Is the cosmos "fine-tuned"?

[outhouse]

Factually substantiated. Spiritually substantiated.

That is the same as imagination for our purposes. Remains factually unsubstantiated.

 

[Unification]

Are you talking of some sort of fractal proportional relationship? In any event, in the Chan-Taoist tradition, our individual minds are merely aspects of the One Mind, which is eternal and infinite. The teaching is all about the folly of trying to prove or find this underlying One Mind, by using one's mind.....for it is an integral of the One Mind...

Here is an excerpt from the writings of Huang Po.....

All the Buddhas and all sentient beings are nothing but the One Mind, beside which nothing exists. This mind, which is without beginning, is unborn and indestructible. It is not of any colour and has neither form or appearance. It does not belong to the categories of things which exist or do not exist, nor can it be thought of as in terms of time, past or future. It can't be described by any words or numbers for it transcends all limits, measures, names, traces, and comparisons. It is that which you see before you -- begin to reason about it and you fall into error. It is like a boundless void which can't be fathomed or measured. The One Mind alone is the Buddha and there is no distinction between buddhas and mortal beings. But that mortals, by identifying with form, seek externally for buddhahood. By their very seeking they lose it, for that is using the buddha to seek the Buddha. For that is using mind to find Mind. They do not know that, if they were to cease conceptual thought processes, the Buddha is realized, for this mind is the buddha and the Buddha is all sentient beings. It is not the less for being manifested in ordinary entities, not is it greater for being manifested in the buddhas.

Indeed. God, or the invisible giant brain/universe can only be found within our duplicated mini-universe brain. Scriptures do a splendid job spiritually depicting this in combination with science.

Essentially, about all religions are the culprit to all of the world's problems. The scripture is about the invisible, not the literal, physical or historical.

In the dark realm of nothing is the greatest light. The natural and the flesh only want to see physical things. One cannot see or know the invisible because they are only focused and committed on the literal and physical. It's an obsession with things of the illusion of physical, that most religions, science, and government mistake. The scriptures/entire bible are about the universe, cosmic energy, knowledge, brain, mind, and the invisible. Mini duplicated minds to one giant mind.

One must separate their thoughts and enter within.
Separate brain from mind and self from body.

 

[Unification]

That is the same as imagination for our purposes. Remains factually unsubstantiated.

No. Imagination is not good. Don't mistake that for ones own created version of imagination, that would be making the same mistake as most religions. Remains perfectly factual and spiritually substantiated.

 

[atanu]

Factually unsubstantiated.

You cannot prove consciousness outside the brain, that is a fact at this current time.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric

Ridiculous.
.

These are is typical responses generated automatically by chemicals in brain. It is easy to respond with "nonsense" or "ridiculous".

I reiterate that if intelligence arises solely out blind processes of brain, then there is no conscious individual capable of determining truth value of any proposition.
.........

Regarding proving consciousness outside brain, it has already been pointed out that without a pre-existing consciousness, no object, including a brain, would be cognised. Even if some one demonstrated a brain to be seat of intelligence or if someone demonstrated a computer to pass Turing test, you would require a consciousness (with ability for objective assessment) to declare that was so. In short, to declare that a machine has passed the Turing some intelligent observer is a pre-requisite.

Whereas, an intelligence, that is supposed to be solely emergent from deterministic processes cannot have power to determine the truth value of any proposition. Such intelligence is only apparent and determined.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I reiterate that if intelligence arises out blind processes of brain, then there is no conscious individual capable of determining truth value of any proposition.

Eh?

 

[atanu]

Eh?

Wrong?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Wrong?

Intelligence looks like an emergent property of consciousness, and consciousness looks like an emergent property of life. I don't see the flaw in this model, or a credible alternative.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Intelligence looks like an emergent property of consciousness, and consciousness looks like an emergent property of life. I don't see the flaw in this model, or a credible alternative.

And cars emerged from life. It is whack thinking, avoiding the reality and relevance of choosing.

