I think that the idea of loss of self is extremely interesting because it involves thinking beyond the most usual boundaries, and, of opening up to the idea of going beyond. There is a danger of fragmentation, in which identity may collapse detrimental, but, also, a possibility of opening up to aspects of experience which offer new possibilities.

I do believe that the idea of self is one which we use in most aspects of our daily lives, but, at the same time, I can see that is a rather vague and abstract concept.

I completely agree with you, but from what I saw on the thread on changing sex, there are individuals on this site who have their own agenda, and for their own wishes, would like to rule out any individual definitions of gender identification. I believe that we have the right to choose our identity, and I hope that you are not bombarded with replies which tell you that we should only define ourselves accordingly to chromosomes and other so called aspects of essential gender. My own view is that we should be able to choose our own identity, and, of course, we live in a social world of bodies, but we may justify our identity rather than simply being told who we are, and who we may become.

I think that the nature of information is extremely interesting, but one aspect of this which I have been aware of related to it during to it the idea of noise, as discussed in a recent book by Daniel Kahneman et al, called, 'Noise'. I have only read about it and looked at the book casually in a bookshop, but it does indicate that our understanding of life is within a background of general noise, often as a form of hindrance. So, I believe that we need to acknowledge this, as a basis for trying to gain the clearest and best possible understandings, including metaphysical and scientific knowledge. In other words, how do we filter and sort the most accurate information available for our understanding?

I think that it may make life a lot simpler for us all rather than discussion about how we rate or grade people's comments.

I am not ruling out your idea of giving a post a figure from 1 to 5, but I just think that often, people skim through threads and would probably not bother with marking systems.

But, I keep an open mind really because I wish the site to be the best possible discussion site. I often feel that the best way is to write only a certain number of posts in oneday, to avoid writing gobbledegook. But, of course, it is not that straightforward because, sometimes, we may have a queue of comments awaiting replies and, on some days, we may have more time and more creative inspiration.

I think that you raise an important point about the nature of existence, the temporary and existence as being "forever'. This is where the nature of time comes into play, as well as the way in which our existence is dependent on categories, especially time and space. It does appear to me that existence is dependent on such categories of observations, and probably only makes sense in material terms. But, I am sure that some people may conceive of existence in other ways, but this is probably a metaphysics which is developed in abstract ways, and I think that it would be open to the most critical forms of philosophical scrutiny.

I think that grading people's posts as @180 Proof suggests would be far worse than the likes system because it would be time consuming and complicated. It really would be like being back at school too. I like @Pfhorrests idea of the likes being seen by us as individuals personally rather than everyone, like 'followers' is. While I see problems with the likes system, I have in the last few days been trying to click on posts which I think are good to try to acknowledge them.

While people are talking about the likes, no one has mentioned the other new feature, 'trending', which I think is extremely useful. That is because when I log on I feel able to catch some fairly good posts without having to read many threads.

Generally, I think that all the different ways of evaluating from likes, trending and most viewed are all different ways of evaluating on the site. Of course, people are able to give feedback in replies, although it may be that posts which are more disagreeable will get more responses. As far as the distinction between popularity and quality, it is a bit tricky because they are separate but overlap, as a problem which arises in all measures, such as bestseller charts.

I am very impressed by the poetry and images you have been putting on the thread. I especially like the picture 'Seeking the Ultimate Information of the Library of Everything' because the endless piles of books on desks and all over the floor is how I end up. In the room I lived in until last year, I ended up not having a floor, and only a path to get to my bed. I am trying to not get my current one in the same state. But, the picture you have created cheers me up, in seeing the issue as being connected to the quest for the ultimate information about existence and everything.

Apart from looking at your art in the link that you provided, I began reading what you have written in the book which you have created. It is a fair amount to read, so I will write a fuller reply in the next couple of days. I hope that others will access your book in the link above, but it may allow for some further discussion. Actually, the thought that this thread had faded about a week ago, so I was rather surprised when it popped up again a couple of days ago. I have also found another book which is relevant for the discussion, which I will read and speak about too.

I do agree that energy can probably be seen as the underlying aspect behind existence, and it is likely that it is evolving. And, indeed, this works for a realist or idealist perspective of mind.

