So to answer your question directly, if the contents and the container are one consciousness, then I am not the same person who started writing this reply, and the person who reads it will not be the Agustino of yore. And that is just as unbelievable as that we are one. — unenlightened

I think it gets confusing when consciousness is thought of as some object that can be made mobile.

Consciousness is better thought of as ongoing, never-ending, continuous processes existing in duration. There are hierarchies of consciousness (which Sheldrake calls morphic resonance fields) that define who we are moving from the individual (a field of memory) through family, race, species, life fields etc., all of which are in a continuous process of learning and changing that flow into each other.

These intelligent processes just continue through duration. There appears to be a wave-like, cyclical nature moving of processes that move from rest-from-learning-and-creating (sleep/death) and creating/learning (awake/alive) of this process.

There it's no reason to mix up Free Will with choice. A human has constrained and influenced choice (of direction) in movement with unpredictable but probabilistic outcomes.

It's quite straightforward. If you believe that there is some supernatural force, e.g. God or Laws of Nature, determining everything, I am never the one to stand in the way of someone's religious beliefs.

I guess for the adherents they are. When it comes to faith, I believe faith is faith. I don't discriminate.

Bye, bye. Miss you already.

The Geek Squad TV repair man offered to map out where all the celebrities are stored in the TV's computer chips and he also explained how all those who we think are the real celebrities were just illusions. It's all in the chips. I found it to be a remarkable theory. We are working on how all of those people were actually put in the chips.

I get all the not neurology and laughs I need from the TV show Superhuman. The neurologist on the show is a hoot.

OK. I get it. It all happens in the brain by magic and everything else is an illusion. Similarly, all the people we see on TV are hidden in the TV computer chips. Let me ruminate on the plausibility of the story.

The potential exists as a real field. I view it as fundamental intelligence. Pretty much what Daoists intuited thousands of years ago. When we see something "out there" it is because it really is out there, not in the brain.

Speaking of the quantum potential:

" ... it was later elaborated upon by Bohm and Basil Hiley in its interpretation as an information potential which acts on a quantum particle."

Probably not my place to discuss who is a prophet and who isn't. It's the stuff off wars.

It's the image that Bohm's quantum physics potential that is so interesting. Observe how the action is directed by the quantum potent potential and how a multitude of actions could create things including memory. Memory would not be in the brain, but instead would be embedded in the potential, and would not go away. The brain simply filters and recons reconstructs like a TV.

This video got 2 million views, which I find rather bewildering.

I don't see reason to pay attention to mumbled quantum mechanics. Without the mathematics, it becomes very dubious. — Banno

Philosophy is about putting together clues imagining patterns in differences and patterns. There are lots of patterns that can be discerned from Bohm's quantum potential.

A wave function collapses, not when it is observed, so much as when it makes a difference.

It makes a difference when it is observed, so the reason for the confusion is clear.

But consciousness is not what collapses wave functions. — Banno

Collapsing wave functions are an artifact of the original Schrodinger equations. It survived for a couple of days decades (desire De Broglie's real model) because Van Neumann, the god of mathematics, proclaimed that a real model of the equations could not be derived. Enter Bohm who derived a real model version and collapse is now banished and Bohm gets a Nobel prize for doing the impossible. Well, not quite. Scientists insist on the old equation because they are easier to use and Bohm is more or less forgotten.

When asked, he said God gave him this gift. But it's really like he came into the world with a lot of practice behind him. — Wayfarer

My martial arts teacher, to was quite a materialist, once mumbled to me that his skills are from past lives. I was really shocked at the time.

The evidence is staring at us right in our faces. We have memory in one physical life and it appears to persist as a field.

Nicely written. I believe by combining ideas of Bergson, Bohm and Sheldrake one can puzzle out an interesting framework for memory persistence. Inherited traits, innate skills, inborn abilities would all be evidence that such persistence exists. Child prodigies can be explained in this manner.

Yes, all lot these experiences and much more lead me to a different way of looking at life and nature. Then it is a matter of picking up read each of these little pieces of the puzzle and trying to identify patterns which create a bigger picture. This is how I ruminate over philosophical questions. It is detective work and requires manipulating the patterns in my mind.

as is generally understood, the ability to make choices can't distinguish the presence or absence of free will because it's programmable. — TheMadFool

This is the first time I've heard of such a concept so it must have gone viral last night if it is generally understood.

