The so-called "mystical' Laws of Nature are those of medicine, of cognitive science, of applied psychology. — Akanthinos

Enumerate them.

I have an effect on reality as well. — Harry Hindu

What do you mean by an "I" having an effect? This is the question. Determinists stubbornly insist on a rather schizophrenic description of life, using concepts such as "I" and then turning around and denying it as an illusion. I have no problems with anyone choosing to adopt such a position, but why the heck do they insist that others have no choice to adopt a different position? We all have choices on the way we wish to live our lives. That is what life is all about.

There are of course better or worse options. I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate one. — bahman

In a subjective way, you have preferences in taste. However, in a practical manner, you might choose a vanilla in some ice cream store that has an absolutely horrible taste to you, which you don't know until you actually taste it. Possibly the chocolate might have tasted better. Consequences of any choice is always unpredictable, but we do choose and then learn. This is the process of human evolution.

The issue that I am raising is that free will is the only ability that allows us to do the worst, so what is point of having it. — bahman

There is not better or worse. There is only a choice to move in a particular direction. Consequences are always unpredictable and changing as things evolve.

What Choice allows is evolution of Mind. We create, experiment, learn, and evolve. It is fundamental to existence.

What exactly in this article gives you hope for Determinism? That someone else shares your hope? The article says nothing new other than suggesting that possibility, sometime in the future, something new might be experimentally tested and discovered. Well, Determinists have been holding it for this hope for 100 years and certainly they can continue. However, at this point, there is not a shred of evidence supporting Determinism. It remains a belief by some who hold for a some reason that I can't phantom. But to each his/her own. Fatalism appeals to many and manifests in many forms.

BTW, his analysis of migrating butterflies was a bit silly.

Given the success science has had operating under a deterministic perspective, it seems reasonable to assume that the world operates deterministically, or at the very least under tendencies that do not radically differ whenever. — darthbarracuda

If science operated under determinism it v would not be operating. Science has always operated on tendencies it habits that repeat approximately, that is good enough For All Practical Purposes, and in recognizing such, technologists build in necessary fail-safe provisions. Complete failure happens all the time.

On top of this, current technology is for the most part based on probabilistic tendencies (quantum mechanics), and even the most current security technology is being based upon quantum action at a distance. Determinism never had and never will be party of practical science applications.

Precisely. North fatalism or Determinism describes nature. The Mind has choices in the direction it attempts to move.

None existence would be absence of Duration. But there still seems to be something there to existence out of non-existence.

it is a conceptual dud that derails and suppresses progess in philosophical thought. — Uneducated Pleb

I can't believe that Free Will is still taught as relevant. Some ideas die hard. We have choices with unpredictable consequences.

Yes there are minds within minds within minds in a continuum as there are waves within waves within waves in the ocean. The individual is continuous within the whole and the whole is continuous with the individuals.

At the most basic level, things happen because they are caused by other things. — RepThatMerch22

Determinism is more than just casual. It claims everything is already determined.

People make Choices in direction of action based upon experiences (memory). There is a choice (do U move left or right) but outcomes are always undermined because choices are being made everywhere v and there are constraints.

By rational I mean we act or decide based on reason in a situation. — bahman

I have no idea what it means to act rationally. People act in many ways motivated by experiences and possibilities.

A rational decision is defined as a decision which the agent always choose the best option. — bahman

I can someone know the best option? There are just possible actions with unknown effects (hence the well known Daoist story of the father and his son).

Free will however is ability to choose an option regardless of any constraint. — bahman

Actions are subject to constraints but we choose to try to move in a certain direction. Humans have Choice in the direction we wish to try to take action. This is Will or Intention.

Humans have the ability to make Choices in Direction. We are Navigators in Life where nothing is certain or determined.

Choice permits novelty, creation, and evolution.

Nothing can only be understood from the perspective of Duration/Mind. Do we experience Nothing? Possibly yes, when we are asleep between dream states or unconscious. In these states we do not experience duration, hence we experience Nothing.

