Thoughts ‘r’ us?

Thoughts ‘r’ us?

Why do we think that the thoughts occurring in the sphere of consciousness are who and what we are? are you their author?

We can see thought as something which is brought into the conscious sphere, and that we are not necessarily included in the teleology of that a-priory information.
Knowledge though is what that info becomes let us say as a qualia or mental equivalent of that physical information.
There must be a play between a-priori and post-priory informations in this context, though it’s plausible that that mental qualia doesn’t exist, and so we have to think of that knowledge as post-priory physical information. Indeed I am tempted to think that indeed mental qualia don’t exist, in that there are no qualia or thing-ness of say colour or sound etc. but what we label as such qualia belong to a far more profound thing; the mind, and that it can express itself as what we label off as qualia [note that certain condition can cause one to see sounds and smell colours etc].

I am left with only two possibilities:

  1. There is something called [and is] ‘mind’ which has no neuronal [or brain generally] counterpart. In this the observer has no physical interaction with brain, yet the brain must surely know it is ‘there’? otherwise we’d have [as brains] no notion of such a thing and we wouldn’t experience ourselves as such.

  2. That a-priory information is what the brain creates from sensory and in-built sources, then that consciousness does have neuronal representation. If so then it [consciousness] too is creating informational signals via those neurons.

So it would seem that there is an a-priory teleology by which the brain makes some decisions outside of the consciousness [subconsciously].
Yet there is also a post-priory information exchange by which the consciousness is making some decisions or at the very least making periphery influences on that teleology ~ as if the brain does its own thing but listens to what the consciousness want.

For me this is taking free will down to the bare minimum, when it appears to me that the brain is an instrument something akin to an impressive multi-sensory camcorder. Sure if you look at its functioning you will find it doing lots of processes/decisions outside of the observer, but surely we cannot say there is not observer, no consciousness? And so we have either 1 or 2?


I’m pretty sure that’s not the true me. I think my truest self is made of psychic astral energies and materials. My body matter is temporary but it helps charge up my soul even if it restricts my soul aswel and confines it to the body.

True self is not really known yet. Humanity would need to be more advanced to know what things more truly are. Instead we are mostly faced with appearances and surfaces.

Although I believe in the soul, I can’t argue very good for promoting the idea that it exists.
I think the body suppresses it allot. We do have near death experiences. Out of body experiences. Projection. Afterlife oriented experiences. Ghosts. Rare psychic sensitivity. But that is not allot considering how potentially complex a soul could be. I think it’s best to be mostly neutral about it. That is why I wouldn’t absolutely say it’s 1 or 2.

Do I say what I think about this subject for the 6th or 7th time and get attacked by everyone here or do I just let this thread go ?

Decisions, decisions.

No brain = no thought. At least no thought in the physical realm. At least. I admit it.


True self would necessarily include consciousness though, no?
If so the first question here is weather or not that consciousness has neuronal representation or somehow affects the brain by magic or something? If so how would the brain know it exists? Can the brain do magic too?

The soul too is represented by the consciousness, though I tend to think that it is far more than that and indeed that we have a kind of spiritual sub consciousness which interact via intuition and the artistic process etc, possible far more. I could go onto to say that the affecting aspect underpins the whole of both our existence and existence itself, it is the reason why we are here and why evolution has occurred etc, everything is working by that rather than some innocuous non-present set of coincidences and pure chance.

No thought derived from a-priory informations, and yet the information we think doesn’t appear to be the same as physical information, there is thus an interpretation occurring, and thought is then happening on both sides of the equation.


Well you never answered last time I presented the dichotomy, but I’d like to know what you think the resolution is? Surely consciousness is doing something neuronally, the thoughts we consciously think are happening either in that context or by what, magic?


I think allot of things are yet to be discovered in reality. We are just at the edge of what is.

I would like to say that I believe a demon tried to ruin/kill me a few years ago.
I felt it and heard it as plain as day, although I also saw it in some ways, but the visuals were mental. It never materialized.
I don’t know why I survived, because the demon seemed so powerful and unstoppable.
This was my worst experience in my life, but it made me want to understand and acquire the power that the demon had.
In a strange way I’m thankful to have witnessed such a great and powerful evil. I still try to appreciate experience, even negative experience.

I’ve seen “evidence” of paranormal things, but the strongest and most terrible evidence is that demonic experience. What a hell.

Since then I have been encountering little minor demon things too amoung other stuff. They have an extremely tiny amount of power compared to the big bastard, but they can still be felt a bit too.

