What is Thought?

[Otis]

At a surface level, it seems to be "me" who thinks.

 

But when I slow down and pay attention, thought seems to happen, without "my" volition. Thoughts sound like "me", but they are sometimes surprising to me.

 

Maybe a thought is just an alarm, like the conceptual component that comes up with emotions like jealousy, fear and anger. Or maybe the thought is just "my" interpretation of the emotion.

 

Maybe a thought is just a subroutine, like the reminder to buy milk. Am I reminding myself? Or is there a function in my brain, whose job it is to remind "me"?

 

If I have a chronic thought, like "I hate my life", then it sounds almost a tape recorder, playing the same message, over and over, when the conditions are right.

 

What about non-language thoughts, like images and inspiration? Are they thoughts, too, or does a thought have to be in language?

 

How about you bilingual bums? Do you experience thought in multiple languages?

 

Is it really thought that gets in our way of experiencing reality, or is it just "taking thought too seriously"? Aren't thoughts useful, at times?

 

Are all thoughts from the same source? Are some from the emotional brain, some from the visual brain, some from memory? Or do these other functions merely stimulate the "thought brain", and evoke a story to help me (the ego) make some sense of the other input?

 

What is the relationship between thoughts and beliefs?

 

How do you relate to thoughts? How do you choose which thoughts are useful, important, or accurate? Do you use thoughts to evaluate thoughts, or is there another mechanism?

 

C'mon Bums, share your thoughts on thoughts!

[Marblehead]

Thoughts. Something like a random access data base except the system is automated so no one has to press a key to make things happen.

 

It is very difficult to be without thought. Hey, we even have thoughts while we are sleeping (dreams).

 

And there are so many links inside the brain that is is hard telling what any particular thought will lead to - to which linked thoughts and data.

 

I think that this is why many meditation systems teach to concentrate on something specific - to make the brain work full time so that the random thoughts will be minimized.

[de_paradise]

My personal views and experience is more to do with consciousness than thought, because preceding thought is consiousness, and while thought can be traced to physical locations, consciousness has a more etheric location. So according to the Buddhist model as I understand, there is the Alaya seed consciousness, which is a kind of neverending fountain of spewing data, and heavily related to one's karma or karmic seeds.

 

In my own experience, once, I had a very unusual experience of travelling through my own mind, seeing the machine working. It was a vast expanse of row upon row of globes, and as I thought something, on each globe there would be a picture of something related to that thought, as if all the relations and iterations were presented on the globes. So if I thought "duck", there would instantly be thousands of pictures of ducks and things related to ducks. And for some reason, I would favour one globe over another, it would fit, and then the chain would continue.

 

I suppose there is much more to it than this, but this is about as deep as Ive gotten.

[三江源]

My personal views and experience is more to do with consciousness than thought, because preceding thought is consiousness, and while thought can be traced to physical locations, consciousness has a more etheric location. So according to the Buddhist model as I understand, there is the Alaya seed consciousness, which is a kind of neverending fountain of spewing data, and heavily related to one's karma or karmic seeds.

 

In my own experience, once, I had a very unusual experience of travelling through my own mind, seeing the machine working. It was a vast expanse of row upon row of globes, and as I thought something, on each globe there would be a picture of something related to that thought, as if all the relations and iterations were presented on the globes. So if I thought "duck", there would instantly be thousands of pictures of ducks and things related to ducks. And for some reason, I would favour one globe over another, it would fit, and then the chain would continue.

 

I suppose there is much more to it than this, but this is about as deep as Ive gotten.

 

Love this. And love this description "neverending fountain of spewing data, and heavily related to one's karma or karmic seeds."

 

guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh <--------- that's my thoughts, that is.

[stan herman]

Two things catch my attention:

 

1 "Is it really thought that gets in our way of experiencing reality, or is it just "taking thought too seriously"? Aren't thoughts useful, at times?"

 

2 "It is very difficult to be without thought."

 

Re #1 In my view, thought can indeed get in the way--especially intelligent, well-reasoned thought. It is so captivating, satisfying and communicable to others.

 

Re #2 Yes, very very difficult. Just try the experiment of not thinking for only one minute by the clock! And yet, the ability to not-think is an essential one in accessing the numinous.

 

Ah now back to thinking.