You may not be producing something out of nowhere, but I think that you truly understand the process of creativity, as demonstrated in the illustrations, which you gave links to in the thread about thinking about the Bible from a philosophical point of view And, for anyone else reading this, I recommend looking at these illustrations, on page 14 of that specific thread, because they are superb.

I know that you are trying to formulate arguments in a serious way, but I am puzzled about how you think we could ever reach the point of a world without emotions. I do believe that rationality is important, but I don't see how people going beyond emotions would work because they are based in the body itself. My own view is the best possibility is for people to have a fuller understanding of emotions.

I am not really an advocate of ECT and certainly I didn't enjoy taking patients to ECT. But, it was often the patients themselves who said how they felt that they benefitted from it, so hopefully it was not 'voodoo'. Even with medication, no one knows exactly how it works in many cases but hopefully neuroscience will give us more answers in time. There is, of course, the whole placebo effect, but it don't think that it can come down to that because people notice major differences between different medications, so it is probably mostly about neurotransmitters.

I think that you in your post you are touching upon one of the main areas which is involved in the ethics of psychiatry, which is capacity to consent, which has to be assessed fully and carefully.

It is far more complex. In the immediacy of the moment , like when aggressive behaviour is taking place, immediate decisions about medication, have to be made amongst a team. Safety is a key issue, but any decisions have to be justifiable and are accountable by law. It may be that the patient is not always the one who has the ultimate say, but they can appeal against decisions and put in complaints. Generally, most decisions about ECT are carefully thought out though, although I believe that many years ago this was less so. But, medication and injections are more frequently given against individuals' wishes, often as a preventative risk measure.

I agree that the idea of a 'spontaneous production of something from nowhere' is interesting with regard to how anything ever came into existence at all. We could ask did matter exist always or did some underlying invisible force bring it into being? I think that this also applies to the whole process of creation and destruction as aspects of existence, even though they are not necessarily unrelated to matter. I know that, as @180 Proof, has pointed out, purpose is a human construct related to intention, I am not sure that this overrides the process of creation and destruction itself, although, of course, it is our interpretation which names them in that way.

From ward round discussions in which I was present, the main criteria were severity of a person's mental health condition and whether all other options had been explored. It would usually be that a person had tried a number of medications and not had any noticable improvement. Also, it depended on what the patient wanted to happen next and, the concerns of family members.

I know many individuals who have had ECT and almost all of them claim a clear relationship with the treatment, The explanation for how the treatment works is not known clearly, but my own observations of witnessing people going through the treatment in mental health care makes me wonder if the main way it works is through enabling people to forget difficult memories, especially as they are frequently groggy for many hours afterwards.

When I was a student nurse I remember how we had so much class discussion about ECT and I was mostly on the side against it. However, having worked in psychiatric nursing, I see it a little differently. I know of some people who feel that the treatment had a really detrimental effect on them, mainly younger people. However, I know how many people over the age of 60 who feel it helped them so much. I think that this is recognised by psychiatrists and most now view the treatment as a better option for people over about the age of 60, and, from what I have seen in recent years, most to be cautious about using it for younger ones, except in rare cases.

I will just add that I have never come across lobotomy in England. However, I came across a trainee clinical psychologist last year who was involved in some clinical research which seemed to involve rods placed against the head. But I don't know the full details, and this form of therapy was only at an experimental stage.

I think that it is possible to choose whether or not to believe in God on the basis of preference, according to one's state of mind and what works for each of us. I was an extreme believer in God as a child and as a teenager. It was only when I got into my twenties and was struggling with life, sexuality, and the way religious beliefs had impacted upon friends that I really began to question.

Now, I am able to see both sides of theism, and various other angles, and I definitely see them as choices. I don't have a clear answer to the question of God's existence, but I when I am in some kind of crisis I do pray. I feel that it helps, and does lead me forwards positively usually. I seem to get results, whether this is some higher power, my own subconscious or, it could be that I simply interpret it that way.

One other aspect though, is the question of whether we believe in God only motivated if we think about it in this way? I do feel that I can choose because I am consciously aware of alternative perspective and I try to be aware of my own conscious motivations. But, perhaps my choices aren't entirely free entirely because they are made in the light of a combination of being brought up in a religious context, and, at the same time having read books from all kinds of worldviews. Of course, my reading of certain books was based on choice, but it was partly based on seeing the cracks and holes in the religious ideas I was taught. So, I do wonder how much freedom we do have in coming to certain beliefs. It appears to me to be a mixture of cultural influence, alongside freedom to make choices based on our understanding of the philosophical arguments for and against belief in God.

