The best that I can reply, is like a TV tuner, reception can be complete distorted (as in an advanced state of Alzheimer's or partially distorted. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It is my understanding that holography behaves in a similar manner. I have limited holographic knowledge so I might investigate your question further. It certainly deserves further thought and investigation.

If the brain is reconstructing memory with a specific wave then damage to the brain caused by toxins which the brain becomes less and less capable of dealing with (e.g. foreign chemicals or drugs) will disrupt the brain's ability to correctly construct the wave. This would be analagous to damage to the TV tuning function.

No, thank you!

I believe that a philosophical forum should be a place where minds young and old should feel at ease in expressing new ideas. Something fresh and exciting. I'm hear to listen and learn.

I believe, the idea that we have to convince others of the truth is a misrepresentation of philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was careful to say academic philosophy for a reason. Certainly there are many ways to approach philosophy without concern to truths but rather with the idea that there is much to learn.

It was via online philosophy forums that I was introduced to Bergson, Whitehead, Sheldrake, and Robbins. If there are new ideas about the nature of the soul, I would love to hear them.

I've been trying to explain to John Harris that this is nothing more than prejudice, without any progress. — Metaphysician Undercover

So then question arises, what is the point?

To learn means to be open to new ideas. Some will learn more than others in this lifetime and others may learn in future lifetimes. There is no rush. We are all different. The problem with academic Western Philosophy (there are economic reasons), is that its whole premise is that there is a truth, and we have to convince others of the truth. This is the raison d'etre for academic Western Philosophy.

I take a different approach (which is why I received an A and not an A+ in my college philosophy courses). I study philosophy to learn not to teach.

Are you a physical being? — Anonymys

I guess this is the crux of the question for anyone interested in exploring who they are.

When I touch myself, I feel something solid. But physics tells us they we are not solid, but empty. That there are no boundaries anywhere. So how does the transformation from the insubstantial to the substantial take place? There is no explanation.

Further exploration reveals that we are fundamentally qualia: memories of emotions, images, feelings, thoughts, ideas. These are all insubstantial. There is nothing substantial there. Again, no explanation.

And even more inviting to exploration is the rather interesting changes of states that we go through during a given day, from awake, to contemplation, to daydreaming, to sleep. Where or what is the impetus for the becoming and transitions into these states, which feel completely different?

Because of all this, I have taken the position that we are fundamentally memory with will and creative drive that is imbued with qualia. All of this appears to be fundamental and irreducible. And if this is so, then we are not physical/solid subject to dissolution but rather some form of energy that appears to persist in some form that cycles between sleep/awake, and through these cycles we evolve.

Anyone wish to discuss their notion of a soul? Mine, simply put, is persistent memory, analogous too a hologram where the hologram represents the basic fabric of the universe.

My reasoning is such:

If persistence of a life is known via memory of oneself (as well as memory of others) over a duration, then similar persistent memory might provide evidence of a persistent "soul".

Hence, the evidence that inherited traits, innate skills, unusual talents (e.g. child prodigies, idiot savants, as well as any advanced talent) might provide evidence of this persistent soulful memory. How would such soulful memory persist? In exactly the same way as any memory persists.

Memory is very natural, not measurable, but integral too everyone's inner experience of life.

I have evidence of persistent memory.

Can you please have a heart to heart with your Laws of Nature and tell them that my Laws of Nature and suggest to them that it is still to try to change anything that is determined by itself. Such a conversation may reveal to yourself how preposterous is your metaphysics.

On the other hand, I am presenting real mind, real memory, real evidence of persistent memory without resorting to some supernatural God-like forces that take over us and determine everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen - including your dogmatic, religious-like belief in such forces.

Now, exactly why are you trying to change anyone's mind if it is what the Natural Laws dictate? Are you going to tell me it is because the Natural Laws that you worship wishes you to do so? Did you ever ask your professors what Natural Laws create disagreement?

So then you talk to your disembodied, distributed, Sheldrake morphogenic, holographic, quantum Mind-repository. — Michael Ossipoff

The mind creates the body. It is one and the same.

