the village idiot

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.

I would say that philosophy and theology are inseperable from our day to day scenario's. In our day to day we act based on what be believe the nature of these things to be. These actions can make a very big difference.

Pretty sure Stubby would tell you it's his personal experience of a universal constant.

Great example!

That's almost certainly a lot more profound than you meant it to be Stubby!

Don't be shy Wes I am limited to only asking the questions that occur to my fundamental nature of the universe. You may dig up some much more useful ones. So far this thread has been beautifully non-judgemental, and I'm sure we can continue in that vein.

Indeed, but bear in mind this is very different from saying that there should be no consequences for the actions.

OK, excellent. So in your view the 'fundamental nature of the universe' is conciousness, and you refer to this nature as God. I would imagine most atheists are not repulsed by the use of the word God, it just causes a bit of needless confusion as the word God means some very specific things to different people, and to many of them these things amount to a lot more than just pure awareness. I understand and agree with your view that conciousness is fundamental. Without it nothing can be 'known' to exist. It is also safe to say that existence without conciousness would be pointless. Am I right in thinking that you believe nothing can exist without conciousness being present? Also, could you explain your conclusion that conciousness is eternal? Sorry for all the probing but it is clear that a lot of us find this stuff fascinating, and I for one have no philosophy training and need things spelt out ad nauseum. Part of my brain thinks that sometimes the conclusions of philosophical thinking (although technically accurate) can be a barrier to achieving further real understanding.

I am quietly confident that if we continue to pile our ridiculous ideas one on top of the other, then inevitably, at some critical juncture, the sheer mass of stupidity will collapse in on itself, revealing the fabled black hole of inescapable truth. Or something like that.

Apologies to Onetruth, I just realised you had already answered the 'what is God to you?' question: 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. Still interested to hear why you call this God? Is it your understanding that God is (and only is) conciousness? I presume you are not a 'conciousness arising from the brain' adherent, ie. no brain-no consciousness?

Vesp sometimes leads me to think that he believes he IS the Resurrection!

No need to apologise Vesp, my argument dictates that you could not have done otherwise!

Great stuff Ti I was specifically after Onetruth's notion of God, but it will no doubt be good and really helpful to get all interpretations on the table. Much kudos to you and woodwizzard as a lot of people keep this stuff to themselves, and when conversation stops, so do some possibilities to grow. Hopefully, in the interests of thread integrity, we can keep some emphasis on the free will implications.

No argument with that Bob.

One issue with that from Ti's perspective (apologies for speaking for you Ti) is it makes a mockery of the idea of heaven and hell and what can be done to avoid either. (From my perspective an eternity spent anywhere would be hell). If Christianity, and your interpretation of the way things are, are both correct then God has already determined from birth whether an individual is destined for heaven or hell. Christianity cannot function under these conditions. I appreciate it is a fog like topic to get a hold of, but I do think we need some kind of solid idea about the nature of this God. Why is there a need to infur the existence of one. If it can't be described, how can you get to a position of 'knowing' it exists. Can you have a go at describing God, and explain why you attach that word to the phenomenon?

What a joy!! Can I get back to you in about 6000 years when I've had adequate time to digest that properly? In the meantime, I can see myself holding tightly (wisely or not) to the premise that "exploring our own manifestations of reality is the most beneficial thing we can do".

Presumably if the buyer had a little fetching arch or similar for the thin end, they could lift the whole length off the ground for clean extraction?

He seems to have the necessary inbetweeny bit.

Very nice! I don't personally need that attachment but I kind of wish I did. Is it not a handy attachment for your multione?

If you are of a certain age and thinking about a brain automatically controlling a body, it would probably be a bit weird if you didn't think about the numskulls. They have certainly popped up in my deliberations but I don't find it at all spooky that it has occured to other people aswell. Probability is all thats 'going on' here.

I think I may well be mouthing off from a position a couple of rungs down the 'philosophical truth' ladder than you? 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. God that sounds pretentious, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say. Do you agree with this description, and if so, 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? Please be as brutal as you see fit. This is all great stuff! I'd also be really interested to hear how you came to hold the views that you do.