A Footnote to “Why I Am Not a Materialist”

finishedman · February 11, 2013, 2:25am

Liz … (about uniqueness)

I see uniqueness as manifesting itself in the way genes combine to produce the physical aspects of the members of a species. No two leaves on a tree are the same just as no two snowflakes are and no two humans are. We’re all individually unique in physical composition because there is no model in nature when it comes to individual members of a species. Nature may be trying to keep a species pure and strong in the gene pool, which mankind has weakened with humans because we find medical remedies to prolong the weak/sick humans and allow them to pass along a weaker strain of genes which probably weakens the gene pool through breeding. But that’s another story. Anyway, I’d go on to say, though, that we humans basically function the same way. All life is related to other life at the molecular level (DNA) and is linked anatomically, physiologically and biochemically. Due to this common chemical thread, all living systems are similar in their basic structure and function.

Now, when it comes to thought, I’d be the first to admit that I function in that aspect just like a machine. It’s no different from the extraordinary instrument we have, the computer. You press a button and it indicates it is ready. Then you ask for something, then it searches. That searching is thinking. But it is a mechanical process. In that computer there is no thinker. There is no thinker thinking there at all. If there is any information or anything that is referred to, the computer puts it together and throws it out. That is all that is happening. It is a very mechanical thing that is happening. We are not ready to accept that thought is mechanical because that knocks off the whole image that we are not just machines. It is an extraordinary machine. It is not different from the computers we use. But my body is something living; it’s got a living quality to it. It has a vitality. It is not just mechanically repeating; it carries with it the life energy like current energy.

finishedman · February 11, 2013, 2:33am

Pardon me for cutting in Gib …. But isn’t the stimulus response activity one unitary movement that is not actually able to be experienced by a fetus? Doesn’t knowledge or thought (that’s acquired latter) have to come in between the stimulus and response mechanism in order to experience what is happening?

Sorry Liz.

lizbethrose · February 11, 2013, 3:00am

anon wrote:

In some ways, I don’t think we understand anything, including the things we think we understand. This is actually the heart of my OP. Do you understand why kicking a ball results in it flying through the air? My claim is that you don’t. It’s just what happens. And there are complex patterns of things that just happen, that we can describe using simple abstractions (equations, for example), which we can then use to predict things, invent things, etc. That’s kind of a linear presentation of course - in reality we can often predict things before coming up with the abstraction that accurately describes why we can make the prediction. Etc. Also, and I brought this up before in this thread, explanations can apply to everything, but they aren’t sufficient to account for everything. The entire visual spectrum without exception can be explained as shades of black and white, but this explanation is not sufficient to account for color. Likewise, physical explanations can be applied to your mental world, without exception. But physical explanations are not sufficient to account for your mental world. I think this is important to sort out: one mode of explanation is insufficient to encompass reality, yet it is not incredible that one mode of explanation can apply to all reality.

Do I “understand why kicking a ball results in it flying through the air?” Maybe and/or maybe not. I know that the kicker has exerted enough force on the ball to dislodge it from its state of rest for a given period of time before gravity takes over and ultimately returns the ball to its state of rest. If I don’t know the mechanics of that, that’s one thing; I do have, however, empirical ‘proof’ that that’s what’s going to happen.

As for the rest of your post, I don’t think physical explanations can be applied to everything in my mental world. I’d have to be a materialist to do so. Hey, anon, I’m on your side here, buddy. I’m just using my own words, is all.

lizbethrose · February 11, 2013, 3:48am

finishedman:

lizbethrose:

gib, I guess it depends on what you call ‘knowledge’ and how you define ‘cognition.’ For me, knowledge is acquired through experience, and memory, of sensory input, while cognition is the ability to sort through one’s knowledge, arrange one’s knowledge, and–in so doing–learn even more.

Have you ever read Jean Piaget’s theories of the development of cognition in infants and children? He’s quite interesting and really laid the groundwork in that area of child psychology.

Anyway–I’m interested in hearing your ideas so as to add to my knowledge. That’s why I’m here.

Pardon me for cutting in Gib …. But isn’t the stimulus response activity one unitary movement that is not actually able to be experienced by a fetus? Doesn’t knowledge or thought (that’s acquired latter) have to come in between the stimulus and response mechanism in order to experience what is happening?

Sorry Liz.

