I think you are reading my implications properly and didn't take your comments as disparaging.

In some cultures, certain types of creativity (e.g. stealing, cheating) is given higher status because it yields wealth as on Wall Street. That certain people have a preference for greed over a beautiful painting does not make intelligence better or worse, it just comes in different forms. One can say that the Universal Intelligence is experimenting in many ways via different forms (species, individuals, etc.).

So that the potential for novelty itself is intelligence? If then, say a flatworm as changed, and come upon a new behavior, or niche, and begins to adapt to it, is it then in this moment more intelligent than a human being on auto-pilot? — Wosret

Intelligence isn't better or worse, more or less. It is creating, experimenting, exploring, and learning in all forms and is constantly evolving.

Judeo Christian version of Genesis: God created the universe and it took 7 days.

Scientific version of Genesis: Natural Forces created the universe and it took millions of years.

There really is no difference between the two versions which is why some people reject elevating evolution to some special status. Survival of the fitness is just an intellectual expression of some elitists in European culture. Some took this to a limit resulting in eugenics and Nazism.

Intelligence is the creative impetus (imagination and will) that directs attention and movement (choice). The source of creative inspiration is memory but via intelligence there it's the possibility of something new arising. Some may call this the vital force of life.

I don't believe so unless one is considering quantum entanglement.

What I am suggesting is that the basic essence of being human is dispersed beyond the brain. Most artists and sports figures recognize this as it is the basis of learning their activities. We recognize it by virtue of what we call natural instincts and innate talents and traits. More recently, scientist have begun to discover it in experiments. Bergson wrote about it in his early 20th writings which were a harbinger for quantum theory and holographic science. He did it via observation and intuition which should be the basis of philosophy.

Is there something to memories other than language use? The dreaded continental Wittgenstein: language is mechanistic, thoroughly conventional, and it speaks us.. not the other way around. — Mongrel

Memory is there essence of who we are as we persist through duration. One only has to discard the notion that somehow memory is locked in the brain (we know of body memory) and one can begin to understand how it may persist beyond the physical body.

The nature of memory is the basis of Bergson's writings. He was well educated in many fields including mathematics, biology, childhood education, and of course philosophy.

I read the article. This is a more neutral, non-religious point of view. Probably closer to the original ideas that have not been influenced by economic distortions.

I think you will find that Nirvana and such are all subject to interpretation and its evolution is similar to that of Heaven, i.e. a marketing tool. Impermanence just isn't a very good marketing tool for most philosophies turned religion.

You are aware that there are more options than just Dennett's, right? Ever heard of the attention schema theory of consciousness? — Harry Hindu

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano

"Since 2010 Graziano's lab has studied the brain basis of consciousness. Graziano[42][43] proposed that specialized machinery in the brain computes the feature of awareness and attributes it to other people in a social context. The same machinery, in that hypothesis, also attributes the feature of awareness to oneself. Damage to that machinery disrupts one's own awareness.

The attention schema theory (AST) seeks to explain how an information-processing machine could act the way people do, insisting it has consciousness, describing consciousness in the ways that we do, and claiming that it has an inner magic that transcends mere information-processing, even though it does not."

All that is being done here is assigning all human qualities to the brain and making the brain anthropomorphic. It explains nothing about how quantum magically becomes human. Ditto for assigning all human qualities to some quantum matter and calling it "natural". To paraphrase Evolution theory, everything happens because it it's natural and if doesn't happen it is because it is unnatural. In this regard, I believe religion is way ahead of science in at least coming up with a decent story. All they do is create sn anthropomorphic God but to all possible limits. They are at least up front about it.

Without meaning being permanent, communication is impossible. As you correctly pointed, it needs consensus, and that's a way of making meaning permanent. — TheMadFool

Notice how meaning is so elusive on this forum (even for simple things like what is meaning?) and how difficult it is to communicate - but we do the best we can.

Anyway, I don't see how, in the world you describe, the paradox is solved. You still need to know the meaning of ''meaning''.

The paradox isn't solved because there isn't any, unless one subscribes to the concept of fixed meaning that somehow has to be discovered. Giving meaning is a process of observation and feeling, and it is constantly changing. Then there is the process of trying to convey that meaning, at which time definitions are handy but still fluid.

