It just happens. Denying scientific truths because they are too messy and chaotic or don't reveal a big reason and explanation behind everything is disturbingly close to creationism and conspiracy theories. — BlueBanana

If your curiosity ends at "It just happens", and you want to deny your own mind in favor of some constantly changing stories, (I imagine this is what is the current garden variety truths), then whom am I to suggest to you otherwise. You have no mind and "It just happens". Ok. Many believe in miracles.

The spaghetti bowl essentially explains nothing. Wiping away all of the tomato sauce meatballs, parmesan cheese, and olives, what you have left are stands of noodles all shouting out the same thing: It just happens.

So in essence you have a continuous string of miracles just happening.

What is amazing is that at once, you have this society of minds creating this magnificent story, and you have larger society of minds believing it (or having great faith in it), all last the same time time denying their own minds that are participating in it. It is truly amazing to observe from the audience.

Materialism does not allow for a mind. Only signals. Everything else is either an illusion or "just happens". The illusion just springs into existence. For me, it's a pretty odd story, created just so there is no formative, creative mind. Exactly how are all of those bits organized without a mind?

of course there are signals, in TV sets, in computers, in brains, but it is the mind that forms the image. Without the mind there are just signals. This is extremely relevant. The mind is always there to form that image.

The image is information and as that information is there, the image is there as information. — BlueBanana

There are on and off bits. How they are interpreted once they are projected into some output device, based upon some human developed program, is up to each individual mind. If one just looks at some electronic component, there is absolutely no image and again, I invite you to observe.

If the computer is the receiver, what sends the image? Nothing, it exists in the computer, just in another form. — BlueBanana

The computer sends some pixels to an output device that arranges the pixels in a manner that the programmer's mind chose. The observer's mind than looks at the representation and forms an image in the mind.

Let me assure you, because it seems you are not familiar with computer electronics, there are no images in the computer or the TV set. It is all formed in minds. Did someone tell you differently?

That form the image. With TV you had a point because the images aren't stored in the TV but they come from outside it. Why couldn't the mind, images or memories be stored in the brain as electric signals or chemicals? — BlueBanana

It is the mind that forms the image. The computer like the TV set like the brain are receiving/transmission tools, but the brain is living and this can adapt.

So if you din't know that I'll observe an answer to my question, why the advice? Could you give the answer? — BlueBanana

Results are always unpredictable. It is the nature of life that it develops differently. But, observing all the batteries of dogs, may provide some interesting insights and new ideas.

Ask those friends whether a movement of a signal in a nerve can be explained by the chemicals interacting with each other or whether there's a need for a force that isn't explained by science. — BlueBanana

My friends didn't believe in any of this but a job is a job - until you quit. Academia and research is all politics.

So, just to clarify: it's "mind" which is "the creative force that permeates the universe"? And do all living organisms have minds, or only some? — Galuchat

All life can be considered a manifestation of this creative force and one can observe the expression of this creativity in its innumerable variations. Each variation of life shares similarities and differences.

Do you have any actual first hand experience on microbiology research? Afaik we know how living organisms work and there are no gaps that élan vital would fill. — BlueBanana

I had friends who will because they could no longer stomach it. Most of their time was devoted to developing marketing pitches for fundraising purposes. Their superiors had to be paid their grand salaries for doing absolutely nothing in some way, right? Cure for cancer was always good.

If I was to continue further into the materialistic direction, I'd argue that yes there is. Look into a computer, can you see the images? No, but they're still within the computer. We already know how memories are in the brain. — BlueBanana

There are no images in a computer anywhere. Just on-off states.

How about plants? From what you've said I've gotten the picture that according to you, mind exists in all living things and parts of our body, not only brain. What is that based on? — BlueBanana

In another thread I linked to various studies regarding plant sentience. Differences and similarities.

So how do you know I'll observe a proof to your opinion? What were your observations and how do they imply that the difference in mind causes differences in evolution? — BlueBanana

I have no idea what you will observe. However, in life, developing skills in observation, curiosity, and questioning (skepticism) can be very rewarding and helpful.

I don't really bother with logic. I use observations of patterns to better understand life.

If one asks me is there a reasonable way to explain how life pops out of a salad of chemicals, I would say no and there doesn't seem to be any overriding reason why one should pursue such a line of thought since accepting mind as it explains everything quite adequate and is in conformance with every day experience. It is only when the goal (no-mind) takes precedence over actual experience (I have a mind) that things get convoluted. As usual, such goal seeking can be correlated with the availability of funding. It more or less becomes a career onto itself. There is a huge amount of economic incentive to embrace no-mind.

