Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Rick O'Shez]

My meditation is still mind dhyana.....when the mind ceases all thought, the I doesn't arise to create the duality of existing as a separate entity within the Cosmos...the Cosmos and dhyani are one...there is no observer, and no observed, no subject, and no object...there is no time and no space... Iow, it is a non-duality state beyond description, Why is it beyond description? ...because during this state there is no I present, when the I arises again and the thinking process begins anew, it tries to put into words a description of the state but finds it always unsatisfactory.... Besides which, on reflection,..it is obviously a serious error to spend time trying to translate timelessness into time, oneness into duality, etc.., for the description can never capture pure timeless reality...

Yes, that's all very familiar, and I think basically you are talking about altered state of consciousness here, what some would call mystical experience. But I still don't understand what you mean by "extra-physical reality". Do you mean you are accessing an aspect of reality not accessible to ordinary consciousness, and if so what do you think that looks like? Or is it more like experiencing the same reality in a different way? I do think we need to be cautious in making assumptions based on very personal and subjective experiences.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, that's all very familiar, and I think basically you are talking about altered state of consciousness here, what some would call mystical experience. But I still don't understand what you mean by "extra-physical reality". Do you mean you are accessing an aspect of reality not accessible to ordinary consciousness, and if so what do you think that looks like? Or is it more like experiencing the same reality in a different way? I do think we need to be cautious in making assumptions based on very personal and subjective experiences.

Fwiw, I used the expression 'extra physical reality' merely to imply it was not a physical experience ...

I am not accessing anything...I explained that when the mind is free from thought, the I does not arise to create duality....there is no I present to access anything, ordinary consciousness is not present... If there is no thoughts in the mind, how could I think about what it looks like? There is no experiencer, there is no experiencing, there is no experienced...no thought...the mind is still...,no I to be cautious, no I not to be cautious....no I period...

 

[Kuzcotopia]

How so? It's flamboyant (I think to mock Randi's flamboyancy) but that aside the evidence and the scientists referenced are very serious researchers.

Well, I had a chance to look at the website you posted. Thank you for sharing it. I do not want to knee-jerk dismiss it, so it took a bit to get through it all. As an atheist, I would accept both quantitative claims and qualitative claims, as long as there was some academic rigour applied to the experiments, including reasonable controls, that could confirm the conclusion drawn was reasonably valid. It is also important that these results are reliable, and the same outcomes can be observed by others.

Obviously, the research your presenting as evidence is qualitative. That's fine. Qualitative research is accepted in the academic community, as long as you have consistent categories for data analysis and a sample size of sufficient power, and the research outcomes are repeatable.

I went ahead and went through the myriad problems of an entire paper by Dr. Charles Tart, where he did an experiment on an out-of-body experiment in apparently controlled conditions. Dr. Charles Tart's Study of Verified Perception in Out-of-Body Experiences. I can exchange this paper with pretty much any other cited source of your website, and draw the same conclusions. I am not cherry-picking this paper. In all the case studies I read, these same poor conditions of academic rigor exist.

I'll assume your are already familiar with the experiment of the out of body experience by Dr. Tart, so I won't summarize it here.

Problems with Methodology. Unfortunately they left the woman alone in the room all night, with no video camera, to confirm a five digit number sitting on a shelf. Why no camera to confirm she didn't cheat on the night she confirmed the number? Well, that's why James Randi gets to be so flamboyant, and gets to shake his head at parapsychology. The researcher admits in the methodology narrative that he may have dozed off during the experiment on a few of the nights. Furthermore, the same conditions were not consistent all four nights in a row, as data taken was inconsistent. Worst of all, there are five separate pieces of quantitative data taken during the experiments, but it is not presented in data tables, or analysed in any real way. Figure 1 and 2 present essentially a cherry-picked "screenshot" showing a sample of her data.

