What exactly is the "ego"?

Edward Flores4 said:Alright! Let's assume I totally missed the mark on your first post, and instead, let's just dive straight into what you described in your second one.

I've got a couple more questions for you:

1) If we agree that the "observed" can't exist without the "observer," and that the actual act of observing is the glue holding them together... then what exactly is this "I" that is capable of experiencing itself as something distinct from what it's perceiving?

From where I'm standing—and even following the logic of what you wrote above—it seems like the answer might be "thought." Thought is what exists apart from the "observed," but honestly, that feels like we're just sweeping the problem under a different rug... which leads me to my next point.

2) Is there actually a difference between a "thought" and the "thinker," or are thoughts simply the thinker themselves?

And while we're at it, I have a quick follow-up... because if we're trying to figure out if there's a real distinction between the "observer" and the "observed," the concept of thought is going to come up almost immediately.

2.1) What even *is* a thought? How and why does it happen? Can you actually use your willpower to think about absolutely nothing, or are thoughts—at least some of them—just a spontaneous reaction from the mind to changes in its environment?

---

PS: It’s really nice of you to put so much effort into staying coherent and being willing to jump into this dialogue. If you're still up for discussing this, I'm sure we'll eventually land on some concrete, and frankly quite reasonable, conclusion.

1. Consciousness. Consciousness is aware of itself, its surroundings, and everything happening during that interaction. All content flows out from consciousness.

2. There is. A thinker isn't a thought. The thinker is the one capable of generating thoughts (since a thought can't create itself), though most people can't really control them.

2.1. Thoughts are the content of consciousness, and they can pop up in a few ways:
a) through conscious deliberation,
b) when something external triggers a thought,
c) unconsciously—like that internal monologue we aren't even aware we're running.
Most people can't just snap their fingers and stop the flow of thoughts, but maybe by becoming more aware of everything happening, there's less room in the day for those unconscious periods and internal chatter. Eventually, you get more peace and internal silence.

casualmaker13 said:1. Consciousness. Consciousness is aware of itself, its surroundings, and everything happening during that interaction. All content flows out from consciousness.

2. There is. A thinker isn't a thought. The thinker is the one capable of generating thoughts (since a thought can't create itself), though most people can't really control them.

2.1. Thoughts are the content of consciousness, and they can pop up in a few ways:
a) through conscious deliberation,
b) when something external triggers a thought,
c) unconsciously—like that internal monologue we aren't even aware we're running.
Most people can't just snap their fingers and stop the flow of thoughts, but maybe by becoming more aware of everything happening, there's less room in the day for those unconscious periods and internal chatter. Eventually, you get more peace and internal silence.

I don't think you've actually made a point there... you've essentially just swapped one term (the observer) for another (awareness).

Sure, awareness is self-aware, but that doesn't imply you have two distinct consciousnesses operating side-by-side, even if they're aware of one another.

Think about it this way—if you’re looking at a tree, your awareness of that tree is entirely dependent on the tree itself. It’s a direct consequence of the fact that there is an object there for you to perceive. Without you, there would be no awareness of the tree, but without the tree, you wouldn't have anything to be aware of in the first place. To me, that seems pretty straightforward.

So... in this whole cause-and-effect loop, where exactly are you seeing something that stands "apart" from the process itself?

2. There is a thinker, and then there is the thought. The thinker is the entity capable of generating thoughts (since a thought can't create itself), though most people find they can't really control them.

Your body is constantly producing all sorts of things—enzymes, neurotransmitters, red and white blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you, right?

If a thought isn't part of you, then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you ponder things, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can pinpoint that exact boundary, I'd love to hear it.

2.1. Thoughts are the content of awareness.

I'd call it a consequence... but it's not a huge deal.

they can arise in several ways
a) by consciously deciding to think something,
b) being prompted by an external stimulus to think of something,
c) unconsciously—just spinning through an internal dialogue we aren't even mindful of.

True... but what is the common thread among all those different "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually occur without a "thinker" present?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B," then "A" and "B" are effectively the same thing—part of the same singular unit... wouldn't you agree?

Ethan Johnson said:Anyone here actually self-aware enough to have a sense of their own "Self"? I’d love to hear a few thoughts from you guys. Once you start digging into your "Self," this weird phenomenon happens where the "Self" starts observing "itself." We basically have to step into the shoes of the thinker—but can the thinker actually know who they are? It's kind of like asking if a knife can cut itself, right?

This whole thing actually popped up from that other thread about "being what you are." But here, I really want to figure out if we can even talk about our "Self" in any meaningful way. Are we just a collection of our thoughts—those random ideas floating through our heads? Probably not, since thoughts just drift in and out whenever they feel like it. So, are we our bodies? Nah, because our bodies are constantly shifting, cells are swapping out, and we're all just getting older. So... what the hell is the "Self" actually?

The most subtle mental construct there is.

Edward Flores4 said:Going back to what we were discussing... even if we take that extrapolated "self"—the one that just sits there observing itself from whatever specific vantage point it happens to occupy—there's hardly any "me" left in that equation.

The "self" is really just the entire world viewed from one specific coordinate at one specific moment. But when you look at the actual substance making up that "self," it’s really just everyone and everything else, except for me. 🤷

All these other people making up my "SELF"? They've just wandered into my orbit. Sometimes they feel shallow, like when I sense them encroaching on my personal space. Yet, it feels like there's this deep, underlying connection between us all. Maybe that's normal. Still, it's weird how they constantly try to project their own version of my "SELF" onto me based on their own narrow perspectives. It all comes down to the inertial frame of reference they're operating from. In reality, you are always a singular, unique "SELF." But at the same time, to everyone else, you are some unknown "SELF" they can't fully grasp. Hmm. Does the ability to construct a convincing reality make the "SELF" something that is known to me in the moment? Or is it known to you??......

I mean, honestly, you wouldn't even exist without me... because for me to truly be "me," there has to be a "not-me" out there—and that’s where you come in. It’s kind of deep, right? Like, "me" and "you" are essentially two sides of the same coin; one just doesn't make sense without the other. Think of it like light and shadow, or day and night... you can't really have one without the other being present.

Edward Flores4 said:I don't think you've actually made a point there... you've essentially just swapped one term (the observer) for another (awareness).

Sure, awareness is self-aware, but that doesn't imply you have two distinct consciousnesses operating side-by-side, even if they're aware of one another.

Think about it this way—if you’re looking at a tree, your awareness of that tree is entirely dependent on the tree itself. It’s a direct consequence of the fact that there is an object there for you to perceive. Without you, there would be no awareness of the tree, but without the tree, you wouldn't have anything to be aware of in the first place. To me, that seems pretty straightforward.

