I take your point Rich, but I take the opposite view. I don't like to use the word consciousness because it is a neat little bag we don't need to open - a quanta of life. I am ready to resign myself to that position if I can't open the bag, but I'm not there yet. — MikeL

What do you think is thinking? Do you ever spend any time observing your mind at work? Right now it is trying to figure out how to bring chemicals to life. I guess it is a way of killing time.

a force innate within the atoms. Perhaps this also needs more thorough investigating. — MikeL

It's called consciousness.

No materialist paper has ever been written about consciousness without injecting consciousness into matter. Look for one that describes consciousness using equations and only equations. Or better yet, an actual laboratory experiment that demonstrates the chemical recipe for consciousness. None exist. All you have are lots of words describing chemicals as though they were little human beings. That is the extent of the materialism description of consciousness. Lots and lots of new, 10 syllable words.

You are asking about how the pieces came together in the assembly line. I have no idea whatsoever. We know they are together though. — MikeL

More than this, I am asking how they (the chemicals) got the notion that they have function?

I know you understand the notion of function because you have a mind. I know how the chemicals in your story began to have functions, because your mind have it to them. The flight of fantasy is when chemicals out of no where understand the concept of function.

Your story, is the story if all of materialism: All you need are words to describe chemical reactions as if they are little human minds, the classic one being the "selfish gene". Notice, in the research paper I linked to, consciousness is fundamental. In doing this, the author doesn't have to fake it as materialists do.

Since when does a tube of chemicals view themselves as having a function?

Agreed, that the idea is very simple and simplistic. Chemicals are coming to life and are working together each with its on functions. It's just assembly line of little humans. This is not a bridge. It is a giant leap of fantasy. I believe this is called anthropomorphism. In your story, you are bringing chemicals to life, step, by step simply by attributing aspects of consciousness to chemicals. It's simple because all you need are nouns, adjectives and verbs.

For those who are interested:

https://www.academia.edu/3848148/Holoinformational_Consciousness_An_Extension_of_Interactive_Dualism_with_Anticipatory_Parameters


Taking yet in consideration the basic mathematical property of holographic systems in which the information of the whole system is distributed in each part of the system, plus Bohm’s holographic quantum physics data, and the experimental data of the holonomic theory of Pribram, we propose that this universal interconnectedness could permit us to access all the information [35-37] codified in the wave interference patterns existing in all the universe since its origin. The quantum-holoinformational nature of the universe interconnects each part, each brain-consciousness, with all the information stored in the holographic patterns distributed in the whole cosmos, in an indivisible irreducible informational cosmic unity [38-40].As a consciousness exercise, analogous to Einstein’s thought experiments, we could compare this universal informational interconnectedness with the following metaphoric quotations from various spiritual traditions:
As above so below (Alchemy).
All that is outside is inside (Upanishads).
The father is inside us (Christianity)
. As in the earth so in the heavens (Christianity).

This universal interconnectedness could be perfectly understood as a Cosmic Holographic Consciousness.

https://youtu.be/HnETCBOlzJs

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2017/01/holographic-universe.page

"Professor Kostas Skenderis of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Southampton explains: “Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded!”

https://www.sciencealert.com/this-might-be-the-first-observational-evidence-that-our-early-universe-was-a-hologram

"So like a 3D hologram projected from a two-dimensional screen, the hypothesis states that the three dimensions of our Universe were projected from a two-dimensional boundary.

Since 1997, more than 10,000 papers have been published supporting the idea, so it’s a lot less crazy than it sounds.

Now Afshordi and his team report that after investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background - the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang - they’ve found strong evidence to support a holographic explanation of the early Universe.

"Imagine that everything you see, feel, and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field," says one of the team, Kostas Skenderis from the University of Southampton in the UK.

