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.

I am not sure if we have actually agreed on anything before.

I definitely think that the mysterious does not suppose the existence of God. In many ways, arriving at the idea of God may be too much of an easy solution. I prefer to keep very big open roaring 'why's . It is not as if we even have to sign an agreement on the matter of the existence of God, like Thomas More being asked to sign one to allow Henry V111 to divorce and have more wives.

I do agree with your point in one of your posts that it is only the human being who asks why. I am sure trees cannot stop and wonder why they exist. It is probably a difference between being and thinking. But, we could also ask why have we developed the consciousness with which to ask why? What is going on here on an evolutionary scale, and where are we going with this?

My very first interaction on the site, when I first joined, was with @3017amen Only a fortnight ago, I was out in Wimbledon engaging in discussion with him about the Bible, and someone wrote that I was 'tripping'.

I also wonder what happens when people are banned and whether they are able to log in at all. I don't know if they get some kind of message saying that they are banned, or simply can't log in at all. But, I would prefer to walk away from the site oneday if I thought that I was just about to be banned, and I don't know if that means that I am a coward. But, we can say that consciousness definitely exists after being banned. He may still be able to see the discussion here, even though he can't speak at all.

I didn't enjoy maths as a child but I do remember finding the idea of Pythagoras' s hypothenuse triangle to be very exciting. I also do like the geometry of circles and lines too, but somehow got on so much better in exploring them in art, rather than in geometry lessons.

It feels rather sad writing in Amen's final thread, and I do feel sad that he cannot reply. I had a fair amount of replies from him. It is perhaps ironic that his final one was about speaking in tongues, and I am sure that he will find some outlet for communicating. Whenever I see the famous little drawing of Kierkergaard I always think, oh, there's Amen. I imagine he will also probably be remembered on the site for the actual idea that atheism is not logical.

Your reply is interesting, and it is the case of existence vs nothing. Aside from the question of why is there something rather than nothing, I think that we can also ask whether there will ever be nothing? In other words, will the universe, and beyond, cease to exist at all in some remote, distant age.

You also hinted at the idea of where our existence lies in a larger frame of reference. I think it here we get into the limits of knowledge. Existence seems to be composed of linear and cycles aspects. But, it is hard to see whether the larger framework is actually linear or cyclical. What this does raise is the issue of whether life is something taking place once on earth and a birth and death of the universe is repeated. Of course, Nietzsche's and some others spoke of the idea of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche's own idea of this altered at times, ranging from a literal to a symbolic interpretation.

However, going beyond the notion of eternal recurrence itself we can ask about our place in the cosmos. If there are no lifeforms similar to us in the universe, we can still wonder if there have ever been some in a past age, or whether there will be in some distant future galaxy.

I may have replied to Amen, but perhaps he may still be able to look at this online. As far as speaking in tongues I do know people who have witnessed it, but some have thought that a lot of it may be contrived. Perhaps, it is in between, because I am sure that if we tried we could all make strange sounds, like unusual words, especially in a state of altered consciousness.

A related idea is the idea of channeling. I have a friend who is a professional artist, and she is does a lot of religious art. She told me that when she is painting and doing other artwork, she sees herself as channeling the Holy Spirit. However, I am aware that many religious people and non religious people are very sceptical of the idea of channeling. From the more traditional approach, it can be queried what entities is one channelling, and are they good or evil? Skeptics, on the other hand, often dismiss the process as being complete nonsense. The way in which I probably see it is more in connection with Jung's idea of active imagination, in which a person is getting in touch with aspects beyond the persona, and connecting with aspects such as those from the collective unconscious.

I just noticed that you referred to my thread. As I think I said, I don't really like the clear categories of theist, atheist or agnostic, because I prefer to keep a more fluid approach. Of course, from my previous post on philosophical mysteries, people probably realise that I am inclined to contemplate the mysterious. I don't necessarily believe in astrology, but anyone who does would probably not be surprised to know that my sign is Pisces. But, I think that I really created the thread which I did yesterday because there are just so many threads on atheism, and a couple on agnosticism, mostly on the front page. Of course, there are a couple by Barticks on God, but I was trying to redress the balance, but the idea of the mysterious doesn't necessarily imply a God.

I think that people must be playing around because my figure is rising so much. But, please be careful or the mods may decide to revert me back to zero. But, when I read good posts I am going to try to remember to give them a point!

Edit: I see that I have reached a score of 50. People may start to think that is my age, and even Banno is only in his teens!

I am sure that I will find posts to give you each a point because to simply give it to you for giving me one would just show how silly it is. It reminds me of being given sticky stars for good work in primary school and how there was a record on the wall to show who had the most.

But, maybe we just need to start becoming generous in giving people points. I have to admit that when I am busy reading and writing a discussion I forget about giving people points. And, it is likely that many on the site don't give points at all, especially as the feature is new.

I think that it is such a miserable new feature of the site, because when I switch on the site it shows me a list of the likes, with the most popular showing up before anything else, or the discussions. It creates a popularity hierarchy, and it is visible on every single post, but at least you have achieved 1 more like than me. When for several days I still had 0 it made me feel that I wished to stop writing here at all.

Also, I am not sure how accurate it is because when one person has loads of likes it could be one person giving scores to someone they like for many posts. Also, I thought that it was more helpful to be able to see the number of posts which a person has written because that was a way of seeing if the person was new or an established member. I believe that the idea is to try to encourage better posts, but as far as I can see it will probably just bolster certain egos, who are able to have a higher figure next to their name. Some of the really high numbers are, I believe based on being on the old site, so they had high numbers showing up straight away.