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

Brute fact alert!

Alright, Rich, how do you account for there being a human species on the Earth?

Morphogenic fields and morphogenic resonance? The out-of-body holographic repository?

Those are the brute-facts.

That more successful attributes would increase their occurrence in a population because more successful individuals more often survive long enough to reproduce is just obvious.

Its nothing other than what one would expect to happen.

It would be surprising if it didn't happen. Then there would be something needing explanation.

Michael Ossipoff

That's a question for any evolution-denier.

Michael Ossipoff

Alright, Rich, how do you account for there being a human species on the Earth? — Michael Ossipoff

The creative mind experimenting, learning, and evolving. No need to bring in supernatural forces. It is our minds.

Actually, I don't think you have written one post that isn't chock full of brute facts, but I could be wrong.

"Alright, Rich, how do you account for there being a human species on the Earth?" — Michael Ossipoff

The creative mind experimenting, learning, and evolving. No need to bring in supernatural forces. It is our minds. — Rich

So the mind of some one-celled organism decided to make it procreate a more complex organism...in a sequence of organisms whose minds decided to procreate a still more complex organism, ultimately resulting in a nonhuman primate deciding to procreate a human?

Do you believe in some as-yet unknown biological mechanism by which an organism can decide to, and know and decide how to, and have a way to, give birth to a more advanced organism--and be motivated to do so?

And what about the organic compounds that, by whatever mechanism, somehow gave rise to the first life--Did those organic compounds have minds too, and decide to create life?

Michael Ossipoff

So the mind of some one-celled organism decided to make it procreate a more complex organism.. — Michael Ossipoff

I wouldn't call it an organism. It was the mind (The Dao) that began the process. Pretty straightforward Daoism.

The One (Mind) created Two (Yin/Yang, polarity, standing wave)

The Two created Three (Qi, energy, moving wave)

And from the Three (moving waves) everything else was created.

Got hand it to the Daoists for some extraordinary observational skills thousands of years ago.

It all begins with the Mind (Dao).

No, you're saying more than that. According to your belief, no only did the mind start that process of evolution of ever more complex life-forms, but it has continued intervening, to on-goingly shape them into more complex forms that are better suited to survival in their environments.

I'm not an Atheist, and I don't criticize your belief in a Creator, though I personally don't regard God as an element of metaphysics, as you do. You're using God metaphysically, as the explanation for what is, as, of course,do many others.

I claim (starting with my initial post at these forums) that all that "is", is systems of inter-referring abstract facts and hypotheticals, including mathematical theorems, abstract logical facts, hypothetical quantity-relational facts called "laws of physics", hypothetical quantities that, as the subjects of those physical laws, are part of them, and various if-then facts involving those hypotheticals.

And there's no need to explain why there is that. Such hypotheticals couldn't have not been, for reasons that I've discussed (I'll repeat it if you like). You can call it a "brute fact", but an inevitable fact isn't brute.

For that reason, you needn't use God or Dao as an element of metaphysics (as the creator of what is).

I don't agree with your belief, but I don't criticize it.

Michael Ossipoff

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, but with that said you have no idea what I'm talking about so I guess we are even.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, but with that said you have no idea what I'm talking about so I guess we are even. — Rich

The difference is that I've told specifically what I find wrong with what you say. ...whereas you just make vague generalizations like the above-quoted one.

Another difference is that I've made an effort to justify my proposals and other statements.

I asked you why there is the out-of-bodies (extra-spatial too?) distributed holographic memory-repository that you believe in.

You didn't answer.

...because you didn't want to admit that you believe in and advocate a brute-fact.

So, can you answer that question now, or do you continue to evade it?

Michael Ossipoff

The difference is that I've told specifically what I find wrong with what you say. ...whereas you just make vague generalizations like the above-quoted one. — Michael Ossipoff

As best as I can tell, you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Duplicate

As best as I can tell, you have no idea what I'm talking about. — Rich

Yes, you already said that, and I answered it.

Or are you saying that you also don't understand the question:

"Why is there the un-embodied holographic memory-repository that you believe in?"

Which part of that question don't you understand?

As I mentioned, I suggest that you don't answer it because you don't want to admit that you believe in and advocate a brute-fact.

Michael Ossipoff

As best as I can tell, you have no idea what I'm talking about. — Rich

But yes, you're right about that.

Michael Ossipoff

One more comment:

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about — Rich

You brought up religion, your belief in a Creator. I answered about religion, basically stating something that i didn't agree with you about.

