I start with the proposition that: "If life is logical, then everything relates to everything." In this way, learning is about expanding perspective.
On the contrary: "If life is illogical, then we should at some point discover an edge beyond which there is nothing." Beyond that point, life should end.

I define the mind as the organizational mechanism of life. The brain, therefore, becomes the sensible manifestation of that operation. [In the same way that our bodies represent life albeit a sensible representation. Earlier, I had used the term 'physical manifestation' but now I think 'sensible' is more appropriate to clearly mean that which impacts the senses.] Also, for any mechanism to operate, there must be a driving force, and in life, I call it 'Will'. Will or will-power is generated by life and drives all the processes or mechanisms.

Trauma, I define as an injury or unnatural limitation in life or any of its expressions. In this way, I don't perceive trauma as a quality within the mind or brain but as a quality conveyed to them, or to be more precise, through them.

Allow me to use some examples:
Say a lazy 'couch-potato' developed a bad heart due to his bad habits. Then he got lucky and received a heart transplant from a young healthy professional sportsman. Say the donor had an accident and suffered irreparable brain damage but the rest of his body was intact. Now, is it not plausible that the lazy guy could still eventually cause injury to his new heart through the same indiscipline that saw him lose the first.

Secondly, suppose the previous situation is reversed and this time a healthy, well-disciplined guy received a not-so-healthy heart. (Perhaps he was born with a heart condition and through proper discipline managed to push through beyond the limits modern medicine had imposed on him but unfortunately the inevitable end had to come.) For him, though, any heart would be better than none. Anyway, through appropriate discipline and guidance, is it not plausible that he could undo some damage to his new heart if not completely reverse all its injuries?

I believe the same would apply to the brain (if it could be donated) or any other organ. Thus, I think trauma is more of something we allow (even through our own ignorance) than something attached to our bodies.

I would also like to mention that our biggest deterrent in overcoming trauma/disease, is our lack of improvement in our ability/capacity to heal or recover from injury. Modern medicine allows us to heal/recover but only as much as we are dependent on such medicine. It does not help us to improve our natural abilities. If I take cold medicines all my life, at 90 years of age, I'm still as vulnerable as I was at 10 if not more. If we worked on learning how to restore ourselves to perfect utility, injury/trauma would not have such devastating effects as it does presently.

So, when I gain enlightenment I won't be able to go on vacation or use a vacuum cleaner anymore? I won't be interested in how other people live and think? — T Clark

I think when you're enlightened you get the right perspective.

They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines. — T Clark

They realize machines do not do any work. Rather, humans use them to work more efficiently, instead of replacing human labour.

Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel. — T Clark

And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it. — T Clark

When enlightened, they realize that the grass is neither greener nor browner on the other side; and that what they would seek elsewhere can be easier found within their encompass. That is, they develop the proper appreciation for life and its providence.

Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and haste,
and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender
be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Avoid loud and aggressive persons,
they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.

Keep interested in your own career, however humble;
it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs;
for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
many persons strive for high ideals;
and everywhere life is full of heroism.

Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be cynical about love;
for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial as the grass.

Take kindly the counsel of the years,
gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.
Beyond a wholesome discipline,
be gentle with yourself.

You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.

Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.

by Max Ehrmann.

Also, when we refer to a human being, we do not mean the human body. We primarily mean human consciousness (activity) which more often than not extends beyond the human body. Else, a corpse would still be a human being by the fact that it is a human body.

I think consciousness is a fundamental part of life and is a component of all life regardless of circumstance. Here, I mean, humans, animals, plants, molecules, atoms, planets, galaxies, universe(s), etc., all have consciousness. This is because, if we examine what we refer to by consciousness, it almost always means the process of awareness and response. From this, I would say that consciousness is a configuration of activity. Something is conscious if it is active or performing an action. The only conflict I perceive with this explanation is that we (humans) only refer to consciousness in humans and sometimes animals and often forget about its fundamental and universal aspect.

