Dualism versus (neutral) monism, consciousness, quantum mechanics [Night Shift split]

How would a spirit remember anything if the memories are in the brain? Are there two sets of memory in two different places?

A computer "memory" is really akin to an abacus or diary, neither of which are actually thought to hold any memories.

Or, to put it another way, nothing in the material world can be said to hold mental content because all physical things have projections of meaning onto them. It seems to me this holds whether the "stuff" is made from atoms, ether, or even some astral material supposedly making up Akashic Records.

I think there are important points about memory.  The memory in a computer chip is accessed as a structural arrangement of encoded bits.  A biological memory is an active experience.  Minds can recall mutual information gained from non-local sources, no matter whether past, present or future.  Electronic and biological memory are apples and oranges as to how they are measured.  Remembering an experience is also an active information event.  One can remember remembering.  Is the information in two, or three or more locations?  Or - is it not in physical space like source data, but in an all-pervasive universal informational space?

Informational space may well contrast with the property discussed as a "block universe".  This is where the past and now are considered "real", but the future is not.  A "box universe" allows that all three are real - past/present/future.  In an informational realism model, the present is real physically and has its informational outcomes manifest.  The future probabilities are likewise real, as structured real-world information that may be outcomes of wave-like structures evolving.  Meanings can be projected on objects, but things, events and processes present source data that can be observed and be communicated to minds.  Minds are ever creating future outcomes from volition.  Meanings becomes objective, just as was the source data.  

A block universe includes the past as real, because it was (if known completely) real physically at the time.  This seems just a another abstract fallacy, as the past is just information we can explore, its physical status gone.  It wasn't observed fully then.  We can bring to the current time new information and change what was observed.  It is suggested that the structures of information in the real world are not based solely on physicality, as in a "block universe", but is a dynamic interplay of wave and particle.

In the wave-like informational space, those time/space real objects are specifically encoded outside time/space as to their past and future evolution.  The past's and future's information is open to observation, assimilation and manipulation by minds.  The storage location is not with physical objects but with the information/meanings that has evolved them.  The structure that "holds" the memory is patterns of probabilities.  It can be imagined as a web of relations (Akashic Records).  It can be imagined as the propagation of the universal wave-function.  It can be processed as information in the here and now - by minds.

So - it could be imagined that a disembodied mind will find itself still detecting wave-like patterns in informational space, when awake.  And just as well asleep.  Mind is active in a different environment, organizing information objects and it achieves correspondence with physical events.  Remember a loved one and emotions cause a body to release chemicals.  Dream about a loved one........

I think there are important points about memory.  The memory in a computer chip is accessed as a structural arrangement of encoded bits.  A biological memory is an active experience.  Minds can recall mutual information gained from non-local sources, no matter whether past, present or future. 

Yes, much here I would agree with...

This discussion needs to at least consider and be grounded by all the research that has been carried out (mostly with animals like rats and mice) on the apparent physical basis of memory encoding and storage and its retrieval and decoding, in certain brain structures. Neural mechanisms at least seem in part to be the physical basis of memory. The gist of the results of all this research is that when we learn something — even as simple as someone's name — we form connections between neurons in the brain. These synapses create new circuits between nerve cells, essentially remapping the brain. Most available evidence suggests that this encoding and recording function and the retrieval/decoding function of memory are carried out by the hippocampus and other related structures in the temporal lobe.

Of course, what the materialist neuroscientists don't choose to recognize is that memory patterns encoded in neurons and their synaptic nets have no intrinsic meaning at all, whereas memories as consciously experienced are rich with meanings - in fact meanings are their essence in consciousness. This is part of the mystery of consciousness which has completely baffled neuroscience with no solution in sight.

The problem is reconciling the considerable amount of materialistic neuroscientific research evidence summarized above with the large body of evidence from several types of paranormal phenomena that mind and awareness are not and in fact cannot possibly be, one and the same as the physical neurons of the brain and their interactions. This doesn't even mention the Hard Problem and other philosophical arguments against neuro-materialist theories. Consciousness or mind appears to be an immaterial mobile center of consciousness or spirit which when embodied intricately interpenetrates the brain, using the brain as its interface with the physical.