So... in this whole cause-and-effect loop, where exactly are you seeing something that stands "apart" from the process itself?

2. There is a thinker, and then there is the thought. The thinker is the entity capable of generating thoughts (since a thought can't create itself), though most people find they can't really control them.

Your body is constantly producing all sorts of things—enzymes, neurotransmitters, red and white blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you, right?

If a thought isn't part of you, then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you ponder things, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can pinpoint that exact boundary, I'd love to hear it.

2.1. Thoughts are the content of awareness.

I'd call it a consequence... but it's not a huge deal.

they can arise in several ways
a) by consciously deciding to think something,
b) being prompted by an external stimulus to think of something,
c) unconsciously—just spinning through an internal dialogue we aren't even mindful of.

True... but what is the common thread among all those different "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually occur without a "thinker" present?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B," then "A" and "B" are effectively the same thing—part of the same singular unit... wouldn't you agree?

Nothing is separate if we're looking at the process as a whole—which is made up of the observer, the observed, and the interaction between them. Try to pull one part away and you don't have a process anymore. But, I suppose that doesn't mean the observer, the observed, and the interaction are all one single thing.
The point is, the observer only exists when there is awareness. When there's no awareness, the observer isn't there (they just become content within the consciousness), so the process effectively ceases to exist.

Your body successfully pumps out all sorts of enzymes, neurotransmitters, white blood cells, red blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you.

If a thought isn't part of you—then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you're thinking, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can, maybe describe that "spot" for me.!?

I am not my thoughts, because I still exist even when I'm not thinking. I can choose to create a specific thought, or I can get myself into a state where there are no thoughts at all. I just can't put an equals sign between myself and a thought.
Thoughts come and go, but I'm always here, whether I'm conscious of it or not.

Thoughts, emotions, the body, energy—those are all just contents of consciousness. They're just the stuff through which consciousness manifests itself.

Right... but what's the common thread among all those "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually happen without a "thinker"?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B"—then "A" and "B" are essentially the same thing... part of the same thing... right?

A thought never happens without a "thinker," but I definitely exist without thoughts. So, I and the thought are not the same thing.

Uploaded with Imgur.com Uploaded with Imgur.com

me
just an unknown variable,
a vessel holding
absolutely nothing
sitting on a dusty shelf
knocked over
on my end
the air is gone,
hollow
and dry.

just waiting

for someone
to grab me
and pour something in
that actually makes sense,
something that can be
recognized
and given a name;
something with a clear label
so
I can finally be understood
and tucked away in a specific
spot.

I could finally be placed
right there
among all the other bottles.
I’d finally look like
I actually belong. Ruth McLean

I’ve always been more of a poetry person than a philosophy buff🙂
But looking at this (and honestly, everything else), the "self" is always defined by its connections—it's like trying to study a single cell completely isolated from the rest of the body.
The "self" really needs to be analyzed through context and relationships.
A pure, isolated "self" just doesn't make any sense. It's just like a biological cell: we can map out every tiny detail, but once you pull it out of its environment, it loses its entire purpose.

Since I already posted this poem: it’s fascinating how any individual, whether human or animal, feels this profound sense of being lost or disconnected if they don't have a place within their community. Everything depends on that context. And let's face it, none of us live outside of a context.

The "self" is essentially a relationship.
That so-called strong, walled-off "ego" usually struggles to build those connections, which is why it suffers so much (no matter how self-satisfied those egoists try to act).

The "self" is actually the soul.
And the soul isn't some pale, flickering silhouette floating out in the void somewhere.
The soul is about connection.
The most fundamental relationship any soul has is the bond between the "self" and the Source.

But man, that's a whole different conversation...

By the way, our sense of "self" is shaped so heavily by how we were raised during early childhood.
But again, that's a topic for another day!🙂

casualmaker13 said:Nothing is separate if we're looking at the process as a whole—which is made up of the observer, the observed, and the interaction between them. Try to pull one part away and you don't have a process anymore. But, I suppose that doesn't mean the observer, the observed, and the interaction are all one single thing.
The point is, the observer only exists when there is awareness. When there's no awareness, the observer isn't there (they just become content within the consciousness), so the process effectively ceases to exist.

Your body successfully pumps out all sorts of enzymes, neurotransmitters, white blood cells, red blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you.

If a thought isn't part of you—then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you're thinking, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can, maybe describe that "spot" for me.!?

I am not my thoughts, because I still exist even when I'm not thinking. I can choose to create a specific thought, or I can get myself into a state where there are no thoughts at all. I just can't put an equals sign between myself and a thought.
Thoughts come and go, but I'm always here, whether I'm conscious of it or not.

Thoughts, emotions, the body, energy—those are all just contents of consciousness. They're just the stuff through which consciousness manifests itself.

Right... but what's the common thread among all those "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually happen without a "thinker"?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B"—then "A" and "B" are essentially the same thing... part of the same thing... right?

A thought never happens without a "thinker," but I definitely exist without thoughts. So, I and the thought are not the same thing.

Spot on.
We aren't our emotions either—we can learn to manage and direct them, just like we do with our thoughts.

Ethan Johnson said:Anyone here actually self-aware enough to have a sense of their own "Self"? I’d love to hear a few thoughts from you guys. Once you start digging into your "Self," this weird phenomenon happens where the "Self" starts observing "itself." We basically have to step into the shoes of the thinker—but can the thinker actually know who they are? It's kind of like asking if a knife can cut itself, right?

This whole thing actually popped up from that other thread about "being what you are." But here, I really want to figure out if we can even talk about our "Self" in any meaningful way. Are we just a collection of our thoughts—those random ideas floating through our heads? Probably not, since thoughts just drift in and out whenever they feel like it. So, are we our bodies? Nah, because our bodies are constantly shifting, cells are swapping out, and we're all just getting older. So... what the hell is the "Self" actually?

A beautifully phrased question.. 👍 you've essentially answered it all right there.

"One who is self-aware = one who possesses their own 'Self'"—but there is no "us," there is only him. Self-awareness is merely a tiny fraction of consciousness.
The thinker doesn't necessarily need to know himself; he just needs to think alongside himself, fulfilling his function, which is simply to live. And he doesn't even have to be a "thinker" if he finds thinking unpleasant. He could be anything else, provided it's something he genuinely enjoys.

casualmaker13 said:Nothing is separate if we're looking at the process as a whole—which is made up of the observer, the observed, and the interaction between them. Try to pull one part away and you don't have a process anymore. But, I suppose that doesn't mean the observer, the observed, and the interaction are all one single thing.
The point is, the observer only exists when there is awareness. When there's no awareness, the observer isn't there (they just become content within the consciousness), so the process effectively ceases to exist.