The first part of this idea is: every part of the body expresses consciousness due to its activity and this is primarily reflected in the brain because of the fact that the whole body is remapped in it. In this way, the brain is seen as the seat of consciousness. However, there are occasions when even science with its physical approach cannot explain certain occurrences citing explanations such as anomalies, but which are more often than not coping mechanisms. For example, as with the case of Martin Pistorius where our modern science decided that he was no longer conscious because with the current means that was the most probable diagnosis, only to be proved wrong later when he showed he had been aware of his circumstances all along; or when either the right or left hemispheres of the brain suffer injury and become inactive, there has been noted that the activities previously inherent in the damaged part are transfered to the other functioning part. I think this is a plausible explanation for how a person may still be conscious even though brain-readings suggest he is not. Life usually finds a way to compensate for a lost appendage. Perhaps (speculating), in the case of Martin Pistorius, the rest of his neural configuration found a way to compensate for the lost brain activities. Fundamental to such compensation is need.

Another part of the idea is the way we refer to emotions. We often speak of the heart as being the seat of emotions. However, if examined closely, we find that the heart is the first to respond in the case of experiencing emotions. The heart is the most powerful organ when it comes to the fight or flight mechanism. Emotions impact primarily the instinctive mechanism of man and as such the fight or flight mechanism is the most prominent. For example, when we love/like someone, we wish to be closer to them; or when we hate/dislike someone, we wish to distance ourselves from them. Therefore, they trigger the onset of motion-enhancing activities within the body and the heart is at the centre of it as it literally generates the power to effect either. The same may be said of anger, fear, envy, etc. However, we also find certain adjustments, for example, when we examine nervousness. While heart-rate may be increased, the indistinct nature of the response parameters may be said to be the cause of the 'butterflies' in our 'stomachs/bellies'. Physically, the stomach is where energy (food) is held while undergoing processing. Therefore, in analogy, we feel nervousness in our 'stomachs' while the emotional energy is yet undetermined (a.k.a being processed). This is evident in the fact that, once a distinct course of action is determined, the 'butterflies' seem to lessen or fade away.
I hope from these explanations, the idea that consciousness is a manifestation of activity, is somewhat clearer.

Other ideas along the same lines include 'collective consciousness' to imply collective activity, 'my consciousness' meaning my mode of activity (my awareness/response or my way of going about things), and so on.

(NB. I think LIFE'S Consciousness is what is meant by GOD. This is because everything ascribed to GOD is an activity expressed in life. For example, love = fundamental unity, justice = balance, retribution = compensation, intelligence = harmony, etc. To me, because life is not limited to human will or desires, it explains why religious people are not favoured over others; and also how discipline (whether in science, philosophy, religion, sports, etc) helps a person develop certain abilities/capabilities.)

The op is very cyclic and denies some significant components of our lives which refute the idea of 'chance'; such as the law of CAUSE & EFFECT or INTELLIGENCE. Cause implies reason which negates 'chance'. Also, the very idea of progression/evolution (a fundamental activity of the intelligence aspect of life) implies a moving forward, not forwards and then backwards. While life does have cyclic events, they do not alter its progression. Metempsychosis (Reincarnation) is a better super-normal explanation of that 'deja vu' or it's just the mind doing what it does best: drawing connections. It may be like how we understand other people's family drama even though the circumstances and the people are different. Deja vu is more analogical than factual.

It seems difficult to explain logic as an independent factor. Perhaps because it is too broad for the human capacity for knowledge to comprehend it fully. In a way, logic implies reason, inference, thinking, etc. However, there is something about all those aspects that is somewhat natural, inherent or instinctive to man and possibly to life.

"Man is conscious of a universal soul within or behind his individual life, wherein, as in a firmament, the natures of Justice, Truth, Love, Freedom, arise and shine. This universal soul, he calls Reason: it is not mine or thine or his, but we are its; we are its property and men. And the blue sky in which the private earth is buried, the sky with its eternal calm, and full of everlasting orbs, is the type of Reason. That which, intellectually considered, we call Reason, considered in relation to nature, we call Spirit. Spirit is the Creator. Spirit hath life in itself. And man in all ages and countries, embodies it in his language, as the Father.
It is easily seen that there is nothing lucky or capricious in these analogies, but that they are constant, and pervade nature. These are not the dreams of a few poets, here and there, but man is an analogist, and studies relations in all objects. He is placed in the centre of beings, and a ray of relation passes from every other being to him. And neither can man be understood without these objects, nor these objects without man. All the facts in natural history taken by themselves, have no value, but are barren like a single sex. But marry it to human history, and it is full of life. Whole Floras, all Linnæus’ and Buffon’s volumes, are but dry catalogues of facts; but the most trivial of these facts, the habit of a plant, the organs, or work, or noise of an insect, applied to the illustration of a fact in intellectual philosophy, or, in any way associated to human nature, affects us in the most lively and agreeable manner."
From 'NATURE' by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

This passage makes me think that perhaps within logic belies a universal principle, through which, we use to connect/relate to the many aspects of life. In this way, logic isn't something that is justified, rather, it justifies. It justifies truth as acceptable.

