Yes, I agree. Creative evolution is a good description of personality. It can reasonably be extended to a description of reality itself, which (especially in or through us, so far as we know) is creatively evolving. — mrcoffee

I agree.

By use of these concepts of consciousness, virtually any information can be comprehended, even the concepts of consciousness... — Tyler

Information doesn't comprehend. Mind comprehends information and uses it to create. But yes, information is closely associated with memory. It seems to be equivalent.

we see that humans have a habit of changing their habits. — mrcoffee

Humans makes choices and have will (energy applied in a specific direction) that they can exercise to effect that choice. The choices are constrained but unpredictable whichever creates the possibility of creative evolution.

Memory is (one might say) actuality chasing possibility and generating more actuality, more memory. — mrcoffee

I agree.

I would say that we largely figure out what it is by detecting regularities in experience — mrcoffee

I agree. There are habits everywhere in the universe, like a pendulum.

I agree. The future exists as possibility, and in that sense possibility is higher than actuality. The actual is framed and used in pursuit of the possible, and the possible is itself a function of the actual (including the memory of what was once actual.) — mrcoffee

I agree. Memory becomes an important concept in understanding actions and habits.

But 'free will' also vanishes. — mrcoffee

I agree. An equally unobservable and that is unsupportable by evidence and phenomenon. I just wonder why it is still discussed.

There is nothing soft. What we have are choices and we make choices all the time like choosing to drop Free will and determinism.

I'm not arguing for strict or exact determinism. — mrcoffee

Ok. Then let's drop the word, because it is inapplicable, unless there is something about the word that needs saving. If the universe is not deterministic we have to figure out what it is.

future is constrained by the past. — mrcoffee

Based upon my own observations, our actions are constrained. The future is simply a possibility in our minds. We take actions based upon the possibilities.

I think we should distinguish between random and unpredictable. — mrcoffee

We can. And in either case it leaves us with zero evidence for determinism. Belief in determinism is tantamount to deep faith, comparable to Calvanism, which hold similar beliefs contrary to all observations and evidence.

As science progresses, the once unpredictable becomes predictable. — mrcoffee

Actually, as of 100 years ago, it is going in the opposite direction.

Probabilistic determinism only preserves the word, other than that, the concept of determinism perishes. Some events are more probable, but still precisely unpredictable.

If believing in free will only means believing that the future is not exactly determined — mrcoffee

I believe we have choices in which direction we move, which are constrained. Such a situation leaves the future unpredictable but still constrained and limited.

Let's imagine an extra-terrestial with a superior brain and/or technology who can calculate future individual human behavior with pretty good reliability. — mrcoffee

Let's not. This is what had turned philosophy and demonstrably science into fantasy and sci fi (e.g. time travel, and humans are computers). Let's just stick with what we actually observe and the fantastical possibilities. I admit that fantasy is fun, exciting, creative, and amusing but way too much philosophy and science is fantasy nowadays.

Now, the story you told is quite creative and interesting, but it had nothing to do but with the nature of nature and the nature of life. Why not just talk about what we actually experience everyday in our lives - choices.

I have no idea what soft determinism is or how it is defined. If there is a single instance of choice or random/unpredictable event, no matter how small, then determinism is demolished. What's left had nothing to do with determinism other than the word.

We still wrestle the experience that we'll continue to call 'choice' or 'free will.' — mrcoffee

I have no idea what the concept of "we" or "wrestle" means under determinism. Nothing has any meaning with determinism. There is no reason to even take discussion of meaning seriously since whatever we utter has already been determined. Do we even have can choice about taking anything seriously? Of course not. It is a chasm of meaningless existence.

There is no Free Will. There is only the ability to choose a direction of action. We have habits, sometimes very addictive ones, such as believing in determinism, which we have a choice to try to change.

What is knowledge, belief, or anything, if everything is determined and there are no choices? Knowledge disintegrates into a totally meaningless concept concocted by what? The Laws of Physics? Determinists are walking contradictions. Whatever they say it's simply concocted by whatever governs determinism, so who cares? It has zero meaning about anything.

How does one respond to this state of affairs? Pick up the trash and throw it away or just let it pile up and create an even stronger cognitive dissonance? — Posty McPostface

We do the best we can. I have diverse interests that allow me to learn more about myself and life, always in moderation with no expectations other than what unfolds. Your best and only teacher is yourself.

I'd like to share my care for other people; but, I lack the compassion to do so. I feel bitter inside from the realization that people don't care as much as I would hope they would. — Posty McPostface

Yes, people are what they are and it is not up to us to expect them to be otherwise. We can only be ourselves and share what we wish to share.

It's just that it's very hard to find people in a like state of mind. — Posty McPostface

To be alive is all there is. Buddhism doesn't speak to ego, it is a Westernized concept. Buddhism speaks to moderation in life.Everyone is different. To search for people, a community, is to to search for sharing. What do you wish to share?

