The difference is that thoughts (and the experience of being alive) is the brain neurons firing and generating that experience. The experience of sight is not a tangible thing that is touchable, but in a PCE it is actually happening - it is the brain generating consciousness.
Similarly for example if one were to stimulate an actually free person’s visual cortex that would cause visual effects – those would be actual.
While emotions are not actual, they don’t exist in this way ^. The emotions have the effect of causing brain neurons to fire (some of which then cause hormones to be released etc.), but the emotion itself, the intuitive experience of it, and all it entails, is not actual.
That’s a really good description @claudiu so essentially the point is that emotions are only experienced intuitively by the ‘self’ or they are the ‘self’ but that intuitive experience of a self having/being emotions is not actual, it is an illusion which arises out of the affective faculty. Yet the chemicals and the physical sensations which are associated with emotions are actual.
Not exactly. Though I can’t find the quote now, I once asked Richard about what scientists discover, and how they are discovering properties of the actual world. And he corrected me saying that scientists discover properties of the physical world, not the actual world, as the actual world is invisible to them.
e.g. how can they discover and empirically determine properties of the actually-existing pure intent, when this pure intent is invisible to them? etc…
@rick I would say the word ‘actual’ denotes ground reality as it is experienced in the absence of feelings or self to obscure it. Whereas ‘physical’ is a term that has long been used to describe objects that have a material reality in contrast to non-physical things such as mathematical concepts, fairies, thoughts and feelings - at least as far as we buy some sort of Cartesian dualism that separates these out. It sounds like you are proposing a kind of monism, where thoughts, feelings, images and abstractions are on an equal footing with physical objects in the world which they seem to be a part of - at least in some sense.
But aren’t mental images intangible? Aren’t abstract concepts insubstantial? Yet imagination and abstract conceptualization exist in the actual world. How can one say that feelings are exempt from being categorized as physical? How could that which is non-physical be experienced in this physically boundless world?
This is the age old ontological problem. The way I think about it now, even as an actualist it doesn’t matter whether you are a philosophical monist or a dualist. The fact remains that in life you intuitively treat images, concepts and feelings quite differently from physical objects e.g. reacting to being actually shot at with a gun vs. reacting to a child making a ‘gun’ with his hand and saying he will ‘shoot’ you. I wonder if - in another way - you are also asking here how consciousness can come about from dead physical matter? Ah but matter is not dead. Far from it.
I am imagining a unicorn. The image of the unicorn actually exists. It is a physical manifestation that required physical processes to take on its form. If I am deluded, I might mistake that internal image as not merely existing in my physical head but outside where it can be sensately perceived by others. I might say, look, there’s a unicorn, when there is no form for others to see. The assertion that unicorns exist outside my mind would more accurately be classified as perhaps an error of reasoning, or even a pathology that leads one to assert that they exist in a manner sensately observable to others. But in any case, if I imagine the unicorn then it must actually, physically exist, if only as an image produced by the physical processes of this brain.
Again a monist might make this case. But to me regardless of whether you give the unicorn in your imagination agency or not, it doesn’t actually exist. And if wishes were horses, many children will be riding a pony. Your imaginary unicorn can’t be ridden, doesn’t eat, copulate etc. Its existential status vs. the actually existing brain of yours that produced it is just not comparable.
The fact that this physical universe is infinite and eternal means that it is a mistake to draw a line between the physical world and the imaginary world, between the sensate tangible realm and the affective emotional realm. There cannot be anything which is not physical. Therefore feelings must be physical. And if it is physical, then it is factual. If factual, then actual.
To drive the point: there is nothing, absolutely nothing that is not physical and thus actual. If I experience desire, then that desire is physical i.e. actual.
Of course, if one stops experiencing feelings, it would be correct to say that feelings are not actual, not physically existent. They are simply not there. But to say a feeling, despite experiencing it, is less a fact than the mental image of the ‘number 4’, strikes me as a misapprehension or an error of reasoning.
Ok so have it your way. Be a monist lumper that sees everything as a manifestation of the physical. But as someone seeking to be actually free the question then becomes what makes you want to even seek an actual freedom from the human condition in your undifferentiated world? One answer could be that you are tired of negative emotions and simply want to be happy - and that doesn’t depend on what you think of the status of unicorns . But that by itself isn’t enough, you still have to be able to separate ‘reality’ from actual in order to make the right choice. The risk with your philosophy is that the line gets so blurry, the right choice would never be apparent. Gods and unicorns then are on a somewhat equal footing with apples and trees. So would feeling beings and flesh and blood bodies. One way out of this (and this is why I think ontological agnosticism about the nature of reality isn’t necessarily a problem) is to maybe realise that your philosophical position doesn’t in any way change how you experience the world. So when you choose actual freedom when the time comes, you recognise that in some way that the actual you, this flesh and blood body is gloriously substantive in a way that feeling being fictional ‘you’ never can be. After-all one can be absorbed in a novel and still recognise that it is not actual or substantial when we put it down, get up, stretch and walk to the refrigerator to get something to eat.