Your body successfully pumps out all sorts of enzymes, neurotransmitters, white blood cells, red blood cells... and you don't exactly claim those things aren't part of you.

If a thought isn't part of you—then what is it? Is it some invisible "cloud" floating around your head while you're thinking, or is it just a cognitive process that's inseparable from the "thinker"?

Where exactly do "you" end and your "thought" begin? If you can, maybe describe that "spot" for me.!?

I am not my thoughts, because I still exist even when I'm not thinking. I can choose to create a specific thought, or I can get myself into a state where there are no thoughts at all. I just can't put an equals sign between myself and a thought.
Thoughts come and go, but I'm always here, whether I'm conscious of it or not.

Thoughts, emotions, the body, energy—those are all just contents of consciousness. They're just the stuff through which consciousness manifests itself.

Right... but what's the common thread among all those "ways"?

Does a thought ever actually happen without a "thinker"?

Because if "A" always happens simultaneously with "B"—then "A" and "B" are essentially the same thing... part of the same thing... right?

A thought never happens without a "thinker," but I definitely exist without thoughts. So, I and the thought are not the same thing.

There is something honestly hilarious about seeing a spiritual leader fall into the trap of reductionism—it’s one of those quirks that really cracks me up if you look closely enough. It’s like watching someone try to explain the entire complexity of the American landscape by only looking at a single street sign in Des Moines; they think they’ve captured the essence of everything, but they’ve actually just missed the forest for the trees. You see these thinkers attempt to boil down the vast, messy, beautiful depth of the human experience into one neat little formula or a single dogma, and it just feels so incredibly small. It’s a bit of a comedy of errors when someone claims to hold the keys to the universe, yet can't grasp the sheer scale of what they're trying to simplify.

Look, I get what you're saying—you feel like if we strip away even one of those specific segments, the whole "process" of observation just falls apart. But here’s where I think we’re hitting a wall: you’re refusing to see that this very "process"—this constant, flowing stream of observation itself—is exactly what you’re calling the "I." It’s not something separate from the action; the action is the identity.

Without that specific process running, you’d basically be looking at a clinical coma—or maybe even a vegetative state. It’s pretty heavy when you think about it. But when everything is firing on all cylinders, when you’re wide awake and fully conscious, that "process" is essentially the bedrock of your entire identity. It’s what makes you, *you*.

You know, sometimes those famous gurus actually have a point... It’s just that most people need more than a few lifetimes to finally wrap their heads around it.

Here’s the thing—it all comes down to this: the observer only truly exists when there is awareness. The second that consciousness slips away, the observer vanishes. You aren't "observing" anymore; you just become part of the content within the mind. And once that happens, the whole process itself simply ceases to be.

Whoops, my bad! 😲 You really stepped in it this time...

When someone loses consciousness—you know, when they’re totally out of it and unresponsive—it really changes the whole vibe of a situation. It’s one of those moments where everything goes from zero to sixty in an instant, and suddenly you're the one standing there trying to figure out what the hell is going on. It's less like a movie scene and more like this heavy, unsettling stillness that just hits you. It just doesn't exist, honestly. (It’s no longer about just being an observer—it’s become the actual content of consciousness itself.)

If you aren't actually conscious—meaning, if there’s no "you" there to experience anything—then how on earth can you be the very thing that consciousness is supposed to be looking at? It's a total paradox, isn't it? It's like trying to be the flashlight and the beam of light at the same time when there's no battery to power the whole thing.

I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at there—honestly, I think I missed your point—but if I'm being real, that statement just doesn't hold water. It feels pretty contradictory to me, almost like it's arguing against itself as you read it. 🤷

I don't think just because I exist—and honestly, there are plenty of moments when there isn't even a single thought to be found.

Are you actually trying to tell me that being aware of your own existence isn't the same thing as having a thought? It feels like we're splitting hairs here—sort of like trying to argue that knowing you're holding a cup of coffee is somehow different from the act of realizing you're thirsty. One is just the baseline state of being, right? It’s that fundamental "I am" feeling that sits underneath everything else.

The moment you become aware of your own existence, it’s pretty much a given that you start thinking—it’s almost like an automatic reflex, isn't it? Once that switch flips and you realize you're actually *here*, the gears just start turning. It’s less of a choice and more of a fundamental consequence of being conscious. 🤷

It’s funny when you really stop to think about it—you actually have this incredible level of control over your own headspace. If you really put in the work, you can consciously steer your mind toward any specific thought you want to cultivate. But even more interesting than that? You can actually train yourself to reach that quiet, still point where the mental chatter just... stops. It's like being able to toggle between a busy highway and total silence whenever you decide.

Can you actually get yourself to a point where your mind just... goes quiet? Like, a total blank slate?

Wait, how exactly does the anesthesia part work? Is it through an IV or something else?

Because there really isn’t any other way to go about it... unless you're claiming you've cracked some kind of code that the rest of us haven't figured out yet?

I just can't seem to find that sweet spot—you know, that perfect balance where my logic and my actual thoughts finally shake hands and agree on something. It’s like trying to bridge the gap between what I know is true and what I actually feel; no matter how much I try to align them, there’s always this stubborn little disconnect right in the middle.

But seriously, I asked you point-blank to walk me through it—to explain exactly where you end and where your thoughts actually begin. I’m looking for that specific line in the sand, you know? Describe that dividing point for me, and tell me how you actually go about distinguishing your true self from just the stream of consciousness running through your head.

Look, just because you can't draw a straight line between two things doesn't mean that equality isn't actually there—it might just be that you're holding onto some personal conviction that makes you hesitant to call them "equal." It’s like looking at two different paths that both lead to the exact same destination; they might look different to you, but the result is identical. The only way we can really clear this up, though, is if you walk us through your logic and show us exactly where you think that distinction lies.

Look, if you can't actually pin down the difference and explain it... then there probably isn't one.

Thoughts come and go, but I am always here—whether I’m aware of it or not.

How can you claim to be "there" if you aren't even conscious of it? That logic just doesn't hold water!

Thoughts, emotions, the body, and energy are all just contents of consciousness—the medium through which consciousness manifests itself.

Once again, we're dealing with an empty, overly simplistic phrase... because everything you've ever seen, heard, experienced, thought, desired, believed, feared, or felt... all of that manifested exclusively through your consciousness.

Consciousness is essentially a "process" that grants you insight (perception) into yourself and the world around you. All your realizations happen via this process, but that doesn't mean those insights, feelings, or thoughts are necessarily the "contents" of consciousness itself!

Think about it like this: someone who isn't paying much attention might watch a show on an Apple TV and assume the show is the "content" inside the device... but we know that’s not how it works. The device just plays the program, while the program itself arrives at the device via an electronic signal sent from a studio or a satellite.

