Greetings!

[Iconoclast]

Hi Vince,

I will respond to your questions after I meditate on them tomorrow, blessings

[Iconoclast]

so we have a unique interpretation of the world. This we respond to with emotion, sensations, and thoughts. We then respond to these, which produce more experience, and so on. Would you agree?

Certainly. It is a Chain. We are Chain-Thinkers. Using another metaphor, we build Towers with Playing Cards (Thinking Cards).
The Wind (awareness) blows down the Cards. Retrospectively, we see it's all made-up. Not always easy to see, but this is the fact.

We have a story (an interpretation) we respond to that story with experience which produces another story (interpretation) and around and around we go.
Can you control your thoughts?

No, they just happen. Some thoughts suggesting control is possible also DO HAPPEN. It seems they are not different from other thoughts. Just thoughts. They just appear. I don’t know “what” leads to thoughts or “where” they come from. I’m not hundred percent sure but it seems thoughts might be “automatic”. I can’t exactly see their “source”, if any.

Can you decide not to respond to your thoughts?

Well I sometimes decide not to respond to my thoughts, but it works only for a while. Then I fall into the trap of continuously responding to them again. I think it’s a matter of the momentum of the awareness. If somehow “a thought suggesting not to respond to thoughts” arises in a particular moment, that particular thought leads me to be influenced less by thoughts. So such a thought can be considered a “good” one, making us less reactive.

Does choice exist at the time of action, or only after?

Well, here I believe we need to make clear what we mean by “choice”. If choice is defined as “mental willingness and self-confirmation accompanying an action”, then it seems choice is immanent in every action, which implies choice and action are the “same” (contemporaneous?).

Yet, some counter findings, I think do exist, as far as I know the latest research shows that conscious choice appears only “after” an action is done. I don’t know if anything different has emerged in the scientific community regarding that issue recently. Science is never final or definite, but it can still be good to know the latest findings about neorology, philosophy of mind, artificial consciousness, etc.

As a result, as far as I can comprehend the situation by self-observation, I tend to see choice being not external to the action but immanent within the action.
….

On the other hand, what leads to actions? I don’t know. They happen. May be automatically. I can’t see that completely clearly. My hypothesis is that they happen automatically. But I need yet to see their underlying reality. It still looks a bit metaphysical to me. I need to dive more deeply into it.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Ico.

sometimes decide not to respond to my thoughts,

The thought that you won't respond to your thoughts, Is that a thought that you are responding to?

that particular thought leads me to be influenced less by thoughts.

..or does it lead you to respond to different thoughts?

we need to make clear what we mean by “choice”.

Yes, it's interesting. Choice implies the ability to consider at least two alternative possible actions, then to decide on one of them, and then to have the control to execute that one. ...before the action.
If you take any scenario where an apparent choice was made, you will probably find that it was only executed sometimes thereby making the idea of control an illusion. On the occasions where it did happen according to the intention/decision, if you examine it in retrospect you would find that it happened the only way that it could, given the conditions/circumstances present at the time.
Do look in your near future experiences to confirm or refute this.

I’m not hundred percent sure but it seems thoughts might be “automatic”. I can’t exactly see their “source”, if any.

There have been several studies that show that the brain makes decisions well before a person becomes aware of them. https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2008.751

what leads to actions? I don’t know. They happen. May be automatically. I can’t see that completely clearly.

It's not relevant to see this. It's still early enough to call it conjecture anyway. Easy (and better) to leave it as a mystery at this point. (although it's good entertainment to postulate)
Is it clear to you what the true nature of the self is?

vince

[Iconoclast]

"sometimes decide not to respond to my thoughts,"
The thought that you won't respond to your thoughts, Is that a thought that you are responding to?

Yes.

"that particular thought leads me to be influenced less by thoughts."
..or does it lead you to respond to different thoughts?

It leads to new layers of thoughts yeah.

if you examine it in retrospect you would find that it happened the only way that it could, given the conditions/circumstances present at the time.
Do look in your near future experiences to confirm or refute this.

It seems true. Everything happens according to the conditions.

There have been several studies that show that the brain makes decisions well before a person becomes aware of them. https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2008.751

I will read it carefully, tyvm.

"what leads to actions? I don’t know. They happen. May be automatically. I can’t see that completely clearly."
It's not relevant to see this. It's still early enough to call it conjecture anyway. Easy (and better) to leave it as a mystery at this point. (although it's good entertainment to postulate)

Ok I'll leave it as a mystery for the time being.

Is it clear to you what the true nature of the self is?

The true nature of the self? What do you mean by that? I honestly don't understand. If you mean the nature of the psychological self, I observe it and assume that I can understand it: I mean the personality and its features etc.

If you mean smth else by the self, I don't know that. I'd be glad if you could clarify further what you mean by "the true nature of the self".