Evolution is a truth. — TheMadFool

I would put it slightly differently.

I would say (as the Daoists believe) that everything seems to be constantly changing (evolving) because we (our intelligence and memory) is constantly experimenting and learning. But, I leave open the possibility that somewhere in the life/death cycle there is a pause (rest).

So there seems to be duality and cycles.

Still, there are words which need to have a fixed meaning and ''meaning'' is one of them. — TheMadFool

Possibly more fixed than others but almost all have multiple possibilities with new possibilities (slang terms) being created all the time. Impermanence.

Meaning is a continuous developing process that originates with some observations of some sort that create a qualitative memory within oneself. It is strictly experiential. The tricky part comes in conveying such qualitative memory (including feeling) to someone else. An agreed upon definition may ensue or they may be constant disagreements as with most things.

There is no paradox, just lots and lots disagreements.

I would like to mention that Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism and Daoism were and still are experiential in nature. It is when practitioners wish to bypass the decades of experiential study and simply go right to the end by reading some book that lots of the philosophy is necessarily lost. I once went to a class where some academic professor was actively teaching Daoism without ever practicing to experience it. Apparently he felt that one can understand Eastern philosophies by simple logical syllogisms and reading some books. Needless to say my experiences were different than his.

Nothing zen about it. Meaning is just an arbitrary temporary description that is assigned subject to change. There is nothing permanent about it. Similarly, a definition it's some arbitrary symbolic representation that people happen to agree on (a consensus)-sometimes or most of the time.

When someone attempts to make such arbitrary descriptions universal and permanent, that when problems arise.

This is a paradox because we have to know the meaning of ''meaning'' before we can assign it meaning. — TheMadFool

Accept that everything everything is in flux and that any symbolic meaning is a practical, albeit incomplete tool, for communication. It has limits and is bound to change. The paradox arises out if the neverending desire for truth where there isn't any.

Souls are then defined as parts of us living in parallel universes?
But why, what's all this stuff for, what's it supposed to account for...?
And how would we differentiate it all from fiction? — jorndoe

I don't believe anyone involved with Buddhism ever speaks of parallel universes. The concept of infinite upon infinite number of parallel universes and all of their inhabitants (including an infinite number of parallel souls of our own) it's strictly a fabrication of the tens of thousands of scientists who believe in this interpretation of quantum physics, because they rather it her believe in an infinite number of universes than have non-locality. Scientists are a funny bunch when it comes to science.

In any case, parallel universes is a strict concoction of modern science, and yes there are tons of parallel souls living there free of our actions.

I think you will make a great guru. You have the right attitude. Thanks for the real world demonstration.

Desires are natural inclinations — Harry Hindu

I won't ask how you came to this conclusion.

Samsara and Karma are coherent because

1. It explains away the problem of evil which plagues Abrahamic religions


2. It fits well with the general notion of causation

However, one key element for Samsara/Karma to be meaningful is the continuation of the soul. Otherwise 1 and 2 would be undefined. Buddhism is just a long-winded version of the maxim ''you reap what you sow''. — TheMadFool

This is how new branches of Buddhism are developed. Because Buddhism is decentralized, it it's relatively easy to start creating one that conforms to one's own belief system. Next thing you know, somebody will be claiming it is true, and it will be for that person. There is no central authority to contradict. This is one of the attractions of Buddhism. Of course, it can also leave to some bad blood between competing Buddhist branches.

Thank you for sharing your ideas. It b is always interesting for me penetrate deeper into the process of thoughts and conveyance thereof. As a person who is studying arts, I find that the nature of thought changes (less language oriented, more image oriented) as new skills are.developed . in addition for many artists the emphasis might be more on creativity and less on rationality as they express their nature (some thought is involved but not necessarily). Thus, I observe that describing the nature of thought can be quite challenging at times.

One more thought regarding Buddha. It appears his motivation was in response to the unfairness of the Hindu Truth of the caste system which is still alive and well today. Thinking about Buddhism in this manner may lead to new insights into the philosophical principles of Buddhism including but not limited to a circular rather than a hierarchical model for life.

Yes, I would share the general ideas that you present.

For myself, I find that exploring without stakes in the ground (truths) not only permits greater awareness (more mobility of thought) but is healthier in many ways (willfulness requires the expenditure of lots of energy).

