Observering and Understanding Thought

[Eaglerising]

Thought is the dialogue that takes place in your head. When you are quiet, free of distractions, and focus your attention on thought, you will become aware of something observing thought. This simple exercise allows you to experience consciousness, which is capable of understanding thought. I would like to hear from those who have experienced it and what they discovered.

[Papus79]

I took a stab at Franz Bardon's Initiation Into Hermetics a few years ago and this was one of the Step I exercises.

From what I noticed I can't thought-watch in any full deliberate sense and end up with much to see. If I watch for thoughts my attention ends up being on the void space they show up in, that gets reinforced by my attention and I end up with the same result I would have had if I was attempting to still or empty my mind.

[Eduk]

A small understanding of schizophrenia is what I discovered
I am not sure if you can observe yourself observing yourself but you can definitely feel like you can (it is somewhat surreal). As to whether you are achieving anything, I am not convinced. Einstein says interesting things about his creative process in that he got his best ideas by not thinking out loud in his head and by trying not to think of all the things he 'knows'. He is still endeavouring to think though.

[Jamonit]

A question that came to mind was whether self awareness is possible without language. The mirror test is an indication that a rudimentary language or some notion of one, may be necessary. However, I think that as many other human skills there is a spectrum of human awareness. Yes, a toddler may be somewhat more aware than the infant, but adults are even more self aware.

Perhaps what we typically call "self awareness" requires language, which may be the only way we can articulate or observe thought, if we are ever accurate. Thought may have actually been triggered by emotions/feelings that were somehow also translated into complex speech patterns. Once the language patterns set in, it is very difficult to separate unarticulated thought (feelings/emotions) from the attempt to constantly articulate them. It's as if language either reinforces our self-awareness or facilitates it, yet it would be too difficult to actually know this because we are a language oriented species. It is simply our nature and I may be simply describing it.

[Prothero]

I think we often confuse or conflate "thought" with language. Anyone who observes corvids solving multi-step puzzles, honey badgers plotting their escapes from enclosures and pack animals encircling their prey would be hard put to say "thought" is not involved in these activities. All available as youtube videos for the interested.
Even humans solve problems while sleeping, using their subconscious. Who has not woken up in the morning with an answer or idea to a problem troubling the day before, or who has not suddenly had an answer pop into "consciousness" after being unable to recall something, forgetting about the question, and then having the answer appear. We confuse conscious attention and language with thought and mental processing. Most mental processing is unconscious and below the level of focused attention. Language is a derivative of thought not the source. And attention is the tip of the iceburg for mental processing and "thought" not its sole content.

[Sy Borg]

If I watch for thoughts my attention ends up being on the void space they show up in, that gets reinforced by my attention and I end up with the same result I would have had if I was attempting to still or empty my mind.

I recognise that feeling. I visualise it as like water running down a drain - once you start focusing on your thoughts you don't have very much substantial to think about, so your thoughts get smaller and as you chase the tail of each prior inconsequential thought until you end up with ... a little mental static? I suspect that this kind of exercise is the basis of claims that the self does not exist, or at least it's not quite what we usually think it is. There is definitely an outwards-oriented aspect of the self - it appears to only exist in context with other entities. That makes the self is a relative reality, as is pretty well everything as far as we (and Einstein) can tell. Just how relative it is is another matter. Still, the above is the result on linear thinking; it really depends on what aspect of your thoughts that you observe.

[Papus79]

There is definitely an outwards-oriented aspect of the self - it appears to only exist in context with other entities.

I think that's a good way to put it.

The whole stream of association seems to arise with my mind interacting with various concepts - whether truly external, abstract internal representations of the external, or once in a while the truly intimate and strange internal-internal. Watching over this it's almost as if there's a transcriptionist keying away (hypocampus maybe?) and if I take a moment to get extra self-conscious and purely focus on myself it's as if I'm staring at the transcriptionist and the transcriptionist is staring back at me with his or her fingers poised to type. That awkward silence and staring contest seems to hold until I give it something to type again.

[Sy Borg]

There is definitely an outwards-oriented aspect of the self - it appears to only exist in context with other entities.

I think that's a good way to put it.

The whole stream of association seems to arise with my mind interacting with various concepts - whether truly external, abstract internal representations of the external, or once in a while the truly intimate and strange internal-internal. Watching over this it's almost as if there's a transcriptionist keying away (hypocampus maybe?) and if I take a moment to get extra self-conscious and purely focus on myself it's as if I'm staring at the transcriptionist and the transcriptionist is staring back at me with his or her fingers poised to type. That awkward silence and staring contest seems to hold until I give it something to type again.