Problems with Credibility. This was published in The American Society for Psychic Research. It is not peer reviewed, it is published independent of an academic university, and the majority of its cited sources come only from other parapsychological research (thought not all of it). The methods suggest that data was taken for EEG, REMs, BSR, and on two of the four nights, blood pressure and blood volume. None of this data is presented in the discussion section, and the outcomes are only referenced in the discussion, not provided outright. It is also written in non-academic language with digressions outside the scope of the research criteria (such as the nightmare that predicted a murder than no one can find any evidence of later). I don't know what the impact factor of the paper is, as I do not know how often it has been cited by other credible academic papers (I have my suspicions, but I won't draw that conclusion). The researcher interjects himself into the narrative, and irrelevant details of the subject are discussed at length. It is clearly written for a non-academic audience.

Problems with Reliability. The experiments were not repeated. This case study draws conclusions based on a single case study. You can do no secondary data analysis, or offer up any categorical data analysis, as the categories are not defined or recorded. The quantitative data that he did take on the subject was not presented, nor compared to a control. There are only 4 trials from a single experiment with 1 person, and there were no follow up studies, and not even enough evidence of similar experiments by other researches to do a meta analysis.

In short, I'm disappointed.

 

[atanu]

"Objects, including bodies, and thoughts are all happenings in awareness."

Great thought, but you have nada to back it up. You also must be using your own definition of the word awareness.

With all due respect, I study neuroscience and psychophysiology.

Awareness, selfawre, intelligence and emotions is a product of consciousness which is a product of the brain, again you have to have a nervous system, you do know the Brain and central nervous system yes, CNS? How about the autonomic nervous system, that controls heartbeat and breathing and digestion, so you don't have to consciously think about those actions, which evolved that way so you don't use more energy from the brain. How about the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system. Or the "brain in you gut" enteric nervous system. I also have been studying the subconscious for over 20 years and it is a very, very important factor, as it makes decisions for you as well, faster then you can consciously think about them. One example is the fight or flight system that through evolution is hardwired to the brain. So you can escape danger faster then your brain and consciousness can catch up. Its also why you can literally get the S**T scared out of you.

and you just missed the

Society for Neuroscience Brain Awareness

"The Brain Awareness Campaign is a worldwide celebration of the brain that brings together scientists, families, schools, and communities. Although Brain Awareness Week is officially March 16-22, 2015, there are many ways to get involved throughout the year."

"Advances in brain imaging techniques such as positron emission tomography (PET), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), along with electro-encephalography (EEG), an earlier technique for monitoring brain activity are enabling scientists to produce remarkably detailed computer-screen images of brain structures and to observe neurochemical changes that occur in the brain as it processes information or responds to various stimuli and the formation of emotions ranging from love and lust to anger and disgust. "

Different brain damage and diseases of the brain can wreak havoc on awareness and consciousness.

They can show you a picture now in fmri and just by looking at the brain areas and blood flow, tell you what picture you are looking at and crudely at the moment read your brain.

Reading Your Mind
."Neuroscience has learned much about the brain's activity and its link to certain thoughts. As Lesley Stahl reports, it may now be possible, on a basic level, to read a person's mind.

You can can stop your body and thoughts by tweaking your brain easily which changes your consciousness and awareness. There are also different levels of electrical brain activity, brain waves. They think they also might have just found the seat of consciousness in the brain.

Also since it was just April fools day.

Why Your Brain Will Trick You This April Fool's Day

"
If you got taken in by an April Fool's Day prank don't be embarrassed, it turns out we're hardwired to be gullible.

According to experts, the human brain has evolved to sometimes override our clear sensory perceptions of the world around us meaning sometimes we fall for a good prank.

Dr. Adam Gazzaley, a neuroscientist and professor at the University of California San Francisco Medical School, said humans can override our basic "bottom up" sensory perception of the world with "top down" processing, meaning we can override natural instincts with rationalizations.

Gazzaley explains that this could mean ignoring what's going in the physical world around us because we believe we "know" better than what our sense are telling us.

"It’s based on memories and experiences and that is really a powerful force and an overwhelming force in humans that shape how we view the world," explained Gazzaley, of human perceptions of the world around us.

