Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[Bunyip]

That is the problem. As per you, activities in brain solely generated your consciousness, yet you claim that you somehow understand basic science better than me. How? Did brain reactions endow you with more understanding than it endowed me?

However, there is no point in me continuing this. Those who genuinely wish to freely ponder on this have done so. Those who are tied to dogma will not contemplate.

Why is it a problem? Sure, consciousness emerges from physical processes - that is what the evidence indicates - why is that a problem?

 

[atanu]

Ha. Ha. Mediation leads to unjustified taunting.

I am sorry, if my attempt at light hearted bantering came as a taunt. Sorry.

 

[atanu]

Why is it a problem? Sure, consciousness emerges from physical processes - that is what the evidence indicates - why is that a problem?

The processes are deterministic. If the consciousness is sole product of such deterministic processes, then there is no way to determine truth value of any proposition.

 

[Bunyip]

The processes are deterministic. If the consciousness is sole product of such deterministic processes, then there is no way to determine truth value of any proposition.

Where did determinism come into it? And how did you get from that to declaring that there is no way to declare truth values?

Determinism has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that consciousness is a product of physical processes.

 

[atanu]

Where did determinism come into it? And how did you get from that to declaring that there is no way to declare truth values?

Determinism did not come in. It is the very nature of chemical interactions. If the consciousness is sole product of chemicals interacting in brain, then there is no way to determine truth value of any proposition.

 

[Bunyip]

Determinism did not come in. It is the very nature of chemical interactions. If the consciousness is sole product of chemicals interacting in brain, then there is no way to determine truth value of any proposition.

How so? Why can't you determine truth values from chemical interactions in the brain? The fact is that I can and do determine such things, and my consciousness is a product of physical processes - so you are demonstrably wrong and have not offered a logical explanation.

The Mona Lisa is just pigment - but still priceless.
Human consciousness a product of the physical, but can produce wonders. So what on earth makes you think it is limited by being a product of the physical?

How does saying 'just chemical reactions' limit the possibilities of human consciousness?

 

[atanu]

The fact is that I can and do determine such things, and my consciousness is a product of physical processes - .

OMG. It is the best example of pre determined knowledge. Two assertions in one sentence.

The fact is that if your consciousness is a product of physical processes, you are just acting out what the physical processes have set for you. There is no intelligent 'you' apart from the physical processes and hence those processes alone decide what you apparently decide.

If consciousness is product of chemical interactions, we are just acting out of what our " chemical programming" has set for us.

 

[Bunyip]

OMG. It is the best example of pre determined knowledge. Two assertions in one sentence.

You prove only that you do not quite grasp what 'determinism' means.

The fact is that if your consciousness is a product of physical processes, you are just acting out what the physical processes have set for you. There is no intelligent 'you' apart from the physical processes and hence those processes alone decide what you apparently decide.

If consciousness is product of chemical interactions, we are just acting out of what our " chemical programming" has set for us.

Only if you are mad enough to believe that chemical reactions plan stuff. Otherwise that makes no sense at all.
Determinism has nothing to do with the idea of consciousness being a property of physical processes. Look it up mate before we go further.
Free will is not dependant on a supernatural origin for consciousness. That is just nonsense.

 

[atanu]

Only if you are mad enough to believe that chemical reactions plan stuff. .

What? I am refuting that.

That is just nonsense.

Bunyip, it always changes to anger. Why?

You want it both ways? You assert that 'consciousness is product of physical processes/interactions in brain (over which you presumably have no control). OTOH, you also rubbish the proposition of opponent as 'non-sense'. How? Based on whose intelligence? As if the blind brain interactions endowed you with special wisdom. ha.

 

[Bunyip]

What? I am refuting that.

You are refuting your own strawman then.

Bunyip, it always changes to anger. Why?

What anger?

You want it both ways? You assert that 'consciousness is product of physical processes/interactions in brain (over which you presumably have no control).

Why would I be unable to control them? You gave no reason. Sure I can.

OTOH, you also rubbish the proposition of opponent as 'non-sense'. How? Based on whose intelligence? As if the blind brain interactions endowed you with special wisdom. ha.

What are you talking about? Did you look up 'determinism'?

You keep saying that everything is deterministic if consciousness comes from physical processes - but give no rationale.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I am sorry, if my attempt at light hearted bantering came as a taunt. Sorry.

No, you're okay! I thought what you said was super funny! I'm enjoying the conversation.

I think after scientific inquiry is finished with the brain, we'll be able to map most of our consciousness. But we won't be able to make predictions.

