Liberation Unleashed Forum The Gate
https://liberationunleashed.com:443/nation/
https://liberationunleashed.com:443/nation/viewtopic.php?t=10266
No, I can’t. I only know what is going to be thought once it happens.Before that thought appears, can you find the thought that is going to be thought?
No. There is intention and then the thought.Can you find anything selecting it?
Yeah, that’s exactly it. There’s the intention to think about something pleasant, and then there is a pleasant thought.Or is there first an intention/thought like “think something pleasant”, followed by another thought appearing?
If the intention weren’t there, I don’t think the pleasant thought would have arisen. But that isn’t to say the former manufactured the latter.Did the first thought manufacture the second one?
After looking, I think it is actually thought and intention.What exactly is making the effort?
No. The sense of ‘I am making effort’ would be another thought.When effort appears, did you produce it?
No. The moment you notice it, it has already appeared.Could you have prevented that impulse to resist from appearing?
I am going to revisit this one because to answer, I would be relying on memory. With that being said, there is nothing directing the sequence, just a combination of feelings and thoughts. I think the sense of there being a controller is not some separate from or other than that content.Look when an unpleasant thought naturally comes up. There is the thought. Perhaps there is contraction or some other sensation. Then perhaps another thought appears saying something like, “I don’t want this,” or “stop thinking about this.”
Is anything directing this sequence?
Or is the supposed controller simply another appearance within it?
Not within my direct experience, no. Preferences express themselves based on what is going on.Can you find the point where “you” created the preference?
Or does the preference simply show up when the conditions are there?
No, there is just one thought and then another and another. But a thinker producing a stream of thought cannot be found. It always seems to be a thought after the fact that says, “this is what happened; I got lost in thought”, or something to that effect.Without referring to thought-content, can an actual connection between the two be found?
Can a “stream of thoughts” actually be experienced?
Or is “stream” itself another thought describing what has already appeared?
No, there isn’t. A boundary cannot be found. Like, where would the boundary even be?!Is there a Tetsuo to whom “things just are”?
Can any boundary actually be found between “Tetsuo” and what is happening?
A seperate entity cannot be found.Is there, right now, an actual separate entity — a self, me, I — anywhere at all?
Not “does it feel like there is one?” Can one actually be found?
You seem to distinguish between thought and intention… We’ll have a deeper look at choice and intention later. Before that:If the intention weren’t there, I don’t think the pleasant thought would have arisen.
Is that merely because you looked and failed to find one? Is there a separate entity — “Tetsuo”, “me”, “I”, self — anywhere, in any way, shape or form?A separate entity cannot be found.
Yes – I looked and failed to find one.Is that merely because you looked and failed to find one? Is there a separate entity — “Tetsuo”, “me”, “I”, self — anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
B. more accurately describes my experience. The first thing that I experience is the sensation and then faint visual thoughts arise of my hands holdings the cold object. The sense of coldness seems to appear somewhere when the thought related to the experience arises. It is at that point that it feels like the coldness is happening where my hands are.what does more accurately describe your experience:
a. Your fingers feeling cold because of touching a cold can; or
b. Coldness - sensation labelled “cold”? With eyes closed, where does the cold appear?
Observe the order in which the details appear
Not if I am only referencing the sensations. When my eyes are closed, I would need to refer to thoughts (again, some abstract and visual), and those thoughts imply that those things can be known in experience.Can it be known how tall the body is? Can you know its shape or form? Its weight? Its volume?
Not if I am only referencing raw experience; only if conceptual thinking occurs.Is there a boundary between the body and the chair?
No, it isn’t actually. If my eyes are closed, it’s not “body touching chair”, it’s sensations.Is there actually “body touching chair”?
It is really just sensation, no ‘here’ or ‘there’ or any other labels. But thoughts arise with reference to the felt sensations. For instance, there will be a vague visual thought of the way in which my left foot is resting on top of my right foot.At the point where your body contacts the chair, are there two things there, a body and chair, or one, sensation with thought supplying “body”, “chair”, “contact”, “here”, “there”? Is it "my" body/sensations, or just sensations?
Not with my eyes closed.Can you find an actual boundary where “body” ends and everything else begins?
No, those would be concepts and ideas getting referenced again.Is there an inside or an outside? If there is an inside - the inside of what exactly? If there is an outside - the outside of what exactly?
It is the experience of sensations, pain, pleasure, tempurature. Can the body do things? I don’t know how to answer that, really.What does the word/label ‘body’ ACTUALLY refer to? What is the ACTUAL experience of the body?