I've just been watching a story about Martin Pistorius (who suffered locked-in syndrome) and I think our science cannot distinguish between the mind and brain though it is clear (as with Martin Pistorius) that they are quite distinct even though they interconnect in their functionality. With Martin Pistorius, the doctors thought he had lost brain-function (in terms of being conscious/aware) but it turns out they just couldn't recognize it with the current instruments and procedures. So, perhaps, we should not be too rushed to dismiss the possibility of the mind functioning beside the brain and not necessarily dependent upon it.

@Jake
:clap: Well said!

@ArguingWAristotleTiff
It's a really good poem. Kinda makes you realize the sanctity of bringing a life to the world and the immensity of the work to undertake.

@ArguingWAristotleTiff and everyone at The Philosophy Forum:
Thank you very much.

THE BLESSED CITY

In my youth I was told that in a certain city every one lived according to the Scriptures.
And I said, “I will seek that city and the blessedness thereof.” And it was far. And I made great provision for my journey. And after forty days I beheld the city and on the forty-first day I entered into it.
And lo! the whole company of the inhabitants had each but a single eye and but one hand. And I was astonished and said to myself, “Shall they of this so holy city have but one eye and one hand?”
then I saw that they too were astonished, for they were marvelling greatly at my two hands and my two eyes. And as they were speaking together I inquired of them saying, “Is this indeed the Blessed City, where each man lives according to the Scriptures?” And they said, “Yes, this is that city.”
“And what,” said I, “hath befallen you, and where are your right eyes and your right hands?”
And all the people were moved. And they said, “Come thou and see.” And they took me to the temple in the midst of the city. and in the temple I saw a heap of hands and eyes. All withered. Then said I, “Alas! what conqueror hath committed this cruelty upon you?”
And there went a murmur amongst them. And one of their elders stood forth and said, “This doing is of ourselves. God hath made us conquerors over the evil that was in us.”
And he led me to a high altar, and all the people followed. And he showed me above the altar an inscription graven, and I read:
“If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that the whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” Then I understood. And I turned about to all the people and cried, “Hath no man or woman among you two eyes or two hands?”
And they answered me saying, “No, not one. There is none whole save such as are yet too young to read the Scripture and to understand its commandment.”
And when we had come out of the temple, I straightway left that Blessed City; for I was not too young, and I could read the scripture.

From The Madman by Kahlil Gibran.

"AND a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, Speak to us of
Children.
And he said:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of to-morrow, which you cannot visit, not
even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with
His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the Archer’s hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is
stable."

From The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran

To me, he is Socrates reborn. Magnifico!

@Banno
Thanks for video. Very informative.

@Banno; @Pattern-chaser

I meant, more specifically, a person born completely blind and completely deaf. Anyway, the point I wanted to make was that the mind processes images. It conveys all information into its particular brand of imaging. The images may be forms, configurations, structures, descriptions, etc. Words also fall in that category. People who've learnt words in school (they have seen those words in written form) hold different images from those who've learnt the same words only from spoken language.
I think, also, it's why sight is the most depended-on mode of sensation - because it captures images.

What is the medium of thought for someone born deaf-blind?

There are lots of reasons. I will give you 2 for now.

1)Omnipotence alone is incoherent because of the omnipotence paradox. Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.

2) Omnipotence and omniscience together is impossible. If the god knows every true proposition about the future then he already knows everything he will do and cannot do otherwise. The omnipotent being cannot does not have the power to do anything different in the future then he already believes he will do. — GodlessGirl

I think an omnipotent being (if such existed) can create a very heavy rock and refuse to lift it. It does not affect the omnipotency.
Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence are absolutes. Therefore, they are all identical. That is omnipotence=omniscience=omnipresence=any other absolute. Usually those who profess religion just like to use many words to say simple things or maybe its an attraction to grand gestures, who knows?

If a person knew they would go to work the next day, does it stop them from going to work? It also, does not prevent the person from doing something different. There is a lot of intelligence, if not wisdom, in knowing and doing.