"The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms, where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire Universe is encoded."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130083231.htm

"A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram. Theoretical physicists and astrophysicists, investigating irregularities in the cosmic microwave background (the 'afterglow' of the Big Bang), have found there is substantial evidence supporting a holographic explanation of the universe -- in fact, as much as there is for the traditional explanation of these irregularities using the theory of cosmic inflation."

http://m.nautil.us/blog/new-evidence-for-the-strange-idea-that-the-universe-is-a-hologram

"In their paper, published last month in Physical Review Letters, the team report the holographic model fitting the Planck satellite data slightly better than the standard model. The results don’t prove the universe is holographic, but they are consistent with a holographic model."

but rather shine a light on the unity so we can understand it in a new fascinating way. — MikeL

Yes, but if you wish to be creative, then you have to be creative - and very patient. Creativity takes time. In a way replacing one word with 10,000 words and then inviting people to find mind within that morass is creative - by the people who are doing the seeking.

Bergson had an enormous intuition which took him many decades to develop and from that came some fascinating new ways to look at the creative mind. That is creativity.

Yes there are constraints. It adds problem solving and interest to life.

Dreams have no constraints.

Not a phrase, an explanation that unites. — MikeL

There is nothing to unite. It is a unity. Matter can be considered decayed mind. Mind is fundamental.

There are many interesting things to discover in the world, mind isn't one of them. You can hide mind away if you wish can and then look for it, but after awhile it gets too repetitive and boring. That is why chess was created.

Discovering music, dance, etc. may be far more interesting. Still, hide and seek is also a nice game.

No need to think of it as entrapment. All living things (minds), at various levels or layers, are cooperating in the evolution of the mind (universe).

there is function/purpose beyond the atoms. — MikeL

Yes, there the the mind. Don't allow yourself to be conditioned not to use it. :)

he next hurdle after semiotics is explaining intentionality. — MikeL

There is really no hurdle, it is simply the mind. The only hurdle is trying to come up with a phrase that replaces the word mind, and then of course hiding it in thousands of words of meaningless sentences. Just use the word, and simplify your life. Or you can play the game of hide and seek. It's up to you. I'm a pretty straightforward guy when it comes to life.

Not clear on this idea. Can you elaborate?

o, when you suggest not a back door, do you mean no door or front door? — MikeL

Yes. It is all mind.

It is important to understand the process of being accepted and getting ahead in academia - no mind! For this reason, rather strange and esoteric concepts such as operant conditioning, semiotics, etc. are introduced by researchers, so as to avoid the use of the word mind. As I said elsewhere, it is a game of hide and seek. Mind is always there, but the word is verboten. If you use it, then no tenure! In academic research materialism = career. Unless you are seeking some tenured position or some acceptance by materialist, feel free to use mind whenever it seems appropriate. After all, it is us.

Is that your definition of mind, Rich? How would you describe mind in your own words? — MikeL

Mind is the active force of the universe that is observing, creating, learning and evolving.

I don't put any stock into claims that theories have been discredited. I like to see what works. A behaviouralist approach to physchology has many merits and may be a back door into mind — MikeL

It is not a back door. Quite simply, it is teaching the cellular minds and the bigger minds (Sheldrake's moronic resonance forms) new habits or new ways of seeing things. It requires lots of patience and repetition to change habits (which is one way to look at philosophical inquiry). If there is a fundamental problem with Skinner's approach is that it makes it to mechanical and goal oriented. Change takes creativity and patience, after all there are lots of cells that need to learn something new and work together in a new way. Athletes will attest to this.

Also, feel free to drop semiotics whenever you get bored with it. It is just a little mind dressed up with a new name.

I have always struggled with motivation, and I've never really had many people to open up to, so it lead me on long sessions of introspection, and here is what I found. — Eric Wintjen

Everyone has challenges in their lives of different sorts. All are unique to the individual's evolving self. There are no shortcuts. Everything takes time to learn.

You have a particular challenge. You have to do figure it out. No one else can. But you can ask for some ideas, and since you asked, I'll share with you this idea. Find something new in the arts that might like to do. Maybe dancing, drawing, music, singing, whatever, and begin to study it for your own enjoyment. Or you can read literature, write poetry, adopt a new hobby like poetry or cooking or play a new sport.