But is Nothing absolute? Maybe not, because there is some spark that awakens us out of sleep (out of death?). To understand this question is to move more deeply into no understanding life.

Rich you are a madman — bloodninja

You (your mind) inquiring?

This is what it is life is all about. Inquiry, creativity, learning, evolving. Life evolves by learning in memory.

What do you mean by, "observe"? How does a mind observe a mind? What keeps us from observing other minds? — Harry Hindu

One can observe one's own mind by mediation. One just observes oneself. Other minds after overbearing by the patterns they create, e.g. an artist's painting or a written posting. All are manifestations of mind.

No one is denying the existence of minds. What is being denied is your explanation of what mind is and how it comes to be. — Harry Hindu

Great. I'm glad nobody is going to call it an illusion anymore. Very happy to hear about this new development.

If the laws of nature are mystical, then doesn't that make it compatible with religion as religious laws are mystical too. — Harry Hindu

Yes. Both phrases/terms refer to some outside mystical force of some type that has determined everything.

Is philosophy mystical? — Harry Hindu

Philosophy is a practice. One does what one wishes. If one wishes to appeal to mystical forces then I've does. As for me, I am most interested in patterns. Observing them, creating them, understanding them. This type of philosophy had ancient origins. Stonehenge would be but one example.

Mystical would be appeal to some outside forces that are omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, e.g. God and the Laws of Nature.

Some interesting new results regarding the effect of consciousness on double-slit experiments. The results have now been overnight replicated.

http://adrian-nelson-c85m.squarespace.com/origins-of-consciousness/new-evidence-of-mind-over-matter2

https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY

I don't pretend I don't have a mind at all. All I'm saying is that the football game is primarily engaged circumspective coping activity, not mind. — bloodninja

The Move is always involved, with some players more or less. It is a game of patterns and inches. One person's movements perceived by another. The Mind is always engaged and observing.

I think you need to stop twisting everything into the mind directly observing the mind — bloodninja

That is what it is. It is impossible to avoid it. Even in mediation, one is observing one's own Mind. The sole exception in my experiences is when one is unconscious it's in a non-dreaming, sleep state (if such a state exists)?

This is my life and the lives I've overfed. Maybe you are walking through life in a comatose state? I don't know. Others on this forum claim they are robots and computers. Possibly they are.

The Mind.

Not at all. Just pointing out on a real-life scale how stupendously outlandish all scientific explanations are on all scales. Sure they can make up a new (non-materialistic?) "forces" (which science can do en infinitum) with new equations to plaster together into some preposterous model of the universe that fits their way of looking at things. Doesn't mean it is any less outlandish. One only needs to step back and observe the entire mess that science had put together in total. Literally flying apart in all directions. The fundamental flaw is materialism which all sciences share. That is the problem. It's not based upon science or observation - it is a desire.

Science had no idea how things began, and it would be nice if they stopped pretending.

I'm just wondering when I'm going to explode from expanding? Or am I exempt from the Big Bang?

Perhaps it's difficult because the mind directly observing itself didn't create any of the examples you offered? — bloodninja

I suppose c one can go through life pretending one doesn't have a mind. It must feel rather wired though.

hat does a football game have to do with meditation or with direct observation of mind? — bloodninja

Minds playing a game, just like the game that one doesn't have a mind. One's mind usually is on the game. Your game is to pretend you don't have a mind. Interesting.

What is silly is denying one's own mind in favor of some mystical Laws of Nature that determine our lives. Totally absurd on so many levels.

That would describe a map. Google Maps is much more than that. — Akanthinos

Of course. All created by Mind. As the Mind evolves so does the patterns it creates, hence Google Maps.

Suffice to say, no one should say that Google Maps is a "mind". — Akanthinos

I just said it. It is a direct manifestation of patterns discerned by the mind and etched into the universe.

