What is free will?

In my experience, denying the importance or existence of the mind or self is a materialist thing, and emphasizing it is more an idealist trait. After all, the self appears to be part of the world of ideas, rather than a material thing.

While one is denying the existence of the self as a theoretical proposition one is actually affirming it in practice. One may by means of careful examination (i.e., meditation) realize its absence as a matter of perception rather than conception.

While one is denying the existence of the self as a theoretical proposition one is actually affirming it in practice. One may by means of careful examination (i.e., meditation) realize its absence as a matter of perception rather than conception.

Sounds like a contradiction... Where's the catch?

When I argue for the non-existence of the ego or self, it is felt as if one's ego or self is making that argument. But when one tries for sufficient time to have immediate experience of an actual egoself (i.e., meditation) it becomes obvioius that there is no egoself. One can conceive of "self" but one cannot perceive it.
It only sounds like a contradiction

It is, precisely, the sound of one hand clapping. All "contradictions" are illusory.

"One" in this sentence would be a self. A self that looks furiously like a dog trying to chase his own tail, and failing to catch it.

But dogs may be smarter than philosophers: they do not conclude from their failing to catch their tail that their tail does not exist...

"One" in that sentence is a requirement of the language's grammatical structure. One has to see past that to get at the reality. Arf!

Words have meanings and reflect deeper structures of thought. There can be no meditation without a self meditating. Who meditates if not an entity? Unless I am talking to a machine or a god, the entity meditating is in your case a physical and mental entity, called a person, which places him or herself in a certain mental and physical state of meditation, and then gets out of that state when it's time for dinner or to write about it on A2K...

Failure to understand or perceive something well is not a proof of its inexistence. Meditation may have its limits when it come to understanding oneself, for instence. As I see it, it's more a way to stop the self, forget about it all and unwind, than a way to understand anything deeply or intimately, let alone the self it stopped. It's a way to spread out. One can go "beyond oneself" for a while, and then recollect oneself.

I mean, you have one central interconnected nervous system, which means whatever magic that system does has to be interconnected and systemic. the self is certainly made of parts (everything is) but connected and structured in one whole.

So you are absolutely convinced that your linguistic picture of the world is as real as the world it represents. COGITO, you insist: no meditating without a self meditating.* Very "logical" isn't it? It is not my purpose to talk you out of it.
* btw, is your self meditating?

Yes, when I do the dishes.

And the very fact that they choose to meditate shows they have free will.

Unless they admit that the devil makes them do it! LOL

It doesn't... and the evidence is... that the subject has been questioned and debated for centuries with no definitive answer. So, I'd say your latest contribution hasn't finally completed that quest.

Language is not the issue here, since all languages have subjects and verbs. The issue is logic, indeed. Sorry but I'm not going to jettison logic just so my self can turn around in circles chasing its own self, like a dog chasing his tail.

Do you have any logical problems with cogito ergo sum?

Not really. Do you?

Is that a yes or a no or do you need to qualify your answer?

I do... as do some Western philosophers.

Olivier, you say that you meditate when you do the dishes. Good, that's a wonerful opportunity to practice being with the world as it is.

If you have issues with the logic of the cogito, let's talk about them.

Why?