The brain structure would be a quantum field potential which it's encoded with memory. It is not two dimensional.

The memories we carry essentially define who we are. The actions we take based upon these memories device how we explore, create, learn and evolve. So we are fundamentally evolving memory.

You asked how it could be, so I suggested a model. I didn't expect that you would like it, but as long as you were inquiring ....

Without getting into the multitude of Buddhists concepts of reincarnation, memory of self might persist if memory is holographically imprinted into a holographic universe. Such memory would reveal itself as innate talents, inherited traits, natural instincts, etc. It would explain child prodigies, for example.

I was trying to avoid the obvious out of respect for all those who believe we all live in the same universe, brains and all.

The article discusses research that provides evidence that the whole universe is a hologram.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170130083231.htm

Here is a brief exposition on the subject. I never thought God as being logical or religion for that matter. I always thought that both were a matter of faith so whatever they say is it. Into this quagmire this author decided to wade.

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/kevindeyoung/2009/10/27/can-god-know-everything-and-still-give-us-free-will/

This is how switches work in order to achieve their purpose, but this is not how holograms are constructed and reconstructed. The photos themselves are strictly symbolic of an underlying, continuous field.

Great that you are inquiring. I'm sure to learn a lot from another individual exploring this model. I learned a ton from Robbins. I believe this model is at the cutting edge of philosophy and I hope it encourages young philosophers to explore new territory.

BTW, I've communicated with Robbins and he is extremely open and responsive to explorative critique. When you have chance, I'll provide you with a link on Amazon.com where he does a masterful job of showing how Special and General Relatively contradict each other. He exchanged several messages with a physicist on this subject.

If the latter, then free will is logically compatible with God willing everything. In short, God willed humans to have free will. At which point, we have full control (and responsibility) over our intentions — Samuel Lacrampe

This would be a God without omnipotence which might be a problem for some.

The ones and zeros is a symbolic representation. A hologram or a quantum potential field would be continuous and entangled. There would be no clear boundaries.

I think that it should be underscored that Bergson intuited this model and Stephen Robbins enhanced approaching the problem from a philosophical point of view. It is an example of philosophy can advance or understanding of the nature of nature.

It's a puzzle and different clues lead one to contract a model that fits all of the pieces together.

One can consider "out there" as a feeling of extension from the core. There are the waves and there is an ocean. There is no distinction between the two but there also is depending upon what one is looking at. So duality exists.

The way to look at it as a Calvinist might is that we do have thoughts, and judgement and everything else it is just that it was all inserted in us by an outside force. All of these terms have a different qualitative meaning within a determinist or fatalist belief system.

Similarly, a determinist might use the Laws of Nature and that which is governing us and inserting all of these concepts into us. Why would the Laws of Nature bother inserting ideas like thought and judgment into us? Beats me, but one does not question the reasons of the Lord (Laws of Nature).

Yes, even a once removed quote in the same language presents problems (as we are observing in real-time). Context matters.

However, in the case of Buddha, hundreds of years transpired before anything was written down and then there is distortion after that.

I just take quotes and ideas for what they are.

I cannot discuss you without utilizing my perceptions of you. We both use the name jorndoe because we agreed to it.

If course, you can mediate or be aware of about yourself without me, but that is not a discussion.

I don't think Buddha can be quoted since he didn't write anything down, and even if he did, it would be subject to translation of a very old language which has different meaning than it has today.

Such quotes from different modern sources simply have to be taken as quotes from a modern source that are somewhat influenced by numerous other historical sources.

• the Moon
• perception of the Moon
• linguistic practices of Moon discussion

They're not the same, so shouldn't we keep them as such? — jorndoe

They all seem to be entangled in some way, which would be the basis of subjectivity and why each one of us view and label things in our own way but at the same time are able to reach consensus on some matters.

It appears that the central ideas of Buddhism have much more to do with this life than next life. Here seemed to be concerned with happiness of others and himself and probably found the Hindu caste system distasteful. From this he suggests two main ideas:

1) Desire for more and more leads to a tumble to less and less. The higher you climb the bigger the fall (he most probably wasn't looking for great notoriety if he embraced his own ideas).

