How a body is able to constantly replace and repair (in some animals regenerate) itself is a fascinating topic. Body intelligence seems to be fully dispersed throughout the body and had a memory of how to create the replace and repair.

Absolutely. Hitler was and remains responsible. This is the consensus agreement.

I still don't understand how positive adaptation could occur without some kind of conscious intervention. Take my example of the centipede: — CasKev

If one analyze what science did, you will notice that consciousness was simply transferred from humans to Natural Selection. All creative action is now imbued into Natural Selection. The same trick is performed when transferring consciousness to Natural Laws. Whenever you notice the word natural in any scientific explanation (it is used all the time), it should raise a red flag - human consciousness is being transferred somewhere else.

Since this label can mean so many different things, suffice to say that I fundamentally subscribe to Bergson's point of view within its necessary limits. His philosophy very much conforms to quantum theory (as described in an essay by De Broglie) and holography though his works predated the discovery of both by several decades.

It was initially referred to as pilot-wave. Subsequently descriptions changed. De Broglie referred to the "particle" as a wave perturbation. Bohm, because of his new equations, introduced the controversial (now experimentally observed due to Bell's work), quantum potential which acted instantaneously at a distance (explaining the Wheeler delayed double slit experiment).

Bohm-Hiley went in to develop a metaphysics that they called the Implicate Order that can be considered holographic in nature with consciousness embedded in the Implicate Order.

The beauty of Bohm's approach is that everything is real and it also predicted noon-locality which was subsequently experimently observed. Quite a feat.

Our difference is that between the Copenhagen and the von Neumann. That is, is it the consciousness of the experimenter that collapses the wave function? — Banno

I am actually using the De Broglie/Bohm equations where there is no collapse. Everything is real. The election might be considered a perturbation if the quantum potential wave, thus avoiding all issues associated with the Copenhagen collapse.

Hence, we have a real world out there that is being sensed by a real observer. The new element, a necessary and crucial aspect of quantum theory, is that there is absolutely no way to separate the observer from what is being observed, and that the observation itself changes something. The internal experience necessarily is different than what is out there and different for each observer.

Everything is real but different. Communication of experiences creates consensus.

What I am denying is the elicit conclusion that this quantum mechanical stuff shows that "there is no 'ultimate object' which exists 'independently' of all perception".

But, to confuse you a bit more, I'll add that I agree that there is no "ultimate" object, and deny that this means that there are no objects. — Banno

Quantum physics itself is silent on what is being observed. Bohm's re-working of the classical Schrodinger equation, providing equivalent results (albeit more difficult to use) suggests that quanta is real and causal and probabilistic.

Using the realism of Bohm's equations we can avoid the many-many-many (onto infinity) worlds interpretation but are forced to accept non-locality (which Bohm named the quantum potential). Non-locality was a big show-stopper 50 years ago, but post-Bell it had been experimentally observed in one experiment after another in starts as large as molecules and and far away as satellite distances (the recent Chinese experiment).

So where does that leave us. Utilizing Bohm's and Bell's extraordinary accomplishments we can suggest a metaphysics that claims everything out there is real, entangled, and without boundaries. Each of us experience it via our very real mind/consciousness. However, how we experience it is internal and can only be known to the individual.

Via sharing experiences we learn to call similar things with the same name. This is done by consensus. However, calling something by the same name does not mean that internally we are experiencing the same thing. There is no way to share actual memory (though some twins claim they can).

Hence, that mind is integral in formation of the experience does not mean that there is nothing real out there. It is just that the actual form (e.g. the rotating teacup) must necessarily involve the mind, because that is the only way to access it, and in the process modifying it. Everything is entangled. This is the huge change introduced by quantum theory. Entanglement and non-locality. This had to be fully digested by any metaphysical model.

That there is entanglement and no separation is experimentally observed as large as molecules. Entanglement had recently been verified over very long distances. Independence of observer and observed does not exist in quantum experiments. In fact, it has been demonstrated that observation affects the path of quanta in laboratory experiments.

Physicists and philosophers have been modifying their interpretations based upon the constant steam of new experimental results. Only a very tiny, tiny, tiny minority are still clinging to the 16th century materialistic view of the universe.

Suggestion (and please take this as a compliment), if you ever need evidence that humans are computer bots, use yourself as an example. Almost irrefutable.

I think you are fishing more more compliments. The quantum physics description for you is super-dense.

What I did was observe a lot, studied a lot, and discussed a lot. What I came up is that we are all experimenting, exploring, creating and learning from the time we are born and throughout our lives. With this, I began immersing myself in the arts to see what new things I can lean and create.

