What is free will?

There is thinking, ergo there is thought or there are thoughts. And as far as I'm concerned thoughts require brains as well. But a subject or egoself? (an "I" who does the thinking?) That's an unnecessary assumption necessitated only by the grammar of some languages..

So i'm talking to a disparate mass of thoughts generated by a brain, without any consistency? Odd when you think of how that incoherent brain keeps saying the same thing over and over again.

So you think that the disparate thoughts of an incoherent brain would be effectively integrated by no more than an ego?

I don't understand much of what you guys are talking about, but keep it up! It's interesting in a "philosophical" way.

I don't like the term 'ego', it reeks of egotism and egoism. But if 'your' thoughts are coherent, then it begs the question: why? What makes them coherent and enduring over time?

By the way, I know of no human language that does not have personal pronouns.

But isn't ego and id all part of philosophy-speak?

No. That's Freudean psychology you're thinking of. But the word 'ego' (Latin for 'self' or 'I') is used in all disciplines to simply refer to the self as a separate entity.

Haven't heard those words since college. Yea, Freudean.

...it is quite entertaining to see people really believing that had we grammatically dropped the use of the "I" in favour of the usage of a "we" anything would fundamentally change, naive is the most polite way to put it...

..."we" is and works as much as an "I" in terms of unitary place holder to which functions are related in inputs outputs as the "I" can be...they consistently and completely keep missing the abstraction in the problem of Unity...

In the Freudian model, the ego is one of three parts of the mind, with the other parts being the id and super-ego, both largely inconscious. Other structures have been proposed for the mind, like the child / adult / parent of transactional analysis, or the 'committee model' where varied thought centers share the same 'mental board room' where they debate. These models have all a piece of the truth IMO.

To me, the important aspect of how our mind functions is its reflexivity: like a mirror of ourselves, we reflect our own thoughts (hence the two meanings of the word 'reflection': optical and mental). We can hear ourself thinking, visualize stuff that we imagine. This happens within some 'space' usually called 'conscience'. That's why I like the term 'self': it conveys that reflexivity. But the term is also weak if one agrees with Freud, as I do, that there are inconscient thoughts. So maybe the terms 'person' or 'mind' are better, more general...

I exist within the context of the we. Genes, culture, language, environment all affects our thinking, motivations, actions, and what we call "personality."

In these respects, I agree with Olivier about the self.

We are not amused.

Our minds "brains" do seem to be very complex to the point that we are in the infancy of understanding it. I found it interesting that just thinking about exercise we are able to see results in strength.

What is separate from the 'mind' which could understand? This alone should be enough for you to realize the idiocy you've initiated.

The Buddhism I practise uses visualization... your video explains (to some extent ) a reason why it is beneficial... thanks for posting the video.

Why didn't you take more time to elaborate on your answer, instead of that babble?

Yes, thoughts get written down on the brain. And the brain has a remarkable plasticity as to what it records where, as shown by people who lost a piece of it (as a result of a car accident for instance) and who can re-learn to do stuff by allocating new areas or networks of their brain to the task, thus replacing the lost capacity.

Bump.

Thank you for reminding me why I only come to this website while I am moderately intoxicated.

...sounds like a fetiche to me...