I wonder what the difference is between the status of thoughts vs feelings as actually existing things. Seems like both are virtual. A product of brain activity, but producing experiences that are very different. One is more like a voice or a string of words. The other is a phantom-like bodily experience. But feelings have a way of wrapping us up in an alternative world in a way thoughts cannot. Okay, meditators would claim something different, but they tend to ignore feelings or see them as a byproduct of thought.
To throw a pretty big and controversial spanner in the works, it seems increasingly likely now that the brain rather than rendering reality faithfully is more of a constructive, modelling and prediction engine - which has to do a lot of work with a rather limited sensory input. So a lot of stuff is made up and filled in (e.g. peripheral vision) rather like a half finished video game where it’s all just chunky pixels.
Tbh, it doesn’t really make a difference at all whether this is true or not. Accepting or not accepting this will not get in the way of actual freedom. I’m an empiricist for the most part and I really don’t care when I’m speaking to someone, drinking a cup of coffee or looking up at the night sky how my brain is putting that experience together. Living an actual freedom is just glorious and magical in its own right regardless. The difference between living like this and as a feeling being is day and night.
Hi Ron (or do you prefer actualron?) - I have always had this problem as well. How can thoughts exist in the actual world when they seem to be as immaterial as anything else that occurs internally? Yet still Richard described thoughts in the same manner he would describe an externally perceived physical object like a ceramic bowl or a mountain vista.
Richard (2000): Thoughts are sparkling … coruscating.
All the while he maintained that mental images and sounds, including subvocalization, which appeared to me to be related thoughts, did not exist in the actual world.
Richard (2006): What I am reporting above, as having no existence in this actual world, is the mental imagery – be it visual, audile, haptic, olfactory or kinaesthetic imagery.
That is until all that mental imagery which definitely did not exist in this actual world, did exist in the actual world. Since mental imagery was now being perceived as factual, what might be next? Why couldn’t emotions be factual as well? Perhaps we’ve been conditioned to regard selective aspects of the internal world as less substantial than the external world? If thoughts are just as palpable as a tooth ache, having properties which can be perceived as “sparkling … coruscating”, and now that mental imagery occupies the same status, why not go a little further and add emotions?
This is not to say that emotions and mental imagery cannot come to an end. Indeed, the imaginative faculty, which is an actual physical phenomenon, one day ceased operating for Richard. To be sure, one’s experience may well improve by orders of magnitude upon the dissolution of self, emotion, and even imagination; but if something is being experienced, whatever it is, then it must be material as well, or else it violates the position that only the physical world exists. A (seemingly) contradictory state of affairs, in other words.
This is some really cool information, thanks @Srinath. Something you wrote got my interest. You wrote “one is like a voice or a string of words”, is this how you experience thought operating? For example if you were thinking about composing the post you did, would the thoughts be like a voice inside the brain but with no ‘thinker’ behind them? I guess I’m trying to wrap my head around the experience of thought operating when actually free. Ofcourse there is no thinker but can the thoughts be ‘heard’ like a voice? In the same way when I am writing this now I hear the thoughts being composed in my mind. Or equally when I am thinking about something I may ‘see’ the image in my mind. The difference would be that for me there appears to be a thinker behind those processes whereas for you they are simply the product of this brain? This is really interesting for me because I seem to have this belief that all this stuff goes when actually free, as if the mind itself dissapears. However I remember in PCEs there was still the mind doing what it does but there was no longer a little person behind it all, it was all happening of its own accord, it seemed smoother.
Just to provide some more information about this as I wrote the post rushing to work in the morning.
I am aware of the issues of duality but it seems like I have gone the other way and imagined actual freedom to be a zombie like state with no mind operating at all.
I remember a PCE I had quite a few months ago happened where I started contemplating that the actual world is so very close. There was a shift that happened which seemed to put the mind into the ‘correct gear’ however the mind did not dissapear, it was finally operating as it is meant to. All the processes that are associated with the mind were still operating but it is just that the being went into abeyance. Because of this the mind had not much else to do but to delight at the wonder of being here.
