Could this method not lead to avoidance of difficult situations? If one changes their course each time there is turbulence are they not just victims of circumstance? — Perplexed

It's all about developing skills. Think of yourself as a sailor. What would you do if you got turbulence? How skilled are you? Is there anyone who can give you advice? How does it compare to other times? There are no right and wrongs. Everyone is different and everyone will learn as they will.

So you believe that you have a mind? What you are not dualist then? — bahman

We are mind.

I suppose one would need to get to the bottom of the source of their feeling in order to understand the connection it has to the direction they have chosen in their life. This is a very personal kind of truth though which could lead to relativism. Is the truth different for everyone? — Perplexed

In a way yes. As Shakespeare put it "This above all, to thine ownself be true".

We are just Navigators in Life. There is not just one path. We are learning as we go along, and should we encounter turbulence, maybe it is a good time to steer in a different direction. This choice in particular is what we have, the skills we learn along the way is what we seek.

The real problem is with those who believe we are just like robots and not only act like such, but allow the government/industrial complex (particularly the Medical/Big Pharm industries) to treat us like such. Gradual loss of freedom, privacy, and rights us the biggest problem we face and the education system is designed to encourage this with the idiotic idea that we are just computers - fodder for the super-rich. It is no different than when, in the past, people were taught that certain races were sub-human and could be used as slaves.

It is the promulgation of the idea that we are just computers that is the biggest danger people face.

But how can tell you're not just seeking whatever path happens to be favourable to you. i.e.. because it confirms your biases rather than has genuine merit. — Perplexed

There is no intellectual way that I know of. It's more about the feeling that it brings to you. Long periods of sadness are usually an indication that a change in direction is necessary in life.

I am talking about inside. You realm which your thoughts and feeling happen within. We can change reality — bahman

You mean like dreams, ideas, possible actions?

Therefore there is an essence inside too. Something which can affects reality. Nothing cannot affect reality. — bahman

It's not nothing. It's Mind.

Try an experiment. Think about picking up something and then pick it up. That is what the Mind can do - waves of mind

So we are illusions created by the mind tricking ourselves. — bahman

No, it is exactly as we experience it. No illusions.

Good. What about inside? We can affect the reality. Is there an essence inside too? — bahman

What is inside mind? Take a look and tell me what you find. I think you might find it is endless in possibilities.

So the universe is made of vibrating mind instead of those tiny higher dimensional strings of energy? — Marchesk

One and the same.

It is essence of matter — bahman

Yes, it is mind vibrating.

Things that we experience cannot comes from nothing, I mean the end of matter when you cannot focus more. — bahman

What do you think is the essence of quantum waves?

So matter has an essence? — bahman

As an wave in an ocean. Differences and similarities.

Perhaps you're right. But it could also be a recipe for mass conformism. How does one tell the difference? — Perplexed

From experience, I can relate to you it is diametrically opposite. It happens thus when each person seeks their own path.

Mater should have an essence otherwise we have to accept the fact that it is illusion, therefore it needs a sustainer, so called God. — bahman

Matter is energy which is non-substantive but we still feel something. It is like steam that condenses to b water that condenses to ice. Insubstantiality moving toward substantially.

So you believe that matter is an illusion therefore there is a sustainer? — bahman

Not at all. It is real and is exactly as we feel it.

To best explore life one should develop all senses but most especially that of feeling.

This still does not sound like enough to qualify as being "objectively invariant" — Perplexed

It isn't. Life is a game without rules. We create them as we go along. People, cultures, religions, countries, ethic groups all create their own game. The patterns are similar and different and a good observer may pick up on them. There is no one way. There may not be any way for all I know. I just observe and learn.

I never look for truth, only something new that may be a clue.

We experience two things. Inside and outside. — bahman

Yes we feel the demarcation though microscopically it dissipates. Whole meditating, this delineation may disappear.

3) Unconscious mind it's the experience of sleeping between dreams and awake.
— Rich

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. — bahman

It is essentially nothingness, but there is still an impulse that causes awakening from the sleep.

It is creative too. Sometimes solution to a problem pops up from subconscious mind into conscious mind. — bahman

Since the brain is alive, one can certainly say that it is creative in its own way, e.g. when it is healing itself.

Matter is decaying mind as opposed to organizing mind.
— Rich

So we have two minds? — bahman

One way to imagine it is with an analogy to the ocean. The ocean had waves. The waves have the ocean. They are different and the same. There are waves, within waves within waves right down to the quantum level, and maybe even deeper.

Are you then a dualist in asserting that the mind is something distinct from the brain? — Perplexed

No. It is all the same - one - just moving in opposite directions. Life is organizing while matter is decaying. But they are the same stuff.

