do you own your thoughts?

the body has biological directives that cannot be overlooked. for example, you cannot hold your breath until you suffocate or stop blinking. how many kids have tried? however if a person wanted to take his/her own life, no matter how much the body's directive is saying survival, a person can circumvent this directive and jump off a building or blow their brains out. there is thought behind all of these actions. "i really want to keep my eyes open, but something keeps making them blink." they are your thoughts, yes because they are in your head/body, but do you own them?


human's have a labeling process, as Howetzer wrote, but there's also a counting process that comes before that. we percieve first by "counting" or finding the relation of something to another. any description (label) will begin and end in a sequence. "this or that?", putting "this" first and then perceiving "that" in relation to it. we percieve everything in relation to ourselves first, even ourselves. thats something that mostly everyone does, with maybe the exception of sufferers of brain damage. this came about as part of our evolutionary process (though thats just a theory, but arent they all just theories?). i guess what im questioning here is the "soul" as a what? an occupier of the physical body, or an intergral part of it that deteriorates as the body does, or what? is it the one that chooses to ignore hunger, while the body calls the shots for breathing and such?


i see that you can identify yourself as "you" ("I"), but isnt that just in relation to everything else? therefore making it a product of evolution (agian i say theory), making the "soul" a biological or physiological phenomenon that just isnt looked at that way.


i just want to make it clear that none of the questions above are rhertorical.

My thoughts ®

I ran a patent search. Come to find out no one else owns my thoughts :wink:

sellin' any? :mrgreen:

We can manipulate and handle thoughts, obviously...But created by us, I don't know.

You would need thoughts to create more thoughts, how could we have started?? They are merely results of every relationship and interaction we make since the day we were born.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by shel+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(shel)</div>

Quote:

---

sellin' any? :mrgreen:[/b]

---

Hahaa :D Sure. But for what it's worth, it is not worth the money. $1/2 cent will buy all three of them!

<!--QuoteBegin-AirRick101
We can manipulate and handle thoughts, obviously...But created by us, I don't know.

You would need thoughts to create more thoughts, how could we have started?? They are merely results of every relationship and interaction we make since the day we were born.

---

Very well put!

So the thought process is there. But every thought is derived from somone elses thoughts. But once you percieve those thoughts you put your own label on them and make them your own. Even if the percentage of the thought is one of somebody else.
We are all differant. We may be heavilly influenced by the initial thought patterns given to us when we are susepatable and young but we are all our own idenities.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius

---

Quote:

---

I don't know how the soul is manifest physically, when I refer to the soul I refer only to its subjective aspects, not its physical ones. It is impossible to know, or to even gain insight into the objective nature of the soul as it is only manifest to us as logical necessity, we percieve and so there must be something percieving. That something is the 'I', and it does not necessarily think.

---

If 'I', does not think what does?
The enitity of ones self has a lableing process. And as it percieves, it labels. That's what gives birth to 'you'. It could be an obscure view of reality or it could be any number of things but I have trouble with the conclusion that the egoic eninity does not process information.[/b]

---

You are assuming what you're trying to prove in that whole post, not in the question itself. I'm saying that the labeling process(an aspect of thought) is not necessarily a function of the "I". I will conceed that when "I" percieve something "I" then percieve it's labeling. The problem is that most people see thought as an internal process, and go no farther than their own body when referring to themselves, this thread is reexamining that seemingly natural opinion. Instead, I suggest that you look at thought as something external, like images or sounds. You will then easily see where I am coming from. I am not suggesting that thought is outside of the body, or even that the "I" is outside of the body, just that the fundamental essence of the conscious being is in perception, not thought.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
You are assuming what you're trying to prove in that whole post, not in the question itself. I'm saying that the labeling process(an aspect of thought) is not necessarily a function of the \"I\". I will conceed that when \"I\" percieve something \"I\" then percieve it's labeling. The problem is that most people see thought as an internal process, and go no farther than their own body when referring to themselves, this thread is reexamining that seemingly natural opinion. Instead, I suggest that you look at thought as something external, like images or sounds. You will then easily see where I am coming from. I am not suggesting that thought is outside of the body, or even that the \"I\" is outside of the body, just that the fundamental essence of the conscious being is in perception, not thought.

---

"I am not suggesting that thought is outside of the body, or even that the "I" is outside of the body, just that the fundamental essence of the conscious being is in perception, not thought."

That does make more sense to me, percieved in the way you put that.
But I am not fully grasping it.
Although a perception would precurse a thought, the thought process , action or capability had to be there prior to any perception.
I am not trying to be difficult. Honest.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius

---

Quote:

---

You are assuming what you're trying to prove in that whole post, not in the question itself. I'm saying that the labeling process(an aspect of thought) is not necessarily a function of the \"I\". I will conceed that when \"I\" percieve something \"I\" then percieve it's labeling. The problem is that most people see thought as an internal process, and go no farther than their own body when referring to themselves, this thread is reexamining that seemingly natural opinion. Instead, I suggest that you look at thought as something external, like images or sounds. You will then easily see where I am coming from. I am not suggesting that thought is outside of the body, or even that the \"I\" is outside of the body, just that the fundamental essence of the conscious being is in perception, not thought.

---

\"I am not suggesting that thought is outside of the body, or even that the \"I\" is outside of the body, just that the fundamental essence of the conscious being is in perception, not thought.\"

That does make more sense to me, percieved in the way you put that.
But I am not fully grasping it.
Although a perception would precurse a thought, the thought process , action or capability had to be there prior to any perception.
I am not trying to be difficult. Honest.[/b]

---

First of all let's get the definitions down, as this may just be a definitional arguement.

Perceive:

1.To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.
2.To achieve understanding of; apprehend.

I am using the word as described by the 1st definition, just to make that clear.

Thought does not preceed perception(in most cases). Before you learn a language in which to think(and label) you percieve things. Perception does not necessitate thought, as we see many things without thinking of them. The next point I want to make is that thoughts themselves are percieved. These percieved thoughts are perhaps the ones we are aware of, but other thoughts that exist in the subconscious, thoughts that we are not aware of and yet are still thought. It becomes clear that thoughts are yet another thing to perceive, which is the fundamental action of our conscious selves. Thought is a process which we do not fully understand or control, and so it would be hard to define ourselves by it. Perhaps the reason we hold thought as our personal activity is because perceptions of thought are not correlated by any of the other senses, if we hear something, we can seek it out and see it, if we see something, we can walk over and touch it, but thought is different. Another question is if the will is an aspect of our fundamental identity or just another external process that we call our own, but that is for another thread.

So thought has many similarities to a conscious or a soul. It cannot be pinned down, but it is there. :?

Robert A. Monroe

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
Another question is if the will is an aspect of our fundamental identity or just another external process that we call our own, but that is for another thread.

---

Yes. Let me digest this one first. ;)