 

Thinking is not different from reality, and for me it can be a fun and gratifying part--(as long as I don't take it too seriously)

[doc benway]

Great topic for discussion.

 

Thought seems to be the interaction of awareness with the contents of the mind which includes memory, knowledge, and conditioning mostly. Such interaction results in a stream of dialogue mixed with images of other sorts (visual, auditory, etc..) which creates the perception of time. Notice that the awareness of time is really nothing more than the movement of thought or some other sensory input. In deep meditation, when there is tranquility in the mind, thoughts become more and more spaced out (I don't mean trippy... I mean infrequent) and there is then the feeling of timeliness. This is created by the spaces between thought or sensory stimulation.

 

So then you talked a bit about "me" - well, what is me? Me is the thought which has associated with it a unique marker that identifies itself as "that which thinks and/or observes thought." So the idea and awareness of "me" is just another of those thoughts. It is absolutely no different than any other thought, it just thinks it is.

 

Thoughts are very useful and I think the process developed as an evolutionary advantage. It allows us to run scenarios in our mind without having to put ourselves at risk. Rather than jumping in front of a train we can think about the consequences in advance and not have to do the experiment to see the result. Thought has enormous benefits and (as predicted by Tai Ji theory) equally profound negative effects - neurosis, psychosis, and so forth. Thought can be an enormous barrier to experience, and is particularly unhelpful in such practices as Taijiquan and meditation. Certainly thought can be of some limited value in these disciplines but not nearly as valuable as practice and practical experience.

 

One of the most interesting experiments I've read about in a long time is one that demonstrates that thoughts regarding the intention to perform an activity occur AFTER measurable changes occur in the neuromuscular system that are associated with the initiation of the activity. That is, when I decide to pick up a glass of water, my neuromuscular system has already initiated the activity - prior to "me" being aware that the activity has been initiated.

 

So what is thought? Perhaps it is a recording of the events that are unfolding as experienced by "me" (a thought) interspersed with numerous other imaginary scenarios being run that outline different possibilities of alternative events or outcomes and constantly comparing to previous experience and knowledge.

 

One thing is for sure - I am not who I think I am and thought is not what I think it is...

 

[C T]

Thinking is sometimes a luxury that can be ill-afforded in certain instances - for example, at times of sudden threat, or of coming upon a situation that demands instantaneous action (for example, saving a drowning child, or a trapped comrade), there really isn't a moment to spare for indulging in analytical weighing out of the pros and cons of the impending outcome of possibilities and probabilities of one's choice of action.

 

Under such circumstances, all the perimeters surrounding the notions of 'self is here, helpless person is there' is dropped completely - there is only the task at hand, and the immediacy of the carrying out of this task.

 

As the act is performed, all forms of grasping at a self is forgotten, other is also forgotten. Its only after the deed is finished, then the thought may arise, "I am the doer of that deed", whereby analyses of events usually follow, yet, during the act itself, self-referential analysis is truly gone - the egotistical center has to drop away or the act cannot be accomplished fully. Even with the 'self' absent (actually, in real dire rescue situations, the 'self' has to be absent), the deed still gets done, but there cannot be found a 'doer' at the moment of doing. At the precise moment of 'doing', there is only the 'doing' - look for the 'doer', and the action is lost. This could be rather unpleasant, especially when split-seconds count. In higher practices, the contemplative begins by familiarizing with the idea of abandoning both doer and the act of doing, conceptually, and then, after stabilizing the practice, even the concept is abandoned.

 

The notion of 'doer' and 'deed' seems only to arise post-action, following on from the act itself. One cannot act, and see the actor at the same time. Either focus on the action, or the doer/thinker. In my mind, actions are alway in the present... on the other hand, thinker and thoughts always exist in the past, for one can never think of thoughts that has yet to register in the database. In other words, to engage in thinking is engaging the past. It is fundamentally extracting past processes that reside in the memory bank.

 

Just to clarify - i am not against thinking. Of course we need to think, we need memory, otherwise we would not even know how to get home from the office or from the mall, or even how to tie our shoelaces, or brush our teeth for that matter . However, what is proposed here is that thought always function based on data that has been accumulated, never data that has yet to be inputted.

