I provided you with a link which described such a test for morphic resonance fields.

One can embrace morphic resonance fields or not , but if rejected then it hardly helps matters by imbuing human qualities into neurons and labeling the former as hand waving and the latter as "science".

Both theories are quite equivalent - i.e. energy fields are being given the attributes of consciousness. I just happen to feel that morphic resonance explains much more. Neurons are simply a manifestation (subset) of the field.

ver tells the water which way to go as a mark on the landscape. No need to over-think it. — apokrisis

Conduits do not create or interpret information. They are simply conduits. Nothing more. You have defined neurons perfectly. They are rivers of energy. Exactly what is described in Chinese health theory. It's when you attribute them with human characteristics like marking, learning, inhibiting, exciting, etc. that the hand waving begins.

One simply cannot doubt ones own experiences. Experiences (memory) defines being. That is literally who we are as we create, evolve, and they exist through duration.
Habits are just another form of repetitive learning and memory which can also evolve. This particular point good to Morphic Resonance mentioned by Wayfarer in her discussion of Sheldrake.

What is sometimes called doubt, is a feeling one may get when there is a conflicting memories (experiences). So I may feel doubt when my brother tells me something different about my early life. A new memory is formed which is in conflict with a another memory. Both experiences or memories are real, they both exist in my consciousness but in some manner may conflict causing doubt. In other words, it is our real experiences and memory which causes a feeling of doubt.

It is impossible to doubt memory. Doubt itself is s memory (experience).

Can't help you if you don't see how understanding the nature of habits and creativity applies to understanding and accepting ones personal experience. Hint: it had to do with Consciousness.

Agreed. And such questions must reach a critical mass of some consensus within some group.

Nope, and apparently you don't want to try to. Next time you decide to try to make little neurons into humans, try to do it without human-like sensibilities. It will be less obvious. What you demonstrated with your diagrams (while you wisely kept your own descriptions to yourself) is how science indoctrinates by imbuing shapes with human-like quality. Why doesn't anyone protest in class? Because they want to get an "A". More indoctrination. Point made.

This is mechanistic:



This is anthromorphic:

Still no answer to my question. I think I know why. If you analyze my question it is all right there. As I've read all the advanced, super-scientific, amazing scientific explanations - the ones people pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to learn, and all it is is a sleight of hand.

BTW, all see in this very fancy diagram is a few 2nd grade shapes (nicely colored in), a few fancy made up words, and some adjectives normally associated with human actions. Are those fancy words and little shapes suppose to be little humans? Besides inhibit, sense, and excite, what else can those little shapes do? Can they love each other? Or is loving just an intense form of exciting? I mean, can neurons get over excited?

Oh gee. We are making it difficult aren't we?

I know all about habituation and how science classes are designed to indoctrinate and create habituatual thinking. What I am most interested in is what you think neurons can do? In your own words if it isn't too much trouble? Feel free to copy. I've already read standard definitions - which are a hoot if I am permitted to editorialize a bit. Sleight of hand that is all. I've only had an undergraduate education so feel free to amaze me with what advanced education buys you.

Fine. Then how about you describing what neurons can do according to your advanced science class? Please try to be complete as possible because you are for sure going to be held to it. Be careful you don't embue any human characteristics in your definition because I am ready to pounce. I'm going to show you precisely where science transforms neurons into humans. It will be easy. It is unavoidable because science is a sleight of hand trick.

I think we were discussing hand waving, indoctrination, and habits. Now in my science class they discussed the very mysterious activities of little neurons who apparently could do everything that humans can do including creating illusions. Same with your class?

Would you care to describe all of the things that neurons can do in so far as human beings are concerned? I would suppose your neurons will be speaking for themselves.

Observe how you yourself describe neurons. It's quite interesting how anthropomorphic your descriptions become. You don't realize it because of habit. Neurons can do this. Neurons can do that. But can they do the Cha-Cha??

The hand waving happens when science turns neurons into little humans. Quite laughable, yet people believe it out of habit. This is the purpose of science education, to turn the laughable into acceptable.

Consciousness is precisely what everyone is experiencing throughout their awake state of living. Nothing more and nothing less. It is only mysterious if one wishes to make everyday living mysterious, which it certainly isn't for me.

What is a mystery is Unconsciousness and how Unconsciousness moves into Consciousness (the sleep/awake cycle) which would be somewhat analogous to the death/life cycle.

Thank you for the reference. Very interesting.

For me, instincts are nothing more than habits that continue through duration. They may be shared our v personal. The personal type (personal memory) may be considered evidence of transcendental life. Shared instincts (memory) would be an example of a hierarchical​ morphic resonance fields. It is entirely plausible since fields exist everywhere and have "memory". Magnetic fields pointing to the North Pole would be an ideal example.

Habit is a learned, repetitive, constantly evolving behavior of Consciousness that assists in the continued process/cycle of creating, experimenting, and learning. Breathing is a habit as is everything else. It appears to exist in hierarchies as shared habits.

