seeking no self

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle

I finally understand how to make myself look instead of trying to explain--in this batch of questions, I did some meaningful looking; some of what I noticed surprised me.

Good !

This is where awareness seems to fit. There is thought and there is awareness of thought. Not some mystical Awareness, just a plain, like, state of knowing.

It feels true because thoughts arise and the content is known. It seems like awareness is what knows the content.

Notice SEEMS LIKE… Remember
Seems like, feels like, sounds like… = thought content (not experience)

Everything in DE is either right here or not – like the sensation “breathing” or like the colour ”my hand” or the sound “traffic”. They are not seem like – they are right here. Focus on what’s here, not what is inferred or assumed - these are seem/feel/… like

So back to your conclusion (because?)...You are assuming that because a thought is known, there must be something else knowing it.
But is that second thing actually experienced?
Let's investigate one thought, rather than thoughts in general. Sit quietly and notice the next thought that appears. Don't analyse its content. Just notice it. For example “I’m just sitting here.”. Probably there is a second thought saying “This is a thought” or “I’m aware of this thought” – ignore these and focus on just the first one
1. Is there a thought AND a separate knowing of that thought? Can you actually find two things - the content of the thought and… (what? Describe in detail what is SEEN)? How is the knowing of the thought different from presence of the thought/its content?
2. Does knowing arrive before the thought, after it, or is the thought simply present? Where is the evidence for that?
3. Can you find a boundary between the thought and the supposed awareness/knowing of it? Where does one end and the other begin? LOOK for an actual border that can be SEEN, don’t answer intellectually! Do you SEE a border that separates the two things? Do you see a thing called “knowing of the content” which starts somewhere and ends somewhere with clear features – colour, sound, taste, smell, sensation – and it’s separate from the actual thought “I’m just sitting here.”? The thought “I’m just sitting here.” is here plain as a day, but where is the knowing of it? Or is it ASSUMED/CONCLUDED?
If you can’t see, smell, taste, feel, or hear such a thing what makes it different from an abstraction/an assumption/an idea? What makes it real and not thought ABOUT knowing?
4. When the thought “I am aware of this thought” mixed with the familiar sensations of “self” (like “breathing”, “heartbeat”, “aliveness”, “presence”. “being”) appears, has a separate knower been discovered, or is that simply another thought following the first one, accompanied by sensations?
We are not interested in mechanisms, or explanations how this is working or why, we're checking whether there is anything independently experienced that could be called a knower/knowing/awareness/Elle apart from the thought itself.

Does the sense of self have a shape or a size?

A chest-sized water balloon.

Do you actually see that??!
Let's investigate something we haven't looked at closely enough yet — the difference between actual SEEING and mental images (mental tastes, smells, sounds, sensations)

You often describe thoughts, sensations and a sense of someone experiencing them. But mental images (imagination, or memories, or a mixture of both) can be so familiar that they go unnoticed as thoughts.
Let’s investigate mental images closely. I hope you like chocolate!
Part 1 — Imaginary chocolate
For the first couple of minutes, imagine eating a piece of chocolate.
Imagine the taste, the texture, the aroma, and the sensation of it melting in your mouth. Really enjoy that imaginary chocolate as much as you can.
Part 2 — Actual chocolate
Now take a real piece of chocolate and eat it slowly. Notice the taste, texture, smell and sensations as directly as possible. Be curious about every little detail. Really enjoy it!
Part 3 — Description
After you've finished eating, spend another minute or so describing the experience in as much detail as possible.
Write that description here.
Now compare these three:
1. The imaginary chocolate.
2. The actual chocolate.
3. The description of eating the chocolate.
Look carefully at each one.
What was actually experienced in each case?
Was imagining chocolate the same as tasting it? Did the description contain the actual taste, texture or smell?
And here's something particularly important: when imagining the chocolate, were the imagined tastes and sensations actually present, or were there thoughts and mental images ABOUT them?
Take your time with each part and report what you discover. Don't give me a general conclusion about thoughts and sensations. Tell me what you actually noticed in each of the three experiences.
Now let’s link this back to awareness/knowing/sense of Elle... Close your eyes again. Bring to mind the image of your face, your body, or Elle sitting there looking.
What appears? Is an actual Elle being seen, or is there a mental image?
Does that mental image see, hear, think or experience anything? Or is it here just as a thought?
And when there is the familiar feeling (sensation – mental or present) of being located in your head, is there perhaps an image of a head or a body (a body map) accompanying the sensations?
Look carefully.
Please report what you find for each question separately, rather than summarising what you understand. Don't explain how mental images are produced. Just distinguish what is actually seen from what is imagined.

