Does not compute

[Oshen]

Hello.

There is no you, a strange thing to say.
It appears true if you look at it - nothing in particular is the thing in control.
Looking at other people, looking at your own actions - there is always something traceable that can cause an action.

But it always snaps back to the basic, undeniable fact that there is me looking.
Trying to see or imagine that there is no me in some way or other always trips a reality check of some sort.
Does not compute is the sharpest way of saying that.
There is always that sum of all stories and actions, that is me.
So, something is not right, i'm not getting it.

The Sufi stories are the reference of a sort for me. One thing persistent in them is that you can't miss the truth, or doubt being free. If there is doubt, how can i be free?

Like Eckhart Tolle speaks about being in the now - there is me now.
Not a moment ago, not a moment later, there is this moment being perceived.
If it's all sum of interactions and laws of physics acting out, why is this particular now is what is being experienced, why this particular point of view?

I'm lost. Can you help?

[No_One]

Hi Oshen,

Welcome around ... thanks for putting your beliefs on the table. I will turn that the other way around and ask you to question your beliefs. Which one of those hold to the reality test? And mostly, does the basic belief that there is an I hold to the reality test?

There is no you, a strange thing to say.

Strange = not according to my beliefs.

It appears true if you look at it - nothing in particular is the thing in control.

Well ... that's the only thing that matters. What holds true when you look at it. Because if it does not hold to that test it's just a story, a belief, thoughts, something we made up.

Looking at other people, looking at your own actions - there is always something traceable that can cause an action.

Looking at that we always find a cause ... because that what we look for.

But it always snaps back to the basic, undeniable fact that there is me looking.
Trying to see or imagine that there is no me in some way or other always trips a reality check of some sort.
Does not compute is the sharpest way of saying that.
There is always that sum of all stories and actions, that is me.
So, something is not right, i'm not getting it.

This is where it gets interesting. Trying to imagine is of course not the way. And it might be inconceivable since that's the assumption we took from day 1. But is this true? Is it true? That's the only thing that matters. Does it compute? What if the computation tool is the problem?

And yes, you find a story about a me. Lots of stories. A me CONCEPT. Cool ... who is this concept about? Does the story about a me go to the bathroom? You say there is a me looking ... what does that mean? WHO is looking? Can you find that me looking or is it just a story?

Really ... start questioning that I when it comes up. What does it mean? Is there an I or just a story about an I? Try to find that undeniable proof that the I exist

The Sufi stories are the reference of a sort for me. One thing persistent in them is that you can't miss the truth, or doubt being free. If there is doubt, how can i be free?

I'm sure the Sufi stories are great but what you understood from them might not be so consistent. The truth is that you cannot understand them unless you have seen what they are talking about. And you haven't so your perception of the stories is probably off ... far off.

Like Eckhart Tolle speaks about being in the now - there is me now.
Not a moment ago, not a moment later, there is this moment being perceived.
If it's all sum of interactions and laws of physics acting out, why is this particular now is what is being experienced, why this particular point of view?

The now is also a very good indicator. What is true now? Is there a me NOW? Forget the why for now, STOP trying to figure it out. Look at what is. Reality. What is real? Is the me real?

I'm lost. Can you help?

Stick around ... you'll get it.

[Oshen]

Strange = not according to my beliefs.

You can say that, on some level. Like saying 2+2 is 11. You can explain it with it being in another arithmetics, in code, etc, but initial reaction is "that's wrong".

What if the computation tool is the problem?

And yes, you find a story about a me. Lots of stories. A me CONCEPT. Cool ... who is this concept about? Does the story about a me go to the bathroom? You say there is a me looking ... what does that mean? WHO is looking? Can you find that me looking or is it just a story?

Really ... start questioning that I when it comes up. What does it mean? Is there an I or just a story about an I? Try to find that undeniable proof that the I exist

Who is me story/concept about?
Me :)
The body, all the things that happened to it over the years, that thing.

The body goes to the bathroom, the me part does not even need to wake up fully for that.
Control? A sequence of thoughts, to go or not to go? Eventually, a decision, out of other thoughts or excess of feeling.
Does not really need a controller - like i said before, there is always a traceable or conceivable chain of evens for any decision.