Ha - I like that! "That awkward silence"

Yes, so even when we introspect, what we are looking at are the effects on our minds of its impressions. Take away the impressions and there's only the "internal residue" left. If denied stimuli the mind would metaphysically eat itself in the same way as the digestive system physically eats itself if denied food for long enough. After a period without stimuli our minds would run around in ever decreasing circles until, effectively, disappearing.

[Papus79]

Or, under the right conditions, that person whose set to have their mind eat itself starts having visions of exalted/radiant beings aiding and supporting them - after which their life seems like it breaks free of the fatal rut it was in. I don't know what the identity of mine was but she very much passed herself off in the Mary-Isis-Sophia type motif.

[Sy Borg]

Certainly more comforting than a monstrous motif :)

So what goes on with the warm radiant light and spirit beings? The dream of a brain denied something it needs? Crossing dimensions? The sudden opening of previously unused neural pathways? A combination?

[Papus79]

That's the 64k question. I don't think it necessarily proves that we're living in a broader conscious system but it at least strongly supports such a suggestion. It's also equally difficult to tell who gets a bailout from nature, who doesn't, and why.

[Sy Borg]

That's the 64k question. I don't think it necessarily proves that we're living in a broader conscious system but it at least strongly supports such a suggestion. It's also equally difficult to tell who gets a bailout from nature, who doesn't, and why.

How do you mean "bailout from nature"?

We most certainly are in a "the broader conscious system" in a prosaic sense. A sobering thing for me with advent of Google was finding out that most of my "great ideas" had already been thought of (and had been better developed and articulated) by "about 1,250,000" others. My mind is seemingly not my own. Most of my it is my culture's mind, with just a small portion left over for individuality.

If any of us were raised by wild pack animals for long enough we would not develop a human mind. Much of what and who we are is effectively programmed in by experience. So much so that that we take it for granted and attribute much of our mind's contents to our individual selves. Yes, we are all individual :) Regular web use reveals our parrot-like nature, with web commentators operating almost like neurons passing the latest messages around - terrorists blah blah, political correctness blah blah, climate change blah blah, Trump blah blah, religion blah blah, ad infinitum.

When I look for things in my head that are truly original, well, there doesn't seem to be much. My mind is like one tiny visible cranny of a huge consciousness iceberg that consists of the shared knowledge and ideals developed by people (and others beforehand) over countless prior generations of survivors.

[Woodart]

When I look for things in my head that are truly original, well, there doesn't seem to be much. My mind is like one tiny visible cranny of a huge consciousness iceberg that consists of the shared knowledge and ideals developed by people (and others beforehand) over countless prior generations of survivors.

There is no question that any original thought of significance is exceedingly difficult to produce. Many delude themselves that they do - but - the old saying - nothing new under the sun - still rings true. If a person can have one significant idea in a lifetime - that is a real accomplishment. Most have none.

[Papus79]

How do you mean "bailout from nature"?

I may have phrased that too colloquially. I meant something to the effect of mysterious dynamics interfering with what would have been a grim/grizzly fate. Some people get pulled out in the nick of time, other people are left to become human black holes. Aside from fighting to be my best maybe, or saying no to some of the most toxic narratives/stories that were offered me, I can't think of much else that would make me distinctly more 'worthy' of help than the next person.

If any of us were raised by wild pack animals for long enough we would not develop a human mind. Much of what and who we are is effectively programmed in by experience. So much so that that we take it for granted and attribute much of our mind's contents to our individual selves. Yes, we are all individual Regular web use reveals our parrot-like nature, with web commentators operating almost like neurons passing the latest messages around - terrorists blah blah, political correctness blah blah, climate change blah blah, Trump blah blah, religion blah blah, ad infinitum.

When I look for things in my head that are truly original, well, there doesn't seem to be much. My mind is like one tiny visible cranny of a huge consciousness iceberg that consists of the shared knowledge and ideals developed by people (and others beforehand) over countless prior generations of survivors.

That's where I think the fight for claiming ownership to a novel idea is somewhat wasted, rather more importantly we should just aim to line ourselves up with the highest quality ideas we can manage. A bit like how Jordan Peterson constantly brings up the centrality of the question 'how should I act in the world'. Those are personal quests, personal journeys, and for as much as you might end up indirectly taking a near identical path to millions of people or being a cookie-cutter INTJ, ESFP, or whatever other MBTI block you go with, its almost irrelevant because on thing holds true regardless - no one can be you for you regardless of how traveled your personal trajectory through life is.

[Eduk]

My mind is like one tiny visible cranny of a huge consciousness iceberg that consists of the shared knowledge and ideals developed by people (and others beforehand) over countless prior generations of survivors.

Very nicely put.

The only thing I would say is that just because original thought is tricky (to say the least) that doesn't mean it isn't original for you. Or that your experience therefore doesn't matter, again if only to you. Funnily enough South Park cover this whole concept quite well in 'Simpsons Already Did It'. Well worth a watch in my opinion.