The problem still remains that if the activity of the mind is the source of the creative process we need some way of distinguishing between truths inherent in the world and patterns created by the mind. — Perplexed

I don't think so. Life is creating. One understands life by engaging in need the creative process. Looking for truths can be an engaging game, but it is parenthetically to creating and understanding the process of creating.

I am not sure how a determinist could claim that we were free to believe what we believe and free to reach the conclusions we reached. — Andrew4Handel

A bigger problem for determinists would be, why would such a question would be asked in the first place. Do we have a Law of Nature that explains why quantum waves create self-reflection and philosophical musings in a continuous, meaningful, and persistent manner? Or better yet, what gives quantum waves in the brain the urge to have a Big Mac?

Beyond a grand pronouncement that everything in the Universe is determined by some undefined set of Laws, determinism has an infinite number of questions that need to be answered. Why do quantum waves of the brain sort fall in love and why is it they use Facebook to break of relationships instead of a phone? Is there a Law of Nature regarding Facebook behavior?

This sounds like a psychological process — Perplexed

100%. Totally psychological.

How can we tell the extend to which a pattern is created by the brain rather than inherent in world? — Perplexed

Nothing is "created" by the brain? The brain (actually the total nervous system) is merely a transmitter/receiver. Look at it. It looks like a transmitting/receiving antenna.

The mind is observing the patterns, whether it be football plays it an artist's reference model. The more we practice this amount various fields of endeavor the better we get. From this we develop the ability to create new patterns from the source patterns which yields new insights that we test. I do not this all the time when I practice Tai Chi, play piano, draw, play table tennis, sing, etc. Sometimes I find small new patterns and sometimes major new patterns. I've been doing this my whole life and with practice I get better at it. Then I experiment with it to see if it provides useful and practical applications in my life. I am always experimenting. This is true evolution of life.

This is not a guaranteed process. It is one of trial and error. Learning to adjust is also part of life and evolution. We are navigators not robots, that is the process of creating.

It appears to be quite different from statistical analysis. The mind is creating recognizing and observing new patterns and then from memory overlaying one upon the other upon the other (not necessarily consciously) and attempting to find differences within the similarities and similarities within the differences (a creative process) and then intuiting something new about nature. It is entirely a creative/intuitive process.

There is not a strict method. It is more like detective work, experimenting with new ideas and observing effects. Creativity and intuition is the path to new understanding, however it cannot be taught, it is as skill that can only be learned through practice of various creative efforts.

Basically we can't distinguish between computer simulated reality and this universe of ours. — TheMadFool

Well this is rather absurd. It's as if the producer of the documentary can't tell the difference between his wife/girlfriend and an Apple Computer. Really?

1) It is what is peering out through the eyes, learning, experimenting, creating and evolving.

2) It is what we experience when we are awake.

3) Unconscious mind it's the experience of sleeping between dreams and awake. There remains an unused to awake. Subconscious is somewhere in between.

4) The communication network center that transmits and receives between other minds and other things (sharing).

5) Forms and qualia as vibrations.

6) We act based upon a virtual goal.

I am not a dualist. Mind and matter are the same operating in different directions. Matter is decaying mind as opposed to organizing mind.

It is perfectly possible that your brain could be in that state, but the part of your brain responsible for generating the epiphenomenon of concious awareness erroneously reports that you are not. In that sense you would be incorrect about your assertion 'I'm hungry'. — Pseudonym

This is where pattern recognition in the form of finding differences in similarities and similarities within differences becomes the most helpful tool to a philosophy.

1) All life forms are organizing in some form to maintain life.

2) Some have brains and some do not.

3) There is no theory that explains why some particles try to survive and others do not.

4) Therefore there is some life force that acts in somewhat the same fashion (with differences and similarities) that is trying to survive and creating the feeling of hunger so that the total life entity gathers itself to survive.

This is how one forms a metaphysical point of view that is instructive and useful about one's own life and nature in general.

The "thing" is memory, and memory is persistent. It morphs but also retains.

The question is how do we know when these patterns are inherent in nature as opposed to arbitrary artefacts of our mode of perceiving? — Perplexed

By layering patterns upon patterns seeking similarities within differences and differences within similarities. This process should provide practical knowledge of the nature of nature and life. It should be useful insights.

If you consider quanta as being information or memory, then stuff is created at the microscopic level (such as gravity) by sharing information between quanta. This is called quanta entanglement. Similarly, on a macroscopic level, when two humans create things, they share information (memory). Within a single body, information between cells is constantly being shared via the nervous system. It is all about information sharing. But who or what is doing the sharing? Who or what is performing this creative act? It is the Mind. Mind is embedded in the universe (holographic style) and it's creating using bits of information (memory) or quanta.

Bergson, really nailed it. He said the photographic (holographic Universe) was the result of Creative Evolution of the Élan vital (creative force), Memory, and Will. He had incredible intuitive presence.