I agree with you 'if you're not feeling the blues there's something wrong with you.' I am surprised by people who seem impervious to everything around them in the world. It does seem that some people are much more vulnerable than others and don't seem to get affected by almost anything that happens to them, or in the world. I am not sure that it is even a good thing.

One interesting aspect aspect of it is how some people get a delayed response of depression, being unaffected by things when they happen. But, suddenly depression, or some other psychiatric problem arises, although I am wary of using the term 'psychiatric' because it has a certain diagnostic characteristic. As far as I can see, life comes in waves and it seems natural to me for our inner life to be turbulent, but, of course, if we are not strong it can become too much. We probably have to learn to surf the waves.

I just opened the links you put, and saw the fantastic artwork. You have said that you do all your art with Photoshop, and don't do any drawing or painting. That is amazing. I have only experimented a little with computer art, preferring do do drawing, but certainly your way has true results, and it does seem that it must come from real inspiration.

So, I recommend anyone who is reading this thread to open PoeticUniverse's links to unveil some wonderful art.

I am not sure about your idea of 'the bloodline body', but what it does lead me to wonder about is how we are connected to other minds. Perhaps, it is the left side of the brain which would allow for such connections, and that is accessible in meditation.There is the eternal debate about whether mind is simply brain, but this does still leave us as being individual cells of mind. However, there is also the connection with other minds, and to what extent we are interconnected. My own view takes on Jung's idea of the collective unconscious, but I am aware that many people see this construct as dubious. Nevertheless, our relationship with other minds is one which I feel is not explored enough, although it is central to discussion about intersubjectivity.

The question is where do we pull out answers from. Are they simply parts of ourselves, of which we are not usually familiar?

Good video, and perhaps we need more misadventures. I think that I learn so much more from the misadventures of life, and they certainly break down the binaries of logic. The misadventures may hardwire us in exciting ways and result in entire new connections between the left and the right of consciousness. Perhaps we need to take more risks rather than staying in safe territories, in life, and in our philosophy speculations.

I will let you go and carry on your discussion tomorrow. I frequently get myself into obscure discussions at all times, and have to choose to switch off. You may have entered a zone in which philosophy can become a 24 hour pursuit, but I believe that sleep plays a crucial role,so hope that you can switch off for tonight.

I just read one of your posts, and I agree that apart from asking why we need to appreciate and be grateful. Gratefull Dead are an excellent band, but I do going into psychedelic mystery and appreciate, which may be a convoluted tangent.

Perhaps, we need, rather than asking so many impossible questions, to develop a philosophy of gratefulness, and it would not need to be restricted to philosophies which see this in terms of being grateful and thankful to God. It may be about appreciating the numinous, and be simply a philosophy of awe and the wondrous aspects of existence.

I think that your point is important because we cannot simply put the idea of emotions into the realm of mind. There is so much discussion on this site about the relationship between mind and body, and I feel that emotions may be the missing link because they encompass both mind and matter in such an all encompassing way. I think that any true discussion of the emotions needs to recognise them on this level.

It leads me to think of a track by Warren Zevon, called , 'Sentimental Hygiene'. I think it is a fine balance between emotion and going beyond it. As you are new to the site, you may not be aware that I have a current thread on balance in thinking. I also welcome you to the site.

One aspect which I am aware of issues arising in mindfulness meditation. I have some but not extensive experience of this practice, but I think that the role of the body, emotions and thinking come into play. We can become aware of them, but rather than being governed by any of the three, we can simply observe all of these aspects of ourselves.

I am a curious about your idea of the 'thin line between adventure and misadventure'. I wonder if you can explain a little bit further.

I wonder if you are talking about transcending emotions, because you don't appear to be wishing for humanity to be reduced to a robotic consciousness. I think that it is a fine line, and how we can possibly wake up to a higher state of consciousness altogether. I don't wish to derail your topic, or send it off course at all, but your observations about murderers being compelled by desires, does make me wonder if you are thinking about human beings able to reach towards a greater stage of awareness and consciousness.