The sense of self is a sensation, and sensations communicate–for example, pain can communicate that you should stop touching the hot stove.

Do sensations actually talk or is that a conditioned label – i.e. “pain”/”don’t touch”?
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

I am sorry I am so difficult. I truly don't mean to be. Thank you for sticking with me anyway. Here is my next attempt.

But is that second thing actually experienced?

I don't know about the knowing. There is thought content I could describe.

1. Is there a thought AND a separate knowing of that thought?

Just the content.

Can you actually find two things - the content of the thought and… (what? Describe in detail what is SEEN)?

There is just the content.

How is the knowing of the thought different from presence of the thought/its content?

I am only finding the content.

2. Does knowing arrive before the thought, after it, or is the thought simply present? Where is the evidence for that?

The content is just there.

3. Can you find a boundary between the thought and the supposed awareness/knowing of it?

There is only the content.

Where does one end and the other begin? LOOK for an actual border that can be SEEN, don’t answer intellectually! Do you SEE a border that separates the two things? Do you see a thing called “knowing of the content” which starts somewhere and ends somewhere with clear features – colour, sound, taste, smell, sensation – and it’s separate from the actual thought “I’m just sitting here.”? The thought “I’m just sitting here.” is here plain as a day, but where is the knowing of it? Or is it ASSUMED/CONCLUDED?

I guess there is no knowing. I can only find the content. And the thought I am aware of this content now.

If you can’t see, smell, taste, feel, or hear such a thing what makes it different from an abstraction/an assumption/an idea? What makes it real and not thought ABOUT knowing?

As it is appearing, there is content. That I can describe.

4. When the thought “I am aware of this thought” mixed with the familiar sensations of “self” (like “breathing”, “heartbeat”, “aliveness”, “presence”. “being”) appears, has a separate knower been discovered, or is that simply another thought following the first one, accompanied by sensations?

I guess they’re only thoughts about thoughts.

A chest-sized water balloon: Do you actually see that??!

No I don’t see it, I was answering based on the sensations I felt. I know they’re just sensations. That’s what sensation of sense of self felt like, dimensionally. I know it was imaginary.

What was actually experienced in each case?

I used bacon instead, because I happen to have it.

1. The imaginary chocolate.

The imaginary bacon is slick with grease, thick, has a chewy crunchy texture. It’s salty. It smells smoky.

2. The actual chocolate.
3. The description of eating the chocolate.

The bacon was about 6” long, cold, and thick. It made my fingers greasy and smell like salty smoke. It tasted like bacon, smoky, salty, no crunch left, but sturdy and chewy.

Was imagining chocolate the same as tasting it? Did the description contain the actual taste, texture or smell?

No. In the imagining, there were only thoughts of texture, flavor, smell, weight.

And here's something particularly important: when imagining the chocolate, were the imagined tastes and sensations actually present, or were there thoughts and mental images ABOUT them?

There were no tastes, smells, or sensations, just thoughts about tastes, smells, and sensations.

What appears? Is an actual Elle being seen, or is there a mental image?

Mental images.

Does that mental image see, hear, think or experience anything? Or is it here just as a thought?

The mental image is just thoughts.

And when there is the familiar feeling (sensation – mental or present) of being located in your head, is there perhaps an image of a head or a body (a body map) accompanying the sensations?

There is a body map.

