Physicalism is a description of what is the case. — charleton

I agree. Physicalism just states that everything is physical. Anything that exists or may be discovered is physical. (Just as Hinduism claims all religions are Hindu). Physicalism explains nothing and is not even a philosophy. It is a point of view.

The flip side of physicalism, which I embrace, is that everything is mind. I guess my approach might explain a bit more since it does explain the nature of discussion (to share ideas been minds) and the purpose for life, i.e. to experiment, explore, learn, and share.

A: "We're nothing more than animals" -> B: "false, assuming "our" refers to the experience of all of humanity" C: (you): "everyone believes stuff, and sometimes it's harmful and sometimes not".

What's you're argument? — Noble Dust

That Natural Selection is a belief system, promoted by biology/medical industry to further its own agenda. There is not a scintilla of evidence that there is supernatural force called Natural Selection that is the working motivation of life - all life.

What we have is, by simple inspection, lots of different forms of life, at all levels,, that is evolving by experimenting, learning and changing. All life is equal and none is superior or more likely to survive than others. Stephen Hawkins has lived longer than the physicians who claimed that he would die young.

I don't think there is any trolling going on here. It is just the inevitable outcome of a conversation where people know the truth but they are different truths. Best to just accept the differences and move on.

Sophomoric retort at best. — Thanatos Sand

The simple truth, as spoken to me by Natural Laws.

Truth had simply taken a walk to some other side. No matter, it is bound to come back given time. Truth does have a propensity to wander.

you'd get an actual education before you engaged intelligent, educated people like myself. — Thanatos Sand

Might I suggest a course on Greek drama with emphasis on hubris.

Natural selection isn't random. It is a lawful process — Harry Hindu

Natural Law, the God of atheism that has made scientists the chosen ones. Where do I go to pay homage? Science seeks homage, doesn't it? The holders of Truth?

What we have here is a case study of trying to create categories: descriptive and prescriptive.

Categories can be taught and used out of habit with exceptions. They can be enforced by law. They can be implicit by cultural pressures. They can be created on a whim. If there is some consensus on a population the category can find some stickiness.

However, those that are created in a whim have the hardest time finding stickiness because it inhibits freedom. Even those who have the greatest tendency to look for authority might resist newly created categories.

There are only category errors when there are agreements about categories within a given population arrived at in a variety of ways. Without agreement there is only disagreement (as in this thread). Education of habit is one of the primary ways to create categories. Unfortunately, for Wittgenstein, his writings are not part of the elementary school curriculum.

.

Can you think of any way of testing the holographic model? — John

Some recent research:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130083231.htm

"A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram. Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe -- in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation."

When someone is being honest about feelings, and intentions, — Wosret

What one honestly feels is in itself uncertain and continously evolving. Even as some speaks, something else may immediately come to mind. Ditto for intentions. What are my intentions?

Be that as it may, Shakespeare provides some reasonable advice:

"This above all, to thine own self be true."

However, this at times may require someone to quit their job or profession or career, which is not that uncommon.

If someone can understand things from another person's perspective, then they're pretty much fucking magic... I don't have high hopes for an objective view. — Wosret

It's tough enough understanding things from one's own perspective. This is what I'm working on.

There can be no error without consensus. Lacking consensus, there is simply a disagreement.

There cannot be category-errors, since there is no agreement on what this term means, thus there is disagreement.

In rely to the OP, insofar as construction is concerned (I prefer to use creation), this is the providence of the creative mind (in all forms) and it is pretty much what all that it does, i.e create and learn from it's creations. Creations, in a universe of flux, are always undergoing change and this cannot be considered stagnant, but rather a continuously evolving process. Because of this, it is probably hopeless to try to create stagnant ideas and constructions. There are bound to be changes.