No apology is needed, FM. However, I think I’ve answered this previously in my link, i.e., the fetus does show reactions to, and memory of, its stimulus/response mechanism.

To get a bit off topic here, because I found it so awesome I want to share it. I watched a very short film (a bit over a minute) the other night. It started with a dog asleep on the floor. Its legs started to twitch, then, as the dream progressed, it started running. It ran faster, looking back over its shoulder. Suddenly it stopped running, turned onto its back, and began fighting–teeth bared and biting, legs pushing upward. Then it stood up and started running again–right into a wall, which finally woke him up. It was one hell of a nightmare! But it showed primal fear.

This is what I thought you were talking about when you mentioned inborn memories. And yes, those memories are there. We all need them and so we all have them.

I only saw the first Matrix and I missed the beginning, so it was rather confusing to me. But, you’re correct, what is “real” to a materialist, are nothing other than electrical signals. What I’ve iterated–even stressed–is the difference between the mechanisms of the brain and the results of those mechanisms. How does the mind/brain actually transform those electrical signals into thought?

That, to me, is a phenomenon that can’t be explained by a materialist.

anon · February 11, 2013, 2:36pm

gib:

Count me in as a fellow non-materialist.

The last few posts have touched on a certain definition of consciousness as the having of knowledge. I want to challenge this a little–or rather, I want to propose that consciousness is bit more complex than that: I want to propose that consciousness qua knowledge is one kind of consciousness. It depends on the organism having the ability for cogitation. But the fetus, the zygote, doesn’t come fully equipped with cogitation from the get go. As soon as it develops the first semblances of a nervous system, I would think the first kind of experience it would be capable of having would be some kind of rudimentary sensation. But unless it already has consciousness in order to experience this sensation (in order for it to be sensation), I’m hard pressed to understand how it could develop and evolve into thought and knowledge.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Liz, a quick glance at subsequent posts and I don’t think you’ve responded to this. I might be wrong about that. What do you think of this presentation? You can say that language limits us to linearity on some level, but it’s really not that hard express non-linearity. In some ways, it’s just about presenting a bit of complexity.

These distinctions make sense to me. Would you say that one state causes the next stage? Or do you think maybe there is an underlying situation, that causes this flowering, in stages, to occur? Or some other explanation, perhaps?

anon · February 11, 2013, 3:01pm

finishedman:

Hello Anon And Liz,

Consciousness sure is prodigious. Wow, what a vast area it is, and, boy, what great amounts of experiences it can contain! That’s one way of looking at it. Another is to ask how we become conscious of something. Anon asked somewhere if a sense of self is a necessary aspect of consciousness? I’d say that is a necessity for one to be conscious of what surrounds him. If we get into analogies, sensory activity is conveyance of electrical nerve signals from the area of detection to the brain much like transferring info from one disc to another. Liz talked about translation and interpretation of said info by means of memory cell activation (frames of knowledge) simultaneous with the sensory detection – and that has to be factored in when discussing the act of being conscious.

When Liz speaks of the strengthening of the knowledge (you have of the experience) due to the repetition of the experience, I believe she is referring to that which reinforces an experiencing structure in you. The immediate translation of a sensory input by means of that experiencing structure is what thought is made up of … and isn’t what you know and think about consciousness … is it not that that is just what you will experience of consciousness so far?

Finishedman,

I’m not sure if I agree with the portion I bolded here or not. Perhaps if you clarify what you mean by a sense of self. But for the moment I think it’s safe to assume you’re just referring to awareness of consciousness - awareness of oneself as a conscious being. If so, then I think the important question is whether this is just semantics - i.e. I can choose to either define consciousness as including self awareness or not - or whether this is actually a fundamental difference - i.e. there is no connection between a thermostat and sentience, at all. In this second view, a thermostat shares no important characteristics with sentient life (or if you don’t believe the “lower” animals are conscious, then they share no important characteristics with the “higher” animals).

anon · February 11, 2013, 3:09pm

finishedman:

anon:

In some ways, I don’t think we understand anything, including the things we think we understand. This is actually the heart of my OP. Do you understand why kicking a ball results in it flying through the air? My claim is that you don’t. It’s just what happens. And there are complex patterns of things that just happen, that we can describe using simple abstractions (equations, for example), which we can then use to predict things, invent things, etc. That’s kind of a linear presentation of course - in reality we can often predict things before coming up with the abstraction that accurately describes why we can make the prediction. Etc. Also, and I brought this up before in this thread, explanations can apply to everything, but they aren’t sufficient to account for everything. The entire visual spectrum without exception can be explained as shades of black and white, but this explanation is not sufficient to account for color. Likewise, physical explanations can be applied to your mental world, without exception. But physical explanations are not sufficient to account for your mental world. I think this is important to sort out: one mode of explanation is insufficient to encompass reality, yet it is not incredible that one mode of explanation can apply to all reality.