2) A method to moderate the ups and downs in life is to follow a Middle Path.

I think that is the gist of Buddhism and the rest was developed over time (including the Karma thing) for different purposes with different motivations. When it came to the nature of God and life and death he might have shrugged it off or he might have the thought it is cyclical as we keep learning.

There must be a relationship (mind-body-health) and those with the most creativity and energy will further research and understanding. Once accomplished, mind will once again dominate the field of health research and other practical aspects of life. It may not develop in my lifetime, but that doesn't prevent me from actively using such concepts in practical every day life.

The effect of mind on health is indisputable. Maybe psychologists will be the ones to investigate this phenomenon further (and reap the rewards) and philosophy can continue to be relegated to a study seeking a reason to exist. I don't really care, but younger people may wish to pursue this line of research instead of Socrates. Just trying to open new vistas for those who are tired of the same old same old.

All right, now something a little more serous: could you give a short list of any philosophical issues raised by quantum theory? To be distinguished from pseudo-philosophical issues raised by folks with too much time on their hands. — tim wood

Sorry, I have nothing to say to you. It's just me.

My conditional has a contrapositive, the conclusion of which I believe has been shown to be false: if it matters whether a human makes the observation, then it matters which human. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. There are similarities and differences, so a hypothesis has to be developed to account for both.

I think the entire future of philosophy lies in those who thoroughly study quantum theory and research the philosophical issues raised by quantum theory. Scientists will not Wade into this area. It is not their domain. However the study of role of mind/consciousness in a quantum world can give rise to an entirely new way of looking at ourselves and our relationships particularly in the field of health.

An interesting article that addresses some of the philosophical issues in light of quantum theory.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4068017/#__sec3title

If this is anything other than rankest nonsense, then, apparently, we cannot know anything until and unless it's observed (by an "observing mind"). Of course neither that mind nor its observations can be known unless they too are observed.... — tim wood

And that is the way it is. We know by observing. Observing oneself is sometimes called meditation.

Of course, I'm leaving open the possibility that some people can learn without observation. This would be somewhat akin to Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance fields, where hierarchies of life share information via information fields. Are you a fan of this theory? Or do you have your own theory about learning without observation?

I just so happened to be reading this article which may be a start:

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-quantum-physics-macroscopic.html

http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/04/22/why-do-quantum-effects-only-happen-on-the-atomic-scale/

https://phys.org/news/2010-03-physicists-theory-quantum-mechanics-motion.html#nRlv

https://phys.org/news/2015-01-atoms.html#nRlv

https://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-physics-classical-quantum-world.html#nRlv

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-quantum-physics-macroscopic.html

What about when there's no observer at all? Tricky to test, but maybe we can at least form an hypothesis: if it doesn't matter which human makes the observation, then it doesn't matter whether any human actually does. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, one can embrace this belief, but it is only that. How a real external quantum state is transformed interested a "thing" is unknown. I would postulate, that the mind with the brain creates a a reconstructive beam which manifests the thing in holographic form. Without the reconstructive beam it is just a entangled quantum state.

And this trying influences the movement. Even if there are other factors that influence the movement, your influence gives you at least partial control over the movement — litewave

I would not characterize any influence as control. It it's more like intent of movement, so yes if a person is attempting to move against a wind force, no one force controls the movement, rather they create one holistic event with an unpredictable outcome.

One can speculate
— Rich

What do you think — TheMadFool

About God? Who knows? There are endless possibilities to choose from.

There are beings which exist, and are what they are independent and apart from, anyone's cognition of them. — Zach Johnson

I'm sure that there are many forms of realism, however, "being apart" is a somewhat difficult stance to embrace post-quantum physics. In addition , things are in some quantum state, but it is not clear"what they are", independent of an observing mind, since this is how we know things.

I would say I am a metaphysical realist but not as stated in your description.

