For me, evidence of persistence of memory would give rise to the possibility of a continuation of self - possibly through multiple physical lives. What we call innate skills and natural talents can be considered such evidence. It is one way to possibly explain child prodigies and idiot savants.

One way to imagine the emergence if the soul would be to imagine it as a state of sleep. Heraclitus mentions such an analogy as does Shakespeare in Hamlet.

The mind moves seamlessly from an awake state to a dream state or sleep state. There is no explanation why it how such a movement between states occurs, but it does. So now one is all of a sudden asleep, possibly dreaming. Within this state of being, out of no where, all sense of duration (real time) and concrete space vanish. There is just vague feeling that something is transpiring.

And then, out of no where, the mind awakens and duration and space reappear. What initiates these changes in states of being? To understand this, I believe, would give us some insight into the death/birth cycle.

Thanks. I will educate myself on his ideas.

I doubt that the earliest scientists intended for their practice to be used to subjugate and/or dominate people and nature in the name of "progress".

I doubt that the founders of any religion intended for their tradition to be used turn people into pawns in political chess matches. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What happens is that particular economic interests pick and choose and the promote ideas (religious, philosophical, fabricated scientific) that further their interests. Well known philosophers are not well known because their ideas were particularly fantastic. They are well known because they could be used to promote certain interests. Science and particularly medical science promotes the idea that we are slaves of some supernatural forces which only science has particular insights and control over. It is all a fabrication other than straightforward chemistry (not biology) and physics.

Have you read Teilhard de Chardin? — Noble Dust

My primary inspirations are Bergson, Sheldrake, Bohm, Daoists and Heraclitus. All were (are) keen observers of the world. However, I do find French philosophers in general more in touch with life and less enamored by technology.

Interesting. Reminds me of Teilhard de Chardin. — Noble Dust

Actually, it reminds me of basic college physics. Everything is made of the same stuff and quantum is entangled between observer and observed.

...and those choices are governed, determined, by your predispositions, and your surroundings. And that's your experience.

You don't realize that you're more closely-related to a Roomba than you want to admit. — Michael Ossipoff

There is no magical force governing my behavior nor am I possessed by some demons that mysteriously take over all of my actions. My choices are influenced and affected by memories, habits and other forces around me, but I choose which direction I will attempt to move and what action I will attempt to take. Outcomes are always unpredictable.

It is ironic how science begins to resemble religion once it decides to base its theories on supernatural forces such as Natural Selection, Natural Laws, Big Bangs, Illusions and such. It's like science is simply recreating mythology of the past simply to placate its faithful. Honestly, I can't tell the difference.

I've told why that isn't your experience. But a person who is sufficiently committed to their beliefs can convince themselves of a fictitious experience. — Michael Ossipoff

Oh, it is definitely my experience. I am constantly making choices throughout my day and that religions and science can convince people that they are not making choices by appealing to some supernatural forces, that have them locked in by some deadly embrace, is absolutely amazing, but that is the nature of people. Some people find such a story quite appealing.

Physicists can. — Thanatos Sand

Science had one and only one thing, the Schrodinger equation that provides a probabilistic prediction for the location of the "electron". All interpretations of quanta are metaphysical in nature.

Qualia is an abstract human concept; so science need not explain it or even accept it exists. — Thanatos Sand

Qualia is the essence of human existence (as opposed to abstract mathematical equations or linguistics) and it is what everyone experiences throughout their lives. Science had no explanation for qualia. That Scientism, the religious belief in science, attempts to corral all of human existence in an "illusion" pretty much puts it in the realm Hinduism, with a similar caste system. The actually process by which Scientism and Hinduism arrive at the same conclusion is pretty much the same - belief in some supernatural forces (e.g. Natural Laws, Maya) that govern our existence and create this illusion.

No, there is no scientific or factual foundation supporting this. — Thanatos Sand

There is no scientific evidence for anything relating to the nature of life. It is a metaphysical. There is no duality. There is a continuum and for this they is scientific evidence. And there is also much evidence for the persistence if memory, i.e. habitual activity in the universe.