I was driving to work just now and contemplating all this and I was beginning to get a taste of this again. Experiencing just how close the actual world is, that the shift is not of the mind disappearing but the being which has taken residence inside this body going into abeyance.
This seems very important because it appears at times I am still going after the wrong thing, imagining actual freedom to be something it is not and as a result also doubting my experiences.
@Kub933 Just to clarify, my description of what a thought is like was a generic one applicable to everyone and not a description of my own thoughts. The answer to your question is only a PCE away. Have you had thoughts in a PCE? It’s quite similar, especially in extended PCE’s. Only I’d say that in actual freedom the stillness is deeper and more profound. Thoughts do happen, but they are far fewer and have this quality of coming ‘out of nowhere’ (not exactly but closest I can describe) Thoughts don’t seem to come from some homunculus, some person within you like in a feeling being state. As a feeling being I was constantly besieged by thoughts and feelings 24/7
Also some of what I wrote above is conjecture and not necessarily consistent with the AFT. Feel free to have your own thoughts about it.
Tangentially related, apparently, in space the cosmic radiation of the universe causes flashes of light in astronauts: The Universe is Hostile to Computers - YouTube . These flashes of light would be experienced by an actually free person… hence they are actual!
Yes I had thoughts in a PCE and I actually remember very well what it was like. The confusion seems to be because it was not what I expected/believed it would be like. There seems to be some sort of conflict/cognitive dissonance between my PCEs vs my beliefs about what Actual freedom is meant to be like. I guess what I am trying to do is get you to confirm this for me as opposed to sticking to my experience.
This has been clarifying itself this morning though, I can see that when the being goes into abeyance the mind remains along with its functions such as thought.
In this sense a PCE is a lot more down to earth than what I have been making it out to be, dare I say ordinary . It is the experience of a mind freed of the feeler and the thinker and as such being able to function with clarity and smoothness, all the while delighting in the perfection of the actual world.
What I observe from your correspondence is that you appear to be missing the point in that actualism is not a philosophy or a framework of thought or a belief system… actualism is experiential.
This isn’t the first time you appear to be complaining about the presentation of actualism, inconsistencies you perceive, even casting doubts on the integrity of the presentation of actualism as a whole.
Yet the people who are having success with actualism, including not only the actually free people but those feeling-beings that are reporting progress on the path, have no such complaints.
The reason is that, actualism being experiential, what is important is the practical experience of employing the actualism method (of enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive as much as possible) and the end result of that successful application (of becoming actually free). And to that end the presentation of actualism is sufficient and is only improving over time.
That is - the method works, and all you have to do is get off of the philosophical armchair and actually begin putting it into practice in your own life. Then you will start to see the benefits for yourself and questions such as these, while they would likely remain interesting to you, would be seen to be of essentially no consequence with regards to becoming happier and more harmless and becoming free from the human condition.
With the benefit of experiential success with the method you will see that, for example, it is in hindsight not surprising that aspects peculiar to the first and only actually free person - of having no dreams and no mental imagery - were thought to be attributes of actual freedom in and of itself as opposed to particular to just one person. There was simply no way to know before, since the sample size of one. Now that there are more actually free people, we can have a better understanding of what exactly actual freedom entails.
And further with the benefit of your own PCEs you will see that there is no possibility for emotions to be actual, because of the (temporary) abeyance of ‘being’ itself along with all the emotions that make up that ‘being’.
Not only that, even if some actually free person were to declare that emotions are actual, or to change definitions of words, or to present things in a different way – it would not change the nature of PCEs or of actual freedom whatsoever. Just because someone says it is so, does not make it so. What is key is the PCE itself and establishing your own connection to pure intent and freeing yourself from the human condition. Nobody can do it for you, and no amount of poring over words and discussing apparent inconsistencies will change this.
I encourage you to take the plunge and dive into actualism experientially for yourself, and see what happens!
Apparently, the (conceptual, so of no relevance to the practice of actualism) issue seems to reside in the equation: “physical=actual”. Allow me to take a swing at it lol, since I’ve already written a quick post
‘Actual’ is defined experientially. The actual world is the world as it is experienced in a PCE or in Actual Freedom. That’s it. So… thoughts are there, but feelings are not. Therefore thoughts are actual, and feelings aren’t. Here you go. Easy.
As for what ‘physical’ is, personally I’m happy to defer to (and follow) science on that one. Since determining and understanding this is precisely science’s job. This understanding is incomplete, and interpretations galore, so opinions can be freely made unless proven otherwise. Whatever one’s understanding, or opinion, on e.g. what ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ are, does not infringe on what is experienced as ‘actual’. And why should it? For all we know, the ultimate ‘nature’ (physis) of the universe might be a quantum hypergraph, a 8-dimentional object, whatever.
