A Mind Without Thoughts

An incredibly small range of matters are self-evident: that one thing which logically follows from another must be true (or else there would be a logical reason requiring logic's falsity), that truth exists (or else it would be true that nothing is true), that a conscious being exists as a mind (or else it would not be able to doubt or deny its own existence), and so on.  The first two examples are among the logical axioms, necessary truths whose falsity would still entail their veracity.  But all of these facts depend on logic, which is true prior to anything about consciousness because it is self-necessary, not merely self-evident as with one's own existence as a mind.  Besides it being correct that a mind cannot even wonder if it exists without already existing, any experience at all would be possible only if there is indeed a mind to experience.  Thus, any thought or other experience is logical proof, although few may directly realize this free of assumptions, that a being's own consciousness exists.

It is true that if there is thought, there is a mind.  There is also nothing impossible about an unperceiving state of mind.  Just because a consciousness exists does not mean it is perceiving or must actually perceive anything; this state of affairs only in itself requires that the mind exists.  All perception necessitates a perceiver, but the existence of a mind does not require that the mind in question is actively thinking or even passively experiencing anything.  It could be oblivious to all things, even logical axioms and its own existence, despite their self-evidence.

Concrete examples one has experienced or heard about from others are ultimately unnecessary to prompt one to realize this, as these facts are matters of strict logic.  An experience of any kind, such as a thought or an emotion, cannot exist apart from a mind; yet, a mind could exist without any thought or other experience.  This is in fact the case any time a person is rendered totally unconscious, including during simple dreamless sleep.  Lack of perception in a scenario like dreamless sleep does not mean their mind no longer exists or that it ceases to be and comes back into existence when they wake up (or else they would not truly be waking up, but beginning to exist again).

Of course, to think rationalistically, one must think, and to think, one must be experiencing something, so the fact that a mind could exist without thinking or otherwise perceiving is naturally further removed from the self-evidence of one's conscious existence.  Self-evidence does not mean anyone but rationalists know the thing in view or that someone can validly just assume it is true, but that it cannot be rejected or as much as doubted without relying on its foundational truth.  It is not even self-evident that one is experiencing immediate sensory perceptions or that one has a will or desires, as such things depend upon one already existing as a consciousness.

A mind without thoughts is logically possible, though a mind could only know its own existence by conscious reflection, which must be aligned with the independently true laws of logic in order to be free of assumptions and thus absolutely certain.  This is not as strange as it might appear.  Anything which is already true is true without any conscious being's recognition or assent.  A person's mind could exist prior to or apart from their awareness.  If someone perceives, they exist whether they acknowledge or like it or not, but lack of perception does not necessitate that there is no mind with the hypothetical (logically possible) capacity to experience and think!