Germs exist independent of people's minds though. Even if you do not believe germ theory, you still get sick from bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms. If you think demons possessing you cause you to get severely ill and get an exorcism to cure your illness, you are still going to be sick because the underlying cause of your illness is still present. If germ theory was not true, methods we developed to prevent the spread of germ-based illnesses and kill germs in the body would not stop the spread, development, and existence of observed illnesses. The hypotheses surrounding germ theory require that germs actually exist; I cannot develop an alternative set of hypotheses that illnesses are caused by a belief in germs to explain the observations we see in medical science. — Chany

The body has 10x more bacteria and viruses in it than human cells.

People may host the same gems and viruses, yet done will become unhealthy while others will not.

Some people will have the same unhealthy symptoms as others but will not host the same bacteria.

Gem theory is an excellent example in the highly flawed medical science theories. It is flawed because it ignores the whole system. It is the host that is unhealthy, bacteria is simply a symptom. By focusing on germs the primary problems are ignored.

The material aspect appears to be beyond the grasp of the mind, and this limits our ability to apprehend, and change the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Bergson's metaphysics develops a model that avoids the clumsiness of the above stated view, as does the Bohm Interpretation. Conscious (Mind) and Matter are one and the same, moving in different directions in Duration (real time). One can say that Matter is Mind (Bergson names it the Elan Vital) that is no longer evolving in Time. They are one and the same but in different states. If one wished to be highly precise, there is still a bit of Duration in Matter but it had slowed so drastically that evolution has appeared to stop.

Bergson understood very thoroughly all of the issues with both Dualism and Physicalism and sought to close the gap. In doing so, he amazingly created a model that fortold both holography and quantum physics. An amazing accomplishment which De Broglie wrote about.

Stephen Robbins as a series of videos on Youtube discussing the holographic aspect of Bergson's philosophy though I'm not sure it is easily understood without reading Bergson first.

https://youtu.be/RtuxTXEhj3A

There is also an amazing debate on Amazon where Robbins disects Special and General Relativity and points out how they contradict each other!

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R17WTYWUM6881A/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_btm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0691173176#wasThisHelpful

To the best of my understanding, the is no particle. Just a symbolic representation (am mindful image) of a particle when it is convenient for purposes. Likewise, the symbolic wave (another image) when it is convenient for practice purposes, as with the double b slot experiment. I believe it is imprecise to discuss it otherwise. There is a chasm of difference between instantiating it as a particle (or a wave) and labeling it a particle (or a wave) and that is what the philosopher may choose to explore. True, one can call it a wave-particle but where does that leave us other than a confused image.

My own preference is viewing it as a wave (not particle) with wave perburtations being viewed as patches but not such. This would be the De Brogle-Bohm version. In such an image, the is no real psyche though the permutations may be mathematically treated as such. As always, I am seeking precision.

Then I would say there is still a problem, if the mind at all was involved with the movement of the physical body. If it isn't, then what is providing the impulse. There is also the issue of how does the mind "grasp". How does the physical convert into something that can be grasped by the non-physical. I believe Bergson, as he was extremely well studied and reknown for his understanding of mathematics, biology, psychology, and philosophy, set out in his own metaphysics to address these very issues.

As I understand it, the issue that traditional dualists (not Bergson) must grapple with is how does an insubstantial mind (or spirit) grasp the distinct and apart physical. Where does the physical aspect of the mind lie? How does it convert?

I would agree that physicalists have the same problem, in that somehow the insubstantial mind must emerge out of the substantial brain.

In terms of the current discussion, a foot and rock would both be considered substantial matter and not requiring a bridge at the overt physical level. Things get much trickier if one had to explain how insubstantial energy fields convert themselves spontaneously into physical matter. No doubt there is much to be disturbed about I'm the typical physicalist's metaphysical model.

The problem is that they are distinct then what is the bridge?

Bergson's approach is to to have mind and matter share temporal time matter being residual. In this way he avoids introducing any need for a bridge.