The creative force? It's fundamental and irreducible.

It's not any more complex than the nature it's trying to describe, which is pretty damn complex. That's because those theories are there to describe, not to explain. Any of the selected few explaining theories are very simple and neat. — BlueBanana

The problem is that science had become goal seeking, that is anything but the mind. The Church Inquisitor use to use the same tactics in order to preserve its dogma. Science no longer just observes and reports, now markets and creates theories for funding purposes. NGOs operate in the same way. This is euphemistically referred to as research bias.

And what observations should I make from them? — BlueBanana

It's what you observe, not what I observe. Everyone observes differently depending upon their history (memory).

Furthermore, this can be easily proven by opening up the TV and inspecting its parts and how they work because of how advanced our technology is. We can do the same with living organisms or cells for example. — BlueBanana

Exactly. Observe the brain. There are no images. There is no memory. There are no thoughts. There are no colors or sounds. There is no instinct for survival. Ditto for TV sets. The brain is a tool of the mind as it's the TV set, the difference being that the brain has life.

I tend to stay away from labels since labels tend to mean different things to different people. Suffice to say there is a creative force that has memory and will that is evolving as it v experiments and learns.

In other words, do plants have minds which are analogous to animal minds? — Galuchat

There are similarities in the differences and differences in the similarities. These are what we are observing. The mind travels many paths. Analogies work to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent and then we embrace the differences. Heraclitus called this life energy, the Lagos, Daoism calls it the Dao, and Bergson calls it the Elan vital. It is the creative force that permeates the universe.

One of the few things that can be considered proven is the existence of atoms and molecyles and how they interact with each other, — BlueBanana

Yes, they exist and they interact in a vast number of different ways, and they even act in a non-local manner in an unpredictable but probabilistic manner. That's just about it. Just because there are electronics interacting in a TV set does not mean that the source of the pictures is inside the electronics. In fact, such a reading of the nature of electronics would be considered strange.

The question is, what is bringing habit (probabilistic behavior) and novelty into our realm of experience. It's right there for everyone to observe, our minds.

What is spaghetti is the jumble of scientific theories of biological evolution which is continuously growing, changing, and morphing into new theories as materialistic science does everything it can to deny the mind. It's pretty extraordinary to observe what people will do for money.

Just observe the vast varieties of an species - say dogs.

As far as animal minds are concerned, they are much different from human minds. They are evolving in different directions. Bats, whales, homing pigeons, all very different. None more fiy than any other. All is constantly evolving and adapting.

The Rupert Sheldrake video I posted earlier discusses the evolution of life in a general way.

The materialistic explanation has been proven true. — BlueBanana

Well this is prima facie not the case since the materialist explanation, whatever it is, is changing all the time and is nothing more than a spaghetti bowl of ideas that are tossed about as much as finding will allow. In other words, it is an outright mess without any proof and any hope for proof. But if you are satisfied with "it" (no one can describe what "it" is), then that is your choice. Personally, I never subscribe to obvious obfuscation.

This is not all the term implies. I obviously believe in creative mind, but not its role in evolution that creative evolution gives to it. — BlueBanana

That's all it is. The mind is creatively adapting to changing circumstances, the mind operating at all instances of life. There is nothing more to the Elan vital.

Btw, I'm don't believe in the élan vital which seems pretty central so not aboard. — BlueBanana

The Elan vital (Bergson's terminology) is nothing more than the creative will that the mind exerts. This stands in contrast to the mind's memory. If you feel you have a creative element and if you feel you have the will that you can utilize to try to manifest this creativity, then that is the Elan vital. It is only what one experiences every day.

Very much possible but I can't say the same for other animals. — BlueBanana

All minds are necessarily different and are on different paths. However, dog owners certainly feel very connected to them.

True, but the evolution of biological organisms isn't the same thing as understanding life. — BlueBanana

If one ruminates over this statement one might find that understanding evolution is all about understanding life. That is why "natural selection" is sacrosanct to materialism, i.e. chemicals "naturally" come together and morph into life - and stay there. It is the greatest miracle ever told.

I agree on that but it doesn't prove I'm expressing all the creativity I could. — BlueBanana

Understanding life is not about proofs. Thousands of years of experience with this approach has gotten us no where.

