JC Goel's explanations of thought and consciousness.  Model can be understood as a sequence:

Physical world → sensory input → impression/image → interpretation → thought → imagination/psychological world → thinker/self → psychological time & space → consciousness.

One important point first: this is JC Goel's philosophical/scientific interpretation, not an established scientific model. He himself presents it as his understanding of the brain–mind–consciousness relationship.

1. Sensory input

Something happens in the physical world.

For example, you see a tree.

Light from the tree reaches your eyes; sensory signals are processed by the nervous system and brain.

For JC Goel, this is the beginning of the process through which the physical world generates the psychological world. He describes the mind as accumulating information, impressions and images received through the senses from birth onward.

Physical event → sensory information


2. Impression / image is formed

The sensory information produces an impression or image in the brain.

You don't psychologically experience "photons and neural signals." You experience something like:

"Tree."

That image becomes part of the accumulated information in memory.

JC Goel describes the mind as a sea containing information, impressions, images and their interpretations accumulated through the senses.

So:

Sensory information → impression/image


3. The brain interprets the image

Now comes the crucial step in Goel's definition.

He says:

"Thought is an interpretation of an image or impression in the brain cells."

Suppose you see a tree.

The image itself is one thing.

But then the brain interprets it:

"This is a mango tree."

Then:

"There are mangoes on it."

Then:

"I remember eating mangoes."

Those interpretations are thought.

So, in his model:

Image + interpretation → thought

This is the key to understanding his definition.


4. Thought creates another image — imagination

Goel then makes another distinction.

When thought interprets an existing image and creates another image, he calls that imagination.

For example:

You see an actual mango.

Then you think:

"What would it look like if it were much bigger?"

Your brain creates an image that isn't actually present.

That is imagination.

So:

Image → interpretation → thought → new image → imagination

And that new image can itself become the basis for another thought.

This creates a continuous psychological movement.


5. The accumulation becomes "mind"

Here Goel makes an important distinction between brain and mind.

In his framework, the brain is the biological/physical substrate, while the mind is the accumulated psychological content:

  • memories
  • information
  • impressions
  • images
  • interpretations
  • conditioning
  • experiences
  • beliefs
  • intentions
  • fears
  • desires
  • emotions

He describes the mind as essentially the accumulated data and conditioning stored through experience.

So you could represent it as:

Brain + accumulated information/conditioning → mind


6. Thoughts begin to move

Now imagine all those stored impressions and images as a huge sea.

Goel uses the metaphor of waves.

Images, impressions and information are continually rising and falling, and the waves that reach the "shore" are thoughts.

For example, you're sitting quietly.

Suddenly:

"I need to call my son."

Then:

"Did he call yesterday?"

Then:

"Oh, I remember something he said."

Then:

"What if he doesn't come tomorrow?"

One thought generates another.

This is what Goel calls the movement of thought.


7. Thought creates the thinker

This is perhaps the most radical part of his theory.

Normally we assume:

First there is "me," and then "I think."

Goel reverses this.

He proposes that the process of thinking itself creates the thinker.

In his words, the phenomenon of thinking—associated with neuronal activity—creates:

subject (thinker) + object (thought) + psychological space between them.

For example:

"I am worried about my future."

There appears to be:

I → thinker
worry/future → thought
distance between I and future → psychological space

But according to Goel, the "I" in this relationship is itself produced by thought.

So:

Thought doesn't merely belong to the thinker; thought creates the psychological thinker.

This is a very important part of his philosophy.


8. Thought creates psychological time

Once there is a thinker and something being thought about, thought can move between past, present and future.

For example:

"I am successful."

"I was successful."

"I will become more successful."

Goel therefore argues that psychological time is created along with psychological space through the movement of thought.

Physical time is one question.

But psychological time is:

memory of what was + experience of what is + imagination of what might be.

And all three are movements of thought.


9. Thought creates "I", "mine" and "others"

This follows naturally from his model.

Thought says:

"This is my body."

"My house."

"My family."

"My reputation."

"My religion."

"My achievement."

Eventually:

I → mine → others

Goel explicitly investigates how thought creates "I," "I-am-ness," "mine-ness," and "others."

Thus, the psychological self is not something separate from thought.

The self is constructed out of thought and accumulated psychological content.


10. Thought therefore creates the psychological world

At this point we have something much larger than individual thoughts.

Thought creates:

  • memory
  • imagination
  • desire
  • fear
  • pleasure
  • pain
  • belief
  • identity
  • ambition
  • psychological conflict
  • relationships
  • "me"
  • "you"
  • past
  • future

Goel therefore calls thought the basic unit of the psychological world, analogous in his framework to an atom being a basic unit of the physical world.

His basic proposition is therefore:

Physical world → brain → impressions/images → interpretation → thought → psychological world.


11. Then where does consciousness enter?

This is where Goel makes a distinction between mind and consciousness.

According to his later writing, mind is content:

memories, conditioning, experiences, thoughts, emotions, intentions, beliefs, etc.

But he proposes that consciousness is not itself a thought, memory or piece of information.

This distinction is extremely important.

Think of it metaphorically as:

Screen → images appearing on the screen

The images are the contents of mind.

The screen is analogous, in Goel's description, to consciousness.

He describes consciousness as something like an infinite psychological space or screen in which the brain operates and creates the mind.


12. What happens when thought becomes completely silent?

This is where Goel's investigation becomes philosophical rather than merely neurological.

He describes an experience in which he remained awake and aware for an extended period without thought.

His conclusion from that experience was:

Consciousness can exist without the ordinary operation of mind/thought.

He therefore distinguishes:

I-am-ness = mind/self

from

being-ness = consciousness

In his formulation, consciousness is not the "I".

Rather, the "I" is a product of psychological content, whereas consciousness remains when that content becomes silent.


And the deepest point

There is a fascinating reversal in Goel's model:

Ordinary assumption:

I exist → therefore I think.

JC Goel's proposition:

Thinking occurs → the thinker "I" is created.

And then he asks an even deeper question:

If thought creates the thinker, what am I when thought is completely absent?

His answer is that what remains is being-ness/consciousness, not the psychological "I."

That is the point where his investigation moves from "What is thought?" to the much deeper question "What am I when I am not thinking?"—a question he explicitly lists among the fundamental questions he is investigating.

One caution: Goel's claims about consciousness being a field beyond matter-space-time, or about quantum physics establishing consciousness, go beyond what current mainstream neuroscience/physics has established. They should be understood as his philosophical hypotheses, not settled scientific conclusions.