We are saying the same thing, but for different purpose. My motivation is inquiry in nature and opposed to a construction of a metaphysical model. So we can leave it at that. Thanks for the discussion.

I'm not trying to create a philosophical system. I'm trying to explore the nature of nature wherever it leads me. We have different motivations.

So far, it seems that it one starts with mind as being fundamental it explains a lot, and if we view memory as a holographic remnant of mind, it explains even more. The prerequisite it's to allow for mind before matter.

Mind=Quantum Potential

You are asking why it's there Mind? Mind is the beginning and still exists and easy to find in all of us.

You have to add energy.

The model is very straightforward. All it needs is mind (the flatline), polarity (amplitude) and energy (will) to get things going. This is the Daoist Genesis story.

Humans are waves in the ocean (of a particular sort of course).

I don't see how you can say this, because when the ocean is calm there is still an ocean but no waves. So it is impossible that the waves contain the ocean. — Metaphysician Undercover

The ocean becomes over wave but doing absolutely nothing. This would be comparable to death or to b the sleep state without dreaming.

A wave is a particular form. It is impossible to imagine a calm ocean as one big wave, because it does not have the appropriate form to be called a wave. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a wave without amplitude. It's dead in the water. Flatlined.

Take a jump rope, add energy, and you have waves. It's the energy that creates. In Daoism it is the Three (energy) combined with the Two (polarity) that creates the Multitude (everything).

Quanta is mind, or more specifically Bohm's quantum potential is mind. It is guiding and doing everything. Memory is mind stored holographically. The brain reconstructs memory it does not store it?

https://youtu.be/WIyTZDHuarQ

Very, very brief description.

Mind is quanta. The universe is quanta. Memory is mind/quanta in holographic form. Mind is evolving by creative experimentation and learning.

Look, you don't know what I'm talking about, you create your own description and put it in my mouth, and then want me to explain your concoction as if I said it. When did you stop beating your wife?

Give it up Michael. There it's no communication here.

Duplicate

The difference is that I've told specifically what I find wrong with what you say. ...whereas you just make vague generalizations like the above-quoted one. — Michael Ossipoff

As best as I can tell, you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, but with that said you have no idea what I'm talking about so I guess we are even.

It's probably not the question I am avoiding.

I guess it depends upon ones morals. I like one on one. Others don't. No big deal to me one way or another since that is their agreement.

So the mind of some one-celled organism decided to make it procreate a more complex organism.. — Michael Ossipoff

I wouldn't call it an organism. It was the mind (The Dao) that began the process. Pretty straightforward Daoism.

The One (Mind) created Two (Yin/Yang, polarity, standing wave)

The Two created Three (Qi, energy, moving wave)

And from the Three (moving waves) everything else was created.

Got hand it to the Daoists for some extraordinary observational skills thousands of years ago.

It all begins with the Mind (Dao).

Alright, Rich, how do you account for there being a human species on the Earth? — Michael Ossipoff

The creative mind experimenting, learning, and evolving. No need to bring in supernatural forces. It is our minds.

Actually, I don't think you have written one post that isn't chock full of brute facts, but I could be wrong.

You're a gas.

I'm thinking hard, but I think only children and philosophers declare themselves to victors. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You can be so silly sometimes in your quests.

How about the knowledge we can (!) have about what is causing our own behaviour at a certain moment, this simplified internal representation of a complex causal structure is what partially governs both our actions and future orientations, never mind the observation that it's the obfuscation of this knowledge from the outside world which gives us a sense of freedom with it. — Gooseone

It's too complicated to ever know. We can understand some aspects.

You don't have to make distinctions which is often the case. Happy to teach you.

Every symbolic distinction has a practical application. Sometimes we talk about the universe and sometimes all the aspects of the universe but it is all on and the same. There are no guarantees gaps anywhere and everything is constantly changing.

If one can't make distinctions between the ocean and the waves within it, there's no reason to make a distinction between the Earth and the oceans and lands within it or the universe and the objects within it. — Thanatos Sand

There are practical reasons too make distinctions and there are practical reasons not to. One should not confuse practicality with what may be transpiring. Symbolics are practical but have nothing to do with what it's happening.

It's profoundly obvious, that the ocean does have waves, and not vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover

The ocean is the ocean. It is continuous. We make the distinctions, when viewing the ocean from a given perspective. One can turn it upside down and say all the waves contain the ocean. There are and there isn't one or the other or both.

In the same instant, we are individuals (as the waves) but also the universe (the ocean). I've does not contain the other, but it is possible to shift perspectives to create a different.

Simply ask yourself, can you imagine a body of water without waves, and the answer is yes. Then, can you imagine a wave without an underlying substance which is waving, and the answer is no. — Metaphysician Undercover

An ocean without waves is extremely easy to imagine as is the opposite (one big wave). One only need to exercise creative imagination.