"It’s based on memories and experiences and that is really a powerful force and an overwhelming force in humans that shape how we view the world," explained Gazzaley, of human perceptions of the world around us.

Gazzaley said one example of "top down" processing overriding our "bottom up" perceptions would be missing a close friend on the street because you're in engrossed in your phone screen. Another clear example is going to see a magic show and trying to figure out how the trick is performed, but being unable to.

Why Your Brain Will Trick You This April Fool's Day - ABC News


Show me anything alive without a nervous system that is concious?

The universe itself, is extremely hostile to life and consciousness as we know it.

You wouldn't want to be conscious next to these.

How the Universe Works Extreme Orbits

As well as if the universe is so fine tuned for us why even have these.

Is this voluminous garbage answer to the query: What free query you are competent to do when your understanding was determined by the inert deterministic processes?

All cut and paste material that you post only contradicts your view.

Anyway, I will not derail the thread anymore.

 

[outhouse]

And have you seen any brain, when you are not conscious?

Objects, including bodies, and thoughts are all happenings in awareness.

Realising this is the end of this egoistical existence that is fraught with egoistical fears, hatred, and misery. That is the knowledge of eastern spiritual traditions. However, not all minds are ready for this.

Best

Not one word applies to the conversation we were having.


Not one word you posted helps give any weight that a conscious exist outside a brain. To date, it does not.

 

[outhouse]

I do not want to knee-jerk dismiss it,

That was nice of you.


If my dinner smells, I refuse to taste it.


To date there has never been any credible data provided. I think there is even a standing million dollar reward, if one can give good credible evidence. It remains unclaimed.

 

[George-ananda]

Experiences are stored in memory. Neurons billions of them along with synapses communicate together electrically and chemically to form your consciousness and your experiences in life shape your "self", which is one reason your consciousness can be altered electrically and chemically.

You are not consciously experiencing that movement of neurons and electrons, your not consciously aware of all the communications going on in the brain with neurons firing by the billions all the time.

.

So, what experiences the activity of billions of cells?

 

[George-ananda]

Well, I had a chance to look at the website you posted. Thank you for sharing it. I do not want to knee-jerk dismiss it, so it took a bit to get through it all. As an atheist, I would accept both quantitative claims and qualitative claims, as long as there was some academic rigour applied to the experiments, including reasonable controls, that could confirm the conclusion drawn was reasonably valid. It is also important that these results are reliable, and the same outcomes can be observed by others.

Obviously, the research your presenting as evidence is qualitative. That's fine. Qualitative research is accepted in the academic community, as long as you have consistent categories for data analysis and a sample size of sufficient power, and the research outcomes are repeatable.

I went ahead and went through the myriad problems of an entire paper by Dr. Charles Tart, where he did an experiment on an out-of-body experiment in apparently controlled conditions. Dr. Charles Tart's Study of Verified Perception in Out-of-Body Experiences. I can exchange this paper with pretty much any other cited source of your website, and draw the same conclusions. I am not cherry-picking this paper. In all the case studies I read, these same poor conditions of academic rigor exist.

I'll assume your are already familiar with the experiment of the out of body experience by Dr. Tart, so I won't summarize it here.

Problems with Methodology. Unfortunately they left the woman alone in the room all night, with no video camera, to confirm a five digit number sitting on a shelf. Why no camera to confirm she didn't cheat on the night she confirmed the number? Well, that's why James Randi gets to be so flamboyant, and gets to shake his head at parapsychology. The researcher admits in the methodology narrative that he may have dozed off during the experiment on a few of the nights. Furthermore, the same conditions were not consistent all four nights in a row, as data taken was inconsistent. Worst of all, there are five separate pieces of quantitative data taken during the experiments, but it is not presented in data tables, or analysed in any real way. Figure 1 and 2 present essentially a cherry-picked "screenshot" showing a sample of her data.