"Me looking" is different, however.
There is a point of view.
Be it awake, with all senses coming from outside, or be it in a dream with all senses coming from who knows where, there is this something that experiences it all.
That's me.

Is it a story?
If it is, then there is nothing remaining for it to be told to.
Then it won't exist, but it is.

The undeniable proof of my existence is my own existence.
Which sounds stupid. Something is something, nothing is nothing, true because it's true.
But i can't say it any better, or see what is wrong.

The now is also a very good indicator. What is true now? Is there a me NOW? Forget the why for now, STOP trying to figure it out. Look at what is. Reality. What is real? Is the me real?

What is true now - i'm staring into a laptop while tapping keys.
Because i wanted to type about what i do now.
Because reading your question caused that reaction.
Because... And so on.
The causal me, acting.

The point of view me is watching, for lack of better words.

The machinery on the construction site next street is clanking. That wasn't me.

Hand scratches cheek. Causal me.

Attention drawn to the scratching. POV me.
Attention, the point of view, i.
Attention drawn to the fact of attention was drawn.

That does not work, i'm going in circles again.

[No_One]

Who is me story/concept about?
Me :)
The body, all the things that happened to it over the years, that thing.

The body goes to the bathroom, the me part does not even need to wake up fully for that.
Control? A sequence of thoughts, to go or not to go? Eventually, a decision, out of other thoughts or excess of feeling.
Does not really need a controller - like i said before, there is always a traceable or conceivable chain of evens for any decision.

OK, so the body functinos on its own sometimes. There is no need for a controller, everything is automated.

"Me looking" is different, however.
There is a point of view.
Be it awake, with all senses coming from outside, or be it in a dream with all senses coming from who knows where, there is this something that experiences it all.
That's me.

Is it a story?
If it is, then there is nothing remaining for it to be told to.
Then it won't exist, but it is.

Does this I exist in deep sleep also? Is it always there or only when you think about it? So I assume you take the perspective of being the observer. Can you find that observer?

The undeniable proof of my existence is my own existence.
Which sounds stupid. Something is something, nothing is nothing, true because it's true.
But i can't say it any better, or see what is wrong.

The undeniable proof of existence is existence. The undeniable proof of thoughts are those thoughts. The undeniable proof of thoughts about a me are thoughts about a me. The undeniable proof of me would be me not a story about me, thoughts about me. A me. The undeniable proof of that body is that body not thoughts about that body.

i'm staring into a laptop while tapping keys

what can you find from this sentence? what can you prove? I would guess you can find everything except the I. Which seems so present but when you look for it you can't find it.

Because i wanted to type about what i do now.
Because reading your question caused that reaction.

Well ... which one of those do you have more proof for. Because I wanted to type ... look a bit into that, break it down. Who wanted to type?

The causal me, acting.

The point of view me is watching, for lack of better words.

The machinery on the construction site next street is clanking. That wasn't me.

Hand scratches cheek. Causal me.

Attention drawn to the scratching. POV me.
Attention, the point of view, i.
Attention drawn to the fact of attention was drawn.

That does not work, i'm going in circles again.

Causal me ... could it be an assumption. When you look for something thinking everything has a cause then you find a cause.

Let's look into the dynamics of thoughts. That will give us some more material to work with. Get somewhere comfortable, close your eyes and look at what's going on. Spend some time with it (as in look for it) and come back with your conclusions.

Where do thoughts come from? Also, do you control thoughts?
Can you know what the next thought will be? Can a thought be cut in half? Is thought 'me' any different from other thoughts? Can a thought think? Can you have two thoughts at the same time?

[Oshen]

Does this I exist in deep sleep also? Is it always there or only when you think about it? So I assume you take the perspective of being the observer. Can you find that observer?

I don't know. Dreams are easily forgotten. It might have existed and observed something, but no memory remained.
Which lead to it being something in the body.

Oliver Sacks, the neurologist, have a real-life story about a man who lost an ability to form memories.
I try to imagine what it's like - you look and feel, but 5 minutes later nothing remains of the experience.
Like a dream vanishing in the morning.

So, the observer would be something in the brain, and thus a part of the automaton.
Nice and logical.
And snaps back to "that's me here looking" sense at tiniest distraction.

