Did you every think about our inability not to think?

That is (and sometimes even in your dreams), your brain doesn't appear to shut down. Right now, you may wish to ignore this post, but you have to think about it in order to do so. (Hah!)

The point is, if this is true (a fact), then we may as well think of positive things to think about (or bad, if you want to drive yourself crazy).

At night, when I lay down to sleep, I lull my self away from thinking worrisome or unhappy things by counting "2, 4, 6, 8", etc.,. until I reach 20, whereupon I start over at "2".

Yes, this gets boring--but that is the point. This is what puts you to sleep.

Happy dreams.

Scotch works too.

Or Benedryl.

What? And miss my nightly full-color 3-D IMAX reenactments of the most exciting and fun times of my life? I'm not about to give up adventure, mystery, romance, and fantasy, all in the cozy comfort of my own bed, without the exhaustion, pain, heat, cold, danger, and trauma or really doing all these things.

I'll take the daydreams! I have to count all day long, to make a living.

You don't know about the times your brain isn't thinking -- because it isn't thinking. Think about that. :D

Ahhhhh you discovered the true purpose of the temple endowment!

Fun post and replies :)

Being my usual pedantic self, I'd ask of course how we would differentiate "thinking" (as part of the brain operating) from "not-thinking" (as part of the brain operating). I mean, it's clear unconscious people, and those in "vegetative states," as well as those with massive brain damage, have brains that are still operating in some ways or another. But are they "thinking?"

Honestly, I bring up the above not JUST to be pedantic, but 'cause there's still much we don't know about how/when our brains work (and no, that doesn't mean it's magic or "spirit" or other such stuff -- it means unknown). Maybe thinking is like that famous Supreme Court's definition of porn: I know it when I see it (or experience it, in this case)?

I think, therefore I question!
:)

I am under the impression that enthusiasts of "the Zen" are able, after sufficient study and practice, to put themselves into such a 'thoughtless' state.

I am lucky, I'm just naturally thoughtless...

Being the eternal skeptic, I'm...well, skeptical.
I think they're thinking about not thinking :)

Being my usual pedantic self, I'd ask of course how we would differentiate "thinking" (as part of the brain operating) from "not-thinking" (as part of the brain operating). I mean, it's clear unconscious people, and those in "vegetative states," as well as those with massive brain damage, have brains that are still operating in some ways or another. But are they "thinking?"

COMMENT: First, let's assume this discussion is about conscious thinking, and not just the operation of the brain. If unconscious brain processes are included in the definition of "thinking" then indeed we are always thinking to some extent--unless brain dead.
_______________________________________

Honestly, I bring up the above not JUST to be pedantic, but 'cause there's still much we don't know about how/when our brains work (and no, that doesn't mean it's magic or "spirit" or other such stuff -- it means unknown). Maybe thinking is like that famous Supreme Court's definition of porn: I know it when I see it (or experience it, in this case)?

COMMENT: The meditative state, according to those who practice meditation, is precisely a state of consciousness without thinking, however difficult to achieve. This has been confirmed by some brain imaging studies with Buddhist monks. By their own reports, as supported by such brain imaging techniques, they are most certainly not "thinking about not thinking." So, your skepticism is not consistent with the evidence on this point.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: The meditative state, according to those
> who practice meditation, is precisely a state of
> consciousness without thinking, however difficult
> to achieve. This has been confirmed by some brain
> imaging studies with Buddhist monks. By their own
> reports, as supported by such brain imaging
> techniques, they are most certainly not "thinking
> about not thinking." So, your skepticism is not
> consistent with the evidence on this point.

That's odd. The brain imagining studies of such people I found backed my position up extremely well. They showed, quite clearly, that such people were anything but in a state of "consciousness without thinking."

Here's one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518618/

"The results support the hypothesis that the regular practice of Zen meditation enhances the capacity for voluntary regulation of spontaneous mental activity."

In other words, they enhanced their ability to think about not thinking -- and use that ability to regulate "spontaneous mental activity." The regulation is an active thought process, as shown by the brain scans. They're thinking about not thinking. And they're doing it well. They were able to change how their brains work. They weren't able to stop thinking.


Got any to show they WERE "conscious without thinking?"

You need to read your own links. This is what your link stated:


"In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that the habitual practice of being heedful to distraction from spontaneous thoughts during meditation renders regular meditators, as compared to control subjects, more able to voluntarily contain the automatic cascade of conceptual associations triggered by semantic stimuli."


In other words mediators had a stronger ability to control brain reactions to outside stimuli. This has nothing to do with the ability of meditators to block out thoughts in the absence of such stimuli.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In other words mediators had a stronger ability to
> control brain reactions to outside stimuli. This
> has nothing to do with the ability of meditators
> to block out thoughts in the absence of such
> stimuli.

