Because laws - natural or otherwise - are, at best, limits on action, they specify the bounds within which action takes place. — StreetlightX

Really? No way, unless infinity is considered a boundary.

The same is true of the 'laws of nature', which while universal and inviolable, — StreetlightX

And you know this how?

'. While it is true that nothing can violate natural selection (maladaptions will likely lead to extinction), — StreetlightX

And the proof is?

Again, the point is that while natural selection is both universal and inviolable in biology, nothing about this universality or inviolability means that natural selections 'governs' each and every aspect of a species. — StreetlightX

I guess this means that the universal and inviolable can be violated?

It seems that the Laws of Nature is completely fabricated. They are just sweeping statements that are thrown around to justify some particular point of view. There is zero evidence of any sort that there are any laws governing the completely unpredictable behavior of life, yet science loves to extend some simple models of matter to the behavior of life.

I agree. Ups and downs and lots of in-betweens.

It states that no matter how good or bad things are, eventually your levels of happiness will settle to normal. — Abdul

Just reporting on my own experiences and what I have observed of others. Life appears to be cycles of up and downs.

So is happiness simply a reaction to external circumstances? — Abdul

Happiness can happen at any time, quite unexpectedly, and it might be quite spontaneous, as some people have shared. It just happens. Usually, I guess, it is always, followed at some point by neutral and then sadness. Life is quite cyclical.

the quantum state continues to evolve unitarily regardless of observed measurement outcomes, with each state equally physical. — Andrew M

While the Schrodinger equation is all well and good, one still had to give credit to the minds that created it based upon the observations of said minds.

I think I agree that a child born with no senses, — Tyler

Without senses, the child would not be alive.

Sensing and mind is synonymous. No sense, then unconscious. Sometimes the mind does wakes up and begins to be sense again. Sometimes not.

It doesn't matter. The top 1%, who become the top 1% by stealing or some other scam, will always find v ways to buy government and pass laws to benefit themselves (actually the top .1%). It had always been this way throughout recorded history. It is actually quite easy to buy off people.

From the perspective of this point, the notes and musical score flow past as a procession. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't observe it that way. For me, music just flows in my mind, one sound penetrating into another.

the assumption of static states is fundamental to the conscious understanding of the physical world, as is evident from the basic laws of logic. — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't ever actually obseve anything that it's static. However, we can sort of view something as static in our minds though it too is always changing. The closest thing we can create that is static is some c symbolic language, but when we do this, the mobile nature of nature is lost.

We need a static viewpoint, independent of the morphing forms, from which to observe and produce a complete understanding of the morphing forms. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not really. Observing movement directly, e.g. music, is Infinitely better than trying to understand music from notes. Everything is lost with a musical score, but it can be brought back to life with the movement and creativity of mind. Symbolics are practical for certain problem solving or communication but have very little to do with the movement of nature. Movement can only be comprehended by the mind. Once this is fully set and understood, then it is possible to understand the practical value of symbolics which is why the mind invented them.

Yes, mind is an ocean with will/intent. The ocean is actually the holographic field that the mind is creating.

But the key to believing it, or accepting it, is to recognize the logical necessity of concluding that physical objects are necessarily re-created at each moment of passing time. — Metaphysician Undercover

They are not being recreated. They are morphing. There are no static states. Static states (nothing is static) are symbolic projections which the mind creates to share observations or solve practical purposes.

I can extrapolate to conclude that all physical existence must come into being at each moment as time passes. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, existence is just continuously morphing exactly as it is perceived. Memory of the past gives us the sense of duration.

I am not sure why your model is overcomplicating itself, because fundamentally the pieces are all there. Maybe you are trying to preserve some remnants of some other ontology that really doesn't fit. If you observe anything from any angle, it is just a holographic form morphing, via movement in duration, into a new form. It's all "out there" just as it is perceived. Nothing is "in the brain" which is somehow, in some magical way, storing images.

Why wouldn't matter be better represented as a continuous field, — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, this would be Bohm's quantum potential. He also perceived the universe as some sort of holographic field which he called the Implicate/Explicate Order. Rupert Sheldrake goes a bit further and describes it as hierarchies of morphic resonance fields that define the forms of biological life.

It's how one learns. One forms an idea and observes what happens.. Where path leads, no one knows.

I always listen to advice, but ultimately I have to make the choice.

Regarding mathematics, I think that a part of it is "real" and another of it is "conventional". But I still cannot see where there is the distinction... — boundless

There are patterns (habits) in the universe, because of the intelligence imbued in the universe. That which is not alive, tends to be more stable (habitual) because it cannot exert will or choice.