It’s the same deal with consciousness... it reproduces your "reality" for you by interpreting a "signal" that exists outside of you and independently of you. Calling that interpretation "content" shows a profound lack of understanding regarding the true nature of your own awareness.

But hey, at least now I see why you think "you" aren't the same thing as your thoughts... honestly, you've got a completely skewed concept of your own self-awareness. You're staring at the "television" and believing the "broadcast" is the internal content of the "TV set," effectively reducing yourself to just a viewer sitting in front of a screen... a passive observer playing a secondary role in your own life.

What a shame.

A thought never occurs without a "thinker," yet I exist even when there are no thoughts.

Do you actually have a physical organ that you call the "I," or is this "I" just an abstract mental construct created by your mind?

If it’s a mental abstraction—which, let's be real, it definitely is—then the "I" is also just a thought... a cognitive construct or a conceptual framework. Therefore... when there are no thoughts, there is no "you." Claiming that the "I" exists without thought is probably one of the biggest nonsense statements out there. ☕

If you ask me, there’s really only one logical way to wrap this whole thing up: I am my own mind.

Sure thing... though "reason" feels like a bit of a clunky way to put it... I’d probably lean toward saying "mind" instead... but hey, you know what I mean!

Since everything we actually perceive exists within our own minds as an interpretation of some sort of "external signal"—and considering the "self" is really just another part of that very same interpretation—there isn't actually any real distinction between the "observer" and the "observed." That whole construct we call the "I" is really just a linguistic shortcut to make communicating with others easier. But if you try to actually point a finger at that "self"... there’s honestly nothing there. 🙂

Edward Flores4 said:There is something honestly hilarious about seeing a spiritual leader fall into the trap of reductionism—it’s one of those quirks that really cracks me up if you look closely enough. It’s like watching someone try to explain the entire complexity of the American landscape by only looking at a single street sign in Des Moines; they think they’ve captured the essence of everything, but they’ve actually just missed the forest for the trees. You see these thinkers attempt to boil down the vast, messy, beautiful depth of the human experience into one neat little formula or a single dogma, and it just feels so incredibly small. It’s a bit of a comedy of errors when someone claims to hold the keys to the universe, yet can't grasp the sheer scale of what they're trying to simplify.

Look, I get what you're saying—you feel like if we strip away even one of those specific segments, the whole "process" of observation just falls apart. But here’s where I think we’re hitting a wall: you’re refusing to see that this very "process"—this constant, flowing stream of observation itself—is exactly what you’re calling the "I." It’s not something separate from the action; the action is the identity.

Without that specific process running, you’d basically be looking at a clinical coma—or maybe even a vegetative state. It’s pretty heavy when you think about it. But when everything is firing on all cylinders, when you’re wide awake and fully conscious, that "process" is essentially the bedrock of your entire identity. It’s what makes you, *you*.

You know, sometimes those famous gurus actually have a point... It’s just that most people need more than a few lifetimes to finally wrap their heads around it.

Here’s the thing—it all comes down to this: the observer only truly exists when there is awareness. The second that consciousness slips away, the observer vanishes. You aren't "observing" anymore; you just become part of the content within the mind. And once that happens, the whole process itself simply ceases to be.

Whoops, my bad! 😲 You really stepped in it this time...

When someone loses consciousness—you know, when they’re totally out of it and unresponsive—it really changes the whole vibe of a situation. It’s one of those moments where everything goes from zero to sixty in an instant, and suddenly you're the one standing there trying to figure out what the hell is going on. It's less like a movie scene and more like this heavy, unsettling stillness that just hits you. It just doesn't exist, honestly. (It’s no longer about just being an observer—it’s become the actual content of consciousness itself.)

If you aren't actually conscious—meaning, if there’s no "you" there to experience anything—then how on earth can you be the very thing that consciousness is supposed to be looking at? It's a total paradox, isn't it? It's like trying to be the flashlight and the beam of light at the same time when there's no battery to power the whole thing.

I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at there—honestly, I think I missed your point—but if I'm being real, that statement just doesn't hold water. It feels pretty contradictory to me, almost like it's arguing against itself as you read it. 🤷

I don't think just because I exist—and honestly, there are plenty of moments when there isn't even a single thought to be found.

Are you actually trying to tell me that being aware of your own existence isn't the same thing as having a thought? It feels like we're splitting hairs here—sort of like trying to argue that knowing you're holding a cup of coffee is somehow different from the act of realizing you're thirsty. One is just the baseline state of being, right? It’s that fundamental "I am" feeling that sits underneath everything else.

The moment you become aware of your own existence, it’s pretty much a given that you start thinking—it’s almost like an automatic reflex, isn't it? Once that switch flips and you realize you're actually *here*, the gears just start turning. It’s less of a choice and more of a fundamental consequence of being conscious. 🤷

It’s funny when you really stop to think about it—you actually have this incredible level of control over your own headspace. If you really put in the work, you can consciously steer your mind toward any specific thought you want to cultivate. But even more interesting than that? You can actually train yourself to reach that quiet, still point where the mental chatter just... stops. It's like being able to toggle between a busy highway and total silence whenever you decide.

Can you actually get yourself to a point where your mind just... goes quiet? Like, a total blank slate?

Wait, how exactly does the anesthesia part work? Is it through an IV or something else?

Because there really isn’t any other way to go about it... unless you're claiming you've cracked some kind of code that the rest of us haven't figured out yet?

I just can't seem to find that sweet spot—you know, that perfect balance where my logic and my actual thoughts finally shake hands and agree on something. It’s like trying to bridge the gap between what I know is true and what I actually feel; no matter how much I try to align them, there’s always this stubborn little disconnect right in the middle.

But seriously, I asked you point-blank to walk me through it—to explain exactly where you end and where your thoughts actually begin. I’m looking for that specific line in the sand, you know? Describe that dividing point for me, and tell me how you actually go about distinguishing your true self from just the stream of consciousness running through your head.

Look, just because you can't draw a straight line between two things doesn't mean that equality isn't actually there—it might just be that you're holding onto some personal conviction that makes you hesitant to call them "equal." It’s like looking at two different paths that both lead to the exact same destination; they might look different to you, but the result is identical. The only way we can really clear this up, though, is if you walk us through your logic and show us exactly where you think that distinction lies.

Look, if you can't actually pin down the difference and explain it... then there probably isn't one.

Thoughts come and go, but I am always here—whether I’m aware of it or not.

How can you claim to be "there" if you aren't even conscious of it? That logic just doesn't hold water!

Thoughts, emotions, the body, and energy are all just contents of consciousness—the medium through which consciousness manifests itself.

