Quantum physics, which I don't understand, aside, — TheMadFool

That is a BIG aside.

governed by fixed natural laws of matter, energy and force. — TheMadFool

With quantum physics aside, exactly which laws are you referring to?

Even the roll of a dice or the toss of a coin are governed by laws of mechanics. — TheMadFool

Which law would this be?

Rather, it's some sort of rough interpretation that helps us make decisions and comprehend what is vastly complex in terms of mechanics. — TheMadFool

Quantum physics says no, probability is baked in and quantum behavior had been observed at the molecular level.

I've heard that, for instance, radioactive decay is objectively a chance thing - which atom will decay is entirely random (so they say). However, this too is an issue of our ignorance - — TheMadFool

No, it is not a matter of ignorance. You have to read up on quantum theory.

Also, even if the quantum world is a chance game, it's proven that the macroscopic world, in which we live, is governed by laws which have been mathematically expressed. — TheMadFool

No, there are no laws which govern everything. Is this something you read? You believe? Someone told you?

So, is probability an illusion? — TheMadFool

Well according to biology, the mind is an illusion so everything is an illusion including you. So what do you think about that?

To sum up, every single sentence you wrote is questionable. Does this peak your curiosity?

Atoms self-organised into molecules, — MikeL

Let's not forget quanta self-organizing on its own. Now that it's a bit of a chasm to cross, scientifically speaking.

You didn't answer my question. Are you denying that life is a physical, chemical, and biological process? — T Clark

Life is fundamental. Those terms you use are scientific labels for different types observations of life.

Evidence of what? Are you denying that life is a physical, chemical, and biological process? — T Clark

Surprise! Someone doesn't share your faith. But that is the way life is. Some have this faith and others that. You have faith that life miraculous springs from chemicals. Poof! Others have faith that Gof created life. Chemicals vs God. It's a standoff.

Me? I believe mind created both of these stories and the accompanying faith.

But we're not talking about a Beethoven symphony. We're talking about physical, chemical, and biological processes and how they relate to each other — T Clark

Such is your faith, because there is zero evidence of this.

Your faith in science is no more or less than that exhibited by the average Church goers faith in God. Lots of hope, lots of beliefs. Pretty strong.

Nothing wrong with faith but I guess it is difficult for some to acknowledge it, because science is all about evidence even when there is none.

Let's be clear. Whatever is happening is the laboratory, and it isn't much, is being created by the existing mind. it is that mind that has to be explained.

What someone needs to observe is some chemicals sitting on a beach miraculously springing to life to a chorus of Hallelujah. At some point, after spending $hundreds of billions, we have to step back and acknowledge what a monumental waste of money this experiment had been, and use the money when it can do the most good: providing healthy food to people who need it.

Yes. The options are "it just happened". Not bad for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent discovering this. I suppose it will just require just a few $trillion more and we'll have it, right along with a cure for cancer and alzheimer's and just about everything else.

Another approach might be the 10% tithe.

Hope and faith spring eternal.

Of course, we can save ourselves a while bunch of money and simply acknowledge the obvious that consciousness is fundamental.

I like this quote. If we are a memory field though, changing direction may be a harder then it appears. — MikeL

Yes, change its difficult. It takes patience and lots of experimentation. A Yogi gone wrote that Karma is like a every deep lake and the raindrops falling on the surface, from a single lifetime, can only change so much. We must have lots of patience. Tai Chi teaches patience.

One way to view Karma would be "we are the consequences of our actions", i.e. we are Memory, and we c carry this memory through multiple lives. So if we wish to change we have to change our direction. The Daoists put it in a different way:

"If you don't change direction, you'll end up where you are going."

I think it is likely that the life began as the result of relatively mundane physical and chemical processe — T Clark

Without a shred of evidence to support such an assumption, one can classify this as faith - which is fine as long as it is understood that this is all that science offers. At least it provides insight into the nature of faith: unremitting hope followed by a strong belief.

The last group I would defer to are biologists. They are having distinguishing a tube full of sulfur and a living human being. They need the most practice on observation.

A philosopher needs skills in observation, pattern recognition (the detective work), and intuition.

Let's see what we have here:

Perception is the potential to act upon. Distance is the ability to act upon, or otherwise the ability to change the holographic field.

