But that is what you are doing. There is no compelling reason for the wholeness to be consciously intelligent. That requires a brain, specifically evolved for survival via natural selection.
IMO a mathematical Universe can consist of a non-conscious quasi-intelligent mathematical wholeness. A dynamical symmetry, an equation should be sufficient causality.
I do not believe in 'irreducible complexity". I do believe in Chaos Theory.
Pointing at the Moon, as I’ve said many times already is a metaphor for the fact that all of our ideation (especially about the absolute context) is abstraction. (the reason humans invented Zen practice)
Knowing the “universe” as you are arguing for it, in terms of size and laws, is the realm of the Tao that can be named.
Knowing the “Universe” in terms of the unnameable Tao, means getting our sense of separate existence out of the picture. Witness and witnessed not actually being two things.
What makes you believe I am unable to be empathic with my natural environment?
Anybody that strives to understand the wholeness ends up wishing Nirvana that can be either total enlightenment or total oblivion.
Nirvana
In Indian religions, nirvana is synonymous with moksha and mukti .[note 1] All Indian religions assert it to be a state of perfect quietude, freedom, highest happiness as well as the liberation from attachment and worldly suffering and the ending of samsara , the round of existence.[7][8] However, non-Buddhist and Buddhist traditions describe these terms for liberation differently.[9]
In Hindu philosophy, it is the union of or the realization of the identity of Atman with Brahman, depending on the Hindu tradition.[10][11][12] In Jainism, nirvana is also the soteriological goal, representing the release of a soul from karmic bondage and samsara.[13]
In the Buddhist context, nirvana refers to realization of non-self and emptiness, marking the end of rebirth by stilling the fires that keep the process of rebirth going.[9][14][[15]]
(Nirvana - Wikipedia) To achieve this status, one has to get rid of three psychological evils – Raga (greed, desire), Dwesha (anger) and Moha (delusion).
As Anil Seth posits: “When the end comes there is nothing to be afraid of, nothing at all.”
I like that . It completes the cycle and solves all problems.
You’ve used the phrase maybe 3 times, and you just use it, you don’t delve into it, you assume that your interpretation of words is the right one, and that others should know it. Really annoying. Also not furthering this conversation. This is not a moderation comment, but as a member, I can point out the rules, and I can discuss what trolling is. And the way you keep repeating phrases that you have come up with, and then tell people they don’t get it, that’s trolling.
It doesn’t matter that you keep saying it, it doesn’t mean you aren’t doing what the Buddha warned of; getting attached to some words, some description of the oneness and wonder of being, instead of being and experiencing it. You are only pointing.
I have “argued” that we know some things about the universe, and humans have agreed there are laws of the universe (not everyone). There are deep discussions about whether or not humans discovered them, or did we invent them. But we’ll never get to that kind of discussion the way you keep saying we don’t get you.
I have also discussed the mystery, the unknown, and the philosophical implications of our relationship to the universe, but you haven’t said much about what I’ve said on that in that arena.
What I said was:
If you consider that trolling I will be happy to disengage.
As I recall I was quite pleased when you quoted Lao Tsu. (it even briefly seemed that we both understood what needed to be understood from it.)
As I’ve said. I can/will cut this off since the accusation of trolling will make it impossible for me to continue.
You and write4u have both expressed consensus about my deficiencies. As for miriana, I was hoping one or the other of you would recognized the excess of projection going on in her responses. And, perhaps would then better understand what was shaping some of my comments, both with her and with you.
There are some other interesting discussions going on in these forums that I want to check out. There are also always other people who understand my efforts, and I theirs. It would be good to meet them.
If we are just going to keep going around in circles (mostly about my style), just say so.
All abstraction until it isn’t. Right?
Are you or aren’t you one of the people you describe?
Please do not misunderstand . I am always pleased to converse with intelligent and informed minds .
The problem is in finding consensus in “understanding different perspectives” .
As Anil Seth posits “when people agree on their controlled halluciations, we call that reality.”
If you are not familiar with his work: check out this succinct but really informative lecture at Ted Talk.
Where did you get the idea that I had said this? The highly localized version of relative consciousness that “requires a brain” is an emergent characteristic. Part of the continuum of relative phenomena.
The emphasis for me is to grok the essential infinitude. But, I am also very excited about that new telescope and all the wonderful trajectories of speciation that we share the planet with.