Once again, we're dealing with an empty, overly simplistic phrase... because everything you've ever seen, heard, experienced, thought, desired, believed, feared, or felt... all of that manifested exclusively through your consciousness.

Consciousness is essentially a "process" that grants you insight (perception) into yourself and the world around you. All your realizations happen via this process, but that doesn't mean those insights, feelings, or thoughts are necessarily the "contents" of consciousness itself!

Think about it like this: someone who isn't paying much attention might watch a show on an Apple TV and assume the show is the "content" inside the device... but we know that’s not how it works. The device just plays the program, while the program itself arrives at the device via an electronic signal sent from a studio or a satellite.

It’s the same deal with consciousness... it reproduces your "reality" for you by interpreting a "signal" that exists outside of you and independently of you. Calling that interpretation "content" shows a profound lack of understanding regarding the true nature of your own awareness.

But hey, at least now I see why you think "you" aren't the same thing as your thoughts... honestly, you've got a completely skewed concept of your own self-awareness. You're staring at the "television" and believing the "broadcast" is the internal content of the "TV set," effectively reducing yourself to just a viewer sitting in front of a screen... a passive observer playing a secondary role in your own life.

What a shame.

A thought never occurs without a "thinker," yet I exist even when there are no thoughts.

Do you actually have a physical organ that you call the "I," or is this "I" just an abstract mental construct created by your mind?

If it’s a mental abstraction—which, let's be real, it definitely is—then the "I" is also just a thought... a cognitive construct or a conceptual framework. Therefore... when there are no thoughts, there is no "you." Claiming that the "I" exists without thought is probably one of the biggest nonsense statements out there. ☕

Look, I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding here, so let me try this one more time:
So, I was thinking about this: if I (the observer) am watching (the action) a tree (the object), then you basically have what you'd call a "process of observation." It’s kind of simple, I guess, but when you break it down like that, it really sets the stage for how everything else works. Maybe it's just me, but there's something interesting about seeing the interaction between the person and the thing itself.
So, it's pretty clear to me that I’m not some "process of observation," nor am I some dream of a tree, or even an action itself. I don't know what part of that isn't clicking for you.
To make things a bit clearer, let's look at another example:
I’m the splitter, I’m splitting the wood... which equals the process of splitting. But here's the thing: I am not the process itself, I'm not the wood, and I'm not the act of splitting. It's just how it works, I guess.
I (the thinker) think (the action) about something (the object) = the process of thinking. Does that mean I also have to define who I am and what I actually am in this equation?
I’m not the process itself, though I guess you couldn't really have the whole thing running without me.

When someone’s out cold. It just doesn't exist, honestly. (It’s not just about being an observer anymore. It’s become the actual content of consciousness itself.)

If you aren't actually conscious—like, if there’s no awareness there at all—then how on earth can you be the very thing that consciousness is supposed to be perceiving? It doesn't really add up, does it?

I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at there, but honestly? That statement just doesn't track. It feels pretty contradictory to me, if I'm being real. 🤷

Look, I see you’re still missing my point, so let me try to break this down a bit more clearly for you:
If you’re actually paying attention—like, really observing—you start to notice everything. It’s wild. You look at a tree and you aren't just seeing a plant; you're actually aware of the tree itself. You become conscious of the rhythm of your own breathing, the steady beat of your heart, your own sense of self, the ambient noise around you, even the flow of your thoughts and feelings. It's just... everything that's happening in the moment. All of it.
It’s kind of wild, isn't it? Like, you’re just standing there, staring at a tree or something, totally lost in the moment. Then, out of nowhere, this random thought hits you—you realize you left your house keys on the kitchen counter—and you have to turn around and head back inside. In that split second, you aren't really an observer anymore. You lose that sense of being aware of your own thoughts, or even your own existence. You basically become a movie playing on loop, completely detached from yourself in that moment. And honestly? You aren't even looking at the tree anymore. Life is full of these little lapses like that. I guess when those moments happen, you could say you aren't truly "awake" or mindful. You stop being the observer. It doesn't mean you've passed out or lost consciousness, obviously, but you've definitely lost that grip on your own awareness for a bit.
If this feels foreign to you and you just can't wrap your head around it, I guess you probably just need a bit more practice. Maybe you just need to spend some more time working on understanding how it all fits together before it clicks.

So, are you actually trying to tell me that being aware that you exist isn't... thinking? I mean, I guess that’s one way to look at it, maybe. But it feels like we're splitting hairs here.

As soon as you realize you actually exist, it’s pretty obvious that you start thinking. 🤷

That's exactly it. Awareness, or being truly present, isn't just some intellectual concept you can wrap your head around. It’s not a thought. I guess you really have to live it to actually get it. You have to experience it firsthand.

Can you actually get yourself into a state where your mind just... shuts off? Like, total mental silence? I guess I wonder if it's even possible to hit that zero point.

How... through anesthesia?

Because there’s really no other way... or are you claiming you can pull off something most people just can't?

Plenty of people are capable of it. If you can't do it, well, that's on you. Maybe just practice a bit and you might get there, but don't go around saying it's impossible just because you haven't figured it out yet.

But I asked you nicely to explain exactly where you end and where your thoughts begin. Describe that dividing line for me—how you actually differentiate yourself from your own thoughts.

Just because you can't put an equals sign between them doesn't mean they aren't equal... maybe you just have some conviction that prevents you from seeing the connection. The only way we can settle this is if you explain exactly where you see that distinction!

And if you can't pinpoint or describe the difference... then it probably isn't there.

I already told you clearly, but you just don't seem to get it. I exist in states where there isn't a single thought, feeling, or image in sight, and I perceive that state through my consciousness via my senses. I can't put an equals sign between myself and my thoughts because I know they aren't the same thing. It's the same deal with my emotions in any given moment, and the same goes for my body.
The distinction is actually pretty simple: I perceive my thoughts, my feelings, and my body, much like I see a tree, a TV, a seagull, or even you, and I know I am none of those things.
Why? (I'll give you a slightly more detailed explanation since you seem to need it)
Because if I kill a seagull, chop down a tree, start a fire, and eat it, the seagull and the tree are gone, but I'm still here.

Consciousness is a 'process' that provides you with insight (perception) of yourself and your surroundings. All your realizations happen through that process, but that doesn't mean those realizations, feelings, or thoughts are necessarily the 'content' of consciousness itself!

Even someone who isn't particularly bright could look at a TV program and think the show is the 'content' of the TV set... but we know that's not how it works. The TV set just reproduces the program; the program reaches the TV via an electronic signal from a studio or a satellite.

It's the same with consciousness... for you, it reproduces your 'reality' by interpreting a 'signal' that exists outside of you and independently of you. To call that interpretation the 'content' is to be deeply unaware of the very nature of your own awareness.

