No Mind --> No Thoughts --> No Issues : Do you agree?

[Pattern-chaser]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that "the Self", the "I am", is separate to all the elements mentioned above, but those elements that I mentioned referred to the WHOLE person, body, mind, and the rest. How can the "I am" be separate from the Whole? If it is separate from the Whole, it is distinct, and presumably independent in its own right, or part of something other than this Whole.

I can only assume I have misunderstood (again), as this doesn't seem to make sense?

Yes I would say that the “I am” is an independent part of the whole.

If your "I am" is independent of mind, and of body, ("and the rest", as I said), then it is not part of any human being. It is some kind of ghost, perhaps?

[Joshua10]

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that "the Self", the "I am", is separate to all the elements mentioned above, but those elements that I mentioned referred to the WHOLE person, body, mind, and the rest. How can the "I am" be separate from the Whole? If it is separate from the Whole, it is distinct, and presumably independent in its own right, or part of something other than this Whole.

I can only assume I have misunderstood (again), as this doesn't seem to make sense?

Yes I would say that the “I am” is an independent part of the whole.

If your "I am" is independent of mind, and of body, ("and the rest", as I said), then it is not part of any human being. It is some kind of ghost, perhaps?

I would suggest that if the “I am” has sufficient awareness to control which of the “waking” consciousness state it resides within in any given moment then it distinguishes itself as separate from awareness and consciousness.I would suggest that the “I am” is established as much as awareness and consciousness ;thoughts and emotions.As to whether the “I am” is a ghost? If it’s a ghost then it either has control of the consciousness states or it doesn’t.

[Joshua10]

The “I am” is something significant.

[Sy Borg]

I would suggest that if the “I am” has sufficient awareness to control which of the “waking” consciousness state it resides within in any given moment then it distinguishes itself as separate from awareness and consciousness.I would suggest that the “I am” is established as much as awareness and consciousness ;thoughts and emotions.

A jellyfish has an "I am" (a sense of being), but no emotions or thoughts. Just a cussed refusal to die, to dissipate back into the environment.

A non-human mammal has an "I am", but also strong emotions, but only rudimentary thought.

A human has an "I am", plus strong emotions and relatively complex thought processes.

So the "I am" is, in a sense, separate from thoughts and emotions, rather than inclusive, although being, thoughts and emotions in humans are inextricably entwined as a singular process we call "consciousness" or "awareness", except in the case of some severe brain injuries, where thought or emotion can be largely inhibited.

[Tegularius]

What every Buddhist strives for… Nirvana!

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that if the “I am” has sufficient awareness to control which of the “waking” consciousness state it resides within in any given moment then it distinguishes itself as separate from awareness and consciousness.I would suggest that the “I am” is established as much as awareness and consciousness ;thoughts and emotions.

A jellyfish has an "I am" (a sense of being), but no emotions or thoughts. Just a cussed refusal to die, to dissipate back into the environment.

A non-human mammal has an "I am", but also strong emotions, but only rudimentary thought.

A human has an "I am", plus strong emotions and relatively complex thought processes.

So the "I am" is, in a sense, separate from thoughts and emotions, rather than inclusive, although being, thoughts and emotions in humans are inextricably entwined as a singular process we call "consciousness" or "awareness", except in the case of some severe brain injuries, where thought or emotion can be largely inhibited.

Consciousness and awareness do not control.The “I am” only controls if it has sufficient awareness to do so otherwise it just “toggles” in unawareness between the 2 consciousness states.The separate “I am” if aware,can take control of the 2 “waking” consciousness states and determine which it wishes to reside within in any given moment.Science.needs to start taking this into account.

[Joshua10]

What every Buddhist strives for… Nirvana!

Buddhism practices “inward” only meditation. This is an “out of the moment” meditative practice.It denies the vey thing that decided to go inward in the first place,The “I am”.

[Joshua10]

The Buddha was a “Prisoner of Consciousness” because he was unaware of consciousness “toggling” and therefore exercised no control over it.The Buddhism “inward only”meditative practice is just a data gathering exercise.

If you reason in consciousness without control over the consciousness types it’s like asking a machine Do I exist?

The multiple response will be,

You don’t exist;You don’t exist
You don’t exist, You do exist
You do exist,You don’t exist
You do exist,You do exist

[Joshua10]

The Buddha was a “Prisoner of Consciousness” because he was unaware of consciousness “toggling” and therefore exercised no control over it.The Buddhism “inward only”meditative practice is just a data gathering exercise.

If you reason in consciousness without control over the consciousness types it’s like asking a machine Do I exist?