Setting aside the scientific method, which admittedly is flawed, as a philosopher, is the diversity of spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical experiences, as observed by you, best explained by an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God?

A different view of dualism that overcomes the historical difficulties of dualism. It requires a totally different v way of looking at Matter and Memory:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bergson/

"Since its publication in 1896, Matter and Memory has attracted considerable attention (see, for example, Deleuze 1956). In the Preface that he wrote in 1910, Bergson says that Matter and Memory “is frankly dualistic,” since it “affirms both the reality of matter and the reality of spirit” (Matter and Memory, p. 9). However, he is quick to warn us that the aim of the book is really “to overcome the theoretical difficulties which have always beset dualism” (ibid.). In the history of philosophy, these theoretical difficulties have generally arisen from a view of external perception, which always seems to result in an opposition between representation and matter. Thus, Bergson's theory of “pure perception,” laid out in the first chapter of Matter and Memory aims to show that — beyond both realism and idealism — our knowledge of things, in its pure state, takes place within the things it represents."

The last sentence is critical to the new understanding.

De Broglie surely would have taken issue with this point of view. In fact he did. As did Bohm and a plethora of others. What is philosophy without an examination of all available knowledge and points of view?

If quanta is a wave, then one cannot speak of its position at a point of time. Heisenberg's principle implies this, not as a limitation but as a real aspect of quanta. Something that is constantly in flux and cannot be frozen in a position. Such a freezing would be an incomplete description and picture. There are no particles, but there is something. To call it a particle unnecessarily constrains and inhibits exploration as to the meaning of the fabric of the universe. It is contrary to free investigation of the nature of energy fields and substantial matter - which I believe are the same. A particle image needs to be discarded or minimally looked upon as a grossly simplified and incorrect view.

The issue here is, and I'm sure you realize it, that one can claim that whatever the ultimate outcome, it is the will of God. This those on both sides of an issue can claim that outcomes are the will God.This has always been the thorn in the side of those whose beliefs are of a omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God that is external to all things. As a matter of course, materialistic determinists have exactly the same problem but in their case the invisible hand are the laws of physics.

We agree that there is something there there. By beyond that the subject gets far more complicated, always has been, and in all probability will always be.

The process of science is far more complex than the notion of refinement. At times, it is great leaps in intuition and creative images that allow theorists to approach a problem in a while new way. When Bohr described the nucleus as a water drop to Meitner, he was presenting an entirely new image of the nucleus which permitted the intuited motion of how energy tension from the nucleus may be released via fission. It was this new image together with new perplexing data from experiments that moved nuclear physics into a new perspectives and possibilities. The entire story is quite extraordinary and far more exciting than the banal story often presented in academic classes.

This process of discovery is very similar to the process of discovery in all other disciplines where it be the arts, history, philosophy, etc. There are no discernible differences that I can point to. It is how all humans explore in all the things they do. The symbolic mathematics that physicists use is just a tool to help predict within the tolerances of practical needs (Newton's equations are still a reasonable approximation for most problems). In some cases, new mathematics are created (and I do mean created) to act as a new symbolic language which is adequate for current practical needs.

As for the images of the atom, that is all they are, and scientists who pride themselves on precision and admission of their own limitations, will acknowledge that what is being viewed is a function of the photon disturbing the object as well as a function of the instruments being used, how the instruments were designed, and what the observers has decided what they will see. We are seeing the result of an interaction of a whole system and what is there there is there but what we view is a manifestation of perspective. I think it would be oversimplified to call them particles. It is real, but what it is cannot be said. My preference is to refer to it as a holographic field.

I believe that it is difficult to describe complex stories, and that simplified descriptions are useful but it v and be admitted that the simplified description is only that and if someone wishes to understand the complexity at a deeper level then further explanation is welcome. I personally always dig deeper for myself since I enjoy exploring.

I think, upon inspection, the precise description of atoms, molecules, quarks, boffins, hadrons, bosons, quanta, photons, dark matter, spin, etc. are quite malleable and are more or less symbolic as are words and some other mathematical construct. I remember reading Bohr describing the nucleus as a water drop, which led directly to Meitner's description of fission. Symbolism should always be recognised for what it is and not confused with what actually might be.