Believe as you wish, it is your choice. It would be interesting to know why people make such choices. I think they just feel comfortable knowing that it had all been taken care of by some supernatural forces. Very common among religious people.

It's an obvious consequence of accepted natural events. — Michael Ossipoff

Brute fact alert!

Life does change as is affected by what it learns.

Is that a categorically true statement? No, because it's impossible to know we aren't programmed. Think of God as the programmer and the human mind as a computer. — TheMadFool

It is possible by observing oneself, but if one wishes to hand-off their intelligence and ability to choose to some outside supernatural force, they are free to make the choice and live such a life. However, I suggest that one doesn't carry such a belief into court. God made me do it or Natural Laws made me do it is not considered a viable defense strategy.

I understand everything very well. You feel very strongly about something and you explain why you feel strongly about it. It's a belief which you are stating as a fact because you happen to strongly believe in it. Philosophers who believe in truth and believe that they have the truth do it all of the time. Believers of Evolution believe, very strongly so much so it approaches religious dogma, that there is some supernatural force named Natural Selection that is driving evolution. What's more, they may also believe that Natural Selection (which has God-like qualities) is obsessed with reproduction as it strives to survive. Dawkins story about selfish genes it's one example.

I really, really don't know to what to say about this tale.

A brute fact is a fact that is posited without an explanation, typically with a claim that it doesn't need one. But natural selection, and its central role in evolution, is very well explained. — Michael Ossipoff

I didn't understand. Well your entire explanation then becomes a brute fact.

The point is choice-making is programmable. — TheMadFool

Programming attempts to create a decision tree. Your use of a human trait and applying it to a computer is your choice, but as I said, if computers were really making choices the world would descend into utter havoc. Thank god they they don't. You might as well imbue choice into any tool including a hammer. A tool follows instructions, humans do not.

You seem to be under the impression that I'm asserting something. I'm just putting out a set of premises that I think works. If you disagree, tell me where my definitions run into conflict. — noAxioms

I understand that you are suggesting some premises and I am suggesting a slightly different way to frame the issue. I think confusion arises when teens like Free Will are imbued with more than actual experience suggests, hence my analogy to a tug-of-war where will and choice are being expressed with outcomes unpredictable. I apologize if you felt I was misunderstanding your posts.

I don't believe humans are special in having will. Almost any life form can be observed expressing will. To what extent they have choices is unclear since there is no way to communicate with other species at this time.

My approach to philosophy is more experiential and then comparing my experiences with others observing similarities within the differences and differences within the similarities, constructing and visualizing patterns in the process.

The will is free if the desired choice can be effected — noAxioms

Will is neither free nor does it have control of outcome. One can only try to make the choice. There are all manner of constraints and influences that affect outcomes. One can only attempt to move in a particular direction. Two football lineman exhibit this type of tug-of-war.

Insofar as responsibility is concerned, that is a issue of human condition. Since outcomes are unpredictable, responsibility is purely subjective which is why we have courts to adjudicate.

Not really asking how it makes you feel. — noAxioms

Will is a feeling that the body generates. That is how we know it and observe it. Sometimes its effects can be observed by others as one exerts themselves. It is strange that feelings are made subservient to words or other symbols. Will is directly experienced.

So said, computers too make choices — TheMadFool

Computers follow programmatic algorithms. If they actually were making independent choices the world computer networks would be in total chaos. Everyone is totally reliant on a computer's inability to make choices. Out of curiosity, how did you come by this idea that computers make choices?

If x > 1 then 4/x else goto line 10 — TheMadFool

This is an algorithmic decision tree that the computer, hopefully, will execute as directed without fail. Humans created this decision tree out if their choice. They could have done it differently.

I feel will as a force being generated from within me which creates the impetus to move in a particular direction, together fulfilling the choice. It can be imagined as a directed wave.

guessing a dualistic set of — noAxioms

I don't think there is any dualism. I'm describing my observations that life is totally different than tools of life. I've could try to say a hand is like a hammer out that a hammer is human, but that is not what a observe.

