In your examples of feeling someone looking at you and turning or getting a phone call from a missed loved one. Is it "you" doing it?
The feeling is a direct experience in the present. It is something observable just like seeing something and noting it's image/color. Is it "me" doing it? No. But there is a feel. I am having difficulty understanding now what is different between this and observing something seen. The experience happens, the thought arises tied to the experience (the experience is now being labeled), and then the body responds to the thought. I think I understand what you are saying here.
Is there some other causality or is that the mind making a cause effect relationship?
The feel is a directly experienced phenomena and observable. It is a feel, like see, touch, taste, smell, or hear. I gave examples, perhaps poor ones, but this is observable sitting quietly and allowing the feel to manifest in the present before the thoughts arise to label it.
But I understand what you are getting at here as well. The events just happen and if confined strictly to direct observation they have no connection to one another without the mind making the connection.
Or does it feel more true to just feel the body turn and look?
The body turns to look as a consequence of the thought generated by the feel. Just as in the dream the frustration of not being able to evade a pursuer, the dream state thought tries to get the body to respond, but it cannot because it is not reachable in that moment and confined to the bed. I'm not sure what you mean by "true". That is the observable action. The body turns and looks. I guess again, you are saying that my thoughts are making the connection between the thought and the body turning. That if I confine myself to not thinking, only observing, there would be no thought. The body would just turn seemingly without reason.
The phone rings, it's the friend you have been thinking of, then the mind grabs on to say "she got my message". How many events, arisings and happenings are at play for the phone to ring?
Many. Yes, this could just be a coincidence, and the mind is connecting the events. If I don't think, the events just happen completely disconnected from one another.
When you look at the word label ‘GREEN' , what is the actual experience?
The label is tied to language and requires thought to process. So this is a label in language used to conjure a memory of a past experience. The mind understands what the label means though it is not necessarily being observed in the present. How would you describe the color "GREEN" to a person who has been blind since birth? It would be difficult because the person has never had the direct experience to understand what the label means. Using red to color the text doesn't change the meaning of the word (label) itself. It only changes how the mind processes it. The image/color is red, but the label describes something experienced that has been stored in memory. So red is the direct experience seen, but the thought is of green.
Is the color red ‘experienced’, or is the color green ‘experienced’ as the label suggests?
The color red is seen. It is the color experienced.
Does the label ‘GREEN’ have a one-to-one correspondence with ‘reality’? Or does the label suggest something else other than what is here now (red colour)?
The label "GREEN" is merely a language construct to describe something observable. If redefined it could be made to describe something else, even the color red. A label is used to connect direct experience to thoughts. The label is used to think about something observed. It is not the something observed itself. In this case, it suggests something other than what is being observed.
Is 'GREEN' associated in any way with the experience of the colour red; or is green just a label that overlays the actual experience of red?
GREEN is not associated with the experience of the color red. GREEN is, however, associated with the experience of the color green. That is how it is defined. When communicated, others who have experienced the color green can understand it. To learn what the label means, the label must be communicated when the experience is happening in the present. Someone who has never experienced the color green cannot understand the label. It is meaningless without the direct experience that previously connected it to the label.
If the label ‘GREEN’ is replaced with the label ‘GOOD’ or ‘BAD’, is the redness affected in any way as the labels suggests?
Does redness become ‘good’ or ‘bad’, or do the labels have no affect whatsoever on ‘reality’?
No because the red has nothing to do with the label GREEN. Or GOOD. Or BAD. The red is what the eye sees in the present. GREEN is used to conjure from memory something that was previously seen. The labels do not affect reality. They are used to communicate, which requires thinking.
The thing that is really hard for me about this is that there is no way to observe something and then describe it in text without processing it through thoughts first. The direct experience cannot be described independently from thought. But the direct experience can be observed independently of thought. In so doing, why would the body respond to it at all?