I just can't believe that cells made of particles somehow just randomly created entire biological systems. Particles of metal don't randomly organize themselves into rockets. Intelligent intervention is needed to shape inanimate or non-thinking materials into purposeful forms. — CasKev

Of course. I just posted a video where some physicists, because of all of the problems with b Relativity, are now positing the gravity is a function of quantum entanglement information sharing . If one substitutes mind/memory for information sharing we can now begin to grasp how the mind/memory creates by sharing at the quantum level. Creation is fundamentally quantum (mind/memory) evolution within a holographic paradigm. We (everything) are evolving by creative experimentation. Our minds are the intelligent designers.

Therefore how can we say that we are really "doing good" when more people in the future suffer? — Luke1i1

We can't say anything it's "doing good" because short term and long term consequences are always uncertain (unintended consequences). In retrospect one might say that some event turned out good for so-and-so and not so good for someone else. This too may change with the passage of time.

Which brings us to the Daoist story of a farmer and his son:

There was a farmer whose horse ran away. That evening the neighbors gathered to commiserate with him since this was such bad luck. He said, “May be.” The next day the horse returned, but brought with it six wild horses, and the neighbors came exclaiming at his good fortune. He said, “May be.” And then, the following day, his son tried to saddle and ride one of the wild horses, was thrown, and broke his leg.

Again the neighbors came to offer their sympathy for the misfortune. He said, “May be.” The day after that, conscription officers came to the village to seize young men for the army, but because of the broken leg the farmer’s son was rejected. When the neighbors came in to say how fortunately everything had turned out, he said, “May be.”

Well someone can look at your facts, and say it ain't so, because consensus had not been formed. Try telling someone who never saw English that it is a fact that it is English, and you'll either get a shrug or asked to prove it. At some point the person may join the consensus but not necessarily so. For that person it remains something you just say. The "fact" is only a fact among those who agree it's is.

And yet it is true that this sentence is in English. We can be certain of it. — Banno

Rather than being certain, we can say that those who know English have agreed upon this grammar and syntax as being English. It is helpful to understand this, because what are called "facts" are simply an agreement and consensus within a given population.

But I take it we agree that it is habit that underpins our acceptance that some things will be the same tomorrow. It is the exceptions to this that require explanation. If I had found a full bottle of claret this morning, I would have cause for puzzlement. — Banno

I agree. Bohm wrote that we seek differences within similarities and similarities within differences.

natural process of evolution is what makes them 'appear" that way — Pseudonym

And you know this how? Are you calling upon the famous "selfish gene"?

Life's aim is an act not a thought." — Andrew4Handel

Yes.

nothing to indicate that when a person acts under duress the act is not the person's act. — Metaphysician Undercover

There can be over signs. Certainly the people involve will know who is forcing the act. Admittedly, sometimes motive and actions are unclear to anyone including participants.

But the future is not like the past.

Yesterday I had a full bottle of red. Now it is only half full.

Supposing that the future is like the past requires quite a selective view. — Banno

There is repetition (habits) that are useful and there is novelty.

Humans wake up after they sleep.
Each person wakes up at approximately the same time but sometimes much different.
Most have a breakfast.

From these observations, one can begin to understand human nature.

Deduction is useless in terms of gaining further understanding, since it necessarily only restarted what is know based upon known observations. I've never witnessed any deductive argument that actually added anything to understanding since all of them rely on inductive proportions that can and will be disputed.

The mind is seeking to create. It uses its memory to direct actions in order to help achieve some future possibility. To understand the nature of the mind is only as easy or as difficult as understanding oneself, one's own mind. It is right there experiencing and creating.

Fine. Newton's requisition is a nice little equation, that can be used for certain types of problems for some practical purposes. Far, far, far from the fictional Laws of Nature that have immutably guided the universe since its Genesis.

I'm not interested to discuss the metaphysics of it, my interest is that in practical terms, the laws have remained the same. — Agustino

Well, the Law may stay the same but had shown to no longer be anything except an approximation and superceded by GTR. So apparently Laws are any mathematical equations that have practical application. Fine. It's open season on Laws even if outmoded.

I suppose you have a Law that predicts what time I get up every morning?

Newton's law of gravity — Agustino

Newton's "Law" it's a simple measurement within a very narrow scope over an extremely small amount of time that is an approximation.

Laws of Nature belongs in the fiction shelf, but it is still bandied about because materialism needs it. It's the go-to phrase for materialists as they cannot plea to a God or invoke the mind. As a consequence they just throw around this totally meaningless phrase hoping that no one will notice there is nothing there.

Sure, the laws of nature could change - it is logically possible. But there's no reason to believe it. — Agustino

How could you possibly know this? Can you enumerate specifically the Laws you are talking about? Can you show they describe the future is like the past? Can you show even one so-called Law that hasn't changed since the beginning of time?