onetruth

Given the way you've worded that I suppose you mean Freud's definition of ego. I think (and I'm way out of my comfort zone here!) it was the part of the psyche that made judgments, including moral judgments and judgments about what was real or unreal. It protects the id, which is (I think) the basest bodily and mental desire-factory part of the psyche (hunger/pleasure&pain/etc.) As I say, way out of my depth! The word "ego" is used in all sorts of different ways, though. I think even Freud changed how he used it in his later work.

Another point to make about this is that the brain is, of course, not a perfect machine. Millions of years of evolution is just millions of years of chance mutation. Hardly surprising that even human brains "malfunction" in this way.

Me too.

Really interesting. I don't think you can have mid-thought in the same way you can have mid-sentence. I imagine the thought process might go something like this (new line for each thought)... Think of fruits. Apple. Banana. Carrot. No, not carrot. Pear. Think of fruits. Orange. Yoghart. No, not yoghurt. Where did yoghurt come from? (Hahaha). Think of fruits. My elbow is itching. Think of fruits. Stop thinking of fruits. Tomato. Is tomato a fruit? Stop thinking of fruits. My elbow is itching. Roll a cigarette.

You might have the thought: "I want to stop thinking about fruits", but you probably don't have the thought: "I want to think that I want to stop thinking about fruits".

Haha, perhaps. But... when I fill up with conny brash I'm at my 3.5T limit. I don't have to chip it, don't have to mess about with a chipper, don't have the maintenance expense, and don't have to worry about it disappearing. Lose sleep because of work? No way. Much better things out there to lose sleep over.

Ok, that's a good one! Being unchanging, indivisible, permanent - these aren't limitations. Except, that some thing that has these "qualities" is limited to being not not-unchanging, not not-indivisible, not not-permanent. I think this is more about the limitations of logic and of language to handle truth, rather than the limitations of truth itself. Reason is powerful, but not without bounds.

There's no such thing as Husqvarna, and anyone who pronounces it "Still" should be put on a pyre.

(1) Correct, that is my opinion. Although the word can be used to refer to phenomena that are such emergent properties, such as "is he conscious?" in the 999 sense, or ego in the psychological sense. I use it to mean that which illuminates the mind, but it is not a part of the mind. It might be synonymous with soul or spirit, but these terms are also difficult to define, and I don't believe that there are many consciousnesses in reality. (2) Hmmmmmmmm. Me personally? I know that I am something (Descartes might say "I think therefore I am"), so let's say that that something is conscious(ness). I have never known it to be absent. On top of that, if I try to imagine that it could be absent, or change in any way, I come up against all sorts of contradictions. If you mean "how can one Know this?", I don't know, I'm no guru or prophet. Yoga, meditation and contemplative prayer are all designed to achieve such Knowledge, but I just don't know if they actually can. (3) "limited in relation"? Did you mean unlimited? It's not limited in any way.

One dilemma that cost people their lives in the middle ages - did Adam have a belly button?

None, I'd say. It just depends who you're talking to and what you're talking about.

You don't masturbate, do you? He thinks that's disgusting.

(1) Yes, but I'd probably simplify it to: nothing exists but consciousness. You previously said that without consciousness, things are pointless. I'd agree with that, too. But consciousness is its own point - it's not there to give meaning to other things or fulfil some higher purpose. (2) By eternal I mean permanent, unchanging, indivisible, not limited by time or space. (3) I logged on last night to get a quote for some woodchip. Don't apologise for encouraging me to talk about things that interest me - it is very rare to find an interested audience in my day-to-day life! (4) I think I see what you mean, but they are only barriers if we become obsessed with detail. Physicists struggle to see truth beyond physics, just as politicians struggle to see truth outside of politics. But that isn't to say we shouldn't pursue the lines of thought we happen to enjoy, it's just better not to become a fundamentalist (in any sense of the word). When I'm thirsty, I drink water, not H2O.