It seems to me that the immensely complex neural circuitry that has been identified/interpreted as first encoding and storing memories and then retrieving and decoding them is actually an essential part of the spirit/neuronal interface that enables embodiment. While the spirit is (temporarily) embedded in the brain this neural mechanism enables spirit to consciously experience memories with all their meanings, perhaps via linkages between the encoding/decoding neural networks and immaterial spirit which contains all the memories not just ones linked to in the brain. Just a guess.

In the wave-like informational space, those time/space real objects are specifically encoded outside time/space as to their past and future evolution.  The past's and future's information is open to observation, assimilation and manipulation by minds.  The storage location is not with physical objects but with the information/meanings that has evolved them.  The structure that "holds" the memory is patterns of probabilities.  It can be imagined as a web of relations (Akashic Records).  It can be imagined as the propagation of the universal wave-function.  It can be processed as information in the here and now - by minds.

Can you explain what a wave-like informational space is. Does it have an objective definition?

Can you explain what a wave-like informational space is. Does it have an objective definition?

I am not to the task of an ontological formal definition.  I would offer concepts by professional thinkers, which are somewhat analogous.

https://philarchive.org/archive/FLOALI
L. Floridi of Oxford defines "infosphere."

 Infosphere is a neologism I coined years ago on the basis of “biosphere”, a term referring
to that limited region on our planet that supports life. It denotes the whole informational
environment constituted by all informational entities (thus including informational agents as
well), their properties, interactions, processes and mutual relations. It is an environment
comparable to, but different from cyberspace (which is only one of its sub-regions, as it were),
since it also includes off-line and analogue spaces of information. We shall see that it is also an
environment (and hence a concept) that is rapidly evolving.

S. Kauffmann offers "poised realm".  There is depth in his analysis.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/12/06/131846605/the-poised-ream-is-real

R. Sheldrake declares for structure as morphic resonance. 

Expanding the concept of morphogenetic fields, Sheldrake posited a spatio-temporal connection termed "morphic resonance" whereby the more often a self-organizing process takes place, the easier it will be for it to take place in the future.

As for method - the contents of informational space is best quantified as a probability space.

 The Soviet mathematician Andrey Kolmogorov introduced the notion of probability space, together with other axioms of probability, in the 1930s. In modern probability theory there are a number of alternative approaches for axiomatization – for example, algebra of random variables.

Yes, much here I would agree with...

Here is a Kauffman addressing an "information space" as a category, with competence.  He extracts "the adjacent possible" as a place for creativity to happen.  Math wise, in my simple worldview, anything possible has to have some value of P (probability).  Hence, encoded in the environment where meaning and bits are sourced, possibles have a measurable value.  They will have a root in the past, detectable information in the present and an outcome that can be foreseen as an outcome.  A real-world probability in my model.

Kauffman is deep in knowledge, especially biological facts and their scientific development.  You may see deeper into the issues than I, but Kauffman presents a good case for the adjacent possible concept being rooted in math and logic.

 3. In Shannon's information theory, a given symbol string, say in bits, e.g. (1111) is chosen and sent down the information channel. Now for the first, left most bit, or 1, in the (1111) to carry information, it is essential that it could possibly have been 0. But that means that if we think information itself is real, then Possible must be real.

(1) materials are real as to their structure, (2)forces are real as to their activity, (3) informational structure is real (information theory) (4) objective meanings are real probability waves that interact with mind

(1) and (2) are received  (3) is getting there  (4) is needed to be explored

A little more on the physical foundations of memory and the basic problem of understanding it.

Memories aren't literally "things". It is commonplace in neuroscience (and in ordinary conversation) to think of memories as “things” that are stored in the brain. This is wrong scientifically, in fact it is nonsense.

Memory is “knowledge retained and not forgotten.” Memories are psychological, experiential and subjective, not physical, things. They can no more be stored in the brain than wishes and dreams can be stored in your pocket. Thus, the claim that memories are literally stored — in the brain or anywhere — is nonsense. It is just a handy metaphor.

But at the same time, the subjective experience of having memory knowledge of something experienced in the past absolutely does have a physical basis in neuronal nets formed when the memory originated.

There is no question that proper functioning of the brain is necessary for ordinary memories to exist — that is, for the ordinary acquisition of knowledge and its retention.

While memories, being immaterial subjective mental experiences of knowledge, are not themselves stored in the brain like data files, the brain is necessary for memory formation just as it is necessary for ordinary acquisition of knowledge. To acquire new memories, normal functioning of at least one hippocampus is necessary. The hippocampus is a small region of the brain located in the medial temporal lobe. While loss of one hippocampus of the two present bilaterally does not affect memory, loss of both hippocampi is catastrophic, and is one cause of a complete inability to form new memories called Korsakoff’s syndrome.