[vinceschubert]

g'day Ico.

The true nature of the self? What do you mean by that?

Ok, to what are you referring when you use the words "i/me"?
Does an inherently independent separate self exist anywhere in the organism?
How does identification work?

vince

[Iconoclast]

g'day to you also Vince!

Ok, to what are you referring when you use the words "i/me"?

I refer to my body and mind. All my past experiences, all my current experiences, etc.

Does an inherently independent separate self exist anywhere in the organism?

That seems tough to know actually. To say it exists or it doesn't exist. It seems there is a neurological "sense" of a "me", I mean identification with the body and mind. Does that identification happen through thoughts or some other electrical activity in the brain, I don't know that (yet).

How does identification work?

By believing that the body-mind belongs to "someone" behind the curtain, called "me". This self-referantial belief (or thought) creates identification, and that identification is strengthened by "ME" over and over again, which is my own continuous investment in the self, and also by OTHERS enhancing the sense of a separate self through their comments about "me", their encouragements, discouragements, etc., of course if I believe in them, that a separate me exists.

[Iconoclast]

https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2008.751

Good reading, useful information, I enjoyed it, tyvm.

[Iconoclast]

The first time I was aware of the possibility that "me" can be a "thought" was in 2010 when I read J. Krishnamurti saying that "the observer and the observed are one", that the so-called observer ("center") assumed to be separate from the observed is merely another thought.

I had a few blissful months after hearing that and feeling that it is (or could be?) real (probably as a hypothesis, but it still had very significant positive effects), well then it subsided in the later months. Strong identification (as opposed to weaker identification?) arose again.

So it wasn't an expeience of no-self in the technical sense, but it was still a milestone, at least after that point I started to seriously consider that a separate self might reallly not exist. I never could pinpoint it specifically in an introspective way, but here I am to work more directly and intensely on it .

Have a good day.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Ico.

It seems there is a neurological "sense" of a "me",

Yes. A sense of me is valuable. In fact it is indispensable to navigate human existence. To communicate or even just cross the road safely.
When the magician on the stage provides the audience with the sense of witnessing a woman being sawn in half, do you think that she is really being cut in two?
If your senses tell you something that you know not to be actual it is an illusion.

I never could pinpoint it specifically in an introspective way,

Do you think that it might be hiding?

How does identification work?

By believing that the body-mind belongs to "someone"

Exactly. ..and what is believing?
Is it a story about thoughts? A story that those thoughts are accurate? Is there a particular response to thoughts that are believed?

Strong identification (as opposed to weaker identification?) arose again.

Interesting. So you discover that your father was Santa Clause but after a while you start to believe in Santa again?
Did you doubt your actual experience of those few months?

it wasn't an experience of no-self in the technical sense,

Describe the "technical sense"?

here I am to work more directly and intensely on it .

Ok, let's do this directly;
Look with your eyes in the same way that you look at the back of your hand. Can you visually identify a self?
Now listen. Can you hear any evidence of a self?
Now feel. Is there a sensation anywhere that is a separate self?
What about smell? Can you smell a self anywhere?
i won't even ask you about tasting a self.
That only leaves the sixth sense. Mind. Do you think that there is an inherently independent self lurking somewhere?
Let's go a little further. Can you recognize a story of a self. A mental narrative with complex characteristics that describe what you were conditioned to believe belonged to the organism?

with love

vince

[Iconoclast]

Hi Vince,

I will write after I meditate on your questions tomorrow.

Love,

Ico

[Iconoclast]

When the magician on the stage provides the audience with the sense of witnessing a woman being sawn in half, do you think that she is really being cut in two?

No!

"I never could pinpoint it specifically in an introspective way,"
Do you think that it might be hiding?

I guess so:)) If it is smth to pinpoit, then it should be hiding somewhere. I see your point. It’s smth which DOES NOT EXİST.

How does identification work?
By believing that the body-mind belongs to "someone"
Exactly. ..and what is believing?
Is it a story about thoughts? A story that those thoughts are accurate? Is there a particular response to thoughts that are believed?

It’s a story about thoughts yeah. That a particular story is accurate. Believing is thinking that smth is accurate. Believeing is thinking, it’s a thought.

When we believe a thought, we show mental or physical responses to it.

Strong identification (as opposed to weaker identification?) arose again.
Interesting. So you discover that your father was Santa Clause but after a while you start to believe in Santa again?

If I had seen that Santa Clause wasn’t real then the story would cease to be meaningful. But that did not happen.
The experience was just an excitement about a new considered “hypothesis” that relaxed some burdens of mine for some months.

Did you doubt your actual experience of those few months?

The experience was just mental probably so it subsided and then disappeared from my sigh or attention..