Do sensations actually talk or is that a conditioned label – i.e. “pain”/”don’t touch”?

Sensations do not talk. That is not what I meant by communicate. They just come and go. They are there, or they are not.

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle,
First, please stop apologising! :) You're not being difficult, and there is nothing you need to get right for me. I don't have a particular answer that I'm waiting for. However, I do want you to notice the effort to get this right.
What happens when there's a thought that you're struggling or not doing well enough? Is there a sensation accompanying it? Is an actual Elle failing, or is there simply a thought about failure?
Now, let's look at something interesting.

I guess there is no knowing. I can only find the content. And the thought I am aware of this content now.

Why the "I guess"?
You looked and found the thought content. Then another thought appeared saying "I am aware of this content".
Was a separate knower actually found? Or did thought simply suggest one?
Don't replace knowing with the belief that there is no knowing. We are only investigating whether a separate entity doing it is found or not.
The bacon exercise illustrates this nicely. You found that imagining bacon produced thoughts about taste, smell and texture, but not the actual tasting or smelling. Now apply exactly the same distinction to the thought “I am aware”.
The thought is present. But is the I that it refers to present as an actual entity?
And something else caught my attention.

There is a body map.

Good! Let's investigate that. Close your eyes and notice this body map.
What is it actually made of? Is it a mental image, sensations, or a combination of both?
Does the map itself experience anything? Does it know anything? Does it direct anything?
And when the thought “I am here” appears, does the map establish the existence of an actual I located somewhere inside it?
Don't explain how the body works. Just report what you find when examining the map itself.
Here is an even deeper investigation of the body. Please follow each step, don't leave out any. Take your time. Don't move to the next step until the previous one is clearly seen. Repeat the exercise several times.

Stand in front of a bigger mirror.
1. First, close the eyes and feel the sensations labelled ‘body’.

2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

3. While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

8. Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?
Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

Please answer each step separately, describing what you noticed while doing it. The questions aren't asking you to deny the body or what you've learned about biology. We're investigating what can actually be found in direct experience, and what thought adds to it. And if something genuinely seems to be there, say so! Don't replace your observation with what you think the answer should be. Remember, Elle, an honest "I don't know" is much more useful than a conclusion about what should or shouldn't exist.

Take as many sessions as you need. There is no need to complete the whole exercise in one sitting.

Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

Thank you for the interesting mirror and walking exercise.

What happens when there's a thought that you're struggling or not doing well enough? Is there a sensation accompanying it? Is an actual Elle failing, or is there simply a thought about failure?

There is a story about how I maybe don’t have the capacity to see the truth and how I might just be wasting your time. Anxiety and a sensation in the back of my head. No actual elle, no actual failure, just the story and the feeling.

Was a separate knower actually found? Or did thought simply suggest one?

I didn’t find a knower, just a lot of thoughts about knowing.

“I am aware”. The thought is present. But is the I that it refers to present as an actual entity?

I can’t find an actual entity that is having awareness.

What is it actually made of? Is it a mental image, sensations, or a combination of both?

The body map is images and sensations.

Does the map itself experience anything? Does it know anything? Does it direct anything?

It doesn’t experience anything, know anything, direct anything.

And when the thought “I am here” appears, does the map establish the existence of an actual I located somewhere inside it?

No
****

2. Then open the eyes and look into the mirror while still paying attention to the sensations. Is there any connection between the felt sensations and the image in the mirror? Or just thoughts (and/or mental images) suggest that there is?

The felt sensations are not at all connected to the mirror image. Names are connected to the image, the labels of the body, the parts of the body.

3. While still paying attention to the sensations move one hand and observe the movement from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and image of movement in the mirror?

I can feel the movement and see movement in the mirror.

4. Now do the same movement with the hand, but this time look at the hand directly, not from the mirror. Is there any connection between the felt sensations (labelled ‘hand’) and the image ‘of movement’? Or only thoughts suggest it?

I feel the movement and see movement. But those are separate sensory experiences. And I think they’re the same, and I think it’s ‘hand,’ but the evidence for why is all thoughts.

