Wherever it is it is. It simply is.

Flawed is your subjective evaluation. I see it as simply life experiencing life.

It's not flawed. It is representative of the person as that person experiences and understands things subject to change. It is exactly what it is and it is creating, exploring, learning and changing. It is living.

I provided a link to some research. Among athletes and artists, this sense of body memory, is well understood and cultivated as it is in martial arts practice. This is why I suggest philosophers to stop reading books and spend their time experiencing life. Artists and musicians express philosophy with far greater depth than words because it is closer to the actually experience.

Memory is not flawed, it changes and is affected as is everything else. Wherever it may be it is where each if us is. And if course it/we will evolve.

I personally don't bother with labeling. I just observe and increase my awareness by observation. I treat philosophy as a process of melting and dissolving into the universe. Much of this skill comes from practicing Tai Chi for 30 years. It's a different process from most, but my sense is that Bergson used this approach. Certainly the ancient Daoists did the same. Nothing fundamentally ever changes, so ancient methods and processes are still useful. When one closely observes oneself, all there will be is memory.

Again, it is via self-observation/meditation. One cannot perceive oneself (it is like v trying to look at ones on face), but I've can feel oneself. It all all melts together.

I do it by self-observation. When I mediate on myself, I only perceive memory that is continuously evolving. That defines who I am. There is the "I" that is meditating on the memories. It dissolves into the memory and forms the creative/willful impetus behind the evolution. If memory is the wave than the creative/willfull component would be the movement contained within the wave in total characterizing a process. I don't see how it can be destroyed.

I think the point for me about the limitations of an analogy like this is that all the layers are quantizable; whereas with persons there is much that is not. — John

To the the extent that everything is in quantum system state, then yes, everything is quantized. If memory is self, then yes self/memory can be preserved.

I would say that we have pretty much discovered the implications of Evolution. Good topic.

Continuation of a species requires procreation, and homosexuality removes the desire to couple with the opposite sex — CasKev

That you and the Nazis are so hung up about the continuation of a species or race is purely an individual issue and desire Some share your obsession and others don't. Some have children, some just adopt. Everyone is different. Is this necessity to continue a species or a race being taught in philosophy, science, or religious classes? It's rather frightening. I hope there are some people who reject it and the the whole concept in favor of a quieter view of life.

As Rich pointed out, the Nazis used to make similar eugenic statements about Jews. — Thanatos Sand

The Nazis used this line of reasoning not only for Jews, but on anyone who stood on land that they wanted, which included 10s of millions of Gypsies, Slavs, Russians, and millions of others who were deemed inferior. The Nazis envisioned themselves as but a tool of the inexorable force called Natural Selection. These outside forces governing our lives can be quite murderous at times.

Given that homosexuality exists, and those who practice it seem to be merely following their natural instincts, harming no one in the process, there is no reason to criticize it. — CasKev

Homophobia is a "natural" conclusion for any ideology that is driven by reproduction as fundamental or essential. Once one goes down this path (as the Nazis did) the preferred path of the supernatural force called Natural Selection is inevitable, i.e. weed out.

The scientific explanation of human evolution is not only a silly story for which there is zero evidence (all that survives, survives because of some force called natural selection), it is downright horrific.

Is it possible that homosexuality is just a bug in the human reproductive program, rather than an emergent trait with evolutionary implications? Heterosexuality is obviously the normal instinct, as it is essentially required for continuation of the species. — CasKev

A very clear explanation of how and why Natural Selection, via it's hold on all things including Nazi Stormtroopers, will seek to eliminate all that is not Natural. It has now gone to a place that is pretty much beyond distasteful. Is this any different from a religious Inquisition? I don't believe so. It is probably worse. Hunduism has it's caste system. All religions fighting to be king of the hill with some supernatural forces like Natural Selection eliminating all that is sinful.

.
Selective reproduction is the obvious mechanism of evolution.
. — Michael Ossipoff

For someone who claims to eschew brute facts, your posts are just one big bundle of such.

Without language and science, — CasKev

Charlie Chaplain was able to reveal it via simple observation. Comedians do this as a matter of vocation, creating the theater of the absurd.