I'm not advocating for the truth behind the existence of a 'religious' GOD, but I think it's unfair to discount something you do not know. Where are the facts, either in support or against?

I don't think introspection is like a math puzzle which you solve and then its done. Introspection is continuous both when awake and asleep. So, when its not consciously done, then its relegated to the unconscious/subconscious/super-conscious processes.

I don't "look inside my mind" to see how I feel. I know I feel angry, sad, elated or whatever directly, my body knows it. — Janus

I think this only applies to emotions readily recognized in your conscious (directly-focused) mentation. There are subtle forms of emotions which we are not always aware of. For example: disatisfaction, complaints, blame, etc., are all precipitated from anger but we usually notice the aggressive representations. Subtle emotions such as jealousy and envy also usually go unnoticed in the earlier stages of their manifestation. Emotions are like waves in the ocean, most people only recognize the crests, and only those externally perceivable at that, and miss out on the rest of the motion.

What then justifies the validity of the path? — TheMadFool

That it relates/connects to truth/reality is the justification/validation.

When there is no evidence to the contrary, the tiniest shred of evidence is actionable. If you believe there is additional information available then the salience of the decision determines how much you delay the decision in favor of gathering additional information. — Kaiser Basileus

I think this refers more to choice than to knowledge. It suggests a kind of response or activity born of perception; something distinctly subjective.

When a person says, "The world is flat." Is this a statement with reference to knowledge or perception? The person may have no evidence to the contrary (perhaps due to lack of due diligence in acquiring said evidence), and may as well be confident in his claim. It is also actionable (many sailors and navigators did set out to discover the end of the world based on such ideas and propositions). So, my question is, Can knowledge be wrong? Or, does knowledge bear any relationship to truth?

I believe application of knowledge can be subjective but I don't think knowledge is.

Instead of a percentage of certainty, perhaps a level of confidence in our expectations...?

Real Truth is inaccessible to us because of physical and mental filters between us and the real world, namely biological, cultural, and psychological. — Kaiser Basileus

I'm not so sure about this. I think what you call filters are channels through which knowledge comes to us. They seem like filters because of their limitations but, through generations of human evolution, we keep expanding them and they maintain their service.

There are only two ways of knowing, empirical probability and logical necessity. — Kaiser Basileus

This I think is an over-simplification. Usually, intuition gets the first bite long before the scientific method is applied.

When making decisions, a certainty of 51% is as good as 100% because nothing may exceed it. — Kaiser Basileus

You may be between 25-60% sure of one thing and 44-78% sure of another, contradictory explanation — Kaiser Basileus

Doesn't knowing the percentage of certainty imply an idea of what the absolute truth is. Can you know that you have 26% without an idea of 100%? Because, then, the 26% would be arbitrary and not necessarily significant.

I do believe there is no absolute knowledge but there is comprehensive knowledge for a particular stage in life. Also, I think knowledge applies to all levels of life, including galaxies, stars, planets, animals, plants, even atoms and beyond, the differences being the modes of life and the degrees of application.
For me, one of the signs of knowledge is the awareness/response mechanism, another is differentiation and utility, all of which are expressed by all of life. I believe every life partakes of its share of knowledge.

I've been looking for a definition to logic. Something not in the dictionary; less linguistic and more of philosophy. Can we say that logic is a guide/path to reality/fact. This is because, if we claim that 'something' is logical, we probably mean, fundamentally, it contains an underlying truth, an undeniable fact. Therefore, could logic be that relation/connection, that path, between the 'something' and the truth?

Why should logic be justified? Does it need justification? Doesn't logic imply justification? Do you mean 'how do we justify by logic?'

Is it like, 'how do we determine that logic is logical?' I guess I don't know. Perhaps it depends with perspective. Then again, if that is so, it becomes subjective. Can logic be identified with either objectivity/subjectivity or does it encompass both?

Quite the head-scratcher!

I think the answer is GENETICS.
Through all succeeding levels, all life, evolving or progressing from the primordial to the most current, must all carry with them a genetic imprint of their foremost ancestor. That is, every part of life has within it a genetic imprint that matches every other. Therefore, to know, one must look deep within to understand what is without. I believe Plato implied to "know thyself," was the first step to understanding the greater beyond. Thus, self-examination is the how. The why is so we can grow. Again, imprinted within our genetic material is the ability to unfold our latent potential by growing and developing into maturity. It is the same with humanity. I believe we are developing to the point where we are consciously aware of our environment and will be able to determine what and where we want/ought to be next.