 

 

(Steve... really appreciate your reflections. I find your input quite inspiring indeed. )

[Seth Ananda]

Some great points have already been made, but a good observation from western psychology is that much thought comes from the underlying belief structures. Someone who feels worthless will have a constant stream of thought, whispering "you can't do it, you'll never succeed, your hopeless, why even try..."

 

As those structures get broken down, that quality of thought ceases. So our belief structures themselves are constantly generating Internal chatter.

Some have theorised that the structures take on something akin to a survival instinct, and speak constantly to get attention and validation/energy to maintain their existence.

 

I have found it very interesting over the years to notice that when I have successfully dismantled another set of structures, that my Internal dialogue slows greatly, and the associated thinking style ceases. Occasionally after Intensive Inner work I have managed to temporarily collapse a great portion of my structures, resulting in, up to weeks without Internal dialogue.

Quite amazing, and also why I think that [good] western psychology should be Included in the spiritual path.

 

Seth

[starhawk]

Thought is when I have a headache.

 

 

No thought is when I have clarity and clear mind

[Aaron]

Hello Otis,

 

I recently watched a program on Nova about the human brain. One segment of the show talked about Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, a process whereby scientist stimulate sections of the brain with strong magnetic impulses in order to disrupt the electric current in the brain. What they found was that they could not only stimulate physical responses, such as cause a finger to twitch, or cause someone to slur their speech, but they were also able to affect such things as defining moral intentions and also alleviate depression. This process seems to prove that consciousness, thought, actually does reside within the brain and that the perception that it arises from an outside source may not be completely true.

 

Now on the flip side there have been studies where people have been able to perceive what other people were thinking or feeling in another room, just by concentrating on the other person. Although scientists are not completely sure how this works, it does seem to lend to the idea that on some level we can detect the conscious actions of others on some level.

 

 

Aaron

Edited May 4, 2011 by Twinner

[Marblehead]

This process seems to prove that consciousness, thought, actually does reside within the brain and that the perception that it arises from an outside source may not be completely true.

 

Aaron

 

I have nothing more to say.

[manitou]

This process seems to prove that consciousness, thought, actually does reside within the brain and that the perception that it arises from an outside source may not be completely true.

 

Aaron

 

Maybe it arises from an Inner Source.

 

And maybe thought is the very thing that makes time seem linear to us. We may be the only species with linear thoughts, one word after the other. The state of Awareness, on the other hand, involves no thoughts - just to sit in the shining radiance of Knowledge.

 

It just occurred to me that the Sun knows no time. There is no shadow, there is no day and night. It's all Now. Only things with shadows, as they revolve around the sun, displays time. (Although I realize that the sun is technically rotating within the universe as well - the metaphor only works up to a point).

 

and maybe the real purpose of this grand experiment is for the humans to tame their thoughts and live in the appreciation of the moment. Without inner dialogue there would be no wars, and (whatever it wants to be called) would fully manifest.

Edited May 4, 2011 by manitou

[suninmyeyes]

At a surface level, it seems to be "me" who thinks.

 

But when I slow down and pay attention, thought seems to happen, without "my" volition. Thoughts sound like "me", but they are sometimes surprising to me.

 

Maybe a thought is just an alarm, like the conceptual component that comes up with emotions like jealousy, fear and anger. Or maybe the thought is just "my" interpretation of the emotion.

 

Maybe a thought is just a subroutine, like the reminder to buy milk. Am I reminding myself? Or is there a function in my brain, whose job it is to remind "me"?

 

If I have a chronic thought, like "I hate my life", then it sounds almost a tape recorder, playing the same message, over and over, when the conditions are right.

 

What about non-language thoughts, like images and inspiration? Are they thoughts, too, or does a thought have to be in language?

 

How about you bilingual bums? Do you experience thought in multiple languages?

 

Is it really thought that gets in our way of experiencing reality, or is it just "taking thought too seriously"? Aren't thoughts useful, at times?

 

Are all thoughts from the same source? Are some from the emotional brain, some from the visual brain, some from memory? Or do these other functions merely stimulate the "thought brain", and evoke a story to help me (the ego) make some sense of the other input?

 

What is the relationship between thoughts and beliefs?

 

How do you relate to thoughts? How do you choose which thoughts are useful, important, or accurate? Do you use thoughts to evaluate thoughts, or is there another mechanism?

 

C'mon Bums, share your thoughts on thoughts!