I said that your use of Dao amounts to a use of God to explain the creation of what is. ...and that I don't.

if that's what you don't understand, that's ok.

I said that I don't regard God as an element of metaphysics.

Ok, I can't say that I expected you to understand exactly what I was talking about. My object wasn't to convey religious understanding, but only to say something about where I disagree with you--without expecting you to understand the specifics,

Suffice to say that you 're using Dao or God metaphysicallly, as the Creator of what is. I don't.

No, of course, don't expect to understand other people's statements about religion. I didn't mention it with that purpose.

Oh, and by the way:

Why is there that un-embodied holographic universal memory-repository that you believe in?

Or do you not understand that either?

If not, then, as I already just asked: Which part of that question don't you understan?

Michael Ossipoff

Give it up Michael. There it's no communication here.

Well, I asked a simple enough question. I'll repeat it:

Why is there the un-embodied holographic universal memory-repository that you believe in?

Which part of that question don't you understand?

Your refusal to answer indicates that you can't explain that entity that you believe in and advocate, and that you believe in and advocate a brute-fact.

Therefore, your refusal to answer is, itself, an answer.

Thank you for that answer.

Michael Ossipoff

Look, you don't know what I'm talking about, you create your own description and put it in my mouth, and then want me to explain your concoction as if I said it. When did you stop beating your wife?

Very, very brief description.

Mind is quanta. The universe is quanta. Memory is mind/quanta in holographic form. Mind is evolving by creative experimentation and learning.

Very, very brief description.

Mind is quanta. The universe is quanta. Memory is quanta in holographic form. Mind is evolving by creative experimentation and learning. — Rich

Why are there the quanta that compose the mind, the universe?

Michael Ossipoff

Quanta is mind, or more specifically Bohm's quantum potential is mind. It is guiding and doing everything. Memory is mind stored holographically. The brain reconstructs memory it does not store it?

https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ

Why is there Bohm's quantum potential?

Michael Ossipoff

You are asking why it's there Mind? Mind is the beginning and still exists and easy to find in all of us.

You are asking why it's there Mind? Mind it's the beginning and still exists and easy to find in all of us. — Rich

I'm not denying that it exists, or asking you to prove that it exists. I'm asking you why the Bohm quantum potential exists.

You'll say you don't know what I'm talking about, so i won't repeat it, but I've spoken of the primacy of the Protagonist of life-experience possibility-stories.

Be clear about this (!!): I'm not asking you to understand what I'm talking about in that paragraph before this one.. I'm just mentioning that I, myself, have spoken of the primacy of the experiencer.

But (with the understanding that I'm not asking you for proof of the mind's existence), why is there the Bohm quantum potential?

Skepticism doesn't leave the question of "Why is there mind?" ...or any "Why" question..

Michael Ossipoff

Mind=Quantum Potential

So quantum potential is explained if there's Mind.

You could say, "There's Mind, the Experiencer, because Reality wouldn't be meaningful to speak of without an Experiencer.

So, as I understand you, you're saying that it comes down to "Me" as the brute-fact.

I used to say that, when I was arguing for Advaita.

But Skepticism goes one better, and doesn't leave any "Why is there..." question unanswered.

Yes, as brute-facts go, "Me" is the most justifiable brute-fact. ...in a class by itself, in that regard..

But Skepticism goes one better, and doesn't leave any "Why is there..." question unanswered.

Even "Me" needn't be posited as a brute-fact. "Me" goes with other facts that are self-evident and inevitable, in Skepticism.

"Me" fits in with those inevitable facts (the system of hypotheticals described in other postings). In fact "Me" is primary to the other elements of a life-experience story, because the Protagonist is the essential and central component of such a story.

But, as "Me" fits in with that inevitable system, it isn't necessary to say that "Me' is brute.

That's neater..

Let me guess: You don't know what I'm talking about.

Then just understand that I recognize some acceptability of declaring "Me" as a brute-fact, though it isn't necessary to say that in Skepticism.

Michael Ossipoff

I'm not trying to create a philosophical system. I'm trying to explore the nature of nature wherever it leads me. We have different motivations.

So far, it seems that it one starts with mind as being fundamental it explains a lot, and if we view memory as a holographic remnant of mind, it explains even more. The prerequisite it's to allow for mind before matter.

Andrew4Handel, what is learning? Isn't learning mentally/behaviorally adapting to your environment? Doesn't having a mind allow you to adapt much more rapidly to rapid changes in the environment as opposed to adapting your body, which can take generations? Even Darwin understood the implication evolution by natural selection has on the mind. — Harry Hindu

I though I said this earlier. Determinism is a popular position in academia where the mind is seen as almost irrelevant and consciousness epiphenomenal.