Casinos win because of habits in the universe, and they set the payoffs accordingly. Habits of non-living matter and habits of humans. Science had no explanation for habits other than making up some terms like "laws of nature". Of course, many people accept this sleight of hand as something significant, also out of habit. Habits which are thoroughly inoculated into humans via the education system. It is difficult to break habits. As for me, I was always naturally skeptical of am education that pretended to exist for the benefit of it's students but really existed for is own perpetuation. Just another industry.

So, God develops new habits and then incorporates then into His practice? — John

No, Consciousness does which is precisely what it is doing all of the time as a definition of life. I do it all of the time when I'm studying any of the arts. This is why anyone who wishes to explore the c nature of nature might want to consider studying, for a long period, the nature of creativity and the arts. It is a way to experience the nature of nature from personal experience. It is different from thinking and reading. It is creating.

I understand the idea of morphic resonance. I read Presence of the Past more than 20 years ago and it is still on my shelves somewhere. I thought it is a nice, elegant, imaginative idea, but the problem is, I am not convinced, as Sheldrake seems to be, that the idea can be adequately tested. If anyone can explain to me how it could be adequately tested. then I would be happy to grant that it might have scientific, and hence philosophical (as opposed to merely literary), significance. — John

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550830710000820

Science is observation, measurements, and some sort of approximate prediction of lifeless matter. That is it. It cannot describe the nature of nature without resorting to circularity or worse yet assigning anthromorphic attributes to little living matter.

When one ruminates over the scientific symbolism such as the Big Bang, Laws of Nature, Selfish Genes, neurons with an agenda, one can only walk away wanting for something with a bit more insight. At least religion offers some concept of purpose. Science only squeezes all life out of life.

I don't see how this undermines science at all. What I think it does, is undermine materialism - and that's why it is considered a taboo. — Wayfarer

I also viewed the same video quite some time ago. No great revelations other than they were quite polite to each other. But the point you made here was actually the major point of the debate. Suggesting wave patterns such as Morphic Fields that guide physical development explains a lot and only upsets materialists who have lots to lose, in much more ways than just loss of face. Materialism is a huge industry. The biggest on this earth.

Words, or symbols, are limited to common beliefs and agreements. Thus the dimensions space, causality, simultaneity are all agreed upon beliefs do we are taught words that recognize these beliefs.

Now suppose, it became common belief and agreement that synchronicity occurs in people's lives? As an event unfolds we might ask the "synchronous"? Or we might invent a new word "wynch". I suppose such developments happen over long durations as the population evolves - first only a very limited number of the population may sense a new aspect of human evolution and slowly more and more begin to have this sense and agree to the concerts and words being used.

If you are saying that you are existence free will, without constraints, then I can only suggest that my experiences are much different from yours, and should you perform an experiment on yourself, e.g. have someone tie you up, you may be able to experience more concretely how your will is always under some constraints.

You can only imagine a possible action and try to act upon it. Actual outcome is entirely dictated by unfolding duration. The future is entirely unpredictable but there are choices that one can make as to how to direct will.

There is no reason to deny your experiences of imagining a potential action or actions, choosing a direction of action, and then observing results which in most cases will be different from what you initially imagined. I certainly wouldn't exchange these concrete images of existence for some other ideas which contradict concrete experiences. For what reason would one do such a thing especially lacking any substitute.

There very well be attn unchanging opposite to the every changing. My guess is that it would be like sleep when not dreaming. I was once "unconscious" for several minutes. That would also be a state of consciousness when nothing is changing (from my perspective). The may be a constant flow between these two states when asleep and when awake. In Bohm's metaphysics this would be the Implicate and Explicate Orders. When in the Explicate Order, everything is changing.

Equations and numbers are just agreed upon notation that represents observations. These can also change over time.

As for observing similarities in multiplicities, this to is a matter of agreed upon convention. 2 apples + 2 apples equals four apples, if it is agreed that the similarities in the multiplicities are close enough. Everything we call laws are really just agreements which are based upon what we are taught and learned as we evolve. There is no given.

The so called Laws of Physics (whatever they may be) are some equations that provide approximate predictions of behavior of non-living matter, under certain conditions, but also susceptible to being dead wrong. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic.

One might say that nature has habits subject to constant change. This describes both living and non-living matter.

People don't have Free Will. They have choice in direction, but so does everyone else. Some may choose to try to abuse animals, while others may choose to resist their attempts. Choice in direction does not determine outcome. No one can predict outcomes. It all depends.

This is concretely how nature evolves. There is no reason to introduce God, Laws of Nature, Free Will, or any other notion. All we have to do is observe what is actually taking place. People are choosing what they would like to do, but it never happens in exactly the way that it is imagined. The future is unknown.

The only thing you can do with academia is listen carefully and regurgitate what they are saying. The more accurately you mimic the better off you will be. They love it.