Or something you interpreted as such. A vision I had of an Egyptian deity delivered the sensation of complete awe as a kind of energy, it seemed as if it occupied my whole being in that moment. Except that it occupied everything but me [my consciousness at least], and that for me represents the idea that a massive part of us is outside of or actually not part of what we are.

As volchok has said, some decisions are made aside from the ones we think we are making, and indeed some decisions we think we are making are also part of the a-priory teleology and not our decisions.
…but some of it is, the consciousness is doing something!

You could think of that demon as representing the you that is not you? As in the whole notion of this thread.

Detachment I find easily takes away ‘its’ power regardless of what form it appears to take. There are other ways if you so wish to know ~ perhaps on the possession thread?

What does that mean? I don’t admit it ? I too think that there can’t be thought without a brain.

Suffice to say, your position seems to be somewhat incongruent with an earlier statement that you made, namely that you believe in a soul.

It’s true but you don’t believe me.

Oh well, that was a funny little troll thing.

Well that’s another topic, first we need to ask what consciousness ‘is’ doing in the brain.

If there is mental information or not, there seems to be something of the consciousness interpreting and interacting.

Oh, I believe you. I also believe that if I’m a good boy, a fat man with a distaste for razors will give me presents in December.
Come on man. You’re what, in your 30’s ? Maybe 40’s ? You live in the western society, you have access to knowledge and information…
Don’t you think it’s time to let go of childish myths?

I think that might be the wrong way to look at it.
I think the brain “is doing” consciousness as opposed to consciousness doing something in the brain. :wink:

Pretty sure it’s the other way around. The connection between neurons is doing something…

You are using thought in your above to make a split between a thinker and a self that is an object apart from thought. You are always using thought as the instrument to understand thought itself. Thus you cannot separate yourself from thought and look at thought. Apart from thought you have no other instrument to understand with.

When thought is there, you are born and when thought is absent, the ‘you’ dies only to be reborn with the next thought.

The life of the body needs basic thought to help it survive. Anything beyond that simple necessary thought is the beginning of a self structured out of acquired knowledge that is not really needed by the life of the organism and that is not required for smooth functioning of the senses and other physical operations. That construct of self is a self shaped and molded by extraneous knowledge that does not even belong to you and is in addition to and not what you are. You have no legitimate need for it to survive.

If that knowledge does not belong to you or with you, why the concern about that constructed ‘you’ not being there?

Yet we have to use words to talk about abstract concepts because there are no non verbal conceptualizations.

Just replying pls wait…


  1. Lets say as you perhaps would, that consciousness is nothing more than patterns of energy; when the brain ‘“is doing” consciousness’ and masses of neurons are then within the context of that, then the consciousness is then doing something. it’s the same as when the brain is ‘doing eyesight’ then eyesight is an action the brain is then doing ~ it is not doing nothing!

  2. Can something make something else that it is not I.e. I know energy can be converted say between photonic signals and electrical signals [as with our sight], but how can energy be converted into consciousness/being/awareness/perception etc? [where perception here is not purely the processes involved in the brain].
    If we look at those energy forms then no manner of complexity of patterns is going to make them into something other than what they are e.g. outside of the brain and body.



Information comes into the conscious mind, and the consciousness is not located in any particular area of the brain but uses the entire instrument at once, focussing on whatever sense or idea it needs to.
There are billions of ‘thoughts’ occurring in the brain, which are mapped and calibrated into the things the consciousness ‘thinks’ about. Assumedly the consciousness is a receptacle to that.

There meditative states where there are no linguistic thoughts occurring, even if the consciousness is neuronal then such states are those neuronal experiences. Thus the observer doesn’t live, die and live again with every individual thought.

Indeed, that’s part of what the thread is saying! Thoughts ‘r’ us > ‘?’ <.

As a part Buddhist I have no concern whatsoever for the continuance of self.


I would say you’re referring to stimulus response.

There is only the sensitive nervous system responding to stimuli. The eyes cannot see, but the moment you see, the translation of sensory perceptions comes into operation. There is always a space between perception and memory. Memory is like sound. Sound is very slow, whereas light travels faster. All these sensory activities or perceptions are like light. They are very fast. But for some reason we have lost the capacity to kick memory into the background and allow these things to move as fast as they occur in nature. Thought comes, captures the sensory perception, and says that it is this or that. That is what you call recognition, or naming, or whatever you want to call it. The moment you recognize that as a computer, the name `computer’ also is there. So recognition and naming are not two different things. We would like to create a space between them and believe that these two are different things. As I said earlier, the physical eye by itself has no way of translating the physical perception into the framework of your knowledge.

