« first day (108 days earlier)   

9:21 AM
@SudarshanaSuri As I understand this now, thought fluxes is another word for emotions. Because thoughts arise from emotions.
IMO, classification of thoughts and minds is almost certanly subjective.
If we want to be objective, we could define a classification of thoughts as how objective it is. Which means, (how many arguments back it up) - (how many arguments are there against it). But such classification is waay too mentally demanding (talking from personal experience)
Another way of classifying thoughts could be by their frequency. I have often came across this kind of classification in self growth books. I belive that there might exist such classification and that one might want to preserve more "high frequency" thoughts. But there is an issue of becoming cringey if one looses the need of classification by objectivity.
This is another reason why I think that string theory might be describing thoughts. One way in which strings vary one from another is by their frequency.
A big oversimplification of classification of thoughts "by objectivity" is: "one guy who is smart said it, therefore it must be true"
What is even way worse: "One guy who has(or just appears as he has) high social status said it, therefore it must be true."
The second one being also the reason for the natural disaster of the current US president.
Those two errors in judgement also talk about oversimplification of subjective classification of minds.
If we want to approach objective classification of thoughts/ideas, physics and other science is probably the best way, but even thought scientists are aware of the demanding nature of scientific method, confirmation bias is still often present.
Physical laws are obviously the most objective truths about our universe.
And regarding arguments, OFC one also has to consider the validaty of arguments, not just the number of them.
validity*
 
10:44 AM
Of course, classification of thoughts as "low"/"high" frequency might also be completely subjective
Based on the predisposition of perspective on a thought as "good" or "bad"
 
11:09 AM
@HWalters There is actually a name for what I reffered to as "thoughts fighting with each other". It is "cognitive dissonance" - "holding two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values". Looks like the only solution is to define myself as "agnostic with a tendency to theism"
 
11:21 AM
And something like "materialist without the belief in absoute causality; with beliving in existence of some exceptions in determinism, and therefore also in materialism" aka. occasional non-determinism.
Nah, I am like 99% theist.
I will still have to think about my religious affinity.
Meh, I also can't say that I am 100% sure about those exceptions...
I guess that I am just undecided for now.
Maybe I am a 100% Christian, just because I hate this cognitive dissonance.
 
12:09 PM
And also because I belive that there exists one supreme consciousness/deity. Maybe also other "deities", but I don't really see none of them as sacred.
any of them*
 
 
2 hours later…
2:10 PM
But I am not sure why a *truly* omnipotent being would want to be sacred. I see this desire of being sacred as some sort of an insecurity compensation...
Maybe he is insecure only about the fact that a lot of people (and probably also other conscious entities) don't belive in his existance and/or his omnibelovence.
 
2:51 PM
Meh, currently the best one seems to me: "mildly agnostic Christian"
 

« first day (108 days earlier)