Meditation techniques that focus on breath or the body are an attempt to make you do the breathing/sensing consciously. If you film yourself and later look at what you did, you'll notice you aren't breathing well when you're breathing consciously, so you're probably depriving yourself of oxygen, lowering blood concentration in certain brain regions and you hope it will be the brain region associated with conceptualizing, language etc.

You can do the same with sleep. You can try to consciously fall asleep, and just like breathing, you will have a hard time because there's a reason why falling asleep is not conscious (or in other words it does not go through the regions of the brain that conceptualize). You can experience the balance center shutting down (feels like falling or turning) and you can go even deeper and feel the fear of the "ego" dying (temporarily). What remains is definitely much different than waking or dreaming state. But it is still not that "awareness/nothingness".

If you’re doing it the way intended you would 100% be aware of your irregular breath or pausing. In fact beginners vipassana often advises counting the breaths individually in a cycle 1..10, and resetting the count when you lose track of your breathing. You intensely focus on the sensation of the air moving through your nostrils, the muscles contracting, your clothing shifting.

However it’s not about controlling your breathing, so it’s not the same as breathing consciously. It’s observing passively. Often you’ll notice that you are breathing irregularly, not because of the meditation, but because you typically are stressed and tight in your musculature due to the way you’re thinking. You can then loosen and reset your patterns of breath to be more natural, deep, and complete.

A goal isn’t to stop with observing the breath though, and you work towards having a total awareness of the entire body at once, shifting your center of existence from your head to the rest of your body. You then incorporate sounds and events in your environment. This requires an intense amount of mental power, and is entirely different from your description of oxygen deprivation. Thought ceases because it interferes with being aware, not because you are experiencing brain death.

This is a byproduct of the process. You cannot observe passively if you still have a very strong imprint of a doer. When you start observing the tingles and the sensations, you still observe them from the center and there's a distance from the center and the sensations. The only way this center disappears is if the regions of the brain that create imprints lower their activity.

I'd say it is very easy to accomplish it when you're sleepy (especially after you wake up during the night and go back to sleep). There's no need to shut anything down through high focus, brain does it naturally to paralyze the body and lose the waking state.

"My Stroke of Insight" by Jill Bolte Taylor goes through many side-effects experienced by the meditators, but through a lens of a brain stroke.

> Thought ceases because it interferes with being aware, not because you are experiencing brain death.

Not sure about that. The verbal/visual thinking can be a strong feedback loop to the underlying unconscious processes. The only way I can see that it stops is if it is suppressed to unconscious, you've learned to not have it in focus. Also, many people have no visual and verbal thoughts. They don't have an imprint of standard modes of thinking at all. I'd say the definition of thought needs to expand to sensing. Any sensation is a thought. Focus on verbal/visual thoughts is misplaced.

I do agree that people learn to eventually do this without the side effects of practice. They can probably transition to a different brain activity without dealing with the breath ever again.

I think a much better standard for meditators is to ask them if they feel like their whole body is alien, or if they have something like alien hand syndrome. Losing thoughts, yet still being the body (or even the space around the body) is just another form of thoughts.

The imprint of a doer gives you the feeling of someone controlling the body or doing the thinking. For example, I can get lost in thoughts so hard that I no longer have imprints of controlling the body. Somehow I leave the shower and dress myself yet I know I don't remember doing any of it.

To also move the conclusion further, it sounds like the ultimate goal is to feel like you're not separate but that you're whole, so in that case it must be that this body, from that perspective, is fully without individual imprint, behaving completely like an input/output machine, no inner subjective experience present.

If that's how it works, then the "soul" is more like an emergent phenomenon created by the interplay between the various layers of conscious thought and the base layer of nothingness when it's all turned off. That architecture wouldn't necessarily be so difficult to replicate in AI systems.

It's not. They don't realize it, they're merely referring to stopping your internal monologue. There are dozens of other mental processes going on in any given waking moment. Even actual top shelf cognition is going on, it just occurs in a "language of thought".

