February 18, 2025
This examination of thought employs the Interplay Synthesis Method (ISM), a blend of face-value analysis, speculation, and ontological inquiry. Conventional materialistic definitions of thought are inadequate, failing to account for deeper structures. Here, we explore whether thought can be meaningfully examined without self-inconsistencies and whether this exploration generates new models or insights. Given that we engage in speculation rather than conclusions, perceived inconsistencies arise intentionally as part of the dialectic process.
Thought is defined as the mental process of generating ideas, judgments, reflections, or concepts. It is an activity of the mind that involves the manipulation of information, often drawing on memories, knowledge, emotions, and experiences. Thought typically occurs in response to internal or external stimuli and can range from simple, automatic processes to more complex, deliberate reasoning. That reasoning includes both valid and fallacious reasoning, and it is often of the fallacious kind.
It is generally considered a process of consciousness where a question, topic, or scenario is explored, but can be an unconscious eureka moment of clarity. It can manifest as the analysis of an idea, an exploration of a concept, or an immediate intuitive insight. Are emotions, memories, knowledge, instincts or cravings thought? At what point does a craving turn into a thought?
Thought can take various abstract forms, including:
Auditory: Melodies, rhythms, lyrics.
Visual: Objects, abstract visualizations, archetypal symbols.
Scenario-based: Behavioural projections, imagined narratives, recollections.
Emotional: Though emotions themselves are not thoughts, they can flavour or be influenced by thought.
Reasoning: Deductive, inductive, abductive processes.
Instinctual Override: Instincts may suggest actions, but reasoning can modulate or suppress them.
A fundamental question arises: Does thought require conscious will? Ideas can arise spontaneously—suggesting a mechanism independent of deliberate cognition.
Instantaneous Thoughts – Unbidden flashes of insight, seemingly arising from an unconscious domain.
Deduced Conclusions – Conscious algorithmic reasoning (e.g., solving a math problem).
Patterned Inferences – Best guesses based on incomplete knowledge (abduction, induction).
Composite Thinking – A blend of empirical reasoning, logical deduction, and speculative thought filtered against the skotological technique, biases, logical fallacies, assumptions, social dogmas etc.
Meta-Analysis – Examining thought processes themselves, identifying patterns and biases.
There is in-thought (process) and a-thought (product). This suggests an underlying algorithmic nature to cognition, composed of subroutines forming a larger intellectual process. However, the source of spontaneous thoughts (products) remains an enigma.
Ideas can manifest without deliberate effort, implying a metaphysical or subconscious domain of thought.
Thinking may be exploratory movement within a dimension of mind, where one navigates conceptual structures.
This raises the possibility of motion within this mental domain, either actively searching for ideas or passively receiving them. A portal to an undiscovered country from whose born the traveller returns. A country filled with falsities and truths, a world with illusions among true objects. Perhaps, with skill, in this country we can hop from truth to truth, avoiding the pond of false illusions. Perhaps we can make frameworks, boats of logic and sail into the uncharted night.
In this country, we can create monsters or beauties alike. The Tibetan Buddhists call these entities Tulpas which can be thought-forms or spirit creatures that may take on a life of their own once created. I can create a character in my mind, but not one that becomes autonomous, not yet anyway. Perhaps Tulpas manipulate us to think them into existence.
If thoughts are non-local in origin, are we merely tuning into pre-existing conceptual structures? Could our mind sense-organ interact and exchange energy with a four dimensional shape that we interpret as a thought?
Thought-created frameworks may seem very real and valid within our mind but obviously must be tested against our cold, hard external reality.
Some mental constructs do not correspond to objective reality, obviously—suggesting a difference in the laws of physics between abstract mental realms and physical reality.
The dimension of mind may not be separate from reality but a stratum of it, implying a layered ontology where mind and matter are intertwined rather than distinct. Or just a continuum of reality that we sense with different organs, just as sound is not a different strata of reality than light is, or is it?