Nice bottom lining here Anon … and is why I’m fond of saying, you look for and find what you know, no more or less.

Thanks, finishedman. I’d slightly change what you’ve said though - I think you can find what you have the ability to know.

anon · February 11, 2013, 3:24pm

See my response to gib. Please understand, I’m still just trying to get some idea of what you believe regarding the relationship between consciousness and the senses.

What I meant by losing my sense of a shared topic, is that I’m losing my sense of what the salient points are. We’ve been talking about the senses, and about consciousness. I believe we’re exploring this because of an interest in the relationship between mind and body. If so, are you saying that the senses are physical, consciousness mental? Are you saying that one cause the other? Are you saying that they interact? Forgive me, sometimes I just don’t extract a person’s essential point the way I should. Maybe I would have less of a problem with this if I printed out our conversation so far and took it to a chair in a nice quiet corner somewhere and read through it like that. But I don’t do that.

Ok, sorry for going through your post so linearly, haha, but this seems like the kind of clarification I’ve been looking for. How far do you think all this develops, without any cognition at all? And what, then, causes cognition to arise?

How would you relate these assertions to the mind-body problem?

anon · February 11, 2013, 3:42pm

I follow the biologist Richard Lewontin’s characterization of biological organisms as “internally heterogeneous open systems”. I don’t think mind is blind to its own contents - there is no strict inside and outside. I do think genetic data is a form of mental content, and that like any data, this content can be experienced. Liz asked whether a person with no senses would be a blob or not - I’m not really sure what that means. I think a jellyfish experiences its world. I think Einstein experienced his world. I think a living person born without functioning senses would experience his world. We aren’t born from a vacuum, and we don’t return to a vacuum when we die. Our lives extend beyond what we think of as our selves. Genetic information is one example of this.

anon · February 11, 2013, 3:48pm

That’s an unusual dichotomy - I’ve never heard that one before. Is the generation of and use of thought not part and parcel of this living, vital body?

gib · February 11, 2013, 4:04pm

Ah, so cognition is more like an activity, whereas knowledge is the object this activity bears on? (but not exclusively knowledge, I would think, right?)

I haven’t read Piaget but I did learn more than I ever wanted to know about him while I was a psyc undergrad. I actually tried some of his experiments on my younger cousin when she was about 5 or 6 or thereabouts, and damned if I got the same results Piaget predicted! Which now makes me want to try it on my daughter.

Awsome, 'cause I like to talk .

But unless you want a whole novel on my ideas about consciousness, I suggest you ask one or two specific questions. If you want a sample of my thoughts on consciousness, visit the mm-theory.com link in my sig.

I don’t see why it should. I can understand that it’s impossible to do the thought experiment where you imagine having some kind of experience (like pain) without knowing you’re having it (the thought experiment would have to be setup with you inevitably knowing about it), but there’s nothing logically impossible about the idea of having an experience without knowing about it. The experience itself is handled by one part of the brain, the knowledge by another. The former could conceivably function independent of the latter.

I don’t think seeing the beginning would have made it any less confusing

^^ more like this. Liz was right that it is a concurrent process–sensation contributing to the development of cogitation over a period of time, and even visa-versa (it has been shown that thought and memory affect how we perceive things on a sensual level)–but I still think sensation is the first kind of experience to emerge whereas cognition requires a lot more time and demands a higher degree of development on the part of sensation before it can develop in turn.

anon · February 11, 2013, 4:05pm

lizbethrose:

anon wrote:

In some ways, I don’t think we understand anything, including the things we think we understand. This is actually the heart of my OP. Do you understand why kicking a ball results in it flying through the air? My claim is that you don’t. It’s just what happens. And there are complex patterns of things that just happen, that we can describe using simple abstractions (equations, for example), which we can then use to predict things, invent things, etc. That’s kind of a linear presentation of course - in reality we can often predict things before coming up with the abstraction that accurately describes why we can make the prediction. Etc. Also, and I brought this up before in this thread, explanations can apply to everything, but they aren’t sufficient to account for everything. The entire visual spectrum without exception can be explained as shades of black and white, but this explanation is not sufficient to account for color. Likewise, physical explanations can be applied to your mental world, without exception. But physical explanations are not sufficient to account for your mental world. I think this is important to sort out: one mode of explanation is insufficient to encompass reality, yet it is not incredible that one mode of explanation can apply to all reality.