I feel that thoughts are always there and can be learned to be chosen and chosen to be acted upon.They are needed for any action take place.

Thoughts build up together make up a mind,and the mind is commonly interperted as reality.

On the finer level thoughts are made up of sound and lights.This is the place where a lot of tuning ,and changing the frequency can be done like associations,habits etc..

I dont think that thoughts come from the brain they seem to be floating in the ether(IMO) and the brain translates them to a physiacal plane of manifestation.

As to multiple language thoughts-I dont think in words so much any more,when I do it does happen in different languages,and sometimes thoughts come in Spanish which I dont speak.

Nice topic.

[Otis]

Excellent contributions, everyone!

 

One of the most interesting experiments I've read about in a long time is one that demonstrates that thoughts regarding the intention to perform an activity occur AFTER measurable changes occur in the neuromuscular system that are associated with the initiation of the activity. That is, when I decide to pick up a glass of water, my neuromuscular system has already initiated the activity - prior to "me" being aware that the activity has been initiated.

This, to me, is one of the most important indicators of what is happening in my head, and is the neuroscience explanation of why the "I" is an illusion.

 

"My" thought does not precede the decision, therefore I am not the decision-maker. "I" am merely the observer of functions that happen elsewhere in my brain.

 

Also, therefore, thought is not the decision, but is a side-effect of the decision.

 

In process, it would be like this: X= The part of my brain that decides, which is clearly not "me" (i.e. my ego). X decides, and that decision is the catalyst for the next steps in the process. Several different neural pathways are activated by that catalyst: including motor nerves, emotional context, visual/spatial feedback, etc., and somewhere along the line, the "I" is notified.

 

The next question is: is the "I" notified via thought? Or is thought merely the ego's response to non-thought inter-brain communication?

 

For example, if X, the "decider" function, fires off my anger response, does the ego sense anger, and then create a story to match it: "oh, I'm really pissed off at that guy". Or is the ego even more clueless? Does it wait until some other function, a story-teller function, tells the ego how pissed off I am? If the latter, then the ego is merely the part which believes or disbelieves the story-teller.

 

If the "I" is merely an observer, and not a decider, or even the story-teller, then it becomes very easy to stop taking thought so seriously. I can merely watch the thought, and recognize that it is a phenomenon, not a truth. And I can wait until the next thought arises, and see if that one serves me better. That certainly helps in social interaction, if I don't attach to my first response, but count to ten, and see what other responses arise, thereafter.

 

(Of course, it also gets very complicated in terms of feedback loops, because even the "count to ten" is still a thought, still a habit that probably precedes the "I". What seems paradoxical, I think, is actually just a great deal of cross-communication within the brain, a nanosecond-by-nanosecond internal ecology of cause and effect, which gives the semblance of a flow of thoughts).

[Otis]

Under such circumstances, all the perimeters surrounding the notions of 'self is here, helpless person is there' is dropped completely - there is only the task at hand, and the immediacy of the carrying out of this task.

 

As the act is performed, all forms of grasping at a self is forgotten, other is also forgotten. Its only after the deed is finished, then the thought may arise, "I am the doer of that deed", whereby analyses of events usually follow, yet, during the act itself, self-referential analysis is truly gone - the egotistical center has to drop away or the act cannot be accomplished fully. Even with the 'self' absent (actually, in real dire rescue situations, the 'self' has to be absent), the deed still gets done, but there cannot be found a 'doer' at the moment of doing. At the precise moment of 'doing', there is only the 'doing' - look for the 'doer', and the action is lost. This could be rather unpleasant, especially when split-seconds count. In higher practices, the contemplative begins by familiarizing with the idea of abandoning both doer and the act of doing, conceptually, and then, after stabilizing the practice, even the concept is abandoned.

 

The notion of 'doer' and 'deed' seems only to arise post-action, following on from the act itself. One cannot act, and see the actor at the same time. Either focus on the action, or the doer/thinker. In my mind, actions are alway in the present... on the other hand, thinker and thoughts always exist in the past, for one can never think of thoughts that has yet to register in the database. In other words, to engage in thinking is engaging the past. It is fundamentally extracting past processes that reside in the memory bank.