Within the brain, there is an agent, which creates its own wave patterns — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this would be the mind or Bergson's Élan Vital.

interacting with the other wave patterns such that the person perceives the world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this would be the holographic universe.

In the case of the universal hologram what would what would create the waves to interact with the other waves? — Metaphysician Undercover

So you have the holographic universe which is just entangled waves. That's the universe.

These same waves are the Mind and minds. It is monolithic. The mind in a sense is peering into itself. When the mind creates reconstructive waves, it is creating images which in a sense are images of itself depending upon how you conceive there Big Mind the the little minds. Yes they are different but they are the same. Just suppose the waves are minds.

The video clearly shows the individual's brain creating a holographic image. — Metaphysician Undercover

Absolutely. The image is part of the conception in the mind and it's also part of the holographic image.

What you are asking is precisely how is that transformation from waves to image accomplished, within the holographic universe? It is the transformation that is bewildering. Beats me. That is as far as I've got. I look at a hologram and it's just a mass of entangled waves, and light passes through it as a reconstructive beam, and we see an image! Somehow the mind imprints an image into a wave pattern and then is able to reconstruct it.

I'm reading a lot about light and I think about it when I draw or do photography. Light is that which illuminates. What it all means is a work in progress. Something for me to try to understand. Maybe I will someday via some of my practices. The mystery of image and qualia remains.

I've mentioned Bergson quite often so I figure if someone is interested they will read him directly, which is the only way to learn and develop one's own metaphysical ontology. What I am describing is mine in which draws from many sources including my own practices as well as my own thoughts.

That's not what the Robbins video described though. It described each person's mind as creating a hologram from the brain wave patterns interfering with the wave patterns of the rest of the universe, so the hologram is the world as it is, being experienced within the mind. That's what supports his claim of direct realism. — Metaphysician Undercover

What Robbins described was the brain creating a holographic image via a reconstructive wave pattern. The singular universal hologram can create as many images as there are reconstructive waves passing through it.

So each individual has one's own hologram — Metaphysician Undercover

No individual is continuosly creating holographic images from the holographic universe. The holographic universe is all the wave patterns, the individual creates images that perceives as the outside v objects and inner memory.

I wonder why all the wave patterns are such as they are, what causes them to be the patterns that they are? — Metaphysician Undercover

It is the result of creative evolution of the mind, moving from the very simple to the very complex. In life we go through an analogous process when we learn art, music, math, speech, dancing, reading, everything we do. It is how we evolve and how mind evolves.

We still need to assume God don't we? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, just a mind that is learning, creating, an evolving. Even microbes can be observed evolving. This is the nature of Bergson's Creative Evolution.

I don't agree. I am much more than memory. I think, I anticipate, and I act, none of these things can be directly attributed to memory. So memory is only one of my many attributes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, there is also will and the ability to imagine a future possibility which is definitely an aspect of existence, but if you observe what is defining you as you, it is the memory of what was passing into a different what was. This duration of memory defines your existence.

Those wave patterns of the universe are not necessarily within the hologram, they would exist even if the mind wasn't making the hologram. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, mind and all it creates is embedded or comprises the hologram. The waves of mind cannot be separated from what it creates.

If each mind creates its own hologram, — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they are all weaving within the same hologram. Each wave in the ocean is creating but also part of the whole. There is no differentiation. It's all One as the Dao suggests.

So what is the source of creation of consciousness? Matter field? — bahman

It has to be the Mind, our minds. The Dao De Jing pretty much nailed it.

The Tao begot one. (Mind begins to move)
One begot two. (Yin/Yang, positive/negative, opposites, a wave form
Two begot three. (Yin/Yang/Qi, polarity and energy, a moving wave form, mind/will
And three begot the ten thousand things. (Spiraling, vibrating waves create everything.

The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. (Everything is composed of moving waves)
They achieve harmony by combining these forces.

OK, but that requires that the boundary between past and future is a real medium — Metaphysician Undercover

One has to consider the medium consciousness (mind) itself establishing itself as memory. Observe who you are. You are memory. You feel existence as past memory penetrating into the present with the mind establishing a possible future - but all in memory. That is the fabric of existence. Everything penetrates the fabric as some memory or as the physicists like to think of it, quantum information.

that's quite difficult to conceive of. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is difficult which it eludes common imagination. Actually. I think those who see it for what it is are called delusional and put in mental institutions. So one must be careful. :)

but matter is not substantial without form. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, the mind creates form out of the pattern and vibrational structure.

And the forms of matter are already assumed to be what exists as a hologram. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not as a hologram but rather a wave pattern within the hologram.

Now we need another form, to account for the real existence of the boundary, — Metaphysician Undercover

There isn't really a boundary, but rather the hologram morphing from m what is into something new (the present).

this would be the soul. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would just consider it the mind, and I reserve the concept of the soul for the mind with memories that transcend physical lives. But yes, with this it can be considered the soul.

we have three distinct substances — Metaphysician Undercover

It's the same with differences in creative activity, will, and memory. So the trick is to figure out how it can be all the same with differences. Bergson gives ideas as do I.