The undeniable proof of existence is existence. The undeniable proof of thoughts are those thoughts. The undeniable proof of thoughts about a me are thoughts about a me. The undeniable proof of me would be me not a story about me, thoughts about me. A me. The undeniable proof of that body is that body not thoughts about that body.

The undeniable proof of me is the experience of being me.
I can't find me the thing anywhere, but i can't say there isn't one.

Like a dark room.
Was there a rabbit under the table?
I flash the light there, no rabbit.
Maybe he jumped away under the bed?
Nope.
In the cabinet?
Nothing there.
But what was that in the dark under the table again?

I need to find a light switch.

what can you find from this sentence? what can you prove? I would guess you can find everything except the I. Which seems so present but when you look for it you can't find it.
...
Well ... which one of those do you have more proof for. Because I wanted to type ... look a bit into that, break it down. Who wanted to type?

The causal me - the body and mind acting out on impulse of the text being read.
At least that sounds plausible and does not look like a wrong explanation.
How can i be sure it's right?

Where do thoughts come from? Also, do you control thoughts?
Can you know what the next thought will be? Can a thought be cut in half? Is thought 'me' any different from other thoughts? Can a thought think? Can you have two thoughts at the same time?

They come from a variety of places. Memories, sounds, surrounding, other thoughts.

Control is tricky.
I can jerk away a bad thought, but only if i try to think about something else, not try to stop thinking about it.
More like the bad thought provokes a negative reaction, and in reply to that a getting-rid-of mechanism is run, gathered from some psychology book long ago, and made default, reflexive, by proving it's effectiveness time and again.

If i try to think of something else, sometimes a thought come from something in the surroundings obviously, sometimes just pops up out of apparent nowhere.
There is no manager scheduling what would come next.

How many thoughts at once - hard to say. One thing in attention, lots in the background. What to call a thought? Is the image and the voice one thought or two separate ones? They tend to sync up, so it's one thing in attention.

What is attention?
I think thoughts.
More like i watch thoughts thinking themselves.

It sticks right back into the point of view.

That's just crazy.
There is an experience of making choices, but no apparent way a choice can be made.

...make a choice. There is a pillow in view. What can be done to a pillow? Grabbing it? I choose to grab the pillow. Hands do the job...

No real choice made, but a convincing feeling of one.

If the point of view is the same kind of illusion, then there is nothing left.
How can there be observing without an observer?

It all makes sense logically, but just doesn't make any sense at all.

[No_One]

Like a dark room.
Was there a rabbit under the table?

I flash the light there, no rabbit.
Maybe he jumped away under the bed?

Nope.
In the cabinet?
Nothing there.
But what was that in the dark under the table again?

I need to find a light switch.

Funny how the rabbit is always there when the light is off. As soon as you turn on the light it just runs away. Well ... next time you hear the rabbit turn the light on very gently. Don't make too much noise, don't scare it away. Just gently look if it is there or not. Maybe it's just rabbit sounds.

That's just crazy.
There is an experience of making choices, but no apparent way a choice can be made.

Surprising, right? If you look into it, we are not so much in control as it seems. Some mechanisms you should remember about thoughts:
1. Thoughts pop up out of seemingly nowhere and go to nowhere
2. You cannot have 1 more then a thought at a time
3. You cannot control thoughts, you have no idea what thought is gonna come up next

I think thoughts.
More like i watch thoughts thinking themselves.

Look a bit into that ... do thoughts think themselves or do they just pop one after another.
One more important question:

Do thoughts act? Does the thought pop before or after the action? Is the thought the source of the action?

No real choice made, but a convincing feeling of one.

Let me put another topic on the table here. Mind as labeling and story telling machine. We are not normally aware but we don't really look at what we see. We look at the mental translation of what we see. So I need you to be aware of this mechanism. What is seen and what is the mental translation of it? Split this mechanism in 2. They are 2 separate mechanisms. If you turn your mind to something do you still see? Check everything you can grasp with the 5 senses and see the translation of it.

Then turn this attention on the feeling of choice, on the feeling of existence and so on. Is there something in the feeling itself that makes it "feeling of making a choice" or is it just labelled like that?