Do I “understand why kicking a ball results in it flying through the air?” Maybe and/or maybe not. I know that the kicker has exerted enough force on the ball to dislodge it from its state of rest for a given period of time before gravity takes over and ultimately returns the ball to its state of rest. If I don’t know the mechanics of that, that’s one thing; I do have, however, empirical ‘proof’ that that’s what’s going to happen.

See, what I’m saying is that you understand it because you see it happen. That it happens, predictably, satisfies you on some level - you are familiar with it, you “understand” it. Further abstractions, such as “gravity”, “force”, “equal and opposite”, etc., allow you to understand things you haven’t directly experienced. It’s a form of extrapolation. Without either observation or extrapolation, there is no “understanding”. If mind emerges from matter, as it does according to at least some materialists, this emergence is neither observable nor accountable according to any known laws. In itself, this doesn’t mean emergence isn’t possible. Arguing against this on the basis of incredulity alone (“how could mind, which seems fundamentally different from matter, possibly arise from matter?”) doesn’t work.

I don’t understand. Again, the entire visual spectrum can be described in black and white (greyscale). But such an explanation can’t account for color. I see no reason to doubt that all mental phenomena can be described physically - that for every mental difference a corresponding physical difference can be described. A physical explanation can be applied. Similarly, we can quantify anything at all. Why not?

anon · February 11, 2013, 4:25pm

I think so too. Given the right conditions, a fetus will develop into a newborn, and a newborn will develop into a child. Kind of like a snowball effect or something. I think there are a complex series of triggers along the way, triggers to be distinguished from causes. If some things don’t happen, the overall development still happens. If some critical things don’t happen, maybe the overall development is blocked.

finishedman · February 11, 2013, 6:14pm

That’s an integral part of your sensory activity. It’s not the signals that tell you what is real, obviously. After the signals have reached the brain they are translated or interpreted or converted. That’s part and partial of what the brain does. You claimed it yourself: the major role that the development of a central nervous system and all its constituents plays in how we think consciousness is arrived at in a human mind/brain. Interpretation of electrical signals is precisely what delivers what is allegedly real. And what is delivered, basically, is the knowledge you have that has been extracted from memory.

How does a computer do it?

Through the process of translating them into frames of knowledge that move by very quickly. Thought is a movement of millions of these frames. The brain contains them. It’s called memory.

finishedman · February 11, 2013, 6:16pm

Knowledge is the structure of thought and thought is the repitition of the known. There is nothing mysterious about knowledge. It’s just naming things.

finishedman · February 11, 2013, 6:36pm

Well, what have you heard? Or, iow, what do you know about thought, consciousness and life? Obviously that knowledge did not come already in your memory banks at birth. You have been given that knowledge and from that knowledge your question is born.

But, you see, the life of the organism is not ‘interested’ in all of that because the life only requires the basic needs to fulfill its purpose to survive until the next moment. That kind of ‘consciousness’ (the physiological/biological life of the human body has its own programmed intelligence: nervous system, immune system, digestive, and so on) is aware of itself and does not need speculations of concepts or abstractions to go about its operation.

Life goes on apart from thought and its purposes to protect and maintain itself. I’m talking about the kind of thought that is used to give continuity to itself so as to give continuity to a separate self far removed from the physical body. I don’t know if that’s very clear. Trying to describe the dualism with the very instrument that causes the duality can be very misleading.

anon · February 11, 2013, 7:12pm

finishedman:

anon:

finishedman:

We are not ready to accept that thought is mechanical because that knocks off the whole image that we are not just machines. It is an extraordinary machine. It is not different from the computers we use. But my body is something living; it’s got a living quality to it. It has a vitality. It is not just mechanically repeating; it carries with it the life energy like current energy.

That’s an unusual dichotomy - I’ve never heard that one before. Is the generation of and use of thought not part and parcel of this living, vital body?