There is nothing backwards anywhere. All you are doing is transferring everything that is human into a gene and then saying, "see you don't need a conscious mind". It is replication of Dawkin's Selfish Gene. And where do all of these characteristics come from?: No magic at all is involved, it's natural, created by Natural Laws and Natural Selection so of course it naturally happens. It seems like the only thing in materialism that is not natural is everyday human mind.

don't see why we must make that conclusion. — Banno

I agree. There are lots of possibilities to consider in different contexts. Hopefully some young, eager beaver philosophers will investigate this model and come up with some new ideas. It is rich with possibilities.

When it is observed it becomes the cup. I don't know what a dog, for example, sees. All I know is what I can observe. When I'm not observing, back to the quantum state.

I believe there is research going on concerning the possibilities. I already the model from a different perspective, i.e. are the pieces of the puzzle fitting.

This philosopher follows the topic closely and he does answer contact email. I've been too busy lately with the arts and haven't followed recent research closely.

http://www.stephenerobbins.com

Yes, they can be but not at the same time.

the shared world of intersubjective experience. — John

I am definitely interested in this area if inquiry and what it all means. Hence the idea of shared memory in holographic form and shared traits in holographic form. Sharing occurs all over the place.

It is what it is in its quantum state. It is there human mind that recognizes it as a cup. The hologram analogy it's a good one. Turn off the reconstructive light wave and what do you have? Turn it back on and what do you have? This is the line of inquiry I am following.

Ok. But we all have to be flexible in life, a key principle that we both learned studying Tai Chi for 30 years.

Are you serious? What's the problem with a genetic memory that can capture useful random changes? There is no logical or metaphysical hole in this as a basic story. — apokrisis

The problem is that your are imbuing all kinds of human attributes into the gene. All you are doing is transferring creative consciousness into the gene. Just look at how you described the little gene. It has memory. It can capture. It can make useful. All that is done is anthropomorphize the gene. No doubt the rationale is that it is natural.

The quantum state exists, however one may wish to visualize it. I visualize it as the wave pattern formed in a hologram. What doesn't exist is the cup until the observer does it's job, in the same way a reconstructive light wave reveals the image in a hologram, e.g. the teacup.

If you don't know what I'm talking about them I guess you can't talk about it. That's OK. It's not a necessity.

Humans always come back to trying to answer such questions in terms of something they are familiar with (the empirical). So Rich, for example, wants to say the noumena, reality in itself, is a hologram. This is just as incoherent as saying it is a cup, or a molecule, or energy, or mind. — John

Not at all. The macro reveals the micro, but it takes some creative intuition to bridge the gap. It is a continuum without gaps. Everything must spiral together without gaps.

I suppose that the approach you are taking is fine, so long as it is presented as speculative, and not as a consensus view among physicist. — Banno

To be sure it is highly speculative. There are reasons I chose this model, primary because it keeps everything real. I do not like illusions as an answer for anything. For me, of it is there and then it is real.

So perhaps we could again look at reincarnation. Your view is that memories, along with everything else, might be stored hologramaticaly? — Banno

Yes. I chose this viewpoint because all the pieces seem to fit. Interestingly, I ran across an interview by Sheeran today where he describes his viewpoint which is very similar to mine. Not surprisingly he related that he is also influenced by Bergson.

I am inquiring into the philosophical implications (I wouldn't even call it an o observer problem), utilizing a Bergsonian view of life and a holographic model for mind/matter interaction (the mind being expensive in the manner Sheldrake might view it). There are many reasons my philosophical path has lead me in this direction, but suffice to say that for me that chasm that defines quantum (at the molecular level) and what we perceive and field is a huge one and requires a rethinking of classical viewpoints. I just wasn't satisfied by the "now it's quanta, now it's solid" explanation, which is basically every interpretation except Bohm's Implicate Order.

I still don't agre that objects are all in the mind. — Wayfarer

As I said in my response, the object that exists in some quantum state is real. But until it interacts with the observer ( there had to be an observer of some sort) there is no bullet. It is the interaction that somehow makes this thing that is mostly empty space, into something that feels very solid and deadly to the observer. The mind had to be involved involved in the "discovery". My use of mind is very expansive. I'm not relegating it to some neurons firing off in the brain.

