It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Do You Think You Are?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 04:17 AM

"Cogito, ergo sum" - "I think, therefore I am"

An oft recited adage. But who has tested the opposite? Have you stopped thinking long enough to see if you cease to exist?

The test is to forcibly stop thinking for 60 seconds and see what happens. Thinking about not thinking is still thinking.

Who can do it?

The author of this thread is not liable for any lack of existence experienced due to reading or acting on anything contained within this post.


Thought, as we now know it, is a trap. It's programmed limitation. Our very language is used to divide us, to control us, to limit us. It's a dadgum conspiracy I tell ya. If you can stop thinking long enough you'll be able to start to feel the infiniteness of mind.

Transcend the human collective.

Awaken the unrealized mind that you are.

Know your true self and you will know the secrets of the universe.


posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 04:30 AM
This is very wise. Perhaps the quote should be "I feel, therefore I am". Certainly sensory awareness, without thoughts, demonstrates existence. To feel is a better way to know one's existence than to think.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:57 AM
Cogito sum, ergo sum.

My perceived existance lies entirely with my perception and my reification of my existance.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Vipassana
Certainly sensory awareness, without thoughts, demonstrates existence. To feel is a better way to know one's existence than to think.

Your comments brought to mind a text I read some time ago....

It is an essay by Daniel C. Dennett titled Where Am I?. Please read over this text and tell me how it may affect your previous comments. Here's a small excerpt to, I hope, make the reader curious....

How did I know where I meant by "here" when I thought "here"? Could I think I meant one place when in fact I meant another? I didn't see how that could be admitted without untying the few bonds of intimacy between a person and his own mental life that had survived the onslaught of the brain scientists and philosophers, the physicalists and behaviorists.

It is a fascinating little mind experiment, worthy of inclusion in this topic.

[edit on 16-3-2008 by MrPenny]

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:04 PM
Either way the conversation goes is fine. I used the "Cogito" comment as a bit of ruse to guide the reader to think about not thinking. However, it doesn't make the philosophical debate any less important or interesting.

I did want to clarify the direction I was headed in case anyone wanted to comment on that.

Current human thought processes are inefficient. There are different ways to think and more importantly there are different levels of thought. I found these levels are better explored when using the meditation of non-thinking.

By forcibly breaking the never ending thought stream, the vastness of the mind-scape can felt. This is one of many exercises that can lead to self enlightenment. This enlightenment is not a destination but an infinite journey of discovering our true limitlessness.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:47 PM
What a great quote! made by none other than Rene Descartes
just thought that maybe those who were not familiar with his work would enjoy it greatly so here is a couple of links
Meditations on First Philosophy

AWESOME reads for sure

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by OmniVersal
I used the "Cogito" comment as a bit of ruse to guide the reader to think about not thinking.

It gives me a headache to think about not thinking
. Why would you want to attempt "not thinking"?

Comatose patients have been shown to have brain waves and activity while outwardly showing all the signs of "not thinking", then upon awakening, describing in depth the surroundings and even conversations that took place within their earshot.....I suppose, it would be helpful to define the concept. Are you curious about only conscious thought?

Frankly, I don't think it's possible to "not think" in the absence of traumatic brain injury or disease. If even the deepest meditator can relate to others the sensations and experience, clearly there has been some thinking going on.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:09 PM
Yes, I am referring to the forced temporary cessation of conscious thought.

I also sense a conspiracy of distraction to keep our conscious thoughts constant to keep us from exploring these other layers during our waking state.

If you think thinking about not thinking is rough, you should try to meditate on the idea of thinking while not thinking.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:13 PM
The concept of "killing the ego" and "stopping the mind" is a concept found in western but even more in eastern spiritual schooling. I however disagree with it and instead use the mind as a useful tool for living. This is about appreciating the wholeness of who you are without having to "kill" anything in order to achieve "enlightenment". Without the thought-process you couldnt properly focus on this time-space-dimension and would instead be drifting around in neverneverland.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by OmniVersal
exploring these other layers during our waking state.

Now I'm getting curious....aren't you using "exploring" synonymously with "thinking"? In other words, how can you "explore" other layers without thinking about it?

Aren't you postulating a type of circular argument? Much along the lines of "everything I say is a lie"....?

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:34 PM

Not a killing of anything. I used the word 'temporary' specifically to show that I'm referring to this as a meditative exercise only, to be used in transcending the idea of thought we currently hold as the standard.


It does appear that way but that is not my aim. The 'exploring' can be thought of as thinking but I'm referring to the specific linear 'thought sparks thought' way we are taught to think.

What I'm getting as is 'thinking' beyond the voice box we have in our head. It has it's use, no doubt. But once that is silenced (temporarily) then we can consciously delve into the deeper layers.

And what I'm ultimately getting as is an exploration of mind that we can use to prove to ourselves the actual infinite nature of the mind and what that makes us, the thinker.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:40 PM
reply to post by OmniVersal is possible. But maybe there´s an easier way to do it imo. The moment I focus on thought or trying to stop the thought thats a thought right there. So instead, if I were to do the exercise, Id focus on an outside object.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 09:13 PM
How about focusing on a concept instead of an object. Or how about focusing on the idea of focusing. Or simply focus directly on the act of focusing.

I'm not meaning these to sound circular nor do they necessarily create an infinite mirror effect. By treating force as an object we can test different ways of thinking, as one example.

I'll give a specific path to one exercise. Concentrate on something. Feel what concentration feels like and memorize it. Feel what it feels like for different levels of concentration. For example, the difference between putting together a bookcase and grasping special relativity. While in the act of this, force the actual 'voice in the head' thoughts to stop and put all focus onto the act of concentrating.

What I see personally is that just using conscious thought (which undoubtedly takes up most of our conscious time) to explore the mind is akin to just using the visible light spectrum to explore the universe.

Since our exploration of the universe currently is mostly through second hand accounts via science journal reports and such, then we can compensate for this by exploring the infinite potential we each possess within us.

But currently, and the evidence is insurmountable, most people are cut off from existential knowledge acquisition both externally and internally. The internal is the only one we can really change at the moment, aside from rare events, while occupying limited physical vessels.

My only aim in this thread is to offer that idea up for those that may not have thought about it.

posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 09:28 PM
We could also discuss the conspiracy layer of this.

Our conscious thoughts are not always are own. This could be a point of contention for many people. One example would be the meme; a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes (definition courtesy of

But I suspect it goes deeper than that. Are our societal fears naturally biological or are they programmed? Are there intelligent entities that can perpetuate these fears for their own gain? Is the mind we use to interact socially really our own? Is 'common sense' just another form of mental limitation?

new topics

top topics


log in