Problems with Credibility. This was published in The American Society for Psychic Research. It is not peer reviewed, it is published independent of an academic university, and the majority of its cited sources come only from other parapsychological research (thought not all of it). The methods suggest that data was taken for EEG, REMs, BSR, and on two of the four nights, blood pressure and blood volume. None of this data is presented in the discussion section, and the outcomes are only referenced in the discussion, not provided outright. It is also written in non-academic language with digressions outside the scope of the research criteria (such as the nightmare that predicted a murder than no one can find any evidence of later). I don't know what the impact factor of the paper is, as I do not know how often it has been cited by other credible academic papers (I have my suspicions, but I won't draw that conclusion). The researcher interjects himself into the narrative, and irrelevant details of the subject are discussed at length. It is clearly written for a non-academic audience.

Problems with Reliability. The experiments were not repeated. This case study draws conclusions based on a single case study. You can do no secondary data analysis, or offer up any categorical data analysis, as the categories are not defined or recorded. The quantitative data that he did take on the subject was not presented, nor compared to a control. There are only 4 trials from a single experiment with 1 person, and there were no follow up studies, and not even enough evidence of similar experiments by other researches to do a meta analysis.

In short, I'm disappointed.

Well, a few thoughts of mine:

Our interest in the subject of the paranormal appears to be somewhat different. You seem to be concerned with scientific proof and perfect rigor. This is of course important, but I have found the world to be imperfect and it seems one can always find blame with all researchers if that is your bent. My interest in this subject is 'what is most reasonable for me to believe is going on after considering evidence and argumentation from all sides'. In that interest I consider the work of all researchers and critics of those researchers and the evidence and argumentation from both sides. I also consider the quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence of spontaneous paranormal experiences that can never be rigorously studied as well as my own personal experiences. There is enough evidence for me (ten times over) to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt something beyond the current scope of materialist science is going on here. I have looked into other wisdom traditions (eastern/Indian for one) in which these paranormal things are consistent with and really just part and parcel of a larger view of the nature of reality.

 

[outhouse]

There is enough evidence for me (ten times over) to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt something beyond the current scope of materialist science is going on here.

The problem is the human mind is weak. Perception means little when it highlights the weakness of the human mind.

When evidence is reduced to opinion, it means little. You want it to be, so little credible evidence will change your mind.

. I also consider the quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence of spontaneous paranormal experiences that can never be rigorously studied as well as my own personal experiences.

Which is admitting to biased results.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Well, a few thoughts of mine:

Our interest in the subject of the paranormal appears to be somewhat different. You seem to be concerned with scientific proof and perfect rigor. This is of course important, but I have found the world to be imperfect and it seems one can always find blame with all researchers if that is your bent. My interest in this subject is 'what is most reasonable for me to believe is going on after considering evidence and argumentation from all sides'. In that interest I consider the work of all researchers and critics of those researchers and the evidence and argumentation from both sides. I also consider the quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence of spontaneous paranormal experiences that can never be rigorously studied as well as my own personal experiences. There is enough evidence for me (ten times over) to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt something beyond the current scope of materialist science is going on here. I have looked into other wisdom traditions (eastern/Indian for one) in which these paranormal things are consistent with and really just part and parcel of a larger view of the nature of reality.

I apologize if I created a misunderstanding. I do not necessarily need perfect scientific rigor to accept a reasonable argument.

Statistics are an argument. They suggest truths about an entire population, based on the observation of only a piece of that population. But there are good statistical arguments, and there are poor ones.

If you feel like the experiment's results provide sufficient reason to accept that the woman had an out of body experience, given the scope the paper, them tell me why you think that.

No research is perfect. If you accept anecdotal evidence of isolated events, that by their spontaneous nature cannot be replicated, then yes, we would probably draw different conclusions.

For that kind of evidence to make any sense as the foundation of a worldview, I would have to have direct personal experience of a supernatural event to believe it. To date, I have not.

And to be fair to you, I picked out a single paper to discuss in depth. Perhaps I chose poorly, and that poor choice falsely characterized the breadth of your research. If you want to point me to the absolute clearest, best piece of evidence you have seen of a supernatural event, I will happily try it again.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

That was nice of you.