I very much agree. I think you're pointing at the same thing as what I quoted from Steve F's post, how the self is not the doer, and thought not the decision, but both merely side-effects of deeper processes in the brain. And how neither thought nor self are necessary to carry out actions. In fact, you point to how both thought and self can get in the way of action, how they can contaminate the process with excess rumination and second-guessing.

 

Wu wei, then, does not have to be a supernatural process, but merely a neural one. It could just be: getting the I and the thoughts out of the way, so that the deeper processes of my organism can work as a seamless flow, without being slowed down by "my" interference, my obsessive need to try to control my brain. "I" am merely an apparition, an illusion arising from the functions of that brain.

[Otis]

Some great points have already been made, but a good observation from western psychology is that much thought comes from the underlying belief structures. Someone who feels worthless will have a constant stream of thought, whispering "you can't do it, you'll never succeed, your hopeless, why even try..."

 

As those structures get broken down, that quality of thought ceases. So our belief structures themselves are constantly generating Internal chatter.

Excellent!

 

Another way of saying this might be: belief structures are just another form of habit. In this case, it's a habit/subroutine which says: if there is X context, then I launch my warning, the thought that is recorded here. If I look in the mirror and notice my crow's feet, then a subroutine says: "oh, I'm getting so old". If I drop something, a subroutine says: "you clumsy oaf". And so on.

 

So my thoughts may arise from many different functions in the brain, each an if/then subroutine.

 

(Of course, they are not simply if X, then Y, because many factors may play a part in the firing of that thought. It may be more like: if this context occurs, and if my dopamine level is this low, and if my cortical arousal is this high, then I produce Y response.)

[manitou]

Maybe the subconscious parts of the brain make the decision first and clue in the various body responses. The conscious part of us is the last one to know.

 

What a lovely illusion, that we, the "I" that we sense, is actually making the decision. Apparently it is not. However, we can choose how to frame the thoughts that our subconscious sends; do we frame our thoughts with love, with judgment, with hate? This is the lens through which our subconscious (which I personally think is somehow the collective that we all share) manifests.

 

I recently read somewhere that it has been proven that test scores are higher within certain control groups if they study AFTER the exam. Wow. Somehow, it's all just happening at the same time, and the illusion is that time is passing in a linear fashion.

[doc benway]

Very cool stuff - I'm enjoying this thread.

Thanks for all the great posts everyone.

[Otis]

I recently watched a program on Nova about the human brain. One segment of the show talked about Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, a process whereby scientist stimulate sections of the brain with strong magnetic impulses in order to disrupt the electric current in the brain. What they found was that they could not only stimulate physical responses, such as cause a finger to twitch, or cause someone to slur their speech, but they were also able to affect such things as defining moral intentions and also alleviate depression. This process seems to prove that consciousness, thought, actually does reside within the brain and that the perception that it arises from an outside source may not be completely true.

Hey Aaron, I saw that Nova special, too. Good stuff. Nothing like a good brain documentary to help bust our bubble, that thought is something grand and divine. But I think that's a useful humbling, because my thought process is self-important enough, without me trying to convince myself that it's divinely inspired.

[zerostao]

when we enter into the realm of conscious experience we cross a threshold of

organizational complexity that ups its own new concepts-thoughts, feelings,

fears,desires/hopes,plans/remembrences, volitions....

 

how to understand these mental events are consistent with the principles

and laws of our physical universe which produces them.

 

the understanding of this has much difficulty. if neural processes are

but the motions of atoms and electrons obeying the laws of physics, then

mental events are denied any distinctive reality of their own. my own understanding draws no difference between brain atoms and electrons and atoms and

electrons found elsewhere. so , this solves the problem of consistency between

the mental and the physical world.

 

however,if mental events are denied their own distinct reality (which reduces

us to mere automated things) then reasoning is also denied its own distinct

reality and thus this idea collapses on its own reference.

 

so, an assumption is made that mental events have a distinct reality .

but if they are produced by physical process such as neural activity,

can they posses their own independent set of dynamics?

 

if i decide to dance , how is it that my thoughts in this case volition,

acts to cause a change of events and signals , triggering muscles and

neurons which becoz of my will has my body to dance?

evidently i will think that my willing to dance magically produces the

required movements.