[Oshen]

Look a bit into that ... do thoughts think themselves or do they just pop one after another.
One more important question:

Do thoughts act? Does the thought pop before or after the action? Is the thought the source of the action?

Time scale matters.
A thought follows a perception. If i touch something, then there is the feeling, and after that the thoughts.
If i trip, i'll level out before realizing what happened.

On larger time scale, action follow thoughts.
Look, compose, type.
Decide, check traffic, drive.

If idle enough, they just pop out from random distractions, with occasional return to matter at hand.

In concentrated thinking-thing-over there are no identifiable thoughts, just a net of concepts and patterns let loose after a goal.
If the picture clears out or something gets into a contradiction, then there is action to resolve or implement.

In a way, thoughts drive the actions.

Let me put another topic on the table here. Mind as labeling and story telling machine. We are not normally aware but we don't really look at what we see. We look at the mental translation of what we see. So I need you to be aware of this mechanism. What is seen and what is the mental translation of it? Split this mechanism in 2. They are 2 separate mechanisms. If you turn your mind to something do you still see? Check everything you can grasp with the 5 senses and see the translation of it.

Then turn this attention on the feeling of choice, on the feeling of existence and so on. Is there something in the feeling itself that makes it "feeling of making a choice" or is it just labelled like that?

Memories do get translated and reduced.
A sharp sound of a fender-bender, perfectly rehearable for the first few minutes reduces to a bunch of letters reproducing a similar sound.
Frog croaking blurs into "ribbit".

In perception?
Tricky.
Here is the room. I see it, hear it's silence.
If i consider moving the cabinet in another place, there will be a sort of an imagined overlay with the results. Attention shifts from perception to imagination.

Translations.
Sounds of words are translated into words, letter images are translated into words.
If i mirror the screen, the translation breaks up, and letters look like hebrew or bunch of lines. Looking carefully, they are readable, but like by some other mechanism.
If i listen to a song in unknown language, there is musical speech. And a lack of tension of hearing words like in a song in known language.

Categorization?
If i look at some situation or thing, it gets classified, and related feelings appear. Looking some more can change that classification to something different, likely more accurate.
It's not the actual thing that trigger feelings and thoughts, but the classified template of it.
A passing look shows a generic field. That's what it would be remembered as.
An attentive look picks up details - bushes, pieces of old buildings, variations in colors, waves of wind.

An observer that is me?
Template or not, i just can't look at it.
Can an eye see itself without a mirror? It looks outwards, nothing closer than some distance away can be seen.
Attention goes from the point of view, but it can't get back onto that point.
Like literally trying to turn the eyes inside out.

Why is that point located in the head?
Even imaginary elsewhere, there is still a sense of a gaze staring from a head of a sort.

Definitely some concepts/templates there, but this is one shy rabbit.

[No_One]

Time scale matters.
A thought follows a perception. If i touch something, then there is the feeling, and after that the thoughts.
If i trip, i'll level out before realizing what happened.

That pretty much sounds like thoughts are not the cause of perceptions or some actions. Is there an I that is in control there or just some automatic reaction?

If idle enough, they just pop out from random distractions, with occasional return to matter at hand.

In concentrated thinking-thing-over there are no identifiable thoughts, just a net of concepts and patterns let loose after a goal.
If the picture clears out or something gets into a contradiction, then there is action to resolve or implement.

In a way, thoughts drive the actions.

In a way thoughts drive actions. But do they act or is action triggered because they are "believed" to be important. Because they come from the I. The rabbit says so. Or at least there's a thought "the rabbit wants this".

An observer that is me?
Template or not, i just can't look at it.
Can an eye see itself without a mirror? It looks outwards, nothing closer than some distance away can be seen.
Attention goes from the point of view, but it can't get back onto that point.
Like literally trying to turn the eyes inside out.

Why is that point located in the head?
Even imaginary elsewhere, there is still a sense of a gaze staring from a head of a sort.

Definitely some concepts/templates there, but this is one shy rabbit.

Can you see yourself with a mirror? Let's keep the game simple. The game is called look for the rabbit. The thoughts about the rabbit come up 1000 times per day. When they pop you try to see if the rabbit is there. Just look at what's going on. We'll address the observer topic later. Just see if there is a rabbit in all other actions for now. Try to find that shy rabbit

[Oshen]

That pretty much sounds like thoughts are not the cause of perceptions or some actions. Is there an I that is in control there or just some automatic reaction?

