I agree. Without an agreed upon ontology. Any philosophical concept or discussion of a concept must be grounded in some ontology. Without such grounding all you get is an endless series of references to one philosopher or another or some reference to some scientific theory, e.g. beliefs are an illusion.

Well, maybe it results from the "Publish or Perish" imperative. — Michael Ossipoff

That's pretty much it. There is lots of economic incentive for academia to publish what is acceptable. It's actually pretty easy to accomplish as opposed to furthering knowledge with original insights. One only needs to learn how to footnote some acceptable academic and one is home free. Academia pretty much defines itself by footnotes. It is what is stressed most in all courses.

Here is the key passage in Bergson's Mind and Matter where he's describes the universe as a holographic field, two decades before holography was discovered! The power of philosophical intuition brilliantly demonstrated:

"The whole difficulty of the problem that occupies us comes from the fact that we imagine perception to be a kind of photographic view of things, taken from a fixed point by that special apparatus which is called an organ of perception - a photograph which would then be developed in the brain-matter by some unknown chemical and psychical process of elaboration.But is it not obvious that the photograph, if photograph there be, is already taken, already developed in the very heart of things and at all the points of space? No metaphysics, no physics even, can escape this conclusion. Build up the universe with atoms: each of them is subject to the action, variable in quantity and quality according to the distance, exerted on it by all material atoms. Bring in Faraday's centers of force: the lines of force emitted in every direction from every center bring to bear upon each the influences of the whole material world. Call up the Leibnizian monads: each is the mirror of the universe. All philosophers, then, agree on this point. Only if, when we consider any other given place in the universe, we can regard the acton of all matter as passing through it without resistance and without loss, and the photograph of the whole as translucent: here there is wanting behind the plate the black screen on which the image could be shown. Our "zones of indetermination" play in some sort the part of the screen. They add nothing to what is there; they effect merely this: that the real action passes through, the virtual action remains."

Stephen Robbins provides his own insights on how this solves the "hard problem in this video.

Ok, but I do not think that Verlinde, Bohm etc arrived to such conclusions (as far as I know). — boundless

In a way yes, and a way no. How much of it do they perceive, how they may articulate it, how much they can articulate it (considering they both depend upon academic careers) only they know. They, as everyone else lives within constraints. Just recognize that any academic or researcher is subjected to enormous, career ending pressures if they stray too far from the materialist lines that given academic funding.

IMO will never have a scientific "proof". I am not saying that is wrong BTW, but it is only speculative. It somewhat reminds me some "concepts" of string theory like the idea that particles are mode of oscillation of strings. But as physics is concerned there is no "mind" involved, simply because it is an unfalsifiable concept. — boundless

"Science" had morphed into a huge money making industry that depends upon the supremacy of chemicals over mind. While "science" has no problem fabricated unprovable concepts such as the Big Bang, Laws of Physics, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Multi World/Multi Universe, Thermodynamic Imperative, Selfish Genes, Space-Time, etc., they do have a persistent problem with the everyday ubiquitous experience of Mind. Fundamentally, money distorts and pollutes any and every endeavor. The more the money involved, the greater the distortion. One in a while something interesting comes out of the corners of scientific research but it is tough to find.

But as physics is concerned there is no "mind" involved, simply because it is an unfalsifiable concept. — boundless

All fundamental concepts of physics are unfalsifiable. Scientists just don't use the word Mind because that ends funding. They use substitute words such as the Laws of Physics in its stead.

I do not see any "purpose" in the action of inanimate objects — boundless

Inanimate objects, other than the manifestation of decay, no longer have the vibrational capacity to create, though in their own way (a super nova for a example) they still do create. It is interesting.

is a possibility that there is purpose, that the "Universal Mind" created everything, but in a way that there is no visible "purpose", at least as science is concerned. — boundless

Science's alternative explanation is that there was this Big Bang (quite a comical concept if you meditate on it) and then Everything Just Happened By Accident. Even Erik Verlinde mocked this explanation.

Stephen Robbins provides a coherent explanation of perception, the "hard problem", in a Bergsonian framework here:

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

either information or minds — boundless

Actually memory and mind, which are aspects of the same. But I think you get the point. Science pretty much accedes to the memory/information part, they just can't get themselves to acknowledge themselves, that which is creating all like these theories and ideas. The rest of your summary it's pretty much on the mark. It is very holistic with a very precise ontology based upon memory, mind, and will. The only requirement is that one accept Mind as fundamental as opposed to the scientific explanation in which it magically appears out of no where, and is just an illusion created for no apparent reason or without any theory.

Art it's s manifestation of the artist. There is no way to separate the two. They are forever entangled in content and perspective. Some aspect, part, essence of the artist is in the art.