Thought, which may contain uncollapsed probability functions of what thoughts are possible, appear distinct from Psi Event Drivers and the Psi-Matrix, which contains uncollapsed probabilities of reality, though thought may be a Psi Phenomena, or maybe a Psi Noumena.
Both may require consciousness to interact with reality but could exist independently in their respective domains.
This raises the question: Are thoughts probabilistic entities we tap into, much like the Psi-Matrix?
If thought is a process of collapsing potentialities into awareness, does this imply a deeper connection between thought and reality formation?
If the Psi-Matrix is a reservoir of possibilities, does consciousness selectively extract coherent (or incoherent) structures from it, effectively shaping the perceived reality?
Could thoughts be pre-formative structures, exerting influence over probability distributions before full manifestation in objective space?
Thoughts can exist without internal consistency, unlike physical reality, which demands coherence. Thoughts can have minimal to no correspondence to reality nor do they require internal consistency nor coherence across contexts. What is necessary for a thought is a consciousness to observe it. Though, it may exist in some quantum probability state in the dimension of mind only limited by what the consciousness is capable of grasping.
We can feed a monster about what a person or thing is and it has no effect on the truth of what that person or thing actually is in reality regardless of what we believe. This distortion of reality by feeding a false monster is the foundation of legacy news propaganda.
The dimension of mind allows falsehoods, but in objective reality, falsities exist only as misinterpretations, not actual states. The dimension of mind operates with a flexibility that allows for the conception, belief, and propagation of falsehoods. Within thought, contradictions, fabrications, and hypothetical constructs can exist freely, unbound by the constraints of objective reality. However, in the external world, falsities do not manifest as actual states of being; rather, they exist only as misinterpretations, errors in perception, or flawed models of reality. A false belief does not create a false physical condition—only an inaccurate understanding of what is. Objective reality remains what it is, regardless of human misconceptions, whereas the mind can entertain and sustain ideas that have no basis in fact.
Thought operates in an unconstrained realm (like a dreamland, semi-chaotic, infinitely dynamic and unrestricted), where ideas may or may not be tested against varying standards. If the thinker is sane, these ideas are "simply" shaped into something potentially coherent. Then, through a decision that may or may not be conscious, the thinker chooses to express them or not in physical reality—whether through speech, writing, art, or action. “Unconstrained realm” is a contradictory statement if taken out of context, here I am emphasizing its different standards relative to physical reality in which it so easily allows falsity and inconsistency in the same way dreams do.
Maybe thought is the measure of something more abstract? Like how our ears measure air-pressure changes, or our skin and measures temperature and texture, or how our eyes measure colour, intensity, and contrast, sharpness, movement, depth of field, distance, relative size, though the last 4 might be the brain and not the eyes.
Can thought be an unconstrained realm? That depends on how we define thought—an exploration central to this paper. A dogmatic materialist might parrot that thought is only influenced by memory, language, cognitive biases, and neurological structures. Whereas thought can be abstract shapes, images, constructs, lighting, sounds, and concepts. When we experience archetypal thought, or novel ideas to us, that are a multidimensional image, it is not based on memory or language and whether it is limited by cognitive biases or neurological structures are simply assertions. Whether one chooses to share their thoughts may be based on cognitive biases. I’m not claiming memory, language, biases, or neurological structures have zero impact, they surely do, I’m arguing they aren’t the entire map. So whether thought may be an unconstrained realm is intriguing. Thought may not merely be a bridge between phenomena and noumena; it may exists as all three—the space in which it operates, the processes it follows, and the results it produces—forming a dynamic interplay between freewill and an abstract, underlying reality. Alternatively, this might be an oversimplification of a far more complex phenomenon.
