I’m a pretty good writer and speaker. Words are my thing. Or rather, one of my things. Musical and artistic ability — that’s decidedly not my thing. The same is true for all of us. Not in the same way as me, of course. We’re all different, with unique strengths and weaknesses.
But no matter what those may be — what we’re good at and what we’re bad at — there’s good reason to believe that pride or shame isn’t really justified when it comes to our thoughts, feelings, actions, and perceptions.
In explaining why I feel this way, I’ll use myself as an example, because that’s the person I’m most familiar with. However, I encourage you to consider your own life as another example that, I strongly suspect, will lead you to the same conclusion, if you clearly and carefully look at your own thoughts, feelings, actions, and perceptions.
Whether it’s writing or speaking, words come naturally to me. Wherever I worked, it didn’t take long before I was doing much of the writing for the organization. I started to read and write at an unusually young age. I’ve continued writing for my entire life. Public speaking is similarly easy for me. The words just flow.
I readily admit that I have enjoyed the compliments I’ve received about my ability to write and speak. Yet with age, and hopefully some increased wisdom, it’s more difficult for me now to take pride in this. The same applies to my screwups and weaknesses, albeit in reverse. It’s become harder for me to feel shame at what I’ve messed up.
The reason is that through a combination of introspection and my readings in both neuroscience and philosophy, I’ve come to realize that my thoughts, feelings, actions, and perceptions arise on their own. Meaning, not through my conscious volition. They simply happen, even though I can conjure up explanations for what I’ve thought, felt, and done.
(Perceptions need no explanation, being obviously outside of my control; the sight of our dog or the hearing of a car engine is simply there; I do nothing to make them happen.)
When I talk with someone, the conversation just happens. I don’t sense like I’m controlling the words that come out of my mouth. They simply appear from unknown depths of my brain. Even when I’m thinking, I need to say such-and-such, that thought also arises unbidden. So the words of such-and-such didn’t come from my conscious will, since the need to say them sprang from an unknown source.
Again, by no means am I saying this is God or any other supernatural entity. It’s my own brain that is orchestrating my thoughts, feelings, and actions that result in words being written or spoken. A distinct memory of this was when, many years ago, I came home from college on a Christmas break needing to write a lengthy paper that I’d been putting off.
I set up a card table in the living room. I got out a pen and paper. (No computers way back then.) And in a flash, the paper was written. It just appeared in my mind, the whole structure of it. Not every detail, of course. I still had to write the paper. However, it felt like I was transcribing thoughts into words that already existed.
Yes, I know this sounds weird. But I suspect this isn’t all that different from how a musician may hear a new song in their head, or an artist perceives a new painting. Work still has to be done to complete the creation, but the creative act began, and in a sense, ended, in a flash of intuitive insight.
Here’s an excerpt from the “You Didn’t Make it, But You Have To Eat It” chapter in Robert Saltzman’s book, The Ten Thousand Things, that echoes the theme of this blog post.
Words come from language that I learned by imitation as a child and keep on learning even now from other people’s words. So “my” words are really not mine, but words I have heard and now repeat. Words circulate. They are passed around as shared objects, not actually originating in any individual mind, but held commonly in the human mind.
If that is seen, it’s only a short step to noticing that ideas circulate in the same manner — ideas are passed around as shared objects — so that thoughts involving those ideas are not at bottom my thoughts either, even if they seem to be. Once you see that, the “independent self” no longer seems so independent, does it?
For many of us, “myself” means the body along with whatever feelings and thoughts arise habitually — particularly the kinds of thoughts called memories. I may be accustomed to calling those thoughts and feelings “mine,” but are they? I don’t make them, nor do I choose them. They arise on their own, spontaneously coming to awareness whether I want them to or not.
When I say “awareness,” I mean an instantaneous, automatic knowing without any trying to know. If you doubt this, just sit quietly for a few minutes and observe the stream of consciousness without either trying to think anything or trying not to. You will soon see what I mean.
Nevertheless, for many of us, as thoughts and feelings bubble up naturally and unbidden, a “me” quickly takes credit — or blames itself — for them, as if a self-directed, self-governing, autonomous myself somehow produced and controlled thoughts and feelings, moment by moment, choosing and deciding what to think and feel, and what not to think and feel.
…By way of illustration, imagine a typical “good Christian” who finds himself fantasizing about sex with a stranger he passes perchance in the park. He is likely to feel ashamed of the sin of lust, and the “adultery in his heart” — and all the more if the stranger happens to be another man. He will feel guilty, as if those fantasies, which arose inadvertently and unbidden, had been his choice, and therefore his responsibility as their chooser.
