(Missed numbering it)

2a. Do "you", as the thinker, generate an involuntary thought?

1. So do "you", as the thinker, voluntarily generate a thought? — raza

I can voluntarily generate (some) thoughts, yes.

2. If so, how and why do you do this? — raza

To reflect, plan, make decisions, etc. I do it mainly by concentrating or focusing on specific aims or goals, e.g. I want to modify my CV, so I will have to think about what aspects of my current CV need updating.

2a. Do "you", as the thinker, generate an involuntary thought? — raza

The "you" there can be misleading. I am not voluntarily generating an involuntary thought; that's a contradiction. Involuntary thoughts arise and I become aware of them, and I can subsequently voluntarily act upon them, e.g. pay them attention, dismiss them, etc.

4. If not, what DOES generate an involuntary thought within "you", the thinker? — raza

Nonconscious processes that are triggered by internal and/or external stimuli. Voluntarily thoughts can also trigger involuntary thoughts.

5. If "you" the thinker does NOT generate an involuntary thought, does it still not remain that an involuntary thought is still being regarded as a "thought"? — raza

Yes. Any phenomena that one is aware of that constitutes thinking is a thought. Thoughts cannot be nonconscious though.

6. If an "involuntary thought" is thereby a result of thinking then what or who is the thinker of it? — raza

The person it is happening for/to.

7. Is the thinker of an "involuntary thought" you (the "thinker" of thoughts)? — raza

Yes.

Personally I think that all thinking is involuntary - that they are induced within cause and effect. — raza

So you don't believe in free will then?

So you don't believe in free will then? — numberjohnny5

Correct.

To reflect, plan, make decisions, etc. I do it mainly by concentrating or focusing on specific aims or goals, e.g. I want to modify my CV, so I will have to think about what aspects of my current CV need updating. — numberjohnny5

This still suggests cause and effect. A thought generates the next.

Nonconscious processes that are triggered by internal and/or external stimuli. Voluntarily thoughts can also trigger involuntary thoughts. — numberjohnny5

Cause and effect.

Cause and effect does not necessarily negate one's ability to choose what sorts of influence one wants.

Cause and effect does not necessarily negate one's ability to choose what sorts of influence one wants — creativesoul

It will always SEEM like a choice. That is the trick.

Or it could seem like an argument... no trick at all.

Personally I think that all thinking is involuntary - that they are induced within cause and effect. — raza

Do you have any good reason(s) for why that is the case? Another question would be, do you have any good reason(s) for why free will is not the case and (strict) determinism is true?

Thought follows as a consequence of arising circumstance. Whether that be a prior thought, an act, or a dream.

Is it not so?

You cannot be a thing separate from your experience. You can only be whatever the experience is. Your identity is whatever is occurring. Whatever arises in consciousness is you. — raza

No, I agree, I am not separate from my experience(s); they become part of me as they happen. But I don't think I am only those experiences. My identity is not limited to "whatever is occurring", I don't think. I have memory and a remembered history. Sure enough, this history stems from past experiences, but it persists, and helps to form the being that I refer to as "me".

Again, whatever arises in consciousness is me, but I am not limited to that. Your view here would seem to reflect that odd understanding that some people have, they 'they' are just their consciousness, and that their nonconscious minds, and their doings, are something foreign, something distinct from themselves. Maybe even their bodies are included too. :chin: Not so. You are all of you, not just some of the parts. Even your gut bacteria, which has its own DNA, not yours, contributes to 'you' and 'your' identity. You are a community. Some parts of that community are 'you' (in the sense that they carry your DNA) and some are not. And some parts of your mind are conscious, and some are not. All of them, in combination, are 'you'.

I think the idea of involuntary vs voluntary arises because some thoughts seem to be far more spontaneous - as if from nowhere, and not, therefore, necessarily following a remembered thread. — raza

From nowhere, or from a part of your mind that operates outside your consciousness, and therefore outside your conscious awareness? Thoughts that originate in your nonconscious mind cannot be labelled voluntary or involuntary, unless you insist on doing it randomly. You have no basis to recognise a thought as one or the other when you had no knowledge or awareness of it until it was presented to your conscious mind. It's just a thought that appeared to you - conscious 'you' - to emerge spontaneously. And even this appearance only seems so because things happen outside of your consciousness, and you seem, perhaps, to be forgetting that this is so? :chin:

Again, whatever arises in consciousness is me, but I am not limited to that. Your view here would seem to reflect that odd understanding that some people have, they 'they' are just their consciousness, and that their nonconscious minds, and their doings, are something foreign, something distinct from themselves. Maybe even their bodies are included too. :chin: Not so. You are all of you, not just some of the parts. Even your gut bacteria, which has its own DNA, not yours, contributes to 'you' and 'your' identity. You are a community. Some parts of that community are 'you' (in the sense that they carry your DNA) and some are not. And some parts of your mind are conscious, and some are not. All of them, in combination, are 'you'. — Pattern-chaser

Everything you have identified can be classified under “Experience”.

One would not be aware of “DNA” if it as a subject did not arise within the experience which is you.

I don’t see ourselves as “their or my consciousness”. I see consciousness as what we arise within.

On memory and history, memories arise within consciousness. Memorise, therefore history, are thoughts - which is experience - which is you.

“You”, therefore, is far more fluid that we tend to think (unless our thinking is somewhat stagnant).