Can the 'body' do things?
No, there is just what is being seen.Without touching it, can a head actually be found in direct experience?
It’s the same as above. It’s those sensations produced by the fingers, and then whatever is appearing in the visual field.Now place a finger on one side of the head and another finger on the other side. There are sensations. Between those sensations, can anything actually be found? Or does thought say, “there must be a head between them”?
Well, it seems like the centre of experience.Does the sense of being located somewhere have an actual location? Can a boundary around that location be found?
There isn’t a seperate experiencer of sensations, just the sensations themselves.Can a separate experiencer of the sensations be found? Or are there simply sensations appearing?
The actual experience is that it’s just more content, not innately different from whatever else there is that happens to be occurring.When thought is not used to fill in the picture, what is the actual experience of “the body”?
Can a self be found in it?
and:It is really just sensation, no ‘here’ or ‘there’ or any other labels.
There isn’t a separate experiencer of sensations, just the sensations themselves.
Yes! The actual experience of the body is thought/label/description. Thought points to sensation and colour and labels it a ‘body’, but a body cannot be found as actual experience.It is the experience of sensations, pain, pleasure, temperature.
Seems like, feels like = thought contentWell, it seems like the centre of experience.
That’s fine. Let’s make it more concrete.Can the body do things?I don’t know how to answer that, really.
It is behind the eyes.Where exactly is that location? Behind the eyes? In the head? In the chest? Somewhere else?
It is a sensation of pressure, but it is not stable; it fluctuates and moves location.What is actually there before thought says “here”, “head”, “behind the eyes”, “centre”?
Is there a sensation? Pressure (sensation)? Tension (sensation)?
A vague mental image (thought)? A thought/label/description? Some combination of these?
The sensation itself doesn’t occupy a fixed location. When I focus my tension on the region behind the eyes, it appears to be there. However, if I don’t do that, a fixed location cannot be identified. It also seems to be an inference that is made not only from the sensation, but sensation in conjunction with sight and the visual field.Does the sensation itself contain a location? Does it say “I am here”? Or is location added afterwards as a label?
Experience is happening but a clearly defined centre cannot be determined. In the absence of referencing thought and labels, boundaries cannot be found either. Same with left, right, up, and down. All of those distinctions are concept that seem to divide up experience, which cannot be divided.Is “centre” actually experienced? Or is there experience, and then thought adds a spatial position to it? And centre in relation to what? For there to be a centre, there would need to be edges, wouldn’t there? Is there actually a left side of experience? A right side? A front? A back? A top? A bottom?
Where are those boundaries found?
Neither left nor right can be found. There is just sounds and sensations.With eyes closed, without referring to an image of the body, can “left” and “right” actually be found? Or are there simply sensations and sounds, with thought arranging them into a spatial map?
Before thought maps out felt sensations, they are not ‘over here’ and ‘over there’. They are happening but I think that is all that could be said without moving away from direct experience.What makes one sensation “over here” and another sensation “over there” before thought labels them that way?
They have nothing to do with one another. As you said, though, thoughts referencing both sensations and the image of my reflection could suggest that they are connected.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?
No. They are both happening, but they don’t have a direct relationship with one another. The sense of there being one is inferred through thought.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?
Only thoughts suggest it. But not verbal thoughts, but more like thoughts on the level of belief. After a few moments of conducting that experiment, I could see that there is the image of my hand and there are sensations, but they are not the same thing and they are not connected.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?
The image itself doesn’t suggest that it is me or my body. The image itself doesn’t suggest that it is a body, but thoughts very quickly recognise and identify it as such.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?
No, there isn’t any knowledge that there must be legs. That would just be thought and images adding onto the experience.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?
No body can be found if I do that. There is just what is appearing in the visual field, sound, and sensations.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 just sensations and occasional visual thoughts of a faint outline of the legs (for example).8. Start to walk slowly. Is there a ‘body walking’, or are there only sensations?
There is experience, which is constantly changing. But there is not ‘an experience of walking’ until thought identifies it as such.Is there actual experience of ‘walking’ at all? Or just THOUGHTS ABOUT ‘walking’?
Just thoughts about a body. Because there are sensations and there are images (of the body). But that is it.Can such a thing as ‘body’ be found OR just THOUGHTS ABOUT a ‘body’?
Only as a concept.Can such a thing as ‘walking’ be found?
