Experiment no.1

Experiment set no.1
Ok in this section, what I aim to acheive is to bring you to a level where you can accept what is being said on an intellectual level. At this point you will not be liberated but you will understand what is being said intellectually. From here, you can go on to some deep inner looking. and then you can se the truth. Here we are using thought experiments to highlight the kind of functions you attribute to a self and demonstrate that we create a dichotomy by assuming there is a self.

Really liberation is only a short step away, once you understand it although, the difficulty arises to find the gate itself. This is where you can get our help but you are responsible for LOOKING, we can not liberate you, only you can do that. The main problem is people thinking instead of actually LOOKING.
You cannot unthink a thought (which is what "you" is) but you can see the truth and it will burn lie on contact. Its ok we all had to go through this stage, so we can understand what you are going to go through. The stage after this will be frustrating but you really need to see this, its very important, more important than anything else you have going on in your life.

Seriously the work that needs to be done is this. You have a belief, prove to yourself 100% that it is a solid belief. Usually in the West we like to stand there smugly and fold our arms and come out with something along the lines of "Well this is what current knowledge says, so unless you can prove otherwise then its a load of BS".What we need to do is take the unprecedented step of actually doing the work ourselves to find out the truth. Treat this as a scientific experiment and use this as a hypothesis...

It has never been questioned whether or not, what is perceived as the “self” is actually  real until now. In this experiment the observer will attempt to test reality for the existence or non- existence of self by means of using direct observations.

Expected observations:
Conjecture 1: The brain is a highly evolved machine that is capable of conscious thought and real time decision making. In order for this stimulus response system to work, there must be a master controller overseeing the cognitive faculties of the brain. What is perceived as “YOU”, “I” or “self” is actually a necessary functioning component of the brain.

Conjecture 2: The pattern matching faculty of the brain has falsely labelled actions done by the body as the result of a phantom “YOU” in the brain. This is due to the nature of the cause and effect model that the brain uses. This phantom “YOU” causes feedback loops, pattern cascades and self destructive thought patterns. What is perceived as “YOU”, “I” or “self” is actually an illusion of the pattern matching faculty of the brain.

Are "you" your thoughts or are "you" an entity that has thoughts?

Are "you" a thought? Well this actually couldn't be further from the truth when you have seen it for yourself. You is just an idea, a thought but straight away though, you will probably be on the defensive and answer that you is an entity that has  thoughts.

An entity that has thoughts

Lets take this example from the FAQ's
I can remember snowboarding whenever I want to, its my memory, I can recall stuff whenever I want to. They are my memories you can not take them away from me. I was actually there "I" did it.
This is a typical response that comes up but I want to dissect what is really being said here.
Ok there are thoughts. Memories are thought forms from direct experience that appear to us with a mix of kinaesthetic, visual and audio data. A memory has to have been experienced for the data to be stored. At what point is there no experience and no memory? It is there, we can be certain of this because we have already seen it. The event was experienced and the memory of the event is real, this we can be certain of.

Why would an organism store memories? The brain is a sophisticated pattern matching device and this from an evolutionary standpoint, is absolutely necessary. Imagine if every time you came across a hole in the ground, you had to stop and figure out what the hole was. There is no way the human mind could function in the way that it does, let alone figure out how to make a wheel. This is the greatest asset of the human mind, it allows us to quickly accomplish routine tasks.

Essentially the mind is an organic learning computer, it learns through matching experience from the senses. If we think in terms of a biological computer, it is programmed to run set operations to a given stimulus. We wouldn't be much use if we had to re-learn stuff all the time.


Sorry to repeat myself again but I have to remind you before we go any further: You have to drop any notions that you know about what is real or not. Any thing you know or think you know needs to be dropped before you do the experiments. They have to be done with absolute honesty and you must go in to each experiment with no expectations.

For instance open and close your hand.
= All you know for sure is the hand opened then closed. This is the level of sincere honesty that is required from you, to do these experiments. It is on the premise of what you can directly observe, not what you think should be observed.
Ok, lets do it....

I want you to think of a random memory about something.




What memory did you come up with and how long did it take? Don't stop until you have a specific memory, it can be about anything, it just has to be a specific and very clear memory.



If your like me, you probably took a few seconds to do this and you had to look at something in the room to come up with a memory.
Now think about this, what have we observed? We have observed that as there was no stimulus to trigger a memory recall of an event, no memory appeared instantly. Well thats obvious really.