Do just a little every day. Just a little and gradually do more and more. Step by step. It may be a lifetime learning process, but slowly you may learn too enjoy things on your own for yourself. Have patience.

! Your welcome.

Yes, that is what I replied. It is your own mind that you are calling God. The label is not that important though each entail certain attributes, such as God being thought of as external.

But how can you stand by the claim that the imagined house and built house are of equal realness? — MikeL

Real yes, but not the same. One is certainly more substantial than the other. This is the direction of creativity. First we imagine it (it is real), and then we might physically (greater substantiality) create it. Substantiality is imbedded in the field which we feel as more solid.

the brain constructs a hologram of it — MikeL

No, it is embedded in the field, not outside of it. You might even say it is it. You can may visualize it as a wave traveling through water. The brain would be a construct of the mind, embedded in the field (an energy wave) that is receiving/transmitting information.

It can transmit memories and ideas (from where?) into 'it'. — MikeL

Yes, we are all embedded in it and receiving/transferring information by the changes in the wave forms.

I can build a house in the field, or I can imagine a house in the field - both are projections and both are equally real? — MikeL

Yes.

Projecting memories into the public matter field. Can you read my memories if I stare at a tree and then you stare at the same tree? I don't get it. — MikeL

The universal memory field is all equal but require different reconstructive waves to see it. The brain filters. But, there are twins (and sometimes others) who claim that they can feel the personal memory forms of their twins. This model opens up new possibilities of new types of sensory patterns.

Does it suggest the memory is out there too and anybody can read it? — MikeL

Everything is out there and it all can be considered memory stored in the fabric of the universe. You b just have to think of memory differently, not stored in the brain. When you build something, you are creating something as memory in the universe.

I have not problem with the brain being a receiver (not sure of the context of it being a transmitter though - of ideas maybe?) — MikeL

Yes. Now you are beginning to see it. You have to completely flip the role of the brain to begin too understand the model.

hologram is created inside our head, of out there. — MikeL

It's all out there, embedded in the universe (consider it a Continuum). In one of Robbin's early videos he provides some images of this process.

They lose me here. Can you explain the significance of invoking a hologram to read the wavefields of matter? — MikeL

The key points are:

1) The field is real and is out there. There is nothing in the brain.

2) The brain is a transmitter/receiver. It reveals elements of the holographic field by issuing a very specific reconstructive wave. One can theorize that there are different waves being constructed for personal memory fields and public, shared memory fields.

3) The fields are persistent. They change but they do not go away.

The brain is transmitter/receiver like a TV set (Sheldrake uses the same analogy), it is not a computer. Everything is already constructed out there, as with TV transmissions. The mind perceives the holographic field out there (not in here) and understands it. We are essentially looking at a moving picture.

How does Relativity address that question — MikeL

Relativity is only about transformation of measurements between frames of reference. It v should not be given any ontological significance. My b recommendation is to just forget about it and solely look too Bohm's QM as a reference model.

Bergson, Robbins, and myself are pretty much on the money. Apparently you do not understand the references provided. Exactly what what was being proposed as a holographic model of the universe. I'll fill this page with references and I'm bookmaking them for future replies.

Yes, everything is a difference in vibration. Not too far from string theory. The question it's how does the mind distinguish vibrations into various senses. For now, it is necessary to consider it fundamental.

But it's not really necessary because it just emerges as random chance. And that's all nonsense, because as I say, you have it backwards.
— Metaphysician Undercover

Good job, Metaphysician Undercover — schopenhauer1

Once the act is exposed, the magician will never acquiesce. After all magic is his livelihood. It is up to the audience to shake its head and walk away knowing it was only an act of magic.

Besides death, one can be sure of one thing in life, that before death there was life. This, above all else, one can depend. It shall never be otherwise.