Yes, like that. For sensations to be localised, that would be inferred from thought and mental images.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?
Experience is happening but a clearly defined centre cannot be determined.
Before thought maps out felt sensations, they are not ‘over here’ and ‘over there’.
No body can be found if I do that. There is just what is appearing in the visual field, sound, and sensations.
Yes! The location is a label meant to describe/differentiate the experience, not something that could actually be found. It’s important to see this distinction as labels are useful, but not something found in reality. I suppose the analogy with the icons on your computer desktop comes handy. They are used as a visual representation of what is actually a binary code – zeros and ones - so you can make use of them. But is the icon of email really a box with mail in it?Same with left, right, up, and down. All of those distinctions are concept that seem to divide up experience, which cannot be divided.
Let’s examine that distinction very closely.If the intention weren’t there, I don’t think the pleasant thought would have arisen.
Intention is a non-verbal thought that occurs before an action is made. It certainly is different from or other than thought. When conducting this experiment, there were instances, often initially, where a subtle intention could be observed. However, while paying attention to my hands, that impulse wasn’t continuously observable throughout the duration of me moving my hands. So, certainly for this exercise, when an impulse could be noticed, it was subtle and not ongoing. But, those impulse-thoughts were non-verbal. So yes, intention is simply a label for a certain type of thought.When there is an “intention” to move the hand, what is that in actual experience?
Is there anything there apart from thought? Perhaps it is non-verbal. Perhaps it appears as an impulse. Perhaps it is very quick. But can an intention be found independently of thought? Or is “intention” simply a label for a certain kind of thought?
That doesn’t seem to be the case. I was really trying to notice whether there were thoughts that instigated the process of moving the hand – I couldn’t pick up on them. I switched hands at one point and immediately before doing so, I notice a very quick non-verbal ‘impulse-thought’. Likewise, I also noticed the same thing when choosing to produce a different motion with my hands. However, during that period where those movements were taking place, I couldn’t notice thought controlling it (sorry if I’m repeating myself).How is the movement controlled? Does a thought control it?
At one point, there was a subtle, non-verbal thought to the effect of ‘maybe, I should produce a different motion with my hands to see if a ‘controller’ can be detected’. I could notice a subtle ‘intention-thought’, but not a controller entity.Can a ‘controller’ or and entity that is choosing be located?
I don’t think I could reasonably make the claim that the thought made the decision to turn the hand over. After all, there were instances in which similar thoughts arose and yet, no seemingly corresponding action was taken on the basis of those thoughts. What can be said though is that there were instances where before an occasion where I turned my hands over, the impulse-thought could be noticed. Sometimes, however, there would be a delay. By which I mean, the thought to conduct the experiment once again would arise, and then five seconds (or so) would elapse before the movement would occur. What’s more, I would repeatedly turn my hand over for perhaps ten to thirty seconds. The more time that elapsed while watching my hand move, the more difficult any impulse-thoughts were to track or even observe. In fact, once or twice, I think actually, the I started moving my hand over to my desk (where I was conducting the experiment), and very quickly after, the apparent ‘impulse-thought’ arose.How is the decision made to turn the hand over? Track any decision point when a thought MADE THE DECISION to turn the hand over.
No. The thought coming before the raising or moving of the hand would be non-specific. I would only know precisely what way in which the hand would move when the movement occurred.Before the thought to raise that hand appears, did you know which part of the hand it would be? Did you choose that thought? Could you have produced a different thought at that exact moment?
There is simply thought, then movement.Does the thought actually move the hand? Can any mechanism be found by which the thought causes the movement? Or is there simply thought, then movement?
No.Can a controller be found?
Preferences arose but I didn’t choose those preferences or choose to make them arise.In step 1 when thinking about their respective qualities, did you ‘choose’ the qualities? Or did they kind of appear by themselves? If some preferences manifested, did you ‘choose’ these preferences? Or did they just pop up by themselves?
I didn’t directly experience an entity doing the choosing. There was the thinking related to counting the thoughts, and then thoughts intermittently evaluating the objects. I didn’t choose the sequence of events. There was a quick, subtle, non-verbal thought of ‘oh, maybe I shouldn’t try to anticipate’ and ‘maybe I should just focus on counting’. I didn’t choose those thoughts, though. And they were about other thoughts.In step 2 when you counted to 5, if the preferences took the back seat while the numbers took the front seat, did you ‘choose’ this sequence of event? Did you ‘choose’ to shut down the preferences to give way to the counting? Did you directly experience an entity doing the ‘choosing’?