You are fluid in that as an experience changes and shifts, so you also do because you are that.

Everything you have identified can be classified under “Experience”. — raza

Yes indeed. As I already said:

My identity is not limited to "whatever is occurring", I don't think. I have memory and a remembered history. Sure enough, this history stems from past experiences, but it persists, and helps to form the being that I refer to as "me". — Pattern-chaser

On memory and history, memories arise within consciousness. — raza

They arise within nonconsciousness too. I.e. memory takes part in nonconscious thinking. Memory is not exclusive to consciousness.

You are fluid in that as an experience changes and shifts, so you also do... — raza

Yes...

...because you are that. — raza

No. I am changed by my experiences. But I am not wholly defined by them, just as I am not wholly defined by consciousness. I have many parts. Memory and consciousness are two of them. My body is another vital part, as our minds are embodied, not independently existent. My nonconscious mind is another part. It does most of the work. It does much of what we like to think of as conscious processes, but are not. I think reducing us to mere experience is something of an insult. We have many failings and shortcomings, but we are more than just accumulated and remembered events.

You cannot be a thing separate from your experience. You can only be whatever the experience is. — raza

I am not separate from my experience, but I am not only my experience. I am not passive, like a rock, or something. I respond to the things I experience, so (at the least) I am the sum of my experiences and my response(s) to them.

And even this appearance only seems so because things happen outside of your consciousness, and you seem, perhaps, to be forgetting that this is so — Pattern-chaser

Nothing happens, that you remember/experiences, outside of consciousness.

No. I am changed by my experiences. But I am not wholly defined by them, just as I am not wholly defined by consciousness. I have many parts. Memory and consciousness are two of them. My body is another vital part, as our minds are embodied, not independently existent. My nonconscious mind is another part. It does most of the work. It does much of what we like to think of as conscious processes, but are not. I think reducing us to mere experience is something of an insult. We have many failings and shortcomings, but we are more than just accumulated and remembered events. — Pattern-chaser

Consciousness and brain needs to be defined. “Brain”, which is process, is the room “you” are in. The universe perceived is essentially “the brain”.

This “room” or “universe” can be referred to, therefore, as “consciousness” within which things arise.

Experience arises within consciousness.

The “human brain” processes life, whatever that electrical form is, into particular imagery and sensations as though an aperture.

The “aperture” generated imagery/sensation processor of a slug will not be the same universe as perceived by the “human-brain aperture”.

LIFE is a perception on a possibly infinite spectrum upon which human consciousness occupies a sliver.

That “sliver” is “the room” or the “universe” of our perception. The universe we perceive is Consciousness.

“Consciousness” is not the visible skull area.

The physical skull and body is merely an animated object which arises as an experience within Consciousness which we generally habitually and falsely regard as ourselves.

However, our selves are actually the whole entire experience that arises within “the room/universe of our perception”. Or rather, Consciousness.

Consciousness and brain needs to be defined. “Brain”, which is process, is the room “you” are in. The universe perceived is essentially “the brain”. — raza

I wonder if, when you write "brain", you mean "mind"? It looks that way.... :chin:

As for the rest, I'm not quite clear what you're getting at. I think you are attempting to define consciousness, but your words are only confusing me. Sorry for being dim. :confused:

I expect some initial confusion which is not about dimness.

The reason for confusion is that I am interpreting used words in a different way, but there is no real choice other than to do this because it is more problematic to invent a new language.

The human brain perceives something we call “life” in a particular way.

Life, as we perceive it, is not life as other creatures or plants “see” it. Even individual human brains are having different perceptions of what is supposed to be the same thing (synesthesia or even as subtle as a different mental focus).

It’s perception is everything being experienced in any moment, whether it be pain in a foot, a heartbeat, the warmth of the sun, a voice, the space defined as a room, thoughts, etc, etc.

Also, therefore, the entire body which we assume to be me or you is as much a merely perceived thing as a voice heard or the warmth of the sun felt.

So what I interpret “Consciousness” to be the invisible void within which everything arises.

So even what we see to be the universe, such as stars, planets and whatever the space is in between, is merely a perception unique to the human brain and which also merely ARISES within Consciousness.

You or I as the merely perceived thing - the merely PERCEIVED identity, just one of countless things that are experienced as arising in Consciousness, is only a product of thinking itself.

As such, the thought “me” is just a habit of mind.

(I’m not alluding to any distinction of 2 things, brain and mind. I’ve used “habit of mind” as a figure of speech. Habitual thinking or persistent and consistent thought, perhaps).

Perception, therefore, arises in Consciosness.

And we can only really be what is perceived. So the body we thought was “me” is merely only one of the objects that is perceived. Therefore “me” is every object, thought, noise, smell, pain, etc, that has arose.

This “me” also incorporates within it “others” when they enter into any particular experience.

“This “me” also incorporates within it “others” when they enter into any particular experience”

This maybe why certain age old philosophy has regarded one’s enemy as merely a reflection of an aspect of oneself.

Therefore this also maybe why particular wisdoms speak of understanding, and that there really is no “other” and that there is only “one”, or something like that.

But, regardless of old wisdom culture rhetoric, too me it is plain and obvious based on direct experience of what is arising and with the confronting knowledge “I” can never be a separate thing to what is perceived generally in any moment.