If my dinner smells, I refuse to taste it.


To date there has never been any credible data provided. I think there is even a standing million dollar reward, if one can give good credible evidence. It remains unclaimed.

Perhaps. But I wonder if this is what atheists should be doing. We hold a position that is logically sound without the burden of evidence, so discussions with believers should be honestly attempting to understand their positions, based on their evidence.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps. But I wonder if this is what atheists should be doing.

But to debate ideas like YEC, is only giving them a false sense that they actually have a debate. They don't.

If our friend actually had a credible argument, I would have gladly shown him the details and errors and discussed each with him.

so discussions with believers should be honestly attempting to understand their positions, based on their evidence.

I understand all of these positions and their lack of evidence, based on years of debating with the same individual. Much of this is nothing but Proselytizing his opinion over and over despite being shown credible evidence, year in and year out.



On side note, are you Peruvian?

 

[George-ananda]

If you feel like the experiment's results provide sufficient reason to accept that the woman had an out of body experience, given the scope the paper, them tell me why you think that.

I have heard of the experiment you discussed and I know Dr. Tart is a man of considerable intelligence. Now, I can't know anything about the actual events with 100% certainty. My point is the likelihood that this experiment and every other positive experiment and every anecdotal event in the history of mankind has an explanation that would not require materialists to accept dramatically new concepts to me approaches zero.

No research is perfect. If you accept anecdotal evidence of isolated events, that by their spontaneous nature cannot be replicated, then yes, we would probably draw different conclusions.

I would change the word 'accept' above to 'consider'. Such things can be objectively studied for quantity, quality and consistency and all various theories about what is going on can be considered for reasonableness.

For that kind of evidence to make any sense as the foundation of a worldview, I would have to have direct personal experience of a supernatural event to believe it. To date, I have not.

I can consider the many experiences of people I consider basically like me. I have had some experiences myself but nothing dramatic or leaving physical evidence to study.

And to be fair to you, I picked out a single paper to discuss in depth. Perhaps I chose poorly, and that poor choice falsely characterized the breadth of your research. If you want to point me to the absolute clearest, best piece of evidence you have seen of a supernatural event, I will happily try it again.

No, in these type of discussions I don't like to get into all the many details of one particular case because the debate about one case can be made to go on forever with nothing ever settled to everyone's satisfaction. My position comes from the width and breadth of the evidence of many paranormal topics (ghosts, NDE's, veridical NDE's, veridical reincarnational memories of children, religious miracles, a particular Indian saint's miracles, etc., etc.) I am very aware of the materialist arguments regarding each of the phenomena and consider them when I form my opinions. But basically I have seen and heard too much that I am convinced (by now 10 times over) that dramatic things do happen that should not happen in a materialist world.

I see in the follow-up posts that you are an atheist so we will almost certainly not come to agreement. But maybe our readers (and us) will be given things to ponder.

 

[outhouse]

My position comes from the width and breadth of the evidence of many paranormal topics

Which almost all have reasonable explanations.

Almost every one can be explained by luck, imagination and lucid dreaming, dreaming and semi conscious states.

Not one is credible by itself. Its why you have to claim many.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I have heard of the experiment you discussed and I know Dr. Tart is a man of considerable intelligence. Now, I can't know anything about the actual events with 100% certainty. My point is the likelihood that this experiment and every other positive experiment and every anecdotal event in the history of mankind has an explanation that would not require materialists to accept dramatically new concepts to me approaches zero.


I would change the word 'accept' above to 'consider'. Such things can be objectively studied for quantity, quality and consistency and all various theories about what is going on can be considered for reasonableness.


I can consider the many experiences of people I consider basically like me. I have had some experiences myself but nothing dramatic or leaving physical evidence to study.