We have observed non-local action at a distance at the molecular level, so theoretical all actions effect our fields but we observe (without instrumentation) only those that are local. So there remains sooner c sense of persistence.

So what needs to be better understood is the difference and similarities between perception and distance. When we reach into a holographic image nothing happens and nothing changes. This would be similar to grasping at a star. However, if we alter the hologram itself, they are changes in the field. The marriage between perception and distance is interesting.

BTW, I'm just ruminating out loud.

in order to see the difference in life and death you must first define life. — Pollywalls

That which is self-organizing and creates.

Photons (Light) have long been considered the essence of Spirit, that which sparks life.

With a little practice, one might learn to observe the differences and similarities between that which is creating and that which is being used to create.

Actually, I find your views quite in line with most scientific views expressed on this forum, they are aligned, except you haven't learned to espouse them in a more scientific manner. With a little tweak, you'll be fully embraced. "Survival of the fittest", works well, just as a suggestion. Really, all you are doing is putting in bold science's efforts at dehumization.

Not at all. I'm around searching for new ideas! O:)

1) What are some examples of conscious behaviour?
2) Is there criterial evidence of consciousness in anything other than animals?
3) What is the efficient cause of conscious behaviour? — Galuchat

Consciousness (or what I prefer Creative Mind) behavior is the movement (will) toward organization and evolution (learning).

There are all manner of gradients in such a movement in all forms of life. Without communication it is impossible to create an unbiased (human oriented) definition, though some claim to be able to communicate with other forms of life.

Organization and creative evolution stands in sharp contrast to decaying matter, which still demonstrates some aspect of spontaneity (the probabilistic decay) but can no longer in itself organize. However, it is possible for such decaying matter to once again spring to life when it falls into the wellspring of life as a nutrient.

There is a mass movement to turn robots into humans too, so maybe they'll meet in the middle somewhere. Bionically limbed, digitally minded, arguing between the two who is the more real. — MikeL

No one really believe in the robotic movement or determinism. It is the Emperor with No Clothes. People pretend because of economic interests, most especially in that dehumanization is like slavery. In turns people into disposable commodities. How else could the medical industry be allowed to kill tens of thousands of people each year with impunity? Can you imagine any other industry be allowed such luxury?

Be that as it may, becoming fully and truly creative in your life brings meaning and joy so wishing you much luck and happiness on your journey.

Bergson, was a genius of intuition, maybe centuries ahead of his times in visualizing the nature of nature. Through his literature, he attempted to share this vision of the nature of nature which was the result of studying patterns in many disciplines which he mastered. DeBroglie, one of the greatest quantum physicists, paid homage to Bergson's vision, in particular how he was able to envision quantum, by intuition alone, several decades before scientists began to unveil the mysteries of quanta.

In narrow ways Sheldrake and Robbins have been able to expand and expound on his ideas (Whitehead I'm afraid went off the deep end), but no one that I have found has been able to do much better. So the best way to understand Creative Evolution is to immerse yourself in it and observe it from within. You have to really feel it because you are part of it. I do this via the arts, e.g. Tai Chi, Qigong, drawing, dancing, singing, writing, and also sports and most importantly health practices. Reading about it or debating it just will not do. You have to practice it.

Understanding Creative Evolution is a life time study since you are an active participant. Begin by creating and enhance your creativity process by sharing Bergson's open words and ideas. Also, it is very interesting to sit back at times and observe the creative process of others. The mass movement to turn humans into robots is quite a show.

Mathematics it's an interesting "tool", and like philosophical doubletalk and wordiness, is often used by science to obfuscate, intimidate, and bludgeon. Unfortunately, most modern philosophers have become timid in face of the scientific onslaught but maybe they'll find their mojo again. For the most part, other than physics, science really doesn't have much to say about the nature of nature, but it says so much with such self-assurance, it is tough to figure this out.

What happened is that the science industry locked down academia in total and philosophical academia specifically, leaving no room for any ideas that contradicted scientific dogma. However, with some luck it is possible to view some interesting philosophical thinking on YouTube and I don't mean TED. It just takes lots of work. Almost impossible to find interesting papers but once in a while something pops up. Other than that, philosophy is stuck in a rut with no where to go. No one is going to challenge the mainstream science industry and live to tell about it.

