A few basic definitions that I try to work with. So, yes, a few basic assumptions, and therefore limitations, are in order in the discussion of any topic...as long as we are all working with the same definitions.

As for certain assumptions, if I take one apple and then place another apple with that first apple, I have every right to assume that I should end up with two apples. I call that type of assumption a 'fact.' It is also repeatedly and independently verifiable. i.e. the fact is that one plus one always makes two. Input equals output.

With these basic definitions, I look for internal and common consistencies within their definitions and day to day uses.

=====

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact

fact  (fkt)
n.

1.  Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a.  Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b.  A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c.  Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3.  A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4.  Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Idiom:
in (point of) fact
 In reality or in truth; actually.

=====

truth  (trth)
n. pl. truths (trz, trths)

1.  Conformity to fact or actuality.
2.  A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3.  Sincerity; integrity.
4.  Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a.  Reality; actuality.
b.  often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
[Middle English trewthe, loyalty, from Old English trowth; see  deru- in Indo-European roots.]
Synonyms:  truth, veracity, verity, verisimilitude
 These nouns refer to the quality of being in accord with fact or reality. Truth is a comprehensive term that in all of its nuances implies accuracy and honesty: "We seek the truth, and will endure the consequences" Charles Seymour.
 Veracity is adherence to the truth: "Veracity is the heart of morality" Thomas H. Huxley.
 Verity often applies to an enduring or repeatedly demonstrated truth: "beliefs that were accepted as eternal verities" James Harvey Robinson.
 Verisimilitude is the quality of having the appearance of truth or reality: "merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative" W.S. Gilbert.

=====

proof  (prf)
n.

1.  The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a.  The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b.  A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a.  Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b.  The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4.  Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5.  Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.
6.  The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.
7.  Printing
a.  A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called  proof sheet.
b.  A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.
8.
a.  A trial photographic print.
b.  Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.
9.  Archaic Proven impenetrability: "I was clothed in Armor of proof" John Bunyan.
adj.
1.  Fully or successfully resistant; impervious. Often used in combination: waterproof watches; a fireproof cellar door.
2.  Of standard alcoholic strength.
3.  Used in proving or making corrections.
v. proofed, proof·ing, proofs
v.tr.
1.  Printing
a.  To make a trial impression of (printed or engraved matter).
b.  To proofread (copy).
2.
a.  To activate (dormant dry yeast) by adding water.
b.  To work (dough) into proper lightness.
3.  To treat so as to make resistant: proof a fabric against shrinkage.
v.intr.
1.  Printing To proofread.
2.  To become properly light for cooking: The batter proofed overnight.
[Middle English prove, preve, from Anglo-Norman prove and from Old French prueve, both from Late Latin proba, from Latin probre, to prove; see  prove.]

=====

ev·i·dence  (v-dns)
n.

1.  A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2.  Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3.  Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1.  To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2.  To support by testimony; attest.
Idiom:
in evidence
1.  Plainly visible; to be seen: It was early, and few pedestrians were in evidence on the city streets.
2.  Law As legal evidence: submitted the photograph in evidence.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin videntia, from Latin vidns, vident-, obvious; see  evident.]

=====

rea·son·a·ble  (rz-n-bl)
adj.

1.  Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2.  Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3.  Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4.  Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
reason·a·bili·ty, reason·a·ble·ness n.
reason·a·bly adv.

=====

ra·tion·al  (rsh-nl)
adj.
1.  Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2.  Of sound mind; sane.
3.  Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
4.  Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.
n. Mathematics
 A rational number.
[Middle English racional, from Old French racionel, from Latin ratinlis, from rati, ratin-, reason; see  reason.]
ration·al·ly adv.
ration·al·ness n.

=====

log·i·cal (lj-kl)
adj.
1.  Of, relating to, in accordance with, or of the nature of logic.
2.  Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonable: Rain was a logical expectation, given the time of year.
3.  Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner.
logi·cali·ty (-kl-t), logi·cal·ness n.
logi·cal·ly adv.
Synonyms:  logical, analytic, ratiocinative, rational
 These adjectives mean capable of or reflecting the capability for correct and valid reasoning: a logical mind; an analytic thinker; the ratiocinative process; a rational being.
Antonym: illogical

refer: http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm
         http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-classical/
=====

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logical fallacy

Logical fallacies
Noun  1.  logical fallacy - a fallacy in logical argumentation
fallacy, false belief - a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning
hysteron proteron - the logical fallacy of using as a true premise a proposition that is yet to be proved
ignoratio elenchi - the logical fallacy of supposing that an argument proving an irrelevant point has proved the point at issue
petitio, petitio principii - the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion in the premises; begging the question
post hoc, post hoc ergo propter hoc - the logical fallacy of believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation

refer: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
         http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
         http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

=====

 Most importantly in your research: Always and continually ask yourself: who, what, when, where, why, how

=====

 A pretty good article on the basics, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_method

Scholarly method - or as it is more commonly called, scholarship - is the body of principles and practices used by scholars to make their claims about the world as valid and trustworthy as possible, and to make them known to the scholarly public. In its broadest sense, scholarship can be taken to include the scientific method, which is the body of scholarly practice that governs the sciences.