I read this as magic. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is. The secret sauce of the recipe is buried in 10,000 words hoping that no one will find it or notice. Everything single research paper supporting materialism follows the same recipe. Thousands of words with one magic one - Abracadabra.

Poor fool, I would tell him, that curvature is just a quamtum holographic projection of your own mind field. You can live in your reality and I'll live in mine. — apokrisis

https://resonance.is/observational-tests-holographic-cosmology/

"Quantum gravity offers such new physics unifying the cosmological and quantum scales and providing a complete model of our universe. However, although a consistent and validated model has yet to be agreed upon, it is expected to be holographic – that is the information of a volume of space is encoded on a boundary surface – as suggested by Nassim Haramein’s theory of quantum gravity, although the boundary surface is not regarded as literally 2-dimensional as it is comprised of 3D spherical planck oscillators. Now for the first time a team of scientist’s present observational proof that the Universe could well be holographic."


http://phys.org/news/2017-01-reveals-substantial-evidence-holographic-universe.html

"A UK, Canadian and Italian study has provided what researchers believe is the first observational evidence that our universe could be a vast and complex hologram."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.06236

"We show that the holographic principle can be understood heuristically as originated from quantum fluctuations of spacetime."

http://www.swansea.ac.uk/physics/researchgroups/particlephysicsandcosmologytheorygroup/holographyandphysicsbeyondthestandardmodel/

"Recently, the group began to apply the ideas of holography also to the construction of viable models of inflationary cosmology."

Are we a living example of a product designed by the universe over billions of years, are we the end result of universal design, with predetermined life spans. — Andrew

What we are observing it's exactly, precisely what we observe in every day existence: we are creative minds that are exploring, making choices, introducing novelty and learning from our experiments. We are Minds evolving together as duration unfolds.

In summary, we can define God as a Creative or building force innate within us all, — MikeL

No reason you can't use the word God, but you might as well just call it Mind, after all it is your mind and all of our minds that are doing it all, so might as well take credit for it. It was your mind that created the post. We are all basically that creative impulse.

That is what I meant that cosmology is metaphysics with mathematical formulas, and that is what I think Rich means when we say we should beware to give ontological values to RT and QM — Hachem

This was the essential object that Bergson had to Relativity. Robbins raises the same objection.

It is one thing to say that the equations are useful. It is quite another to elevate the equations to an ontology.

There it goes. I'm confused. OK. I'm OK with that. As I said, I invite others to investigate and come to their own conclusions.

Beware, as Bergson warned, do not give Relativity and any of its implications, ontological status.

Are you doing this on purpose?! Do all books on Newton's theories have to be dropped out of the library because his theory has been replaced by GR?! — Agustino

All of the implications of Newton's theories contradict SR. You can't say there is a preferred frame a reference (Newton), then say there isn't (SR), and then say there is (GR). You can't say nothing can move faster than light and then say whole galaxies can. Actually, you can, because that is exactly what Relativists are doing.

It is a mess.

I say drop SR and all of its implications including no preferred frame of reference.

non-accelerating reference frames. — Agustino

Exactly how many areas of the universe are without gravitational space-time?

Really, must we go through this?

SR has been dropped when GR has been adopted. — Agustino

Whoops! All those books on SR need to be pulled from the library shelves immediately. This can be a PR nightmare. What should we do about the millions of references on the Internet?

— Rich
That 'contradiction' was resolved by GR. That's why GR was invented. — Agustino

I suggest then that SR be completely dropped and all that it implies. That will really eliminate the contradictions!

I can confirm this attitude in Physics forums. They are very good at regurgitating textbook knowledge and abhor critical questions. I have even been banned just for daring claim that Optics is not necessarily correct. My confidence in critical thinking among scientists, whether forum users or academics, is very low. — Hachem

At some point in ones life one must decide to say the "heck with it". It is a confused morass of ideas and opinions and it is better just to ignore and move on. Anyone interested in the subject is invited to investigate on their own. Who better to demonstrate nasal if the contradictions than the physicists themselves.