Actual Freedom is about “being the universe’s experience of itself as a human being”. As a human being. And what do human beings experience? Colors, where there’s only wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation; sounds, where there’s only movement of air molecules; etc. Colors and sounds are actual, but not ‘physical’, unless one wants to consider that they appear as such when ‘coded’ by some sort of brain, and that such brain is… wait for it… part of the physical universe.
Thoughts… same. Only neurons firing… well not even that, but only molecules interacting (ions going through cell membranes etc.)… or not even that, but only excitations in quantum fields…
“Being the universe’s experience of itself as a human being”… Human beings experience thought. Thoughts are actual, yet not ‘physical’ as such.
So what about feelings, might you say? Well the “being the universe’s experience of itself” part is what determines that not any human being’s experience will do, but only that of a PCE/Actual Freedom, again for experiential reasons, “being the universe’s experience of itself” being the actual experience of Actual Freedom.
And it’s awesome
Hi Claudiu - whatever is making actual brain neurons fire cannot be caused by something that does not actually exist; by something that does not have a mass or occupy physical space. This upends basic principles of physics.
Would this have been a personal conversation? Looking through all your correspondence with Richard on the AFT site, doing word searches for “scientists”, “physical”, and “properties” returned nothing related to distinguishing between ‘actual’ and ‘physical’. It’s very possible that I am overlooking it. When you find the time, may you link to that conversation or post the relevant excerpt?
Incidentally, the following definition was located in the ‘Library’ section (emphasis added):
Peter (n.d.): Actual is that which is palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material.
About my statement “thoughts are actual” (and I must admit I paused when writing it, thinking whether it might bring more confusion than benefice… you guys are free to disregard it)…thoughts could be said to not be “palpable, tangible, tactile, corporeal, physical and material” as (feeling-being) Peter defines ‘actual’.
But not only can thoughts be experienced in the PCE/Actual Freedom (which is an experiential definition of ‘actual’), but…
RESPONDENT: What are your thoughts? RICHARD: As I understand it they are an electro-chemical activity in the neurons of the brain.
I’m not sure a clear seeing of this point can be reached as long as there is a thinker in situ… but there’s no need for it. Peter’s definition of ‘actual’ is quite enough to differentiate it from one’s beliefs, fantaisies, and ‘real world’.
As one with a thinker still in situ I can say that a clear seeing of it is possible for me . I think though that it is simply quite impossible to understand, imagine, conceive of, conceptualize, etc., just how thoroughly not-actually-existent ‘I’ as a feeling-being (and a ‘thinker’) am, together with ‘my’ emotions, without a crystal clear PCE - or perhaps without experiencing with awareness at least one crystal-clear entrance into or exit from a PCE.
And even after such an event I could say it is still impossible to conceive of it, perhaps… but I can remember that it is an actuality I experienced and that is enough
But my contention is that such an experience is what is required to see this point - that ‘I’ am not actual - and such an experience is ultimately what the answer to all these questions is, as to what is actual and not actual.
Hi Srinath - thank you for articulating the distinction you perceive between ‘actual’, ‘physical’, and ‘non-physical’ things. Until your post, I had never heard of “Cartesian dualism” or “monism”, so it was helpful of you to reference those schools thought that have been contending with these matters for at least the past 400 years. I would fully agree that, yes, a “kind of monism, where thoughts, feelings, images and abstractions are on an equal footing with physical objects in the world which they seem to be a part of” is what is being put forth for examination and scrutiny.
The prospect that internal images, concepts, and feelings were no different, qualitatively, to externally perceived objects occurred after pondering Richard’s repeated reference to thoughts that were “sparkling, coruscating” as if he were dazzling at the glittering mirrors on a twirling disco ball, descriptions you don’t normally use for silent, private thought processes. Had he never deleted his imagination the presumption is that he would describe imaginative events in a like manner.
Presently, experiments on how experience can be reoriented upon discernment that no fundamental distinction exists between inward-appearing and outward-appearing phenomena are ongoing. Preliminary results indicate that as this fundamental distinction between ‘in’ and ‘out’ diminishes, so does the division-line such distinction apparently sustained. A closeness and intimacy felt with the surroundings manifests and intensifies as the separative divide between what was in here and what was out there weakens and withers. This topic wasn’t tagged as an “experiential-report” for nothing.