There are many different ways I could see that working, but they'd all be conjecture. Right now, I just don't know.

If you want to hear one, here we go. This is not backed-up much with evidence though:

In the 3 billion neuron complexity of the brain, most processes happen, and cognitive ideas are formed. Because the brain is so complex, there are millions of competing concepts, with no clear consensus.

You have a concept of a tree as lumber, as beauty, as a plant, as a memory it of climbing on as a kid, as a home for squirrels, and so on. Multiply that single semiotic concept of "tree" by a hundred thousand times. Then add in the complexity of competing ideas of "not tree." Billions of concepts.

In that stew, many if these concepts are dueling. For example, you may have concepts that produce fear at public speaking, yet concepts that invoke security at the need to speak publicly for your job.

This dissonance is the web of consciousness, emerging. The outcomes of emotions and decisions are vastly complicated, and sections takes control, enforcing the need for decisions.

Choice is resolving those conflicts to protect the system from dissonance.

Anyway, just one idea. I have more. . .

One more thought, off topic: If a perfect being is, by definition, only capable of perfect moral decisions every time, do they have free will? Can they choose to make a decision that is not moral, or are their choices determined?

 

[viole]

The fact is that if your consciousness is a product of physical processes, you are just acting out what the physical processes have set for you. There is no intelligent 'you' apart from the physical processes and hence those processes alone decide what you apparently decide.

Define 'you'.

If consciousness is product of chemical interactions, we are just acting out of what our " chemical programming" has set for us.

I think you are committing a category error by using adjectives and properties to things that have different levels of complexity. Even if the more complex is reduceable to the simpler one, it would be a fallacy to confuse their property. For instance, computers can forecast the weather, but the laws of physics that underly the behavior of transistors cannot. To deduce that computer cannot forecast the weather because transistors and QM/EM cannot, would be absurd.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

Define 'you'.

A good meaningful post, finally. As per most folks on this thread, 'you' is an illusion created due to some processes in brain. But such folks do not shy away from imposing view of that illusory 'I' on others.

As per my understanding, the I and You are illusions created in single cosciousness, due to various intentions.

Both views might appear to be same but they are not same. In the latter case, the fundamental reality beneath the illusion being 'consciousness-intelligence', it is possible to overcome the effects of illusion.

OTOH, in the former case, there is no possibility of determining truth value of any proposition. Either one has control over consciousness or the brain processes have control.

I think you are committing a category error by using adjectives and properties to things that have different levels of complexity. Even if the more complex is reduceable to the simpler one, it would be a fallacy to confuse their property. For instance, computers can forecast the weather, but the laws of physics that underly the behavior of transistors cannot. To deduce that computer cannot forecast the weather because transistors and QM/EM cannot, would be absurd.

Not at all.

First. Computers can forecast weather and do many other things because they are designed that way. There is a controller separate from the computer. Are we designed that way?

Second, consciousness is not in same category as any other object (physical or mental) cognised in it. Consciousness is not same as weather forecasting. If some day a Turing machine comes up, we will still require someone to certify that the machine has passed the Turing test.

Third. Even if I agree that consciousness is solely an emergent property of structures of our brain (as you probably hold) the argument will still be valid that there is no real consciousness inherent in any individual and the truth value of a proposition cannot be determined.
.............
But why make it so complicated? Either one has control over consciousness or the brain processes have control. And have you ever seen characters in a novel or in s film characterising the novelist or the film's director?

 

[atanu]

One more thought, off topic: If a perfect being is, by definition, only capable of perfect moral decisions every time, do they have free will? Can they choose to make a decision that is not moral, or are their choices determined?

Perfection is a level. Decision making is another. Decision making is a play of infinite variety that in no way taints perfection.

 

[Curious George]

A good meaningful post, finally. As per most folks on this thread, 'you' is an illusion created due to some processes in brain. But such folks do not shy away from imposing view of that illusory 'I' on others.

As per my understanding, the I and You are illusions created in single cosciousness, due to various intentions.

Both views might appear to be same but they are not same. In the latter case, the fundamental reality beneath the illusion being 'consciousness-intelligence', it is possible to overcome the effects of illusion.

OTOH, in the former case, there is no possibility of determining truth value of any proposition. Either one has control over consciousness or the brain processes have control.

How is it possible that you and I have control over our brains if you and I are illusory? And if you and I are illusory, and part of some single consciousness which is in control, then in theory any part of the consciousness could have control over the illusory you or I. Thus, all attacks you have made on the deterministic pov are also applicable to your theory.