The human mind studies these patterns and creates symbolic patterns (math) that mimics these patterns in n such a way they they have predictive ability for practical purposes. They are not exact, but good enough, because everything in my the universe has some amount of non-predictably.

Math is simply a tool. A tool just like any other tool that had practical utility. But it is symbolic, and because it is symbolic can never accurately describe nature. Whatever symbolic language is issued, it will always be inadequate to describe that which is living and creating - its Creator.

OK, but that requires that the boundary between past and future is a real medium, a substance,as the holographic film or plate, and that's quite difficult to conceive of. I can conceive of "matter" as that which exists at the present, but matter is not substantial without form. — Metaphysician Undercover

What exactly is matter? Ultimately it is just quantum stuff of some sort. Matter feels solid. Matter is perceived of as solid. But we know it is empty. It is something we call energy. It is energy tightened into a ball as one might imagine vapor tightening into a snowball.

So what is this stuff? What is the medium? It is mind. The mind begins its journey (the Dao) by creating waves of energy (yin/Yang/qi) and from there it learns how to evolve and create things. Everything is fundamentally vibrating (energetic) waves. Call it quanta if you will or call it intelligence (mind).

P.S. Not sure, but I may have previously answered this question.

I look at this world from the viewpoint of wisdom; I see all the death, predation, pain, disease, filth, untold amounts of completely pointless suffering and so on. I do not believe that all this is the product of blind evolution and random chance, and I certainly do not believe that it is the product of a good, benevolent god. — tus

It's the creation of our experimenting and minds, and as with all experiments some of it goes well and others not so well and we learn from it all, though not all learn in the same manner. Creativity does not guarantee bliss. It only guarantees something new.

Could you please elaborate on that? — bahman

Basically, Mind creates waves (Yin/Yang) and starts moving the waves with energy (Qi) and hence begins creation. Spot on and only 2500 years ago.

Can I have any reference? — bahman

There are free PDF files available for all of Henri Bergson's works, his most famous being Creative Evolution. For a very good explanation just watch Stephen Robbins' videos on YouTube.

The story of the beginning from the Dao De Jing.

he future is also the background of possible actions, their context. — mrcoffee

Yes, we create an image based upon possible actions.

Certain actions are possible or not according to whether this 'background' is one situation or another. — mrcoffee

Yes, we create images of possibilities and that images (possible choices) guide our actions.

By observing life closely, we begin to understand it. The more we observe, the more skilled we become, and the more we understand. This is philosophy.

So my image of the future is constrained my the memory of this avocado. — mrcoffee

This is why absolute precision is required. The image is getting the avocado.

The future is seen as virtual (possible actions). Your choices are: when to get it (initiation of will), how to get it (directional action), what to do with it once you get it.

Your future is not avocado. Your future is what you are going to do with it but once you get it. All require memory, will, and creative thought (a salad?).

If one wishes to understand life and nature, one needs to set aside all biases and just observe with skill. Besides memory, will, and creative mind, this also requires lots of patience.

I don't claim that the future is 'actually' constrained by the past, though I do in fact believe this on a gut level. — mrcoffee

It's not the future that is constrained by memory, it is the choices that we might make. One may choose not to try to walk through a brick wall. However, there are many possible choices that the person (mind) may take and the choice itself is not determined until it is actually made (walk around the wall, jump over the wall, break through the wall, etc). Choices are constrained. Precision in describing the actual creative process reveals that we have memory, creative thought, and will, which evolve into the future through duration.

I think everyone cares when they are on that operating table. They sure hope that there is a right way to transplant a heart, for instance. — mrcoffee

Someways definitely better than others but people still die. In fact, accidental deaths in hospitals are one of the leading causes of deaths in the U.S. one study putting it at over 400,000 per year, the third leading cause of accidental death.

If you are saying that humans are biased, then of course. Objectivity is something we pursue. — mrcoffee

Some people do, others don't, most couldn't care less. It's just something some people like to do. No harm unless they try to enforce their own subjectivity upon others.

We don't have to see an impossibly perfect instantiation of the concept to apply the concept. — mrcoffee

My preference is recognizing it as just another human creation and then dealing with it for v what it is. U have no need to gain higher ground by claiming objectivity.

I doubt that anyone honestly believes that some disciplines aren't more objective than others. — mrcoffee

If humans and money are involved, forget about objectivity. The more money, the less objectivity. Call it the inverse Rule of Objectivity and Money.

objectivity doesn't exist, then the word is meaningless. — mrcoffee

It exists as a concept as opposed to subjective. Whether a human can be objective, I have yet to find the case.