I don't criticize you. I only criticize your predispositions — Michael Ossipoff

Please take up all of your criticisms with the Natural Laws (God) that is determining everything.

It is for me. Life with persistent memory. There is evidence of this.

[reply="Jempire;d1825" Sorry to hear about the difficult issues you are facing in your life. I would recommend involving yourself with some art or martial art that nourishes the soul. Reading does not have the same affect.

I agree. One shouldn't rely on consensus building in his/her own exploration in life. One explores and shares with the skills they were born with (memory of the past) and nourished (evolving memory).

That's how you become rich. You do what the money wants you to do and you don't lose your head doing it. Descartes walked the line quite nicely.

It's tough finding really original and forward thinking works of people. Such people are quickly marginalized, ostracized, and banished.

Certainly, Chomsky should be quite familiar with how academia, religion, and other economic forces sell to direct and enforce ideas for their own benefit. He had been subject to much of these forces as was Descartes. Philosophical ideas are embraced and promoted by big money when it serves it's purposes.

While physicalism had been pretty much destroyed by quantum physics you wouldn't know it from standard academic curriculum.

There is nothing random nor determined in our lives. It is probabilistic.

We have memories (including habits) that affect our choices and there are other constraints and forces that affect our choices, but ultimately we make choices and observe what happens. We make constrained movements, our choices, via will. Up, down, left, right, inward, outward. These choices are the creative aspects of our lives and we are continuously exploring and learning from these choices. This is the essence of life.

Just pointing out how silly the dogma of Natural Laws and Illusions may be, which is just about all that science has to offer. As for myself, I am discarding such a silly metaphysics and instead exploring the nature and persistence of the inner experience of life that Bergson refers to as Memory.

Yes, I would agree. We begin my observing some regularity or habitual event of some sort (the ALL) that has been:

1) Experienced by us and others. (The belief).
2) Reached some consensus in a population (the brief that is regarded as a fact).

And then attempt to apply this regularity to some problem.

No evidence? I have life and I have qualia (my inner experience if life) and I have memory and I have innate, inborn skills and traits. Now, given that the Laws of Nature (God) are forcing me to pursue this exploration in my life, exactly what is the purpose of the Laws of Nature (your own personal God) in trying to convince me otherwise. Why don't you ruminate over your own preposterous philosophy?

Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities. — John Harris

Since when? It is required for conversation with you. You cannot impose your own, freely chosen restrictions on thought on others. Thankfully, I've left the school system which is basically all that it tries to do.

I don't believe in the supernatural Laws of Nature that is guiding me and forcing me to do things in life. I also don't impose my dogma on others. I am a person who is exploring the inner experience of life. Unfortunately, your Laws of Nature doesn't permit you to do so. So sorry.

Science measures. The world doesn't march to what science may or may not be able to measure. We already know that science cannot simultaneously define position and momentum and it certainly can't measure qualia. Science it's always changing and it has its obvious limitations.

I am pursuing the nature and meaning in my life and the experience of inner life. Other than calling it an illusion, science has zero to say on this matter so I'll look elsewhere for ideas such as in philosophy and the arts.

Will now you are beginning to get it. That thing you call life, some people call the soul, others may call it Prana, Qi, or Elan Vital.Now, if you want to give your expert scientific explanation of life, be my guest.

The evidence is life. Have you experienced life? I suppose you are now going to tell everyone what is life?

No, you denied life. Life is the soul. You asked evidence, you got it. What the heck do b you think life is? Some illusion?

Science is unable to detect or measure any qualia - the inner experience of life. Should we deny that we can experience all of qualia and our whole inner, subjective experience of life? I guess some might, banishing all that is interesting about life into the corn fields of illusion.

You are a hoot. Life is supernatural. OK.

Of course we all haven't. It is not the life force inside us all, and nobody has shown it to be. Many say God gives us life too, that's no less ridiculous than saying a soul gives us life. — John Harris

Some religious people say God gave us life and other religious people say that the Big Bang/Laws of Nature have us life. My own preference is not too appeal to supernatural forces. Life is what we all experience and what we are. No need to bring in other mysterious forces. Life is Life. You wanted existence of a soul, well there it is. It is we are and drives us - the impetus to create, learn, and evolve. If you prefer some supernatural forces and you have lots of company.