I would agree. Current philosophy of the mind needs a complete overhaul. Sheldrake's ideas are well worth investigating. I just learned today from an article that, not surprisingly, he was influenced by Bergson, another philosopher way ahead of his time.

No, Natural Laws and Natural Selection, and It's Natural aren't science.

Natural is science's escape word when it can't explain something.

At this time, my general idea is that memory is imprinted into the fabric of the universe (analogous to a hologram) and had the possibility of persistence. To reveal it would require the mind, via the brain, to reconstruct it.

Evidence of this permanence would be what is called inherited traits, innate skills, special unexplainable abilities, etc.

I revert to the nature of experience because either implicitly it explicitly (depending upon one's metaphysics) the OP is asking about personal experience and the possibility of memory permanence.

Well for sure I agree. However, the issue is how to initiate. Academia is not the place. I would approach it with an online platform dedicated to researching new philosophical ideas and reporting on them for discussion and additional ideas for research. There are lots of great ideas that are not getting any visibility. TED has become just another appendage for industry and the norms. I would be happy to assist in developing a new platform.

Special Relativity actually concludes the exact opposite. What is happening is the same for both Ann and Beth. Ann will see the object moving to the right, and also be able to calculate that Beth will see it moving to the left. Beth will see it moving to the left, and be able to calculate that Ann sees it moving to the right.
— Banno

SP says that for an object in a void there is no true statement about its motion. Period. — Mongrel

Special relativity concludes that Ann and Beth will have different experiences, due to the speed of light, but mathematically the two experiences can be transformed between the two frames of reference. Basically it is a scientific synchronization issue, but what is philosophically interesting is the actual experiences are different.

Similarly, in General Relativity, the person in motion will feel acceleration.

A hologram presents an analogous representation of the problem. The hologram is simply a set of wave patterns embedded in the glass. It only reveals the image when an active reconstructive light beam with the appropriate frequency is used. Things were changed when light of a particular frequency was used for observation.

Face it. Deep inside your subconscious you are a Pantheist. It's a fine spiritual philosophy. Be proud of it and who you are.

I honestly can't see any sense in which the cup is not in the cupboard — John

There is something there, but it is the mind that forms the cup. You must realized that that seemingly solid object is not that at all when peering into it. Ditto for the water it seemingly carries. It is this transformation from a dynamic wave, that exhibits non-locality (quantum effects have now been observed at the molecular level), to something that feels solid and how is it formed that lies at the crux of philosophical question. One has to dig deeply and not be so quick to jump the chasm looking for a quick and easy answer. Observation is active and entangled. It cannot be considered passive in the process.

Yes, when you hear the world "natural" used in discussing farming, human reproduction, rainstorms, humidity, evolution or any other natural phenomenon or dynamic, it should raise a red flag. Anti-scientism really is making a comeback. — Thanatos Sand

Natural in such contexts is tantamount to God. It is a substitution word. Atheists can't use the word God so they rename it Natural. The scientific explanation becomes equivalent to the religious explanation, that is no explanation at all other than calling upon some new supernatural force. It's a cute trick.Take note how often this transfer of power to Natural is used, e.g. Natural Selection. Is Natural equivalent to Pantheism? Panentheism?

No one is hijacking quantum physics. The only hijacking that was done was when science hijacked the human mind and memory and stuffed in in something called Natural. There is nothing natural in quantum. It has vanished. There is something that is referred to as the observer and there is no getting rid of it. It is totally entangled in the experiment.

But these can be more simply explained as the body affecting the body or the brain playing with itself, if you will. — TheMadFool

If one thing is affecting another thing with a specific willful action then what is the impetus? Where does this come from? The mind is always lurking somewhere, implicitly or explicitly even if it is transferred outside into some natural force.