No, in these type of discussions I don't like to get into all the many details of one particular case because the debate about one case can be made to go on forever with nothing ever settled to everyone's satisfaction. My position comes from the width and breadth of the evidence of many paranormal topics (ghosts, NDE's, veridical NDE's, veridical reincarnational memories of children, religious miracles, a particular Indian saint's miracles, etc., etc.) I am very aware of the materialist arguments regarding each of the phenomena and consider them when I form my opinions. But basically I have seen and heard too much that I am convinced (by now 10 times over) that dramatic things do happen that should not happen in a materialist world.

I see in the follow-up posts that you are an atheist so we will almost certainly not come to agreement. But maybe our readers (and us) will be given things to ponder.

I'm happy leaving it at that if you are then. I wish you'd submit more of your research to scrutiny though on RF. I'd still like to see it, and yeah, admittedly, If it turns out to be like that particular publication, I'll probably not find it very credible and would voice my perspective.

But that doesn't mean that no one on these boards would find it credible, so I fail to understand your hesitation.

But of course that is up to you. Thanks for your time, and see you around!

P.S. On last thing. . . you mentioned the possibility of materialists accepting dramatically new concepts approaching zero. Whether that's true or not, I only take issue with your description if these concepts as new.

I would offer that my worldview is quite a bit newer than yours. The 12,000 year history of post-agricultural civilization of humanity contains a great deal of mysticism and belief in the same supernatural concepts.

It made sense. After all, that world sees the horrors of smallpox and can do nothing more than invent gods to appease it's horrible ravishes on their bodies.

Smallpox Gods | prettyawfulthings

Fortunately, new concepts of scientific inquiry and verifiable experimentation allowed us to eradicate it.

We as a species didn't just kill smallpox. We killed all the impotent frustration and mysticism around it too. We killed gods.

So yes, I respect what you believe, and we can call it closed if you want, but don't call what you believe new.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm happy leaving it at that if you are then.

I just said we are not going to agree I didn't imply we need to stop discussing with each other.

I wish you'd submit more of your research to scrutiny though on RF. I'd still like to see it, and yeah, admittedly, If it turns out to be like that particular publication, I'll probably not find it very credible and would voice my perspective.

But that doesn't mean that no one on these boards would find it credible, so I fail to understand your hesitation.

I am only a lay person. I don't have research of my own to submit.

P.S. On last thing. . . you mentioned the possibility of materialists accepting dramatically new concepts approaching zero. Whether that's true or not, I only take issue with your description if these concepts as new.

I would offer that my worldview is quite a bit newer than yours. The 12,000 year history of post-agricultural civilization of humanity contains a great deal of mysticism and belief in the same supernatural concepts.

It made sense. After all, that world sees the horrors of smallpox and can do nothing more than invent gods to appease it's horrible ravishes on their bodies.

Smallpox Gods | prettyawfulthings

Fortunately, new concepts of scientific inquiry and verifiable experimentation allowed us to eradicate it.

We as a species didn't just kill smallpox. We killed all the impotent frustration and mysticism around it too. We killed gods.

So yes, I respect what you believe, and we can call it closed if you want, but don't call what you believe new.

More sophisticated times bring a more sophisticated understanding and more sophisticated concepts of reality. I think the east/Indian wisdom tradition has delved into the nature of reality deeper than the western scientific tradition (and evidence from the paranormal dovetails with the wisdom of that tradition).

 

[Sapiens]

How so? It's flamboyant (I think to mock Randi's flamboyancy) but that aside the evidence and the scientists referenced are very serious researchers.

Fooled me, I checked a random sample of the names and was singularly unimpressed with respect to their contributions to science.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

On side note, are you Peruvian?

No, I'm a Texan.

But gosh I like that Disney movie. And I've always wanted to be an emperor of the world.

 

[atanu]

Not one word applies to the conversation we were having.

Not one word you posted helps give any weight that a conscious exist outside a brain. To date, it does not.

Not one word that you say is your own. Your brain chemicals determine what you say.

 

[George-ananda]

I checked a random sample of the names and was singularly unimpressed with respect to their contributions to science.

We can then safely disqualify anything any of them says without further consideration.