There is comedy lurking within the pathos of life. A simple change from actor to audience sometimes reveals it.

Granted. There are always more questions to be asked. In my case, rather than handoff consciousness, creativity, and choice to the Laws of Nature or to God, I felt I would retain it for myself.

I see now you are just trolling, Rich, so I won't read or respond to any more of your posts on this thread. — Thanatos Sand

No problem, though I did find your autobiographical description of yourself quite interesting.

I think the feeling of having ultimate control comes from our ignorance about all the factors that influence us and in totality completely determine us. This ignorance creates the impression that we are ultimately in control of our actions. — litewave

Yes, this would be very much akin to Hindu Maya. But what remains to be explained is why Natural Forces would be creating all these illusions but at the same time sleeping people yourself to see through these illusions but not people such as myself? Why are the Laws of Nature (God) playing all of these tricks and precisely which laws are at work?

I see, now you are not only characterizing physicists but you are now extending yourself to characterizing who is educated and who isn't?

Since you brought up quantum theory, my correct characterization of what is a serous physicist is completely germane to the discussion. — Thanatos Sand

That you feel that you are in a such a position to make such characterizations speaks for itself.

Yes. Thank you for the correction.

No, it doesn't, not in by serious physicists. — Thanatos Sand

Your characterization of who and what isn't a serious physicist is parenthetical to the discussion.

No, it wouldn't, since the physical body is comprised of mass and energy, consciousness is a concept like the soul. And body memory is a medically recognized physical dynamic; consciousness isn't. And "science" is beginning to explore the existence of alien abductions; it doesn't make it valid. — Thanatos Sand

The to are one and the same, and there is evidence that thinking goes on outside the brain.

Sure but you were attributing to it a metaphysical quality it doesn't inherently or conspicuously have, and our conscious cannot physically be separated from our body/brain. — Thanatos Sand

Consciousness does lurk in quantum theory interpretation. I am being more explicit, but this type of thinking it's precisely where philosophers should be. Creativity based upon observations is where philosophy should be and exploring.

Consciousness, in this framework, would be one and the same as the physical body as is quanta. It extends though outside of the brain. Athletes and artists refer to this as body or muscle memory. Science is beginning to explore this idea:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070123143605.htm

Suffering is probably a poor translation of the ancient thought. There is a discomfort within is that provides the impetus or is a result of the desire to explore and create. There is a spectrum of discomfort that at its extreme may be described as suffering. The way I have learned to moderate suffering is the Middle Way. Don't shoot too high so the fall will also be sending slight. The Greek myth of Pegasus.

What is this consciousness made of? And how can it be just contents when it is connected to, affected by, and affecting the human body and mind? — Thanatos Sand

Consciousness would be quanta. One and the same. And it is spreading spreading into duration as memory waves.

. People have a feeling that the sun moves around the earth, but that doesn't mean that the sun really moves around the earth, even though it was almost universally considered to be so until Renaissance. I don't deny that we may have a feeling of libertarian free will/ultimate control, I just deny that we have libertarian free will/ultimate control. — litewave

The question is what is creating feeling (and all other qualia) and why?

The standard answer is that it all emerged out of the Big Bang "soup" as determined by the undefined Laws of Nature which also magically emerged out of the soup. So the essence of the determinism Genesis story is that from nothing came everything, which doesn't explain anything but does satisfy scientists who wish to study humans as mechanical robots.

But the story doesn't quite end there. For some unexplained reasons, the Laws of Nature fool is into the thinking we have Choice. It is a Buddhist-like illusion. Why? But not all of us have this illusion. Some (the determinists) see through the illusion and know they really have no choice. Why does the Laws of Nature allow some to see through the illusion and not others? Why and how? But the mystery goes deeper. Those who are determined (by the Laws of Nature) to see through the illusion are also determined to act as if they don't. Why?

Inquiring minds might question to jus Genesis story, but not Determinists. One of faith doesn't question the ways of the Laws of Nature.

And no, the suggestion of an environmental component to gay-ness doesn't feed Nazism. But anti-science advocacy does. — Michael Ossipoff

Nazism was entirely technology driven, and after the war the U.S. used many Nazi for our missile program.

