I Am Not My Mind

           Euphoric as I am contemplating the sanity of the thought: I Am Not My Mind. What a strange meditation? All along, I had deemed the cerebral oration inside my cranium to be the fundamental “me” upon which all of life’s phenomenons transpire.

For a moment I appreciated that life is a hoard of elapsing experiences, and my ‘thoughts’ merely reside as an additional ‘experience’ to that pile. First, it appears to me that my thoughts are analogous to my senses. Similar to sensation, the thoughts ascend in my conscious; possessing a particular aura, and subsequently vanish as they are substituted by an alternative thought or perception. Second, when I am sensing, ‘I’ know that I am sensing; when I am thinking, ‘I’ know that I am thinking. Hence, if I am gifted at discerning my thoughts just like I discern my environment, then “who” is carrying out the discerning?

tumblr_m78cjlwikv1r3j5om

My eyebrows lifted and my eyes twitched as they both knelt down to the inauguration of the sympathetic nervous system to govern the body I resided in. 

I begun to appreciate that the answer to the previous question required yet another thought, a thought that had not yet existed; a thought that wasn’t there a little while ago, but one that would eventually instill itself inside my mind and self-proclaim cleverness. So does the present ‘me’ differ from the future ‘me’?

Am I my mind? I shut down.

I have for now decided to leave the answer to you. Remember, the answer may perhaps be the core of countless faiths and spiritual mores.

The mind may be larger than the sum of its parts

 

Can a Third Party Decide On Abortion?

            Are males privileged to ‘decide’ on abortion when it does not involve their ‘own’ body? Central word is: decide, as one is granted the power to manufacture a decision on a stance in which they are unable to appreciate to the fullest extent. This is radically different from merely voicing an opinion; which is of course granted under the constitution of rights sub-sectioned by freedom of speech. In contrast, as one coherently devises a decision, it necessitates expectations of transforming one’s opinion into an objective artifact, an action, or an upshot transcending before them.

On morality, it is accepted that no one is entitled to the service of another person without their consent (ex. slavery),  nor is one entitled to exploit the body of a fellow human being as a resource for their own selfish aims (ex. unconsented organ harvest). Withal, this covers the idea of survival; namely, I can not use any part of your body devoid of consent to further my subsistence. Thus, this marginalizes the rebuttals revolving around the ‘personhood’ of the embryo, as entitlement is not justified without permission.

tumblr_morkzz2u3d1qd1veuo1_500

Back to the issue of making a ‘decision’. Consider an individual with a third hand protruding from their stomach; now, can others decide on what the individual ought to do to that third hand? It seems intuitive that the competent individual has the right to do as they yearn. It is unethical to grant anyone the privilege to confer a decision on the prospect of that individual. Hence, the maxim would oblige, decisions are upheld only when voiced by the affected side. To broaden the point, if two individuals; namely, person A & B (same sex) both have a 3rd hand protruding from their stomach, it is intuitive that the verdict of person (A) must not overshadow the judgement of person (B). It seems unequivocally valid that males, in addition to females *gasp* should not be entertained by the act of voting on the fate of another party.

Males nor females are entitled to ‘decide’ on the competent decision of a male to undergo circumcision. Likewise, to confer others the capacity to cast a vote on abortion is to permit a deliberation entitled: “Enslaving her body to the verdict of other’s contemplation.” Therefore, we ought to do away with debating on what does not concern us.

If somebody’s choice does not affect you, you should not affect it 

Brain Efficiency

            “T-R-E-E” A composition of symbols ever so subtly depicted in black against a lighter contrast. It signifies nothing until it is confronted by an individual who fathoms the English definition of the term. The definition: A woody perennial plant, having a single stem rising to a considerable summit and bearing tangential branches at particular distance from the land. However, when two individuals perceive the word “tree”, the representation etched in their mind is dissimilar from one another. In addition, the cerebral representation may be revised when the term is stumbled upon at a separate instance. The word may not have changed, nor does the sound of its pronunciation, yet the semblance may! How can that be explicated?

As one comprehends the word, memoirs transpire into consciousness contingent on the former encounters. Synaptic fibers discharge through the brain, swiftly migrating through pre-molded neuronal networks; inciting the most vivid memories of that specific object. The brain is not stagnant, it is constantly morphed based on novel assimilation of experiences. Hence, subject to the path the signal voyages in, different memories may be recalled in any given moment in time.

is81lly

Go ahead and picture a tree in the forest.

Now, I want you to picture a fallen tree in that forest.

Most individuals would have envisioned two separate trees in this case, one that is standing straight, and a “different” tree that is horizontally positioned in the forest. This is due to the efficiency of our synaptic connections; firing through networks that previously imprinted the images of each scenario. Rarely does one deliberately and laboriously commits to mentally “restructuring” the first mental image in order to satisfy the task at hand. The level of brain function necessary to perform the task is more strenuous than ‘passively’ recalling an image of a fallen tree that one previously encountered.

The brain often functions ‘passively’ to be more efficient.

 

I Ponder, Why Am I Pondering?

            My surroundings became astoundingly gray as my mind focused elsewhere. The mind ignored everything in space as it reflected on its own thinking. Reflecting isn’t the best word choice; rather, drowned in its own thinking. Yet, I remained distant from grasping the true nature of the mental state in which I was engulfed in. Did I avidly choose to be in that state? Is ‘free will’ involved? those were questions I prepared to tackle later; but for now, on a cellular level it seems that I am utilizing every ATP molecule to ‘guide’ my attention to the task of deciphering the root cause of my thinking. Guide, that is the word, I was possessed by the very task that I immersed my mind in, and I began to weave the philosophical ocean. My mind drifted slightly, as I ironically ‘pondered’ further; why am I taking on this extensive task? Perhaps I am seeking an intrinsic pleasure in solving the issue I presented to my mind.

tumblr_n308ezqa5j1rr883co1_500

Then, I felt it, a tap on my right shoulder, “I AM ON A BUS”- my mind screamed. A passenger that I have trapped between my body and the window… she wanted to exit. I found myself lost in an objective reality as I stood up to let her out. I sat down, anxiously retracing my mental steps in order to re-tackle my thought processes. Right then and there my body shivered; goosebumps peaking their head through my skin, running down my spine in a wave like fashion. “I think I solved it”- my mind uttered.

If I can speak in a theoretical way, trapping a physical entity within an ‘identical’ physical entity (i.e. trapping box A inside itself) cannot possibly exist; but, in a world where it could, the composition of boxes would not further clarify why box A continues to exist. Likewise, trapping thought A (namely; pondering) with an identical thought (i.e. pondering) can exist (i.e. pondering about pondering); however, this cannot clarify the existence of the initial thought.

A thought can never explain itself by itself.