Moreover, if objectivity does not exist, then you are just spouting opinion above. — mrcoffee

Exactly. I am saying the concept cannot be applied to anything perceived by humans. Others have their own subjective opinions about objectivity.

doesn't shatter the gold statue of Objectivity — mrcoffee

Yes, people have their faith and their God and their idols. It just seems that it is part of the human character.

These are objective truths in any reasonable sense of the word. — mrcoffee

Why? Because you believe so? Unless you are not human, all lying are doing is saying what you believe is objective, which is generally the way it goes.

Sure, and the sun rises in the morning. Who has or would say otherwise? Are you sure you aren't tilting your lance at windmills here? — mrcoffee

People say all kinds of things about the sun, and it has changed over the eons. All you are doing is repeating a phrase taught to you in school and I guess since it was taught in school and everyone you b bump into probably agrees with you then it automatically becomes objective? No. It is simply a phrase and idea that you and most other in your population were taught. Eons from now, something else may be taught. Everything changes.

Formal systems are created by humans and are subject to change, which is what makes them subjective.

a virtual robot to us appears to not have a conscious. — Sydasis

I've never viewed a robot in such a way. I can't imagine how can computer can be confused with any sort of life.

I am able these days to program a neural network to dream or to create a post, perhaps even more logical and meaningful than your own. — Sydasis

Only in the eyes of the programmer who did the programming. The programmer is the human who created the computer program. It's terribly easy to tell the difference.

I'll give you a clue. Consciousness is that which is creating all those programs.

The meaninglessness of the symbols is one of the reasons that it is objective. — mrcoffee

Objective about what if they are meaningless? What is objective about this: @_-++&__?

For instance, if I have only a king left on the board, then there is no way that I can checkmate my opponent. — mrcoffee

Rules are meaningless without a human interpreting them and applying then.

1+1 =2 — mrcoffee

Absolutely meaningless until a human applies some subjective interpretation. Often there is all kinds of differences opinion about what math means because of some ambiguity and it ends up in court. I know this from working on insurance policies.

, however, we specify a particular convention — mrcoffee

Exactly, humans give the symbols meaning and not everyone will agree. Often the consensus is within a highly biased group. Such is the nature of humanity.

You may desire objectivity, but where humans are involved, there never is. What you have possibly it's some concensus within a consenting group - maybe.

This is metaphysical based upon my observations of life. No need to make up stories about what happened 1 billion years ago. By the way, most current cosmological research is centered around a holographic view of the universe because it fits current observations.

I guess the story just fits your narrative. You have a story and you just make up a narrative to fit the story, as if you have any idea what human and animal traits were 1 billion years ago. Just make something up.

You made some claims. I'm simply asking how do you know? That v human beings share similar DNA and the DNA of most animal life does not imply your claims.

Right. I want to know how you know what happened 1 billion years ago?

I know all about theories. I just want to know how you know it? Someone v told you all about humans and animals a billion years ago? Did you ask them how do they know?

You are looking for human lived experience as a way of uncovering the evolutionary reason for those traits, but humans came ready supplied with them; traits — charleton

And you know this how?

I believe YouTube Red permits downloads and there is all the stuff you can possibly want on YouTube. Do you have SD storage on your phone?

Another possibility is that your current or future public library system may have access to digitized books which you could download on a periodic basis.

I am grateful for my wife of 40 years who is my companion in my life's journey and with whom I share.

Consciousness is then simply some abstract consolidation of the different outputs and inputs, — Sydasis

There is nothing abstract about it. It is the most concrete aspect of our existence. Your consciousness dreamed up and created your post. Embrace it for its creativity.

The softness of both determinism and free will is in this 'probabilistic.' — mrcoffee

It's not that either concept is soft, it is that neither has ever been observed, so maintaining either simpler muddles an inquiry. Best to jettison both.

What we do observe it's that we do make choices on how to act based upon memories of the past that are projected as possible actions into the future. From this observation about ourselves we can now begin to develop an ontology based upon memory. will, and some creative mind that projects the possibilities and initiates actions.

The concepts of free will and determinism get one no where except further into endless confusion. I'm amazed that such concepts have endured so long in the face of so much evidence that neither exist.

Mathematics is not objective. They are meaningless symbols upon which humans apply meaning. Without human interpretation they are no more meaningful than this may be &-+654()8.

1+1=2 is a human symbolic creation.

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples is a human observation if two humans agree on what is an apple. Hence the manner in which math is first taught in school.

Whatever is outputted by a computer (a tool created by humans) must still be interpreted by humans with different opinions. Hence the phrase garbage in garbage out.

Objectivity cannot exist in a subjective human experience.

What, in other words, is the mind apart from its contents? — mrcoffee

I agree. Mind and memory are one and cohesive.