I know what you said. I don’t think you intend to be a troll, but repetitive posting is a troll-like behavior. So, I’m trying to be nice and let you know that. What you do about that is your business.
What you repeated was an explanation of the pointing part. That’s what I said. So, it’s like you understand me and can reflect me, but then you say something else, as if I’m not understanding. You get it that pointing at the moon is not experiencing the moon. I’m not sure you get what the moon represents.
The quote may not be from any ancient writing, but as this webpage points out, “Zen teachers often say that the teachings are like a finger pointing at the moon. The finger is useful because of what it points us toward, not as an object of study for its own sake.” I think you are studying the pointing, as if understanding what the words “Reality-as-it-actually-is” means, will result in an understanding of life, the universe, and everything, or whatever it is you are getting at.
It’s hard to say what you are pointing to, because you focus on how you are pointing. You call that feedback about this “projection”, but I don’t see that.
I’ve been saying that from the beginning of this a few days ago. Either you are going around in circles, or your style appears that way to me. I’m not sure it matters. I can tell you that I’m not getting you, but when you are the one trying to impart something, it doesn’t help to tell people they aren’t getting you, WHEN THEY ARE TELLING YOU THAT. Unless you are accusing me of being deliberately obtuse. That could be difficult to resolve.
[quote=“write4u, post:441, topic:2865”]
There is no compelling reason for the wholeness to be consciously intelligent.
[quote=“brmckay1, post:448, topic:2865”]
Where did you get the idea that I had said this? The highly localized version of relative consciousness that “ requires a brain ” is an
emergent characteristic. Part of the continuum of relative phenomena.
The emphasis for me is to grok the essential infinitude. But, I am also very excited about that new telescope and all the wonderful trajectories of speciation that we share the planet with.
What you experience as “grokking” (loved the book) is an hallucination.
Conscious hallucinations come in two forms; "controlled hallucinations ( verified cognition) and “uncontrolled hallucination” ( unverified cognition).
And if I apply this to your “state of mind”, I do not see a controlled and verified hallucination. This is not necessarily bad, it just makes speculative, imaginary.
Please do watch the clip, this is a new perspective, but don’t let the term fool you. Seth explains his use of what is otherwise a sign of a clinical condition. But it explains how the brain must function in order to make sense of reality in the first place.
Thanks, I enjoyed the TED talk. I assure you that nothing I’ve said is in contradiction with the insights and knowledge presented there.
But when it is abstract it is just an uncontrolled hallucination, hence the metaphor.
All devout theists have an abstract connection to God and metaphorical Scripture, but in fact it is an instilled “uncontrolled hallucination”.
You agree that you (your brain) are (is) the creator of the imaginary concept of the Wholeness and it’s inherent properties and potentials?
And this “verifying agency”?
Funny about that, I’ve been saying the same thing about you, lausten, and especially mriana.
So where are we on the question about the “apriori of Entirety”?
I just re-asked write4u, so I will re-ask you… were are we on the question about the “apriori of Entirety”?
We could start by admitting that we (our brains) are all making “best guesses” (Seth) when it comes to hallucinating the wholeness … 
This is the “round and round” part. You introduced “apriori of Entirety”, and we tried to clarify it (actually it’s been “apriori Infinitude” and others, not that it matters). Last I remember I offered a definition of “apriori” that seemed at odds with what you were saying, but that loose thread is still loose.
Write4U had a pretty good collection of related concepts going here, and you even agreed, then derailed with one of your personal phrases. And you had to comment “saying the same thing”, as if talking about controlled hallucinations is some sort statement on character or ones limited ability to comprehend. It’s not, Write4U is talking about how all minds work, so we’re all in the same boat.
Do you think your mind works differently than what Anil Seth says? Do you think you see something about the universe that I don’t? You haven’t mentioned it lately, but you have told us you have a relationship with some version of God. How does that factor in?
All proof being approximate. But I was not talking about the perception of “Entirety”.
So lets ask @write4u to analyze your response to what I said. Which was this (I think):
Nothing I’ve said contradicts the insights and knowledge demonstrated by Anil Seth.
As for my references early on to “God”, I have repeated several times that for me God is a substitute term for Nature or Reality or Universe. As in, There is Only God. I’m not using it here because y’all are atheists and the word just triggers cartoons and regurgitations from ya. (no actual original thought, which is what I need).