum of ways of understanding consciousness with various degrees of emphasis on body, mind and spirit. It seems likely to me that the connection between the three are so interconnected and cannot be separated entirely, but at the same time, there are certain distinctions which can be made. I do practice mindfulness meditation in some ways, and it is on that basis that I feel able to wonder about thoughts. I know that they arise in the brain, within the body, but, on some level, I do believe that they are connected to some source which is not entirely the brain and nervous system.

It seems that you are separating spirit from the mind, emotions and body, which seems to be a bit abstract. I think that this is one perspective, but is too slanted because when I engaged with the post writer s/he appeared not to be looking for a complex philosophical understanding of the topic and, various viewpoints, but a more simple working definition of the term.

I suppose that a main part of my question is about the nature of the mysterious 'I' of which Descartes spoke. Ken Wilber spoke of this as the 'witness', and it is and it is at the interface between mind and body. I wonder to what extent the "I' is able to reflect upon it itself?

On a daily basis, we rely on the I and the incoming flow of thought, and I am interested in how this contributes to understanding, rather than a move which is taking place to simply look for answers within neuroscience, which probably began with behaviorism. I do believe that thoughts themselves can be a useful focus or perspective for philosophy. What are thoughts comprised of, or composed from, and can they be reduced to matter'?

I am inclined to think that everything happens for a purpose. We would have never interacted and I do see my experience of using the forum as a very important part of my life. In the last couple of weeks there has been a lot of people really attacking one another in various threads and I just hope that lessens. Today, there seem to be a couple of new members, including the person who you engaged with on this thread today, and that may dissipate the tensions.

As far as the world issues, especially the crisis in India, I think that it shows how the world is interconnected. Sometimes, especially when we are have got used to isolating it is easy to become insular. We are becoming so accustomed to doing things online and the people who don't have access must feel really left out.

Yes, I thought that my answer may not be the one you are looking for, so I will save my own reading for anything which I write. Personally, I use the word spirit with caution because I see it as a rather fuzzy term which can be used to describe one's internalised experiences of reality to that of ghosts. Saying that, the notion of soul is equally ambiguous, especially as many query the existence of an actual soul. However, my own working definition of spirit would probably be along the lines of: the aspect of oneself which appears to be subtley different from the domain of the physical body, and probably arising from the animating lifeforce.

I think that the simple and complex come together in a strange way. Life provides simple solutions but explaining how it works is far more intricate. But, there are probably different angles and levels of analysis, and some more useful at various times, and according to the needs of the person asking the questions.

Putting your experience of the difficulties arising from the pandemic, various ones of my own and other people, I wonder how to understand on a deeper level, what we are going through. Do you think it is all a learning experience from the universe and any underlying source, or force? At times, it does seem that we are being stretched almost beyond breaking point. Sometimes, I wonder if the pandemic is a lesson for humanity as a whole. Also, I do think that it is possible that our individual experiences are lessons to develop us. I am sure many on the forum would see what I am saying as absolute rubbish, but I probably dare say it here because this thread had faded but reanimated again today.

My answer may not help because you are asking for the briefest possible answer to the idea of spirit and I have started reading a book on the meaning of spirit, by Joel Kovel, 'History and Spirit' (1999). It surveys the use of the word ranging from its use by Hegel, its use within religion, the occult and in psychoanalysis. I have only just started the book, so I am unable to explain it fully at present.

When I have read the book, which may take a while, because I have several on the go, I may write on your thread or create my own thread with my own questions. However, the thing which I am puzzled about is why do you want the briefest definition when it is such a complex topic?

I think that 'Don't Let the Devil Take Another Day' by Kelly Jones, the lead singer from Stereophonics is great. It is a live album covering most of their hits, but he sings them so well alone.

Has anyone heard any really good albums for 2021 yet?

I am a poor sleeper and often look at this site in the night when I can't sleep and even write replies. I used to have a lot of friends phone at about midnight but I try to avoid that because it just makes going to sleep harder, but I have lost touch with a lot of friends during lockdown. I have found life in England to be awful, but that was partly because I lost my job and had to move twice. We are starting to ease our way out of lockdown and I am looking for work again, but it is hard to know what will happen next. The biggest danger is if lockdown measures ease too quickly and the we get a third wave. I don't know how people would cope, because I think that so many people have become debilitated.

