Thoughts are singular and unique to the person thinking

Do you dare to know that Your thoughts are not your own?

nathan
Seth Russell Anyway this proposition, "Your thoughts are not your own", is a tricky one. Me, I don’t think ownership should even be considered over the domain of thoughts. I like to reserve that for the domain of things that can be purchased with money or contracted to be legally possessed. It is a legal concept. Thoughts are neither legal or illegal.

We need a more pertinent concept. Try singular or unique. Then i think we can agree that each thought that occurs is quite singular and unique to the person thinking it, for without the background of their singular and unique experiences it would have no meaning. It is after all the meaning of the thought that we are considering here.

Now you can think a thought that could be expressed in the same words as a thought that i also think. But you will understand that thought against the background of your unique history and experiences ... not against mine. So i would say the thought as you think it is singular and unique only to you. It would be similar to mine only to the extent that we have the same background and history of relevant experiences.



For me this understanding is a prerequsite for considering the matters brought up by the Council.


#thoughts #specificity

Comments


It was way far back in my life when I grokked that thinking is a perceptive process – that idea never left me; only the boundaries change. The older I get the less I need possession of anything.


a “perceptive process” assumes a perceiver apart from the perceived.  I agree, that assumption cannot be denied.   I am talking here about the perceiver and characterizing it as the background of what is perceived.   So there are two ways to change the thought.  Change what is sensed from outside, or change the background that lends it meaning.

Yeah I simplify it all & say something is happening that I am conscious of & have an ego to judge it long enough to try to follow or otherwise – no inside/outside which is fabrication for selfies. null

well can anything outside of your “experience and history” lend any meaning to you of which you are conscious? 

if not, well then that “experience and history” is what gives the thought its meaning.

#experience #history #meaning #thought

I go with the “Life is Empty & meaningless & that doesn’t mean anything either” crowd. Do as you like & drag the past behind you with your heavy analysis chains.

i do not have any choice in the matter … the current flows from the past.  point being that you can navagate to whatever background of experience and history that you choose … if you want to feel different about something or have it mean something different … er, well focus on a experience that puts it in that light … or go experience something something in a context that will lend a more desireable meaning.

if your life is meaningless then you are in the blissful innocencnt state of a newborn baby … far fucking out !!

XOR you invent things to be unhappy or excited about – a prisoner of the past. null
One man’s empty & meaningless is another man’s freedom – no matter what kind of #aug you want to attach to it.

well yes certainly null i prefer to invent things to be excited about … said differently i select things from my experiences for which my current perceptions reflect excitingly upon.  i am only held prisoner of an unhappy past to the extent that i do not add exciting things to my current experiences flowing into that past for future reflections.

“One man’s empty & meaningless is another man’s freedom” null  is certainly true …
that follows directly from my thesis …

each thought that occurs is quite singular and unique to the person thinking it, for without the background of their singular and unique experiences it would have no meaning.

seth above

#Whatever – #SoYouSay – I just don’t bother thinking along those lines it inhibits the now. 


well for me it is practical knowledge suggesting method of change.  it tells me how to change my perceptions. 

when i am held by some meaning, as per the Actarian’s Council’s concern,  i know how to change it … maybe i can break free … maybe not … in either case i know what to try and change, the background against which my experiences are happening.

i realize that this does not call upon any spiritual knowledge … no occult consciousness … and no radical factoring of our common sense ontology as is proffered by the Council and others.  But shucks i will take practical “how to” knowledge as long as it  works,  over those other backgrounds to which i am not necessarily bound.   just as long as it works. 

In the end i reach the same conclusion as does the council …

[unwanted memes] have absolutely no power over you unless you give them that power … unless you let them define you.

the 9th Actarian Council
… and that is what counts.

Yeah, none of this means anything to me including your fictional council. That which is, IS! That which you spin usually ISN’T! null Look into my eye & keep on spinning you crazy diamond null

XOR null



shucks why would i give up the feeling of the rich texture of significance?