They certainly have realized that. It's one of the first things you notice doing awareness meditation; thoughts appear from nowhere even if you didn't try to think them.

This isn't a joke? Like, that actually happens to people? I thought it was just to exaggerate how poorly the minds of dumb people work.

1. Most people (including Buddhists) think that their internal monologue comprises their thoughts, in majority or even in total.

2. Can't conceive of the possibility of a thought existing other than expressed in their spoken language

3. Find it difficult or impossible to suppress their inner monologue.

4. When successful at suppressing it believe that their thoughts have ceased.

5. Are apparently unaware of the paradox that belief entails... if they are no longer thinking, how is the decision made to initiate thinking once more? That's a conscious decision, or else successful Buddhists would turn into vegetables and die of starvation in their little meditation pose.

This isn't a matter of speculation anymore. We can see inside the brain, non-invasively, while these things occur. Any mystical element is an artifact of people poorly defining words, or being completely ignorant of how a brain must operate in principle. You're all very confused.

It doesn't need to be, and isn't, a conscious decision.

> Most people (including Buddhists) think that their internal monologue comprises their thoughts

And they don't think this, in fact they think the opposite.

You seem to be offended I used the expression "from nowhere" instead of "from your unconscious" or something.

However, we can imagine images, shapes and sounds, indescribable in words, and even higher there are abstract ideas that can't be expressed with images or sounds, let along with words.

The "thoughts from without" may appear for a multitude of reasons, because our minds aren't isolated systems. The source may be some sensory input that triggered a memory, and I wouldn't even reject the possibility, that brains can react to background electromagnetic noise and form thoughts based on it.

First, not everyone even has an inner monologue. Just like many people can’t close their eyes and see things while others can, many people don’t think in words.

Second, you absolutely can suspend your thoughts. I do regularly. In fact the entire point of Buddhist meditation is to practice the act of suspending observable thoughts entirely in a controlled environment to carry the practice over into every day life. I like you didn’t think it was possible until after several years of practice I could. With that I lost my anxiety and depression, and found a way to be generally happy. I still think, but it’s in service towards a goal. Otherwise I let myself simply live. In so, I have a happy marriage and a successful career. Much more so than before.

I don’t feel compelled to convince you I’m not lying or otherwise deluded if you choose to not believe me.

Now, how do you choose to begin thinking again? The fact is you’re always thinking when you are conscious and aware, but it’s happening in an aspect of your mind you can’t perceive directly. While I’m not thinking I still make decisions and take actions and initiate things, even carry on conversations and form intentions. But they aren’t thoughts that are articulating in my mind like we typically think of as thinking. I usually drop into thinking when I need to analyze something rationally or methodically plan, particularly if it has to be verbalized or written in some way, or recorded on a schedule or something. How do I begin that? I can’t observe the process and isolate it as that’s just the way things are. I’m definitely aware of my intentions, but I’m not thinking about them or articulating some thoughts in my mind. They just flow naturally from the present. When my mind needs to think, it does. Because, my thinking facilities in my mind are merely a tool of my mind - the crucial insight is that we are not our tools.

I don’t think any of this is mystical in the least. I think people who think their thoughts are really important are the mystical thinkers. We are meat brains, and our thinking facility is a late evolutionary feature that we’ve become ensnared in much to our own suffering as it distracts us from our more natural states of being because they’re so seductive in its constructs. I think Buddhism in its most raw form is almost entirely devoid of mystical thinking and most mysticism associated with it is an accretion of animistic and ancestor worship indigenous societies where it developed.

But to my understanding the idea of nothingness being some objective in Buddhism isn’t the case - but it’s often described as such because that state of pure awareness without encumbering thought and attachment in many ways to an unpracticed person feels like nothingness. After all, the awareness is silent, even if it is where all thought and feeling spring from.