I am referring to the known and proven laws of physics such as gravitational attraction. — Joel Bingham

Gravity is a phenomenon not a Law. We (our minds) observe this phenomenon. The phenomenon actually behaves differently at the micro and macro levels.

however with our current knowledge there cannot be a god. — Joel Bingham

I know if nothing in n science that precludes God. Rather science had to fabricate the concepts of the Big Bang and The Laws of Physics as placeholders for God. I listen to scientists throw around these concepts all the time hoping that the audience didn't notice that they are just words used as substitutes for God and Genesis.

Do the laws of physics change? — Joel Bingham

All the time. Just read the history of scientific thought and theories. And this only for a few hundred years. Do you have a theory or proof for the immutability of whatever is called the Laws of Physics? The term itself is undefinable.

they’re just discovered giving the illusion — Joel Bingham

Illusions begat illusions.

Without a clearly defined, concrete ontology, words such as exist, being, and real, just float around without any grounding. One must have a very well defined image of life, matter, and perception before one can present concepts such as these. These concepts emerge out of the ontology and not slapped upon some blank wall hoping that some ontology will emerge.

Where is the he ontology of life, matter, and perception? If there was one that was agreed upon then the words become incidental. In my ontology, all of this becomes a matter of perception of memory by the mind.

Finally, religion alone gives hope, because it holds open the dimension of the unknown

Not really. One can arrive at many types of spiritual ideas and evidence simply by practicing and studying spirituality. It's like billiards, if you don't practice, you can't learn.

Like before we were born, but without the prospect of coming to life at some point in time. — CuddlyHedgehog

Or it could be cyclical like sleep and awake. There is evidence when one understands life as continuance of memory. There is as much reason to believe in cyclicality of life as there is not. Probably more reason to believe in cyclicality.

attitude which accepts a proposition as true with insufficient evidence (i.e., having mind-to-world fit). — Galuchat

Not necessarily so, though I am sure applicable to some people. No need to superimpose truth in to of all beliefs.

False beliefs contribute to bias, illusion, and error. — Galuchat

As everyone has beliefs as per their life experiences, one might say everyone has biases. Forget about illusions. What one experiences is what one experiences for whatever reason (s). Error? I have no idea what that is. Things happen and are unpredictable. Something may not turn out as expected and that is part of living. Maybe things will turn around and be closer to what one expects. Life zig zags and we learn from these experiences. There is only error if it is possible to precisely predict outcome and there isn't, not anywhere.

belief is a mental function — Galuchat

That it is. It is some expectation forged in memory. There can be weak beliefs and strong beliefs. Strong beliefs are intense memories that are sometimes called dogma. If lots people hold the same dogma it is frequently codified as truths. Thus the mind builds a spectrum of intensity of beliefs in memory.

With this one can speculate that any form of life that can create memory may have beliefs, even in its most rudimentary forms of expectations. But this cannot be known directly but some experiments may show it indirectly.

Rather than a frequency IMO it is the disposition of "matter" that counts — boundless

That matter is a wave-particle is not new to quantum. It was intuited by ancient philosophers by inverting inferring the micro from their observations of the macro. We can even completely eliminate particle from the description as the particle can be considered a wave spike perturbation.

A wave can have different frequencies and shapes especially as it spirals. This is how the mind creates matter out of itself. It spirals, vibrates and spreads and in so doing creates perceived density. Perception is a sensing or feeling of the different vibrational and frequency patterns. Different life forms are tuned to different frequencies and waveforms all of which are embedded in the holographic universe.

So "life" depends on complexity rather than "frequency". — boundless

It is not that life depends upon complexity, life creates more complex forms by movement (action). An orchestra sound would be an analog for this process. Many minds (the musicians) play different sounds frequencies via their instrument to create more complex (our less complex) music (waves and frequencies). How is this accomplished? Via lots of practice that builds skills. This is evolution

But again it is also true that certainly this is only the "basic" aspect. On a more "complex" level there is also memory. — boundless

Experiences would be a pattern of memory. Memory is created and embedded in the holographic fabric of the universe. Observe a holographic waveform embedded in the media. That is memory which is accessed by the mind via brain wave transmission/reception.

Hope this makes some sense. The basic ingredients of life are: memory (in the holographic fabric), mind (the creative impulse to get things going) and will (the directional application of energy used to make a choice).

I would like to add, they are no illusions or fabricated ideas in this explanation. Everything is real. Everything is experienced in every day life. It is only a matter of arranging the pieces of the puzzle in such a manner as to create a picture of life.

.

As I always try to stay as concrete as possible, this is what has worked for me:

1) Moderation
2) Engagement
3) Being who I am and not expecting too much of myself
4) Patience
5) Understanding what relationships and friendships means to me
5) Viewing life as a learning experience to express my creativity
6) Developing all aspects of myself: spiritual, emotional, mental, physical
7) Creating a philosophy of life that is practical and useful as a guide

None of this was handed to me and there are no simple solutions. A sailor sets his/her sights and navigates always prepared to change direction and fully aware that while there will be many surprises the navigator has skills and choices that participate in the journey. Life then becomes meaningful no matter what the circumstances may be.

No, I've read tons which I why I threw De Broglie right at your asinine comments. Not that one should take De Broglie's opinion over yours. Mine should be sufficient. Your comments were the most ludicrous that I've ever read about Bergson. And you thought your stupid insults would be sufficient? Is that what they taught you in your courses?

A so-called Bersonian who proclaims that there is no such thing as illusion — StreetlightX

Who ever said I was a Bersonian. All I said is that your mummification of Bergson was a joke and it was and it is.

The rest of your post pretty much illustrates my point. I always say that people should do their own homework. Hopefully this thread encourages people to read not only Bergson, but also Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake, and watch Stephen Robbins' video on his interpretation of Bergson's theory of perception.

Beyond this, I hope people go out and experience life and all its dimensions so that they don't have to rely on laughable diatribes such as yours for information. Your understanding of Bergson is the worst I've ever read and I have read tons.

I agree. In my heart of hearts, I really question whether he was a genius at all, but b rather piggy-backed his way into history, taking into account all of his major work was accomplished during his association with Milena. This is a very revealing exchange. Let's face it, none of this was for science, it was all to keep his reputation in tact.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/

In 1925, Albert wrote in his will that the Nobel Prize money was his sons’ inheritance. Mileva strongly objected, stating the money was hers and considered revealing her contributions to his work. Radmila Milentijević quote from a letter Albert sent her on 24 October 1925 (AEA 75-364). ”You made me laugh when you started threatening me with your recollections. Have you ever considered, even just for a second, that nobody would ever pay attention to your says if the man you talked about had not accomplished something important. When someone is completely insignificant, there is nothing else to say to this person but to remain modest and silent. This is what I advise you to do.”

I do it all the time and I'm constantly reminding myself it is a reasonable way to spend a life. I'm always interested in observing how people react to new information.

We are all involved. All of it an experiment. I personally love the arts that permeate all cultures and communities. The starvation, pain, and death caused by greed is something I speak out against. If we are alive, we'll always have to understand and live with both.

Information is based on facts, — CuddlyHedgehog

There are no facts. Just information you can collect by your own observations and by talking to people. Do some homework, understand people, and learn about life. Life is quite interesting when one engages with it and learns how different people can be.

Yes, I agree. Once an illusion is admitted as a possibility then there are no ways to set boundaries to the illusion. Everything can be an illusion and the illusion of everything can be an illusion. For me it makes the investigation of anything an illusion. Is gravity an illusion. Is Einstein and his work an illusion, seeing as time itself is an illusion according to Einstein. Anytime illusions pop up as a answer, I walk in a different direction.

As far as Einstein himself is concerned, I feel he may be a rockstar but more in the vein of Milli Vanilli than Bruce Springsteen. In his own letters to his first wife Milena Malic, he talks of their partnership with respect to the development of Relativity as he was involved in an affair at at time. Milena was a gifted mathematician who never had a chance to nourish her talents as she worked to build Einstein's career. Einstein never gave her involvement credit for the work on Relativity, and it is unknown to what extent Milena's mathematical work contributed to Relativity. She did receive the entire Nobel Prize award money. Hush money?

To the extent my opinion means anything, I have always been whole unimpressed by Einstein's philosophical musings and as far as science is concerned, his refusal to accept the probabilistic nature of quantum theory throughout his career is dumfounding. He may have been more about ego and glory than a real investigation of nature.

It's not an argument, it is information. While religion is closely related to spiritualism, one might normally expect a religion to be interested in the nature of the spirit. In some cases, people get together to discuss the spirit in the here and now, and not to be concerned with the hereafter. Such is the case in some forms of Judaism. Now that you have this information, you can go b it and inquire and revise your beliefs.

Yes it does:
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence" [Daniel 12:2] — CuddlyHedgehog

You are just reading from the Torah. I'm referring too what religious Jewish people actually believe and many sects gives no account of life after death. You asked the question and now you are getting the answer so just revise your belief. That is the simplest way to go.

Name a few — CuddlyHedgehog

Judiasm has no central position on afterlife.

Are you asking for objections based upon current knowledge? If so, atomism had been completely replaced by quantum theory where wave-particles replace particles, and everything is enabled so there v is no clear boundary.

the mind time is the "flow" and "space" — boundless

Concretely, experienced time is changes in memory. This is substantially different that oscillations in space.

matter is not created by mind/soul but mind/soul is not reducible to matter — boundless

One can look upon mind and matter as being vibrations, where mind is vibrating at a much higher frequency of life, while matter is coming deadening, losing life. Bergson, Peirce, and Louis Kahn shared this unitary perspective.

This idea is not very different from Bohm's idea that we experience the "explicate order" instead of the "implicate". — boundless

The difference between Bohm and MWI is that the universe isn't splitting into an infinite number of other universes (assuming an infinite number of possibilities in the wave function) every time an observation is being. I suspect Bell was bring polite.

Can we fix it before it ends badly? — Jonathan AB

We can only try based upon our experiences. Outcomes are always uncertain.

Are you suggesting that thinking is an act of objective observation,
and the object being 'thought of' always exists independently of the thinker? — Jonathan AB

The object is a wave pattern. It is real.

The mind is a wave pattern. It to is real.

The mind can reconstruct the wave pattern of the object and create a memory wave pattern which is also real. The memory wave patterns when changing give the sense of duration or time.

Everything is equal real, some some are shared and some are not.

Boredom happens — Bitter Crank

That's the scientific explanation. Now for the spiritual explanation.

Life (duration) is memory of change. It is possible to sit immobile and observe change as one's duration extends however, if the change is nominal (e.g. staring at a wall), the creative force of life begins to note the lack of change (duration) and feels this change as boredom or a self-reflection that possibly one needs more change in life.

As such, boredom is a indicator that life is full of meaning and boredom is a reminder that one can bring more it it into one's life.

“For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present and
future is only an illusion, however persistent.” Albert Einstein

Whenever I come across any explanation that uses illusion to explain a concept, a know immediately that the explanation is lost. Everything we experience in life is exactly as we experience it. What creates illusions are the explanations. The explanation must be evaluated and change.

In Einstein's case, his explanation of time creates the illusion. Eliminate the equivalency between clock time (oscillations in space) and the real time of life (duration of action or concretely change in memory) then the illusion disappears. Of course, when someone builds an entire career around illusions (e.g. David Copperfield), then it's tough to admit to the sleight if hand.

Similarly, when one proclaims that mind and thinking is an illusion because wave-particles (by some magic) create the illusion, all one needs to do is make the mind real and the illusion is gone.

Everything in life is exactly how it is being experienced. There are no illusions.

I'm not familiar what Jonathan AB's ideas are yet. That remains to be seen. Clearly we both have reservations concerning Relativity's space-time's ontology, mine resting on the attempt to create equivalency of clock time (oscillations in space) and the duration of life.

But remember that according to MWI our world is not real as we normally think. — boundless

This type of perspective always makes any attempt to understand nature and life hopeless. Illusions make everything meaningless since there are no boundaries to the illusion.

You should get together with Rich. — T Clark

What I object to it's pseudo science where concepts are just fabricated to fit the materialist agenda of the bio and neuro science commercial industry. The overall pretence that life is an illusion and things like filling humans with plastic is perfectly healthy because they are nothing more than Moist Robots.

I obseved that your religion has exactly the same structure say lots of other religions. It is mysterious, external, omnipotent, dogmatic, and it has priests who alone have access to the truth and demands full obedience from its flock as its Truths shall go unquestioned. It even battles with other religions as being the one and only true religion. Your faith is unquestioned, am I correct?

The similarities are spooky.

Indeed — Banno

Didn't you like the rest post?

BTW, I used induction for this observation.

Oh, I'm not giving any answers. Just commenting on the mysterious, omnipotence of the omnipresent Evolution.

Every theory has a name for the impetus. Those who prefer a more religious-like force will externalize it and set up a priesthood structure whose job is to provide the Truths. To understand this provides deep insight into the human condition because it repeats throughout history.

Evolution? God did it. Creation? God did it. The cat has been sick? God did it. — Banno

Evolution did it. Omnipotence is always associated with the externalized impetus.

Priests being the conduits to the mystery of God, who do you suppose are the conduits to the mystery of Evolution?

I love the symmetry of the human condition. Somethings just never change.

I think that our language developed an approach to action based around our own agency, and finds itself unable to easily present the undirected agency of evolution. — Banno

Yes, God is mysterious. Appreciate your making my point.

Every single theory has an agent. There has to be because somewhere, somehow there has to be the "impulse". The latest one one I've come across is Dennett's "Moist Robot", a rather obvious attempt to dehumanize humans into electronics. Before that Dennett had his "Selfish Gene". And then of course there is your run of a mill Evolution, Laws of Nature, and the very poetic (for science that is) Thermodynamic Imperative, a phrase that inherits all the beauty of the Élan vital while still retaining that wonderful scientific appeal. I suppose the Will of Entropy might also do fine. A wonderful choice of name. And let's not very forget God.

Those who prefer priests to guide their lives lovingly embrace the externalization of the agent, the priest being the mortal conduit to the truth. Those who are comfortable in their own skin and fully embrace their own creative force will no doubt prefer their very own Mind.

There is enough evidence that memory persists.

Maybe not.