A physical monist says choice is a purposeful selection of action, which is what a machine (thermostat say) does and a rock doesn't. — noAxioms

A machine doesn't make choices. The choices are made by the human that programs the machine. Just like a hammer doesn't make choices. The choices are being made by the human that is using it. Similarly, a piano don't make choices. The pianist is making the choices. Tools used by humans are not human.

There are many, many other observations I've made that distinguish life from tools.

My turn to say this is odd. I think the value of human life, for what it's worth, rests on Free Will. To choose to be good rather than bad. — TheMadFool

There are unpredictable consequences for any actions. Results may be deemed good it's bad by the enumerable number of lives affected. Judgement always is after the action and at any point cannot foresee possible future consequences. Moralists can pursue morality and they wish but it turns philosophy into an endless parlor game. I previously in annother thread referred to the Daoist take of the farmer and his son which illustrates the idea.

With that said, we make our choices based upon who we are and where we are trying to go. An analogy would be learning to sail on the ocean.

How do you know that? — TheMadFool

Observation of myself and others. I am no more s computer than I am a slide-rule or an abacus. If you think you are a computer, there is nothing I can say or do to dissuade you. You have that choice.

Free will is central to morality, which in turn, necessitates the choice to do good rather than bad. Yes, there's a whole lot of philosophy dependent on free will me thinks. Anyway, I hope you understood why I think choice is absolutely fundamental to the concept of Free Will. — TheMadFool

For my part, I entirely drop the notion of Free Will add it muddles the problem. I just speak of choice in the manner I describe. It is very precise and mirrors exactly the action that we are taking when we make choices, the agent is calling upon will to move in a particular direction. Morality, a subjective concept or judgement can be tied to the choices we make but it's parenthetical to na discussion of whether it not we can and do make choices.

The punchline here is that, given choice can be programmed, — TheMadFool

This only creates confusion. The computer is not making choices in the manner the human agent does. The human choice is not determined by some program. Computers follow directions given to them by humans. One can say that computers are algorithmically driven-a huge difference.

Free will can be translated as the ability to make choices free from influences we have no control over. — TheMadFool

I find this a strange way to b define it.

Choice is precisely the will to move in a particular direction that can and will be affected by all influences, this making outcomes unpredictable. It can be analogized as a tug-of-war. It is the direction and amount of will that is indicated by the agent that creates the choice.

Computers routinely make choices. — TheMadFool

Computers don't make choices. They are programmed by humans who do make choices when writing the programs.

I don't see what the problem is with that. If God ordains us with the ability to understand him, say through human reason, then we can understand his ways through it. — Samuel Lacrampe

One cannot know the intentions of the Lord.

Well, very, very different than my discoveries which are full of symmetries and deeper understanding of the nature of creativity and life. Different strokes for different folks.

Claudio Arrau discovered precisely the same feeling that I did about the nature and expression of the soul.

https://youtu.be/xMG247zUzB0

But one can never understand the ways of the Lord. It is fully unattainable in all manner. If one tries, in any manner, it is simply a manifestation of what the Lord ordains.

OK, well I meditated for many years and practiced Tai Chi for many years also, and have tried to "know myself" through general self-awareness in all my activities and particularly in creative activities such as writing, painting and playing music for more than forty years, and I have not found what you claim to have found about the self at all. — John

Ok. What did you discover about yourself in any it all of the activities? My b discoveries are very clear, unified, and indivisible among all of my activities which included Tai Chi, various sports, piano, drawing and painting, dancing and writing. All share exactly the same fundamental experience.

I don't. I invite others to explore themselves for 30 years or more and report their findings. It's all about exploration. I am only reporting my findings for others to consider. There are others who have reported similar, but it is experiential in nature and symbolic language descriptions of any sort are going to be inadequate and possibly misleading.

Nope. You are describing yourself as flawed. I am simply accepting myself as a life in the process of creating and learning. I see no flaw in this, just a forever process. Maybe you shouldn't be so harsh on yourself. I'm not.

The use of the word as it pertains to yourself is your own choice, and if you feel you are flawed then who am I to disagree. However, I have no such feeling about myself.

I simply accept life for what it is. Constantly changing and evolving memory. It's actually quite beautiful as people who practice the arts may discover.