My only suggestion would be to not go too far out of your comfort zone with the work you undertake. You don't want to be losing sleep worrying about the big dismantle the next day. This is easily solved by subbing in someone you are confident can deal with the really scarey jobs. Those jobs are worth enough money that you will still earn what you need at the end of the day, even after paying a generous day-rate on top of your day-to-day costs. I haven't owned a chipper in years - on the occasions I need one, I'll hire it in. The rest of the time I'll make do without. Sounds like you have the attitude needed and the vast majority of equipment to make it work. I'm 38 and can feel my body is declining, I wont be able to do this in 10 years time, but if you're still fit and strong there's no reason why you shouldn't.

I call it God because it seems like an appropriate name. Let's define "God" (not necessary to believe in "God", let's just come up with a good working definition): God is perfect, God is eternal, God is everywhere, God is the source of our creation. Could add other properties, (God is love, God is great, etc.) but they are perhaps a little more controversial; let's stick with those four: I think, believe in God or not, that they'd form a pretty acceptable definition for most people. Now, the reality that I have spoken of previously fits this description. It is perfect because it is absolute (there is nothing external to it). It is eternal and omnipresent because it transcends time and space. It is the source of our creation because our consciousness is in identity with it, even if our minds and bodies appear to be distinct. God seems like the most suitable term to me. On top of that, I can certainly understand why religious people would want to worship such a thing: knowledge of God is joyous. All spiritual awakening can be seen as a realisation of reality (or, perhaps, a rejection of the non-real). I mentioned Spinoza in a previous post, who used the term "God, or nature" repeatedly in his Ethics. I usually only use the term "God" when talking to people who would claim to believe in God, because the very word seems to repulse those who do not. I can quite happily discuss that thing with atheists by simply substituting with "the fundamental nature of the universe" or some similarly ugly expression. Note that, although I've suggested some properties of God in the first paragraph, these are only for argument. Language can not define or describe God because language (or any discipline) in necessarily limited. But it's all we have. I can discuss "The Fall" with Jehovah's Witnesses, as long as I secretly accept it is all allegory and metaphor - there is enough of the truth behind the stories for the discussion to have meaning. Yes, God is consciousness (not sure about "and only is" - don't know if that limitation has any meaning). Obviously this meaning of consciousness can not be brain derived. That is mind, not consciousness.

Let's assume that the world (and therefore the ultimate fate of your soul) is predestined as Calvin would have it. The point I would make is that God may know your destiny, but you don't. So although you can not alter God's plan for you, you are still free to chose the path you wish to take. It is just that your free choice has already been destined. A misinterpretation of this would be to think "my destiny has already been determined, therefore it makes no difference how I behave". It is your behaviour that is predestined, but as it has not been revealed to you, you still have the enjoyment and responsibility of free will.

I think I may well be mouthing off from a position a couple of rungs down the 'philosophical truth' ladder than you? There's no such thing. One idea can't be more true than another - it's either true or it isn't. Any statement I can make, or any thought I can think, is confused. Nothing can really be said of truth/reality because it can't be limited by properties (and certainly not by description). My feeling is that it might be the last level from where there is any leverage for any form of effective positive guidance to appreciate logically how things are in the 'reality' 99.99% of us inhabit. Not sure what you could mean by "the last level". Science, logic, maths, philosophy - all have potential for helping us understand how things could be, but all are incomplete (ie. only work within their own framework, and are unable to address the inevitable problems/shortcomings of that framework). The reality that you suggest we inhabit is not there - at all. It is entirely subjective and impermanent. do you consider my efforts a futile exercise? If (as you suggest) ultimately nothing is in fact truly and persistently real, should we be making efforts to understand our own manifestations of reality? Not futile in the least if it is of benefit, and I think exploring our own manifestations of reality (nice way of putting it) is the most beneficial thing we can do. I don't think I said ultimately nothing is real - I do believe in a reality, because I don't believe that there is nothing. The idea of there being nothing just doesn't work for me, either emotionally (the world is light and wondrous) or intellectually (the existence of nothing is the most vulgar contradiction I can imagine!). I just don't think that reality can be comprehended (possibly it must/can be realised, but thought and language are far too crude to provide an explanation of the inexplicable). I'd also be really interested to hear how you came to hold the views that you do. My mum was a yoga teacher, my dad was a geneticist. They'd take me to a Buddhist monastery in the lake district for holidays when I was a kid. I (briefly) attended a philosophy uni course about 20 years ago and ate some mushrooms.