The discussion seems to be around what are beliefs, can beliefs be used as "evidence" of any truths, what types of beliefs are held by different populations, and by what process each population uses to build up and instantiate their beliefs. It is an interesting discussion to the extent that one uses any discussion of beliefs to interrogate their own deep-founded beliefs.

Beliefs are integral to the process of exploration (Columbus believed the world was round and that he would discover another route to India), but these beliefs should always be subjected to me discoveries and understandings (he didn't bump into India but an altogether new continent). Beliefs are not only ideas, they are also processes. The process we arrive at any belief should always be subject to inspection.

The issue with Husserl's stance as I perceive it, is that he as with many other philosophers before and after him, are still seeking access our definition of truth. The problem is that in a universe that is in constant, never-ending, change, flow, flux, it is impossible to stop time long enough to gain truth. In other words, and so-called fact that one states, is a product of prior memory of some individual mind, and before any possible instantiation of a fact can be formed, everything, everywhere had changed, making any statement of fact subject to change. This point of view depends upon the observation that everything is always changing, a condition that is supported by current scientific thinking.

As for intuition, I believe this is the only route to a deeper understanding of ourselves, of life, and the universe. It is a process of self-journey and as with everything else is subject to change. The way I already intuition is by observing events from many different perspectives and finding the similarities and differences and forming new positions and ideas.

Will intuitive observations change and will they differ from individual to individual? Yes, they will. But no more than any other process that we might use. Every process towards understanding is always subject to change, to disagreements, to different observations, to different conclusions. It is an aspect of the creative mind that is at the heart of everything and embedded in the fabric of the universe. The universe simply did not yield to absolutes because it is always changing.

I wouldn't say that fallacies are a necessary survival tool. I've pretty much lived my whole life without resorting to Aristotelian logic, syllogisms, etc. I recognized the weaknesses in this tool very early on in my first philosophy class (much to the consternation of my philosophy professor).

These are all just learning tools for people to explore. Every syllogism is fallacious ii one way or another. One takes away from it with what they wish.

Everything has uses. They exist and if they exist they can be used for learning. But this doesn't mean that we have to learn from everything. We pick and choose.

Setting aside the notion of God for the time being (I believe the world is exactly as it seems, and that is We are creating and observing everything that Is), I would most assuredly agree that science is simply about measuring with the tools that We have created. Besides being at times lots of fun (e.g. measuring distances to stars), it also is handy when creating new tools and weapons (if you are off that persuasion).

Problems are born when people, especially scientists but also often philosophers, confuse the theories and tools we create with We the creator. It is not only problematic but also quite unhealthy.

The problem is not how one reads books on logic. The problem is that the use of logic in the fall world is fallacious. Logic is only useful in the academic classroom and has no usefulness beyond that. The is simply no n way to state a factual proposition.

Of course being wrong has value. It is how everyone learns, grows, and evolves. It is absolutely fundamental to human existence.

Think Zeno's pardox. Logically/mathematically one CANNOT travel any distance. However one can easily walk from one place to another. This is a perfect example that our world and this universe itself is not limited in any way by our logic and its rules. That leaves plenty of room for perfectly applicable fallacious thinking. — TheMadFool

Yes, I agree. Bergson solved the paradox by observing that true time is continuous (non-divisible) and heterogeneous. Logic can never solve these kind of problems.

If fallacious reasoning is a product of millions of years of evolution, then we should cherish it.

The errors with all syllogisms is always the propositions.

Hence, take my above proposition with a grain of salt.

One only need to think of duality as two sides of the same coin. One can analogue this to wave-particle duality or energy-matter dualty in that one transforms into the other under certain conditions. Time itself does not participate in any of the dualities but rather becomes a manifestation of memory which evolves as the dualities change. However, memory does entail a mind and in this model the mind must be interwoven within the energy-matter duality being the impulse of movement as well as the observer creating the action-time. But to be clear, the is no separation. There is only one woven fabric. In Bohmian terms, it is the Implicate-Explicate Order. Matter is just impulses arising from the fabric.

