Free will .......

hmm... Forgive my enthusiasm. I am a bit excited. It's interesting stuff.

But you are probably right in that it would not fit into this thread.

Time, I believe, would be the fourth dimension. This begs the question 'who watches the watcher'? Or if you prefer 'what space encompasses the space in space'?

Been there, done that ...

Obviously "time" is the fourth one, that's why the fabric of existence is called "space-time." The crucial thing to realise is that "time" and "space" are identical, yet we only perceive our environment in three.

I don't know what you mean. Are you suggesting that space-time must be embedded in something else? Why so?

Not that I don't enjoy this all very much but I guess any conclusions or ideas here can only serve, at most, to dust away the cob webs of perceived experience. We aren't talking about ultimate reality or something, only of perceptions of such "things" so talk of that which is beyond our bounded view is talk of the wordless.

I'm not sure how self awareness is any less based on perceptions of external realities than talk of emergent properties etc. The very act of saying, "I am self aware", takes for granted this "self". We presumably do this based on the divisions we, and we alone, create between observers and the observed etc. Surely any universe "knows" no such distinctions? For the cat there is no "me" and mouse, only chasing(?). At this level of discussion at any rate, no?

So talking about something "which gives rise to external reality & self", seems to me, to be trapped in "external reality" itself by virtue of "giving rise to it", to be in relationship to it. What we are talking about here, these selves and realities, these mutual relationships and dependencies, they are all devised in "our" minds, "our" minds also "create" these very relationships, these processes of A-B-C. So the topic seems to have reached a point, to me, when questions of "ultimate reality" become meaningless if we are still talking in terms of "gives rise to". This is why I earlier questioned how such an ultimate reality could give rise to something, could exist, could create or be part of relationship, these are all things which this "ultimate reality" of which we speak is supposed to be the basis for. Unless you want to create an ultimate regress, it seems like we must let go of "creation", "giving rise to" & "basis".

I only talk of an "ultimate reality" because of this limitation in terms of my perception, I also have no clues as to the nature of this ultimate reality but to me, by definition, it must be wholly beyond relationship. In fact, if you ask me, no such ultimate reality exists beyond my own attempts to box/label my perceptual limitations. I think I mentioned earlier that self perceives these "things", which it throws a net around to group together, I sense the same thing IS happening with a discussion of that which is beyond "external reality" & "self".

I don't know the physics or the maths for any of this of course, I'd love to be able to delve into it from that angle too, maybe, many years from now I'll do just that. For now, intuition is my only ally, oh and ALL the excellent posts I read here which spark my imagination. :wink:

It might help to mention that I was reading a little of J. Krishnamurti a while back, specifically on meditation. He talks of an emptiness which is the end and beginning of all things, an emptiness which is beyond all positive and negative assertions, I would suggest for myself, this is ultimate reality, if we must use these labels. Importantly though, he uses words to describe this emptiness, he also says love comes from this emptiness, I think he is using words here, to present an image to us, to give us a reason to explore on our own. We cannot conceive of this through thought, for, he is of course, describing the wordless.

pswfps, earlier you mentioned religions trying to conceptualise the ineffable etc.

To be honest Ashers, I'm getting a bit tired of this. I have not tried to conceptualise the ineffable; I stopped way short of that. I had to use some form of language and "Gives rise to" seemed as good as any other term. This is not to suggest causality or some other literal realtionship. Simply stated there can be no describable relationship with the ineffable. That said, I have correctly deduced the possibility of more than this sentience IMO. Maybe "gives rise to" was a poor choice of words though.

Back on the subject of free-will though, does a "will" have to be associated in some way with consciousness? Does a consciousness choose what to think? I suspect not.

Sometimes things are ineffable because of the limitations of language.

And if religion is indeed trying to conceptualize the ineffable, it explains well why many of us are so reluctant to embrace religion. These things simply cannot be expressed. The closest we may come is to create metaphors of greater or lesser similarity, and in our minds we must conduct a unification of terms in order to get the gist of this. Then too much is left to the individual to hope that we can ever reach a common consensus on these subjects. So religion and it's "findings" should remain personal and individual. If these limitations are trancended, truth dissappears.

Fair enough, I don't see that there is or can be more than sentience, to say much more might be to fall into a chasm of word games though. This is just how I see it. For instance, I don't imagine Krishnamurti is describing "something" which "exists", he's simply providing a reason to try letting the mind rest in experience. Apologies if I'm simply coming across as pedantic or something, I quoted you a bit (too much maybe) but I never had you personally in mind, I was simply questioning in my own mind, what/how/can we describe here.

I agree Cyracuz, "truth" would seem to disappear.

Truth in the absolute sense certainly disappears; we are left only with the relativistic truth of one's own set of perceptions. Then again, if one has nothing but one's own perceptions, then these can be considered absolute since there is nothing to compare them to. No?

No. Perception is it's own giveaway. A simple exersize such as looking at an object with one eye down a sightline, then switching eye, is enough to reveal the fact that perception is not so much observation as it is relationship. In this case alignment depends on position relative to the object being observed.

But I see what you are saying, and would agree if perception was consistent at all times.

In your example the relationship exists between the two perceptions. However I am talking about the entirety of all perception as a singular whole. Since there is nothing meanigful outside the scope of perception, perception is everything and absolute. Surely?

Yes, but that is not a insight born directly of perception. That is an insight born out of a concept of many dualistic counterparts abstractly rendered into one ineffable singularity. Is it not?

Are insights and concepts not perceptions?
Is it dualistic to distinguish one perception from another, yet seeing them as complimentary "parts" of a singular holistic network?
Is it dualistic to distinguish concepts, insights and perceptions?

What about the perception that we are talking to each other; is that not a tacit mode of dualism? Seems to me that dualism is an inherant part of sentience.

No, insights and concepts are not perceptions. Not unless you think of the mind as something that can percieve thoughts rather than generate them.

And to distinguish one perception from another is a dualistic process, yes. When you say "holistic network" you are thinking of it from a dualistic viewpoint. "network" implies "parts".

Thing is that perception is dualistic. It is this way because of the way our senses function. But through the power of abstraction we are able to unite elements into one seamless, ongoing alteration.

I lump all three together because it is impossible to know whether a perception is a "concept" or "insight" of the "mind." I think the mind does perceive thoughts. To me that is the fundamental nature of self-awareness. There is a limit though, and that's the realm of the sub-conscious.

I agree, that without dualism there can be no perception. Without perception there can be no dualism. Perception and by extension thought are therefore inherantly dualistic. To escape from dualism is to escape from perception and thought. It would be the cessation of sentience as I know it.

Good morning all. Forgive my tardiness, from time to time I am visited by my good friend Mr. Parkinson. I never find the strength to refuse his visits so I tolerate him.

In a dream I heard a voice. 'Who speaks' I asked and the voice replied; 'who asks'?

Sleep, those little slices of death .... so many levels of consciousness ........ awareness each with it's own guardian ...... the watcher that wakes you just before the blade stabs into your flesh, the one who refuses to allow us harm whilst we are are at our most vulnerable state.

Can levels of sleep be considered levels of consciousness and if so where would 'sub' begin and end .... does each level have an overseer/watcher aka 'self'? Are there levels above and beyond the Freudian 'super ego' that would/could grant 'free will'?

Lot of questions huh