Some possible definitions of groundless: having no basis for belief, action, or argument; without basis in reason or fact; unsubstantiated. I am not going to define a thought.

I have no reason to believe there is such a thing as a groundless thought. If I had the ability to go into someone's thought and think it too, then I could determine based on some scientific measurement if that thought was factual, reasonable, and substantiated. Until I have the ability to think other peoples' thoughts, though, I have reason to believe that every thought has merit, value, is reasonable, factual, substantiated and grounded in reality. Even an imaginary thought is a valid, reasonable, and factual thought.

And, in the case of schizophrenia, I cannot say a schizophrenic's thoughts are groundless until I have ablility to think their thoughts with them. To the schizophrenic, I imagine that to them, their thought is factual, reasonable, and substantiated in their experience. And, until I can scientifically disprove their reality does not exist and my reality does, I cannot say their thoughts are groundless...who knows, maybe they have access to some other reality? Can I really prove scientifically that my reality exists? All we can do is corraborate the experiences of the majority. Majority rules.

Here is an imaginary thought: maybe someday we can manipulate the chemicals and structures in our brain to be the same as a certain individual schizophrenic (give ourselves the same amount of dopamine in certain areas, etc.) ... then, maybe we will "see and experience" the same reality as this schizophrenic ... at that point, who's reality is going to be correct? The majoritys'-who do not have the same structure and chemical composition? Who's thoughts will be groundless?

Science has shown over and over again that what we consider to be fact today may change in the future. I can go on and on with examples; For instance, when looking at scientific studies in healthcare, one can find all kinds of examples of what is believed to be true one day will change with the next scientific study. So, at this point, I have reason to believe that all thoughts are valid; there is no such thing as a groundless thought, and to censor thoughts goes against freedom of thought and speech and I hope to God we don't start going around telling other people what they can and cannot think and say.

I have never taken any philosophy courses: my fear has always stopped me, but I do enjoy reading these discussions. I may not be following the rules because I have not had any training in philosophy. I humbly apologize if I am not following protocol. I will not be offended if you tell me what I am saying is out of line with the rules. Just let me know because I really like this.

I think thoughts can be unspoken language if you have a very broad definition of what language is. (eg, language could be imagery, words, symbols...that may not be capable of being communicated to or understood by another person, but understood by oneself).

On the other hand, thoughts may not unspoken language if you have a narrow definition of what language is. (eg, language is a way to communicate things from one individual to another).

For instance, take the example given earlier of the person who wanted a cup of coffee, yet could not come up with the words to express what they wanted. (I have had this experience many times in my life---I can "think" it in my mind, I can see the hot cup of coffee, I know what it is, I want it, but darn it...I can't come up with the word coffee: and I even speak english all the time)

So, I was thinking in pictures of what I wanted, my language was pictures. Were there words attached to this in my mind? No. I did not have a word for it. But...if I drew a picture on a piece of paper or pointed to a picture of coffee, I would have been commnicating to someone, a form of language...if you include pictures as language. (My thought about having coffee was unspoken language if you consider my imagery and subsequent communication by imagery a form of language) (My thought about having coffee was not unspoken language if you do not include my visualizing coffee and communicating by imagery a form of language = then it was only a thought, not language)

So, I do not think there is a right or wrong answer to this question. All posts are correct.

I think people who make comments that homosexuality is a choice are most likely bi-sexual. Sexuality exists on a continuum, where some are completely homosexual on one end, while others are completely heterosexual on the other; then, you have those in between who are attracted to both (then it might actally be a choice). Telling someone who is gay that they should go and have sex with the opposite sex and enjoy it would be the same as telling, say, a heterosexual man that he should go and have sex with a man and enjoy it...my guess is that this hetero man would be repulsed by the idea, and the same goes for a lesbian who thinks that having sex with a man is repulsive.

I think bi-sexuality might be how the homo-sexual tendency is passed on...because bi-sexuals pass on their genes by reproduction, and it passes along the tendency to develop homosexuality.

I think they should continue to study the idea of smells for the reason why people are attracted to what they are attracted to. We put on cologne, perfume, etc etc to make us more attractive. Maybe it has to do with smells of hormones; that is, men who are attracted to men have female receptors in the nose that are drawn to male hormones, while lesbians have male receptors in the nose that are drawn to female hormones, while bi-sexuals have both.