Try reading, "Man: Whence, How & Whither," by Anne Besant and C.W. Leadbeater. It may be steeped in esoteric spirituality but it gives an evolutionary account unmatched in its depth and design. It also covers a field of activity surpassing that of the normal human view. It may not have any provable facts but its adherence to fundamental principles is quite intelligent. It will show you that there's more to consider in evolution beyond ordinary scientific and religious theories. Not only that, it does attempt to forecast a foreseeable future. It may open your mind somewhat if you can tolerate the obvious spiritual bias and read it as just a storybook.
Another is, "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson," by G.I. Gurdjieff. It is fiendish in its mercurial combination of ordinary and esoteric philosophy but, again, it shows evolution of life should cover all life not just a preamble to our human lives. Perhaps it could better explain the why. They are both 'outside the box' books and exciting.

[If you try them and they seem 'lacking', please ask and I'll try to help as much as possible.]

Firstly, I love this discussion!

I've been struggling with these two principles and haven't found a relationship that explains them without holes or errors. Presently, I define existence as 'that which is', 'a something', 'that which is undeniable', 'fact', etc. I consider it synonymous with LIFE.

Awareness is the mechanism of 'Consciousness' which represents 'others' to you. Here we refer to other 'Consciousnesses' vs your own. This is also the territory of 'relative' phenomena or relationships. Awareness is usually accompanied by 'Response' whether internal/external or subjective/objective.

Before I proceed I must define 'Consciousness' => "Consciousness is a manifestation or expression of LIFE." It is the subjective to LIFE'S objectivity.
(Here, I get a bit lost myself and must explain it to myself to fully understand what I'm getting at. So, 'Consciousness' is like a light which LIFE uses to illuminate. It can even shine that light on Itself. 'Consciousness' is also like a language which LIFE uses to express Itself by. As well, it can express Itself to Itself.)

I don't believe in non-existence. LIFE is an affirmation not a denial. If something does not exist, then, how do we know about it?

The 'pink elephant' paradox: => This I use to show that even the contents of our thoughts and emotions are part of existence. Whether I tell you to think or not to think of a 'pink elephant', the mind must create an image of it before it can enact any conditioning. Therefore, to not think of a 'pink elephant' means to erase the picture of a 'pink elephant' from the mind. Which suggests that the picture already had a brief spell of existence there.
To say something is non-existent is to imply an existence which has been named as 'non-existence'. It is just a name and does not deny existence. Remember the definition of existence, "that which is undeniable."

To me, belief is synonymous with understanding. The claim, "I believe in such and such," is just that, a claim or a statement. Usually without proper refernce to the truth behind it.

Even scientists claim the sky is blue. But, if you question the validity of it, they admit that it's just something which represents 'sense-perception' but not actual reality. That is because the reality of it runs along the lines of, "...ozone diffusing the blue spectrum of light..., etc."
Suppose, if a thug held a gun to the face of a 'man of faith' and threatened to kill them, would the 'man of faith' proceed nonchalantly with their business because life is God's property or do they beg against it in attempts to gain salvation from that precarious situation? It would not be that the 'man of faith' does not claim to believe in God, but it's more that he knows when the situation calls for a different tactic, something close to what he can actually bring to fruition. This is probably because he knows that try as he might, his prayers may not bring him deliverance; or perhaps he just isn't sure enough to risk it. Is that still faith?

I think in both cases, the scientist and the 'man of faith' are alike. They use statements to reflect a generalized idea even when it is not the reality they hold in their understanding.

'Faith without action is dead' => This may actually support the definition of faith as being synonymous with understanding. We always act according to our understanding and that is the truth about our faith even against the statements we claim. If someone attempted to perform something they did not understand, they would fail. Hence, if the performance claimed a faith-relation then the failure would reveal it as a lie.

What religious people refer to as 'GOD', I personally call LIFE. I believe it is also what scientists refer to as energy when they claim, "it can neither be created nor destroyed."

However, I thought to introduce a bit of chaos by stating:

If 'GOD' does not exist, why create HIM/HER/IT?