Finally, awareness isn’t that moment you snap back to thought. You’re always aware. We just tend to be primarily aware of our thoughts and emotions. We walk around in a haze of the past and future and fiction as the world ticks by around us, and we tend to live in what isn’t rather than what is. You don’t disappear in the sense that you cease to be as an individual mind, you are always yourself - that’s a tautology. What you lose is the sense of some identity that’s separate from what you ARE in this very moment. You aren’t a programmer, you aren’t a Democrat, you aren’t a XYZ. You are what you are, and what that is changes constantly, so can’t be singularly defined or held onto as some consistent thing over time with labels and structure. You just simply are.

"You don’t disappear in the sense that you cease to be as an individual mind, you are always yourself - that’s a tautology. What you lose is the sense of some identity that’s separate from what you ARE in this very moment."

This assumes that there's any concept of "you" that exists independent of your thoughts whatsoever. I think you're right that some Buddhist thinkers believe in this kind of essential awareness underlying conscious thought that you're describing, but others would say there is literally nothing underneath. "The self is an illusion", "all is emptiness", etc. If you believe in those ideas, then you have no awareness independent of conscious thought because there is no you independent of conscious thought.

The self as an illusion though refers to the concept that we as we exist now is ever changing and can’t be kept as some identity as that identity is necessarily not who you actually are. Our memories are not real - just shadows of an experience, and our aspirations are fiction. That does not however mean you don’t exist. You do exist, and as you move beyond the basics of mindfulness and releasing of attachments our role in a broader human experience becomes crucial - loving kindness (metta), and other aspects, are what are suppose to fill that void left by detaching from self and what isn’t. You move from being obsessed with self to becoming a force of goodness in the world by virtue of your existence. This couldn’t possibly be the case if the goal were nothingness and that’s it. This is where karma and other concepts come into play.

This is simple to experience for yourself since it'd mean we stop being aware when listening so intently thoughts stop. Obviously we don't cease to be aware at such times.

You've also misunderstood what is meant by nothingness ("no thingness").

If you assume that "the eyes are the window to the soul", you notice some interesting properties.

1. It is far more observable from the outside (eyes open/lidded/closed, emotion read in eyes)

2. It affects behavior in a diffuse way

3. It pays attention but does not dictate

My pet theory about human consciousness is that is that consciousness is simply recursive theory of mind. Theory of mind [1] is our ability to simulate and reason about the mental states of others. It's how we predict what people are thinking and how they will react to our actions, which is critical for choosing how to act in a social environment.

But when you're thinking about what's in someone's head, one of the things might be them thinking about you. So now you're imagining your own mind from the perspective of another mind. I believe that's entirely what our sense of consciousness is. It's our social reasoning applied to ourselves.

If my pet theory is correct, it implies that the level of consciousness of any species would directly correlate to how social the species is. Solitary animals with little need for theory of mind would have no self awareness in the way that we experience it. They'd live in a zen-like perpetual auto-pilot where they do but couldn't explain why they do what they do... because they will never explain it to anyone anyway.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

That direction would likely contain weird outcomes if the science progressed, something like "Dogs are barely-conscious due to their pack structure, they have a couple levels of recursive theory of mind but they can't sustain it as deep as we can. But cats didn't have that pack structure, they're not conscious at all." Or, "this person has such severe autism that he cannot fundamentally understand others' minds or what others interpret his mind to be, so we've downgraded his classification to unconscious. He'll talk your ear off about the various cars produced in a golden age between 1972 and 1984, but because he doesn't really know what it means for you to be listening we regard it as sleep-talking."

It also just kind of doesn't sound right. "What happens when we go to sleep? Well, we stop thinking about what others think we think, and we simply accept what they think about us." That doesn't sound like any sleep I experience -- it might describe some of my dreams, but of course dreams are anomalous conscious experiences that happen during sleep so that also misses the mark.

I mean "conscious" in the sense of self-awareness or sentience.

I'm also not ascribing any moral or cognitive superiority or inferiority to different levels of it. The fact that a cat might be less self-aware of its suffering because it think about how it would explain its pain to other cats does mean imply that I'm saying it should be OK to torture cats.

I'm just interested in what is going in human brains when we "feel self-aware". What are we doing when we're thinking about what we're doing? Where does that sense of perceptual distance come from when we are aware of ourselves? And my pet theory is that the distance comes from imagining how we look through others' eyes and developed from our highly advanced social reasoning.