Your posts are extremely interesting, and I do think that some of it really does come back to the idea of the question of whether there is any underlying purpose. I am aware that there have been a couple of threads on this idea. I believe that you had some discussion in them. I think that your own interest in the idea of self organisation is extremely interesting, but I am a little unclear about your view on this.

I believe that we have a whole tradition in philosophy, stemming from Plato, which placed humanity grasping for inherent forms. But, I wonder in a perspective of self organising existence and consciousness, would these be ruled out, because the basis of creation is not based on an abstract 'out there'. I also wonder if there are any underlying archetypes, because Jung's idea of archetypes seems connected to Plato's ideas on forms, but more firmly based in nature. I am not presuming that you have any interest in Jung though, and I think that his writings are ambiguous as to whether archetypes are based on some kind of transcendental reality or as aspects arising within nature.

The idea of paradise, or heaven is interesting but I always wondered to what extent the idea makes sense in terms of a place, or as a kingdom within. You may find my own juxtaposition of ideas as being a little bit odd, but I went to Christian groups, in which people were speaking of meals they would have after the resurrection at the end of the world. In contrast, I am familiar with psyche rock music, like that of Roky Erikson and the Thirteen Elevators and the track by The Psychedelic Furs, which says 'heaven is the home of all hearts'. Perhaps, I am drawing out caricatures of the idea of paradise and heaven, but I do feel a bit puzzled as to how much it is an idea to be established on earth, or as a state of mind.

I can't possibly think what would happen if emotions were cast aside completely. Okay, we may need a certain mastery of emotions, rather than being under their control. But, to ignore them may be catastrophic because we are not machines and are sentient beings. You speak of survival, but emotions are a guide, as an interface between mind and matter, and, perhaps, nature's best guide. We may have been taught to conceal our emotions, but I believe that if we try to suppress or repress them we may land in all kinds of dangers individually, and as social groups.

I think that you have a point when you say that people are poor at sports because they don't practice. I do believe that this probably is based on early childhood experiences. Personally, my parents had me late, because they married late, and I was an only child, so I spent a lot of my childhood reading and drawing and did less sport than others. Of course, I can't generalise purely from my personal experience, but I would imagine that people who are good at sports began at an early age.

I also believe that the meditators are right about the brain not being the mind. I have done some mindfulness meditation and that involves awareness outside of cerebral experience.

Perhaps the reason why I am so poor at sport and dancing is because my brain is holding me back. Indeed, perhaps those who are not so inclined to think all the time are better at sports and dancing. But I am sure that there are some dancing philosophers.

Your response about standing has lead me to think about is the whole way our thinking is not just focused in the head, but in the whole of the body. It is extremely hard to stand completely still, and my balance is not perfect. Yet, the fullest picture, which I am not sure that Gilchrist's theory takes into account is how it is not simply the brain which is involved in experience and thinking, but the entire body. However, the head does play a key role, but other organs, such as the heart play a really significant role in consciousness, and this may go beyond pumping the blood around the body to keep us alive. But, I can see that the brain is the master, even beyond the spectrum of the division between left and right brain.

I definitely believe that language is a key factor in consciousness and how we began to ask questions about why. There is a whole tension between the way in which we make discoveries in science, but many questions remain. There is been a view that many of the metaphysical questions should not be the centre of philosophy, but even though I think that is hard to come up with clear answers, it is probably inevitable that human beings will continue to speculate about existence and other aspects of metaphysics.

I think that it the idea of opposites reversing is probably more good news, like, for example, extreme sadness can suddenly shift into joy. There may need to be some kind of intervening life experiences for this to happen though, although I suppose that it could happen spontaneously. But, if we could only shuffle along in various positions along a continuum life may be just murky greys, with less drama than the ones presented by black and whites. The only downside, however, is that when we experiencing some kind of polarised state we have to realise that it may shift into the opposite, and that life, including our brains, come with waves.

Although there are endpoints, and a continuum, I think that it is also interesting to think of Heraclitus's idea of enantiodromia. This was about how when opposites are reached they reverse completely. So, we may be in the realms of walking along points along the continuum and watching binaries change into their opposites. Of course, we are talking on an abstract level, but I think that the ideas of Gilchrist do show how opposites within the brain and, consciousness are very complex indeed.