--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Xeno, as I suggested in my reply to Susan, one thing that > always strikes me in such discussions is that the very people > who claim that there is no self seem to be the very ones who > are trying the hardest to prove them (uh) selves "right." > > So I'm going to take a particular point of view when riffing > on your comments (just for fun). I'm going to assume that > what you claim to believe is really true, and that there is > no self on the other end of this conversation. On my side, > there is. On your side, it's like you're the Borg. :-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > >> > > >> Barry, this link provided by cardemaister concerns some of the > > >> latest research in this area. Earlier research showed a shorter > > >> delay, but the effect is the same - the brain reaches a decision > > >> point but we do not become aware of that consciously until after > > >> the fact, which means consciousness is not the trigger for the > > >> decision, that the sense of 'will' that we have must be mistaken. > > > > > > It does NOT mean that. It means only that there is a delay. > > > The research says diddleysquat about the "source" of the > > > decision. > > > > Yes, but what is the significance of the delay? > > Who is it that cares whether the delay has any significance? > > . . . > > >> This seems to correspond best with the central tenet of > > >> Buddhism, the doctrine of no-self. > > > > > > *A* central tenet of *some branches* of Buddhism. > > > > Yes, it is an unpopular idea. It is the tenet that is the > > first one to get buried out of sight. Not very many people > > like this idea. What we call the ego does not like this > > idea at all. > > Who or what is there in you that *does* like it? You're > not saying, as a no-self member of the Borg collective > and all, that you (uh) made a decision to like or not > like this, are you? > > . . . > > > I regard all these theories as what they are -- theories. > > > I hold none of them to be true, no matter who came up > > > with them. > > > > Yes, there are lots of theories. But this is also the way > > I experience it. > > WHO experiences it? :-) > > > So I > > Again, who? > > > ...naturally gravitate to the idea because it explains my > > experience. > > Who is this "my" you are speaking about when you say > "my experience?" Were you not assimilated into the Borg > collective properly? :-) > > Enough. The bottom line of this whole discussion is > right here: > > > >> Free will is interpreted in a larger scope, that is all. It > > >> is a mysterious paradox, and I do not think it can ever be > > >> understood in the way one could understand how an automobile > > >> engine works, or how to make beer. > > > > > > I agree. I don't think the issue will *ever* be resolved, > > > let alone that it already has been, "by science." > > > > It will never be resolved intellectually. Maybe there is a > > chance it can be resolved experientially. > > By whom? :-)
By whom indeed! Maybe it will just happen. A bit short of time today Turq. The 'me' has to engage in various activities rather than idle fun. 'I' must drag this old frame to another set of time-space coordinates. Holy crap. This is just like being an individual. By the way, 'I' finally had the opportunity to go over to Le Chateau in South Salem. Lunch was délicieux, though 'I' normally do not spend two hours for lunch, going through various courses. Also 'I' was leaning to one side when 'I' finally walked out as my wallet was considerably thinner and lighter afterward. The coffee was a bit mild. It was quite cold out that day. No snow here at the moment, a strange winter. If you ate here often you must have been doing well. 'I' couldn't afford it except very occasionally. A nice recommendation though. 'I' did not have wine, as I was driving, and 'I' do not stand up too well to the effects of alcohol. 'I' need to be in a safe place for that, travel being absent. There was an interesting painting in the upstairs dining room, a picture of JP in a rowboat with a diminutive Uncle Sam next to him. This seemed to symbolise the banking panic in 1907, where Morgan got together all the bankers to funnel money around to keep the economy from collapsing because the federal government did not have the clout in those days to do it. As for 'you', 'you' seem to be as attached to the idea of individuality as 'I' to its opposite. Let's say 'we' just strike a deal and split it down the middle, and pretend 'we' can be either one as the moment implies?