Dreams and premonitions were probably what got me wondering about the mysteries of existence in the first place. That was because in my final couple of years I kept having premonitions of people dying and the people died shortly after. This included my headmaster and several people I used to see around but did not know. I went with a friend to my local priest asking for explanations but, of course, he did not know. At one point I even started to worry that the deaths were my fault. Fortunately, I read Jung's autobiography at that time and read of his premonitions and his theory of synchronicity. I have had some similar experiences as an adult, but not recently. But I did have premonitions about 2 friends I knew committing suicide a couple of days a short while before they killed themselves. I just wish that I had been able to stop their deaths.

But, my own experience of premonitions has definitely stopped me from believing in some of the most common materialistic philosophies. I think that I might have become an atheist otherwise. I am not conventionally religious and only go to church with a friend occasionally, but I definitely believe that there is some source underlying our physical existence. I certainly don't believe that consciousness is an illusion. However, I think that some Christian ideas of God are rather narrow, and I see both Christ and the Buddha, as well as other 'masters' as having access to truths which most people are not aware of in daily experience.

A lot of people begin by starting threads on the main section and this is probably very brave. I tried getting involved gradually and wrote my first thread about a month later. It took me a while to get my way around the forum, but I had not used one before. There are so many different voices and, now, I can almost imagine what kind of reception various posts I write may receive. I sometimes wonder what happens when someone joins and vanishes suddenly, although I am sure that it is for a variety of reasons. I just say that because at times I have felt disheartened by response I have received but I try to be patient because the dynamics of the forum fluctuates, but I wish you the greatest success on the forum.

One writer said I have felt helpful for in connection with thinking about the concern for family in relation to the universal is Edward O Wilson, a sociolobiologist. He introduced the idea of an expanding circle. This idea is that we begin from the concern for ourselves and family in our consideration of welfare and gradually move outwards to wider spheres, to meet the needs of others. I find that his argument seems to make sense in addressing the tension and the needs of our family and immediate circle of friends in relation to the larger scope of humanity.

Personally, one difficulty which I see if people are too insular in focusing on their own family is what happens to the individuals who have no family to turn to or support them? That is how I see the link between our obligations to organisations which address poverty. I don't know if my answer is of any use to you, but, hopefully, you will get lots of responses.

I think that we are all inclined to blame others, whether it is our parents, the government, the church or atheists. Of course, there are many sources of fault external to us, but it is also involves psychological processes of projection. It is so much easier to see faults in others and blame them rather to see our own. I am not saying that we should simply try to blame ourselves, but I do think that it is useful to be able to see the way blaming others can be about avoiding personal responsibility and can even contribute to a sense of victimhood and lack of empowerment.

I am not convinced that your solution would really work to address the depths of the political conflict. I know that it may seem like it would address the matter symbolically, but it would probably create more political unrest than anything else, especially if it meant taking sides. If you really tried to implement it, even though I think you mean well, it could potentially start a world war, although I am sure that could happen anyway.

I live in England too and have seen very mixed responses to the idea of all cultures living together, and I am speaking more widely about differences not just race. Sometimes the attempts to adopt approaches to bring people together and overcome cultural and other biases is that it can be shallow. I have seen people in organisations adopt adherence to equal opportunities at face value, but as soon as managers are not present, what they say becomes another matter.

I believe that no one can dictate how people should think, and it probably comes down to a person's whole outlook on life and what it means to be human. Personally, I believe that Bob Marley captured it so well when he spoke of the importance of skin colour being of no more significance than the colour of a person's eyes, but at this point, many don't see it that way.I think that apart from cultural biases affecting individuals they are deeply entrenched in power structures and institutions. However, I do think that discussion and awareness of cultural differences is probably the most important starting point because it may be that many people have not really been given the reflective space to consider the matter, outside of the immediate circle of their own cultural sphere.
.

Your experience points to the way in which people often make assumptions based on such a limited basis. I know that people don't assume that I am interested in philosophy and reading when they meet me because I can look a bit scruffy, especially when I am wearing my baseball cap.