=====

 This one, however, doesn't cover all the bases and is more focused upon science, but it is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
Basic Research.

Basic research
Basic research (also called fundamental or pure research) has as its primary objective the advancement of knowledge and the theoretical understanding of the relations among variables (see statistics). It is exploratory and often driven by the researcher’s curiosity, interest, or hunch. It is conducted without any practical end in mind, although it may have unexpected results pointing to practical applications. The terms “basic� or “fundamental� indicate that, through theory generation, basic research provides the foundation for further, sometimes applied research. As there is no guarantee of short-term practical gain, researchers often find it difficult to obtain funding for basic research. Research is a subset of invention

Examples of questions asked in basic research:
Does string theory provide physics with a grand unification theory?
Which aspects of genomes explain organismal complexity?
Is it possible to prove or disprove Goldbach's conjecture? (i.e. that every even integer greater than 2 can be written as the sum of two, not necessarily distinct primes)

[edit] Applied research
Applied research is done to solve specific, practical questions; its primary aim is not to gain knowledge for its own sake. It can be exploratory, but is usually descriptive. It is almost always done on the basis of basic research. Applied research can be carried out by academic or industrial institutions. Often, an academic institution such as a university will have a specific applied research program funded by an industrial partner interested in that program. Common areas of applied research include electronics, informatics, computer science, material science, process engineering, and drug design.

Examples of question asked in applied research:
How can Canada's wheat crops be protected from grasshoppers?
What is the most efficient and effective vaccine against influenza?
How can communication among workers in large companies be improved?
How can the Great Lakes be protected against the effects of greenhouse gas?
How can a policy on time use increase transit services to low-income neighbourhoods?

There are many instances when the distinction between basic and applied research is not clear. It is not unusual for researchers to present their project in such a light as to 'slot' it into either applied or basic research, depending on the requirements of the funding sources. The question of genetic codes is a good example. Unraveling it for the sake of knowledge alone would be basic research â€" but what, for example, if knowledge of it also has the benefit of making it possible to alter the code so as to make a plant commercially viable? Some say that the difference between basic and applied research lies in the time span between research and reasonably foreseeable practical applications.

[edit] Research methods
The goal of the research process is to produce new knowledge, which takes three main forms:
Exploratory research, which structures and identifies new problems
Constructive research, which develops solutions to a problem
Empirical research, which tests the feasability of a solution using empirical evidence

Research methods used by scholars:

Action research
Cartography
Case study
Classification
Experience and intuition
Experiments
Eye tracking
Interviews
Mathematical models
Participant observation
Semiotics
Simulation
Statistical analysis
Statistical surveys
Content or Textual Analysis

Research is often conducted using the hourglass model.[1] The hourglass model starts with a broad spectrum for research, focusing in on the required information through the methodology of the project (like the neck of the hourglass), then expands the research in the form of discussion and results.
[edit] Research process

Main article: Scientific method

Generally, research is understood to follow a certain structural process. Though step order may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following steps are usually part of most formal research, both basic and applied:

Formation of the topic
Hypothesis
Conceptual definitions
Operational definitions
Gathering of data
Analysis of data
Conclusion, revising of hypothesis

A common misunderstanding is that by this method a hypothesis can be proven. Instead, by these methods no hypothesis can be proven, rather a hypothesis may only be disproven. A hypothesis can survive several rounds of scientific testing and be widely thought of as true (or better, predictive), but this is not the same as it having been proven. It would be better to say that the hypothesis has yet to be disproven.

A useful hypothesis allows prediction and within the accuracy of observation of the time, the prediction will be verified. As the accuracy of observation improves with time, the hypothesis may no longer provide an accurate prediction. In this case a new hypothesis will arise to challenge the old, and to the extent that the new hypothesis makes more accurate predictions than the old, will supplant it.

=====

But that's just what I think.

So...back to ones and zeros and flocks of boids, I reckon. ;O)

...and what are thoughts, anyway?

They've been measured by MRIs and EEGs...kinda-sorta... Computer systems have been developed where a person's brainwaves - through an interface device - are used to get them online and cruising the 'net, and even to make documents. Thoughts now operate prosthetic devices as well. So...we no longer have to rely solely upon philosophy, theology or spirituality to examine the issue. Thoughts are measureable and useful in manipulating our environments.

Where the thread has leading thus far almost begs the question: "What is normal?" If we involve ourselves in "group think," we are considered to be normal...but we are also no longer thinking solely for ourselves. If we do not become a part of the current forms of "group think" in social and professional situations, we are no longer considered to be normal. But we are beginning to think for ourselves.

