I Think, and Only I

[rideforever]

We are educated to expect thinking to roll on and on in our heads, and we are educated to believe that this is normal.
It is not normal.
Unless I think, there should be no thinking.
Nobody thinks apart from I, I do not allow it.
If thinking begins without me, then I put myself there in the forehead which is the location of the thinker.
I take my seat and only I think.
As I sit in the forehead, sometimes it is quiet, as my presence makes it quiet.
I am present in my seat.
And never is there thinking that is not I thinking.
Returning to this state is the solution for mankind, in my considered opinion.

I take my seat, and awaken from my drunkenness.

 

 

[Marblehead]

Excellent comments.  I am in total agreement with you.  (We are responsible for all our thoughts, words, and deeds.)

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Marblehead

[rideforever]

Otherwise it is very bad, because you should take the seat in the forehead (awaken) .... if you do not it will roam unconsciously and harm you, like a wild bull in the paddock smashing all the fences and making a mess.
This is not really a question of control, it is a question of presence .... "being there".

[Marblehead]

One thing that led me to my conclusion was that saying "The Devil made me do it."

 

No, no god or devil causes us thoughts.  It is our own mind and that is all.  Now true, our mind might be screwed up but it are still our own thoughts.

 

[wandelaar]

This Bum doesn't think there is some master "I" involved. Our mind is more in the nature of a society of relatively autonomous subsystems that all more or less play their part in what we eventually do without any one supreme commander making the final decisions.

 

The idea of "an I with a free will" may be a useful fiction in courts of law, but that doesn't make it any more realistic as a psychological model of what actually happens.

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by wandelaar

[Marblehead]

13 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

The idea of "an I with a free will" may be a useful fiction in courts of law, but that doesn't make it any more realistic as a psychological model of what actually happens.

While that may be true, all other influences are unqualitative.  Cannot be verified or nullified.  Therefore only reality counts.

 

[rideforever]

When you do not sit in the seat of the thinker, your mind will think as part of the collective, sharing ideas on the internet.  In that case you can consider all humans are one organism in many bodies, sharing through the media/ culture and there is not much free will, although society does occasionally change a bit.
However humans can wake up, so that they sit in the seat of the thinker, then it is "I" that think, and no-one but "I".   I am a black sheep and no longer do what they wish, nor do I rebel against what they wish.
"I" am simply "I", "I" am me.
This is the beginning of free will.   And one gets a taste for it like an inventor that begins doing new things, and learns to like climbing the uncharted, because being free feels incredible.
Then going back into the sheeple feels painful.

[Fa Xin]

Reminds me of a dog chasing it's tail

[rideforever]

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/11/nasa-impossible-emdrive-physics-peer-review-space-science/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Tests_by_inventors

[Marblehead]

Science also says that bumble bees cannot fly.  But they do.  Maybe w just don't understand some things in nature?

 

[wandelaar]

All this talk about "I" doesn't impress me a bit. Whether or not there is free will is a scientific question, and being an inventor or freethinker doesn't prove anything for or against the existence of free will. Most ideas about free will are just muddled thought.

 

As to what science says about bumblebees or EmDrives that is another topic. Many urban legends about the failings of science are just plain wrong...

 

A few seconds of Googling gives: https://www.livescience.com/33075-how-bees-fly.html

 

And the EmDrive is still in the experimental phase...

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by wandelaar

[Marblehead]

Well, too bad you aren't impressed with my truths regarding this subject.

 

At least I have some truths that I, myself, have verified.

 

[rideforever]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

And the EmDrive is still in the experimental phase...

One thing I notice is that various experiments were conducted on the machine which showed it produced actual thrust.
And when the results were concluded, then the scientists were suspicious and came up with umteen alternative explanations and rejected it and so on.
Which is fine.
But the thing is, when ordinary scientific experiments are carried out and the results concluded .... then just accept them without thinking too much, without checking for experimental errors.
And don't do any other checks, and those experiments may also have gazillions of errors in them, but they are not checked because no body can be arsed .... because they are sort of what is expected and they know that it's enough to get paid and go home to dinner.
So basically what this means is that most scientists are doing experiments rather monotonously and not checking to hard and don't particularly care because they sort of know what the answer is supposed to be.   It's just one big groupthink.
Which means they not really scientists, they are jobsworths.
And only a few came with a bigger mission and spirit.