Let's say the soul is exclusively located in eye-to-eye contact. Theres a lot of information in how that contact is broken, how long its broken for, and what happens in between.

(Enemy's-gate-is-down-style reorientation)

Thesis : The very thing (a brain module) which allows for outside object continuity, that same brain module maintains inside self / personality / identity continuity.

Reasoning :

Evolution found out modelling the outside world is helpful for survival. Some eons later, it figured out modelling yourself (self / agent) modelling the outside world is also helpful. In the outside world, we keep track of continuity of objects through a brain module which hones in on the essence of objects (e.g. tracking a prey or predator.) so that EXACT matching algorithms aren't applied but ONLY approximate ones. As soon as a high enough approximate match (>95%) is found, we "register" it to be an exact match. i.e. the Brain bumps up the confidence level to 100%. This is also the reason why we consider our friend Bob to be the same childhood Bob even though he has different hairstyle, clothes, and other such properties. We don't call Bob who looks different than yesterday as an Imposter. The damage to this brain module could lead us to call Bob today an imposter. This same module also tracks continuity of self in a similar manner. Even though our "self" changes from childhood to adult we "register" "changing self" to be the same thing. i.e. internally we bump up the confidence to 100% when memories, etc. match and provide a coherent picture of the self. A multiple personality disorder is just different stable states of neural attractor states. Continuity is local to a personality but not global and hence transient. This local continuity of information could link up globally, giving rise to coherent single personality.

Capgras Syndrome :

Ramachandran Capgras Delusion Case : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xczrDAGfT4

And people say LLM output is nonsense.

I'm blind with glass eyeballs. Does this mean my soul is easier to access than yours? Or is it harder because there's something specific about the eyeball that makes it the window?

I believe this is more or less the definition of human mental illness. I have to say that while I know it's really not possible, I wish people would stop pulling on these threads. I got into this line of work because I thought video games were cool, not because I wanted to philosophize about theories of mind and what intelligence is. I really don't like thinking about whether I'm just some sort of automaton made out of meat rather than metal and silicon.

While you're adding a bunch of eastern philosophy to it, we need to take a step back from 'human' intelligence and go to animal and plant intelligence to get a better idea of the massive variation in what covers thought. In animal/insects we can see that thinking is not some binary function of on or off. It is an immense range of different electrical and chemical processes that involve everything from the brain and the nerves along with chemical signaling from cells. In things like plants and molds 'thinking' doesn't even involve nerves, it's a chemical process.

A good example of this at the human level is a reflex. Your hand didn't go back to your brain to ask for instructions on how to get away from the fire. That's encoded in the meat and nerves of your arm by systems that are much older than higher intelligence. All the systems for breath, drink, eat, procreate were in place long before high level intelligence existed. Intelligence just happens to be a new floor stacked hastily on top of these legacy systems that happened to be beneficial enough it didn't go extinct.

Awareness is another one of those very deep rabbit hole questions. There are 'intelligent' animals without self awareness, but with awareness of the world around them. And they obviously have agency. Of course this is where the AI existentialists come in and say wrapping up agency, awareness, and superintelligence may not work out for humans as well as we expect.

Is this actually true? I thought it just involved a different part of the brain. Is there actually no brain involvement? Sure it does not need your awareness or decision making, but no brain? I find that hard to believe.

Simple answer: No, it does not go to the brain

Detailed answer: We are complex as all hell.

>A reflex arc is a neural pathway that controls a reflex. In vertebrates, most sensory neurons do not pass directly into the brain, but synapse in the spinal cord. This allows for faster reflex actions to occur by activating spinal motor neurons without the delay of routing signals through the brain. The brain will receive the input while the reflex is being carried out and the analysis of the signal takes place after the reflex action.

Decision making requires imagination or the ability to envision alternative future states that may result from various choices.

Imagination is the start of abstract thinking. Consciousness results from the individual thinking abstractly about itself and how it interacts with the world.