The reason for this is that recently while observing the social trends of our world, it became a concern that with time history will become more dim than fiction. So far history seems to fade away faster than fiction and the parts of history that seem fresh in the average person's mind are those incorporated into fiction. So I wondered, will there come a time when 'superman' is more real than 'Hitler'? Or worse, when 'Hitler' is just another bad-guy in the 'Superman' story?

Think about it, more of what people say about 'GOD' hinges on fiction. They say 'GOD is all-powerful' yet our everyday lives is a testament to the contrary with the many limitations and evils of society not only affecting the non-religious but also the religious.

I think if 'GOD' isn't fictitious, then HE/SHE/IT is more practical than those who claim such faith. And if 'GOD' acts according to our faith, then we should realize we are in the driving seat and sober up quick.

Bottom line is => Before 'GOD' there seems to be us.
We need to work on our lives instead of assigning the responsibility of our faults to some fictitious element of our own making.

@ChatteringMonkey

Sorry for that, it wasn't the best way to express that point. What I meant was, "...they are things (factors) in terms of their relation to phenomena."

I hope that makes it clearer.

How do we know that time has an effect on phenomena? Does it make things change, or is it merely a measure of change, that is the question. — ChatteringMonkey

In the absolute sense, time (or any relative factor) does not affect phenomena, rather, phenomena manifest the condition called time. However, even as a relative aspect, it expresses an actual relationship. For example, length, like time, is a measure of something. Because the something is real, its measure must also be real, though relative (limited to that particular relationship only). When two realities interact, e.g., two people, everything about them interact including the conditions they manifest. I think in this way a consequence also becomes a causative aspect. It's like a chain reaction where the first cause is accompanied by the first consequence which then becomes a cause to the next, and so on.

Time and Space are dimensions of LIFE akin to length, width and height/depth. They may not be things in the tangible manner but they are things in terms of their effect on phenomena. For example, "how could a person perceive 3-dimensions if they were blinded against any one of its parameters?"
Having given the above opening, I posit that 'space-time' is incomplete in the way we represent it. For it to fully equate to our 3-D model of LIFE, a third parameter must be included. I insist it should be 'space-time-form'. Thus you have, "TIME - a representation of transiency/change (rate); SPACE - a representation of awareness/presence (range); and FORM - a representation of force/structure (quality and quantity)."

[Quality and quantity should be understood in analogy to how mass and volume interact to give density. There is a particular quality to every quantity, and vice-versa, so that every part of LIFE is balanced against these two parameters to determine an inherent condition which these two factors represent.]

I hear arguments about time-travel and often wonder why people don't realize how ridiculous they sound. (Perhaps I sound just as ridiculous to them when I refute it!) Anyway, there is a particular theory that I instinctively deny even without recourse to any viable experiments in its support. That is:

"According to relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. If we therefore sent a spaceship to our nearest neighboring star, Alpha Centauri, which is about four light-years away, it would take at least eight years before we could expect the travelers to return and tell us what they had found. If the expedition were to the center of our galaxy, it would be at least a hundred thousand years before it came back. The theory of relativity does allow one consolation. This is the so-called twins paradox mentioned in Chapter 2. Because there is no unique standard of time, but rather observers each have their own time as measured by clocks that they carry with them, it is possible for the journey to seem to be much shorter for the space travelers than for those who remain on earth. But there would not be much joy in returning from a space voyage a few years older to find that everyone you had left behind was dead and gone thousands of years ago. So in order to have any human interest in their stories, science fiction writers had to suppose that we would one day discover how to travel faster than light. What most of these authors don’t seem to have realized is that if you can travel faster than light, the theory of relativity implies you can also travel back in time, as the following limerick says:

There was a young lady of Wight
Who traveled much faster than light.
She departed one day,
In a relative way,
And arrived on the previous night