Well, saying it like that would be anthropomorphic. Genes don't have desires. They just do what they do as a result of natural selection. Our desires, though, are a result of natural selection, too. — Harry Hindu

As long as you are using the concept of desire it has to be emanating from somewhere. Are you suggesting it is emanating from the gene (a physical entity) or from natural selection (a concept)? If you are suggesting it is emanating from the gene, then that would be anthropomorphism. If you are saying it is from natural selection, then you would be using anthropomorphism on a concept.

Any type if anthropomorphism begs the question of why would a concept such natural selection create a condition of desire of any sort much less procreation. It would seem like the whole theory it's based upon some feeling of some individuals that procreation is natural, leading of course to homophobia and other related sins similar to religious beliefs.

The question of what is Buddhism and what are it's teachings is rather fluid with thousands of variations depending upon motivations of teachers and students. In this regard, there doesn't seem to be truths, rather interpretations of what Buddha might have said (everything about Buddhism is subject to various oral and written interpretations of translations).

When attempting to understand the essence of Buddhism, I look for similarities and differences been Buddhism and other cultural spiritualities developing at the same time (e.g. Daoism, Confucianism Hinduism). As sources, I prefer more neutral sources such as Alan Watts who shares with me the general feeling that Buddhism and Daoism have a tendency toward continue evolution as a reaction to the more hierarchical and less mobile traditions such as Hinduism and Confucianism which have more appeal to truths. Over time, certain Buddhist traditions have adopted notions of truth (which are in conflict with the notion of impermanence) for practical, economic reasons.

There is no way to point to a single source, but rather it is an image I developed after much reading on the subject and discussions with practitioners.

The issue it's imbuing notions such as "desire to procreate" into genes.

For me, to have experiences as opposed to not having them. For my genes, to procreate. — Harry Hindu

The first idea I share with you. However, the second part appears to be anthropomorphism. In particular your own. There are many people who live life without procreating.

If you only claim that statement is true, that's not a problem to me. But don't tell me that's what Buddhism is, cause that's bullshit. — Agustino

This is what happens when people claim that 1) There is truth 2) That someone lays claim to it.

Buddhism and Buddha probably initially held the vantage point that there is no immobility called truth (the concept of impermanence which also exists in Daoism at about the same time). However, over time, it appears Buddhism had morphed into thousands of goal oriented religions/philosophies which embrace truths if one sort it another and are often in conflict ft with each other. But at it's essence, I believe the philosophy embraces continuous evolution and impermanence which does not allow for truths.

So you yourself defined "wrong" as something that is independent of judgment... — Fafner

When one uses symbols to represent thought (as is done in logic), one loses the essence of thought and action as a continuous whole. The judgement and utterance of that judgement it's a single unitary event or process. They cannot be made into separate entities. And if one follows the complete process, the understanding of this judgement/utterance by an another observer as well as by the subject of the utterance now also becomes entangled in the same way creating a continuous process engulfing a greater number of participants.

In this manner and description, it is not possible to separate the source from that what the source created, i.e the judgment and symbolic utterance. In order to comprehend this framework it is first necessary to penetrate the continuous flow of nature and jettison symbolic representations as adequate descriptions.

In a prior thread, I suggested that discrete symbolism of any sort it's not only inadequate, it will yield an upside down view if nature.

If everything is pre-ordained, whether by Calvin's God or by the outworking of the Big Bang, then that applies to every space and character of this discussion and every sensation of thought as we perform our pre-ordained character strokes. I cannot judge the validity of what is said because I cannot originate any judgments whatsoever. — Tony

This is it pretty much in a nutshell. Problems arise for those of either faith when they try to create a combination of free will and determinism (fatalism) in order to achieve some goal. Any time a subject area creates an external governing omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force, there is a problem with concepts such as judgement or why event such a feeling of judgement exists.

My assumption is that if a small child is familiar with the past events of another life, the child learned that information in the traditional way of being told as opposed to the information streaming in a paranormal way. It's a fairly safe assumption really. — Hanover

The way I would frame it, is not that the child is aware, but rather that the memory persists. The child's "self" it's this memory. And, yes, all learning is accomplished in the normal manner of creative exploration evolving into new memory.

Science may change in correcting it's errors; — Thanatos Sand

I guess this is one way to frame it.

