Where do thoughts go?

The concept of duality within the self has been rejected by many great minds who study cognition. It is argued that since alteration of the physical structure of the brain results in alteration of the thoughts of an individual, it is impossible for thoughts to be distinct from the brain that created them.

A very compelling argument to be sure, if one does not have a brain then they cannot have thoughts... But I wonder about it...

A thought does not have a physical form, in fact we cannot isolate an area of the brain where a specific thought forms. We have found areas of increased activity associated with different actions and specific thought patterns and behaviours, but this does not effectively isolate where that thought really comes from. As such, we cannot truly know what happens to these thoughts.

As a hypothetical experiment, let us examine the possibility of dualism and presume that the material body is what gives expression to the thought. That is, our bodies exist for the sole purpose of giving life or voice or expression to our thoughts. Our thoughts and psyche represent an ephemeral existence that lies somewhere within the physical form that gives it expression. If this were to be the case, death of the brain would result in a mind that may not die with the body, but exists without a receptacle or body to give it expression.

When you think about anything, these thoughts find expression as a "voice in your head." This voice can then interact with the world through physical expression or it can remain within "your head." Either way, the fact that there is an "ear to listen" to the voice means that it is being heard, it has a physical expression... This can be likened to the philosophical dilemma made popular by Bart and Lisa Simpson, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" If a soul exists as thoughts, and no one is around to hear it, does it have physical expression? Does it exist?

The same can be said of our tree in the forest, if no one is around to hear it, perhaps the argument can be made that it does not make a sound, for the existence of sound requires a listener. However, the existence of the tree and the forest... that is more difficult to debate. If no one knows of the existence of a forest, does that negate it's existence?

Of course, this whole premise rests on several assumptions, and in science the theory that makes the fewest assumptions is presumed correct until a null hypothesis can be found to disprove the initial theory. This means that looking at it from a scientific perspective, dualism meets with a great deal of resistance. The concept requires too many assumptions for a scientific mind.

... If a theory makes many assumptions but cannot be dis-proven does that mean it is wrong?

Ways to prostrate

The famous poet Rumi once wrote (and I am paraphrasing... it's translated from Persian anyways, so I'm sure I won't botch it too badly), that there are hundreds of ways to prostrate, hundreds of ways to bow in prayer...

I was thinking about that, and I realized that it's true in a very devious way.

Every individual has their own conception of what the Divine is... even those who choose not to recognize any form of a Divine presence at all, still choose to conceive of Divinity as non-existent.

So, even a complete atheist recognizes that there could be a Divine presence, but they are choosing to follow a set of facts, evidence and beliefs that imply that there is no Divinity.

In this recognition of the possibility of Divinity, we see a deep seated expression of humility.

Even the most staunch believer or disbeliever in God will have to acknowledge that at the end of the day, we do not know. One who does not believe in God would have to say that nothing is completely certain, and they cannot disprove God's existence (the null hypothesis cannot be fulfilled), even if hundreds of pieces of anecdotal evidence point towards their set of beliefs. Conversely, a believer, even one who is completely staunch in their beliefs would have to agree that they can never comprehend God. God is far beyond the human psyche, God extends past what any individual mind can conceive, therefore, one can believe in God, but one cannot rule out the possibility of God not existing, simply because God cannot be conceived of by the human mind... therefore, anything pertaining to the existence of God, would also be beyond the comprehension of the human mind.

with me so far?

Thinkers from the era of the Fatimids (a Muslim Dynasty that ruled Egypt and area extending from North Africa to Sindh about a thousand years ago) worried about this contradiction as to the human definition of God. How could the human mind think on God without a definition? How could God be defined with the limits of language? Could God be proven?

Ultimately they settled on a simple definition called the Theory of Double Negation. It states that, God is Not a thing (i.e. does not exist), and (that's the inclusive and for my logic speaking friends) God is Not Not a thing.

That was the best that the brightest minds of the world could come up with.

Looking at this and going back to the beginning we see that humility abounds in this.

If we cannot prove or disprove God's existence, then the existence of the concept of God serves it's own purpose. It shows us that we are NOT infallible, that we are not perfect, that with some things we will never have all the answers.

If we don't have all the answers, then isn't that the perfect expression of humility? The simple concept of God, acts as a shield against our own pride. We cannot prove or disprove God, we can never truly know. Just as we can know the position of an electron but not it's speed (and vice versa), similarly, we won't know about God.

So, what if we're wrong? What if there is no God and we believe? ... well, as long as each faith tradition is lived fully and truly and one recognizes the importance and sacredness of human life and ethical living... it doesn't hurt to bow down in any way that we see fit.

And the other way? What if there is a God and we don't believe? ... well, if God is truly as merciful as He claims to be, I'm sure He won't mind us using the gift He gave us, our intellect in a way that we see fit.

Just as long as we think about it.

Prayer

I have trouble praying sometimes... actually a lot of the time!

It's an odd admission coming from someone who spends a considerable amount of his free time thinking about religious and spiritual matters, but to be honest, a lot of the time I simply cannot concentrate. When I close my eyes, I think about my day, I think about work, I think about the new gadget or car that has caught my fancy, and the train of thoughts just goes from there.

This led me to examine what specifically I want to get out of my personal prayers. I found that I was becoming a veritable master at reciting a string of prayers perfectly while thinking about my day at work, but was this what I wanted out of my prayers? For that matter, what exactly was I supposed to "get" from my daily prayers anyways? Would prayer on a daily basis somehow connect me with the Almighty? Would these prayers inculcate a sense of peace within me? Was the purpose of recitation of daily prayers one that I did not fully understand yet?

So, I began to analyze the process - physically, the act of praying involves a few things for me, I close my eyes, I recite prayers silently or out loud and I repeat the same words again and again a set number of times.

It's so easy to get lost doing something like that. Ideal conditions for daydreaming! Especially living in a world where we have such little time to just sit and think... is it any wonder that the temptation to let one's mind wander is so strong?

However, I was missing a part of the equation... Sure the physical action of praying may be conducive to producing daydreams, but it also produces a stillness, a calmness in the body. The counterpoint must be the stillness of the mind! But how to achieve this stillness?

I began to experiment with the concept of intention. Intention in prayer, during prayer. I know the meanings of my prayers, but what if the meaning is not enough? So, at the expense of focusing on the meaning of what I was saying, I began to try to focus on the intention behind the prayer.

Maybe when we are silently offering a prayer of thanks, the important aspect of the prayer does not lie solely within the actions or words that are said, but rather in the feeling of thanks being foremost in the mind of the supplicant? When I began to offer up prayers, I began to experiment with expressing my intention in as vivid a manner as I could. When offering thanks, I actively began to think of things I was thankful for. When asking for forgiveness I began to think of things I had done that may be wrong.

Although it isn't a perfect solution, I can say that it works to some extent... Although I now believe that a prayer should be an action that captures all the aspects of human life, the mind, the body and the soul, in a state of stillness and peace. That isn't to say that any prayer, even one recited completely by rote, is not relevant. Far from it, all prayers bring peace, but peace of the body and mind can be easier to achieve than peace of the soul but as Albus Dumbledore once said, "we must all face the choice between what is right and what is easy."