"it wasn't an experience of no-self in the technical sense,"
Describe the "technical sense"?

It wasn’t an “anatta” experience. If it was so, there would be no return to believing in a personal self again. There was no dramatic seeing. It was just mental, but still it was sweet.

Ok, let's do this directly;
Look with your eyes in the same way that you look at the back of your hand. Can you visually identify a self?

I can just identify a body, visually speaking. All else is imagination probably.

Now listen. Can you hear any evidence of a self?

Psychologically yes. I can hear a sense of a me. A sense that I exist and am separte from the rest of the world.

Now feel. Is there a sensation anywhere that is a separate self?

Yes. I feel separate.

What about smell? Can you smell a self anywhere?

Interesting question. Well no.

i won't even ask you about tasting a self.

No. I can't taste it.

That only leaves the sixth sense. Mind. Do you think that there is an inherently independent self lurking somewhere?

Possible:) I can’t exactly 'see' its existence or nonexistence (?).

Let's go a little further. Can you recognize a story of a self. A mental narrative with complex characteristics that describe what you were conditioned to believe belonged to the organism?

Yeah I can recognize associations between body and mind that are believed to be true. Such as this body belongs to “me” etc.

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Ico.

do you think that she is really being cut in two?

No!

So, in this case, there is a story (that she isn't being cut in half) arrived at by logic that has a belief story (that it's true) attached to it that is in direct contradiction to what your visual sense is telling you. Is that accurate?
Yet, you're more inclined to believe feelings (experiential) than your thoughts. Is this right?

It’s smth which DOES NOT EXİST.

Yes, but let's stay with what we do know for the moment.
We do recognize a sense of self, but there is no evidence that one actually exists. It's just something that we have taken for granted. That most people take for granted. Would you agree?

When we believe a thought, we show mental or physical responses to it.

Now this is a big one. One of the responses to believing that an inherently separate self exists is that we defend it from any slight. That we need to feel good about it. This of course is the origins of suffering.
If you hit your thumb accidentally (say with a hammer) what is the suffering component of it?

The experience was just an excitement about a new considered “hypothesis”

It was a good hypothesis.

The experience was just mental probably so it subsided and then disappeared from my sigh or attention..

Yes, old habits can return unless we keep the new ones active (until they become new ones) Brain rewiring takes repetition.

It wasn’t an “anatta” experience. If it was so, there would be no return to believing in a personal self again. There was no dramatic seeing.

This is a commonly held myth. Pop zen has a lot to answer for.
i have been doing this for around 11 years and have seen my share of those that have a big epiphany (the minority) and they have a period of doubts within a month or so. (usually) For everyone, it is a new world and takes some familiarising.

Can you hear any evidence of a self?

Psychologically yes. I can hear a sense of a me. A sense that I exist and am separte from the rest of the world.

So a sense of you is evidence?
In that case, why don't you call an ambulance for the lady being cut in half?

Is there a sensation anywhere that is a separate self?

Yes. I feel separate.

i didn't ask if you feel separate. (i know that you do)

Possible:) I can’t exactly 'see' its existence or nonexistence (?).

What if we leave this in the mystery basket for the moment and look at how things do work.

in 2010 when I read J. Krishnamurti saying that "the observer and the observed are one", that the so-called observer ("center") assumed to be separate from the observed is merely another thought.

Rather than take somebody else's word for this, let's do an experiential exercise and see for ourselves.
Take a cup and place it in front of you.
Start looking at it and notice thoughts labeling what you see.
Consider the process of looking.
Consider the process of seeing.
Watch thoughts as you consider who is seeing. Notice what happens to seeing as you consider this. Did the seeing stop?
Go back to simply watching thoughts as you look at the cup.
After a while of watching thoughts, they will get bored and slow down. Now look for spaces between thoughts.
Focus on seeing in the spaces. They may be milliseconds, but notice them.
There will be no labeling. ..and anyway, the colours, the textures, the shapes, etc will be too subtle, too complex to be accurately described.
As this seeing is happening, ask yourself can there be a seer or a seen without the seeing stopping.
Is there only seeing?
When you finish seeing, do you then recognize that cup is a concept. A cup that has uses and takes up space, and need washing after use? A concept that includes shape, form, color, what it is intended to be used for.
..but we aren't actually seeing it anymore. We look at it but recognize a vessel to contain something. The details have vanished leaving an impression.

with love

vince

[Iconoclast]

Hi Vince,

I will write after I meditate on your questions tomorrow.

Love,

Ico

[Iconoclast]

So, in this case, there is a story (that she isn't being cut in half) arrived at by logic that has a belief story (that it's true) attached to it that is in direct contradiction to what your visual sense is telling you. Is that accurate?
Yet, you're more inclined to believe feelings (experiential) than your thoughts. Is this right?

Yes exactly.