We can understand life by direct self observation and observation of what is around us, feeling, intuition and a bit of detective. Observe yourself, your mind, constantly adapting to new environments. Observe how you change as you adapt (maybe you play sports?). This is creative evolution in action.

Imbuing genes with all kinds of human characteristics such surviving, reproducing, fittest, traits, etc. simply shifts the actions of the mind to gene. It doesn't explain anything. It is still the mind that is reacting to changes in the environment and adapting as best as it can.

The mind does indeed exist at all levels of life in a single body, e.g. cells, bacteria, viruses, neurons, etc. and they work in together to adapt. This is why I practice music, Tai Chi, Qigong, sports, etc. It trains my body to work in unity so it can adapt. In sports, it makes one a better player. In health it makes one more capable to resist and to heal.

It is unfortunate, but creativity is suppressed both inside and outside of the educational system. Industry wants lemmings and the educational system prepares students to be as such, even in the arts. However, for those who develop their creative spirit, there are many rewards.

of course there is no such thing as absolute fitness. There are as many ways for life to adapt as a creative mind allows. The fitness theory quickly morphs into a creative evolution theory once one is forced to confront what is actually happening. In educational institutions there is no arguing over the text.

A field that is being researched with interesting findings:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-green-mind/201412/are-plants-entering-the-realm-the-sentient

I wonder how this affects veganism?

That's it. It's detective work. The practical effects for yourself and your loved ones are enormous. It's called creative evolution.

Great philosophers are foremost curious, resorceful, and creative.

Then why the wombat? — MikeL

Or the tens of thousands other forms of life? Natural selection is a big fail which is why scientific evolutionary theory is a hodgepodge of theories which is ever growing and evolving. A better approach would be to simply acknowledge a non-material creative mind that is continuously adapting within constraints. Of course, the brick wall is that it is non-material.

One other aspect of the science industry that is relevant to understand. The industry is self-selecting. There are dogmas, just as in religion (Sheldrake wasn't being simply metaphorical in his video), and if someone does not have complete faith in the dogmas, they can't find a career in the industry. You wouldn't expect to find someone who doesn't believe in Jesus in the Catholic Church would you?

BTW, I admire your curiosity about philosophical and scientific inquiry. It is rare.

A good experimenter will creatively design experiments that transcend human biases. Plants, for example, are sensitive. Bacteria, like cockroaches and viruses, are quite adaptive in their own way. The mind can be quite creative in all manner.

So, you don't disagree with what I said. — TheMadFool

I thought I did? In the future, I'll be more explicit.

The kangaroo, for some reason, must be the fittest possibility for this to happen — BlueBanana

This is how goal oriented science operates. First the desired conclusion and then "it happens" to fulfill the conclusion. Zero rigor. This is why we need more philosophers like Bergson to challenge what has become a money seeking industry.

But it was all good. Science is still rigorous, — MikeL

Study the field and what is really going on vs. what you might have been taught. You are in for a big surprise. Prepare for illusions to be shattered. It is rampant and manifests in all sorts of ways including funding biases, experimenter biases, publication biases, and inability to replicate results under most situations. You are currently operating under the science illusion. Anyone who studies the field knows about this but won't say anything. Science protects its own just like all other professions. There is no rigor.

Hardly. Science is no different than the financial industry. Money pollutes and attracts those who are willing to say and do anything for money. When $trillions are involved, there are plenty of takers. Know anyone like this? I know tons. Just the latest.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/09/opioid-crisis-responsibility-profits/538938/

https://merryjane.com/news/insys-therapeutics-charged-with-deceptive-practices-in-opioid-scandal

Materialism is fundamental to these drug scandals. The industry needs to propagate the myth that chemicals are beautiful things because that is all humans are. They just find people who are willing to take money to create appropriate myths. Cigarette makers use to do it all the time.

Science is a money making industry. There actually may be something interesting out there but no way is anyone going to hear about it. It will be BANNED.

The point is scientists can be extremely creative when marketing new ideas for funding. They are great spinners of tales. Modern day troubadors. The industry is polluted with fairy tales woven to create big businesses. I use to hear similar whoppers in the technology industry. Silicon Valley was all weaving tales.

Yeah, it is regulated by money and dogma which puts it well within the sphere of religion.

More money begaths more theories. A Genesisl story of a different sort.