 

[Bunyip]

And cars emerged from life. It is whack thinking, avoiding the reality and relevance of choosing.

But cars did emerge from life - us. What's the problem?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But cars did emerge from life - us. What's the problem?

And a rocket to the moon emerged, and the holocaust emerged, and the usa emerged.

Whack thinking ignoring the reality and relevance of freedom, decisions made, in the universe.

 

[Bunyip]

And a rocket to the moon emerged, and the holocaust emerged, and the usa emerged.

Whack thinking ignoring the reality and relevance of freedom, decisions made, in the universe.

What?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And a rocket to the moon emerged, and the holocaust emerged, and the usa emerged.

It's not all bad though, English gentlemen invented wellingtons, sandwiches, cricket and steam trains.

 

[atanu]

Intelligence looks like an emergent property of consciousness, and consciousness looks like an emergent property of life. I don't see the flaw in this model, or a credible alternative.

Ya. There is no problem in what you are saying, except that we understand that it is the awareness that engenders life.

But the issue here is different. Some people posit that consciousness is a product of some inert chemicals interacting or some such physical process.

I say that if consciousness is a product of some deterministic process then there is no way we can determine truth value of a proposition, since the deterministic process, in this case, has determined the outcome.

I hope I am clear.

 

[atanu]

Ya. There is no problem in what you are saying, except that we understand that it is the awareness that engenders life.

But the issue here is different. Some people posit that consciousness is a product of some inert chemicals interacting or some such physical process.

I say that if consciousness is a product of some deterministic process then there is no way we can determine truth value of a proposition, since the deterministic process, in this case, has determined the outcome.

I hope I am clear.

OTOH, the fact that we have ability to arrive at truth of physical systems and also able to break the chain of determinism that our body-minds are subjected to points to the fact that our intelligence is truly free -- unborn, uncreated and unformed.

In this regard, We may wish to compare Buddha's teaching that since there was an unborn, uncreated, and unformed, people can discern and break away from the cycle of samsara.

Best.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Some people posit that consciousness is a product of some inert chemicals interacting or some such physical process.
I say that if consciousness is a product of some deterministic process then there is no way we can determine truth value of a proposition, since the deterministic process, in this case, has determined the outcome.

We can speculate about the nature of consciousness but currently I don't think there is any evidence that it can be present independent of a live brain. Also I don't see a problem with saying that consciousness depends on electro-chemical activity in the brain, it doesn't prevent us from making choices.

 

[outhouse]

Some people posit that consciousness is a product of some inert chemicals interacting or some such physical process

And to date, that is what consciousness is.

There is nothing else at this time that is substantiated as real.

 

[atanu]

We can speculate about the nature of consciousness but currently I don't think there is any evidence that it can be present independent of a live brain. Also I don't see a problem with saying that consciousness depends on electro-chemical activity in the brain, it doesn't prevent us from making choices.

There is no need to speculate. There is no Turing machine so far. And without preexisting awareness there is no object and no world.

It is speculation to say that electrochemicals generate consciousness since there is no such evidence. No one shown any such consciousness. Correlation of brain structure with certain emotions is not proof of birth of intelligence. They are just correlations.

Electrochemically or computer generated intelligence is determined.

.....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Electrochemically or computer generated intelligence is determined.

OK, a little experiment. Choose to touch yourself on the arm or leg so that you feel it. Tell me how you think this works from a biological point of view.

 

[atanu]

What

We can speculate about the nature of consciousness but currently I don't think there is any evidence that it can be present independent of a live brain. Also I don't see a problem with saying that consciousness depends on electro-chemical activity in the brain, it doesn't prevent us from making choices.

What is a live brain btw? What is alive? Why does a brain with all structures intact does not will to live in a dead body? If it was fundamental creator of consciousness why does it die silently?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What is a live brain btw? What is alive? Why does a brain with all structures intact does not will to live in a dead body? If it was fundamental creator of consciousness why does it die silently?

A live brain in a live person. I assume you know the difference between somebody who is alive and somebody who is dead?