5. Now, pay attention only to the image in the mirror. Does the image by itself suggest in any way that is ‘you’ or ‘your body’? Does the image itself suggest in any way that it is a ‘body’ at all? Or are there only colours and shapes?

There are colors and shapes, without labels, that’s all.

6. Where the mirror ends, some parts of the body (probably legs) cannot be seen. Just by the image in the mirror, is there any ‘knowledge’ that there must be legs, or only thoughts and mental images suggest so?

Just from the image, there is only what there is. Nothing is missing.

7. Now turn away from the mirror and look forward (don’t look directly to any body parts). Is there a ‘body’ anywhere when all thoughts and images are ignored, or are there only sensations?

There are only sensations.

8. Start to walk slowly.
Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?

There are sensations. And the label movement.

Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all?

There is an experience of sensations, ‘walking’ is a label.

Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?

There is definitely a thought that walking is happening.

Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?

If I close my eyes, I can feel sensations. The sensations are only in the body because that’s where I think they are.

Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?

There are only the sensations.

9. Are the sensations localized in space, like ‘going through the room’; OR is there only an image that is labelled ‘room’ and appearing sensations without any location?

The sensations feel like they are here now. The room is just shapes and colors and sounds.

Much love,
elle

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle,
Thank you for looking carefully! :)

There is a story about how I maybe don’t have the capacity to see the truth and how I might just be wasting your time. Anxiety and a sensation in the back of my head.

You're not! :) You're doing great, Elle!
Remember, this conditioning wasn't formed yesterday. The habits of identifying with thoughts, sensations, and the story of me have been reinforced over a lifetime. So it's hardly surprising that they don't just fall away immediately.
There's no deadline, and nothing you need to get right for me. Sometimes recognition happens gradually, and sometimes something suddenly clicks. Either way, there's no need to force it. It’s not up to you anyway – these are self-organising “processes” – the more the new way happens, the less resistance to it. Just keep looking with curiosity. Even the frustration and the thought that you're not getting it are part of what we can investigate. :)

When you have two opposing views (i.e. view of reality) you have to keep checking their validity. What we are used to do is to check if a new idea fits with the rest of our beliefs and disregard it if it doesn’t (confirmation bias). This method saves energy so it was used for a really long time. Now we’ve added a second method for dealing with opposing concepts – to check with our senses which one truly describes what is happening. The “stubbornness” comes from that confirmation bias as you have not just one thought but a system of thoughts forming your view/belief system of reality. So to “reduce the resistance’ you need to painstakingly examine all thoughts one by one as they appear in order for thoughts to self-organise and form a new core of perceptions. Thoughts are self organising and they stick to each other like matching puzzle pieces (stories about stories). Anything new that comes along and does not match the pattern will be attempted to get rid of as it costs the "system" “energy” to rebuild it from scratch :) And I underlie self-organise as this is not in your control, it just happens. I’ve basically introduced a virus thought (LOOK!) that causes all thoughts to be reorganised around what is really happening :)

Now, something interesting in your mirror investigation:

The felt sensations are not at all connected to the mirror image.

And:

The sensations are only in the body because that’s where I think they are.

Good! Let's look a little deeper. You found colours and shapes in the mirror, sensations when moving, and thoughts connecting them into something called “body”.
But is the “body” that supposedly owns and produces these sensations ever actually experienced as a separate entity?
Or is body simply a consolidating label for the whole collection of sensations, colours, maybe smells?
You also found that the mirror image itself doesn't say “Elle” or “my body”.
So what makes the experiences belong to Elle?
You don't need to make the "body" disappear, stop referring to yourself as Elle, or change how ordinary life feels - these are all useful icons on your desktop.
But is the sense of being someone inside this body actually evidence of a separate someone? Can it be simply a type of “familiar” sensation not belonging to anyone?
Look at an ordinary moment today when the thought my hand, my body, or I am walking appears.
What actually establishes the ownership?
Please take one real example and describe exactly what appeared, rather than explaining the principle.
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

I tried to only look, to really quiet my thoughts and to look, but I keep getting stuck. Thoughts intrude. You'll see. Maybe I'm too literal. That's probably true.