The thoughts were influenced my preferences, so I can’t say that I chose the thought before it arose.In step 3 where you made a choice, did anything arise that announced, ‘I am the chooser’? If so, what does it look like? Before the thought “I’ll have this one” appears, did you choose that thought?
I couldn’t find a definitive point where ‘I’ entered the process; just subtle non-verbal ‘impulse-thoughts’ weighing up the options. But even then, the opposite action could have been taken.At what exact point does “Tetsuo” enter the process and make the choice? Can that point be found? And if no chooser can be found, then look carefully at these statements: “I chose.”/ “I decided.” / “I intended.” / “I did it.”
They only thing they refer to is concepts and ideas. They are self-referential.What do those words actually refer to in experience?
I couldn’t find an ‘I’ performing those functions. They just happen and then thought thinks and talks about what was just done.Is there an “I” performing those functions? Or do thoughts, preferences, decisions and actions happen, followed by thought claiming: “I did that”?
The last major decision that I made was moving to a different apartment. Even if I were to like or dislike an apartment that I came across, that wasn’t something I had direct control over, as it was due to preference. Actions were taken to pursue certain apartments, but I couldn’t control what happened on the basis of me doing those things. Had the conditions changed, the situation could have unfolded differently.How did it come to be? Consider all of the conditions that were necessary for it to happen. If any one of those conditions were different, would the outcome have been the same? How many of these conditions were outside of your influence? What was in your control (according to thought)?
Have a closer look at that last part.I couldn’t find an ‘I’ performing those functions. They just happen and then thought thinks and talks about what was just done.
Look carefully. A preference (still a thought, maybe a sensation) appears. A thought appears.The thoughts were influenced by my preferences
Could it?the opposite action could have been taken.
Good. But even “then” deserves a look. Thought appears. Movement appears.There is simply thought, then movement.
I just wanted an example of a decision that you would normally consider that you’ve made. The point was to look entirely in thought content where cause and effect “live” and see that even there there’s no “you” making a decision. It was just one event leading to another, leading to another, with “actions” based on previous conditioning (preferences). The thought “decision is made” is layered on top of other thoughts/beliefs/descriptions of what has happened before.The last major decision that I made was moving to a different apartment. Even if I were to like or dislike an apartment that I came across, that wasn’t something I had direct control over, as it was due to preference. Actions were taken to pursue certain apartments, but I couldn’t control what happened on the basis of me doing those things. Had the conditions changed, the situation could have unfolded differently.
Right, yeah. There is just one thought followed by another thought.Can thought actually think? Can thought talk about something?
Or is there simply one thought appearing, followed by another thought appearing?
There is thought, but a thinker behind thought cannot be found. "Thought thinks" does smuggle a thinker back in.Is there anything there doing the thinking? Or is “thought thinks” itself another way a thinker gets smuggled back in?
Can you find a thinker behind thought — even one called “thought”?
Influence itself cannot be experienced. There is a preference and then a thought. Then, as you said, potentially another thought implying a connection between them.Can “influence” itself actually be experienced? Can you see the preference doing something to the thought? Or are there simply a preference and a thought, followed by another thought describing a relationship between them?
The only place that a supposed alternative action can be found is as a thought.At the exact moment that particular action happened, where is the other action that supposedly could have happened? Can an alternative action be found anywhere except in thought now?
It doesn't demonstrate that two available possibilities existed because the sense of there being options to choose from were thoughts that were appearing. So there were thoughts and a action that was taken.Does that demonstrate that two genuinely available possibilities existed at that moment?
Or does it only demonstrate that another outcome can now appear as thought?
Movement cannot be seen to be obeying thought. There are instances I've observed where movement is happening and there are no thoughts that are 'deciding what movements to make'.Does the thought contain an instruction that physically operates the body?
Can the movement be seen obeying the thought?
I think it is just happening.So, what makes the sensations to appear? What makes seeing to appear? LOOK! Is there anything that causes anything to appear? Do cause and effect exist outside of thought content?
No, not at all.Is the description/explanation/label needed for things to happen?
Good! We’ll look directly at that, because this may be exactly where the “me” has moved to. First thing:there is the belief that for whatever reason, there is something that I am still not getting; something that isn't clicking for me; something that is being overlooked.
Close your eyes and sit quietly for 10-15 minutes. Watch what focus does.- Attention/focus — what is it, what moves it, is there an observer