But the fact that this particular response is for that particular stimulus is something which cannot be experienced by you. It is one unitary movement. Response cannot be separated from the stimulus. It is because they are inseparable that we can do nothing to prevent the possibility of the knowledge about past experiences coming into operation before the sensory perceptions move from one thing to another.

If you do not want to think, is there thinking? Wanting and thinking go together.

Thought is not a creator of thought, it is a responding to the stimuli. What is there is only the stimulus and response. Even the fact that there is a response to the stimulus is something which cannot be experienced by us except through the help of thought, which creates a division between the stimulus and response. Actually, the stimulus and response is a unitary moment. You can’t even say that there is a sensation; even the so-called sensations we think we’re experiencing all the time cannot be experienced by us except through the knowledge we have from the sensations.
We can infer from all of this that there is a self, that there is a mind that is mediating between the stimulus and the response.
What is there is only the knowledge we have of the self, the knowledge that we have gathered, or had passed down to us, from generation to generation. Through the help of this knowledge we create what we call self, and then experience the self as separate from the functioning of this body. So is there such a thing as the self? Is there such a thing as I?


I am saying that what we experience is something, and it is at least what we experience it to be. There is no need to label it off, it is what it is. Secondly we can say that is neuronal, OR that there is something non-physical we are referring to [mind].
Point being that one way or another we cannot attempt to put consciousness to one side as if it isn’t doing anything at all, something is definitely occurring.

Perhaps because the brain turns all vibrations into electrical signals moving across many billions of chemical and electrical responses. Light may not be delayed but chemicals take time to change.

doesn’t that partially qualify that there is a step differential between thinker and the thoughts occurring in the conscious sphere?
However you term it, I am sure you wouldn’t say that something else is occurring in replacement of our conscious experience ~ which is exactly my contention with science. It is all to quick to show how some decisions are not made by the consciousness [at least if we consider consciousness limited only to linguistic thought?], but never says what the consciousness IS doing!

Mostly I can see what you are saying, but I’d contain all of that in the analogy of the brain being a sophisticated camcorder, and mind/consciousness as the user and observer of what that instrument delivers.
Perhaps consciousness is part of that instrument, but if so then it is still doing something and is something, it is not non-existent!


This sounds a little messed up to me. Let’s take it bit by bit …

Okay, information comes into consciousness. The source from which it comes is knowledge about past experiences stored in memory. And the knowledge is something that has been given to you. That knowledge is the structure of your thought. How can something you know nothing about enter conscious thought?

Throughout the span of your life, you have been gathering and accumulating thousands and thousands of frames of knowledge and storing them in memory cells: i.e. hand, nose, apple, door, martini, greed, enlightenment, happiness, etc.

Consciousness is a state or quality of being awake, aware and the ability to perceive. It is a state wherein you may construct, by means of contained knowledge and thought, a mental projection of a self that is experiencing something that is extracted from past pleasures, pains, accomplishments, trials, errors, etc. You are conflating consciousness with thought. Thought is the interloper, not consciousness which is neutral. Thought, which is there when you want to bring up something from memory (“I have to change the oil, I’m hungry, I can’t deal with that person, plans for the vacation”) is what focuses and constructs using an experiencing structure. The thought-created self has needs and wants, not consciousness. Thought wants to gain something. It has a profit motive. Thought eventually slows down and is absorbed, but consciousness, while you are awake and aware, is a continuous neutral state of mind.

Right, so consciousness is the receptacle. The source of thought as concerns the senses and brain is information, knowledge as I see it is a different kind of info and the translation of physical info into mental info, which is the communication by which brain and mind interact.
I don’t know how the brain understands mental info or vice versa, but I would suspect its collocative and a very simple exchange at base.

If the above is not true and the consciousness is somehow physical, then the consciousness is in a communicative exchange of physical informations. Either way, the consciousness is doing something!

The brain collects information which when remembered is translated into knowledge so that the consciousness can understand said info, yes.

I can agree that we are not the authors of a-priory informations, that there is a nature and nurture self created by our genes and environments. I would ask you to consider that consciousness interacts with that and develops as a third path to those other two, it is composed and the very process of that composition involves a differentiation, the result is perhaps the self. Though that may be a transient thing.

Also consider how chemicals and electricity can be ‘awake’.