But is the “body” that supposedly owns and produces these sensations ever actually experienced as a separate entity? Or is body simply a consolidating label for the whole collection of sensations, colours, maybe smells?

The body is a label for the experience of sensations, shapes, and colors.

You also found that the mirror image itself doesn't say “Elle” or “my body”.
So what makes the experiences belong to Elle?

I’m trying to look, but I don’t know how to look. There is nothing personal about the body. So many thoughts.

You don't need to make the "body" disappear, stop referring to yourself as Elle, or change how ordinary life feels - these are all useful icons on your desktop.
But is the sense of being someone inside this body actually evidence of a separate someone? Can it be simply a type of “familiar” sensation not belonging to anyone?

The sense of being Someone is not evidence of a separate someone, but then who is having the sense of being someone? Where is that sense? It is a thought. It is just a thought. I have a sense of feeling sensations. The “familiar” sensation doesn’t BELONG to anyone, but it is being experienced. But no self, no experiencer. Sensations are felt. The body feels them. But the body is not elle, it's just an impersonal sensing machine. Creating and feeling and commenting on sensations.

Look at an ordinary moment today when the thought my hand, my body, or I am walking appears.
What actually establishes the ownership?

After a shower, I tried to look very closely. First, I would towel off a part, my leg, it felt like “my” hands drying “my” leg. Then as I slowly moved on, I noticed the difference in feeling between the wet and the dry. That felt impersonal–I closed my eyes and it wasn’t a “leg” it was just a coolness, some pressure. Then as I moved over my arm, I felt the movement, the weight and texture of the towel, the pressure, the place where the wet was becoming dry. And it felt like sensations without a doer. But then I get stuck because “I” feel the sensations. But I feel the sensations is just a thought. Ok. I am perceiving the sensations on this body that no one else experiences except I do. That is just a thought. Maybe just sensations arise and the body feels them, not an elle. It isn't "me" experiencing, it's just a body doing what it naturally does.

All the love,
elle

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle,
First, you don't need to quiet your thoughts to LOOK! :) Thoughts are part of direct experience too. We're not trying to stop them, just to recognise the difference between a thought appearing and what that thought says ABOUT experience.
And you're not stuck because you're too literal. Perhaps you're trying too hard to make everything fit together into an explanation.
Now, something interesting!

The body is a label for the experience of sensations, shapes, and colors.

But later you wrote:

The body feels them. But the body is not elle, it's just an impersonal sensing machine. Creating and feeling and commenting on sensations.

Can you spot what happened here? :)
First, body was recognised as a label for sensations and colours. Then suddenly body became a thing that DOES the experiencing! Can a label do anything, can a label experience? Or just appears as everything else?
Let's investigate that.

After a shower, I tried to look very closely. First, I would towel off a part, my leg, it felt like “my” hands drying “my” leg. Then as I slowly moved on, I noticed the difference in feeling between the wet and the dry. That felt impersonal–I closed my eyes and it wasn’t a “leg” it was just a coolness, some pressure.

Lovely looking!
But where, in that actual experience, was the BODY doing the feeling?
Was there sensation AND a body receiving it? Or simply sensation, with thought saying the body feels this?
Can a label feel anything? Can the word B-O-D-Y do anything?
And here's the important part: you don't need to replace Elle with the body as the experiencer.

But then I get stuck because I feel the sensations.