… how sweet it is!

must be going for sloppy seconds! null

what do you mean?

that is all your audience gets – you may be enjoying the coffee & crumb cake but the audience gets
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sloppy+seconds if that.

oh … well my experience is direct … no sloppy seconds … i feel it myself.  My audience, well that is their thing … they get my experience indirectly through my works and then through their interpretations of same. 

so no, i am not going for sloppy seconds.

too subtle . null

i love subtle null… the deeper the better … there is enough surface significance blasted at me in this culture … so i tend not to want to duplicate that.

The point is that thoughts don’t “occur”, as seth suggests. The point is that thoughts are “tuned in”, much the same way one would tune in a show on a radio or TV. Thoughts represent “things”. They exist. Even if one does not experience the thing a thought represents in their own travel through the tunable spectrum of reality experience, all things thought exist be them proper nouns, or processes, or emotions, etc. We don’t own them. We don’t even create them. We tune them in. What we create that is uniquely individualistic, our self (or selfie), is our own unique sequence of tuned in thoughts.

This understanding IS the current shift in consciousness and is visible in many current trends of thinking and systems relating to reality. It is the underlying idea behind even #loa philosophy.

Thoughts are not just in your head and not just yours. They are things. Your head simply tunes them in so that your consciousness can experience them.

well that ...
  1. “thoughts exist apart from their representations in our minds”  *AND*
  2. “we ‘just’ tune in to their vibration”
reworded from nathan
are two propositions that i need to examine with more detailed examples.  There are many kinds of thoughts … this may be a over generalization … and i am concerned with just how closely this “vibration” metaphor tracks the actuality of thinking.  Then too those propositions have many aspects … like the trunk of an elephant versus its ear … you may be looking at one aspect and me another and seeing quite a different animal. 

Anyway i’ll compare your description to several actual thoughts that are “vibrating” … er “rattling around” in my mind … i like to think in specific examples rather than broad generalizations.

I’ll collect these in #ThoughExamples … one is there now.

I have noticed the qualia of existence of an idea without my being able to judge what it is enough to put words around it showing up.  Sometimes only an #aug about it xor a neutral or #AugNot enter my consciousness.  I don’t grok anything like a vibration at all … such I suspect is just a word that others use in their theory of epistemologies &/or ontologies. 
… anyway just my perceptual ontology with more meat on the bones.

Humans are fond of cross referencing and time ordering thoughts, turning thoughts into a story. But don’t confuse what we do with thoughts as the thoughts themselves.

I don’t – do you?

Sometimes. It’s hard not to considering our collective social history. But when I focus my state of being I can easily see what is what.

well maybe “what we do with thoughts” … all that cross referencing and telling stories … is all there is to the thoughts.  Are you pointing to a mirage?

Thoughts are things. They exist with or without us. We tune them in … and then do all the cross referencing and turning of the experiencing of thoughts into personal or collective stories. The energy patterns brought into being by the intensities of our desires causes new thoughts to be created, but they are created outside of us, they are not ours. All that is ours is the stories we weave as we experience thoughts. (Abraham calls these “rockets of desire”)


HA! The authority of your ontology etc is within the boundary of YOU .
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don’t be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

Well said and most of that “descrption” agrees with the story i tell.  

I want to be  specific about that which does not .. so i will  highlight that which strikes me as wierd …
Thoughts are things. They exist with (1) or without us. We tune them in … and then do all the cross referencing and turning of the experiencing of thoughts into personal or collective stories. The energy patterns brought into being by the intensities of our desires causes new thoughts to be created, (2) but they are created outside of us, they are not ours. All that is ours is the stories we weave as we experience thoughts. (Abraham calls these “rockets of desire”)
nathan
  1. i think there is a type of thought that “exists without us” … but i have yet to find a good example here. 
  2. When i create a thought, as you desribe above, it does not “exist outside of me” unless i effectively express it outside of me.

Well, you say “create a thought” seth.

Try that. See if you can do it. I can’t. I can have a thought appear, one moment it is not there, the next it is … but try as I might, I can’t “create one” … not in any way that I can recognize the creation of it. I can create a painting, or a poem, but thoughts simply are not there one moment and there the next, in my experience.

shucks i already gave an example of a thought that i actually created … http://www.fastblogit.com/thought/24442 … i made that association … it did not exist before i made it….

#ThoughExamples

The thought associating or connecting this pose to collecting blackberries on a September morning in the nude was made exclusively by me. 

