Reference: Essays on Substance
Thought as Substance
Awareness and thought are two very different concepts. Thought is a substance like matter. One can be aware of thought just like one can be aware of matter.
But, awareness falls outside the idea of substance. It is addressed in philosophy, and not in physics. When one talks about consciousness, it is something similar to awareness, and it is not addressed in physics. But thought as a substance can be addressed in physics, and its laws investigated.
Objects made of matter are things, such as, chair, table, pots and pans. Similarly, objects made of thought are ideas, such as, “I am human,” “Earth is flat,” “I am an artist,” or “You are a scientist.”
We are aware of the universe because it is made of substance, which appears as matter, energy and thought. The word “energy” can be confusing. Here energy refers to electromagnetic radiation that is a category of substance different from matter. The “kinetic energy” of matter falls under the category of matter in this classification. These two different concepts of energy are often confused in physics.
Energy is also confused with the general idea of substance. When people refer to thought energy, they are actually referring to thought as substance. Thought, can be addressed by physics using the scientific method.
The laws that apply to thought are very different from the laws that apply to matter or energy. With the advent of AI, it is increasingly becoming obvious that the laws that apply to thought are similar to what we already know as “logic,” but anything under logic must be put through the scientific method before qualifying it as a law of thought.
The first law of thought is embedded in the scientific method itself. The key to scientific method is consistency (lack of inconsistency or contradiction). This same consistency becomes continuity at atomic level, and harmony at cosmic level.
First Law of Thought
All thought related to a subject must be continuous, consistent and harmonious.
Second Law of Thought
If the postulates underlying a thought-structure are inconsistent, then the thought-structure would also be inconsistent with reality.
.