It’s smth which DOES NOT EXİST.
Yes, but let's stay with what we do know for the moment.
We do recognize a sense of self, but there is no evidence that one actually exists. It's just something that we have taken for granted. That most people take for granted. Would you agree?

Yeah I agree. It is taken for granted but this doesn’t show that it exists.

When we believe a thought, we show mental or physical responses to it.
Now this is a big one. One of the responses to believing that an inherently separate self exists is that we defend it from any slight. That we need to feel good about it. This of course is the origins of suffering.
If you hit your thumb accidentally (say with a hammer) what is the suffering component of it?

There would be physical suffering but probably not much mental suffering, however if it comes with a story there could be some mental suffering as well.

This is a commonly held myth. Pop zen has a lot to answer for.
i have been doing this for around 11 years and have seen my share of those that have a big epiphany (the minority) and they have a period of doubts within a month or so. (usually) For everyone, it is a new world and takes some familiarising.

I see. This is an important reminder. Thank you.

So a sense of you is evidence?
In that case, why don't you call an ambulance for the lady being cut in half?

A sense of me does not show the existence of me. It might just be a sense and nothing more.

Is there a sensation anywhere that is a separate self?
Yes. I feel separate.
i didn't ask if you feel separate. (i know that you do)

No, except a sense, there is no sensation of a separate self. Seemingly.

Possible:) I can’t exactly 'see' its existence or nonexistence (?).
What if we leave this in the mystery basket for the moment and look at how things do work.

Ok fine.

in 2010 when I read J. Krishnamurti saying that "the observer and the observed are one", that the so-called observer ("center") assumed to be separate from the observed is merely another thought.
Rather than take somebody else's word for this, let's do an experiential exercise and see for ourselves.

Ok

Take a cup and place it in front of you.
Start looking at it and notice thoughts labeling what you see.
Consider the process of looking.
Consider the process of seeing.
Watch thoughts as you consider who is seeing. Notice what happens to seeing as you consider this. Did the seeing stop?

The seeing is interrupted by the idea of "me" appearing.

Go back to simply watching thoughts as you look at the cup.
After a while of watching thoughts, they will get bored and slow down. Now look for spaces between thoughts.
Focus on seeing in the spaces. They may be milliseconds, but notice them.

Ok. There are spaces.

There will be no labeling. ..and anyway, the colours, the textures, the shapes, etc will be too subtle, too complex to be accurately described.
As this seeing is happening, ask yourself can there be a seer or a seen without the seeing stopping.
Is there only seeing?

The “level of relaxation” and quality of physical seeing decreases by the seer appearing in the mind. But one can say seeing continues at the "mental" level in the sense that seeing our mind’s eye (thoughts) is also seeing. However it is a fact that thinking of a seer (which is a thought) decreases our capacity for physical seeing.

Seer is our long held belief. A strong one.

When you finish seeing, do you then recognize that cup is a concept. A cup that has uses and takes up space, and need washing after use? A concept that includes shape, form, color, what it is intended to be used for.
..but we aren't actually seeing it anymore. We look at it but recognize a vessel to contain something. The details have vanished leaving an impression.

After a point "seeing" is replaced by "thinking" (labelling, evaluating, classifying etc.).

[vinceschubert]

Good evening Ico. Just a reminder that all of your investigation is from the perspective of the organism that we are calling Ico

How does identification work?

By believing that the body-mind belongs to "someone" behind the curtain, called "me"

If the "someone behind the curtain, called 'me'" can't be found, then we can say that it's a concept pointing to an unknown. Is this accurate?
The "body-mind" is experienced (more on this later) and we say that it "belongs" to this possibly existing/not existing thing that we only conceptualize. If we work with what is actual then this is correct. Would you agree?
Would it also be accurate to say that it is the story of you, with its many chapters of characteristics and likes and dislikes, that you identify with?

If you hit your thumb accidentally (say with a hammer) what is the suffering component of it?

There would be physical suffering but probably not much mental suffering, however if it comes with a story there could be some mental suffering as well.

I would call the physical component pain and the story part the suffering. The physical part, although experienced in the brain, is projected out to the thumb. The story component (I shouldn't have done that. I'm an idiot. etc) is experienced as anguish/anger/remorse/etc.

The seeing is interrupted by the idea of "me" appearing.

Exactly. When there is seeing happening, That is all that is happening. It also shows that the seer and the seen only exist as mental constructs. Did you get this?
Direct experience, that is what is experienced by the senses only exists for milliseconds before thoughts arrive to overlay stories about it.
It's our concepts (eg of cup) that we relate to, not what we were actually experiencing.
It's our concept of a self that we relate to, not anything that our senses can touch.
What happens when you realize that you have been conditioned to relate to concepts as if they were something actual?

vince