Just like gender development can exist on a continuum, with some having both genders (such as hermaphrodites), to some having chromosomes that are kind of mixed genders, I think sexuality can be the same way. And, there are so many other factors that go into why we are attracted to what we are attracted to. Just think about why some women are attracted to some men and not others....the amount of environmental, nuture, psychological reasons that go into attraction are just-mind boggling....so why are gays and lesbians given such a hard time?? Give it up already....

I don't know anything about solipsism, but I find it very interesting that in my dreams, I really feel like I am in the "imaginary place" created in my dream. And, I feel things in my dream, like feeling myself get hit and then have it hurt. So, was I really there? So, was I really hurt? It sure felt real while I was dreaming, so was my dream reality? Does this "place" really exist? I don't know if this is the same as solipsism or not, but they have an interesting point: if my dream was created in my head (and how did I come up with this "imaginary place" that I have never seen before?), and the reality of my dream felt real while I was dreaming, are the things that I am experiencing right now real? I dunno...

I believe there is a purpose and reason for suffering in life, but I may never find out the meaning for it all in this life. I can look back on my life experiences, though, and find that going thru the trials and tribulations in my life have helped me develop into who I am today. Some good came out of the suffering (whether that was learning about the kindness of other people, learning that I can get thru it and be stronger/more knowledgeable for it). I choose to believe there is an unconditional loving energy, everywhere, in everything (call it God). When I see people reach out and care for others who have suffered great destruction and catastrophes from Tsunamis, weather, mange, etc, I see this loving energy in action. And, I believe, and my faith grows. Maybe God does not exist, but it sure does make it easier to go thru life believing I am unconditionally loved, and that all the suffering in the world is for the greater good...and I can see God in the beauty of creation, and the wonder and the magic, and sometimes, I can feel like I am in heaven on earth...and, maybe I am deluding myself, but it makes it easier to pass the time. So be it.

let's go back to using cow dung

He must not have been a believer in pre-determinism. I might be free to make the choices in my life, but I do not think I am free to choose the consequences of those choices (therefore, I am probably not totally free)...(If pre-determinism does exist, though ---> then all my choices have already been made for me and I am only a puppet in a play; free from worry and guilt anyway).

The promise of the holy spirit: John 14:20: "You will know that I am in my Father and that you are in me, just as I am in you." And in the previous John 14:17: "He is the spirit, who reveals the truth about God. The world cannot receive him, because it cannot see him or know him. But you know him, because he remains with you and is in you." I believe Jesus was the great Teacher, the way-shower: he is the Way, the Truth and the Life..and by knowing and seeing him, listening to what he says and observing his actions, we can know the Father. I think in the statement, I am in you, and you are in me, he is trying to explain the concept of omniscience. That there is the existence of one spirit, one energy, that courses thru all life..eternal. I believe the one great spirit is in Jesus, and it is in me also, it is who I am; that is, the essence of my being. This is what I believe today anyway, that is.

Plato's story describes peoples' resistance to view reality in a different way. This resistance has been shown several times in history, such as the discovery that the earth was round and not flat as previously believed. And, when the discovery that the sun was the center of the universe and not earth, this met with great resistance also.
I believe people have different purposes in life. Some are supposed to learn things while being "in the cave", and going outside the cave will not support their learning experience. While others are supposed to venture "outside the cave" to support their learning experiences in life. I think Plato preferred to go outside the cave and explore, and if told he couldn't, would not have been happy. And, vice versa, those "inside the cave" prefer to stay there to have their experience, and if told they must venture into the realm of the unknown, would not be happy.
I believe we should not judge what drives a person in their life; let them have the reality and experience they desire. And, try not to laugh at those who describe a reality outside the cave, and try not to riducule those who prefer not to discuss things outside their own reality.

I believe there is something everywhere, and this something is one thing, energy. And, at the level of energy I am at now, I am only able to perceive separateness rather than oneness. People talk about the "empty space" in an atom, yet how do we really know it is empty? Just because we cannot detect something, does that make it empty? At the quantum level of atoms and photons, physical laws and rules break down, and sometimes an atom is a particle, and sometimes it is energy, depending on how you test it (observe it). We are composed of atoms, so are we a particle or energy? As I stated earlier, my perception tells me I am a particle and separate from everyone because of the level of energy I am at. But, I think in reality, I am probably pure energy that exists everywhere, in every thing, eternal and infinite. And if I believe this, then I do not believe in nothingness.

There is no truth or falsity...it just is.