they mean this:

Oh that was indeed not what @creativesoul said . So in my thoughts about new thoughts I used the infinite regress argument?

All the thoughs we had, have and ever will have already existed forever?

Oh that was indeed not what creativesoul said — ttjordy

That's totally what they said. @creativesoul confirm please

Exactly not what I said. — creativesoul

I caused so much confusion with that sentence. Excuse me. I did not mean that he did not say infinite regress. But that my reply to him contradicted what he said.

What is a thought? In pure sense, there are no new thoughts. They always show up as a combination of signals in the brain that were composed of previous thought. Actually new thought is a different compositiom and form of the other thoughts that already existed. — ttjordy

I stand by this statement. Give me a counter argument.

Understood. They are unacceptable, because they are untenable. This is proven by the fact that they inevitably lead to a reductio ad absurdum.

Turtles all the way down.

God did it.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Etc.

It neglects the fact that all interactions occur in time, along a timeline of events, which we demarcate in a number of different ways using a plurality of means.

Simply put: If what you say is true, then no thing changes. That's clearly false because it contradicts with what's happened and/or is currently happening. Falsehood is unacceptable.

Dispense with such belief, immediately if not sooner.

Considering the fact, as it appears to me, that countless old problems are yet not solved to the satisfaction of all parties involved, I would say there's no pressing need for new ideas - they would just add to the backlog of uncracked riddles. — TheMadFool

I do not understand this logic...

So, given that there are unsolved problems, no need for putting forth new ideas, because that will just add to the problems?

That's rubbish.

Solutions are ideas. Condemning all new ones restricts and/or unwisely limits the breadth of the scope regarding what counts as a solution. If we condemn new thought, we imprison our solutions to only old ideas.

:brow:

That seems a bit unwise, to say the least.

I caused so much confusion with that sentence. Excuse me. I did not mean that he did not say infinite regress. But that my reply to him contradicted what he said. — ttjordy

You're good.

:smile:

I mean, there's plenty of room to build a bridge of mutual understanding.

All the thoughs we had, have and ever will have already existed forever — ttjordy

That is false. It is also a prima facie textbook example of infinite regress. Neither is acceptable and when combined they certainly count as good reason to discard that belief, as it is written.

I in fact, see thoughts as energy and energy was, is and will always be the same. Perhaps this definition is way too basal. But I mentioned that thoughts are electrical signals and neurons just in a different configuration. And that may change, so from this point of view new thoughts are created.

I in fact, see thoughts as energy and energy was, is and will always be the same. — ttjordy

Good for you. Thought requires more than just energy. Seeing thoughts as energy is akin to seeing flour as apple pie.

I mentioned that thoughts are electrical signals — ttjordy

Again... electrical signals may be one necessary elemental constituent of all thought, but flour plays the very same role in apple pie.

But they are both energy, so they must be the same. I think everything is the same. We are one. We are all the big bang.

But they are both energy, so they must be the same. I think everything is the same. We are one. We are all the big bang. — ttjordy

This is wrong.

Energy is energy. Flour is flour. Flour is one - of many - necessary elemental constituent of apple pie. All by itself, flour just does not have what it takes to be an apple pie. The same holds good of energy and thought.

This is what the ultimate idea is. And I know that it is very inconvinient if we don't differentiate between things. So I believe they are different but only because we differentiate and conceptualise.

I think everything is the same... — ttjordy

Your beliefs on this matter are the same as mine because they both include energy?

C'mon man. Think about what you're writing.

Flour is energy, energy can transform into matter. If you transformed the energy in such a way so that some matter assumes apple.

Look up the matter-energy equivalency.

It is just not convenient to apply this to everything, I agree.

This is what the ultimate idea is. And I know that it is very inconvinient if we don't differentiate between things — ttjordy

What you suggest is the epitome of what counts as being untenable. If you do not draw a distinction between anything, there is no language use. The belief you hold is existentially dependent upon language. Perhaps most importantly... If what you say were true, there could be no such thing as language use.

But there is.

Refraining from drawing any distinction requires an immediate sudden stoppage of all language use. If you acted upon what you espouse to believe, you would have to stop talking, or be guilty of suelf contradiction and/or a performative contradiction...

Using distinctions as a means to demand we stop drawing them.

Yeah... no thanks.

Best to discard that belief in search of much better. There are plenty.

I concede. There is actually only one thing to say then: we are all one. We are everyone and no one.

So it's best to conceptualise and differentiate. But in the end I believe we are truly one and the same.

But it is not useful in discussion

If the aim is to place equal value upon each individual human, simply because they are human. If it is best to offer all others(strangers, in particular) a certain modicum of respect simply because we are all human, then we can succeed in doing so without neglecting the uniqueness of each and every individual human. The differences can make the world such interesting and sometimes wonderful place.

"All is one" neglects all the differences. "We are all one" may. Some differences ought not be neglected.

No need to concede. I do not disagree with the underlying sentiment of "We are all one", if it is to treat other people in ways that show an underlying priority and/or value has already been placed upon them... simply because they are people. We are all the same in that we are all subject to the individual particular circumstances making up each one of our lives, respectively.

If that is agreeable to you, then we are in agreement. That's the best starting point. A bridge of mutual understanding.

it is not useful in discussion — ttjordy

Yes, that is exactly right.

If you mean to say that - based upon the data showing that the universe is expanding like an air balloon - we can confidently surmise that it came from a singularity, or some such. I readily acknowledge and agree that that is a commonly held belief. It is also supported by current observations.

Big Bang requires that the concentration of energy required to produce what is currently within the universe as we know it to 'fit into' an indefinable volume, an immeasurable amount of space-time. Before the event, all of the necessary ingredients for that explosion to happen just come from nowhere.

It's magic.

Yeah, I was bringing up arguments that are useless. I am now aware of this. Thanks for making me realise.

I am in awe of your tactics! My answer to your question "are there any new thoughts" is as follows:
Answer: YES - very many

There aren't any 'new' thoughts. Thought is always 'old'. The 'newness' comes from something else which operates prior to thought.