The point is that the theory of relativity says that there is no unique measure of time that all observers will agree on. Rather, each observer has his or her own measure of time. If it is possible for a rocket traveling below the speed of light to get from event A (say, the final of the 100-meter race of the Olympic Games in 2020) to event B (say, the opening of the 100,004th meeting of the Congress of Alpha Centauri), then all observers will agree that event A happened before event B according to their times. Suppose, however, that the spaceship would have to travel faster than light to carry the news of the race to the Congress. Then observers moving at different speeds can disagree about whether event A occurred before B or vice versa. According to the time of an observer who is at rest with respect to the earth, it may be that the Congress opened after the race. Thus this observer would think that a spaceship could get from A to B in time if only it could ignore the speed-of-light speed limit.
However, to an observer at Alpha Centauri moving away from the earth at nearly the speed of light, it would appear that event B, the opening of the Congress, would occur before event A, the 100-meter race. The theory of relativity says that the laws of physics appear the same to observers moving at different speeds. This has been well tested by experiment and is likely to remain a feature even if we find a more advanced theory to replace relativity. Thus the moving observer would say that if faster-than-light travel is possible, it should be possible to get from event B, the opening of the Congress, to event A, the 100-meter race. If one went slightly faster, one could even get back before the race and place a bet on it in the sure knowledge that one would win."
- A Brief History in Time by Stephen Hawking (Chapter 10).

[The above statement does not represent Stephen Hawking's theory of time-travel, rather, it is one of the more popular notions which he has discussed in the book.]

Firstly, time is not linear. It is a kind of a vector with a shifting magnitude and a variable direction (my own theory). Secondly, there is no theory of relativity which states that, 'nothing is faster than light'. Thirdly, even in Einstein's time, it was known that some light had greater frequencies than others and that the spectrum as they had discovered thus far was still quite incomplete and therefore white light could not be used as a standard of measure. Also, electrons could not be used as a standard of measure because they had begun to realize that they may not be the smallest/simplest organization of LIFE. Fourthly, we know that, any particle, whatever its characteristics, must take time while moving from point A to B which are separated by a certain distance. No matter how fast the movement, there will always be a delay as it traverses the space between the points A and B unless the particle lies over both points and therefore does not move. Therefore the idea that time could run backwards is absolutely absurd.

Lastly, I must reiterate that without understanding the 'Form' factor, those who theorize on time-travel would only be whistling dixie. There is a reason why every form, every body, every system/organization, has its unique inherent qualities. To begin assumptions where spacecrafts and people move at the speeds of light or beyond is in great disregard to the quality of the bodies involved. Even at the low speeds of boats (sometimes canoes), cars, planes, etc, there are people who get affected => sea-sick, car-sick, jet-lag. Why then would they jump to the conclusion that a huge metal chamber or the human system can suffer such torture as being propelled at the speed of light. Not unless they believe once the people were dead then their ghosts will whizz off against the spin of the clock (like in some 'ghost of christmas past' movie).
And for those who think that space-time could be folded or bent, think again. Even if space-time acted as a homogenous material, would it not have properties inherent to itself and its functionality? Then they would also need to be known and manipulated.
Thus, when philosophy hits the reality gong, sci-fi must go bye-bye (I'm still a big trekkie).

To this whole process, I remark that passionate as philosophers may be, they should attempt to keep a tight reign on their fancies else they lead themselves astray, or worse, a horde of fanatics!

THERE IS NO TIME-TRAVEL as we have been led to believe.

* I cannot refute the black-hole or worm-hole theories because I do not know what they (the black/worm-holes) are. However, from what I know about life, creation in six business days is more likely than time-travel.

"Philosophy is the study of facts in their right relation". - I don't remember whose quote it is but I must have got it from one of the esoteric philosophy books.

I believe the statement infers that philosophy was and still is the way to express wisdom, knowledge, concepts, percepts, ideas, etc. A way to represent/relate the great to the small; the abstract (principles) to the practical. Philosophy is the language of wisdom, it doesn't die, it adapts. Perhaps philosophers are no longer regarded with as much esteem as Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the like, but they don't need to be rockstars to represent their calling. Philosophy still exists; unfortunately, our absurd expectations blind us to its true value. I think Hawking remarked to the incongruity within the people who hailed him as a celebrity (as famous/popular) but who would not take the time to understand his teachings or venture into them. To him, "philosophy is dead," because, instead of attracting like minded people who would walk with him side by side as companions (as in the old days), it pulled to him 'dead-weights', people who did not understand the primary fundamental that 'a philosopher is first and foremost a student of life, not some guy professing to give answers to questions nobody asked or cared for'. In his aloneness, philosophy truly was dead.

@Harry Hindu

Meaning is the relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

I like your definition very much and would like to ask if you can explain a bit further in terms of abstracts or principles and how they are represented in our day to day business. For example, "how and why does the cause assign meaning to the effect? What is the end game (if any)? Or rather, how should we perceive the whole mechanism of cause and effect in relation to meaning?"