But now I finally see why you think 'you' aren't the same as your thoughts... honestly, you've got a completely flawed conceptualization of your own self-awareness. You're staring at the 'television' and believing the 'show' is actually what's inside the 'TV set,' reducing yourself to just a viewer sitting in front of a screen... a passive observer playing a secondary role in your own life.

What a shame.

Wrong again. You're trying to project your own version of me onto me, but your perspective is way too narrow for that to work.
I think I've made my point, so there's no real need to keep repeating myself.
Actually, you've identified with your own thoughts so much that you think you cease to exist whenever your thoughts stop. You've accepted that as the ultimate truth (your own little religion), and you think you're somehow better or wiser than people who go to church or believe in urban legends and boogeymen.

Do you have some physical organ that you call the 'I,' or is this 'I' actually just an abstract mental construct created by your mind?

If we’re talking about how your mind works—and let's be honest, that's exactly what this is—then the "self" is just another thought. It's basically a mental construct or some cognitive concept you've built up. So... if there's no thought, there's no you. Claiming the "self" exists independently of thought is probably one of the biggest loads of nonsense out there. ☕

What's actually nonsensical is trying to lecture people about something you can't even wrap your head around, acting like an expert on an experience you haven't actually had.
Since you're so convinced you *are* your thoughts, does that mean you're thinking 24/7? Like, do you think while you're sleeping, or do you just cease to exist the moment you hit deep sleep?
I bet there are plenty of moments during the day where your mind just goes quiet. Tell me, do you stop existing then?
And just for fun, when you're having sex or hitting an orgasm, what's going through your head? Are you "there" in those moments, or are you gone?
Also, I'm curious—what were you thinking about during those nine months in your mother's womb before you were born? Did you exist back then, or were you nothing?
Maybe you'll finally wake up once you try answering those.😲

Edward Flores4 said:Sure thing... though "reason" feels like a bit of a clunky way to put it... I’d probably lean toward saying "mind" instead... but hey, you know what I mean!

Since everything we actually perceive exists within our own minds as an interpretation of some sort of "external signal"—and considering the "self" is really just another part of that very same interpretation—there isn't actually any real distinction between the "observer" and the "observed." That whole construct we call the "I" is really just a linguistic shortcut to make communicating with others easier. But if you try to actually point a finger at that "self"... there’s honestly nothing there. 🙂

Pokusavajuci to catch smoke as it slips through your fingers only creates a lifetime of frustration—what some people label as suffering.🙂 To "offset" an OCD tendency characterized by constantly grasping for something non-existent, leverage neuroplasticity. Repeat... and repeat... condition yourself... and repeat the mantra. You aren't lying to yourself; you aren't those thoughts, because that concept simply falls into other frameworks where you find solace in your own impermanence.

Edward Flores4 said:Sure thing... though "reason" feels like a bit of a clunky way to put it... I’d probably lean toward saying "mind" instead... but hey, you know what I mean!

Since everything we actually perceive exists within our own minds as an interpretation of some sort of "external signal"—and considering the "self" is really just another part of that very same interpretation—there isn't actually any real distinction between the "observer" and the "observed." That whole construct we call the "I" is really just a linguistic shortcut to make communicating with others easier. But if you try to actually point a finger at that "self"... there’s honestly nothing there. 🙂

I'm in the same boat. But my thoughts don't end there, so I find myself needing a bit of guidance here.

You see, you have this knack for drawing lines between how words are actually used versus their more colloquial, often misused, definitions. I'm struggling to grasp these nuances in English... the distinctions between mind, reason, and sense...?

"all in my mind"... "I don't mind"... "to lose one's mind"...

And then there's "reason"... does that just mean logic?

(The distinctions feel quite slippery to me)

casualmaker13 said:Look, I think there's been a bit of a misunderstanding here, so let me try this one more time:
So, I was thinking about this: if I (the observer) am watching (the action) a tree (the object), then you basically have what you'd call a "process of observation." It’s kind of simple, I guess, but when you break it down like that, it really sets the stage for how everything else works. Maybe it's just me, but there's something interesting about seeing the interaction between the person and the thing itself.
So, it's pretty clear to me that I’m not some "process of observation," nor am I some dream of a tree, or even an action itself. I don't know what part of that isn't clicking for you.
To make things a bit clearer, let's look at another example:
I’m the splitter, I’m splitting the wood... which equals the process of splitting. But here's the thing: I am not the process itself, I'm not the wood, and I'm not the act of splitting. It's just how it works, I guess.
I (the thinker) think (the action) about something (the object) = the process of thinking. Does that mean I also have to define who I am and what I actually am in this equation?
I’m not the process itself, though I guess you couldn't really have the whole thing running without me.

When someone’s out cold. It just doesn't exist, honestly. (It’s not just about being an observer anymore. It’s become the actual content of consciousness itself.)

If you aren't actually conscious—like, if there’s no awareness there at all—then how on earth can you be the very thing that consciousness is supposed to be perceiving? It doesn't really add up, does it?

I’m not entirely sure what you were getting at there, but honestly? That statement just doesn't track. It feels pretty contradictory to me, if I'm being real. 🤷

Look, I see you’re still missing my point, so let me try to break this down a bit more clearly for you:
If you’re actually paying attention—like, really observing—you start to notice everything. It’s wild. You look at a tree and you aren't just seeing a plant; you're actually aware of the tree itself. You become conscious of the rhythm of your own breathing, the steady beat of your heart, your own sense of self, the ambient noise around you, even the flow of your thoughts and feelings. It's just... everything that's happening in the moment. All of it.
It’s kind of wild, isn't it? Like, you’re just standing there, staring at a tree or something, totally lost in the moment. Then, out of nowhere, this random thought hits you—you realize you left your house keys on the kitchen counter—and you have to turn around and head back inside. In that split second, you aren't really an observer anymore. You lose that sense of being aware of your own thoughts, or even your own existence. You basically become a movie playing on loop, completely detached from yourself in that moment. And honestly? You aren't even looking at the tree anymore. Life is full of these little lapses like that. I guess when those moments happen, you could say you aren't truly "awake" or mindful. You stop being the observer. It doesn't mean you've passed out or lost consciousness, obviously, but you've definitely lost that grip on your own awareness for a bit.
If this feels foreign to you and you just can't wrap your head around it, I guess you probably just need a bit more practice. Maybe you just need to spend some more time working on understanding how it all fits together before it clicks.

So, are you actually trying to tell me that being aware that you exist isn't... thinking? I mean, I guess that’s one way to look at it, maybe. But it feels like we're splitting hairs here.

