Re: Queries in your JCER article

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Deepak Chopra

unread,
Jan 8, 2017, 5:15:27 AM1/8/17
to Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Jim Kowall, Pradeep Deshpande

Ram -agree

God as most use the term is a human construct


2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009



1478822725266_supergenes-960x200.jpg
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 2:12:17 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL; Online Sadhu Sanga; Jim Kowall; Pradeep Deshpande
Subject: Re: Queries in your JCER article
 
Hi Deepak,

Thanks.

I agree with you. I would also include on the list, God and our views are also a human construct. The mind-independent reality (MIR), such as consciousness-in-itself and matter-in-itself, is unknown; whatever is known is the mind-dependent reality (MDR).

Cheers!

Kind regards,
Ram
 
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 7 January 2017 1:58 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:


Ram I'm not at all sophisticated when it comes the insights of philosophers  sages or scientists. 
All I can say is if there is a word for it then its a human construct. Mind brain body universe  birth death plants bacteria animals are are human constructs for experiences in awareness. The experience itself is excitations in awareness . The rest is a story -the latest being a story called science
Reality cannot be a system of human thought --philosophy , theology , religion, theology or science . Reality can only be that which is the source of all knowing before even thought arises.
Best 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009



1478822725266_supergenes-960x200.jpg
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 12:02:47 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL; Online Sadhu Sanga; Jim Kowall; Pradeep Deshpande
Subject: Re: Queries in your JCER article
 
Hi Deepak,

Thanks. Your response is interesting but raises further queries:

1. “One (cosmic) consciousness” may not like be our daily experiences. We do not know what it could be. This is because even at the Samādhi/Nirvāṇa state, there are contradictory reports: for example, presumably Buddhist yogis clearly experience void (Śunyatā) as “darkness within darkness” (Kowall & Deshpande, 2016) whereas from Vinod Sahgal’s discussion Vedāntic yogis clearly experience very strong OBEs (out-of-body experiences) with full of blissful light. In cognitive psychology experiments, we cannot even combine our experiences and make it a group consciousness (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010). Perhaps, “One (Cosmic, Pure) Consciousness”  may be in potential form; for example, a state related to it could consists of the superposition of a large number of beable-ontic basis states as elaborated in Section 3.15 of  (Vimal, 2016b).
2. In your framework, are physical (neural network) and related mental (consciousness) aspects of a state of an entity (such as mind-brain system) separable? If they are, then you have serious problem of association and other problems of dualism as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010b, 2012b, 2013). This is because if ‘Mind’ (mental aspect, consciousness) and ‘Matter’ (physical aspect) as complementary aspects of a state of an entity are separable then it is dualism. The Occam Razor’s parsimony of dualism is 50% of monist frameworks. To make the framework monastic, these two aspects of a state of an entity must be inseparable, as it is in the extended dual-aspect monism framework (Vimal, 2008, 2010a, 2013, 2015d, 2016c).
3. I understand that all entities are appearances in consciousness in your framework, so you can say that Matter and Mind are complementary aspects of consciousness. I also understand from previous discussion that you and (Kastrup, 2016b) reject the existence of matter-in-itself. This may be because you follow Copenhagen interpretation of QM, where Matter is mind-like as also argued (Stapp, 2007, 2009a, 2009b). However, it should be noted that there are 48 interpretations of QM, which can be categorized in three groups based on metaphysics: materialism, interactive substance dualism, and idealism  (see one of Endnote 6 of (Vimal, 2016a)). All have serious problems. I am in the process of interpreting QM based on the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) (see Section 6 of the Endnote 3 of (Vimal, 2016a)). Thus, your framework is also controversial. 

The references and our discussion are given in (Vimal, 2016c).

Cheers!

Kind regards,
Ram

----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 2:02 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:


1 There is One consciousness that differentiates into innumerable minds species and culture specific. We are fragmented aspects of the One Mind 
2 Mind and Matter are complementary aspects of consciousness. 
They are interpretations of Cognitive and Perceptual experiences. Both cognition and perception are modified expressions of consciousness. 
Ultimately there is only one reality / Pure Consciousness 
On a plane ✈️ and taking off
Best 

Deepak Chopra

2013 Costa Del Mar Road 
Carlsbad, CA 92013




On Jan 4, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Hi Deepak,

Thanks for the interesting links.

My queries are not addressed in the links you provided. It will be nice if you can address them here in YES or NO form. If NO, then what is the correct answer?

Kind regards,
Ram 
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Wednesday, 4 January 2017 9:30 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:


Also here 
Everyday Reality is a Human Construct. By Deepak Chopra, MD. It is often overlooked that the role of spirituality was once the same as the role science plays today ...


Warm regards 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009



<OutlookEmoji-1478822725266_supergenes-960x200.jpg.jpg>
From: Deepak Chopra
Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2017 9:26:18 AM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL; Online Sadhu Sanga
Subject: Re: Queries in your JCER article
 
Here is my take 
It takes a lot to overturn the accepted view of reality, but it doesn't take a lot to begin. The accepted view of reality holds that human beings exist in the context of a vast physical universe "out there."


Warm regarda

2013 Costa Del Mar Road
Carlsbad, CA 92009



<OutlookEmoji-1478822725266_supergenes-960x200.jpg.jpg>

From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 9:32:00 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL; Online Sadhu Sanga
Subject: Queries in your JCER article
 
Hi Deepak,

I am in the process of reading your interesting article “Is the Afterlife a Non-Question? (Let’s Hope Not)”. 

I have the following queries:

[1] By “There is only one consciousness” do you mean manifested consciousness (as we have), unmanifested consciousness (as universal potential consciousness: UPC), or both are the same in essence (as after death our manifested consciousness returns to UPC)? My reading of your article implies the last option: is this correct?
 
[2] As discussed before, both “matter first” and “consciousness first” have serious problems. These problems can be addressed by the extended dual-aspect monism, where matter is the physical aspect and consciousness is the inseparable mental aspect of a state of our mind-brain systems. This is summarized in (Vimal, 2016). I guess, you do not agree: is this correct?

Cheers!

Happy New Year!

Kind regards,
RAm
 
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


<OutlookEmoji-1478822725266_supergenes-960x200.jpg.jpg>




Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages