Nothing it's shattering anything. The interference patterns are changing. The pattern for the ball will be deformed in some manner but not nearly as much as the ones for the window. One thing for sure, the ball land window are not in the brain. What is in the mind is some memory of the event, also stored as an interference pattern outside of the brain in the holographic universe.

I agree. But if people are interested in pursuing this concept Bergson would be the first place to go. He is no longer taught in mainstream academia because the materialists/determinists are as vicious as the Inquisitors, Russell being one of the worst.

If someone doesn't mind sitting through thorough, drawn out presentations which are remarkably perceptive, Stephen Robbins has created a whole series of YouTube videos, but Bergson still stands alone for his penetration of Creative Evolution.

I know I don't want to live forever because that would be a drag, but I feel instinctively deep down in my unconscious like i want to live forever. It feels that if I don't live forever then everything I do is just a waste of effort. Yet despite this, I know that the appreciation of beauty does not depend on eternal existence. How can such contradictory thoughts/feelings be imputed on to the mind of man? — intrapersona

Such meaning comes from spirituality, a spirituality that allows for a spiritual life that transcends a single physical life. Evidence of such an extended spiritual life would be persistence of skills that learned and developed during a physical life. Evidence of such persistent memory can be found in inherited, innate skills, some of which seem quite extraordinary as in the case of child prodigies.

Explore the possibility of persistence of memory in an extended spiritual life that transcends multiple physical lives.

I concur with this. I just wish he presented it clearly as such and forget about all of the fancy mathematics and computer illustrations (e.g. icons) as an attempt to make it more "scientific". For me, it is a poor man's Bergson, but with that said, I am always thrilled when someone suggests it is the mind that is fundamental and such an idea receives attention. BTW, those icons he is talking about would be the holographic interference pattern.

The problem is, that to have an ontology which has the capacity to act as the basis of an epistemology, it is required that the ontology is premised on the divisibility of duration and motion, contrary to what you state here. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ontology describes what is and how one derives knowledge varies. Science at times may require divisibility for practical problem solutions, but such efforts have nothing to do with the ontological underpinnings. It is a super-huge error to elevate measurement solutions, such as Special Relativity, to ontological statements about nature, but for those who worship science that is what they do and all of a sudden you get backwards time travel. As far as I can tell there is no way to divide space and duration, but if one insists on trying, go for it.

which are required by the fundamental laws of logic, — Metaphysician Undercover

There are no such thing as the laws of logic and more so than the laws of nature, laws of physics, or laws of God. However, it sounds good, and gives it lots of gravitas. Who's to argue with Laws. In and case, the matter is not complicated and doesn't require laws and never has. The universe is indivisible, but humans, for various practical reasons have developed symbolic representations that can be manipulated as if it was divisible. There are no boundaries between this and that. It is a complete continuum. There is no such thing as the beginning and end of something.

I do agree that an acknowledgement of such an ontology does crash and burn lots of symbolic constructs that are suppose to provide paths to the Truth: e.g. logic, mathematics, scientific method, etc. But then again, I never put much into the notion of Truth.

Yes, I understand your goal, but I think that creating contingency between these two ideas creates all kinds of complications without any added value, other than achieving a specific goal of giving morality ontological basis by virtue of its mapping to Free Will. I'm not big on goal seeking philosophy.

If we took the arrow in flight analogy. I do want to freeze frame it, just like the paradox — MikeL

I do not believe it is possible possible to develop an ontologically sound metaphysics that is premised on divisibility of duration and motion. It's a brick wall and you are inviting in all kinds of problems, infinities, infinitesimals, and paradoxes, etc. But as an exercise, go for it. Learning is by doing.

Being able to switch the balls. I'm not sure if being able to divide motion in such a way is possible, but the thought experiments exist. — JupiterJess

The mind divides motion for practical purposes which is why the mind invented symbolic representations. It is a way of freezing so multiple minds can share. But actual observation will reveal that duration (real time) and motion is continuous. This is again confirmed by Heisenberg's Principle and wave mechanics.

I found the following article to be helpful in providing more information on his Multimodal User Interface theory of perception and Conscious Realism: http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf
Hoffman, D. (2008). Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem. Mind & Matter Vol. 6(1), pp. 87–121.

His philosophy is not: dualism, idealism, panpsychism, or physicalism. It does not contradict dual aspect monism, and MUI is consistent with species-specific semiotic modelling. Beyond that, I understand very little. — Galuchat

There is really nothing groundbreaking here though that he is using mathematics may make it more exciting and palatable for some. He is basically describing a holographic topography of consciousness of stuff out there that consciousness interacts with. However, it is very muddy as he at once embraces a universal consciousness and then denies it in a single breath. So his idea is muddy at best. I just think he is being a coward as he presents a universal consciousness compatibilism type theory. His reward for trying to walk the line is a theory that immediately contradicts itself. Back to the drawing board.

"For the conscious realist, consciousness is ontologically fundamental;
matter is derivative, and among the symbols constructed by conscious
agents.

According to conscious realism, when I see a table, I interact with a
system, or systems, of conscious agents, and represent that interaction in
my conscious experience as a table icon. Admittedly, the table gives me
little insight into those conscious agents and their dynamics. The table is
a dumbed-down icon, adapted to my needs as a member of a species in a
particular niche, but not necessarily adapted to give me insight into the
true nature of the objective world that triggers my construction of the
table icon."

In the following paragraph he writes:

"Conscious realism,
together with MUI theory, claims that tables and chairs are icons in the
MUIs of conscious agents, and thus that they are conscious experiences of
those agents. It does not claim, nor entail, that tables and chairs are con-
scious or conscious agents."

They are interesting paradoxes which Zeno used to demonstrate that space and duration (time) must be considered indivisible. Read the paradoxes, because no doubt you have been taught that space and time are divisible and will be confused by them, and then read Bergson's solution. The paradox disappears if one considers all motion and duration continuous. Symbolic mathematics creates the paradoxes because symbolics cannot reflect a continuous reality.

If it is overload, just bookmark it for the future. You get the idea and that's enough just to keep in mind as you explore the nature of the mind.

The mind sees it as light illuminates it. Light and mind are inextricably related. If you wish to understand nature, follow the light.

There are some excellent (but slow moving) videos on this subject on YouTube created by Stephen Robbins. If you are interested, you may be able to follow it, but a background on Bergson helps a lot. It depends upon how interested you are in this line of inquiry.

The main point is that the brain is like a TV set, it reconstructs but it's not the origin not is it the storage media. Robbins explains why.

A reconstructive bean is the laser beam that is used to illuminate the holographic image. The image is out there and the brain is the tool that the mind uses to illuminate it. Nothing is going on in the brain.

Exactly.

Now if you think of the mind using the brain a to project a reconstructive beam that is illuminating the interference pattern, then you have a a possible way of imagining how it all might be working.

The more electrons we check in the experiment I described, the closer and closer the results correspond to our predictions based on past experience. — VagabondSpectre

No. They correspond to the probabilistic wave equations. There is zero determinism anywhere, yet you struggle to find some. Why struggle? Just allow for your faith. Believe me it's OK.

I just don't know why my neurons keep creating this awful illusion. I don't even know how to handle such a situation. Do neurologists make house calls? What I would like is for this particular illusion to be done in Technicolor. Doable?

I keep telling myself, it is just an illusion, it is just an illusion. Please little neurons make it go away.

Just to be clear, I love my neurons, or is it that they love me. Anyhow it is just a bunch of crackpottery, so why bother.

lol. I thought you were just an illusion. Why the heck do my neurons keep illusioning you? Stop it! Stop it! Those silly neurons. They can get so whacky at times. Playful little imps they are. Maybe I should go to a neurologist to have a good talking to with them. Don't you think?

There subject was crackpottery want it?

My take would be this based upon the universe being a holographic field in nature. One holographic energy field (the ball) interacts/interferes with another holographic energy field (the window) and in doing so creates a new holographic interference pattern which might be perceived as shattered glass. The ball stays interact due to the interaction patterns.

Now you don't have to repost! :) Stick with me. I'll give you some creative ideas to mull over.

More like exploration and experimentation. This is precisely what one can observe of babies right through senior age. There is no mystery of who is creating and how it is being done. It is right there for everyone to see. Pull the cloth off and it is a mirror.

Is it? Artistic pursuits are just a second order effect of your underlying boredom — schopenhauer1

Well so I can say is there is much diversity in the human spirit and I learn something new about others every day.

There can be only 2 fundamental options; either random or designed — John Days

No, there is the option of creative learning from experimentation, such as what a farmer does via grafting.

There isn't any "reason" for any creature to reproduce — Bitter Crank

Ahh, but this is a good question for those who are exploring more spiritual paths and aren't limited by any artificial materialistic view of life.

For the most part we are motivated by survival, boredom, and dissatisfaction. — schopenhauer1

Ugh. You are merely relating your own experiences. For the most part I am motivated by creativity and nicely in all arts, and it brings me joy.

precisely the likelihood — VagabondSpectre

An interesting turn of phrase.

Collapsing wave functions and determinism are not mutually exclusive... — VagabondSpectre

No but probabilistic wave functions and determined are. I can't believe the twisting and turning that you are willing to go through to get to your goal. Just forget the justification. You want your life to be fated? You believe in it deeply? Then just go for it. Nothing wrong with faith unless you make it wrong.

the way almost everything is — VagabondSpectre

Except that everything is fundamentally dependent on quantum interactions. A minor point I'm sure that can be quickly shunted aside if you move through the sentence quick enough.

inescapable consistency in the causal forces remains despite discovering quantum indeterminacy. — VagabondSpectre

Zero precision. All measurements necessarily are approximate and incomplete. You really are in a hurry to get to your goal.

We both still live with the illusion of free will, — VagabondSpectre

No, I have choices. You prefer to believe in a God that has fated you. You have tons of company. Lots of good religious books and literature on the subject. All fated religions have the same problem of maintaining supremacy of their God while acknowledge the everyday experience of Choice. In your case, you simply make it an illusion. Not novel but sufficient for your intended purpose. I hope you are not disappointed when you find Calvinists agree with your whole system they are just more comfortable with the word God than you are. Natural Laws does sound a whole lot more scientific.

Very much agree. The presenter acts as though a computer has some innate ability to recognize the bits in its memory as some sort of image. No! The computer recognizes nothing. It is the human mind who creates the program or observes the output that is creating the image. The computer is just a tool for transforming bits into other bits? It has zero intelligence. The intelligence always lies in the mind.

Hoffman says that the brain constructs or creates what we understand as 'reality' - that what we think we see 'out there' really is just neural processes. His analogy is that the objects we see around us are like the way we 'interface' with reality, but that they're no more intrinsically real than icons on the desktop of a computer, which aren't actually 'folders' or 'files' but are just symbolic representations that make it easier for us to find and initiate the processes that we want to execute (e.g. typing out a document). — Wayfarer

In earlier decades, it was often said of a couple that had lived their lives together began to take on each other's physical and emotional characteristics. One embraced the other.

I think people are spending too much time with their computers and are literally falling in love with them.. At least do some gardening. If you are going to adopt a partner at least have it be a living one.

That is true, or a unicorn could have made them. Science gets a little conceited with itself because it observes a little string of facts and marries them together into a plausible story then claims its the truth. — MikeL

Where I disagree a bit is that science does in any way have facts or is unbiased/objective. Even less so with the introduction of trillions of dollars of government money into their industry. It has become as scammy as the financial industry (big money does that). But they are great at making up stories: the Big Bang That Became Human, or "The Theory of It Just Happened".

Denser matter, e.g the fluids and bones of our bodies. It is exactly what sense/observe.

I would say a creative intelligence that underlies everything. One way to visualize this would be to envision quanta as being that intelligence creating a continuum of substantiality. The intelligence/mind (Elan vital) would be the most insubstantial or irreducible.

Creative intelligence would be the vital force of life (Bergson's Elan vital) that is self-motivated and is continuously experimenting, exploring, and learning via novelty and willful movements of choice. There are no external drivers out guides that are fating actions.

In the case of why we desire to preserve and reproduce ourselves, "evolutionary theory" is the mask, where there is no meaning or purpose to "why", but rather, only a series of random encounters between atomic particles. This is why evolutionary theory suggests a process which happens over billions of years; it needs that much time for all the trial and error because there is nothing guiding the atoms in how they interact. — John Days

The most outstanding feature of evolutionary theory is not only the magical moment that things all of a sudden start coming to life and self-organizing, but then they start thinking about their self-organizing, having memories of self-organizing, qualia of all things around them, and then start arguing among themselves about whether they have choices in how they are self-organizing. Besides all this, they create illusions of themselves really thinking, and things on the inside appearing outside, and all kinds of other interesting illusions.

Thank heavens that there was enough time for all of this to take shape. I would say about one week for a good creative story teller would be ample. To my taste, the Biblical story is much easier to believe and Greek mythology beats them both for shear entertainment value. All deserve a place in a World Literature curriculum.

The temporal realist will want to insist that they were truly unconscious in the past, perhaps by saying "I recall being unconscious". But the temporal anti-realist will then respond "how do you 'know' you were unconscious in the past? To which the realist can only respond "because i presently experience having no recollection" - which is really only to assert that their current experiences do not involve memories of sleeping. — sime

I agree with your analysis. I can only respond by saying that I had a few experiences in my life when I fell into a non-memory state (unconscious) only to wake up into a memory state. This particular type of reawakening deserves much deeper philosophical exploration.

So come on scientists, prove to me there is no God and let me see how strong your arguments really are. — MikeL

This doesn't really lead anywhere, other than, as you suggest, a never ending debate.

One can take the stance that:

A) there are outside omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent forces that were born out of some singular event such as God/Big Bang, in which case one can quickly perceive the similarities without much differences other than the lexicon being used, or

2) there are no such external forces, but rather an Intelligence (creative mind) that is evolving while learning that has both the nature of habit and the potential for novelty. (Daoism and ancient paganism that preceded it might be one such example).

I choose the latter because the evidence is within me and evidenced by everyone I have experienced in lives from birth to death. Others may claim they have experienced God and others may claim they have experienced the Big Bang via the Natural Laws that created and guide them.

At the end, I guess, it is a matter of taste, and to what practical value each philosophical outlook presents. I have found the notion of creative evolution and evolving intelligence very practical in my everyday existence, most crucially in the manner it offers choice and purpose, but also in a philosophical approach to relationships and health.

it seems Bergson is more dualistic than me — Dominic Osborn

If you read Bergson (try to avoid interpretations) you will find that he is not a dualist. We are duration that is evolving.

He thinks Space (and perhaps Matter) is something opposed to Time, Consciousness, Will, etc.. — Dominic Osborn

Matter would be moving in the opposite direction, decaying. Interestingly the notable architect Louis Kahn that a similar idea as he spoke of the nature of life:

"All material in nature, the mountain and the stream and the air and we, are made of Light which has been spent, and this crumpled mass called material casts a shadow, and the shadow belongs to Light."

I however think Space is inseparable from these things, that it is an (infinite) continuum, like Time and Consciousness, and that it is indivisible, even in thought: you can’t even point to one bit and point to another, and say, This bit is different from that bit. It doesn’t exist independently of thought or consciousness, but exists only inasmuch as it is Consciousness. You aren’t in it, you are it.

So I don’t think there are two things, the Physical—and Consciousness; I think there is only one, and that it is neither physical nor mental. — Dominic Osborn

Yes, very similar to Bergson. Bergson continues to be studied in Europe but in the U.S. scientific academia has c successfully suppressed all discussion. A Nobel prize winner who one has to hunt for in their philosophical pursuits. Rupert Sheldrake, and his idea of hierarchical memory preserved as morphic resonance fields, was influenced by Bergson.

From a strictly empirical perspective, "reincarnation", or perhaps rather "immortality", seems to be nothing more than the assumption of perpetually observed change. — sime

Observation can move to nothing (as it does while asleep and not dreaming), but as long as memory is preserved memory can be once again be reawakened. This happens every day of our lives. In birth/death/birth cycles one can say that inherited characteristics, innate skills, inborn traits are preserved memories that are reawakened. Memory is the essence of who we are but there is movement and creative intelligence (Bergson,'s Elan Vital) that gives it life. It is possible to think of both as being persistent, evolving through duration (real time).

You are a real lightweight. Go find someone else who might sit in awe of your junior league analyses and your foolhardy predictions.

I know. And you are here to give us the scientific facts.

You have 4 months to live. You have 2 years to live. The universe has 1 trillion years to live. Always with the proclamations.

This is not a subject that I've explored. There is strong cultural pressure not to talk or believe in such things. There is also some economic incentives at times to proclaim such things. It's a difficult subject to explore unless one has personal experiences. Synchronicity is something I have experienced many times.

Yes, I agree. The difference between what we know if as awakening from a dream and awakening as a birth is the type of memory that is preserved, though some people do claim to have physical memories of past lives. It is an interesting metaphysical question for those who are c exploring this idea.