" I think therefore I am not "

Originally Posted by Molearner

Maybe it would help me understand if you could give an example of being able to experience no thought.

For example deep meditation, or maybe being in a flow state, deep sleep.
Or just in everyday life the gap between two thoughts.
Thought always claims in retrospect that every experience is just an experience when there is thought. We then attribute for example an image of "blackness" to deep sleep.
The mind is not there in deep sleep but of course there is consciousness.
That what the mind disappears into and comes out of.
Otherwise you wouldn't wake up if somehow threw a bucket of water in your face.
If there was no awareness.

Originally Posted by luntrusreality

For example deep meditation, or maybe being in a flow state, deep sleep.
Or just in everyday life the gap between two thoughts.
Thought always claims in retrospect that every experience is just an experience when there is thought. We then attribute for example an image of "blackness" to deep sleep.
The mind is not there in deep sleep but of course there is consciousness.
That what the mind disappears into and comes out of.
Otherwise you wouldn't wake up if somehow threw a bucket of water in your face.
If there was no awareness.

luntrusreality,

Thanks for your reply. I can understand your perspective. But if I remain in this discussion I can see that it will remain circular in nature. When you say that the mind disappears into consciousness and then subsequently comes out of consciousness......I would term that as slipping in and out of unconsciousness. Theoretically you are stating that one comes out of consciousness into consciousness. That is hard to wrap one's mind around. It would seem simpler to assert(and then try to demonstrate) that one is always in consciousness and never leaves it.

Once again........thanks for your reply....:)

Originally Posted by Molearner

that one is always in consciousness and never leaves it.

)

Maybe there was a misunderstanding because that is exactly what I was trying to say.
The mind comes and goes, but consciousness is ALWAYS there. A break in consciousness would inherently not even be there. Because it wouldn't be an experience.

[Moonglow]

Hello,

"To think therefore I am not"

This to me seems in reference to how I may identify myself or not.

In being, I exist and this seems to be whether I think about it or not.

Originally Posted by Molearner

I would suggest that 'consciousness' necessarily implies perception. This consciousness. Are you suggesting that this inner consciousness on a higher level is incapable of perception? And if so, what would be the purpose of an inner consciousness that could transmit nothing?

My understanding is that there are different layers of consciousness some which are independant of sensory imput, some layers for the outer world and some for inner life.

Originally Posted by Moonglow

Hello,

"To think therefore I am not"

This to me seems in reference to how I may identify myself or not.

In being, I exist and this seems to be whether I think about it or not.

It does depends on our own interpretation of the quote

[RyanWind]

Modern research has shown that thought appears in the brain before we are conscious of it. So stating "I think" is wrong. Thought is a product of the brain which is then presented to consciousness. Consciousness does not produce thought. But then we say things like, "I am thinking" "I am breathing" "I am looking" "I am going to the bathroom" I am running" all of which uses the concept that I am my body. I am doing what my body is doing. The body and me are one and the same.

We totally identify with our bodies as being us. When really, I think the reality is closer to we experience the body. We are the ghost in the machine. We are a point of conscious awareness that is fed all of this sensory and mental data and in this experience we are in a type of illusion where we believe all of this input is us.

It's pretty amazing that this is 2015 and scientists still have no idea what consciousness is exactly. If we really are this immortal conscious energy that connects to the body at birth, then obviously this connection is strong. We are so connected to the body that we begin to think we are the body. People do say under hypnosis, when remembering entering a human body, that there is this complex tracing of the brains synapses and structure and the conscious energy "merges" with the "self" produced by the brain. So during a incarnation, we basically become one with the body and brain. We are merged into one.

Anyone you could tell the phrase "I think therefore I am," to probably already knows you exist. They can see and hear you. Proclaiming "I think therefore I am" is unnecessary. They would know you were there even if you were not thinking.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Capacity

There is a relationship between the mind and being as I see it. The mind reflects being.

Ok because Descarte expressed dualism as the mind being independent from the body... He basically says the the mind and the brain are different substances. The brain is material which is spacial, but the mind and its thought is mental and non-spacial. They are both substances because one affects the other, but their fundamental physical as opposed to mental properties make the mind distinct from the body.

[Serrao]

Originally Posted by celest

" I think therefore I am not "

I disagree with this statement.

I would even add:
Even when my mind is free from thoughts, I still am.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by luntrusreality

Maybe there was a misunderstanding because that is exactly what I was trying to say.
The mind comes and goes, but consciousness is ALWAYS there. A break in consciousness would inherently not even be there. Because it wouldn't be an experience.

I have an inkling that you are referring to consciousness as 'that which experiences', and a break in experiences is akin to a break in consciousness... which may the case in these semantics... but I suggest that the primacy of being doesn't experience anything, but is merely, and only, existential.