Yes, there have been a few cases where people have tried the "my genes made me do it" defence. It might be true, but it doesn't mean society should take no action. On the other hand, consideration should be given to children, animals, mentally limited people, inanimate objects etc. when judging their behaviour. The solution is to punish crimes in order to best prevent future crimes, rather than to make the wicked suffer. I think, in the main, humanity does a reasonably good job of dealing with criminality.

Again, I think I agree with the observation you make, but not the conclusion drawn. If we imagine reality as a sequence of states, the cause and effect cycle seems inescapable: the past determined the present, which will now determine the future. This is how minds (usually?) perceive the passage of time, and for most practical purposes provides a causal model that there is simply no need to doubt. At the fundamental level, however, (and we may be using the term slightly differently, but nevertheless...) there is no universal clock counting away the passing of time. Time, fundamentally, is a dimension, not a position. Looked at in this way (and I think this is the way we should be looking at it, especially with regards to free will, or any theory of mind for that matter), causality is simply a way of us explaining the projection of reality that mind endures. But if, as I content, the present is the only moment we can actually have any experience of, we can not be causally determined (at least, not in a temporal sense). I realise I am waffling, sorry. Consider this: there is no rate at which time passes, that is a nonsense. I suppose you could say that "one second of time passes each second", but that's meaningless. Two spacial objects "experience" (< desperately want a better verb here!) time relatively (and differently), but mind is eternally in the present. It is not a sequence of presents, except in our mental modelling. I don't really believe in free-will or determinism - it just seems meaningless to me. We are totally free when we think we are, and totally bound when we think we are. I accept that this is bollocks.

I think what you have said is correct, but there is a problem inferring too much about the nature of freedom from the mechanics of causality. True, the physical brain and its environment one moment will determine its physical state in the next moment, and thoughts, emotions, etc. may arise out of that previously determined state. But that binds us only in a kind of retrospective sense. I'm making a hash of explaining what I mean, but rather than delete this paragraph, I'll leave it and try again... We only experience the present. When we remember the past, it is the present memory that we are experiencing. We can deny free will by citing examples: I did this stupid thing because I was angry, or my brain chemistry at X moment was Y because at X-1 moment the universe was in Z configuration. That's cause-and-effect, it is reasonable to say that it holds true, and that the entirety of all experience was determined at the moment of the big bang. (Quantum theorists may query this point; for sake of argument let's pretend they're wrong and the physical world is causal and determined). However, when we consider freedom, we are not really concerned with the totality of history and how it has led, inevitably, to this current state of mind. It is how free we are in the present that is of concern, and the question is whether or not we have any capacity to resist our immediate mental desires. To say that we have no free will because our thoughts and actions are just the consequences of ancient circumstances is, to me, as meaningless as saying we have no free will because one day we'll die.

Spinoza had a rather elegant solution: he simply equated God with nature, and in one deft move alienated theists and atheists alike. Edit: he also had an interesting take on the Free Will problem, which I can't remember any more.

Have heard interesting things about him, but not someone I'm familiar with. After reading your post I checked on the In Our Time website and there is indeed a podcast available. That's my listening sorted for tomorrow's bath-time, thanks!