As soon as you realize you actually exist, it’s pretty obvious that you start thinking. 🤷

That's exactly it. Awareness, or being truly present, isn't just some intellectual concept you can wrap your head around. It’s not a thought. I guess you really have to live it to actually get it. You have to experience it firsthand.

Can you actually get yourself into a state where your mind just... shuts off? Like, total mental silence? I guess I wonder if it's even possible to hit that zero point.

How... through anesthesia?

Because there’s really no other way... or are you claiming you can pull off something most people just can't?

Plenty of people are capable of it. If you can't do it, well, that's on you. Maybe just practice a bit and you might get there, but don't go around saying it's impossible just because you haven't figured it out yet.

But I asked you nicely to explain exactly where you end and where your thoughts begin. Describe that dividing line for me—how you actually differentiate yourself from your own thoughts.

Just because you can't put an equals sign between them doesn't mean they aren't equal... maybe you just have some conviction that prevents you from seeing the connection. The only way we can settle this is if you explain exactly where you see that distinction!

And if you can't pinpoint or describe the difference... then it probably isn't there.

I already told you clearly, but you just don't seem to get it. I exist in states where there isn't a single thought, feeling, or image in sight, and I perceive that state through my consciousness via my senses. I can't put an equals sign between myself and my thoughts because I know they aren't the same thing. It's the same deal with my emotions in any given moment, and the same goes for my body.
The distinction is actually pretty simple: I perceive my thoughts, my feelings, and my body, much like I see a tree, a TV, a seagull, or even you, and I know I am none of those things.
Why? (I'll give you a slightly more detailed explanation since you seem to need it)
Because if I kill a seagull, chop down a tree, start a fire, and eat it, the seagull and the tree are gone, but I'm still here.

Consciousness is a 'process' that provides you with insight (perception) of yourself and your surroundings. All your realizations happen through that process, but that doesn't mean those realizations, feelings, or thoughts are necessarily the 'content' of consciousness itself!

Even someone who isn't particularly bright could look at a TV program and think the show is the 'content' of the TV set... but we know that's not how it works. The TV set just reproduces the program; the program reaches the TV via an electronic signal from a studio or a satellite.

It's the same with consciousness... for you, it reproduces your 'reality' by interpreting a 'signal' that exists outside of you and independently of you. To call that interpretation the 'content' is to be deeply unaware of the very nature of your own awareness.

But now I finally see why you think 'you' aren't the same as your thoughts... honestly, you've got a completely flawed conceptualization of your own self-awareness. You're staring at the 'television' and believing the 'show' is actually what's inside the 'TV set,' reducing yourself to just a viewer sitting in front of a screen... a passive observer playing a secondary role in your own life.

What a shame.

Wrong again. You're trying to project your own version of me onto me, but your perspective is way too narrow for that to work.
I think I've made my point, so there's no real need to keep repeating myself.
Actually, you've identified with your own thoughts so much that you think you cease to exist whenever your thoughts stop. You've accepted that as the ultimate truth (your own little religion), and you think you're somehow better or wiser than people who go to church or believe in urban legends and boogeymen.

Do you have some physical organ that you call the 'I,' or is this 'I' actually just an abstract mental construct created by your mind?

If we’re talking about how your mind works—and let's be honest, that's exactly what this is—then the "self" is just another thought. It's basically a mental construct or some cognitive concept you've built up. So... if there's no thought, there's no you. Claiming the "self" exists independently of thought is probably one of the biggest loads of nonsense out there. ☕

What's actually nonsensical is trying to lecture people about something you can't even wrap your head around, acting like an expert on an experience you haven't actually had.
Since you're so convinced you *are* your thoughts, does that mean you're thinking 24/7? Like, do you think while you're sleeping, or do you just cease to exist the moment you hit deep sleep?
I bet there are plenty of moments during the day where your mind just goes quiet. Tell me, do you stop existing then?
And just for fun, when you're having sex or hitting an orgasm, what's going through your head? Are you "there" in those moments, or are you gone?
Also, I'm curious—what were you thinking about during those nine months in your mother's womb before you were born? Did you exist back then, or were you nothing?
Maybe you'll finally wake up once you try answering those.😲

So, you’ll admit to being the 'observer,' yet you deny being the 'process of observation,' even though you're fully aware that the whole process is happening INSIDE YOU!?

That is fascinating, truly!

Let me give you another example to make it clearer:
Me (the woodcutter) chopping (the action) wood (the object) = the process of chopping, wherein I am certainly not the process itself, nor the wood, nor the act of chopping.
Me (the thinker) thinking (the action) a thought (the object) = the process of thinking. Do I need to define who and what I am in that scenario too?

Using a physical action as an analogy for cognitive processes is pretty much spot-on, mostly because cognitive processes happen entirely WITHOUT your willpower. If I walk into a room holding an umbrella, you CANNOT help but identify the object in my hand as an umbrella!

In that moment of identification, you aren't performing some grand task... the process is spontaneous and unavoidable... you can't see the object without instinctively knowing what it is.

Clearly, that identification is a spontaneous RESULT of perception that manifests in your consciousness as a thought (an umbrella). Calling that a conscious "action" would be just like claiming that a gland secreting hormones is a "deliberate action."

So, you can keep ignoring the obvious if you want, or you can live under the delusion that you can willfully exist in a state of "no thoughts"—but that's just plain nonsense. No matter how hard you try, you can't help but "label" the objects (concepts) you perceive, which is something even modern fMRI scans have scientifically proven.

Sure, you can choose to think... in the same way you can choose to control your breathing... but the second you stop consciously managing your breath, it just keeps going on its own.

I am not the process, even if that process can't exist without me.

Repetition is the mother of self-hypnosis. ☕

It seems like you're still not grasping what I meant, so let me clarify:
If you are the waking observer, then you are aware of everything that is happening...

That’s actually what we call the 'reactive mind'... a mental state where cognitive processes, due to a lack of intentional reasoning, are reduced to spontaneous reactions (like automatically naming things you recognize).

You could call it 'conscious unconsciousness' or 'sleeping observation,' but that doesn't change the fact that both states (reactive and deliberative thinking) are equally 'conscious'—the difference lies solely in self-control, or rather, the total absence of it.

If this feels foreign to you and you can't wrap your head around it, you probably just need a bit more practice and some deeper understanding to get there.

Or maybe you're just leaning on that standard, trendy "spiritual vibe"—believing that if you repeat enough "spiritually acceptable stereotypes," you can somehow borrow the credibility those tropes usually hold among the latest crop of "lifestyle gurus." ☕

Exactly—awareness or mindfulness isn't a thought. To truly know that, you have to experience it.

Water isn't H2O... you have to experience it to know!