As Schopenhaur said, "You can do what you will, but you can't willl what you will." — Michael Ossipoff

A totally meaningless statement. The kind of linguistic parlor games that some philosophers enjoy playing. People make choices and then use energy to try to enact them. This is the experience of life.

This whole subjugation of humans to a supernatural God (or equally undefinable set of Natural Laws, Natural Selection) is a totally fabricated story that appeals to people who are more comfortable with the idea that their lives are fated, that there exists a natural elite class (a favorite of Hinduism) and the answers to life can be found via some revealed word from God (Natural Laws) that are passed through some selected priests (scientists). There is no difference between the religious belief in God or the equally religious belief in Natural Laws and Natural Selection - with similar consequences.


Of course the chosen ones reap the economic rewards but are also responsible for the mass murders that are sowed by the repugnant ideas of some people being more entitled to live than others or fated to live more elite lives than others.

A few quick ideas on the subject:

1) No one can say what is the nature of quanta and energy. It is all subject to interpretation and quanta phenomenon (such as entanglement and non-locality) had been observed at the molecule level. Thus there are many unknowns regarding the stuff off nature of nature that can only be discussed philosophically.

2) Science had no explanation what's so ever regarding qualia which is pretty much fundamental to human experiential existence.

Given this, I would speculate that:

1) There is no duality in nature. Everything is made of the same stuff with different substantially.

2) Everything is fundamentally mind that grows along a substantiality spectrum starting with quanta, electrons, atoms, molecules, etc.

3) Mind can be considered memory, creative intuition, and will.

4) Memory persists in the fabric of the universe. Evidence of this would be inherited traits, instincts, innate skills, and unexplainable skills (child prodigies, idiot savants, etc.).

It is this persistence if memory that we might call a soul.

Making all of human experience an illusion is about all that science hads to offer which makes it about on par with Hinduism. As for my self, I'm making choices all of the time, and it is in these acts of choice that humans experience the creativity of life. Making up the story of Laws of Nature is just another biblical-like story.

With that said, there are lots of humans who wish to believe that their actions are in the hands of God and others who prefer their own substitution term "Laws of Nature". I guess it makes them feel at ease that their fate is in the hands of such supernatural power - I guess.

Isn't it obvious that, even from our own point of view, our choices are deterministic? — Michael Ossipoff

It is not only not obvious, it is contrary to all of my experiences. Determinism it's a story fabricated and propagated by certain interests who wish to be the "guardians" of the Laws of Nature (scientists and the whole medical industry). There is simply not scintilla of evidence to support determinism, no more than any evidence that the priests of religion have any insight into the ways of the Lord. The whole story is a concoction and some sort of dogma designed to appeal to the self-appointed elite who have done nothing more than create their own religion centered around the "Laws of Nature".

I am basically in agreement with you except for the emphasis on survival. While it is one aspect of the human experience, it is there to support the mind's continuous experimentation and learn learning process - or evolution. Evolution is thus not a by-product of survival but rather survival becomes one aspect of continuous evolution.

We can add it this the states of day dreaming, meditation or quiet contemplation, focused concentration, etc. all of which are experiential in nature and cannot be explained by neuroscience. Qualia is an impenetrable barrier for the neuron model of the mind. Neurons appear throughout the body and are all manifestations of an underlying mind of qualia.

i can't see how the idea of determination could have any sense outside the context of human experience. — Janus

This compounded by all the evidence that whatever is real and out there is continuously changing in some manner. Thus there is never a "state" but rather a form in flux that the mind can name and compare with other minds, and in doing so can agree on a name.

The analogy would be a hologram which is a unrecognizable wave form until a reconstructive wave is used to reveal some recognizable form (a tree). At this point, different minds will perceive it differently depending upon point of view. No two POVs (subjective memory) will be the same and none will have any resemblance to the source hologram wave structure but the POVs are approximately the same so that agreement can be formed and discussed.

