10 Answers

  1. If you define an object as something independent of consciousness, it is easy to fall into the trap. How can you be sure that something does not depend on your consciousness? That after you die, the world will continue to exist? One cannot be sure of this (although one can believe and this belief is quite reasonable). To avoid falling into the trap, let's define an object as something that a sufficient number of independent observers agree on. Let's call this conventional objectivity.

    (However, there are some things that you can try to prove the independent existence of – mathematical concepts. The number 3 has always been simple, and it will remain simple even if you dream about the whole world and disappear at the moment of your death.)

    Now, with the existing definition, let's try to approach thoughts. You exist. A sufficient number of independent observers will agree on this. You think, and the observers will also agree on this. So your thoughts, whatever their nature – and theories of consciousness give an answer ranging from strictly materialistic to strictly idealistic with all the stops in between-are an object, conventionally.

    You can also use your definition to dance, but it turns out to be less elegant. You can deduce that other people's thoughts exist as an object, but you can no longer draw such a conclusion about your own thoughts.

  2. An object is something that the subject sees as the opposite of itself. From this it is clear that the object is not only independent of the subject, but also completely determined by it: to whom is it an object, if there is no subject?

    The definition of “outside and independent of consciousness” seems to be derived from Lenin's definition of matter, but there is no question of objectivity here. This definition, in turn, is very close to the German-born French materialist Holbach.

    If you try to analyze this definition, especially from the point of view of modern concepts, then, of course, there are many inconsistencies: for example, if something material depends on our consciousness (for example, we can build a house), does this make it “unreal”? What if our thoughts don't depend on our consciousness? What difference does it make whether something depends on consciousness, and what is consciousness in general: if it is material, then why is it consciousness, and if it is immaterial, then how is it connected with the outside world in general? Or is it not connected in any way?

    In general, this raises a lot of empty questions, from which Marxist philosophy has never got out.

    Can a thought be an object? – Why not?” It can be an object of thought, if only because it can be thought about. If you understand 'object' as “independent” – then again yes: we do not think something of our own free will. Yes, and we were not born of our own free will – well, it turns out that we are “objects”.

  3. Our thoughts are material. What you think is what you get. Moreover, thoughts shape your reality, and you live in your own reality, not someone else's. The development of your life depends solely on you . You, and only you, are the creator of your own destiny.

  4. The object is that which creates thought. There is an objectification of thought.

    I will answer in accordance with esoteric doctrine.

    When our mind creates or evokes a thought, the pictorial sign of this thought is imprinted on the astral fluid, which is the receiver, and, so to speak, the mirror of all the manifestations of Being.

    The sign expresses the thing; the thing is a (hidden or occult) property of the sign. To say a word is to call up a thought and make it exist. The magnetic potentiality of human speech is the beginning of every manifestation in the Occult World. Utterance ( even mentally) A name is not only a definition of a Being (essence), but it means to condemn and subject it, by virtue of its Word (Verb), to the influence of one or more Occult Forces. Things are to each of us what the Word makes them by naming them. The word (Verb) or speech of each person, completely unconsciously for him, is a blessing or a curse. Our present ignorance about the properties and attributes of thought, as well as about the attributes and properties of matter, does not contribute to the process of human cognition of the world.

  5. The fact that the object is outside of us is already an illusion, because we have separated everything from ourselves by thinking that we are inside the body, and the rest is outside it… this is the concept. In self-exploration, everyone can discover that everything is not outside, but inside of us, if we do not limit ourselves to the ideas “I am the body”, “I am a meat figure limited by the skin”, “I am a thing among other things”… This is the ego that leads people to suffer. A sense of separation from All that Is….

  6. Thought represents certain processes in the human brain that have not yet been sufficiently studied. Any thought of a particular person has a twofold essence. On the one hand, this thought reflects any objects of this world. Either material or ideal. From this point of view, this thought itself is an ideal image of various phenomena of the world. On the other hand, this thought itself can be the object of consideration by the same person or other people. In this case, this first thought is already a material object (process), which is displayed by the second thought. A person can analyze, study their own or other people's thoughts. At the same time, he forms new thoughts that reflect thoughts of the first order. This process can be multi-step. (He thought I thought he was thinking ,” I'm dreaming.”) The independence of first-order thoughts from second-order thoughts is that first-order thoughts exist regardless of whether a person thinks about these first-order thoughts or not.

  7. The answer is elementary. If we follow the fundamental law of causality, then the quality of the effect always has the quality of the cause. Absolutely any object has a shape. Any thought is created by the mind on the basis of material imprints of knowledge and experience of human consciousness. Accordingly, the material brain creates only material thoughts in the form of forms. Similarly, we cannot touch an object in the form of light(effect) emitted by the lamp (cause), but the radiance from the lamp itself has a material structure or shape. If any person asserts the immateriality of thoughts, then automatically he agrees with the existence of an immaterial world, God, and so on.

  8. An object is something that is targeted by some influence of the subject.

    Of course, there is a science – psychology, it studies how thoughts affect human behavior.

    In this sense, thoughts are the object-subject of science.

  9. Thought is information. Information is a state, not an object. So no, they can't.
    The independence of the existence of observable objects can hardly be proved. The consensus of observers is not an argument. For each observer, the other observers are also objects of the external world.

  10. “An object is something that exists independently of our consciousness, a material reality.” Is there an answer here ? Thoughts are the way consciousness exists. Don't believe it when people say that thoughts are chains of electrical signals in the brain. Consciousness is not related to the brain, although the processes in the brain are initiated by consciousness. Of course, consciousness is material, it can interact with the matter of our world, but its properties show that the matter of consciousness is much thinner and “higher” than the matter of our world (as metaphysics, this is physics “above” the physics of our world). You can influence any object directly through other objects. Consciousness can be affected only through the body, breaking the connection of the body with consciousness, or distorting this connection, but this will be an effect on the body, not on consciousness. We can't separate it, isolate it, move it somewhere, or change its properties. Consciousness is an object that stands outside the laws of the material world of the universe. You can think in your own way… (again, I'll type cons. many people don't like it when they don't think the way they want to…)

Leave a Reply