Controlling your thoughts, or being controlled by them.

Post Reply New Topic

I'm getting at something with this poll, some of you will see it right off... But before I weigh in with it, I'd like to see what people have to say about this abstract question.

By "control your thoughts" I mean have the ability to control your thoughts, regardless of whether you do it all the time or not.

By thoughts, I mean ideas, plans, desires, beliefs, ... very broad definition of the word thought. I don't mean invasive thoughts or paranoias.

Please discuss your answer in any way you see fit.

I find the concept too chaotic to think about. Where does "you " end and your thoughts begin? How are they independent?

My objection is the same. Doesn't the idea to hold back some thoughts start as a thought?

You two, were ones I figured would take that view of the question.
Thank you for your input, the separation of "self" and "one's thoughts" is one of the issues I'm getting at.

Where is the separation?

I'm not saying there is one... perhaps better wording is whether extant thoughts control the inflow/acceptance of new thoughts or new thoughts control the fate of extant thoughts. (or which controls the other more)

Perhaps I should also add, that the other aspect I'm getting at is about how "learning" or "examining new ideas" changes that which comprises the "self" (however you want to define the self)

You seem to be saying older thoughts are more associated with a person than incoming ones which may have some validity but does that mean one cannot have older thoughts about things one does not accept? The word "thoughts" is simply too vague in this context to have much meaning.

This line of thinking, that i've recently been on is a result of me trying to figure out a way to purge old thoughts, specifically beliefs, that I've since rejected, and their residual effect is creating too much cognitive dissonance. I can't seem to rid myself of some things that I want to rid myself of.

Most theory of the mind states that once a thought is taken in, it can never be disposed of, it just sits there, filed away until such time as sufficient reason to accept it comes around. So what happens to a thought that was once accepted, but no longer is. Is it in a way, still accepted, and always WILL BE accepted, even if we tell ourselves otherwise.

Is there any way to "un-accept" a thought?

The ambiguity of the word thought... how about I say meme? I wanted to avoid the word, but it IS what i mean.

In other words you don't know how to re-evaluate your old concepts in the light of new information.

I have long since re-evaluated them.
I have long since rejected them. (the one's in question anyways)

But their effects on how I "feel" about something, or my "gut reactions" to things.... it's still the older ideas that affect those initial reactions. Then I think about it, reassess, and I get irritated at myself for those emotional responses that are contrary to what I believe.

Making any sense?

Moot point. The control is the thought and the thought is the control.

i couldn't really participate in the poll because the gradations were too coarse, IOW i didn't fit precisely into any of the preset categories. this said, i have to say there is at least one aspie [moi ] who has proven he is not capable of always thinking logically, nor of thinking in a sufficiently effective executive manner as to well-order his life and his local-or-general environment.

In the thought and the owner of the thought.

If there is no separation, then the mind or brain that the thought is located in is nothing more than a location and irrelevant to any discussion.

But here is no "owner" of a thought. A thought exists as an arrangement of neurons firing into a complex of other neurons firing. There is no ownership.

Then those neurons wouldn't have an owner either nor would the brain they are a part of.

That being the case, I can come to only two possible conclusions: either you don't exist or you don't have a brain.

Is there a third possibility?