I would like a guide please

[mister]

Muscles tightened and relaxed all over the body and this directed the bike to the station? How about muscles tightened and relaxed.

I was riding home thinking about this. It seemed obvious that the muscles were directing the bike. But then I saw that the tightening and relaxing sensation of the muscles didn't necessarily make the bicycle go where it goes. I could imagine the same muscle movements happening and the bike going somewhere else or nowhere at all. Anyway in direct experience muscles were moving and so was the bike.

Circumstances happen and thought projects how they'll change? How about circumstances happen and thoughts happen.

Yeah but some of the thoughts that happen are thoughts of things changing. This may be semantics. The point of looking at this is that actions tend to follow thoughts that look satisfying, or desires + cause and effect patterns created by thought. But fuck it. It's easier to keep it simple. Circumstances happen and thoughts happen (thought is another circumstance). So circumstances happen.

Do thoughts cause actions ever?

Okay there is typing. Is there a thought making this typing happen. No. In this case the thought, the faint voice, happens as the words are being typed. So not there. There was an appealing thought just now of getting some fruit but there isn't any movement toward the store happening now.

No, thought never causes action. Even if there are thoughts of the body acting a certain way, and the body does that certain thing it's only coincidence.

[mister]

Post reply soon please.

[mark_tywharton]

Who is it who needs this to be validated?

[mister]

The desire for you to tell me that what I wrote is correct isn't what prompted that last response. Looking into this is starting to freak me out. If the previous inquiry is correct then choice is irrelevant whether there is a me making it or not. I wanted the next instruction. Say that everything I wrote was total bullshit. I don't care but please point out where to look next even if its to keep looking for a cause to actions.

[mister]

Maybe events don't cause other events. But there definitely are patterns. Muscles contracting and relaxing may not cause a bike to go a certain direction but its more likely to. Desire may not cause the body to act but memory shows that the body tends to act in ways that thought believes will lead to their satisfaction.

[mark_tywharton]

If you are starting to get freaked out, then this probably means your identity is in question?

Perhaps everything you think of as validating the experience of you is not what you think it is?

Does the experience of you have any real substance to it?

Look up "Cause" in the dictionary.

Then look up "Effect".

Notice the "closed loop" or "circular reference".

Notice evidence for "I, me or self" has a similar pattern, or loop.

With this information and looking for "I, me or self" now...

What do you find???

[mister]

If you are starting to get freaked out, then this probably means your identity is in question? Perhaps everything you think of as validating the experience of you is not what you think it is?

Hopefully. It's too vague to tell yet.

Does the experience of you have any real substance to it?

I don't know. This body has substance to it. But it's not making itself move. If me is something that makes it move or think then no. The whole notion of something making something happen is erroneous.

Look up "Cause" in the dictionary.

dictionary: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect

Then look up "Effect".

dictionary: something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence

Notice the "closed loop" or "circular reference".

Yes. There can't be one without the other by definition

Notice evidence for "I, me or self" has a similar pattern, or loop. With this information and looking for "I, me or self" now...
What do you find???

dictionary definition for "I": the nominative singular pronoun, used by a speaker in referring to himself or herself.
So basically I is the cause of speech. When "I" is thought, "I" is the cause of thought. Is there a cause of speech? No. It's like the typing and the thought-words of what is being typed appear simultaneously out of nowhere. There does seem to be patterns. There wouldn't be any typing or thinking about this if there wasn't any interest in this. But the interest doesn't cause this typing/thinking to happen. It wouldn't happen though if there wasn't interest. So there are pre-requisites but no causes. So back to "me". Me seems to be a thing that makes things happen, a causer. In direct experience there isn't any such thing. No director of thought or speech. No choreographer of muscle contractions. No compiler of images. No arranger of sound.

[mister]

Forget that bit about pre-requisites. It's just not true.

[mark_tywharton]

So looking at the circular reference, IT says IT exists because IT exists (or whatever version of this the mood chooses to take)...

How do you know you exist?

Because you say you do?

In this context, explain the you part.

What is it?

If there is nothing to be found then is there an "I, me or self"?

[mister]

how do you know you exist?

There is experience. So does the fact of experience prove that I am? It seems that despite everything I've looked at until now there is just the sense there is something experiencing this. All there is in experience is experience but the belief persists in spite of lack of evidence.

Because you say you do? In this context, explain the you part.

In this context I is the source of speech using speech to refer to the thing that is the source of speech.

What is it?

It's an assumption of a source of speech. In direct experience words have no source. They arise out of nothing.

If there is nothing to be found then is there an "I, me or self"?

No. Not in the context of a source. But this bit about experiencing isn't about being a source. It's believing there is a reason that there is experience. Yeah but it's just another assumption. For there to be experience there must be an observer. That's just bullshit. That's like saying for there to be sun rise there must be a human sacrifice. It's an arbitrary requirement. There is no me. It's all bullshit. There is no source for any of this. It may happen in a pattern but that doesn't mean there is a source for any of it.

[mark_tywharton]

There is just the sense that something is experiencing this?

Consider if circumstance were right, there might be a sense of being happy.

Or in another circumstance, there might be a sense of being sad.

Ask yourself, which sense there is a longing for?

Is there an "I, me or self" behind the sense of being "me" or, is there an overall sense of something?

Is there any sense that something is missing?

Have you ever sat telling ghost stories?

It can be easy to spook each other, even sense a presence, especially if there is a presupposition the place you are in is haunted.

As human beings there is a presupposition, there is a ghost in the machine, a soul or spirit.

Can you find yours?

Or is it imagined?

Expand upon the last section of the last message, except now state it in a way a child could fully understand it.

[mister]

There is just the sense that something is experiencing this?

There is the sense of something not changing even though experience is changing. Something is present for experience. Maybe it's just the presence of experience.

Consider if circumstance were right, there might be a sense of being happy. Or in another circumstance, there might be a sense of being sad. Ask yourself, which sense there is a longing for?

Between those two there isn't much of a longing. There is a longing for a sense of gratitude.

Is there an "I, me or self" behind the sense of being "me" or, is there an overall sense of something?

There is an overall sense of presence for experience. It's like a knowing that there is experience. There isn't really a self there.

Is there any sense that something is missing?

Not at the moment. And I looked for the sense, not if there actually is.

Have you ever sat telling ghost stories?

Yes.

It can be easy to spook each other, even sense a presence, especially if there is a presupposition the place you are in is haunted. As human beings there is a presupposition, there is a ghost in the machine, a soul or spirit. Can you find yours?

No. That knowing sense described above isn't really a thing. It's not in the body. It's more like the body is in it. But it's still not a thing.

Or is it imagined?

That knowing sense isn't imagined. The sense isn't but is there something behind that sense? No.

Expand upon the last section of the last message, except now state it in a way a child could fully understand it.

There is experience. Lights and sounds and colours and sensations. There isn't a thing those are happening to. They simply happen as this experience.

[mark_tywharton]

Okay, that's it, you're done!

[mister]

Thank you for your commitment.

[mark_tywharton]

Can you write a few paragraphs about this please.

What was experienced in the final part of the process?

Where will you find satisfaction?