BTW, the moment someone used the word obvious, there is a problem.

OK. This is a path of philosophical thought worth pursuing. Science and neurologists will not pursue this line of thinking. For them something is wrong and has to be fixed. However, a philosopher, outside of academia, can begin to inquire into new ways of looking at memory and identity that might open up completely new ways of viewing mind, body and spirituality with enormouvs amount of practical benefits, e.g. how do drugs affect the body's constructive and reconstructive memory mechanisms and are they creating permanent damage?

It's some consensus can be created in terms of lines of inquiry online subgroups can be formed to investigate new paradigms, e.g. the nature of memory. Stephen Robbins and Rupert Sheldrake are trying to form such groups that in turn can create entirely new possibilities in the realm of philosophy.

So, if we define free will as the ability to make choices and choice as the ability to imagine different scenarios, entertain their outcomes and pursue them, then the kind of subjects who have free will are those who have a sense of self, possess imagination, desires and are able to act on them. Then, clearly, you and I have free will, while your teapot doesn't. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes. I agree.

For clarity, I would add that choices are constrained and influenced so that outcomes are always unclear. One can try but cannot predict.

There are two aspects of the human condition that affect can choice of direction (we direct ourselves towards future action). The first is creative imagination. The second is will. Both are influenced and constrained in a multitude of ways.

I don't find it hard to agree with both sides of this. From the outside, one is dealing with the continuity of the body, which is born and continues 'the same body' until it dies. And that can be true, at the same time as, from the inside, he is not the man he was. There is a tradition - is it Native American? - of changing one's name after a life-changing experience (like marriage, for instance?). — unenlightened

What we have here is evidence for holographic model of memory. The brain has somehow changed in such a way that is now reconstructing a different memory pattern, just as a tuner of a radio station might.

So n instead of v recognize it recognizing this situation as evidence that memory is not stored in the brain, but rather holographically, neurologists quickly come to the universally accepted opinion that something is "wrong". Hopeless.

He's not who you want him to be.

If the truth here is relative, why try to help him regain his memory? Why talk of a "fugue' state? Why point out the abnormality in his brain chemistry and physiology? — Banno

Because doctors love to fool around and experiment with humans as if people are their little playthings. This is the roots of materialism and the dehumanization of humans making them into buggie machines that need to be constantly fixed. It's a great marketing angle.

I don't know if he wants to be left alone, but if he does, just leave him alone. Things may revert or they may not.

lol. Always looking for right and wrong. May the force be with you.

Quantum physics is probabilistic. It therefore rules out determinism.

However, it says nothing about choice. Depending upon interpretations of what it all means, it does leave open the possibility for conscious choice. But all of this is metaphysical, not science. Science is simply the Schrodinger's wave equation and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

If people insist he is someone because of the way he looks or his fingerprints, that is how they feel. That is their memory of him. But to him, he is someone else. Who's correct? Well actually no one or everyone, since there is no right or wrong. There is memory dissonance. You can use this example, if you wish, to begin to look upon identity in a different way.

Because that seems to me to be an error. — Banno

His son remembers him as his father. That is his memory. He remembers himself as someone different. It's a good example of what happens when memories are in conflict with each other. There is no right or wrong, just differences in what is remembered. What is going on here is fascinating, especially if someone, as myself, is studying memory as holographic and the brain as the reconstructive mechanism. Notice, he is speaking Swedish. Absolutely fascinating. I'll have to see if I can parse this out from a holographic viewpoint.

I think he is who he is. I am very accepting.

Identity is not memory. Loose all your memories - and it is still Rich who can't remember. — Banno

To you, I may be Rich who doesn't remember. To myself, I am someone else. An example:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/transient-global-amnesia-what-total-memory-loss-is-like

Identity always relies on memory.

Identity is there memories we carry, which morph but which even so maintain as the essence.

And since the living body is a property, there must be something (a soul) which has that property. — Metaphysician Undercover

Waves do not have the ocean and the ocean does not have the waves. They are one and the same. It all depends upon on how one views it. There is an ocean. There are the waves. There is the ocean. It is a continuous, inseparable whole. I do not observe any gaps anywhere.

Everything is an interaction, a process, which would be a challenge for anyone looking for specific objects or boundaries. This is where problems and paradoxes arise.

That's fine; if that's who you imagine yourself to be, I won't argue. How does this identity manifest itself in your life? — unenlightened

I would say it manifests as a continuous sense of creative exploration and experimentation that is always learning and evolving in an unpredictable manner. At times it rests (sleep without dreams) and at times it is active making choices of direction of exploration. There seems to be a continuum without boundaries between the observer/memories and that which is exploring and being observed. It is all happening in duration.