Seth

I don’t see any accounting that shows that you created that thought. At best, you can claim you are the only one to have advertised the association of the thought, but not the association in the thought. There is no evidence you created it or are the sole owner of the association at all that I can see.

#BThought … http://www.fastblogit.com/tags/BThought  … is another very specific example of a thought that i created … btw it still obtains, thought it has evolved a bit inside me.

Yep, seth, it all depends upon the meaning of the word created.  Maybe all you did was assemble it or described it whereas it was already within the vast universe of cosmic ooze & you grunted & squeezed it out in the blog. Einstein rode trains & one day he wrote the theory of relativity which was probably resident in the ooze of two trains on separate tracks running along side or opposite to eachother. 

Come on now, who could have ever associated collecting balckberries on a September morning with that nude pose?  And then that i received my association of that from their association.   That does not make any sense a all.

You seem to have a very “loose” definition for “created”. To me, created implies the process of creating can be examined. I have never observed a thought being created, internally in myself, or outside in another. Thoughts “appear” complete. Many have observed this, not just me. Richard Bach wrote about this in some of his well known books.

The tinker toys  of existence have already been invented. null 
         – Mark de LA


i made the association … i connected the dots in that pattern  that is how this thought got thunk … that is how i created the thought.

You seem to imply that the pattern existed before i made the pattern … but you have no evidence that the pattern existed in any form whatsoever before i connected the dots together and linked them to the background of my experience.

nice assembly work! null

I love that this thought came to you and did so because of your particular tuning to each of these subjects. That is poetry!

I just don’t see how you can say you created the thought is all. By all observable qualia, you simply tuned that “complete thought” in and then related it.

well i need specific reproducable evidance.   just statements contradicting my assertions are not convincing. 

incidentally #BThought is an even simpler #ThoughExamples of me creating an association that never existed before my act of creation.

In this case the burden of proof seems to be yours. You assert something outside observation. You claim you literally “create thoughts” without any evidence to support that. My assertion that thoughts are “tuned in” is a resonable explination that fits what we actually observe about thoughts … even if not true, it fits the available facts. Yours does not.

i have no problem with your descrition (metaphor) that thougs are tuned into.  for me that is just about as good a description of the process as any other one that i can imagine.

what does not compute over here is that the thought (the association) *always* existed prior to the tuning.

Look at static on a TV screen,  tune into whatever you want.  Try to tune into something that you did not already get from elsewhere in your experience … in other words, make up something new.   i will bet that you can … and then you will see it on the screen.   i predict that you are better at that  am i.

You have no evidence you “created” the pattern either. By your account, it came to you, basically complete. If not, show the steps involved with you, specifically you, generating that pattern. All you are showing is two disconnected items and a completely done association. Where did the association get created? How did it manifest complete in your mind?

That you “tuned it in” complete makes more sense than that you created it without knowing how you did that.

I would not tune in static if I had a TV, I would tune in a specific program that is compatible with me in that moment. And yes, that program surely existed before I set the dial to channel 5 and exists even if I don’t. Thought tuning is of course quite a bit more complex and there would be up to an infinite number of channels and combinations that are selected by the many aspects that represent our current state of being. What is the same is that the thought exists and we don’t own it, as the AC says.

well i already said above that ownership of a thought would be a catagory error … so we don’t need to confuse this with that concept which does not apply.

Anything can be #associated with anything else … but that mere infinite possiblity does not lend any meaning to those associations.  Rather a meaning must be attached (created) by some being who thinks.  Otherwise me thinks you are just imagining mirages.

Yep. A being who thinks is a tuner … but not the TV station or the set or the cast or anything else that creates the thought. The being who thinks has a very unique “state of being” which tunes those specific thoughts.

If you don’t think thoughts exist, try creating a new one. I bet you find you can’t. You only receive them.

we are going in circles here … i already didand gave you 2 examples.

incidentally i agree, the being who thinks is the tuner.   In the case of a TV channel they narrow down the possiblities of association but do not completely determine them.   which is why i suggested static.  and the source of static is irrelivant.