In a way thoughts drive actions. But do they act or is action triggered because they are "believed" to be important. Because they come from the I. The rabbit says so. Or at least there's a thought "the rabbit wants this".

Can you see yourself with a mirror? Let's keep the game simple. The game is called look for the rabbit. The thoughts about the rabbit come up 1000 times per day. When they pop you try to see if the rabbit is there. Just look at what's going on. We'll address the observer topic later. Just see if there is a rabbit in all other actions for now. Try to find that shy rabbit

Perception trigger thoughts, that much is certain.
Action kind of just happens, most of the time it's like a sequence is followed.
And interruptions cause other - problem-solving - sequences, or just situational reactions.

Thoughts bind into the perception - if i wandered far enough away from some train of thought and noticed that, there is a feeling that the train was there without any idea what it was. Trying to just remember it is futile. But going through the paces, retracing the steps and looking at things seen before can quickly get me back on the old track.

Action comes from thoughts that are supposed to be important, desired.
Desire comes from perception or other thoughts.
"I want that apple" - apple in sight, it's known to taste good, no observed contraindications to take and eat it now, action follows.

It's quite conceivable that it all just happens, but the point of view "illusion" does not go away.
All this happening just makes me, the sum of it.

Looking into a mirror - actually staring in your own eyes, not just combing and shaving - feels weirdly wrong.
Maybe it's from the idea that it's rude to stare?
The feeling wears off quickly if i start to observe the face with some purpose.

[No_One]

Cool we got something there. Let's move to the point of view.

Looking into a mirror - actually staring in your own eyes, not just combing and shaving - feels weirdly wrong.
Maybe it's from the idea that it's rude to stare?
The feeling wears off quickly if i start to observe the face with some purpose.

That sounds like a good experiment. Is there an I when you look into the mirror?

It's quite conceivable that it all just happens, but the point of view "illusion" does not go away.
All this happening just makes me, the sum of it.

Yeah, that makes the CONCEPT of me. You cannot eat the concept of cheese. You cannot ride the concept of horse and so on. It really seems like a strong me when you want something, right? A very noisy rabbit? Or is it just noise made by the mind?

Now this point of view ... is it always there or only when thoughts pop up? Could you go a bit into it and describe it. Sounds an important blocking point

[Oshen]

Is there an I when you look into the mirror?

Does not compute.
Literally can't look at this question without "incorrect question" reaction mentioned at the beginning.
I still exist in any conceivable meaning - the body is there, the point of view is there.

Now this point of view ... is it always there or only when thoughts pop up? Could you go a bit into it and describe it. Sounds an important blocking point

Always, for all intents and purposes. It's me watching, not someone else. Watching and feeling from this body, and not some other point in space (or in this dream and not some other). Watching now, and not before or after.

Watching, feeling, thinking, etc. All of perception.
I perceive therefore i exist, whether anything can be chosen or all is pre-determined.

[No_One]

There is perception so there is existence. Where are you in this? Where's the rabbit?

[Oshen]

There is perception so there is existence. Where are you in this? Where's the rabbit?

There is perception, here and now. And that what perceives is me.

[No_One]

Don't get me wrong ... that's not to say there is no perception but is there a perceiver? Sure ... since all the senses are located in that body, all the senses are "centered" in that body. Sure ... but when you are asked to find the perceiver you can't. It can't be found. It seems to be always there but when looking for it it can't be found. All you can find are thoughts about the perceiver. There should be one because that's how I believe. There should be more then body and thoughts because that's what I believe.

Take an .mp3 player. If I look at it I can assume there's a little guy in there because the music comes out from a specific place. And when you open it you see it's just a bunch of wires. Or Santa ... you believe in him because you receive presents for Christmas. And everybody tells you it exists. Then all of a sudden you see it's just a belief.

Take 10 minutes to look at the thoughts about the I and just note them down. What is it supposed to do? What are the claims? What's the role of the I? What does it do? Is it just the observer or does it have more roles? Really look into it and detail its role

[No_One]

One more thing. Why do you want enlightenment? Are you running from this life? What do you think that would give you?