I'd also point out the bigger problem is that if you claim the actor is incapable of intentionally murdering, then you are also claiming the jury is incapable of intentional conduct as well. This would mean that their verdict may well be to convict despite their absolute recognition that the murderer acted unintentionally. They would decide that way because they too are not guided by meaningful intentionality and they just decided the way they were forced to, just like our poor murderer. — Hanover

Such a scenario would be satisfactory for towns where racism is rampant. A group of racists kill someone. Our scientists come in as expert witnesses and claim, quite scientifically and to the satisfaction of all Determinists and Natural Selection cheerleaders, that it was all fated by Natural Laws, and then the jury of peers acquits because they also claim, with full support of experts scientific testimony, that they had no choice, the acquittal verdict was fated.

Such would be our world if anyone actually believed in the Little Fable of Determinism. In fact it would be a great story line for the Twilight Zone. Can you imagine a world where people actually took determinism seriously? Pretty much Dark Ages stuff only Determinism has replaced the hand of God.

Determinism, for all intents and purposes, is a philosophical parlor game. But then, where does that leave materialism, the heart of biological sciences? What a goofy mess.

If we link these thoughts to the original discussion then we can wonder whether we are seeing the stars because their light takes time to reach our eyes, or if we see them just like we see a light on earth that does not shine beyond a very limited distance. — Hachem

This was more or less what I was attempting to suggest. The nature of perception is far from a done deal. If you like Bergson, I think you'll appreciate Stephen Robbins analysis of Bergson on YouTube. Very astute, and like Bergson, way, way ahead of his times.

There is a difference between the persistence of waves and the persistence of the ocean. While not precise, the analogy is sufficient for creating the image. The persistence of my mind throughout one physical life and possibly more is quite obvious and my total experience. I have no idea how your mind might be constantly stopping and restarting in a discontinuous manner.

This is what I see as the principal deficiency in describing evolution in terms of survival. There is no being, or thing which survives, they all die. — Metaphysician Undercover

Mind persists and is continuous. There is no discontinuity. Physicality persists but morphs. Analogous would be waves moving in and out of oceans.

In terms of survival, the mind is just figuring out, by experimentation, how to survive.

The field drawn upon is dynamic systems theory, — StreetlightX

Nothing special. Same old, same old. Says nothing but it does sound really technical.

"One of the key properties of dynamical systems is that they are determin-
istic in the sense that the present state uniquely determines the states at all future times
(though dynamical systems can exhibit complex behavior which, in practice, can be difficult
to predict, e.g., via chaotic dynamics)."

Scientific study of agency is a gobblygook designed to take all positions, depending upon what feels right at the time and shower its explanations with words upon words so no one notices the sleight of hand just as a magician shuffles cards.

Let's start with sentence one. When was behaviorism jettisoned from science?

"Behaviorism (also called behavioral psychology) refers to a psychological approach which emphasizes scientific and objective methods of investigation.

Sentence 2: That is the objective scientific definition of agent? What does resetting and recalibrating.

More to come but let's get started with these two sentences.

I was afraid that would be the case. Suffice to say, the nature of perception is a deep philosophical question as your example suggests - only suggests. I am probably looking at your question in a different way than you intend.

Philosophically your question relates to the nature of perception, what we are seeing, and what we are measuring.

As your example illustrates, one can take various views of this problem all of which result in approximately the same answer. Similarly with quantum mechanics vs. quantum interpretations. Different interpretations, same answers for practical purposes.

This is not to say that having a deeper understanding of the nature of perception, light and space is off no consequence. It probably has lots of consequences, but not related to some practical problems that are currently being solved using Romer's method or otherwise.

Psychiatry is considered a branch of biological sciences, drugs and all.

So you believe that scientific approach is the same thing as hard determinism? — BlueBanana

Biological sciences are pretty much premised on this. Quantum physics is rather neutral, only acknowledging an "observer", but beyond this doesn't challenge biological science as professional courtesy and not to step on any funding toes. Astronomical sciences enjoy the idea that the Big Bang (God) gave birth to everything (including those mysterious Natural Laws that guide everything), as it is a great marketing pitch.

So what you have is a schizophrenic situation where no one really believes the story but everyone pretends as to not offend the Emperor (money). As someone viewing the whole thing from the audience, it is pretty remarkable, but not astonishing. Nothing astonishes me anymore. People will do anything for money.