BUT... Do you see the problem that has been created? Because you had to look around for a stimulus in the room to trigger a memory or wait for a chain of thought to go along to trigger a memory, you have demonstrated to yourself that "you" are not actually capable of having a memory at will. We have to wait for the brain to draw a paralell from something in our experience for a memory to be triggered.
This makes a "you" pretty redundant in the whole process, as "you" never recalled a memory, it was triggered by a train of thought or a visual cue. This is important. We have the belief that we can recall any memory we want instananeously.

This is just a projection attributed to a self. The brain actually needs some kind of cue to trigger the memory bank. This could be a conversation, a picture, an action or whatever. To put it simply the brain requires input. If there was a "thinker", no such input would be required, the whole "library" could be randomly accesed at any point, if we subscribed to the statement that "we have control of our thoughts".


Ok try and select another random memory. This time I want you to close your eyes and the rules are this time:
You cannot use a memory related to the last one
You cannot use a memory from this past week.

So quickly go now...


One doesn't just arise, there is always a stimulus preceeding the memory. There is no visual cue this time and I'll bet it took you alot longer to come up with a memory. Try it a few times and you will see there is always a chain of thought first to act as a stimulus. Just don't forget to use scincere honesty though! Use a new memory if you already have one in mind when you close your eyes.
What we have demonstrated is there actually is nothing random about memory recall at all. As you read the writing here, this triggered a chain of thought and that chain of thought ran until a memory was located. This means the orgin of the thought was triggered by an external stimulus i.e this experiment.



Ok... don't think of a cat.

Don't let the imagery of a cat appear in your mind,

Go on, keep it going, resist it....

Awww... unlucky.

Nice try though.
So what does this actually tell us? Apart from this experiment has been done countless times before. Well, it tells us in no uncertain terms that the brain is wired to respond to an external stimulus with thought. There cannot be any control over this process, we have just demonstrated that no matter how hard the attempt to suppress thought, it cannot be accomplished. The stimulus triggered the thought and this process is completely independent of intervention. Try and stop the thoughts of the mind right now. See if a minute can pass without thinking occurring. I'm willing to bet you are not a shamen who can go in to a trance at will. Maybe if you practice meditation, you know the noise that comes from thought is difficult to switch off... there is just no off switch!

This proves that you have no control over what is thought. If you could control thought, it would figure you would easily be able to stop this from occuring. Why can we not do this if we are a thinker who has thoughts? What we have proved here is the brain is hardwired to respond to the environment. Thats all we need to prove for now; that at least some of the thoughts that we have, we simply do not just "choose" to have. They are beyond our control.

Very often thought is linked to something that is happening in the environment. It may be about the future, the past, or whats going on now but thought just happens anyway. We can't stop it. If there was a you involved in the equation, it would figure that you would only think when you needed to and there would be no need for the constant internal dialogue you have.


Experience dictates that there is an ongoing internal dialogue that can't be turned off. This dialogue is what we believe to be ours but it is just thought, it just happens anyway wether we want it to or not. If there was a thinker, would it not make sense that it would be able to control when  thoughts arise and the contents of the thought? This idea of a "you" in itself is non sensical when we consider this. If there was a thinker, it would make no sense to have negative thoughts about yourself. In reality negative thoughts are useful to an organism and necessary. But to a thinker, would it not select and edit the thoughts, or maybe even make them sound nicer? After all its for the benefit of you...

Or would you subscribe to the statement:

"I don't control all of the thinking, I only choose to have some of my thoughts".

This is self contradictory. Either you control the thoughts or you don't. Its really that simple. You can't have it both ways. Either you are flying the plane or you are not. This answer insinnuates that if this were so, then there is some kind of autopilot mechanism that kicks in as soon as you stop controlling the thoughts. 

A conversation:
Or could it be thought just arises anyway, its always on automatic?
No, it goes on auopilot when I'm not in control!

Then who flicks the autopilot switch?
No one, its automatic, its subconcious!

So the brain automatically knows when you stop thinking... so the subconcious resumes control of thinking again from you. Or is all thought sub conscious?
No there is subconscious and conscious thought

So whats the difference?
Sunbconscious thought is like my mood and stuff, some times negative thoughts arise, its all down to the subconscious.

Hang on then, does the subconscious have its own thoughts or does it influence thought?
Well it influences thought, its called subconscious because you are not conscious of it.