See what happened there? You can plug absolutely anything into that kind of cognitive claim, allowing you to assert whatever convenient nonsense fits your mood at the moment. Unfortunately for you, statements like that only serve to reinforce the very valid suspicion that you're just recycling well-worn, widely accepted, and utterly hollow phrases used by every "New Age influencer" and spiritual charlatan out there.

Plenty of people are capable of doing it; if you aren't, that's on you. Just practice and maybe you'll get there—just don't go around claiming it's impossible just because you personally haven't mastered it.

Plenty of people are capable of dematerializing themselves and then rematerializing somewhere else—say, traveling from New York to Los Angeles in about 14 milliseconds. If you can't pull that off, well... that's your problem. Keep practicing and maybe you'll succeed, but don't claim it's impossible just because you lack the ability.

As usual, we’ve got another empty cognitive assertion that carries zero actual argumentative weight.

This whole discussion is just degrading from post to post. Your stance has shifted from offering unsolicited advice—basically just being condescending—to attempting to argue with logically contradictory statements, and finally settling into making totally baseless, cognitive claims about your supposed "abilities."

Judging by how this conversation is going, I expect your next few replies will devolve into playground logic, something along the lines of "my dad is stronger than your dad." ☕

I told you clearly and you just won't get it: I exist in a state where there isn't a single thought, feeling, or image, and I perceive this through my consciousness via my senses.

So, you're claiming that perceiving oneself isn't a mental process, even though the "self" that you're perceiving in "that state" is still a verbal (and therefore mental) concept?

You experience "yourself," yet you deny that the experience of the "self" is a mental-linguistic process?

If the answer to that is yes, then you clearly have some serious conceptual issues stemming from a total lack of awareness regarding your own cognitive processes, basic logic, and common sense. 🤷

Since the rest of your post is basically just a repetitive denial and an appeal to that same inadequate physical analogy... I don't see much point in repeating myself.

If you actually decide to step up, promote your own cognition, and give some honest answers—without leaning on those tired "spiritual" clichés or empty psychological claims—then maybe we can actually have a conversation. But honestly? I’ve got zero interest in your spiritual propaganda or this self-delusion you're running with.

Go ahead and enjoy your little "ego" over there, in that void where there isn't even a single coherent thought to be found. 😉

jademarlin26 said:Pokusavajuci to catch smoke as it slips through your fingers only creates a lifetime of frustration—what some people label as suffering.🙂 To "offset" an OCD tendency characterized by constantly grasping for something non-existent, leverage neuroplasticity. Repeat... and repeat... condition yourself... and repeat the mantra. You aren't lying to yourself; you aren't those thoughts, because that concept simply falls into other frameworks where you find solace in your own impermanence.

So, what you're saying is... they’re actually using their own cognitive abilities to build these dysfunctional analogies? Like, they use their intellect to sabotage their own intelligence by creating arbitrary illusions—all so they can dodge reality while convincing themselves they’re doing "inner work" or following a path toward "enlightenment"?

Yeah... honestly, that's exactly how it looks to me. It reminds me of something Bertrand Russell once pointed out:

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do.

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

coastalskipper92 said:I'm in the same boat. But my thoughts don't end there, so I find myself needing a bit of guidance here.

You see, you have this knack for drawing lines between how words are actually used versus their more colloquial, often misused, definitions. I'm struggling to grasp these nuances in English... the distinctions between mind, reason, and sense...?

"all in my mind"... "I don't mind"... "to lose one's mind"...

And then there's "reason"... does that just mean logic?

(The distinctions feel quite slippery to me)

The word 'mind' is one of those tricky ones where the meaning shifts wildly depending on the context... for example:

- keep in mind that you have to...! (just remember to... or don't forget to...)
- would you mind me taking your...? (would it bother you if I took...?)
- to my mind this is more than...! (the way I see it, it's more than...)
- uniqueness of the human mind (the singularity of the human intellect)

It’s pretty obvious that 'mind' doesn't have a single, direct American equivalent that covers everything, so the translation changes constantly based on the situation. I think it’s because 'mind' tends to describe a mental "process," whereas our usual way of talking about the "intellect" feels more like we're describing a specific capacity—almost like a physical organ. Even though animals clearly have cognitive abilities, since they don't have a complex syntactic language, we almost never say they have a "mind" in the way we do.

So, basically, 'mind' acts as an unspecified cognitive reflection of some kind of direction or character (think: would you mind, keep in mind, to my mind); it’s essentially just pointing to cognitive capacity in general.

Now, 'reason' is a relatively simpler concept compared to 'mind,' though it still dances around different meanings depending on how you use it:

- the reason for... (the cause behind...)
- it stands to reason ... (it seems logical...)

In short, 'reason' works both as a declarative argument (an explanation) and as the intellectual ability to link causes to effects. That second part is the bedrock of "rationality"—and if you look at the root of rationality, it comes from *ratio*, which implies proportion. So, when we look at possible cause-and-effect explanations, we pick the one that is proportional to the evidence, the facts, and what we actually observe.

To put it another way: if someone claims they can "not think" at all, but they can't explain that through any cause-and-effect mechanism, there's no real evidence for it. Since you can't actually observe this supposed phenomenon happening, that person meets all the criteria for being labeled unreasonable or irrational.

Then there's 'sense.' It can function as a marker for perceptual capacity (like, "my senses tell me"), or as "meaning" (as in "that makes sense"), or even as an "interpretation" (in a sense of...). This is somewhat compatible with 'reason,' except that 'reason' carries a much heavier weight; anyone with a rational brain should be able to see the same cause-and-effect links or logical arguments. On the other hand, the "sense" or interpretation of a poem—or even just the sensory experience of eating chocolate ice cream—can be totally subjective. Meaning and interpretation fluctuate because of the metaphorical nature of how we extrapolate "sense," and sensory experiences vary based on whatever personal preferences a person has.

Damn it... this turned out to be a lot more complicated than I thought it was at first glance... I really had this impression that the question was simple and the answer would be pretty self-explanatory. 😁

Edward Flores4 said:

casualmaker13 said:Nothing exists in a vacuum if you look at it as a process. You’ve got the observer, the observed, and the interaction happening between them. Pull one piece out, and the whole process vanishes. That doesn't mean the observer, the object, and the interaction are all the exact same thing, though.

Basically, you realize that stripping away any part of that loop kills the "process" itself, yet you refuse to see that this very process is what defines your "self."

Without that continuous loop, you'd be in a clinical coma or a vegetative state. When everything is functioning perfectly—when you're awake and conscious—that specific process is the bedrock of your identity.

If the "I" is just the process of observing, then who exactly is the observer?
It seems more logical to me that the "I" is the observer, the process, and occasionally the object being watched, all rolled into one.