Well, what have you heard? Or, iow, what do you know about thought, consciousness and life? Obviously that knowledge did not come already in your memory banks at birth. You have been given that knowledge and from that knowledge your question is born.

It’s just unusual. Most people seem to think of the physical world as ordinary or degraded, the mental world as elevated or magical. I don’t agree with that view, but it seems common. You’ve apparently turned that view upside-down, right?

But, you see, the life of the organism is not ‘interested’ in all of that because the life only requires the basic needs to fulfill its purpose to survive until the next moment. That kind of ‘consciousness’ (the physiological/biological life of the human body has its own programmed intelligence: nervous system, immune system, digestive, and so on) is aware of itself and does not need speculations of concepts or abstractions to go about its operation.

Life goes on apart from thought and its purposes to protect and maintain itself. I’m talking about the kind of thought that is used to give continuity to itself so as to give continuity to a separate self far removed from the physical body. I don’t know if that’s very clear. Trying to describe the dualism with the very instrument that causes the duality can be very misleading.

To be honest, I’m not sure what I make of this. I’ll try to think about it more…

finishedman · February 12, 2013, 2:47am

What they’re looking for does not exist. They would rather tread enchanted grounds with beatific visions of a radical transformation of that non-existent self of theirs into a state of being which is conjured up by some bewitching phrases. That takes you away from your natural state – it is a movement away from yourself. To be yourself requires extraordinary intelligence. You are ‘blessed’ with that intelligence; nobody need give it to you, nobody can take it away from you. He who lets that express itself in its own way is natural.

I’m not in conflict with the society. This is the only reality I have, the world as it is today. Some other grand reality that man has invented has absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the reality of this world. As long as there is seeking, searching, and wanting to understand that reality (often called “ultimate reality,” or call it by whatever name you like), it will not be possible to come to terms with the reality of the world exactly the way it is. So, anything done to escape from the reality of this world will make it difficult to live in harmony with the things around.

The fundamental mistake that humanity made somewhere along the line, is, or was, or whatever is the correct verb, to experience this separateness from the totality of life. At that time there occurred in man this self-consciousness which separated him from the life around. He was so isolated that it frightened him. The demand to be part of the totality of life around him created this tremendous demand for the ultimate. He thought that the spiritual goals of truth or reality would help him to become part of the `whole’ again. But the very attempt on his part to become one with or become integrated with the totality of life has kept him only more separate. Isolated functioning is not part of nature. But this isolation has created a demand for finding out ways and means of becoming a part of nature. But thought in its very nature can only create problems and cannot help us solve them.
We don’t seem to realize that it is thought that is separating us from the totality of things. The belief that this is the one that can help us to keep in tune with the totality is not going to materialize. So, it has come up with all kinds of ingenuous, if I may use that word, ideas of insight and intuition

anon · February 12, 2013, 12:51pm

Finishedman,

It seems to me like you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, I think it can make sense to say that there are two ways of understanding any human endeavor. Let’s pick medicine. One way to understand medicine is that it reduces suffering in a basic way. Another way to understand medicine is that it is a search for eternal life, a rejection of life as it is, an erroneous subconscious (usually!) belief that if we can just somehow fix all the various ailments we have and get better and better at it until we eventually eradicate suffering completely. You seem to be approaching “thought”, “mind”, etc. in purely the latter way - and therefore rejecting it. I mean, you’ve said so:

But there is another kind of thought - or, rather, this very same kind of thinking can point in the opposite direction. It can help lead us away from delusion. Medicine is not an inherently deluded activity, and neither is thinking. It seems like you must agree, or you wouldn’t post here, etc. - you would just meditate and try to eradicate your thoughts. And yet, it seems like maybe your emphasis on the delusions of thought is so heavy as to represent an imbalance that in fact may lead towards the very same problem you so often express - a dividing of oneself from oneself, a separation of oneself from nature. Thoughts are natural, putting them together in various constructive ways is natural, and I don’t think thoughts are inherently anything, let alone deluded or bad.

With that in mind…

finishedman:

It’s just unusual. Most people seem to think of the physical world as ordinary or degraded, the mental world as elevated or magical. I don’t agree with that view, but it seems common. You’ve apparently turned that view upside-down, right?

What they’re looking for does not exist. They would rather tread enchanted grounds with beatific visions of a radical transformation of that non-existent self of theirs into a state of being which is conjured up by some bewitching phrases. That takes you away from your natural state – it is a movement away from yourself. To be yourself requires extraordinary intelligence. You are ‘blessed’ with that intelligence; nobody need give it to you, nobody can take it away from you. He who lets that express itself in its own way is natural.

