Thus humans are imaginary in the same sense that the Big Dipper is imaginary. — Michael Gagnon

Well not really the same. The Big Dipper does not imagine itself. A group of particles with an imagination is more than an arbitrary invention of itself. The capacity to imagine oneself is real, and carves out a real distinction between a human and a heap of sand.

Through an act of imagination, one can draw a boundary around a star formation and call it the “Big Dipper.” The Big Dipper does not inherently exist; rather, it is merely a concept that requires an act of imagination. If all life in the universe suddenly died, then there would be no one to draw the boundary, and therefore the Big Dipper would cease to exist. The concept of the Big Dipper can only exist in living minds. In this sense, the Big Dipper is imaginary.

In the same way, each human is merely a grouping of particles. Thus humans are imaginary in the same sense that the Big Dipper is imaginary. — Michael Gagnon

You're conflating concepts and terms (names for things) with the things that the concepts and terms are about. Outside of concepts and terms there are still the materials in structures and processes. The world isn't a homogeneous/uniform soup--it's "lumpy," so to speak, and even something like the Big Dipper still exists in the sense of those stars existing and forming that pattern from a particular spatio-temporal perspective. It's just the the name "Big Dipper" wouldn't exist, nor the concept of them as a constellation, or even the notion/idea of picking out that pattern to name it, etc. But the structures, the pattern, etc. are still there.

It is always a dead end and somewhat of a punt when a philosophical model resorts to illusion of some sort. I simply believe in this case the Buddhist writings are being translated and interpreted incorrectly as often is the case with Daoist writings.

The Big Dipper is a state of memory with a certain firm that is very real in one's memory. Memory is real. It is not an illusion. If necessary, one can make it more concrete and call it a energetic holographic pattern created by our mind.

We are also real, created in more or less the same way but with more material substantially. How does energy turn into more substantial matter is a subject of some philosophical works such as those by Bergson. It goes directly to the question of what is quantum, what is light?

In both cases, at the core of each is Da Vinci's Creative Spirit which is creating these holographic images from the energy patterns. I believe this leads to s better understanding of the Buddhist thoughts. We c are not an illusion but a construct of energy patterns.

I think our statements are somewhat consistent with each other, except for your claim that I am conflating things that shouldn't be conflated.

It is always a dead end and somewhat of a punt when a philosophical model resorts to illusion of some sort. I simply believe in this case the Buddhist writings are being translated and interpreted incorrectly as often is the case with Doaist writings. — Rich

You are jumping to conclusions.

The Big Dipper is a state of memory with a certain firm that is very real in one's memory. Memory is real. It is not an illusion. If necessary, one can make it more concrete and call it a energetic holographic pattern created by our mind. — Rich

I don't think memories are real in the sense that you think they're real. http://thescienceexplorer.com/are-your-memories-real Furthermore, I think we agree on something! "...and call it a energetic holographic pattern created by our mind." Created by our mind! Exactly; that is the notion of imaginary I am speaking of when I say "humans are imaginary in the same sense that the Big Dipper is imaginary."

We c are not an illusion but a construct of energy patterns. — Rich

I think we may be getting lost in semantics.

The major element of my model is that everything is energetic patterns or what Bergson called Memory. The difference between what one may view as a personal image vs. what one may view as external is a matter of substantiality. Both are holographic and both are made from the same fundamental building blocks, i.e. energetic wave patterns. Persistence differs because of the difference in substantially. A major question is how does substantiality arise from wave patterns. This is the essential issue of Quantum physics and the wave-particle duality. Via deep intuition one might come to some description of this process.

I read a little into Bergson. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that he espouses a particular form of dualism---where dualism is the view that aspects of mental phenomena occur outside of the physical-energetic universe. It seems clear to me that if we believe dualism, then it is easy to believe that there are aspects of us that are non imaginary; these aspects exist outside the physical-energetic universe.

In contrast, my model assumes physicalism---where physicalism is the view that everything exists within our physical-energetic universe.

When I say, "humans are imaginary in the same sense that the Big Dipper is imaginary," I mean that humans are imaginary in the same sense that I have described the Big Dipper as imaginary. In other words:

Through an act of imagination, one can draw a boundary around a particle formation and call it the “a human.” Humans do not inherently exist; rather, "a human" is merely a concept that requires an act of imagination. If all life in the universe suddenly died (or alternatively, if humans stopped imagining), then there would be no one to draw the boundaries around humans, and therefore humans would cease to exist. The concept of humans can only exist in living minds. In this sense, the humans are imaginary.

Plus, it just might be the case that the Big Dipper is conscious. See, panpsychism.

I don't recall Bergson espousing dualism, by I can be setting.

My understanding is that his building blocks for all phenomena at Memory, the Elan Vital (the creative impetus), and Duration (la Dureé). This was everything. The photographic images embedded in the fabric of the universe, of which he spoke, pre-dated and predicted the discovery of holography. Somehow he intuited it.

He did speak of Matter as decaying (moving in the opposite direction) of life. In that regard there is duality - i.e. matter being the flipside of life. Interestingly, Louis Kahn, the noted architect, also spoke of matter as decaying light.

I believe the key to understanding the nature of life and the nature of the universe is to understand the nature of light - that which illuminates everything but itself.

I know what you mean, but I disagree. I am not in the habit of drawing boundaries round stuff. One does not need to draw an imaginary boundary round a hurricane to notice that it is real, and something different to the generality of the atmosphere. Perfectionism leads to folly yet again. This theory, by its own insistence is nothing but the wind of imagination blowing through the dust of imagination. There is necessarily nothing to it.

According to Stanford, 'Bergson says that Matter and Memory “is frankly dualistic,” since it “affirms both the reality of matter and the reality of spirit” ' https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/

You believe you are "not in the habit of drawing boundaries round stuff," whereas I believe you are unconsciously in that habit.

For example, consider a laptop. It seems like a single machine. But when you connect two laptops together via an ethernet cable we can conceptualize the "two" laptops as a single machine. The difference between seeing them as one, and seeing them as two is purely a matter imagination and convention.

For example, consider a laptop. It seems like a single machine. But when you connect two laptops together via an ethernet cable we can conceptualize the "two" laptops as a single machine. The difference between seeing them as one, and seeing them as two is purely a matter imagination and convention. — Michael Gagnon

No it isn't, it's a matter of an ethernet cable. Joining them with an imaginary cable doesn't work.

If you disagree with my point about the laptops, then I think we've reached the conclusion of our disagreement. (Y)

Yes, there is reality of matter and spirit but not dualistic. They are one and the same extending in different directions. This is very clear in his writings. One is the flip side of each other, similar to Bohm's Implicate-Explicate order.

is spirit subject to the laws of physics?

The problem with this question is what exactly are the laws of physics? If you include all of the mysterious forces that are simply measured without understanding what exactly they are, including dark energy and quantum mechanical probability waves, then there is nothing in Bergson's metaphysics that would be in conflict with physics. De Broglie wrote an essay describing how Bergson's work was prescient with regards to the development of Quantum physics. Bohm's Undivided Universe dovetails Bergson's.