 

[viole]

A good meaningful post, finally. As per most folks on this thread, 'you' is an illusion created due to some processes in brain. But such folks do not shy away from imposing view of that illusory 'I' on others.

As per my understanding, the I and You are illusions created in single cosciousness, due to various intentions.

Both views might appear to be same but they are not same. In the latter case, the fundamental reality beneath the illusion being 'consciousness-intelligence', it is possible to overcome the effects of illusion.

OTOH, in the former case, there is no possibility of determining truth value of any proposition. Either one has control over consciousness or the brain processes have control.



Not at all.

First. Computers can forecast weather and do many other things because they are designed that way. There is a controller separate from the computer. Are we designed that way?

Second, consciousness is not in same category as any other object (physical or mental) cognised in it. Consciousness is not same as weather forecasting. If some day a Turing machine comes up, we will still require someone to certify that the machine has passed the Turing test.

Third. Even if I agree that consciousness is solely an emergent property of structures of our brain (as you probably hold) the argument will still be valid that there is no real consciousness inherent in any individual and the truth value of a proposition cannot be determined.
.............
But why make it so complicated? Either one has control over consciousness or the brain processes have control. And have you ever seen characters in a novel or in s film characterising the novelist or the film's director?

Well, hold your horses, lol.

We are not talking of consciousness, yet. We are analyzing the following proposition, neutral towards design, consciousness or lack thereof. After all, people make computer because they cannot determine the weather themselves.

- things that operate under deterministic laws cannot make reliable assessments about true predicates

True or false?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kuzcotopia]

A good meaningful post, finally. As per most folks on this thread, 'you' is an illusion created due to some processes in brain. But such folks do not shy away from imposing view of that illusory 'I' on others.

As per my understanding, the I and You are illusions created in single cosciousness, due to various intentions.

Both views might appear to be same but they are not same. In the latter case, the fundamental reality beneath the illusion being 'consciousness-intelligence', it is possible to overcome the effects of illusion.

OTOH, in the former case, there is no possibility of determining truth value of any proposition. Either one has control over consciousness or the brain processes have control.

Oh I get it.

I think you're saying that If I hold to a materialist view of consciousness, then I must accept a solipsistic viewpoint.

Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an idealist viewpoint. You're far closer to accepting that view from your premises than I ever will be from mine.

If I believe material processes create emergent consciousness, then I can already accept that other emergent consciousness exists in others. It's not a contradiction. . . It's already part of my material worldview.

If I'm incorrect about this logical assumption on your part, please correct. If it is correct, then you have a lot more to explain to demonstrate why I am solipsistic and you somehow are not.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Define 'you'.

If I may....the Cosmos is one....apparent self consciousness of the evolving entity comes into being when the brain conscious perceives its environment as distinctly separate from what it perceives as itself, the mortal body. The Cosmos is now seen as a duality....I the subject, and the rest of existence which is perceived as not I, the object.

I/you refers to mortal self conscious beings...

 

[Shad]

Are you bonkers? I never raised the issue of God.. So please provide context for your raising it so I can understand what you are raving about...

It was a Catholic astronomer George Lemaitre who first proposed the big bang theory. it's a sort of high tech secular version of the God did it creation.....

There is no secular version of God did it since secular academics do not include the supernatural. God did it is a fallacy based on the position that something is unknown or the cause of something is God is the cause, God of the gaps. So no only do you not understand secular academics you do not understand the fallacy you bring up.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How is it possible that you and I have control over our brains if you and I are illusory? And if you and I are illusory, and part of some single consciousness which is in control, then in theory any part of the consciousness could have control over the illusory you or I. Thus, all attacks you have made on the deterministic pov are also applicable to your theory.

Ilusion as a nomer falls short, because while Ilusion is not physical, illusion is still fact. When I fantasize about a leprechaun, then this fantasyfigure is in fact in my imagination. And with all matter of facts the laws of nature apply. Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion. When something can be subject to the force in evidence, it is subject to some or other forces of nature.

One has to categorize the self apart from facts, which is to say that the existence of it is subjective, a matter of opinion. The self is spiritual. So we can say that the self chooses, and only by choosing can we reach any conclusion about what the self is, resulting in an opinion. Those rules work without contradiction, it means the brain can turn out several different ways, the brain is decided over, and we cannot measure what it is that makes the decisions turn out the way they do.

And we can see in common discourse, that these rules are already used. We can see that people talk as though there are several possible answers to the question what emotions somebody has in their heart, all of which answers are regarded as correct.