I think you may be exaggerating many people’s beliefs regarding mind and nature. People believe rainbows and sunsets have a “magical” quality, while at the same time thinking these are perfectly natural phenomena. But they are special to them - they are less substantial, not as ordinary as, say, a rock, and seem to be quite different, even ontologically. A rock seems to exist “in itself”, while a rainbow seems to be like an illusion - a coming together of conditions (sun & rain), to create something new and different and, again, insubstantial.

finishedman:

I’m not in conflict with the society. This is the only reality I have, the world as it is today. Some other grand reality that man has invented has absolutely no relationship whatsoever with the reality of this world. As long as there is seeking, searching, and wanting to understand that reality (often called “ultimate reality,” or call it by whatever name you like), it will not be possible to come to terms with the reality of the world exactly the way it is. So, anything done to escape from the reality of this world will make it difficult to live in harmony with the things around.

The fundamental mistake that humanity made somewhere along the line, is, or was, or whatever is the correct verb, to experience this separateness from the totality of life. At that time there occurred in man this self-consciousness which separated him from the life around. He was so isolated that it frightened him. The demand to be part of the totality of life around him created this tremendous demand for the ultimate. He thought that the spiritual goals of truth or reality would help him to become part of the `whole’ again. But the very attempt on his part to become one with or become integrated with the totality of life has kept him only more separate. Isolated functioning is not part of nature. But this isolation has created a demand for finding out ways and means of becoming a part of nature. But thought in its very nature can only create problems and cannot help us solve them.
We don’t seem to realize that it is thought that is separating us from the totality of things. The belief that this is the one that can help us to keep in tune with the totality is not going to materialize. So, it has come up with all kinds of ingenuous, if I may use that word, ideas of insight and intuition

I’m not so sure about this as “history”, but I think there are some good thoughts in there nonetheless.

finishedman · February 12, 2013, 5:09pm

There is no self, there is no I, there is no spirit, there is no soul, and there is no mind. That knocks off the whole list, and you have no way of finding out what you are left with. You may very well ask me the question, “Why do you go on telling people about the way you are functioning?” It is only to emphasize that we have been for centuries using some instrument, that is, thinking or mind, or whatever you want to call it, to free ourselves from the whole of what you call the ‘I’ or the ‘self’, and all kinds of things. That is what the whole quest of spirit is all about. But once it dawns on you that there is nothing to be free from, then these questions don’t arise at all. How that dawned on me, I have no way of finding out for myself.

The answers I give are only to emphasize that what we are left with is the functioning of the living organism. How it is functioning is all that I am trying to put across, emphasize, and overemphasize all the time. My interest is to somehow make you see that the whole attempt on your part to understand what you are left with is a lost battle.

The more the questions you throw at me the more there is a need to emphasize the physical aspect of our existence, namely, that there is nothing to what we have been made to believe. All our problems have arisen because of our acceptance that it is possible for us to understand the reality of the world, or the reality of our existence. What I am saying is that you have no way of experiencing anything that you do not know. So anything that you experience through the help of your knowledge is fruitless. It is a lost battle.

The instrument which we are using to understand the reality of our existence and the reality of the world around us is not part of this body mechanism that is there. That is the reason why I say thoughts are not self-generated and are not spontaneous. There are no thoughts there even now. If you want to find out whether there is any such thing as thought, the very question which we are posing to ourselves, namely, “Is there a thought?” is born out of the assumption that there is a thought there. But what you will find there is all about thought and not thought. All about thought is what is put in there by the culture. That is put in by the people who are telling us that it is very essential for you to free yourself from whatever you are trying to free yourself from through that instrument. My interest is to emphasize that that is not the instrument, and there is no other instrument. And when once this hits you, dawns upon you that thought is not the instrument, and that there is no other instrument, then there is no need for you to find out if any other instrument is necessary. No need for any other instrument. This very same structure that we are using, the instrument which we are using, has in a very ingenious way invented all kinds of things like intuition, right insight, right this, that, and the other. And to say that through this very insight we have come to understand something is the stumbling block. All insights, however extraordinary they may be, are worthless, because it is thought that has created what we call insight, and through that it is maintaining its continuity and status quo.