We are circling because you are not supplying a way out by showing the steps you go though to create a thought. You are only showing that you don’t have a thought, then next that you do have a complete one. If you want to maintain the age old idea that people create thoughts, then show it happening, in any way. Simply showing a complete thought and claiming you created it doesn’t mean you created it at all. If I hand you a complete apple and say “I created this”, what would you want to say to me? Possible something like “show me how you did that” … and that is all I am asking of you. Show me how you create a thought.

well those two thought have already happened … er, been tuned in … so i guess it is too late for them.   Even thought i might be able to remember the sequence of associations and where i got them in the case of the blackberry bushes.  The thought did not manifest all at once. I worked on that one over almost a week or longer … so slowley it came into view.  Still and all i cannot believe that it existed in its wholeness before i started my opus.

Yes. It is true. All of us have the same experience with thoughts. We can’t show how they are created. We can only show associations that went into them, and the end thought complete. We cannot show any part of a process whereby the associations were knitted into the complete thought. This is what humans can know.

Thereby, I choose a source for thoughts that does not require me having “created” the thought. Then I don’t get lost in assumptions I cannot observe or prove.

Thoughts appear to me complete without any experience of me creating them. Therefore I choose a source outside myself for their location of creation and existence, just like I do for all other things that appear to me complete, like this computer I am typing on right now. I do have the experience of a particular quality of thoughts coming to me based on the state I am in and that deliberately changing my state changes the kinds and quality of thoughts I experience. So the model that says thoughts are created and exist outside of me and I tune them in with my state of being seems to fit everything I actually experience quite well.

The idea that we individually create thoughts seems like an old and unexamined idea … much like the idea once held that the world is flat or that it is impossible to create a flying machine. Ideas evolve to better fit what we actually experience and are able to do. Right now our understanding of what thoughts are is evolving to better match what we actually experience in relationship to thoughts … and better support us in our evolving social interactions too! Owning thoughts is weighty and cumbersome and subject to ego involvement of all kinds, while tuning in thoughts, which exist as things, and not being responsible for ownership, but only for value created by a thoughts use, is exciting and opens up many new possibilities in social interaction without ego and shame and with cooperation and synergy.

This is the thought I choose to tune in … the thought that our understanding of what thoughts are evolves and outgrows the idea that we must create them. Thoughts are gown outside of us, like all things that come to us complete and nurish us. null

Outside validation and validation by authority … seems to be trending.  

Authentic insights and validation by excitement … that’s how I roll.


well okay yes

i too can “choose” to consider things that come to me “complete” as coming from outside of me. 

But then i have the same feeling twards most of what i feel and do … not just what i think. 

Thing is, all thoughts are not the same … nor are all feelings or deeds.  In many of my thoughts and feelings and actions i am aware of my hand in constructing them.  I wiggle things around … that is me doing the wiggeling and not some external thing.   Sans me doing that wiggeling, the thought (or feeling or deed) will never exist. 

This one is a great example of how i created a thought


… as i was posing for the video i realized one moment where one aspect of the essence of that thought was reflected in my eyes. 

← here it is cut out and published for all to see


#SeptemberMorn #blackberries


What you wiggle is your tuning, your state of being. You wiggle your tuning toward what calls you, toward what #RingsTrue for you … that then tunes-in complete thoughts which match … out of all those complete thoughts that are out there in the thought cloud.

Except perhaps in the picture above … there it appears you might just be wiggling something else.

well the “wiggling” .. the “tuning” … IS what is creating the thought …. they are  the same thing … just different words being used to point it out.   Without the wiggle (the tuneing) the thought never exists. 

The picture above wiggels, now in front of your eyes, just one aspect of September Blackberry Breakfast.  Trust me on that, it is, after all, my wiggle.  if you see something else, then that is you doing a wiggeling, or making an interpertation,  not me.

The idea of “tuning” and the idea of “creating” are not the same ideas, and it is very useful going forward in evolution of human experience to have a clear grasp of the differences and how to think as “tuning” rather than think as “creating”. The original post by the AC amplified the usefulness of this distinction.

Well at least we can agree that the action is the same.  The disagreement here is whether it would have existed without the tuning.  I say it woud not have existed … you seem to say that it would have existed with or without the tuning being done.   I do not count possible happening as existing … you seem to consider it existing just because it is possible.