It seems very likely that immaterial memories are in some sense "represented" in the brain, in the form of physical neuronal synaptical brain state complexes, called "engrams". This is and has been the subject of much research. While embodied, some level of the neural physical data processing supporting immaterial consciousness (whatever that mysterious consciousness really is) must then scan for, find and then decode this physical information to generate the conscious experience of the corresponding memory. There is much research evidence that the concept of "engrams" is valid.

It is now possible to artificially manipulate memory encoding and retrieval processes to generate false memories, to actually create a memory in mice without any natural sensory experience (implantation of a memory for an experience that did not occur). And “silent” engrams have been discovered in amnesic mice; artificial reactivation of such silent engrams has been found to then induce memory retrieval.

An emerging concept is that any given (immaterial) memory comes about by means of a physical engram complex, composed of functionally connected engram cell ensembles dispersed across multiple brain regions, with each ensemble supporting a component of the overall memory.

But the bottom line is that none of this research and moderate insight into the physical mechanisms of memory information storage and retrieval in the brain addresses the central mystery of how immaterial consciousness interacts with the physical memory engrams to generate immaterial memory experiences. This process is a drastic transduction of information from one fundamental form into another.

Here is a Kauffman addressing an "information space" as a category, with competence.  He extracts "the adjacent possible" as a place for creativity to happen.  Math wise, in my simple worldview, anything possible has to have some value of P (probability).  Hence, encoded in the environment where meaning and bits are sourced, possibles have a measurable value.  They will have a root in the past, detectable information in the present and an outcome that can be foreseen as an outcome.  A real-world probability in my model.

Kauffman is deep in knowledge, especially biological facts and their scientific development.  You may see deeper into the issues than I, but Kauffman presents a good case for the adjacent possible concept being rooted in math and logic.


(1) materials are real as to their structure, (2)forces are real as to their activity, (3) informational structure is real (information theory) (4) objective meanings are real probability waves that interact with mind

(1) and (2) are received  (3) is getting there  (4) is needed to be explored

I don't know enough about Shannon's information theory to unpack that dense quote, I'd need to learn more context.

It's seemed clear to me for many years, that maths describes the relationships through which we share, one might say it describes some architecture or structure that is hidden in plain view. It's also seemed somewhat clear that the QM experiments are a glimpse of the former architecture at work. The classical everyday world has always seemed to be the result produced by the architecture at work.

As I keep repeating, Nima's marathon lecture in 2020 blew me away... his ideas IMO are the furthest we've got in technical understanding... fortunately, or unfortunately, I feel very strongly (certain even), that they simply lead right back to us. That's the unfortunate part, there is no way out that way.

If there is a way to reach out for the common person, it seems like it might be hiding in scale, and I keep feeling time might be ones ally in manipulating scale.

Regardless of the physical role of the brain or other organs - unexpected memories seem to play a role in some organ transplant cases too, there is a none-physical aspect which has its own independent existence. In particular past-life recall can be intense and vivid but is clearly not dependent on pre-existing brain activity or physical brain structures for its storage.

Regardless of the physical role of the brain or other organs - unexpected memories seem to play a role in some organ transplant cases too, there is a none-physical aspect which has its own independent existence. In particular past-life recall can be intense and vivid but is clearly not dependent on pre-existing brain activity or physical brain structures for its storage.

All matching patterns can add-up (can be shared). Experience is the result of adding-up matching patterns. The things we all share are the base mathematical structures (physically analogous to lego bricks), after that we begin diverging, as the mathematical base structures build into individual networks, (physically analogous to building things *from* the lego bricks). It's very basic, if the patterns upon these base mathematical structures match, you can share.

As we all share the base mathematical structure, we share patterns upon it, and and agree upon those patterns. But as the base mathematical structures are extended in a repeating manner, we diverge, yet the base agreement remains, because those diverging structures are built from the same base structure. And that results in our rich experience.

The anomalous stuff you mention just confirms that's correct, and tells us we're completely connected by the base mathematical structure. If it matches, we can share. If it doesn't match, we can't share it.

So, if the others decided they wanted to have a different world, they would only need to stop biting and scratching at each other, and that different world would come to be.