[wandelaar]

@ rideforever

 

There certainly is a kernel of truth in what you say. When a scientist critically investigates some result that is considered as almost certainly correct than the results of his own investigation will most likely replicate what is already known. Thus hardly anybody will care about such research and it may not even be published.

 

On the other hand: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence:

 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

 

So there is nothing wrong with the EmDrive being tested multiple times and the results being critically examined.

[rideforever]

41 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

On the other hand: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence:

Yes, that is what they say.  But if you understand that it means that they don't open their eyelids much unless something big happens, then they simply sleepwalk in their work ... and how much of it is accurate.  We can't know anymore because they are not trustworthy.   Just because you get an expect answer ... doesn't meant the experiment is correct.
They are just like any other bod, they only stand to attention when the boss is around.
This is not science it's all BS.
You can't be a scientist without wishing to be truly conscious and testing the truth all day long.
These people are just jobsworths and the EM Drive just shows the whole boring story.
Like the rejection and negativity surrounding the results .... because they threaten all existing theories .... and all the careers that were made on those existing theories.
In other words it's just another bunch of monkeys with their hierarchies and groupthinks and their institutions and all that sh***.
And for me that's not science, that's people slowly dying whilst talking a good game.
I am afraid most people like a Hollywood story before bed .... some sort "clear and easy truth" they can tuck themselves in with.
They are sleepy people.
It's interesting many things that we think are certain, are not actually certain.
For instance some universal "constants" .... are tested regularly, with testing machines .... and the result is always a little different, and then a team of scientists has a "vote" on which one they should use.
Ha.   And this is a "constant" is it !!!!
Earth does not go round the Sun and a full explanation of what is happening is rather long.
But .... of course most human monkeys are asleep by now.
Science is just another lullaby.
Where is the fire ???

[wandelaar]

That's no serious answer, but a frustrated rant. No use continuing.

[rideforever]

19 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

That's no serious answer, but a frustrated rant. No use continuing.

 

It's not easy to explain to people the value of consciousness and spirit, if they have lived drifting and surrounded by people who don't mind drifting.

[ilumairen]

5 hours ago, rideforever said:

As I sit in the forehead, sometimes it is quiet, as my presence makes it quiet.
I am present in my seat.

 

Naked and unadorned awareness..

 

[wandelaar]

1 hour ago, rideforever said:

It's not easy to explain to people the value of consciousness and spirit, if they have lived drifting and surrounded by people who don't mind drifting.

 

Maybe - but I found your ranting post anything but convincing.

 

Perhaps you could explain how you accomplish sitting in your forehead?

[ilumairen]

43 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Maybe - but I found your ranting post anything but convincing.

 

Perhaps you could explain how you accomplish sitting in your forehead?

 

Placing awareness in the crown is a pretty standard practice.. 

[rideforever]

45 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Maybe - but I found your ranting post anything but convincing.

 

You know ... when I wish to learn something try something do something .... I expect to do 99.9% of the work btw.
Because - it's what I want, so I take it and try hard.

[wandelaar]

Even trying can be overdone.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

6 hours ago, wandelaar said:

This Bum doesn't think there is some master "I" involved. Our mind is more in the nature of a society of relatively autonomous subsystems that all more or less play their part in what we eventually do without any one supreme commander making the final decisions.

 

The idea of "an I with a free will" may be a useful fiction in courts of law, but that doesn't make it any more realistic as a psychological model of what actually happens.

 

I am rather in agreement with your position and took Transactional Analysis as a basic model to which I gave a Fourth Way " many 'Is'" expansion as a teenager circa 1967-8.  Much later I was to discover the psychological interpretation of Plato's Republic as outline of personality and possibly guide to psychological integration.  You might find this link to a post by John Ubersax, a contemporary Christian Neo-Platonist of interest:

 

Psychopolis: Plato’s Inner Republic and Personality Theory

 

When I was writing my series Plato and Platonism 101, I recommended more of his posts as part of my introductory post, if you like the above, the links in this post may be of interest to you:

 

Ubersax is, as I said, a Christian, and I of course am not, but he has an excellent understanding of Plato in a contemporary context, which is why I did and still do recommend him.

 

ZYD

[Nungali]

....

Edited December 1, 2018 by Nungali

[ilumairen]

17 minutes ago, Nungali said:

....

 

I missed it by 12 minutes...