"The meaning of life is to give life meaning"

Well said!!!
I think that is the very definition, the essence, of living.

I think meaning is 'the realization or recognition of a connection or relation to something'. That is, something has meaning or significance to another when they relate. Does logic have anything to do with this? I think logic implies a connection/relation because the term 'illogical' implies the lack of.

I think such questions are always unfair because they do not account for perspective. 'Chance' and 'Purpose' are significant depending on the meaning assigned to them. Is the inference here that 'chance' and 'purpose' are absolutely mutually exclusive such that the existence of one factor excludes the other or are they like two different mechanisms where the universe is supposed to have begun in one way and later managed to include the other in its operation?
I don't think the term 'chance' has any practical significance. Isn't it a word we use to describe things we don't know or fully understand yet?

I find this question of mental state to be very intriguing. It brings up questions like what is mind? What is the relationship between mind and brain?
So far my definition of 'mind' is 'the directive/structural/organizational mechanism of life'. While this definition may not be fully thought through, it does help in explaining a little about how the mind works. The brain, I define as 'the physical interface for the mind'. This is kind of the relationship between software and hardware. The 'mind' is the software while the 'brain' is the hardware.
I see a mental state as something close to an attitude or a character but not yet a personality because while it lacks permanency, there is a distinct persistence/recurrence to its mode of operation. I would then define a mental state as an element of mind ( usually that which is in focus within consciousness). Therefore, while the 'mind' is the 'structural mechanism', a 'mental state' would be an individual 'structure' within the mechanism.

* [JUST FOR CONTEXT => As to 'emotions', I define them as 'the fuel substance for life'; that is, an ingredient which nourishes or catalyses life processes. For example, for a house to exist, there must have been a plan, then afterwards the materials and lastly the builders who perform the actual work. From my perspective, the plan symbolizes the mental aspect, the materials symbolize the emotional aspect, and the builders symbolize the physical/practical aspect. Basically, I don't think there can be one aspect without relation to the others in life, otherwise life would not be.]

I don't know, does this make sense? What do you think?

Allow me to begin with the first principles as it will make it easier to follow my explanation. I believe LIFE has three fundamental principles. (There can be more or less but I use three as a kind of triangulation method. Two do not give a well defined position and more than three seems to me a bit superfluous.) These fundamentals are Form (Being), Influence (Power/Ability/Capacity) and Activity (Work/Motion). These three fundamental qualities are inseparable in LIFE where each co-exists with the other two. However, we can focus our perception into taking each into consideration. (Kind of like how we can consider a singular factor, an appendage, within a whole without separating it from the whole.)

I define 'Will' as the Influence generated by a Being towards an Activity. I also consider 'Will' to be synonymous with 'Impulse' or 'Cause' though our use of them in daily occurrences may imply the latter are of lesser degrees.

I state that 'Freedom' is the ultimate attribute of LIFE. To me, the word 'freedom' is synonymous with 'absolute'. It is the adjective which best describes LIFE. Scientists state that: "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." Thus, they imply 'Energy is Omni-Scient/Potent/Present', which is the same definition given for 'GOD' by those who claim such faith. It is the definition I give to LIFE.

From all that, I would posit that 'Will' is a tool/mechanism which LIFE employs. It may be that in the hierarchy/order of things, 'Will' is second only to LIFE. Since LIFE is essentially 'Free' (without constrains), I believe the term 'Free-Will' to be the human way of stating the realisation of that profound truth as well as an attempt to put it into practice by working it through our awareness first.
@Marcus de Brun

Before 'Free Will' shouldn't we define 'Will' first? Then determine what is meant by it being 'Free'.

I would return the envelope and pick the other. Whether I get more or less, at least, I would have eliminated curiosity because there would be no more uncertainty.

The biggest deterrent to solving philosophical or metaphysical problems is the incongruity between the universal and individual scales or between the absolute and the relative; also between the objective and subjective. Free Will or Freedom is a factor of the ABSOLUTE. It only applies to the relative in limited and defined parameters. [For example: Even prisoners have free will, they just can't apply it to overcome their boundaries. However, there have been a few who have attempted and succeeded.] We all have free will, we just do not understand the full measure of it. Hence we are 'limited beings with limited lives'. Matter and other ingredients of life only provide conditions which influence how we choose to apply our free will. Though it could never be eliminated.