As far as ideology was concerned, the concept of the survival of the fittest race was music to their ears. They actually set up labs that experimented on humans (in the most barbaric ways) trying to figure out ways to exterminated faster. It was all about Natural Selection and the survival of the fittest.

Under can tweak God's powers as they wish, but in doing so they Grant themselves powers and understanding greater than God's, which would be turning religion on its head. Not permitted.

Whether one is discussion God or Laws of nature, one must always keep in mind, if they are embracing these concepts, they govern not vice-versa. It's a rather awkward way if thinking of oneself (we actually all have choice, but some would prefer to pretend they don't), but if I've chooses to do so, then one has to accept it for what it is.

Natural selection suggests that gay-ness must have an environmental component. — Michael Ossipoff

The discussion is about the all-powerful force called Natural Selection which was totally concocted by science and which seems to be obsessed with reproduction (something Freudian going on here). Apparently, according to this reproduction obsession, Natural Selection is weeding out all those that aren't equally obsessed. It's all about procreation? Sounds very strange to me.

Human history tends to say otherwise. We all have special skills and appears that about a segment of the human species had the skill of cheating and stealing and are willing to do almost anything for wealth whatever their economic condition.

If the intention is not freely chosen then all of the agent's actions are completely determined by factors that the agent has not freely chosen. — litewave

An intention may be constrained or influence but it doesn't mean that someone cannot try to choose movement in one direction or another. One can try but because of constraints or influences the probability of achieving is unknown. Some choices may have more probable outcomes than others (because of influences and constraints) but who knows? Outcomes are always unpredictable.

While some may couch the issue as Free to Choose Outcome, it appears that Ability to Choose Direction of Action may be a better description of human choice.

Free Will and Moral Enlightenment are interchangable terms. - Over'n out! — Robert Lockhart

It's every choice a moral choice? Is deciding whether to eat fruits or vegetables a moral dilemma? I believe that when one frames Choice as an intention of action in a direction, then it is possible to see that it can be without moral connection.

These identity cards formed part of the later Genocide. — Andrew4Handel

Since Evolution is indistinguishable from other Western religions, it would make sense that adherents would draw the same conclusions, e.g. being Gay (or any other target minority group) is unnatural and is a target for extinction. This the Nazis could justify the murder of tens of millions of people by simply suggesting that they were agents of the natural universe. Similarly, the Inquisition could be justified as the adherents being agents of The Lord.

We can thus view Evolution and religion as a battle for the hearts and souls of fatalists (determinists) who embrace the concept of an outside force directing the Universe.

Yes, natural selection, while selecting remarkably well for attributes that increase reproductive success (actually reproduction, successful child-rearing and protection), — Michael Ossipoff

Are you suggesting that natural selection will be weeding out Gay people? This type of reasoning, perpetuated by science, is as least as distasteful as any religious teaching along the same lines. Nazism was fed by this type of scientism.

"In making this statement Huxley has stepped outside the province of science, for a scientist can neither assert nor deny the existence of purpose in nature (...)" — Andrew4Handel

This is precisely what happened. Scientists imbued a human tendency into some unknown mysterious force that governs all which is called Natural Laws. There is no way to distinguish Natural Laws from God (the God of Abraham and not the God of Michaelangelo).

when we are moved to ask whether humans actually could have a capacity for for free will we don’t ultimately mean to enquire whether we might have a capacity for amoral autonomy — Robert Lockhart

In most cases, this is being asked, i.e. do humans have the ability to make choices. The question of what it's moral and immoral is a different question, which is ultimately ax subjective choice. However, a choice is a choice is a choice, however one wishes to describe it.

I would say that depression emanates from loss of some type. Loss of purpose, loss oof family, lots of hi hope, etc. One must find a way to fill the hole with something new in order to renew. Ultimately all renewal must come from within.

I agree with you. Assigning a strictly life feature to a mechanical invention of life creates all kinds of confusion. Computers are an invention of human creativity designed to assist humans in the exploration and creativity of life. Computers are tools for intelligence, they are not intelligent. This prevents confusion.