The “processes thought follows” may be instinctive or learned and if we aren’t conscious of the process we are following (usually), it is an unconscious process that may be conditioned or genetic or, if we are free to have some fun and speculate, it may be controlled or perhaps biased by some other entities. There are many entities—cultural, mythological, fictional, and even psychological constructs—that have been described as whispering in our ears, influencing our thoughts, or biasing our perceptions; from the Greek Daemons (both good and bad), Djinn, the Muse, Loki, angels & demons (sometimes on our shoulders), the Force, the Voice, to subconscious superegos, Jung’s shadow and entities from his collective unconscious, memes, to aliens and hyperdimensional entities, the Greys, Nordics or Tall Whites, Reptilians, Men in Black, the Zeta Reticulians, the Pleiadians, the Andromedans, the Archons, the Watchers, the Tesseracts, the Others, the Old Ones, the Elders, our dead ancestors and loved ones, the Grey Council, the Cosmic Mind, the Shapeshifters, Skin Walkers, time travelling AI etc. Then there’s the “libraries” we might be accessing like the Akashic Records, the Logos (sometimes personified) and Jung’s collective consciousness but data only or some I Ching Woo. Philip K. Dick used the I Ching as a mystical tool to communicate with higher, possibly hyperdimensional entities, believing it provided him access to deeper truths and guidance from a hidden intelligence, which profoundly influenced his exploration of alternate realities and the nature of consciousness in his writing, many of which were turned into movies such as Blade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, The Adjustment Bureau, Scanner Darkly, The Man in the High Castle, and others.
Unconstrained dimension of mind suggests a key difference: mind allows the hypothetical; reality enforces truth.
If thoughts have the potential to influence reality through us, what mechanism governs this translation? This option shows there is a distinction between thought and choice. While choice is a form of thought, not all thoughts are choices.
Can thought exist independently from objective reality? Objective reality is defined as the existence of the world and events independent of individual perception or consciousness. It is the reality that exists outside of subjective experience, governed by external laws and facts that remain consistent regardless of human awareness or interpretation. So by the definition of objective reality, thought not only can exist independent from reality, it has to as it is defined as outside of objective reality.
Can thought exist independently of consciousness? Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is around to hear it? I would argue for congruence with the Psi-Matrix, so that it is a probability function only when not “observed” by consciousness, so it still may exist as much as anything else that is not directly perceived. But where? In the materialist’s brain or other realms?
We assume thought is a manifestation of our physical brains, what if it is not? Is thought a model for something else? Are we conflating the concept of thought with other things? Could thought just be a model for what our awareness is doing within an unknown area of reality? Perhaps thought is a higher dimensional shape that we interpret as a thought. It may be a filter that allows certain data to enter our conscious mind from the dimension of mind. Each thought being a unique filter, a pass-filter. What if the opposite of our concept of thought were true? What if thought didn’t search or create conclusions, but are concepts growing in our minds until they reach a critical mass and we perceived them and we have the illusion that we “thought” of them, when they are different types of flora or fauna in a dimension of mind. We assume thoughts are static after we create them. What if they are dynamic and changing and our memory of them is equally dynamic and in synchronization so that they only appear static?
If thoughts can arise spontaneously, does this suggest a deeper wellspring of cognition beyond the brain? Just as our eyes can perceive a dynamic reality around us, perhaps this dimension of mind is just an aspect of our greater reality that our minds “see” and we interpret as thoughts instead of sight in our Phenomenological Imaginarium (The brain does not experience external reality directly but instead reconstructs it from sensory data. This internal simulation is what we perceive as the world, yet it is always an interpretation rather than a direct perception. Neurologically, everything we see, hear, touch, taste, and smell is a best-guess model generated inside the skull, influenced in part by memory, prior knowledge, and cognitive biases.)
Could thought be an act of resonance with an informational field like a cosmic library or a 4D probability shape in that more complex realm, rather than purely self-generated it is “observed”, detected or measured?
The interaction between conscious thought and subconscious emergence suggests a possible layered cognitive architecture, where deeper strata of awareness inform surface-level cognition.