Now, let me ask you this. What would be the strategic advantage of seeing an enemy ship a few (milli) seconds earlier? Especially in the 17th century.
Also, if it is correct, what does it mean that a telescope allows us to see distant objects in real time? — Hachem

Well there is a lot here, and as I am not sure where you are headed, let's just begin by saying that the advantage of seeing a ship with greater clarity earlier than the Captain of a ship seeing you is the ability to make a decision whether to run or attack.

As for real-time, this leads to a total different discussion about the nature of time. Scientific time has to do with movement in space and the measurement of simultaneity.

But there is also duration (Bergson called real-time), which is the time we are experiencing as life.

Scientific time is homogenous and discontinuous. Duration is heterogeneous and continuous. What we mean by time and distance can get pretty hazy the more we dig into the nature of nature and the nature of perception.

There is no story of no-mind. — BlueBanana

Determinists believe it is simply an illusion, that is it has no purpose, ability, or intent. Everything is already baked in and fated by some mysteries Laws of Nature. There is literally no such thing as a mind taking some action, and certainly no such thing as the ability to make a choice (by definition).

Suppose someone who has great faith in science suddenly discovers that all this stuff about no-mind is half-baked, does it shake one's faith in science? How does an atheist react when one of the central tenets of biological science appears to be nonsense? How is their faith in science affected?

Psychiatrists are called upon all the time to testify as to "state of mind". I've never heard a scientist called to testify that "there is no mind" and therefore no intent. Let's face it, no one really believes the scientific story of no-mind, but it's not like anyone even cares. The only thing they care about is the miraculous cure for all cancer. Science peddles hope.

Forensic scientists are often called upon to explain intent on a manner that it is generally understood. For example, was the weapon used the one that killed the victim. I have yet to hear anyone make the case that someone is innocent because Determinism made them do it.

Determinism and materialism is an accepted fable within society. Scientists get a bye on it for the same reason the Church is allowed its prerogatives on its Biblical stories, i.e. people need faith and hope. In the case of the Church, hope lies in the hereafter. In science, hope lies in the cure for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc. Science plays it to the hilt, constantly offering hope with just a few $hundred billion more in research. And because people's hope depends on a constant faith that all this will come to pass, science gets a bye on silly stuff like Determinism. In actuality no one cares about Determinism or takes it b seriously, not even those who are the leading exponents of it.

Science is no longer about the search for knowledge or wisdom (whatever that may mean), it is about marketing hope.

There is an entirely different approach to disease which is much more effective but will not be researched until the money interests are expunged. FWIW,

https://healthontheedge.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/the-human-energy-field-an-interview-with-valerie-v-hunt-ph-d/

The ideas here are spot on. I know nothing about the author or motives.

As for research funding, it is completely controlled by the medical industry and it is huge:

https://www.thebalance.com/who-funds-biomedical-research-2663193

Why not? — Srap Tasmaner

Well it could, but as a miracle it tops anything in the Bible by several thousands fold. Without some theory for morphogenesis or consciousness, evolutionary theory floats on quicksand. For all intents and purposes, it should be assigned the library designation of modern mythology.

My feeling is that it had become exponentially worse in concert with the incremental infusion and control of big money. Concentration of wealth in a few hands has polluted every aspect of our cultural such that it is almost impossible to avoid no matter where one might want to hide. The greater the money the greater the pollution. Scientific research invites huge money and consequently huge pollution.

There are several interpretations of the Schrodinger equation. The one that I prefer is Bohm's quantum mechanics which is causal (i.e. the quantum potential it's real) and it is probabilistic, which corresponds to my observations and experiences. It also provides a reasonable explanation for quantum behavior such as the Delayed-Choice experiment and non-locality. In fact, it was Bohm's formulation of the Schrodinger equation that inspired Bell to develop the Bell Theorem which tests non-locality which was been experimenting observed at the molecular level.

The whole raison d'etre for the stories (the claim is far more than descriptive) is to circumvent the notion of a mind.

Yes, the mind can be viewed as miraculous, I view it as simply as myself, the beginning, the middle and the end. To me, what is miraculous, more so than Genesis, is the scientific explanation for everything, i.e. it just happens. But with that said, each of us has a philosophy that we live by, which makes us different and similar.