Nobody has encountered a soul or given any evidence of it. — John Harris

Of course we all have. It is the life force within us all. What Bergson called the Elan vital. Without it, there is only a cadaver.

The only question is whether the soul persists. Evidence of this is in the traits and skills we are all born with but are different because of different soulful history (memory).

Michael, I am not sure what mysteriously force is compelling you to write but can you have can heart to heart with it and tell it that there is no reason to.

In any case you can hardly fault me for very taking my position, now can you? I have been possessed by the Great Natural Laws of Nature.

of course I use experience while navigating through life and then I make choices. Every time I paint I make tons of choices which of course are affected by experience and constrained by the size of my canvas and the paints I use.

On course I am making choices, all of the time. I can choose vanilla or chocolate ice cream, or which side of the sidewalk to walk on, , or which piano piece I play. I can't believe that people have been so indoctrinated by a mechanistic school system that they go through life denying all of the choices they make. You decided to write a message and what to write, not some mysterious supernatural force that posseses you. Embrace your creative capabilities. It is always your choice.

For me it is less about the brain and more about the mind that creates and uses it.

Yes, I am saying that the process of creation is all around us, everywhere just as we are surrounded by TV broadcasting waves. The brain just tunes as does a TV.

Your physical being can be welled down to one organ: your brain, which on its own can store over eight libraries of congress worth of information. It also allows you to enjoy the tastes, smells, sights, sounds and feelings of food and sex (intimacy) . — Anonymys

This is where we immediately experience life differently. Having practiced the arts, dance, singing, sports, alternative health practices, and Eastern meditative practices (e.g.Tai Chi), I have found that the mind extends throughout the body and beyond. At most the brain is one aspect of a holistic nervous system that interacts. Far too much is made of the brain on current philosophy and science. It is just a tool.

The TV (the ) is not the source of all creative work that's we watch, it is merely a mechanism. The source is the thousands of creative minds that produce the programming.

I recently read an interview where Sheldrake confirmed he was influenced by Bergson.

Bergson's writings pre-dated holographic discoveries but his description of the universe very much foretells holography. Whereas Bohm, Hiley, Talbot, Pribham, and others theorized that the brain was comprised of holographic memory, it was Bergson who intuited that memory could actually be embedded in the fabric of the universe, and described this fabric in such a way that it foretold quantum theory (the famous quantum physicist De Broglie wrote an essay on this).

For the most up-to-date description of Bergson, I find Stephen Robbins' YouTube videos quite illuminating. Once one views the brain as a reconstructive tool to illuminate memory as a TV illuminates broadcasting waves (Sheldrake's metaphor), one can begin to recognize the possibility that memory persists and could possibly reawaken itself as it does every morning when it wakes up.

This is one of several of Robbin's videos.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

When one views life in this way, and that someone such as Mozart, might be the result of persistent memory over duration (real time) then one might possible apprehend new meaning to life.

He has a website and there are many YouTube videos. The video that was banned by TED (even though a TED group created it) is quite interesting in a general way but doesn't really get into his theories.

Sheldake terms it morphic resonance and morphic genesis. Very similar concepts to Bergson's Memory.

Sheldrake provides concrete lines of experimentation.

If one was interested in pursuing a line of investigation, this would be one avenue that can be pursued. Persistence of memory during one life and multiple lives could provide the fundamental key to understanding this metaphysical question.

For this idea to have merit, it must be shown that memory is not stored in the brain but rather in the underlying fabric in the universe, while the brain acts as a filter just as a TV tuner might. Rupert Sheldrake has outlined some experimental possibilities for such a line of exploration.

Exactly. Talents (memory of skills) that we are born with. This would be evidence of persistence of memory. This would be how memory across look lives would manifest if indeed it existed. It is no more supernatural than the skills we learn while playing sports or learning a musical instrument. It is the nature of evolution.