Schroder sq and the new talea

Asa, If you persist I will try to answer your question.
But look first to this question:'what kind of man is your
sister?'
Now your questin:'what are you when you are not thinking?'
You deed not stated as your premisse: Cogito ergo sum.
To make you question managable for my way of,uh, seeing
I must rephrase your question. Say: in what state is your
brain when you are not thinking?
Well I assume that this is the case when I and my brain are
sleeping.There may be some dreaming activity but I dare not
to mention Freud and his Traumdeutung. Besides he also
stated that there are three of us in each of us: ego,superego and it. I hope you deed not meant this 'it' in your 'what it see'? I personaly would be only interested in what the super ego has to say. This state of
affares would of course be a nightmare for the logicians because of the identity relation. No entity without identity and then no supstitutio salva veritate without identity. But worst of all no quantification theory. As Quine put it: quantification and substitution go hand in hand'.
The second possibility is dramatic one. But for the sake of argument I may be in coma. In such state of my brain I
would be not able to answer any question whatever. My doc
should speek for me. He also should comfort my family
stating the hope regarding awakening. If ever.

Regards,

Nandric, you seem focused on your brain, al la the material (as you see, I too can speak in other languages, yet seemingly, only prepositionally so...).

I am not asking what is the state of your brain - its electro-chemical state - when you are not thinking. I asked what is the state of your consciousness, its nature, when you are not thinking?

Do you think that your brain - the material matter - is you, or definitively defines your consciousness?

Descartes: I think, therefore, I am. Well, at least I know this much Latin! If this is what you believe then tell me so, clearly.

I would note that many people who are attached to linguistic deconstruction also want that discipline to be a science - it makes them feel, I suppose, part of the post-modern materialist milieu. I would also note that these same types of minds define all consciousness as necessarliy emanating and bounded by the material, or the brain, because they are focused on looking for the truth only in the material, like the brain.

Saying that I persist, you mis-speak: I did not push you. I have only asked you one question. Again:

As you watch your own mind when it is not thinking, who are you, i.e. who is the watcher, that witness?

We know that you are not in a coma in this non-thinking waking state, so I assume your reference to dream states and coma was merely a jest.

What/who are you when you are not thinking? If you can not see a thought-thing, does this then feel like a No-thing-ness.

Psychology stuff? Yes, I know about that...

Answer, but not with BRAIN:

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
The water has no mind to receive their images.

M-

Dgarretson, Zarathustra was no "Uebermensch" ( as wasn't Nietzsche ...;-) ....) and in the fact of the german sense of the word he neither postulated him.
What you listed as the needed features of the "uebermensch tonearm" is exactly the common problem I was talking about - it is a far from complete listing ( and thus an incomplete "blue-book") . There a few very important issues not mentioned in that short list. They are missing in that list and they are missing as a complete package in the tonearm designs we have encountered the past 5+ decades. They aren't addressed as a whole because they aren't all recognized.

Lewm, I am very sorry to correct you on this, yes of course in british English billion has traditionally meant a million million.
As it does in German and most anywhere in the known (limited...) universe.
However, - not in the US of A.
The american meaning of billion (i.e. "a thousand million" ... ) has long become standard in technical and financial use ( and often produces misunderstandings in international use...) in the USA and it is now more or less used it in all circumstances.
Another fine example how simplification of language can turn against its purpose.
To put it in simpler words and to avoid any further misunderstanding: the particle accelerator (or "atomic smasher"...;-) ... ) built in central europe near Cern consumed in its genesis the total sum of approx. 2 million millions dollars. Which is about double the current ( if I remember right) fiscal deficit of the United States. A lot of money spent just for the hope to get an idea what really happened during an infinite short moment approx. 10 thousand million years ago .....

Dear Asa, dear Nandric, regarding the brain vs thinking per se "conflict", I would again like to briefly point to R. Steiner and his idea/concept of seeing the process of thinking as a fixed point in both human existence and philosophy.
Might there be a solution ?