This gets a bit tricky to explain but if you look around, there are many levels of intelligence working with each other and individually? It can be imagined as waves within an ocean where the individual waves can be perceived independently or as an ocean.

In the human body there is cellular intelligence all working together to create a large body v intelligence. There is no boundary, all working individually and together simultaneously.

OK, so please explain how you propose nature 'did it'. Little atoms joined together into little cells that are operating according to some biological program spontaneously changed what they were normally doing, and said 'Hey, legs would be useful, and we can construct them just so.'? — CasKev

Yes. There is nothing religious about creative intelligence. We experience it as ourselves every minute of every day of our lives. Watch a baby building with blocks.

What is religious is transferring this obvious creative intelligence from ourselves into some supernatural force called Nature and then claiming that we are just robots fulfilling the aims of this mysterious force. Nature becomes God or the Puppet Master and we are just mindless billiard balls bouncing around at it's whims.

Somebody posted in my one thread that to exist is to be named. — noAxioms

Partially in agreement. Something is out there. It is real. But it is the mind that experiences it as a form. What I am experiencing may be different than what someone else is experiencing, but via the learning and sharing process we agree on certain attributes, and agree to call it Jupiter.

With no one experiencing it, there is still something real out there, but it unknown what it is.

No problem. I'm recording all of these concepts for inquisitive philosophies who are curious about new and exciting ideas that nourish their curiosity. Sheldrake is absolutely brilliant.

http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/tedx-whitechapel-the-banned-talk

Adler and Jung developed their own description of mind and consciousness which is entirely different from the their teacher Freud. I myself and Bergson consider the unconscious just a form of memory. I would put reflex actions and instinctual reactions in the same category. So there are many ways to refer to this phenomenon.

One problem with this approach is that somehow, despite each of us being in our own subjective world, we manage to agree on the vast majority of things. — Banno

There are similarities and differences that we share in our perceptions. Some may see one and someone else will see red. A keen eye may see a fish, and someone else will see nothing. When there is agreement it is learned agreement. Who knows what someone else is actually experiencing in their mind? We just agree that this thing we will call a fish.

Sheldrake explains the similarities by what calls Morphic Resonance which it's hierarchical in nature. The differences of course are the differences in our own skills in perception. Someone who practices specific skills of awareness will see and differentiate much more than one who doesn't.

There certainly appears to be something there which had been called the unconscious but other names as well. It is a type of memory that influences and manifests in various forms. Conscious memory seems to be awaken by some experience that is so closely related to a previous memory that we sense it once again, and it also provokes a response. Unconscious memory seems to influence in a different manner.

I don't think that works. There are actually time of people, even living today, who believe Hitler was one hellava dude. There are some big websites for such people.

A better way to solve the problem is getting rid of universal truths and just say, as far as I am concerned Hitler was one decrepit human being.

Quantum mechanics are the equations and the Heisenberg people. What I am describing is metaphysical interpretations. My ontology does not require on rest on quantum theory. It is based upon the everyday real experience of creative mind, memory, and duration which everyone I have ever met identifies with. It is universal.

Glad to hear. If you want more compliments just ask.

So "I" am not identical with my body and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul. — nixu

Rather than say I am not identical with my body, I would say that the more substantial part of my body represents just over aspect of myself. Of course, the more one peers deeper and deeper c into substantiality, the more in becomes insubstantial. So the body, mind, and spirit are a unity which progresses from the more insubstantial (spirit, mind, emotions, qualia) to the more substantial (fluids, muscle, bone, etc.). There is no boundary anywhere.

Natural Selection is just a made up story with zero evidence created to justify imperialism. What has been happening for millions of years has been evolutionary change.

I haven't come across anything in quantum mechanics that necessitates what we think of a minds, — jorndoe

I am hoping that I am not the only person on this forum that observes the utter irony and pathos of such a statement.

The kid would die in a day or two without some form of identity. — noAxioms

I am hoping that this is the viewpoint of a very, very, very small minority in our population.

Are there size boundaries to quantum theory? It has now been experimenting demonstrated at the molecule level.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/6

"Fledgling theories of macrorealism may well form the basis of the next generation “upgrade” to quantum theory by setting the scale of the quantum-classical boundary. Thanks to the results of this experiment, we can be sure that the boundary cannot lie below the scale at which the cesium atom has been shown to behave like a wave. How high is this scale? A theoretical measure of macroscopicity [8] (see 18 April 2013 Synopsis) gives the cesium atom a modest ranking of 6.8, above the only other object tested with null measurements [5], but far below where most suspect the boundary lies. (Schrödinger’s cat is a 57.) In fact, matter-wave interferometry experiments have already shown interference fringes with Buckminsterfullerene molecules [9], boasting a rating as high as 12.

