the village idiot

Hmmm, not much I can do with that!

True, but even if your decisions are being influenced by quantum mechanics, how does this give you free will?

That's not really a problem as far as free will is concerned Vesp. You just start 'counting' the causes from the big bang.

Yes, it was clumsy wording on my behalf. Perhaps what I should have said was 'this out of the ether input' would be just as much out of our concious control as anything else. True, quanta don't function causally, but this adds no weight to the free will argument. (I appreciate you are not particularly arguing the case for free will).If anything, it slots neatly into the no free will camp as just another uncontrolled set of occurences that directly influence brain outputs.

Interesting. So do you think that there are (or can be) any occurances in the mind/brain that are not initiated solely by the previous state of the mind/brain? In other words. Does the brain have the ability to conjure up a completely novel occurence, independant of past history? Even if it could, I would still argue that this doesn't give you free will, as this (out of the ether) input would still be just as automatic as anything else.

Yes, this is a useful framing. People fear losing their faith, but those that do find it's all perfectly fine, they just attribute the 'God given' elements to other more logical causes. It is very much the same with losing belief in the ego (and by extention free will). All is still fine, you again just attribute the 'I' given elements to other more logical causes.

You can bypass the subjective interpretation of your mind pretty effectively by turning to logic and good scientific evidence. This takes you out of your own head somewhat and things can be analysed objectively. You are quite right to point out that insight gained through introspective analysis (meditation) is somewhat unreliable, but the fact that insights gained through quality meditation support the logical and scientific proposition of no free will adds significant weight to the conclusion. The decision of whether to have Mcdonalds or homemade dinner is an output (automatic). The output was determined by your brain as a result of many many different inputs. All of these inputs were themselves determined by previous outputs (automatic). It is a chain of automatic cause and effect, at some points given a false sense of agency by the brain. (Yet another automatic output).

Maybe think about it this way Wes. You agree, and are happy with the fact that all brain outputs (thoughts, emotions, intentions, actions) are automatic. This really is end of story as far as free will goes. Any thought, choice, desire etc is a brain output. My view is that you are falling into the trap of identifying a select few of the outputs and mistakenly excusing them from your correct assertion that all brain outputs are automatic. This is a very common error (I do it all the time). Your brain inputs are determined by your brain outputs in an ever advancing cycle. If brain outputs are automatic, so must be the inputs. There is no free will in that.

Hi Wes, That's not really accurate. The thing that triggered my change in relationship with my depression was the sentence "You are not your thoughts". It was in a book I was just happening to read because I had liked other books on different topics by the same author. The book wasn't about depression. The effect of those words set me off on a fact finding mission encompassing neuroscience, buddhism, psychology etc. I educated myself out of the negative effects of my condition. Mindfulness meditation came in afterwards to see if the science could be backed up through my own direct experience of watching my thoughts. Reading the aforementioned words was a chance event which set in motion other events that ultimately led to my change in relationship to thinking. I didn't choose my 'treatment' it just happened, and I'm bloomin grateful it did. It is cool that you have settled at a point you are happy with. That's all any of us can do. I have a different interpretation to you, and that is cool too! My one note of caution would be to restate that you really can't trust your own subjective interpretation of what your mind is doing. It's a little bit like expecting a thief to catch himself in the act and turn himself in. Purely watching the mind in action can, in time, reveal an awful lot (I'm told). Up until then you have to throw logic and objective evidence at the issue. When you do this(for me anyway) it leaves free will with absolutely no place at the table.

Don't worry about derailing, certainly not on my account, I do it all the time. Fun Facts must always be heard! You can always steer the good ship back on course a few posts later. You were playing with fire though unleashing the 'G' word when not absolutely necessary In fact (inspired by the man himself) I have created a new word for you to use. Instead of using the problematic 'G' word you can say 'Fnotu' (short for Fundamental nature of the universe). Admittedly it sounds like you are referring to a Fijian fullback, but it should keep you out of trouble in the future. No thanks necessary.

I think we are basically saying the same things here. Not yet! Excellent fun fact, and highly appropriate. My name is Graham and my brain certainly feels like a black hole at the moment. Hungry for matter and incredibly dense!

It's a bit misleading to think in terms of malfunctioning or obeying as this implies that the brain should have a specific optimal state, and that it is in service to an identity of some description. This is why onetruth put the word malfunction in quotation marks. Brains really are just automatic information processors. They do what they do as a direct result of what they have. The brain doesn't know what it's doing, it just does. And so, by extention, do we.

That really is a hugely beneficial post. There is a huge difference between the way we believe we think, and the way we actually do. It's an important realisation.

Book title below: "The Self Illusion. Who do you think you are?"

I think it protects the genes ultimately. There is a really interesting book by a developmental psychologist which is all about how and why the sense of self develops. I can't remember what it's called. I'll look it up. Think his name is Bruce Hood.

And yet we all confidently state that we're not stark raving mad!

Because of the exact state of the brain a moment before.

Correct. The nearest thing I can conceive to be what could possibly be called 'me' (conciousness) can observe the change in thoughts. That's it.

No, I don't believe I can. That sequence of events certainly occurs but I don't see any way there can be an 'I' in control of it. From a day to day perspective it feels as though one is able to do this, but much time spent in meditation shows this not to be the case. Mindfulness meditation practice over time usually has the effect of 'increasing the space' between (or around) the thoughts.

Is it round the back of my Aunt Beryl's, just past the swings, opposite the key cutting place?

Too right Ti. Free will is a doddle compared to conciousness! Trying to get a full grasp of conciousness is like trying to catch river water with a net. You constantly end up with the contents of the river but never the river itself! Back to the meditation cushion methinks.

OK Much happier with that state of affairs. (3) "limited in relation"? Did you mean unlimited? It's not limited in any way. I meant limited to being unchanging, indivisible, permanent etc. I know that sounds odd but I think it makes sense.

I'm with you for the most part on conciousness but am struggling with the fine print. According to your view, conciousness cannot be an (off>on) emergent property of increasing brain complexity or an emergent property in any way? If this is your view, how can you know this? I just can't for the life of me see how there is any way to know that conciousness (as a universal phenomenon) is necessarily limited in relation to any of the properties in (2)?

There was a theory doing the rounds a while back that Moses may have been hallucinating when he received the 10 commandments. They were saying that the 'burning bush' of Bible fame could well have been an Acacia, which is a Genus known to contain potent levels of DMT. Arresting fact: Our brains naturally produce DMT so, in theory at least, the whole of the UK population should be detained for the posession of a controlled substance!

Just something for the back burner, not wishing to divert the current conversation in any way, but just curious to know if anyone other than Brother Wes and Brother Mortimer Firewood has had a go at any Mindfulness practice? Be really interested to hear how you got on if you have.