Take any sensation that is present right now. Perhaps pressure, warmth, tingling, or coolness. Look closely.
Is there a sensation AND something feeling it?
Can you find two things? Where does the sensation end and the supposed feeling of it begin? Don’t dismiss this question, play with it – where is the border between a sensation and the feeling of it, or is that just language (subject and object)
Look at the actual moment that feeling/sensation of “I” arises.
What is there besides sensation and thought? Is the sensation “felt” or it just IS (it appears)? Is there a sensation sitting in the dark waiting to be felt?
Does the thought “I feel this” actually establish someone who feels it?
Notice how thought immediately adds something to it: I feel this, my body feels this, this is happening to me.
But does any of that actually add something to the sensation? Or is it just a story ABOUT it?
You don't need to find out HOW sensation happens, or WHAT makes it happen. And you don't need to get rid of thoughts.
Just notice what is actually here before the explanations begin.
Is there anything more than sensation and thoughts ABOUT sensation?
Please take one actual sensation and describe what you find. No theories, no conclusions, just what is here.
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali--

I'll dive right in.

First, body was recognised as a label for sensations and colours. Then suddenly body became a thing that DOES the experiencing! Can a label do anything, can a label experience?

Ok, no, a label is just a word. Sensations felt like they were happening.

Or just appears as everything else?

I don’t understand the question.

But where, in that actual experience, was the BODY doing the feeling?
Was there sensation AND a body receiving it? Or simply sensation, with thought saying the body feels this?

I felt only one thing, not two. Just the sensation.

Can a label feel anything? Can the word B-O-D-Y do anything?

No, the word doesn’t do anything.

Is there a sensation AND something feeling it? Can you find two things? Where does the sensation end and the supposed feeling of it begin?

There’s only one thing, just the sensation.

Don’t dismiss this question, play with it – where is the border between a sensation and the feeling of it, or is that just language (subject and object). Look at the actual moment that feeling/sensation of “I” arises.
What is there besides sensation and thought?

I can’t find anything else, just sensation and thought.

Is the sensation “felt” or it just IS (it appears)?

The sensation just appears.

Is there a sensation sitting in the dark waiting to be felt?

I don’t know–I don’t know a sensation until it is felt.

Does the thought “I feel this” actually establish someone who feels it?

No. But it is a very loud thought.

Notice how thought immediately adds something to it: I feel this, my body feels this, this is happening to me.
But does any of that actually add something to the sensation? Or is it just a story ABOUT it?

It’s just a sensation with a very familiar, very convincing story about how a verb needs a subject and a story about what brains do. I’m still caught up in the idea that Something is aware of the sensation, but I can't FIND anything. That is just a persistent thought.

Is there anything more than sensation and thoughts ABOUT sensation?

I don’t know?

Love,
elle

[poppyseed]

Hi Elle
Good looking! :)
Something I'd like to clarify first. You don't need to change the way you speak or avoid expressions like "I feel", "I think", or "my body." These are perfectly useful ways of communicating. We're not trying to eliminate ordinary language. We're investigating whether the things that language sometimes seems to imply can actually be found. So when you say:

I felt only one thing, not two. Just the sensation.

Exactly – “you felt” or “you saw” only one thing there, which is language for saying there IS only sensation appearing as it is. No need to keep questioning it or find a better way to describe it, as long as you can see the difference between sensation simply appearing (it's here) and the assumption that there is a separate feeling of it and something feeling or receiving it – sensations just ARE, they are NOT FELT. That's all we're investigating. :)

Now, something else you wrote is interesting:

I'm still caught up in the idea that Something is aware of the sensation, but I can't FIND anything. That is just a persistent thought.

Is there actually someone caught up in anything? Is there an observer of thoughts that gets caught up in their content? Or is there simply a thought appearing again and again, with another thought describing this as being caught up?
Does the repetition of a thought make its content true?
Remember the imaginary bacon exercise? Thoughts about taste and smell were present, but the actual taste and smell weren't.
The thought that "Something must be aware of sensations" is certainly present. But can that Something actually be found? Check again - no need to form a belief when you can just check freshly
You also wrote:

But it is a very loud thought.