As to the second point: I believe it is possible to be timeless, relevant and transparent in simplicity. Some of my most favorite stories and philosophical ideas come from Greek mythology and Aesop's Fables as well as ancient Eastern literature. The trick is not to simply break rules but to tap into the archetypes of human existence. To this end, Groundhog Day has probably done more to advance philosophical thinking than most (if not all ) post-modernist philosophers for the reasons I've stated.

The biggest problem I find with your ideas and posts are that they are just boring. They add nothing, they create nothing, the inspire nothing. They are literally empty.

Those who cannot create relegate themselves to becoming stop signs.

Yep. That is what the Book of Rich is saying. Any young philosopher who is looking into the nature of consciousness/mind should be thoroughly immersed in the type of research I have referenced as well as Bergson, Sheldrake, and Stephen Robbins. There are tremendously exciting possibilities out there. Just make sure you find an environment that encourages such endeavors. In such research, young philosophers can find new meaning in their pursuits and their lives. Allow your mind to create meaning.

I agree. More and more people are feeling the deep penetration if government into b their lives. It was relatively minor and not that relevant when I was growing up in the 50s and into the 70s but times have changed and now government us everywhere all of the time. George Orwell sensed that the intrusiveness of government and those who run it will continue to grow as spelled seek more and more protection and services from Bug Brother. Hard to see how to decelerate the tend.

The modern search for quantum consciousness. The Book of Rich is the one to read.

https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html

"However, evidence has now shown warm quantum coherence in plant photosynthesis, bird brain navigation, our sense of smell, and brain microtubules. The recent discovery of warm temperature quantum vibrations in microtubules inside brain neurons by the research group led by Anirban Bandyopadhyay, PhD, at the National Institute of Material Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan (and now at MIT), corroborates the pair's theory and suggests that EEG rhythms also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations."

The Book of Rich says that quantum vibrations are the mind. This is what modern philosophy should be investigating. Ignore materialist science which has long been antiquated and should only be studied as a relic of the past.

Materialism is dead. It has been for 100 years.

Nope, it was in the link that you were begging for. Your brand of science is archaic.

Sorry. It's the best way to describe this proposed scientific philosophical view.

Talk to Penrose. You obviously have a disagreement with him. You can explain to him how quantum states is all wrong.

BTW, swampy is an image of muckiness, lack of clarity, muddy, incoherent. You know, like a swamp that you might have seen somewhere.

The thought police have come out in force.

The point is that pretty much everyone agrees that materialization is swampy. It is archaic. Nothing can be said about anything without an observer. it is the mind that sees, hears, feels, smells and everyone's mind is different.

Mind is the memory that it is creating.

Right. The only acceptable concepts are concrete ones like Big Bang, Natural Selection, Natural Laws, Dark Matter, the illusion of consciousness, etc. This is how the system enforces the order.

BTW, you have no idea what I've studied and how I arrived at my ideas.

No. Humans are simply experimenting, and sometimes they experiment on each other and kill hundreds of thousands of people with drugs. This isn't Natural Selection, this is greed.

What we do have in abundance is plenty of elitism and the supernatural force called Natural Selection that is mysteriously weeding out everyone who can't survive the concentration camps and sterilization programs. The concept of a Master Race was nurtured by the rather disgusting idea of Natural Selection.

My views are only radical within specific populations and cultures. Such conditioning of perception begins at the cultural level and for those who never step outside their closed system, any new thought (I mean really new thought) will seem unreasonable or ridiculous. For those who are steeped in multi-cultural environments, new ideas are welcomed not derided.

If students are taught in grade school that the universe was energy (Qi, Quantum, Prana), and this energy creates energy imprints in the fabric of the universe (itself) as is a hologram, and the image does not appear until it is observed with a reconstructive wave, then nothing I say would surprise anyone. But this would disrupt an entire industry that depends upon envisioning humans as robots, so it is not taught and thus the image of the universe is molded by economic determinants.
;
Anyone who's disapproves is similar drummed out, reinforcing the self-reinforcing nature of the materialistic view of life. We are billiard balls just knocking around and only scientists know how to put things right. The making of a new-fashioned priesthood.

Entanglement (non-locality) and other quantum effects has now been demonstrated for protons. The Schrodinger Cat puzzle demonstrates the entanglement of large states and small states. One cannot draw a boundary.

No, that is the author's description. It's easy to understand the point of view. No mind (observer), no object. What's out there, without the mind, is unknown. In physics it is called a quantum state.

But of course, it is possible to simplify further and claim there is an object out there without an observer, but then we would have to push back physics 100 years. There is no boundary. There is entanglement. And consciousness is involved. Simply put.

BTW, did you object to that a materialistic viewpoint being described as swampy?