 

so this phenomenon seems to have 2 causes. and i am not sure if science has solved this mind-body equation yet? can anyone answer this for me?

so i will think the 2 causes are neural activity in the brain which is determined by the laws of physics. (as would be the case of any electrical network)

and direct experience encourages us to believe that in the case of intended action,

that action is caused by our mental states.

 

relevant to this issue is the fact that our brain is a highly non-linear

system and is subject to chaotic behavior. then there is unpredictabilty of a chaotic system and their sensitivity to initial conditions that gives them

a whimsical quality. james crutchfield thinks that chaos provides for free will

in an apparently deterministic universe.

he states

"Innate creativity may have an underlying chaotic process that

selectively amplifies small fluctuations and molds them into macroscopic

coherent mental states that are experienced as thoughts.

in some cases thoughts may be decisions, or what is perceived as

to be the exercise of will. In this light, chaos provides the mechanism

that allows for free will within a world governed by deterministic laws."

[stan herman]

All interesting stuff. All credible. Yet each different from the others.

 

Question: From where do these differences arise? Of course, the quick and easy answer would be from the differences of each individual's previous history and genes. But is there another answer too?

[Birch]

Hey Aaron, I saw that Nova special, too. Good stuff. Nothing like a good brain documentary to help bust our bubble, that thought is something grand and divine. But I think that's a useful humbling, because my thought process is self-important enough, without me trying to convince myself that it's divinely inspired.

 

I didn't see it, but isn't that the Shakti-helmet guy? http://www.shaktitechnology.com/

Were the people in the experiment (self)conscious of the weirdness?

 

The weirdness I can sort of get, but the "how in the hell am I aware that it's weird" is something I'm not "getting" - unless I go down the pure conscious awareness blah blah blah route. Oh crap, that would mean that this pure consciousness stuff is either entirely plausible or...???

[Birch]

Some great points have already been made, but a good observation from western psychology is that much thought comes from the underlying belief structures. Someone who feels worthless will have a constant stream of thought, whispering "you can't do it, you'll never succeed, your hopeless, why even try..."

 

As those structures get broken down, that quality of thought ceases. So our belief structures themselves are constantly generating Internal chatter.

Some have theorised that the structures take on something akin to a survival instinct, and speak constantly to get attention and validation/energy to maintain their existence.

 

I have found it very interesting over the years to notice that when I have successfully dismantled another set of structures, that my Internal dialogue slows greatly, and the associated thinking style ceases. Occasionally after Intensive Inner work I have managed to temporarily collapse a great portion of my structures, resulting in, up to weeks without Internal dialogue.

Quite amazing, and also why I think that [good] western psychology should be Included in the spiritual path.

 

Seth

 

Nice points Seth. What's your take when thoughts go "underground" - as in they can't be readily identified as internal dialogue any more because you can't hear it any more. Yet the beliefs are still there because they're driving your actions? Yes, this is for me And why I'm still fiddling around. At least when you hear your internal dialogue you can figure out what it is. Would this be the shamanic "hunting ground"???

[Otis]

I didn't see it, but isn't that the Shakti-helmet guy? http://www.shaktitechnology.com/

Were the people in the experiment (self)conscious of the weirdness?

 

The weirdness I can sort of get, but the "how in the hell am I aware that it's weird" is something I'm not "getting" - unless I go down the pure conscious awareness blah blah blah route. Oh crap, that would mean that this pure consciousness stuff is either entirely plausible or...???

I'm sure that the technology is similar to the Shakti helmet, but in the Nova special, they used a wand to stimulate one area at a time.

 

Great question about whether the person was self-conscious about the weirdness caused by the stimulation. I wondered that as well, while I was watching, but unfortunately they didn't address it.

[Otis]

Nice points Seth. What's your take when thoughts go "underground" - as in they can't be readily identified as internal dialogue any more because you can't hear it any more. Yet the beliefs are still there because they're driving your actions? Yes, this is for me And why I'm still fiddling around. At least when you hear your internal dialogue you can figure out what it is. Would this be the shamanic "hunting ground"???

I think of beliefs as just a subset of habit. Belief includes the language component, whereas habit also includes all that pre-language stuff.

 

Of course, some of my habits are habits of avoidance, and those are even less obvious and thus, more insidious. At least attachments make some noise, so I know how to pay attention to them. But the avoidances are self-blindness, and it's hard to see what I don't see.