But you said the subconscious takes control of the thinking again, the autopilot?
Well it just influences thought, it provides the content of thought. I just intervene when necessary

How can it have both control and influence at the same time? Either it cannot control and uses influence or it has total control and influence is redundant?
It has no control its not in our conscious awareness, it just generates the internal dialogue which we are conscious of

So how do you disengage the autopilot?
Look, theres no need I am a sepperate entity from my thoughts but I control the thinking when I choose to.

Ok then, retrieve a random memoy or don't think about a dead cat.
But its my subconscious that thinks about these things, I have no control over that part

So what constitutes the difference between subconcious thoughts and conscious thoughts?
I choose to have the thoughts, when it is conscious

Then think up a random memory right now
Err ok... I'm thinking about... oh wait I'm having a conscious thought about today... er there, I just thought

consciously... there I don't need a memory. I decided to have that thought.

Then tell me what caused you to start thinking?
You told me to..

Exactly so was that a subconscious decision or a conscious one?
I consciously chose to do this.

But you said that the subconscious is in control of the content, you said that you can't control what the subconscious thinks, so how do you know it was the subconscious or the conscious that was thinking these things? If the subconscious generates the thoughts, then that means that you are not the thinker, rather you are an observer of the thoughts.
Thats probably fair to say. The thoughts arise from my subconcious and I can intervene when I want to.

Maybe you could subscribe to this next statement:

"My brain thinks the thoughts, they arise subconciously, I just direct them at times when needed".

This would also mean that when you are not directing your thoughts i.e consciously intervening, you are simply observerving the sub conscious thoughts. What you are saying is you can choose between intervention of the chain of thoughts or to observe them.
The trouble with this statement is we create a dichotomy. One cannot observe thought, we can only experience it. If we are observing thought, that means we are seperate from thought.

How can one be seperate from thought, if they are an entity having thoughts? How can you be seperate from anything in your body? Thats like saying my heart beats independently from me. We know full well if I suddenly punched through your chest and tore out your beating heart, you would not be independent from this. To observe reality means to be seperate from reality and as we know nothing can exist outside of reality.

"Ok, I am experiencing the thoughts, I just direct them at times when needed"

Now essentially you are saying you are the thoughts, you can't do that if your having thoughts.
We have gone round in a circle. You maybe thinking circular logic but that is exactly what has been used to come to this point.

With the bible we hear: the bible is the truth = the truth is the bible.
It takes an outside observer from this closed loop to point out that the whole premise is fallacious.
Objectively we can look at the totality of whats has been said if we subscribe to the presence of a thinker or a "you":
"I" am not just a thought
I know I exist because I have thoughts
I do not have total control over thought because I cannot choose a thought randomly or stop having them ergo its subconscious to a degree.
But I can direct thought when I choose to.
I cannot be seperate from my brain because I am the brain.
I cannot observe thought but I am experiencing it in some way
The brain does do the thinking.... but if I can be aware of having thought, then that means....
I exist because "I" am not just a thought

Here we have the process of circular logic. This is the long winded version, we can whittle it down to this:
I exist because "I" am having thoughts = "I" am having thoughts because I exist

The next problem we have is:
I cannot observe thought because to observe something means to be seperate from it.

I cannot experience thought because that means I am thought.
To sum it up:
In a vehicle: I cannot experience what its like to drive WITHOUT actually driving. When I am driving the car, I am experiencing what it is to be driving.

In another vehicle: I cannot experience what it is like to think WITHOUT thinking: When I am thinking the thought I am experiencing what it is to be thinking.

When you look at it on this level, we create a few dichotomies in what we thought to be true, simply by looking at the basic arguments on how you engage with your thoughts. It is difficult for us to explain in anyway how we control thought or in what capacity a "you" can do so. When we just say there is thought but not thinker, we solve all of these dichotomies.
If we use Occam's Razor, we can say the simplest explaination is the most logical. When we remove a "you" from the equation, that is the simplest explaination for removing all of the anomalies. The only anaomaly we have left is the experience of a you. Fortunately for me, I have seen that "I" is the experience itself and that fallacy for me has been removed and the whole premise has been solved.
Unfortunately you are missing the last step in the equation at the moment. Soon, you should be able to witness this in reality.
We could also insert a metaphysical argument here but then again we could present no evidence other than belief and Occams razor dictates that the most simplest solution is the most probable. This is on the subjective side of an argument of course, so lets make it more objective.

Experiment set no. 2

Popular Posts