A thought is a concept of a thing. That things may be real, that is, it exists in the reality of a number of people, a common reality, or it may be a concept itself. The thought is not the thing. The thing is in a reality of its own and seems oblivious to the thought being made of it.
But what about lovers, in the heights of their passion and connectivity to each other. It seems telepathy takes place all the time. The lover need only think of the loved one in some way, or connected to something and the loved will feel it, recognise it and know that their lover is thinking of them.
Or is this all romantic nonsense…
An explanation of reality that matches more the lover’s imagination and desire than fact.
Is there no such thing. Is this reality one where the thoughts are locked up in the brain, some chemical reaction, a leaping of electricity across the innumerable synapses?
Or is all of this science just nonsense…
Or facts, created to match more the physical world than the concepts that conceive of it.
Is it thought in fact that imagination that is used to perceive and create science in the first place? Or is it simply the biochemical process that calculates what the lover should feel and see … and indeed think.
I am here right now, thinking of something that exists across the other side of the world… something I know that exists right now, and is in the reality of many people.
Is my thinking of it anything to do with it? Is there any effect on the water or its surroundings because I think of it? Is there any connection between the thought and the thing that is thought of?
Common sense may tell us that there is no such connection and that it is foolish to think that anything could be influenced by just thinking of it. Though it is my thought that creates these words. It is thought that is directly addressing matter that makes it so. The thoughts energise the processes that move the muscles that types the characters. These characters did not ever exist before the thought created them.
Newton’s First Law of Motion predicts that something will continue in the same direction at the same velocity unless acted on by an external force. The ultimate corollary would be that in a sense everything is predetermined and fixed, if viewed across time as a whole then all the motion that ever existed came from the first cause.
My supplement to this law must be however ‘that something will continue in the same direction at the same velocity unless acted on by an external force – until it changes its mind’.
So direct addressing of thought exists somehow upon the processes governing the space-time reality we all enjoy. This of course helps us a great deal on getting things done and doing the most complex thing that is simply living.
So our thoughts of water, in our perceived and general reality are a form of indirect addressing. Of what degree though, I am unsure right now. The difference in the two forms of thought are very significant. Collectively our thoughts have created quite substantial changes to the local universe here on earth, as well as a minute effect on what exists some 12 billion miles away by our bottle in the cosmic ocean. Even this is only what can be sensibly deduced by our own scientific and common sense. Maybe our effect is even greater? However, what is it then that a thought addresses, of the water holding the attention? It is a concept that has all the known properties of the thought of object, at least all the ones known by the thinker. If the thinker were not aware of the temperature of the water at this time they may imagine its qualities as being different in their thoughts compared to the object being thought of. In fact, this is another clue about thoughts. Are they not simply a part of the structure that created them? Can they only be what the thinker can imagine and no more? The thinker is unaware of possibly a fish or a swimmer or the innumerable other life within the water, that can change the qualities of its reality significantly. They can only conceive what they sensibly conceptualise as water. They may imagine of course algae, fish, or other swimmers, but that is another facet of thought maybe? Is imagination not thought itself, but the simply an extension of conceptual boundary that enclose the thought?
Now, since both direct and indirect addressing of thought to matter exists, then what does it take to combine any direct addressing to create telepathy or telekinesis?
Let’s pull back for a moment and consider, why bother? Thinking has caused all the misery and problems in the world and you might wonder what would exist without it. Imagine a universe that never has a thought within it. Is it like the falling tree that doesn’t make a sound and in itself ceases to exist? There would be nothing in the universe to perceive it, therefore it would not exist. No thought given to what is unknown? I have to add that beauty, wonder and awesomeness are also a product of what is thought too – just so that thinking does not get a bad rap!
Thought must then exist, or we would not be having this discussion. However, one side you might feel it is being the reader.
The addressing of thought then must across some dimension, ether, time-space maybe, to be able to exist and mingle with other thoughts. If it were not to do that then thought could only exist at a single point in all the universes? Which may be so, but doesn’t quite yet make sense unless all the universes, time and all dimensions exist at once, a single point. I will presume time-space to be the separator of thought for the moment, because it is what I can easily conceive separates everything. This does bring up some great issues however, as then a thought of the beauty of a piece of music must then have a position within this separator and maybe even mass.
There is also the I that exists in this thinking. Which from now on I will call the <I> as the same thing I mean when I or you say I. It is not me, as in I, but collectively me as in <I>. There seems to be a need for an <I> to think. What is the relationship between <I> and thinking? I cannot think of any examples of thinking existing without an <I> but I can think of ways that thinking can be communicated. By the way, I have often said that universally you and I are the same person, and this does I guess make me sound a little odd to many who hear it, but YOU and I are <I> and it makes more sense to explain it that way. Anyway, back to ways thoughts are communicated, you are looking at one method now. It is these words that change the universe also, but they themselves appear to be totally unaware of this fact. The written word can change time-space, when an <I> accesses them. The words may provoke a similar template of thoughts as the writer, producing an effect that the <I> implements changes in their current (and common) reality. Other forms of media exist, just as a selection of images in sequence may influence the production of tears in the eye ducts of the emotional film watcher, they work to change things. In a book then is the carrier of a thought. It is the understanding of what the characters are in the book, and their relationship to each other and to the readers view of reality that produces the thought in the person. But then is that the same thought? Is it exactly the same thought?
The <I> seems to be an interesting factor too. Imagine that the total sum of thoughts exist connected to something, and that something is built to react as if the same as a normal person. The something will look and sound like a normal person. But the difference between that something and the real person is what? Is it the <I>? So turn that around… Is the <I> the sum of the thoughts or simply the energy that creates them? If it is the sum, then the <I> can be created. If it exists in a form of energy, then is it the eternal or absolute <I>?
Can identical thoughts be considered separate things? They indirectly address the same concept. So is this concept an equivalent one, or is it exactly the same. Mathematics seems to add logic to the idea that similar thoughts are in fact the very same thing. The number seven is exactly the same thing in all possible realms of existence and by its existence is exactly and directly addressed to other numbers in exact ways. A form of direct addressing then exists in mathematics. The proof created in the mind of the mathematical genius can be followed, step by step, definition by definition to the exact same conclusion in the mind of another. Mistaken thoughts can exist of course, and mistakes appear to exist, but they are simply conceptual misdirection, of things that appear to be the same in concept until examined closer and seeing the real difference that exists. The visibility of which can be proven by the above mathematician.