In any case, there is nothing much more to discuss. Different life forces at play.

Of course there are rules, the principle of thermodynamics and rules of Gravity among them. It's why our planes can fly and our cars can drive. I'm not being snarky here, but I suggest you check out a book of basic Physics. — Thanatos Sand

If you haven't observed that science is constantly changing (yes, even gravity) than there is nothing more to say. We have two different life experiences.

No, but you're making them supernatural by giving them "physical" attributes that do not exist in the physical universe and making them physical in a way that they are not. — Thanatos Sand

They are no more and no less physical than they already are. I am only referring to memory and quantum fields as being real. How you wish to characterize them is up to you. I view reality as a continuum of the insubstantial to the substantial.

No, physics tells us much more than that; that's why there are many physical rules of the universe and the undergraduate and physics textbooks are pretty big. — Thanatos Sand

There are no rules. There are concepts an descriptions of these concepts that are constantly evolving in small and large ways.

And your idea of quanta is not backed by those physical rules and realities. It's a nice Sci-Fi concept, but It is not backed by physical reality. — Thanatos Sand

No more and no less sci-fi than any interpretation of Relativity or Quantum. I am referring to real phenomenon (memory, life, intelligence, evolution) but giving it a different substrate than what one is user to. For example, the brain doesn't house memory, the brain reveals memory just as a TV doesn't house TV programs it only reveals them. My paradigm is actually very straightforward and realistic.

Your "memory as fabric of the universe" theory a perfect example. So, since your theories transcend and are not supported by the natural laws of physics, they are supernatural. — Thanatos Sand

Not at all. It simply makes memory persistent and we have plenty of evidence of this in innate and inherited traits as well as habitual movements.

There is nothing new here. It is an explanatory model that can create new opportunities for research and conceptual development. As I showed in another thread, there is already scientific evidence for a holographic universe.

Exactly. What I am attempting to do is to present some new paradigms for exploration and research that cross several disciplines. I would like to see the creative energy of young philosophers released in new directions and observe what is discovered.

The problem with definitions like this, is it tries to include both the natural and supernatural while compromising both. — Thanatos Sand

There is nothing as far as I can tell that is supernatural about memory, life, or quantum fields. I am using them as fundamental constructs. [

quote="Thanatos Sand;87291"]The universe's fabric is not "memory" and no applied or theoretical physics shows it to be.[/quote]

All that physics tells us is that we are composed of quanta. My interpretation of quanta is that it is evolving memory/intelligence (and habits) as a process. It is not a novel idea but it does place mind at the fundamental substrate.

The notion of a soul transcending and defying the physical rules of the universe inevitably depends on either a supernatural explanation or a natural explanation correcting current ones. Nobody has provided the latter yet. — Thanatos Sand

There is nothing here that transcends any observations that are made. It is merely a model for explanatory purposes. Nothing new or supernatural is claimed. Everything is as is.

So... there would be no thing as ghosts and apparitions? — 0 thru 9

Given my model of memory bring imprinted holographically into the fabric of the quantum potential, it may be possible under certain circumstances for some people to view them in forms other than physical body forms. I believe that if such persistent memories do exist, the brain for the most part filters them out with appropriate reconstructive waves. But this is just an idea that I thought of in response to your question.

In new agey conceptions the soul acts, moves and evolves, so it exists in spacetime. — litewave

The concept of soul had existed for time immemorial so it it's not a new age concept per se.

However, my interpretation in light of more modern concepts, would be to just consider a soul as memory with a life force evolving as time (not through space/time). Memory is preserved as the fabric of the universe which would be the quantum potential. Evidence for this preservation would be the evolving characteristics of different species that we refer to as inherited characteristics or innate talents (genes are simply a partial physical manifestation).

I was responding to your conclusion:

"SO my take-away is roughly that if re-incarnation is taken as the self entering into a new life, then Buddhism does not hold to reincarnation."

There are many, many variations on this theme under the umbrella of Buddhism.

SO my take-away is roughly that if re-incarnation is taken as the self entering into a new life, then Buddhism does not hold to reincarnation. — Banno

I would be careful with this takeaway. There are as many interpretations of reincarnation as there are Buddhist teachers. This is not the Catholic Church with a hierarchy. I tried to warn you.