To agree there is tuning requires it to exist. One cannot tune in a radio station that does not exist. As you said eariler, one would be attempting to tune static. The whole idea of “tuning” is based on the understanding that one is aligning something within one’s self (I call that state of being) with something out there that exists.


yep … startling as it may seem to you … i am talking about #static and not what you started talking about, a TV station that exists prior to the tuning.

Look at this static here … that moving picture represents all possible pictures that can exist in that space. 

Tunning is what a person does to make something in that #static meaningful to themselves. 

if i create (as opposed to just reproducing), i wiggle the possible meaningful patterns to one that i like … and then i can see it and the thought is thunk. 
Sure i agree, tuning in a TV station is recognizing a pattern that exists prior to the tuning.  Just like mark took my September Morn picture and tuned it into something pornographic.  That was a case where the TV station existed prior to mark’s tuning in his cute interpretation.  That is not what i am talking about.  I am talking about creating something that did not exist before i tuned it in from the chaos of all possible associations.

”Tunning is what a person does to make something in that #static meaningful to themselves.” – seth

Seems like nonsense to me. Tune to make static into something? Not science. Not logic. Not even intuitive. To tune there has to be something there. And there is. All desire becomes thought. It’s all there, simply waiting for us to tune it in by matching our state of being to the the thoughts we receive. That fits. That makes sense. Turning static into something is just wishful thinking I think. Seems like you are trying to make what is clearly a round world flat again … probably because you have thought about it being flat for so long the idea that it could be round just doesn’t sit well with you.

well yes it may be  a strange new method to you that does not make any sense … i can see that.

Nevertheless it works.

Take static and broacast it over a speaker … connect the speaker to a microphone in a traditional feedback loop … move the mic close to the speaker and turn up the volume … you will hear a pattern that is certainly not static.   That is just the way feedback works.   Was the screech there in the static before you tuned in that feedback?


Or more pertinantly look at the trend in #ai with #DeepMind aka #DeepLearning … in particualr About: research blog: inceptionism: going deeper into neural networks

← these patterns are created just by the filters that are applied and amplified in feedback loops.  
Or maybe take a look at some #CogSci experiments where this stuff has been reproduced again and again even in humans.

A screech is not a symphony … and I doubt any amount of pure feedback (or any other non conscious intervention) will turn static into a symphony. Why make it so difficult? Why go to such lengths to make sense out of consciousness and thought? The system we present is simple, makes sense, and can be used to get consistent results. Maybe it is not the final word in thinking, but surely it is a nicely evolved step along the way. Why stand still and super-construct everything to fit where you stand? Just flow along with evolution. It’s so much easier.

a screech is a definite pattern.   and no i am not saying that a screech will beome a symhony … that is a rediculous exxageration and mock of this phenomena.


another simpler example is seeing patterns in the clouds … in the chaos of the winds of vapors.
#btw nathan are you telling me that you have never stared at static and ended up making patterns in it?

Again the point here is to distinguish between your navigaing attention around pre existing things … rather than creating them.   Your assertions from authority are irrelevant to me.  I am showing that pre existing things are not necessary for perception and creation to work.  These examples work for me and can be reproduced by anyone … yours seem to me just notions that must be assumed by authority or faith. 

You are showing that nature has patterns, that’s all. You are showing the equivalent to what Darwin showed when he found that environmental conditions were all that was necessary for changes to evolve in a species of lizards on the Galapagos Islands in yearly patterns. Out of that he came up with the Darwin theory of all that evolves … which is luscious when applied to things like the human eye … and yet, some staunch scientists ignore the wonder around them and cultivate a belief in Darwin evolution. I do not.  

The whispers you present do not describe the richness of my thoughts and experience. Tuning my thoughts in from a cloud of available thoughts both describes my experience, the richness of it’s variability, the vastness of it, why all my thoughts are complete as they come to me, and easily tells me how to move beyond, to what is coming next in human interaction.

Well the pattern in the clouds in not a pattern “in nature” … rather it is a pattern only in the eye of the perceiver.


But It seems true that there are patterns in nature … like “speces of lizards in the Galapagos” …

← and even thorny #blackberries. 

I do not create those patterns …
but  like you i tune those in from “available [pre existing] patterns”.