You don't seem to get the point that something being beneficial does not explain how it arose. We seem to be on different pages.

I am not sure what you are saying here. The mind can be beneficial in a million ways (as well as a curse) What is missing is a causal explanation for the emergence of minds/self/sensation etc.

Before something can be "selected" as a a persistent trait it has to come to exist. We don't know of any other planets where the conditions exist for life to exist. Our planet has the right disposition for the masses of life forms it contains. These dispositions are physical and biochemical or otherwise but they have to prexist evolution. A planet with mainly hydrogen on it like Saturn is not going to see the emergence of life soon.

So consciousness can only come to exist if their is prexisting disposition for it. It is like a recipe book where you have to use specific ingredients to create the correct dish.

I am unclear what selection is supposed to explain except trivially pointing out that X survived because it was advantageous in some form. It is easy to give reasons why something might persist but these are not law like reasons for X's begining to exist. Human inventions either persist or don't based on their utility but that does not describe the invention process.

I'm not trying to create a philosophical system. I'm trying to explore the nature of nature wherever it leads me. We have different motivations. — Rich

Yes, I was talking about metaphysics. We don't disagree because, as you said, we're talking about different matters.

So far, it seems that it one starts with mind as being fundamental it explains a lot [...] The prerequisite is to allow for mind before matter.

"Me" as fundamental would make a lot more sense than matter as fundamental.

I'm close to saying that, when I say that "Me", the Protagonist is primary and central to a life-experience possibility-story."

"Me" is primary in my life-experience story, but, additionally "Me" and my world are part complementary to eachother, like the heads and tails sides of a coin. ...together comprising a system that is inevitable, for a metaphysics with no unanswered "Why is there..." question. No brute fact at all.

(...but I'm still the central, special, essential, primary component of my life-experience possibility-story)

But if you aren't proposing a metaphysics, then we have no disagreement.

Michael Ossipoff

We are saying the same thing, but for different purpose. My motivation is inquiry in nature and opposed to a construction of a metaphysical model. So we can leave it at that. Thanks for the discussion.

I though I said this earlier. Determinism is a popular position in academia where the mind is seen as almost irrelevant and consciousness epiphenomenal. — Andrew4Handel

And you still haven't watched the first video I posted a link to in this forum. Tooby emphasizes at the end of the video:
"One difference between the blank slate approach is that the basic model of human dignity is you're clay - you are passively acted on by the outside world - whereas an evolutionary psychology model the person, in a really strong sense, is inventing themselves, instead of just downloading the environment and becoming what you're told to be.

And also in prosperous societies with lots of choices you get this amazing fluorescence in which people get together in groups and they very creatively construct a lot of rich, diverse ways in which individuals find themselves and build their identity. That's a very different world-view than the "we are passive and empty receptacles" at first, or that everything is fixed. That's the thing that people fear. What's fixed is the design of the programs but the programs are themselves designed to be very flexible.

You don't seem to get the point that something being beneficial does not explain how it arose. We seem to be on different pages.

I am not sure what you are saying here. The mind can be beneficial in a million ways (as well as a curse) What is missing is a causal explanation for the emergence of minds/self/sensation etc.

Before something can be "selected" as a a persistent trait it has to come to exist. We don't know of any other planets where the conditions exist for life to exist. Our planet has the right disposition for the masses of life forms it contains. These dispositions are physical and biochemical or otherwise but they have to prexist evolution. A planet with mainly hydrogen on it like Saturn is not going to see the emergence of life soon.

So consciousness can only come to exist if their is prexisting disposition for it. It is like a recipe book where you have to use specific ingredients to create the correct dish.

I am unclear what selection is supposed to explain except trivially pointing out that X survived because it was advantageous in some form. It is easy to give reasons why something might persist but these are not law like reasons for X's begining to exist. Human inventions either persist or don't based on their utility but that does not describe the invention process. — Andrew4Handel

And I've already addressed this but you are insistent on skipping posts, not reading them, etc. The mind is what the brain does. When selections pressures produced a brain, they produced the mind. Not every organism has a brain, and the brain was an organ that evolved later from the primitive nervous systems of primitive organisms. The brain is where all the sensory information comes together into a consistent whole of one experience - where the brain can use the different signals from each sensory organ to create a fault-tolerant experience where one sense confirms what another is telling it. Another problem that you have that is finding it's way into your model is your dualism. The mind/body problem is the result of a false dichotomy.