But, I have found that people sometimes object to me reading and writing in pubs. I have experienced comments like, 'This is not a library' and I even got asked to leave once for writing in a pub. But, it is hard to find quiet places to read, and even in my local library there are so many children activities going on that it can be so noisy.

But, going back to the general topic, I do believe that this site is one way of thinking about our reading, because, otherwise, it can become an isolative experience. However, I do think it is good to not be influenced too much by certain people's ideas and interpretations, especially when they become dogmatic.

I think that your post is interesting and the idea of cultural bias. The only query which I have is how do we separate cultural and individual bias?The extent to which we internalise the ideas and values which we are socialised to believe in will vary. Some people will not evaluate these ideas consciousness and others will question a lot. Also, we have such unique experiences within cultures.

I think able to see that certain attitudes which I have ranging from views against racism and sexism occurred in the context of family and education. I was particularly aware of how my own family values came into play when I was thinking about my ideas on a whole range of ideas ranging from capital punishment, nuclear warfare and euthanasia during adolescence.

However, I think that while it is useful to be aware of the bias, we have to question where do we go from there? I am in favour of looking at social issues and philosophy ideas from many angles as possible, and being aware of seeing bias, but I am not sure that it is possible to be value free or without any bias. But, I definitely believe that it is helpful to be aware of cultural bias, and to aim towards going beyond thinking from narrow, restricted frameworks.

I find that I sometimes forget and almost start clicking on paper books too, especially when I wish to turn pages. I agree that buying books does seem like a good thing because it means paying authors. I think that we are getting to the point where people expect to have books and music for nothing. Of course, we want to be able to have access even if we have not got enough money but I know plenty of people who just assume that they should be able to have free books. Books were freely available in libraries before we were able to get them on devices but the original had been paid for.

I also have found that it is a shame not being able to lend the books which I am reading to others. Funnily enough, even though I believe that Kindles are marvellous, none of my friends have them. They don't read like I do but they do say that they would only wish to read actual books. But, the one thing that I have found is that it is sometimes so much easier to get hold of books by downloading them. I also probably would have never read all the classics which I have done if they had not been available at the click of a switch. It seems almost like magic really.

You have also got me thinking what it means to get published. One aspect of our writing on this site is that what we write can be seen by the general public because it is online and can be viewed by the public. However, as there is so much on the web and on the site the likelihood of posts we write being read is fairly remote. But, I am consciousness of the fact that what I write being online. At times, I have disclosed about myself in interaction, but I am a bit cautious, because, for example, I am aware that a potential employer could google my name. Generally, I try to write what I can stand by with a certain person of accountability.

The other aspect which I was thinking about was how so many writers are self published. So, just because something is published doesn't in itself give it credibility. I believe that it is fairly easy to publish one's own writing and I know a couple of people who have done this. So, there is plenty of scope for new Machiavelli's really.

Personally, I am not convinced that everything happens through random mutations, natural selection and chance, but I am aware that my view is probably a minority view on this site. I do think that the dominant paradigm of our times wishes to reduce ideas like transcendence to the fabrications of ego psychology. At times, I feel so disheartened that I wish to give up any pursuit of exploration. However, on a deeper level, I do believe that we are more than just aspects and subjects arising from matter, and that the development of consciousness has some importance in the grand scheme of life, which goes beyond mere coincidental occurrences.

Thanks for your reply, because, sometimes, while I have ideas and wish to pursue them on the site, I do feel that many prefer to look more to those who are seen as having more expertise and knowledge. I do believe that we are all entitled to express our ideas, and the beauty of this site is that it is not just in the domain of the experts or academic circles.I see reading as important in connection with those who have thought about certain ideas, but I do think that intuition is valuable too.

I read your answer and have been wondering about it because it seems that you are querying our purpose in philosophy. I can see that there may be attempts to turn black into white, and many other shallow solutions. Part of my problem with what you are saying is a possible implication of your post to mean that we should only engage in philosophy if what we are saying is so distinct as to stand out and be worthy of publication.

If we should only engage if we are at that point in our life where we feel that what we are saying is so important doesn't that mean that we would be shut out from all discussion of philosophy at all?I am not convinced that philosophy should just be left in the hands of the experts, and we are able to develop our knowledge of it through discussion of our own reading, rather than just remaining silently alone with our thoughts.