No God but one unified mind and all if the little minds.

So are you saying that force filed is conscious of us too? — bahman

Forces are ultimately consciousness applying will or entangled (e.g. gravity, weak force, etc.) It's not a lot of forces just popping out of no where without any source.

ote: At some point, because Robbins can't grapple with what he sees as the paradoxical implications of his own ill-defined principle of "abstract reciprocity of reference systems", — Pierre-Normand

Wrong. Robbins got it spot on and you are confused about what he has written. But this thread seems to be reserved for only those who agree with fdrake while disagreeing with what he is saying.

So the surface is the boundary between past and future? This boundary is the medium upon which the hologram exists? — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely.

But even if we accept that "mathematics is a reality", this is very far from saying that "whetever is mathematical is actually existence". At best mathematics describes a potentiality! — boundless

Even Everett viewed mathematical model as a fiction of the mind. It is a strange ontology that views symbols (mathematical, linguistical, or otherwise) created by the mind more real than the mind that creates them (for practical purposes).

The surface is mind/memory (information) unfolding as duration. Our minds translate the waves of information into a projection that feels like space. We are wondering through and observing information waves as space.

One thing that I did was just look out of my windshield while driving and imagined it as a hologram that is being created as my mind flowed through it. It requires one to flip the way one normally thinks of space but anyone who has been in one of those immersive video fun rides has had somewhat of a similar feeling.

No, they are not equivalent. They can only be converted to each other. We know this by fact, there is an experiencer and a subject of experience. — bahman

There are similarities in differences and differences in similarities as there are between vapor and ice. The experiencer and subject are the eyes looking upon the body.

Are you familiar with how a hologram works? If so, I have found no better explanation than Stephen Robbins videos. The first few pretty much describes it perfectly. It is a bit slow as she builds the case but it is worth the time. No doubt it would enhance your own personal ontology.

Bohm was off the mark but moving in the right track trajectory. What I've done is combine Bergson/Robbins (Robbins is phenomenal in presenting Bergson's views on holographic perception with Erik Verlinde's holographic theory of gravity. Put it all together and you'll probably come up with your own take on the ontology as I did.

The holographic universe might be imagined as quantum foam or an information (memory) fabric which the quantum foam represents.



The information (memory) is not in the brain. The information, like TV signals) are out there in the holographic universe. The brain is merely reconstructing/constructing images as can transmitter/receiver might. Rupert Sheldrake came up with a similar analogy. The mind constructs space from the memory hologram. Gravity emerged from the information entanglement. If you follow this trajectory you'll notice that space-time is headed for the c elephant burial ground.

All of this wavers very closely to Bergson's view of time, which in turn is in close proximity to new efforts to define gravity and quantum information entanglement as holographic in nature. The trajectory is clear. Even Ellis' interpretation of z Relativity pretty much turns Relativity topsy-turvy into this type of ontological mode, i..e. the past with the unfolding present pressing into possible future.

There are evidence-based theories which suggest that free-will and the self are both illusory and are not what we think they are. — Pseudonym

If free will and self are illusory, so are all scientists and everything they comment on.

There are two fields in nature: (1) Matter and (2) Forces. — bahman

They are equivalent, just different in vibrations. Remember energy and matter are equivalent. We know this empirically.

It is clear from Everett's own writings that he considers mathematical models fiction of the mind. He says so, in the text I referenced above. He did not consider them reality and even commented that all too often equations are used to replace reality instead of just leaving them for what they are, symbolic representations with some practical usefulness just like any language.

, both of which we unavoidably do anyway by our very nature. — Sapientia

Yep, that is what it is all about. Creates a very interesting and diverse life. The more one exercises ones creative ability the more interesting life becomes. We are all different experimenting with different paths.

My favorite source is direct observation and study of that which I experience. I then search of the beaten track whether it be the library, the Web, Youtube, wherever for unorthodox views. This is where I will find the most creative and most interesting thoughts of what I've observed. I'm always looking to push the boundaries. What is done is done. I'm looking to do more.

They are fundamentally different vibrations that we are experiencing. Each with its own form and intensity that it's embedded in the fabric of the (holographic) universe. In a sense, everything is feeling.

Keep at it. Also observe what others write. Creating something new is all about observation. You are doing it for yourself and no others. All of your posts are your own creations.

You just created. It is you. It defines who you are. Read your post and learn about yourself. This is how we evolve.

To create that which our spirit urges us create. To thine own self be true.

How something which doesn't have any essence can create? Mind should be something. — bahman

It has a vibrational essence. Exactly as described by quantum physics.

So mind experience as well. Does that decide too? — bahman

Yes, mind has the ability to create direction via will. It chooses the direction.

That is definition of mind in my opinion: The essence of any being with ability to experience, decide and create/act. — bahman

That is it. That is precisely it.

What is mind? — bahman

Simply put, it is that which is creating. Another way to understand it, it is that which is peering through the eyes.