Well, it is difficult to draw a hard line between what the Mind creates and the Mind itself.

A novel, for example, is a reflection of the author and a painting that of the artist. A computer that of the designer and a football game that of the players. They are all "carving out" new patterns. Etching them in the fabric of the universe. It manifests as we observe it. Philosophy would be the art of observing all of these different patterns, in all forms, so as to understand the nature of human evolution. It is observing meta-patterns. No other discipline does this.

The Mind observing itself usually goes under the umbrella if meditation, but meditation is but one technique for observation of self. Each technique offers something different.

Google Maps is a creation of Mind. So is Google. All patterns.

The mind creates new patterns based upon what it observes, some more novel than others.

Yes, the Mind is observing the Mind. It is reflecting and evolving.

I would say that the Mind is the observer that learns (memory) and created new patterns from what it learns.

How is it possible to observe patterns in nature without some kind of tool that ontologically discloses the patterns as patterns? — bloodninja

This is precisely what the mind does and only the mind. Tools are simply that. No more.

It is not direct observation as such but the articulation of this direct observation that is philosophically relevant. — bloodninja

There are many ways to convey the observations of one's mind. Usually imagery is one if the most effective.

A strong believer in perpetuating nonsense.

I l particularly love the .4 uncertainty part of it. I suppose everyone is suppose to kowtow to this nonsense. That is how it is perpetuated. That it comes from "science" is sad and a commentary on modern life.

I like good yarns, just don't care calling them science with the purpose of creating some high ground. A good yarn is just that. We'll call this the volume of points yarn. Science always had a story to tell, whether or not it is worth telling. Was this within .4 uncertainty?

You sound like the parent trying to convince someone that Santa Clause is real. I suppose loop quantum gravity is suppose to give it the air of gravitas.

Exactly. Just story telling, subject to revision if someone around the camp fire asks a question. Spinning tales. And people get paid good money for conjuring up while ideas such as a "volume of points", that's contacting and cooling???? Contacting and cooling in what? Another universe?

Science fiction.

It was not from a point but a volume of points. Or rather a volume of points changed their scale. They always had a size (and an energy density) from the start. Then that size expanded (and cooled). — apokrisis

And you know this how?

This is what I mean, science has become simple story telling. Just make things up as required. Single point. Volume of points (what the heck is a volume of points?). Etc, etc., Etc. Everyone satisfied now that science has explained it?

My take, is that this type of Sci Fi is only mildly entertaining at best and doesn't even come close to the real thing, like The Twilight Zone. But it is a fun profession if someone is willing to fund it. Personally, I would rather the resources be spent on growing organic food for children.

Lacking anything interesting to present, and having lots of mouths to feed, science had become a never-ending series of fabricated stories.

selfless or selfish? — CousinVinnie

It is exactly as you described. It brings pleasure to some people and probably doesn't to others, pleasure being a feeling in response to something being observed. That's it. Selfish and selfless had no meaning because results and effects are totally unpredictable. The next time everyone might be bored. It all depends.

I am arguing that 1+1=2 is symbolic equation which tells something we can assign to reality — bahman

Sort of. There are no two things that are equal, so the equation doesn't represent anything we observe. It's a practical symbolic representation of an idea. Immobile symbology can never capture the motion of the universe, it can only approximate. Unfortunately, academic philosophy (for the most part) teaches the symbol is what it's real. It is actually just a convenience for communication.

One can say 1+1=3 as a cipher if one wishes, the meaning being deciphered by the receiver. It is just communication symbols, that is all.

How does information have any meaning if some kind of structured and consistent system of thought is not applied? — bioazer

Formulating a new idea requires building new patterns. Language it images are forms of communication if these new ideas. Logic is can straight-jacket. A philosopher who relies on logic will get no where except right back where s/he started. Just observe the course of logic. It just reinforces, while new ideas must be disruptive. Philosophers need to get off the merry-go-round of academic philosophy.