The brain reconstructs but does not store. The mind transforms. Memory is formed in the field along with everything else and can also be reconstructed (recalled) but as with everything else, is such subject to change.

They are your facts, enjoy them. You have plenty of company.

I asked you to disprove my claim that humans are the only lifeforms capable of understanding the universe. Can you do that please. — TheMadFool

Why should I have to disprove anything. If you have some proof for your facts then I would love to hear them.

All life forms are experimenting all the time. Buy a betta fish, treat her/him nicely and observe. Ditto for any pet.

As for facts, seems like a whole bunch of people claim to have them but unfortunately they seem to contradict each other. Just read the threads on this forum for some evidence of this.

Yes, I've read Sheldrake together with Bergson (Sheldrake's inspiration), Bohm, and Stephen Robbins. All have very interesting insights.

OK, so by 'memory' you refer to both what is recalled and to what may be unconscious, but preserved as habit. The 'presence of the past' so to speak? — Janus

Yes.

Everyone wants as much freedom as they can get, but that has issues so we have laws and such which reduce freedom. And then you have those who want to have the freedom to choose any lifestyle they want and have the right to expect others pay for their choices. It's the world we live in.

But freedom is a universally acknowledged "good", in principle. — Jake Tarragon

Except in countries where they are pretty much going on a different direction. Take a look around this forum and observe how many members are absolutely thrilled with the idea that government can force people to do things. I am sure they are all for from except for those things that they want to force on people. It's just that it's very, very fluid to the point of hypocrisy.

While we may enjoy the concept of choices, one person's choice is most likely going to interfere with another person's choice. It's tough finding a basis for any morality. The concept is just to fluid among populations.

To disprove 1 there has to be a nonhuman lifeform that has the same/greater mental faculties. Can you name one? — TheMadFool

Not really. Just different. Anyway, there is no way to know one way or another unless humans define things in terms of putting themselves at the top of the hierarchy, as they normally do. It's good marketing.

This forum, many others, you, me, this conversation, all books written, research done, questions asked and answered are proof of 2. — TheMadFool

Everyone is constantly learning. If learning is knowledge, then all life forms do this. It's called evolution and it is continuous.

These are just observations, and there may or may not be a consensus. It depends upon meaning and interpretation. I definitely disagree. So you are already losing a consensus. I guess we can have a poll and see how well your facts are doing?

1. Humans are the only lifeforms (on Earth) capable of studying the universe
2. Humans have an inherent drive for knowledge

The above facts — TheMadFool

The issue here, I believe, is that the above two facts are just your personal beliefs. Facts are basically formed by creating a consensus around beliefs, but in this case I doubt there is consensus attend (2), but given the proclivity for humans to put themselves at the top of any hierarchy, you might achieve a consensus around (1). BTW, I do agree that humans are always learning and creating, but as far as I can tell so are all other forms of life. My fish are always learning (evolving).

There only reason the concept of facts exists is that is what we are taught in school are necessary to prove things, and philosophers seem to need to have proofs to justify their discipline. Funny thing is, no other profession requires such a case.

People don't know what someone else is thinking nor is there any visible change to anyone or really anything around them when they are. — JupiterJess

In some cases, such as twins, there are claims of shared thinking. For most others, the brain acts as a filter in a similar way that a TV filters different frequencies.

Jung and others did write extensively about shared archetypes and the collective consciousness and Rupert Sheldrake's morphicgenesis theory does depend upon a hierarchy of morphic fields. Finding boundaries is more difficult than one may initially think.

Whoops, I forgot. You are just a Bitter Crank. Sorry. Do you suppose every one just spends their life being a Bitter Crank? I spent my life learning about what I (all of me) can do.

I'm all over. Everything is learning and everything is evolving. Lots of this I experience while developing skills in the arts and sports as well as my own health practices. It's all about body memory and intelligence.

But how does that make the universe self aware? — Sir2u

It does once one becomes aware there are no boundaries - anywhere. I believe this Daoist-like idea was presented in another recent thread.