But that man never decided to have sexual thoughts and feelings; they just appeared. All of that comes upon us like fate. You feel what you feel when you feel it. No one is to blame for any of this, and no one deserves credit either. In each moment, what is, is, including “myself,” and cannot be otherwise.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

If you can just observe thoughts as they flow without reacting to them, then isn’t that progress? Progress towards understanding that you are not your body, emotions, words or mind. These are just biological things. But if the observer can see them with some objectivity, then clearly they aren’t as attached to them as they once were. I’d say, imho, that’s progress.
Easier to do with our own thoughts and statements, as these flow from our own conditioned thinking. We usually don’t think about them anyway.
But are we as dispassionate towards the thoughts and words of others? I think there is the real test of progress.
More of Sapolsky-esque incoherence, that, sorry Brian, but that I disagree strongly with, and quite literally find this POV incoherent. Like I’ve said more than once. I’m saying nothing I haven’t already said, but I’ll try, very briefly, to articulate my reasons for disagreeing one more time now. I’ve so far seen no reasonable argument, not one, none at all, that might lead me to revise these arguments of mine.
My one observation, the core point on which is based my whole objection, and my insistence that this moral position is incoherent, is this:
The entire argument is essentially begging the question. It is predicated on the unstated (and entirely undefended) implicit premise that reactions like admiration, censure, pride, shame, and so forth, are valid only when they arise out free will, and never otherwise. …That’s as clear an instance of (fallacious) question begging as any I’ve seen.
This is the form of Sapolsky’s core argument. (The argument breaks down if you leave out the initial, unstated, implicit premise. P2 does not directly lead to the conclusion, except only in conjunction with P1.)
P1 (implicit) (undefended, fallacious): Only acts coming from free will are deserving of censure and admiration and shame and pride.
P2 (explicit) (valid premise, based soundly in science): We have no free will.
Conclusion (fallacious, because based on the question-begged and fallacious P1): Therefore, no acts of ours, or of others, are deserving of shame and pride and censure and admiration.
In as much as P1 is undefended, therefore the conclusion is not valid.
And what’s more, I’ve more than once clearly actually shown P1 to be actually wrong. Including via the AI argument, back in the Sapolsky threads, and also, more recently, in response to your particular AI argument, Brian, that you made in your comment to me a week or two ago.
———-
———-
Won’t go out and do the respond-to-every-individual-portion-of-the-post-and-abstracts-presented thing. Because, well, done it, more than once, in the past. And nor will I, after this, go back to presenting this same argument again for the umpty-umpth time if and when this same argument is presented yet again here. Because, again, done that, more times than maybe I should have.
But, as ever, happy to, indeed, grateful to, engage with this, for as long as it takes, should this argument be squarely addressed. And, as ever, happy to change my mind, and with my sincere thanks, should my argument and my POV be clearly shown to be lacking. I have no dog in the race, after all, and no vested personal reason to a priori favor either conclusion over the other. It’s simply a question of what is reasonable and makes sense, and what does not. It all boils down to that basic question-begged argument, and that unevidenced, undefended, invalid implicit premise.
For me, Saltzman sums up the essence and reality of how thoughts and emotions bubble up without an agent who does the bidding. He states: – “I may be accustomed to calling those thoughts and feel-ings “mine,” but are they? I don’t make them, nor do I choose them.”
The same goes for emotions, Fieldman-Barrett’s work in ‘How Emotions Are made’ explains the pro-cesses of how emotions arise from the brain’s best guesses (dependent on previous experiences and information), in how to respond in any given situation. The same I believe, goes with thoughts. In-deed, my thoughts, my thinking processes do seem to arrive automatically from the myriads of thoughts and feelings that have naturally been programmed into me from birth. Inasmuch, my re-sponses are pre-determined.
I still reckon that our misconceptions regarding freewill are confused with our ability to choose. There is no agent, no separate self that does the choosing, but choosing does arise. Such choosing is dependent (again) on the information we have accumulated during our lifetimes. We choose from this mass of data. It does appear that there is ‘someone’ there doing the choosing, though it is merely the brain throwing up the best possible course of action that exists in its repertoire.
To this end, we can and do feel pride or shame (or any other feeling or emotion), and we can act on them or not; yet all with the awareness that they are conditional and to that extent mind-made and totally dependent on all the variants of our particular environment, culture, family social groupings etc., etc,
We are just like any other creature that automatically totally responds and reacts to their environment: the only difference is that we think in concepts – in beliefs and ideas – and assume a self-importance and separate (self) existence that is illusory.