For your own personal development, study the arts (outside of academia). There you will meet creative people who are much more in touch with the nature of nature and the nature and of life. Far more interesting conversations will ensue. Accept academia and particular academic philosophy for what it is - discussion of ideas that are 100s and 1000s of years old, over, and over and over again, as well as complete acquiescence and subservience to the science and medical industries.

As you may realize, philosophy has nothing to do with science and mathematics but for economic interests both of those disciplines rule the roost and thought with it. You do what you have to do to leave academia behind and then you b do what is most important - live your life so you are true to yourself. I found and continually find academia barren of interesting and original thought. Fundamentally, it is laziness but more than that everyone is scared.

yes, which is why my fundamental interest of philosophical inquiry is in the human consciousness that created the instrument and less so in the instruments they create. Now, when I was a computer consultant, my interest was in the tools of the industry. It all depends upon the intent of my inquiry.

No reason to be frustrated. ☺ I've found more kindred spirits in artistic communities - but never academia which is a totally different space. No one with non-mainstream views can survive or will be allowed to survive in academia.

Quantum does not have to be confusing or strange if you stick with the concrete and avoid all science fiction.

Quantum are just waves of energy that perturbate so at times they seem like particles. Just look at the ocean and you'll see quantum in macroscopic form - continuous, ever changing, and flowing with forms within forms within forms.

The above is roughly the De Brogie-Bohm interpretation. Now the further question is: What is quantum. This is a further philosophical question. Bohm suggested, and I agree that quanta is consciousness. Bohm's model is a bit more intricate with an Implicate and Explicate Universe.

The above is concrete and real. Beyond this there are other interpretations that I find unnecessary or insufficient, but it is a matter of taste. One can enjoy life dealing with the mathematics of the thing, but for me mathematics is an inadequate tool that hinders, but it is each person's choice. If one is interested in understanding more about life, evolution, and creative intuition I would recommend Bergson before I recommended quantum, though there is insignificant difference between the two.

Suffice to say that symbolic multiplicities can never be anything more than a rough approximation of flowing, ever changing continuity. Mathematics is not only just a tool, it is actually an hindrance. Far better tools and metaphors can be found in any of the arts.

There are aspects that are shared and their are aspects that are different - as with snowflakes.

A modern update of shared energetic aspects that are at the same time different might be Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance.

Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance

If a single observation is wrong than every observation necessarily has to be considered wrong since skill in observing, prospective of observation, interpretation​ or ability to describe an observation, as well as the observed is constantly and continuously changing.

What is happening is that observations are changing and differing from other observations, which is impossible to avoid, as everything continuously evolves.

I can't remember when I needed or thought I might need mathematics for philosophy.

Mathematics are just some symbols that humans created to assist in develop equations that approximately predict the behavior under certain circumstances of certain non-living matter. Quite simply, mathematics is a tool created by consciousness. I am far more interested in that what created mathematics than the tool itself. Mathematics may be of interest to other professions that create and use it. I don't see any relevance to philosophy especially as it concerns life.

Anyway, I think Dennett's anti-philosophy is a complete falsehood, a crock from top to bottom. So do a lot of other philosophers, but they have to be polite about it. It is simply the attempt to apply 'scientific thinking' to subjects beyond it's scope, which is 'scientism', pure and simple. People have been pointing this out about Dennett for decades, but he keeps turning out this nonsense. — Wayfarer

All Dennett does, as do all materialists, is create human beings out of neurons. They talk about neurons as though they are the little human beings in charge of the robots - that is us - who are dwelling on illusions while the real humans - the neurons - continue to play tricks on us - us being the self same neurons, I think. Of course, the neurons are not really in charge, not by a long shot. Scientists, those who see through the illusion, can control the neurons, because apparently their neurons know how to control other neurons and are smart enough to see through the illusion. Call these super-neurons and they inhabit Dennett. So it is really not Dennett who is exposing this illusion for what it is, but rather his super-neurons that have decided to let the cat out of the bag thereby exposing all of the other neurons for the tricksters that they are. The jig is up, and we can thank Dennett's superior neurons for finally setting accounts straight. This may be the agenda that the reviewer speaks of.

And that is the "story".

I understand. Neurons start off life as little babies and then the grow into adults who form little communities and sometimes big cities, and then they die and give each other funerals.

Can we please stop referring to neurons as little people? It gets kind of creepy. Maybe it's just an illusion??

So "we" have no access, but little thinking neurons do. And they have an agenda!

Well, thank you to the reviewer for clearing it all up. Really all we need to do is think of neurons as little people doing all the thinking for us and we are all set. A little bit of
anthropomorphism usually clears up all issues relating to consciousness.

Now back to illusions and myth-makers. Who's to blame for this bit if trickery? Blame it on the neurons? Now why would they go through all of the trouble to do such things? What is their agenda?