Being "heedful" and controlling brain reactions require thought.

"Being "heedful" and controlling brain reactions require thought."

COMMENT: We can split hairs between a distinction between thoughts and brain states, but again in the meditation context one's meditative "state of mind" is characterized by the absence of thoughts. That is what experienced meditators report.

The meditator while in the meditative state ideally is not "heedful" of anything. Distractive stimuli pass by unnoticed. He or she is not in some state of active alertness for stimuli, and does not have a mindset to "control" by some thought process his or her reaction to such
stimuli.

This is what the evidence of meditation suggests, by the reports of meditators as confirmed by brain imaging. The brain is not totally inactive, of course, but the brain of the meditator in a meditative state does not react to stimuli in the more active way that is evidenced when a non-meditator engages such stimuli. Brain imaging confirms this. If you want to insist that any brain activity represents "thinking," that strikes me as a reach because then someone who is unconscious, for example under anesthesia, is "thinking."

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: We can split hairs between a distinction
> between thoughts and brain states, but again in
> the meditation context one's meditative "state of
> mind" is characterized by the absence of thoughts.
> That is what experienced meditators report.

What they "report" and what facts show are two different things.

> The meditator while in the meditative state
> ideally is not "heedful" of anything. Distractive
> stimuli pass by unnoticed.

That's not what brain scans show. What they show is increased activity in "pre-processing" regions of the brain -- a conscious, thoughtful effort to stop further processing of distractful stimuli. That was the subject of the article I posted -- that distractful stimuli do NOT go "unnoticed," that the meditators consciously act to "route" them differently. That they're thinking about not thinking.

> This is what the evidence of meditation suggests,
> by the reports of meditators as confirmed by brain
> imaging. The brain is not totally inactive, of
> course, but the brain of the meditator in a
> meditative state does not react to stimuli in the
> more active way that is evidenced when a
> non-meditator engages such stimuli.

That's NOT what the evidence shows. That's the opposite of what the evidence shows.

> Brain imaging
> confirms this.

No, it doesn't. Read the article.

> If you want to insist that any
> brain activity represents "thinking," that strikes
> me as a reach because then someone who is
> unconscious, for example under anesthesia, is
> "thinking."

Go back to my initial post -- that's not my position.
What the evidence shows, however, is that these folks are "thinking." Consciously reacting to stimuli, consciously choosing to not process it in a "normal" way. They've trained themselves to think and react differently -- not to not think or not react.

You are totally misreading this study. Again, it has no application to the issue of "thinking" during the process of meditation. Consider the following statement:

"Subjects of both groups were instructed to pay attention to their breathing throughout the fMRI scan and return to it every time they found themselves distracted by thoughts, memories, or sensations; a fixation cross was kept on the MRI display screen to help concentration and avoid excessive eye movement. The choice of having both meditators and controls engage in a simplified meditative condition, as opposed to having the controls simply “rest” and the meditators meditate, was motivated by the desire to equalize procedurally the two experimental groups as much as possible, so that any observed group difference in brain activation would be more easily attributable to a difference in meditative experience and training."

This study does not even involve meditators engaged in meditation. It has to do with brain activation and reaction in a non-mediation context to consider whether experienced meditators (not engaged in mediation for the study), showed any brain reaction distinctions with non-meditators.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think *you* are completely misreading the study.
Since the participants used their meditative training, and what the study showed was that their meditative training allowed them to think differently regarding distractions, not to ignore them.

Got anything to back up the claim that brain imaging studies show that such people aren't thinking and are ignoring distractions in a meditative state? I'd be happy to look at them.
I can't find any.

Back in the day when I was studying T'ai Chi and Taoism, we would regularly meditate for hours to help achieve that thoughtless state.

I could never turn off my brain enough to do so, but I could distract myself by just pulling on whatever thread of random thought popped into my head.

I was actually surprised a few times when my teacher would nudge me and tell me that two hours of meditation had passed without my notice.

Like the old guy who sits on his porch and says, “Sometimes I sits and I thinks, and sometime I just sits.”

in the bad years how to go to sleep. After my ex left, I had anxiety attacks about being alone with my kids. The boys next door were teenagers and made a lot of noise at night. Our bedrooms just happen to be on that end of the house.

I did go on a drug called trazodone for a while. I couldn't sleep without it, because I thought of my finances all night long. I'd get up and go over figures and how much I was earning half the night, so they put me on trazodone. It was fine for a while. Then you start having bright flashing colored dreams.