No, not this. Not at all. It is clear that matter gives rise to consciousness; that the inanimate becomes animate before becoming inanimate again. Afterall, the fundamental essence of both inanimate and animate objects is its physicality, its existence in fact. What can’t be grasped is how that which is meta-physic gives rise to or effects that which must adhere to the rules of physics. It is not unlike the outlandish claims that demons, angels, and ghosts from the “otherside” are able to interact with people and objects in the physical world.
Doesn’t it? There it is: existent in its foggy, effervescent, majestic form manufactured from the coordinated performance of innumerable electro-chemical processes.
If you were presented with an illustration of a unicorn, you would understand that the illustration of the unicorn was not the same as an actual unicorn in that it can’t be ridden, doesn’t eat, etc. Yet there in front of you would be an actual illustration, an actual representation of a unicorn nevertheless.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, I have to object to your characterization of these explorations and discernments as a ‘philosophy’ on account of the stigmatized association that term may have among moderators with itchy trigger fingers. In addition, given that these explorations are being carried out upon firm empirical grounding it may not be an entirely accurate characterization anyway. Frankly, this exploration began one night by musing upon the nature of experience itself as an undeniably factual occurrence. In moments of quiet respite, the line of contemplation would recommence, and continues to do so, each time going a little further. Later, Richard’s words regarding a boundless and limitless physical universe, existing absolutely (alongside no other), took on a profound significance, and was consequently incorporated into the ruminations:
Richard (2000): This boundless and limitless actual universe, being beginningless and endless (unborn and undying) is absolute.
Richard (2001): This physical universe is infinite and eternal (boundless and limitless).
Which means there is no space, no room, no possibility for anything that is not physical to exist anywhere at all. And the physical absoluteness: boundless, limitless, and borderless, is inclusive of all and is exclusive none. And if a fact means anything at all, surely it must mean something that is undeniable. For example, if there is the experience of repulsion, then that repulsion is undeniably, factually occurring; if it is factual then it must be included, by definition, in the boundless absolute. To be sure, instinctual passions are not the preferred experience, and once the button that dissolves them is located there will be no hesitation to press it. In the meanwhile, these recent discernments, being examined under the eye of critical observation, have been a welcome development. It is supremely satisfying to dip into the warm baths of a physical absolute every now and again.
Essentially, yes, on account that all those are physical manifestations. However, mistakes or misapprehensions may arise as to the nature or source of each manifestation. Some may hold the incorrect notion or conviction that gods and unicorns roam the sky or earth, or that apple trees arise after human blood is spilt in sacrificial offerings, where in fact gods and unicorns arise in the calorifically-energized mind as images and hallucinations while apple trees sprout in hydrated nutrient-rich ground-soil with a pH between 6.0 and 7.0.
Again, objecting to the ‘philosophical position’ nomenclature for reasons expressed above. As for changing how the world is experienced, that was an unexpected outcome of contemplating upon that which is undeniable.
Whatever the case, substantial or insubstantial, since there is an aversion for debilitative feelings, and a preference for ebullient ones, there is a conscious orienting towards the joyful and wholesome, and since that is the essence of Actualism then it may just all lead to the same place anyway.
Super interesting read, though I can’t help think…instead of (or in addition to) quizzing the actually free on intellectual curiosities relating to an imagined actual world…
What if we asked these former feeling beings questions on how they did what they did, how they approached various challenges etc etc .
. But that by itself isn’t enough, you still have to be able to separate ‘reality’ from actual in order to make the right choice. The risk with your philosophy is that the line gets so blurry, the right choice would never be apparent. Gods and unicorns then are on a somewhat equal footing with apples and trees. So would feeling beings and flesh and blood bodies. One way out of this (and this is why I think ontological agnosticism about the nature of reality isn’t necessarily a problem) is to maybe realise that your philosophical position doesn’t in any way change how you experience the world. So when you choose actual freedom when the time comes, you recognise that in some way that the actual you, this flesh and blood body is gloriously substantive in a way that feeling being fictional ‘you’ never can be. After-all one can be absorbed in a novel and still recognise that it is not actual or substantial when we put it down, get up, stretch and walk to the refrigerator to get something to eat.
. It is the experience of a mind freed of the feeler and the thinker and as such being able to function with clarity and smoothness, all the while delighting in the perfection of the actual world.
. I think though that it is simply quite impossible to understand, imagine, conceive of, conceptualize, etc., just how thoroughly not-actually-existent ‘I’ as a feeling-being (and a ‘thinker’) am, together with ‘my’ emotions, without a crystal clear PCE - or perhaps without experiencing with awareness at least one crystal-clear entrance into or exit from a PCE.