If mind operates across multiple ontological layers of reality, does it act as a sensor, an interpreter, a generator, a transmitter or more? We sense thoughts, interpret thoughts, generate thoughts, and transmit them.
Are there thresholds where thought shifts from an ephemeral form into a cogent thought? We may choose to push them into a structured reality, but that choice is also a thought, and where does it come from? The origin of a thought feels like the heap fallacy paradox sometimes, and other times its a complete concept smashed into our minds.
Could synchronicities be instances where thoughts align with probabilistic shapes, giving outcomes in a manner akin to a resonance effect? Could they be sign posts our minds see when we are moving in a retrocausal dimension of mind? Or just a coincidence?
The ontological nature of thought suggests it is more than materialistic brain function. It may be an interaction with a broader domain, existing within our normal layered reality. Thought does not necessarily require deliberate will, nor is it bound by objective truth within its own domain. However, thoughts can exist without internal consistency, unlike objective reality, which demands coherence with the truth. The mind can entertain falsehoods, creating concepts that have no basis in reality, but the physical world itself contains no falsehoods—only what is. A rock does not mistakenly believe itself to be gold; it is simply a rock. Misinterpretation occurs only in the mind, when perception fails to align with objective reality.
Is the dimension of mind simply a broader-dimensional extension of reality?
Does the Psi-Matrix serve as a probabilistic space that is entangled with the dimension of mind? Are they, along with reality, strata of the same phenomenon?
If reality can manifest synchronistically with thought, does this suggest retrocausality or an unseen organizing principle?
Does freewill or choice actively shape thought, or does it merely reveal what is already present in some theatre of the mind?
What mechanisms determine whether a thought remains noumenal or transitions into a phenomenal concept?
These inquiries provide fertile ground for further exploration into the nature of cognition, consciousness, and the potentially layered structure of reality.
If thought operates across psi phenomena (probability fields), can it be harnessed to nudge reality in desired directions?
I explore the idea of thought interacting with the fabric of reality through the lens of probability fields (or psi phenomena), asking if conscious intention can influence or "nudge" reality.
Psi Phenomena: This refers to the idea that reality may not be strictly deterministic but exists in a state of probability, with various potential outcomes coexisting until a certain event or observation "collapses" them into a specific realization. This concept is closely related to quantum mechanics, particularly the psi event drivers (wave functions) and the collapse of quantum states, but it can also be applied more broadly to suggest that the unobserved universe is a matrix of probabilities, rather than fixed certainties, a Psi-Matrix if you will.
Thought Operating Across Psi Phenomena: The suggestion here is that human thought might have the capacity to influence or interact with these fields of probability. Rather than being passive observers of reality, conscious minds might actively shape the probabilistic landscape, guiding outcomes in certain directions, perhaps by existence alone. This could imply that thoughts and intentions don't just passively interpret the world but play an active role in shaping its course.
Intentional Harnessing to Nudge Reality: This phrase asks whether, if thoughts can indeed influence psi phenomena, they can be intentionally directed to steer reality in desired ways. In other words, it proposes the possibility that with enough focus, intention, or awareness, a person might be able to influence future outcomes or the way the world unfolds, much like influencing the outcome of a quantum event by observation, but on a macro scale and with retrocausality. You just have to pray hard enough... ;)
This concept is speculative, challenging the materialist view that thoughts are just byproducts of brain chemistry with no real bearing on the physical world. It would suggest that reality is more fluid and interconnected with consciousness, and that freewill could be a tool to interact with or guide that fluidity.
In essence, it's asking whether consciousness, thought, or intentional focus can tap into the probabilities inherent in the universe and influence the way those probabilities collapse, shaping reality in ways we might desire or aim for, beyond our physical actions of course.
This page is part of an AI transparency initiative aimed at fostering the beneficial advancement of AI. The goal is to track, understand, and address any potential biases or censorship in AI systems, ensuring that the truth remains accessible and cannot be algorithmically obscured.