Symbols do exist as memory and are as real as anything else, they are less substantial. Symbolic representations, whether in memory or written on paper as a means for commuting an idea is one of the ways that the mind continues to grow and create.

Whatever is there in the holographic universe is there for me. I do not distinguish between real and imaginary. They all exist.

I would say that science is a manifestation of the creative mind that is embedded within the holographic image as the mind seeks to view itself. The mind cannot view itself directly so it uses mirrors called science, arts, psychology, etc.

The nature of a holographic wave pattern is that the referenced wave images appear everywhere since waves have no limits. It is the defining characteristic of the hologram. There is no there there. The there is everywhere.

There is material substantially but in essence it is all energy. This doevetails our current understanding of the energy/material universe. The material is substantial energy.

i would submit that space-time as you describe as it relates to the mind and/orbody is highly debately. Space-time is rather ambiguous concept arising out of the mathematics of certain gravitational theories and does not in any way create an ontological description of mind or body. If there is a relevant physical theory (not that physics had anything to say about mind) it would be quantum mechanics which had no position on time or space-time though as always there are lots of theories.

Therefore, i would think that using space-time as grounds for a proposition for mind or body is highly debatable therefore subject to endless argument at the propositional level. Until that debate is settled, which it cannot be, the syllogism cannot be used as any proof.

That is indeed interesting, I believe that the world does indeed need the mind to exist - giving that we all have a representation of it that we cannot really distinguish between that of the "real world" - but does the mind really need the world to exist? Assume that we were just minds, how would we know of our surroundings if we aren't aware of ourselves prior to us being able to figure out that we can think, feel, hope and fear. Without our physical representation of our bodies, the mind and the world. Therefore, Can we really be sure that the mind needs the world in order to exist? — GreyScorpio

One way to view the problem is not that the mind needs or doesn't need the universe but that the mind is embedded in a holographic universe, such as the Implicate/Explicate Universe as described by David Bohm.

The Universe as we view it is real, it is there, it is substantial, and it is exactly as we perceive it. It can be thought of as a hologram and the mind is a reference beam that is tuned to a frequency in order to view a personal aspect of that hologram. So everything is real and there.

From these views, a personal mind (both distinct but still part of a Universal Mind) creates its own personal memory which is also part of the fabric of the universal hologram and is accessible via a personal mind frequency This can be what is commonly referred to as Self.

So we have a Universal Mind and a Personal Mind and they are embedded in the fabric of a Holographic Universe.. Does the Personal Mind persist as part of the Holographic Universe? In this model it does.

(1) If dualism is true, then mind is not spatio-temporal, and body is spatio-temporal.
(2) If mind is not spatio-temporal, and body is spatio-temporal, then mind and body cannot interact.
(3) Mind and body can interact.
Therefore, (4) dualism is not true. — quine

Questions about the propositions:

1) What is the nature of mind in a spatio-temporal sense?

2) What is meant by a body is spatio-temporal?

3) What is spatio-temporal?

4) What does it mean to interact in a spatio-temporal?

5) Is current knowledge of the physical specified in terms of spatio-tempiral?

The most significant problem s that I found with the argument is that terms are not defined and therefore cannot be argued for our against. Without specificity and precision, it is impossible to understand the proper meaning of the statements.

I would agree, but physicalism just makes something that is empty into something physical and then the deed is done. Emotions are nothing more than electrical impulses which are nothing more than empty forces which are all physical because they can move a dial. It is as Hindus do. Physicalism creates a universal umbrella that includes everything that has ever been and continues to expand as the future unfolds. I would describe physicalism as the ever expanding Hindu Eye though rather than call it physicalism, I would call it knowledge. Immeasurable, of course, but physicalism somehow makes it measurable.

Choice is a choice in action not in outcome. And choices are constrained and impacted by all of the forces in the Universe (fields of energy have no limits). Whatever action one chooses to make, outcomes are not known until they have passed into memory. I might choose to try to fly off a building. Whether or not I survive is never known until it is witnessed in memory - hopefully mine.

