but i can see how the reverse is easily true

if someone thinks eating meat is bad they'll probably avoid doing so themselves and might even just tell others to do similar

That depends if you are an idealist or materialist.

i think they shape eachother

Historical conditions determine values, I think. Not magically created from the mind or somewhere else.

don't know enough english to even begin talking about something like that

the human mind anyways

i do think ideas can appear randomly, personally

there's so much wild stuff in this world, but i don't have any idea how to even begin arguing that

It is not a question of mind, but what causes it.

That knowledge is objective and knowable.

there is spontaneous thought though

Where does that come from?

God?

just the mind itself

or maybe god, if you believe

The mind creates thoughts from nothing?

obviously not all thought, however, i believe it is true that simple thoughts and ideas can appear quite literally out of the blue

like dreams and daydreaming

But there is nothing supernatural about daydreams.

rate me fam

well, that's not entirely true OR false, actually (or maybe it is, but we can't verify it (yet?))

the science of understanding dreams and the like is pretty incomplete

Science is never complete.

this was a nice discussion but i have to leave for work now

cya

its a shame others dont join in too

Be careful what you wish for.

lol

true

@Deleted User daydream is your imagination.

Material thought.

It is induced and carried by matter.

The consciousnesses swims in unconscious and guards are off.

So the perception of something external is a perception of oneself. But the self is too disconnected from its parts, shizoid.

Schizophrenia is very similar to religion.

But religion is treatable.

At this stage.

The controversial Pintubi-1 skull of Australia (pictured above) is a paradox of paleoanthropology. As a hominid fossil, its so young that it has been assigned to a tribe that survived into the last century. A modern aboriginal skull. Yet its morphology could be described as archaic. The skulls history is shrouded in mystery (not unlike others from the down under). Even without documentation, its age and Australoid identity are indisputable. The man it inhabited lived An anthropologic paradox very recently (in paleo-terms), likely in the 1800s or later. It is in perfect condition and shows no signs of antiquity. The skull was discovered or obtained around 1905 near the lower Darling River in New South Wales, Australia. Beyond that, all we are able to determine is that it is said to be a large adult 50 year old male from the Pintubi tribe…

The subject skull, modern in age, yet archaic in structure is a relevant example and deserves the following brief description.
Even if a pathological oddity it would demand attention but an anthropologist at the University of Michigan assures us that this is not the case and that this specimen isn’t that unusual.