Thought is the fundamental tool we are using. Thus, it's extra important that we understand this tool, and any distortions it may introduce, because this tool lies at the heart of all our observations and conclusions.
Fair enough so far?
Not really, as you are presupposing that there is a 'tool user' outside of this 'thought tool'? As tho' there is another 'thought tool' that can look at itself?
It's my proposal that thought is inherently divisive, and that this property of thought introduces profound distortions in to our understanding of reality.
Again you are already proposing that there can be an 'understanding of reality' outside of this 'thought tool'? What do you mean when you say "thought"? What are you describing?
Conceptually, in thought and language, a very strong impression is created that the words "tree" and "sun" refer to two distinct and separate objects. After all, the word "tree" and "sun" are themselves distinct and separate. ...
I agree with Wittgenstein in this matter;
"Instead of, 'The complex sign "aRb" says that a stands to b in the relation R' we ought to put, That "a" stands to "b" in a certain relation says that aRb.' "
In the real world, what we call tree and sun are intimately connected. ...
But "intimately connected" does not mean "the same" and pretty much implies two objects.
The atomic structures that make up our body were created in super nova explosions. ...
And you know this about the "real world" how?
Everything is so intimately connected to everything else that it's reasonable to propose that reality is really just one big thing, and not a bunch of little separate things. ...
Then there would be no need for your 'connections'?
Squirrels are mammals like us, and share much of the same equipment, so I'd guess generally yes. ...
I very much doubt it, given the massive disparity in equipment.
But say, a creature who could see the oxygen being released by leaves might place the boundary between "tree" and "not tree" in a different place than we do.
Why? As they still appear to have "leaves".
Consider the air that is going in and out of your mouth. When is it you, and when is it not you? Does the air magically become you when it enters your mouth?
No, when it 'magically' has the oxygen separated in the lungs and into the blood stream, is when the 'air' is me.
See what I mean? The boundaries are convenient but arbitrary inventions of whoever is making the observation. ...
There is no doubt that the signs used as symbols are arbitrary but the thing being signified is not.
Does material exist? Yes.
Do boundaries exist? Yes. In our heads.
Many philosophers and religons have had this belief, its called Monism.