What exactly makes this thought loud?
Does it actually have a volume? Can you download a recording of it and compare its loudness with other thoughts? :)
Or is “loud” simply a label for how frequently it appears, and/or the sensations accompanying it?
And does being “loud” make the thought any more true?
There's no need to stop the thought or make it less convincing, and you can't. Conditioning wasn't formed yesterday, so "familiar" thoughts may continue appearing even when its content has been questioned, just out of habit. It’s a self-organised sequence. The more looking, the more reorganising ;)

Let’s investigate this a bit deeper…
Have you actually ever heard your thoughts? Just like mental images, can they really be heard or is that a mental sound of “speech”?
How is it known that thoughts have a voice, and that the voice is your voice – for example, “the voice in your head”?
Have you ever been able to record thoughts as they spontaneously arise and then play them back in order to hear them, and to hear that they are in your voice?
So do thoughts actually have a sound? Or is the ‘loudness’ simply thoughts about sound?

Can thoughts be felt, smelled, tasted, heard or seen? Or they simply appear
I can see how you would say "but their content is known" (by whom)? Thoughts are self-organised around the experience - they provide description / give meaning to it (icons on your desktop where there are only 0's and 1's) - but at some point they become organised around themselves. Language is basically the relationship between concepts – how they are organised. Groups of concepts accepted as truth of how things are become beliefs upon which new ideas land and stick, creating an even bigger, more magnificent castle of concepts. That grouping carries meaning on top of the meaning of the actual concepts. That is why different concepts mean different things to different people and in different situations. One very good example of how words and language are just pointers (icons) but not the actual DE, and how meaning is formed, is AI. GPT (Generative pre-trained transformers) are large language models that are based on the semantic relationships between words in sentences (natural language processing). GPT models are trained on a large amount of text. The training consists in predicting the next token (a token being usually a word, sub-word, or punctuation). Throughout this training, GPT models "accumulate" knowledge about the world, and can then generate “human-like” text by repeatedly predicting the next token. But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? Is AI an entity or a language model? Can a model experience or know or is it just a process of combining concepts and forming meaning?

Take your time with the pointers and report what you actually find.
Love
Rali

[ellecay]

Hi Rali,

I hope you're well!

Is there actually someone caught up in anything? Is there an observer of thoughts that gets caught up in their content? Or is there simply a thought appearing again and again, with another thought describing this as being caught up?

I am not sure. I think it’s just the same series of thoughts and it’s so familiar that it sounds true even as it’s not. It FEELS like ME being caught up, but that’s just a thought about a thought.

Does the repetition of a thought make its content true?

No! Repetition makes the thought more believable, not true.

But can that Something actually be found?

No, no Something is found. Only thoughts of Something.

What exactly makes this thought loud?

I don’t know exactly what makes it loud. Maybe because I've taken it as truth since I was a baby. Another way to describe it would be emphatic, insistent, bold, sticky. It’s such a long-held, never-before-questioned belief.

Does it actually have a volume? Can you download a recording of it and compare its loudness with other thoughts? :) Or is “loud” simply a label for how frequently it appears, and/or the sensations accompanying it?

It doesn’t have a volume; it doesn’t take up space–but that’s the best analogy I could come up with to describe how compelling it is.

And does being “loud” make the thought any more true?

Being loud doesn’t make it true, just hard to ignore.

Have you actually ever heard your thoughts? Just like mental images, can they really be heard or is that a mental sound of “speech”?

It’s a mental sound. A thought.

How is it known that thoughts have a voice, and that the voice is your voice – for example, “the voice in your head”?

I don’t know how it is known.

Have you ever been able to record thoughts as they spontaneously arise and then play them back in order to hear them, and to hear that they are in your voice?

No.

So do thoughts actually have a sound? Or is the ‘loudness’ simply thoughts about sound?

Thoughts don’t have a sound; loudness is just a way of describing.

Can thoughts be felt, smelled, tasted, heard or seen? Or they simply appear

They can’t be physically sensed because they are insubstantial. They just appear.

But does AI have any direct experience of what it’s talking about? Is AI an entity or a language model? Can a model experience or know or is it just a process of combining concepts and forming meaning?

AI…I don’t have a very sophisticated understanding of it, but I don’t think a LLM experiences because it doesn’t have senses. It's just code.

Love,
elle