I agree but it is so because you don't have an intention to do it. If you do an action without an intention to do it, it is as if the action or event "happens to you", it is outside of your control. — litewave

Yes, but there is no implication in the ability to choose a direction of action that there is also control of outcome.

Granted, there are certain authors and groups who suggest we create our worlds, but as you indicate, there does not seem to be any control of outcomes.

There are many, many constraints on actions, all we can do is try to move in a direction.

Yes, but it's not like we've to navigate a complex array of possibilities here. There are only 3 possibilities:

1. He found god
2. He didn't find god
3. He didn't know — TheMadFool

One can speculate over one of these possibilities, or a multitude of others. Each person has their own spirituality which spans a very broad spectrum. Trying to guess what someone might have thought thousands of years ago is very tricky, especially since one's ideas about spirituality tends c to change over one's lifetime.

Instead let us concentrate on the question of what the belief of the fundamental non existence of physical reality is called...? — Arran

This concept it's extremely difficult to interpret without further context and description.

What I might suggest world be a form of non-existence, might be the state of sleep when not dreaming. This might be analogous to the state of death. This may be what it's being referred to.

Buddhism is quite different from other religions — TheMadFool

It does depend upon what Buddhism sect one refers to, since there is a multitude of major and minor branches. I would say that Buddhism, as practiced, can run the gamut of a simple, meditative philosophy to a full fledge religion. One can say the same for Daoism. I, myself, consider the basic tenets representing some reasonable philosophical thoughts.

With this simple omission, the Buddha provides a good explanation of the fact of suffering (Karma) and also doesn't have to deal with the problem of evil that troubles God-basef religions. In short, Buddha's world is coherent - a very important characteristic of a good hypothesis. — TheMadFool

Here it gets tricky, because as far as I know Buddha never wrote anything down and what was passed down was done so by oral transmission. What was finally written down, was done so in many different versions using language that had it's open historical context, some of which is in conflict and all of which is subject to all types of interpretations.

Thus, talking about Buddha's motives and omissions gets kind of tricky and extremely speculative and ultimately just another branch of Buddhist philosophy/religion.

Of course things become way more complicated when it comes to translating literature, but this doesn't show that for most intents and purposes you can find very close correlations in meaning between words of different languages. It also partly depends on what one means by "translation", because we can adopt different criteria for "correctness" of translation - say 'literal' as opposed to 'free' etc. — Fafner

Yes, it all gets kind of tricky, even for simple situations such as the well known example of the snow and how different cultures symbolically represent it with language.

Yes, why not? Otherwise bilingual dictionaries would be useless. — Fafner

They are not useless, but depending on who or what it's doing the translation, the results are always quite different. There are over 300 translations of the Dao De Jing, must of which are entirely different. For example, some use concepts that the translator believes were being used at the time the Dao De Jing was written, whenever that might have been instead of modern context.

But, we can even use translation of Shakespeare as an example. How does a translator translate Shakespeare while maintaining all of the nuances of the language and historical context. The art of translation is a tricky one as is the art of interpretation. An example of the issues:

http://www.npr.org/2008/11/22/97002969/the-art-of-translation

I don't necessarily mean complete control of the action, but the ability to influence the action. — litewave

Yes. What it's being influence is the direction the body might move. A person may perceive the banana and try to avoid it, but again outcome is unpredictable.

There is no such thing as correct or incorrect translation of a language into another.
— Metaphysician Undercover
And I say there is such a thing, so? — Fafner

Really? This is really what you believe? Do you believe this is a fact or a truth?

The mind is a creative, self-organizing life force that transcends the brain and permeates the body.

Free will entails having control over your acts, which seems to be missing when your acts are unintentional. Like, slipping on a banana peel - an unintentional and therefore unfree act. — litewave

There is no control over actions. There is an ability to attempt to move in a particular direction. Outcomes are always uncertain because of other constraints.

In this case, a choice was made to move in a particular direction. The choice ofaction is taken, the movement is made, contact is made with a banana peel, and then the outcome.

Choices are made, outcomes are always unpredictable.