The multiple response will be,

You don’t exist;You don’t exist
You don’t exist, You do exist
You do exist,You don’t exist
You do exist,You do exist

It is no surprise therefore that secularism embraces Buddhism wholeheartedly.

[Joshua10]

The Buddha was a “Prisoner of Consciousness” because he was unaware of consciousness “toggling” and therefore exercised no control over it.The Buddhism “inward only”meditative practice is just a data gathering exercise.

If you reason in consciousness without control over the consciousness types it’s like asking a machine Do I exist?

The multiple response will be,

You don’t exist;You don’t exist
You don’t exist, You do exist
You do exist,You don’t exist
You do exist,You do exist

It is no surprise that secularism embraces Buddhism wholeheartedly because it denies the “I am”.

[Sy Borg]

I would suggest that if the “I am” has sufficient awareness to control which of the “waking” consciousness state it resides within in any given moment then it distinguishes itself as separate from awareness and consciousness.I would suggest that the “I am” is established as much as awareness and consciousness ;thoughts and emotions.

A jellyfish has an "I am" (a sense of being), but no emotions or thoughts. Just a cussed refusal to die, to dissipate back into the environment.

A non-human mammal has an "I am", but also strong emotions, but only rudimentary thought.

A human has an "I am", plus strong emotions and relatively complex thought processes.

So the "I am" is, in a sense, separate from thoughts and emotions, rather than inclusive, although being, thoughts and emotions in humans are inextricably entwined as a singular process we call "consciousness" or "awareness", except in the case of some severe brain injuries, where thought or emotion can be largely inhibited.

Consciousness and awareness do not control.The “I am” only controls if it has sufficient awareness to do so otherwise it just “toggles” in unawareness between the 2 consciousness states.The separate “I am” if aware, can take control of the 2 “waking” consciousness states and determine which it wishes to reside within in any given moment.Science.needs to start taking this into account.

Not much point to consciousness if it does not control. That's the entire point. A non conscious entity has no control, a conscious entity has some control.

What you say could be seen in Jungian terms: "The id only controls if it has sufficient awareness to do so otherwise it just “toggles” in unawareness between the ego and superego. The separate id if aware, can take control of the ego and superego and determine which it wishes to reside within in any given moment."

Or in terms of transactional analysis: https://www.simplypsychology.org/transa ... berne.html "The child only controls if it has sufficient awareness to do so otherwise it just “toggles” in unawareness between the adult and parent. The separate child if aware, can take control of the adult and parent and determine which it wishes to reside within in any given moment."

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that to be aware that there are 2 different “waking” consciousness states and then being able to determine which of these states to reside within in any given moment by a determined action is sufficient experiental/experimental proof for the individual that there is something separate from consciousness.The “I am”

[Sy Borg]

I would suggest that to be aware that there are 2 different “waking” consciousness states and then being able to determine which of these states to reside within in any given moment by a determined action is sufficient experiental/experimental proof for the individual that there is something separate from consciousness.The “I am”

Those two states could be thought of as the ego and superego - simply, our "wants" and "oughts". There are also peak experience states. There are dazed states. Emotional and analytical states ...

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that to be aware that there are 2 different “waking” consciousness states and then being able to determine which of these states to reside within in any given moment by a determined action is sufficient experiental/experimental proof for the individual that there is something separate from consciousness.The “I am”

Those two states could be thought of as the ego and superego - simply, our "wants" and "oughts". There are also peak experience states. There are dazed states. Emotional and analytical states ...

Well I would call them “in the moment” and “not in the moment” because that it is what the individual experiences them as.

I beg to disagree with your explanation, “wants” and “oughts” reside within the 2 “waking”consciousness states that the “I am” either does or doesn’t exercise control over.

[Sy Borg]

I would suggest that to be aware that there are 2 different “waking” consciousness states and then being able to determine which of these states to reside within in any given moment by a determined action is sufficient experiental/experimental proof for the individual that there is something separate from consciousness.The “I am”

Those two states could be thought of as the ego and superego - simply, our "wants" and "oughts". There are also peak experience states. There are dazed states. Emotional and analytical states ...

Well I would call them “in the moment” and “not in the moment” because that it is what the individual experiences them as.

I beg to disagree with your explanation, “wants” and “oughts” reside within the 2 “waking”consciousness states that the “I am” either does or doesn’t exercise control over.

I would not see 'in the moment' and 'not in the moment' as discrete states but poles of a continuum.

Whatever the technicalities, it appears that you are linking the "I am" with the present moment. Being. That would make the "I am" extremely ephemeral and changeable, just as we cannot 'swim the same river twice'.