Personally, I know that I am not "normal." I don't fit into anyone else's ideological or agenda driven 'boxes.' I also know that whatever I do, I have a choice to make. On or off. Yes or no. One or zero. I often choose a "one" or a "yes" when others think I should have chosen "zero" or "no." What is the most rational and reasonable choice to me is total insanity to others. Working from a philosophy founded upon a twenty-five hundred y/o theology doesn't seem rational to me. Blindly accepting the dictates of a hundred and fifty y/o unfounded and unproven hypothesis (Neo-Darwinism) as Ultimate Truth doesn't seem rational to me. New Age paganism is totally irrational to me. To me, they are all shadows on the wall. They do not reflect reality, nor can any position founded upon their tenets reflect reality. Any discussion based upon those tents can only lead to argumentum ad infinitum. In other words, it can only lead to conflict and violence.

"What are thoughts?"

The question - and current direction of this thread - would seem to lead us back to Plato's Cave, actually. The problem being that we each perceive ourselves to be the "Hero" of the story who is returning with some sort of a boon for those who think - and have come to believe - that the shadows on the wall are the only reality.

...quantum mechanics (so-called) aside, what happens to my world-view if one day I awaken to find that just because I have an apple in each hand does not mean that I in fact have two apples? ...that I have always thought - and therefore believed - that the shadows on the wall were real ...only to find that they are not? What happens to you - and how you think about life, the universe and nothing at all - when you find that what you have always thought is true...is not? Will others think of you as insane? What will your thoughts about thinking be on that day?

In other words, if we aren't real careful, thinking about thoughts can lead us into unnecessary conundrums. ;O) (Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.) After all...if the shadows on the wall have always told us that there are monsters under the bed...and if that's all we've ever known about the topic...we will continue to think that there are monsters under the bed, no matter what anyone else tells us or proves to us.

...but if thoughts can be scientifically measured...we've pretty much left philosophy and theology behind, and have entered the realm of provable, verifiable fact. ...the shadows on the wall be damned.

But that's just what I think.

Very interesting topic.

Thoughts don't have to be anything to do with reality, either philosophically (the nature of the phenomenon involved) or empirically (the subject of the thought or the stimulant for its generation), whatever reality might be.

No, it remains regardless of any conditions I put on it.

Ah. The Physics of Consciousness. Now we're getting somewhere. ;O) A little Fred Allan Wolf or Robert Neil Boyd, perhaps? For the more hard nosed, perhaps even some Bruce Rosenblum?

Although this question can lead to some interesting views (which I am keen to hear) for the most part, regardless of whatever philosophical projects pique your interest, you necessarily posit (at least in some way) a reality that you can't 'prove'.


What's real is inescapably consequential. Reality is illusory -- that is, other than we think it is (i.e. deeper, subtler, more complex, perhaps even less comprehensible ... than we think or perceive -- or can think or perceive). That does not mean that our brains 'create' our reality (since our brains are real aspects of the reality they apprehend); rather our brains merely filter out most of reality's depth and complexity reducing it to simple, manipulable percepts & constructs (which through culture (i.e. an abductive synergy out of generations of countless brains) refine those constructs by, at best, improving their scope, precision & probity ...) And what's filtered out first & inescapably? The brain itself. Like the eyeball which is invisible to it's own visual field, the brain is filtered out of its apprehension of reality. But brains, like eyes, are real; their exclusion in the operation of normal functioning is merely illusory (i.e. not the whole story ...)

Several answers to these problems have been proposed including the common-sense theory, the representative theory of perception, sense-datum theory, and phenomenalism.

The common-sense or direct realist theory maintains that the world is as it is perceived, which assumes that there is a world with objects that exists independently of human perceptions. Direct realism not only denies that our experiences are subjective [Within the mind], but also denies that our perceptions are reduced to mere sense data

The representative, or causal, theory of perception maintains that sense-data come to us from objects in the world around us, although we never have direct awareness of the objects in the world. Locke subscribed to this theory and can be seen particularly in his account of the mind as a blank slate. If the mind is considered to be a blank tablet upon which experience writes,

The sense-data theory claims that we perceive something called "sense-data" in place of the actual objects that are in the world around us. This concept was first introduced by Moore

I'm not disagreeing, but wouldn't you agree that as unique as we are, we are also very similar?

What about a thought in a dream? Think about conversations during a dream.
Is it different of a day-time thought?
Are the same neural connections/brain zones used?

Look at the morning horizon through a camcorder lens and record the view on a tape. Transfer the recording to a computer. Burn the video to a DVD. Play the DVD and watch the video on a TV in the evening. Are the morning and evening horizons the same?

That's not my point. Thoughts in dreams are probably based on random connections of neurons, where then we join them in a chain of logic thoughts. Where is that happening in the brain, in which zones? Thoughts during normal intellectual activities are well located in one or more areas.

I'd like to see your evidence for your 2 types of locations for thoughts. In fact I'd like to see any evidence for the location of thoughts.

Without getting into the location of thoughts, I have for several years recognised that my thoughts and Nessie's thoughts both occur within me and possibly use the same locations (with inhibitory or priority factors built-in).
[Nessie is what I call my subconcious 'thinking' partner].

It is Nessie which is active when I sleep, not 'Me'.
It is Nessie which is dreaming.
And Nessie is still running during 'My' awareness time (it interrupts 'My' thoughts with autonomous needs at least).
These are just my personal ideas or models of what is going on, but I find they help to represent what thought activity is like.