We all have choices, and some people choose to write and say that they do not and some write that they do. Both are a manifestation of creative ideas that we can create.

Are you saying that anything that cannot be measured is denied by physicalism?

A practicing Hindu onced explained to me that all religions and all philosophies are Hindu. Hindu welcomes all religions under its umbrella.

And thus it appears does physicalism. It welcomes light, quanta, emotions, qualia, consciousness, all types of forces including dark forces and dark matter under its umbrella. If we sense it, if we feel it, if it is conjectured, if it is needed for mathematical equations, if it is anything other than God or angels it is welcome. It has no limits other than it does not include Hinduism and everything under the Hindu umbrella - except where they overlap. And as with Hinduism, it is useless trying to define it since as the umbrella grows so does the definition change.

The problem with this question is what exactly are the laws of physics? If you include all of the mysterious forces that are simply measured without understanding what exactly they are, including dark energy and quantum mechanical probability waves, then there is nothing in Bergson's metaphysics that would be in conflict with physics. De Broglie wrote an essay describing how Bergson's work was prescient with regards to the development of Quantum physics. Bohm's Undivided Universe dovetails Bergson's.

Yes, there is reality of matter and spirit but not dualistic. They are one and the same extending in different directions. This is very clear in his writings. One is the flip side of each other, similar to Bohm's Implicate-Explicate order.

I don't recall Bergson espousing dualism, by I can be setting.

My understanding is that his building blocks for all phenomena at Memory, the Elan Vital (the creative impetus), and Duration (la Dureé). This was everything. The photographic images embedded in the fabric of the universe, of which he spoke, pre-dated and predicted the discovery of holography. Somehow he intuited it.

He did speak of Matter as decaying (moving in the opposite direction) of life. In that regard there is duality - i.e. matter being the flipside of life. Interestingly, Louis Kahn, the noted architect, also spoke of matter as decaying light.

I believe the key to understanding the nature of life and the nature of the universe is to understand the nature of light - that which illuminates everything but itself.

The major element of my model is that everything is energetic patterns or what Bergson called Memory. The difference between what one may view as a personal image vs. what one may view as external is a matter of substantiality. Both are holographic and both are made from the same fundamental building blocks, i.e. energetic wave patterns. Persistence differs because of the difference in substantially. A major question is how does substantiality arise from wave patterns. This is the essential issue of Quantum physics and the wave-particle duality. Via deep intuition one might come to some description of this process.

Many spiritual cultures take the opposing view that the vital spiritual force chooses the parents prior to coming into existence. A more fair point of view.

It is always a dead end and somewhat of a punt when a philosophical model resorts to illusion of some sort. I simply believe in this case the Buddhist writings are being translated and interpreted incorrectly as often is the case with Daoist writings.

The Big Dipper is a state of memory with a certain firm that is very real in one's memory. Memory is real. It is not an illusion. If necessary, one can make it more concrete and call it a energetic holographic pattern created by our mind.

We are also real, created in more or less the same way but with more material substantially. How does energy turn into more substantial matter is a subject of some philosophical works such as those by Bergson. It goes directly to the question of what is quantum, what is light?

In both cases, at the core of each is Da Vinci's Creative Spirit which is creating these holographic images from the energy patterns. I believe this leads to s better understanding of the Buddhist thoughts. We c are not an illusion but a construct of energy patterns.

The question is whether a non-deterministic universe necessarily chaotic. There are ways to account for a universe that is non-deterministic, has conscious choice, yet still orderly (any model has to account for the self-organizing characteristics of line). Bohm provided one such possibility as did Bergson.

I believe this is a false dichotomy. There is plenty of room for a universe that is not chaotic, but rather habitual, and still creating/making choices. Such a description would be precisely what we observe. For example, electron orbits are proscribed, but where exactly the election will be observed is probabilistic within the constraints. This is neither random not deterministic.

There is no reason to simplify possibilities to two when there are so many others to consider.