And I learned to turn on the TV and I still sleep with the TV on even if everyone says you shouldn't. Sometimes I fall asleep way too fast as it is my way of decompressing after working. My brother and my dad both have/had to keep the TV on all night.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2018 11:43AM by cl2.

pollythinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you every think about our inability not to
> think?

We would not be therefore if we did not think.

Posted by: Heartless: Ahhhhh you discovered the true purpose of the temple endowment!

p: LOL.

Thanks for all the fun offerings.

I practice the advanced skill of "Mindlessness." I can will myself to "Mindlessness" at will. I empty myself of all of myself, and focus on the Center of the Universe, with this mantra:

"Me...me...me...me...me..." (Not to be confused with "Mi...mi...mi...mi...mi...")

The goal is to become one with the Void. When I achieve that, I am truly Mindless.

HieToKolob can confirm, from personal observation, that I am a Mindless adept.

I have advanced (regressed?) to video games to achieve a mindless state. Nothing can shut down the brain after a long day like a video game. Same result without the sore joints from sitting cross-legged. I'm not sure I can sit cross-legged anymore; I'm afraid to even try.

"Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm" is the dial tone of the Universe.

Try "Meeeeeeeeeeee......" That IS the center of the Universe, right?

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HieToKolob can confirm, from personal observation,
> that I am a Mindless adept.

Sorry, no can do.
I think you were thinking about not thinking :)

I have a simple test for you.

Stand up.
Walk to the nearest corner of the room.
Face the corner and....
DO NOT think of a white rabbit.

sleeping nude with my sweetie does wonders for me...

If you think that counting "2, 4, 6, 8" counts as positive you are absolutely right. In the sense that counting "-2, -4, -6, -8" would be negative.

But I doubt it will make much difference really, in the grand scheme of things. Do you?

I was tempted to write on the topic, then decided not to, then saw that EOD and GregS had brought it up. So. . .

In the Indian religions, the self is an illusion. Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." The Hindu/Buddhist response would be, "you are really part of a cosmic reality. The notion that you exist as an individual is illusion, as are individual thoughts." Is it the person doing the thinking, or do the thoughts arise on their own? The Indian answer is the latter. In other words, 'I think, therefore I am not."

Put differently, external objects trigger passions in us that tie us to those externalities and prevent us from realizing our true identity. As pollythinks wrote, it is almost impossible to clear one's mind and NOT think. The ideas just present themselves, either stimulated by a breath of wind or from within.

Meditation is the practice of learning to empty the mind, to stop the thoughts. This assumes, parenthetically and in answer to Hie's question, that we are talking about conscious thinking and not brainstem activity. In fact, the conscious mind may still be functioning in terms of neurological activity. But the goal is to quiet the mind, clear the mind, and sit in complete quiet.

The metaphysics may be wrong, and "thinking" may still be occurring at some level, but the practice has real effects on one's physiology, including reduced stress and lower blood pressure, and has largely entered mainstream medicine. In pollythinks's terms, there are benefits from trying to "rest" from the endless thinking that is, in western terms, a human strength; but, in eastern terms, emotional and spiritual bondage.

Mostly spot on.

The idea of an essential, continuous and unchanging "self" is an error. "I"/"self" and similar words are functional placeholders, semantic usages to aid in conversation and in pointing out who is doing what. The error is in making the "self"/"I" into a metaphysical entity apart from the causes and conditions and context in which it arises.

In Buddhism, the idea is extended further to point out that *nothing* has any self-nature (essence) apart from its interdependent existence in the whole context in which it arises. Foreground and background, yin and yang need each other. (Law of Opposites, in Mormonism?)

Like you need this text to stand out from the background page (white on black, or similar contrast) in order to comprehend it or even see that there is text there. The empty part that makes a cup or bowl useful, in Taoist terms, in another example of this contrast.

If you look up "mass" or "photon" or similar fundamental ideas on Wikipedia you'll find yourself going down a rabbit-hole where every concept is referenced to another concept somewhere else in order to make it comprehensible.

Thinking is not the problem, it's imputing a thinker to the thoughts. "Thoughts without a thinker, action without a doer" is one common formulation of this in Buddhism, especially Zen.

If you're meditating it's good to get into the habit of not using the "I"/"me" referent mentally. When thoughts arise, think "thoughts are here," not "I am thinking." Don't *try* not to think and especially don't try to "think of nothing" which is probably not possible. Think "there is trying not to think here" or "here is thought noticing that thinking is arising" and so forth.

The self-referent "I" is somewhat superfluous or redundant when silently thinking alone anyway.

We can speak of a "self" in a limited psychological way, as long as it is recognized that this self is conditional, that it changes as causes, conditions, context change over time.

Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is probably okay in a trivial sense but it does not say anything as profound as some people seem to think. It would be better to phrase it "Thinking is taking place here" or "thoughts are arising in this brain right now." If it is interpreted as saying that there is some sort of permanent "I Am" entity, it is not justified.

Well said, LW:

In the Indian religions, the self is an illusion. Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am." The Hindu/Buddhist response would be, "you are really part of a cosmic reality. The notion that you exist as an individual is illusion, as are individual thoughts." Is it the person doing the thinking, or do the thoughts arise on their own? The Indian answer is the latter. In other words, 'I think, therefore I am not."

COMMENT: Yes, but frankly, I am inclined to think that it is the assimilation into "cosmic reality" that is the illusion. As a meditator (not a Buddhist monk, however) I find that the self is never far away, even if one enters a state of "pure consciousness." Whatever the experience is, there is always subject of that experience.
_______________________________________________

Put differently, external objects trigger passions in us that tie us to those externalities and prevent us from realizing our true identity. As pollythinks wrote, it is almost impossible to clear one's mind and NOT think. The ideas just present themselves, either stimulated by a breath of wind or from within.

COMMENT: Yes, and that is why David Hume, and his followers, wrongly suggested that all we are is encapsulated in our sense perceptions and related thoughts, not realizing (in my view) that there is such a "thing" as pure consciousness.

_________________________________________________

Meditation is the practice of learning to empty the mind, to stop the thoughts. This assumes, parenthetically and in answer to Hie's question, that we are talking about conscious thinking and not brainstem activity. In fact, the conscious mind may still be functioning in terms of neurological activity. But the goal is to quiet the mind, clear the mind, and sit in complete quiet.

COMMENT: Yes, pure consciousness, without thoughts.
_____________________________________________________

The metaphysics may be wrong, and "thinking" may still be occurring at some level, but the practice has real effects on one's physiology, including reduced stress and lower blood pressure, and has largely entered mainstream medicine. In pollythinks's terms, there are benefits from trying to "rest" from the endless thinking that is, in western terms, a human strength; but, in eastern terms, emotional and spiritual bondage.

COMMENT: Yes, including real effects on brain physiology! Now, here is my favorite question: If a Buddhist monk can, through his own mind control and conscious will, affect his brain processes (Quiet the mind), isn't that mental causation in its most basic form? If so, don't we have freewill? Moreover, how does the mind interact with the physical brain? Is it one system, or two?

HB writes: "If so, don't we have freewill?"

LW: It's difficult to beat the "no free will" argument because one can always say that the resort to meditation was itself a reaction to genetic programing and environmental influences. It's tautology, but strong tautology.

------------

HB writes: "how does the mind interact with the physical brain? Is it one system, or two?

LW: My surmise is two interrelated systems. Brain influences mind, and mind influences brain--at least assuming that our perceptions may be credited.

-------------

I think Buddhism would permit your interpretation since the religion is a lot more about practice than about dogma. What you have done by rejecting the cosmology is simply kill the Buddha, which many would view as an essential stage in the process of enlightenment.

LW: It's difficult to beat the "no free will" argument because one can always say that the resort to meditation was itself a reaction to genetic programing and environmental influences. It's tautology, but strong tautology.

COMMENT: When you have brain states being monitored in a context where one's willing a meditative state appears to directly produce a particular brain state associated with that will, for me it is difficult to beat the "free will" argument; Particularly when the "resort to meditation" brain state assumed by a continual causal link cannot be identified, and the prior brain states cannot be associated and connected to the willing act.

Brain stem activity is not a problem, during sleep or waking, and you certainly don't want to shut that down because you'd stop breathing! (The heart might keep beating, since heart cells can beat all by themselves even in a petrie dish, but I'm not a doctor.)

I think even experienced meditators still dream, and unconscious brain imagery is usually not considered a problem that needs to be addressed in meditation ... although the content and nature of dreaming might change. Not sure about this detail.

Kind of like counting sheep ...

When I zone out is typically from fatigue. Then it's easy to fall asleep.

The deeper the REM sleep, the more vivid the dreams one has supposedly. It does help to clear the mind before sleeping - prayer is my personal meditation. And Mahjong.

Just popping in to say:

How perfect to jump onto the site after a few years of absence, and immediately pull up a thread to see Henry Bemis and ificouldhietokolob still hashing out the emergence debate in one form or another.

:D

Gave me the best grin I've had in awhile, and felt warm and fuzzy like an old cozy blankie.

:)

Best little corner of the internet. Never stop being you people (and I know you won't.)

Thanks. (((( Rfm ))))

;)