<p>Is it possible to imagine a thought without any perception or sensation?<br />
Sense is understood as
sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing (<em>perhaps not as signals from the receptors, but as states of the corresponding cortical areas</em>), proprioception and interoception.</p>
<p>I read <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13982/difference-between-thoughts-and-sensations">this answer</a>, but my question is not about the <em>differences between</em> thoughts and sensations, but about the fact that the former must be accompanied by the latter.<br />
It seems to me that both the most abstract mathematical constructs and the most subtle differences in emotions are necessarily connected by some sensation.</p>
<p>Perhaps <em>the act of shifting attention</em> (intentional or not) is not itself connected with any sensation. But this process is difficult to call &quot;thought&quot;.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-08T19:55:27.787Z
"Pure consciousness" or "pure presence" is a claimed (controversial) state of meditative consciousness with lack of conscious content. I think your question tends a bit more towards the philosophical than psychological/neuroscientific, though.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-09T06:41:50.673Z
@BryanKrause, i certainly sympathize with Buddhism.  
But first of all, "consciousness" *is not* "thought" in any way - neither in buddhism, nor in science.   
And here i'd like to get the answer from a scientific point of view.
If the answer is No, i'll make certain conclusions.
lesobrod
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-08-09T11:49:43.407Z
Scientists study meditation, too. The special part of pure consciousness isn't the consciousness part, it's the pure part. Neuroscientists are studying states of supposed "pure consciousness" as the closest possible thing to being conscious (e.g. not in a state of deep sleep, anesthesia, coma, etc) without also having *content* in that consciousness. That is, "thought without perception or sensation", which is exactly what you asked about, no?
Bryan Krause
<neuroscience><perception><sensation><thought>
Thoughts and sensations
lesobrod
# Thoughts and sensations

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-08-08)

Is it possible to imagine a thought without any perception or sensation?  
Sense is understood as
sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing (*perhaps not as signals from the receptors, but as states of the corresponding cortical areas*), proprioception and interoception.

I read [this answer](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/13982/difference-between-thoughts-and-sensations), but my question is not about the *differences between* thoughts and sensations, but about the fact that the former must be accompanied by the latter.  
It seems to me that both the most abstract mathematical constructs and the most subtle differences in emotions are necessarily connected by some sensation.

Perhaps *the act of shifting attention* (intentional or not) is not itself connected with any sensation. But this process is difficult to call "thought".

**Tags:** neuroscience, perception, sensation, thought

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: "Pure consciousness" or "pure presence" is a claimed (controversial) state of meditative consciousness with lack of conscious content. I think your question tends a bit more towards the philosophical than psychological/neuroscientific, though.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause, i certainly sympathize with Buddhism.   But first of all, "consciousness" *is not* "thought" in any way - neither in buddhism, nor in science.    And here i'd like to get the answer from a scientific point of view. If the answer is No, i'll make certain conclusions.  
> **username_1**: Scientists study meditation, too. The special part of pure consciousness isn't the consciousness part, it's the pure part. Neuroscientists are studying states of supposed "pure consciousness" as the closest possible thing to being conscious (e.g. not in a state of deep sleep, anesthesia, coma, etc) without also having *content* in that consciousness. That is, "thought without perception or sensation", which is exactly what you asked about, no?  

---

## 0 answers