No, but I'll try anyway... I'll start with the second question, how things are "in no sense real". Let's take "vacuum cleaners". You haven't chosen a particular vacuum cleaner, so you might mean one of two things: either all vacuum cleaners, or a generalised idea of the vacuum cleaner (as a concept). Assuming you mean all vacuum cleaners, again you could mean different things by this: all vacuum cleaners throughout that physically exist at the moment, all vacuum cleaners throughout history, all vacuum cleaners past and future. So let's suppose you mean all vacs from all time: do you include those that are designs on paper, props in sitcoms, words in a book, ideas in someone's head? The term is imprecise, perhaps fatally ambiguous - it doesn't actually refer to anything real. Ok, maybe I'm underestimating you - instead you are looking at a particular vac by your computer as you type. That object has many properties, depending on how you consider it. It is functional (it sucks up dust). Except it isn't on, so by that measure, it couldn't be considered a real vac. It is a particular configuration of the component parts. Except that you would still think of it as a vac if those components were in a slightly different arrangement, so that cannot be its essence. Indeed, at the atomic level the components are undergoing constant change. The boundaries of the vac and everything else are undefined by you (or anything else for that matter). Beyond the quanta, the vac is a manifestation of various wave functions. This area of physics is something I just do not understand, except to say that wave functions transcend space-time: if the reality of the vac exists at this level, its existence is identical to that of everything else in the universe - it is the same function (set of functions?). The idea of the vac, however, clearly originated somewhere - you thought it, you typed it, something must exist. That something is you. That you is all that exists; I call it God. Your other examples (our bodies, trees) could be substituted for vacs. I think, so too could abstract things like me/others/concepts/truth/mathematics/logic - any distinct "thing". They are apparently real, at least in some sense. But the reality is actually that appearance, not the apparent "thing"; the reality is not the object, but the subject. Science, religion, philosophy and day-to-day life do not present us with truth, rather with useful (or not so useful) models which our minds can use to interact with the world. They are functional tools, but not reality. Meaningful way to describe God: easier to say what God is not. God is not some Uber-King ruling/creating the world. God does not love the good and hate evil, dictate morality or pass judgment. (Except that, for all of these things, it can sometimes be useful to imagine that there is a god which has these properties). God is that which illuminates the world. The source of beauty, love, truth, wonder - things that could never be reduced to an algorithm or chemical process. Our own consciousness, which is unchanging and disinterested.

What a surprising topic to stumble across on Arbtalk! In case I repeat or appear to ignore previous posts, I should confess that I missed out the middle ten pages of this conversation... The various forms of yoga to have come out of India over the past few thousand years have been concerned with breaking the self-imposed bondage caused by human ignorance. Modern meditation techniques, such as mindfulness, have their root in these practices. Essentially, by imagining a world with dualities (especially I and not-I), we plunge ourselves into a state of confusion and suffering. Our brains create an artificial association between the consciousness (which is eternal and indivisible), and the machine of our minds/bodies. We choose to associate with the thoughts and emotions of our minds and the sensations of our bodies, and call this impermanent, intangible thing: "I". Presumably this is a biological (evolutionary) adaptation which is very useful for replicating DNA, but in reality is entirely disconnected from the reality of conscious being. Our consciousness does not have free will, nor is it determined. It does not suffer pleasure and pain, it does not think; it merely witnesses the thoughts and feelings of our mind. Classical (western) theories of duality consider the mind-body problem. I think this is a distraction: the distinction between the mechanical (both mind and body) and the essential/consciousness/spiritual/soul nature of our being is the more pressing problem of philosophy. Any practice that can aid us in associating with the experiencer of life rather than the mere experiences of life is probably to our advantage. Such methods are suitable whether or not one believes in God, gods, free will, determinism, even nihilism. My personal belief is that God is all that exists, everything else is mere illusion, and is in no sense real. Of course, merely believing this does not mean I have achieved mastery over the foibles of my own mind: I am as much a slave to desire as the next mortal, I just acknowledge that any misery I encounter is, fundamentally, entirely my own making.

Just what I needed, thanks so much for that!