Then i select out from the infinite possible combinations and relationships which suit my fancy to create new patterns which were not there before.
Your recent descriptions of life seem to eliminate that aspect … stressing to me that everything already exists and one merely flits upon it tuning one’s attention to experience what excites with no effect on the fabric itself.  For me that attitude negates the very essence of living.

As you wish.

All I can say is “It is not like that”. If it were, I would be quite put out and board and underamazed. Quite the contrary, I am amazed and delighted and constantly surprised how rich and full of wonder and fun and creativity it is out here where we tune in to existing thoughts and surf the fast moving and evolving edge of life, the universe, and everything.

For sure there are available delights, and always will be, where you have staked your claim on what you think reality is. But reality itself is moving fast forward and the center of bliss is further from your homestead than you wish to venture anymore. I personally believe this is why humans have limited lifespans. It has been the nature of humans to stake a claim and stay put once they think they know what life is all about … and that very stopping of movement becomes, in the body, aging and the eventual reset of corporal life to a new body and state of being that is ready to move forward again for a time. Some, perhaps me, perhaps not, it hardly matters, will begin to stay in the current and move freely forward with the wave of evolution and those will have a different relationship to aging and time. Learning that thoughts are things and exist outside the mind and body is an important step to this new way of surfing the reality wave. And it is fun. It is exciting. It is full of love and relationships and compassion and joy and continuous new things and ideas and emotions and creativity and everything else anyone could or has ever wanted from life. All of that is plentiful in this fast moving stream of joyous life flowing forward in ever changing and evolving ideas. You only think it is not what you want to experience, you imagine that, you don’t know it, for you have not tried it to find out. You only compare the notion of what you think is up there to what you are comfortable with in your current surroundings. You are, as the majority of humans have traditionally been for quite a long time now, a reality homesteader, not a leading edge surfer. As Abraham says “It is not crowded on the leading edge, but it is one hell of an awesome ride!”.  

well all of that is a great description …
and as it talks about you, i quibbel with it not.
But those things you presume about me are, as usual, totally off the wall. 
They exist merely as stories inside your own mind.

I know there are “thoughts are things existing outside my mind and body”.  At the same time i also know that there are thoughts and things that are  inside my mind and body.  I am studying how those two different kinds of things flow from on state to the other.   The former is the act of perception … the latter is the act of expression … and yet in the final analysis they cannot be completely separated … it is not a binary choice.

The act of creation takes things from inside my mind, and puts them outside where they never were …
it does not merely navigate my awareness to a universe where they already existed outside myself.


They “already existed outside yourself” because you, and others, put them there both by launching rockets of desire, and by creative imagination. No one is attempting to take away your creatorship. In fact, we give it to you in a way this is more direct and more satisfying. Right now, you are struggling to understand exactly how your thoughts create. With this method, you can experience it directly instead.

Well your first sentence rings true and is well said null.

The rest seems to be part of some story that are writing about me.

Get over it. The story is about humans. You are a human. You don’t have to make it about you … doing that just limits you. Ties you out to a stake like a goat. Be a human and allow changes to work in you as humans have the capacity to do.

it doesn’t’t matter who it is about … the point is that it is your story.  Hey express it with zest !   Write it down in detail … dramatize it … set it to music … put it on the stage … sing it from the mountain top.   But talking about it as if it were my reality is fraught with serious error … for in that regard it does not ring true over here.

It will … it will.  

It’s the human story in these parts, not exclusively mine. You do have the choice to read it or not. Its a manual. A manual for gaining as much as you can from your remaining life experience. The procedures you are using now are out of date … you have not updated them.

You don’t have to do anything. Life does not require things of you … you require things of yourself. The simple fact is … you are exposing yourself to the upgraded manual. The purpose for that is yours. Showing you the pages is mine.

September Blackberry Breakfast (comment 80736) … is another #ThoughExamples of a thought that i created.   that thought did not exist apart from me untill i created it.   i suppose that you could believe that it did exist apart from my creation before i created it and that i just tuned into it.   if that is true then others can pick #blackberries and then look at their pickings and experience a intense love coming from their harvest … just like others can follow the recipe for blackberry jam and end up with the same delicious spread. 

but i rather think that the recipe for making blackberry jam is quite a bit more reliable
than is the recipe for making a bowl of blackberry love null