And I don't want to be the eyeballs of the universe anyway. — Sir2u

Well, I guess you can try out being a computer bot and see if that fits you better?

As for myself, I (my mind) am definitely peering out and increasing awareness all the time of that which surrounds me - as is every other life form. That is how life evolves.

But, as it happens, the brain is in charge. — Bitter Crank

Not really.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gut-second-brain/

"A deeper understanding of this mass of neural tissue, filled with important neurotransmitters, is revealing that it does much more than merely handle digestion or inflict the occasional nervous pang. The little brain in our innards, in connection with the big one in our skulls, partly determines our mental state and plays key roles in certain diseases throughout the body."

I think this is certainly true in part, but I don't believe it can be the whole story. I think we are also influenced by what we don't remember, and were perhaps never even aware of. — Janus

In the context I am using memory, I am referring to all memory including that which is recalled and that which might be have been perceived at one time and may be recalled in the order may not. There is also cellular memory in our bodies as well as memory of the 10s of millions of microbes. But since it is all life then it is all memory. Much of memory reveals itself as habit.

The fabric of this memory I've talked about in other threads.

I was using the word conscious with a broader meaning not the psychological meaning. So, specifically I am speaking of mind that has memory and duration, will, and creative intuition.

Thanks for pointing this issue out.

This is what the Daoists, who were skilled observers of nature, concluded. By spiraling into waves (duality, polarity), consciousness creates everything including individual but shared consciousnesses.

I think the biggest argument against it has always been "where does your mind end and mine begin" what are the boundaries? — JupiterJess

There is no need to have boundaries. Individual minds are analogous to waves in the ocean, distinct but part of. Mind and body are a seamless continuum of substantially, the continuum that stretches from quantum to atom to molecules.

I found this series of YouTube videos in which Stephen Robbins explains his views on Bergson's theory of perception and the nature of qualia and how qualia cannot be explained by current theories of mind and the brain.

This is the first in the series.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

This is the playlist.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkj-ob9OuaMhRIDqfvnBxoQ

I don't think of "reality" as being constructed by the brain, I don't think of it as "construction" at all, but as a collaboration involving the environment and the body (the brain being merely a part of the latter). The collaboration is ever changing, just as the environment and the body are constantly changing. — Janus

Agreed. Duration that we live in it's a process, and in this process we are constantly interacting with all that is around us and in this process creating memories which are equally fluid. Memories define who we are and are the source of future actions/choices.

It is an ongoing process. This is the real time that we experience and call it life.

Without access to the inner world of circuits we simply can't tell a person from a good AI. — TheMadFool

It will be a very peculiar day when humans cannot tell the difference between some dumb tool that they created and their own creative minds that created that dumb tool. Whatever sci fi writers might say, computers are basically fast filters of data. They have zero intuition and power to create something new. They follow simple instructions that we give them.

I believe that any description of life should give meaning to all of life, both stages in life and differentiated life. Life, that exists simply to perpetuate itself, is meaningless to most of life (life in stages), and differentiated life, life not interested or unable to reproduce. Such a philosophy revolving around such a transient and limited theme is not only insufficient, it can be downright depressing with no upside. It should be jettisoned.

What is relevant and descriptive of all of life throughout all duration, is that it is continuously creating and learning. All life, all the time is evolving via learning and memory.

speech recognition — Bitter Crank

Speech recognition is pretty much a joke as anyone who has to deal with such shoddy customer service software Will immediately recognize. As soon as I hear those silly questions on the phone, I start banging on 0 hoping that I might be lucky enough to get a human.

Computers are good at very simple data filtering tasks which is why well run companies such as Amazon and Google avoid the so-called AI stuff.

Artificial Intelligence is primarily implemented by a class of computer programs that can accomplish tasks that mimic Human Intelligence. Examples are things like Speech Recognition, Facial Recognition, and Self Driving Cars. — SteveKlinko

This is not what computers do. The algorithms do not mimic and what's more, ultimately a human must adjust the algorithms. All the computers do is brute force data scanning with short cut filtering.