Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Vinod ji and Roman,
I agree with no “explanatory gap” (e-gap) as a third criterion; other two are subjective and objective evidence. However, how do we decide it is a real e-gap if the author of the framework claims there is none, but an opponent maintains that the e-gap remains?
(Boyer, 2018).Ch.5 and others propose 3 types of information:
1. Physical Shannon type information such as “the quantum information field that generates relativistic spacetime”,
2. Biological “‘shaping information,’ referring to how biophysical structures and functions are guided, by DNA for example” and
3. Psychological information, which “includes purpose and intention in terms of the exchange of semantic meaning between conscious senders and receivers—as for example in language.” (Boyer, 2018).
In the eDAM, a state of the information in an entity has dual-aspect and both aspects (mental and physical) have the same information, except its form may be different and it appears different depending on the perspective of viewing it. Therefore, the ontology of both aspects is the ontology of this common information.
The mental aspect of a state of the information in an inert entity appears “latent” to us (as a 3rd person) because it, like us, is also made of related elementary particles. A dual-aspect panpsychist may argue that the mental aspect from the point of view (1pp) of the inert entity may be known to the inert entity but it is unknown to us. The opponents will clearly reject it. It should be noted that it is also a manifestation of the primal entity (Brahman) and certainly has a specific function that may be useful to us and hence we should respect it and do not look at it in a degraded manner.Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Yes, eDAM proposes conscious robots and Vinod rejects them.You need propose how to reject diamat as I have proposed how to reject eDAM. Alfredo needs to do the same for his TAM.Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 5, 2017, at 6:12 PM, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:Ram, Bottom line is it quantum information that you speak of without evening knowing it. Bohm was the physicist that developed quantum theory in terms of "hidden" variables. So your SE are such hidden variable. We know that Bohm achieved this in 1950s. The problem was he was not able to apply using teleofunctionalist epistemology in order to understand sentience. He developed the theory but failed to apply it to the brain. That is what we are doing and hope to do this in the next human brain project wherever it begins. Surely the existing human brain project is a computationalist fruit cake.Roman -------
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering (FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski. blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/ journal-of-integrative- neuroscience/On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Sehgal: Then where is the objective and subjective authentic and reproducible evidence in favor of the existence of any mental aspect (PEs) in the latent form with the inert discrete physical entities outside the functioning brain of the living organisms?
Vimal: The robust subjective and objective evidence for the inert entities having “latent” (hidden, unexpressed) mental aspect is that we as a 3rd person do not see any sign of a single SE as we have. They are “latent” instead of “absent” because if they are re-organized at elementary particle level and somehow (precisely we do not know how although there are models. Roman may like to elaborate them) living entities arise from them, then, SEs will actualize because we subjectively have SEs, which have objective neural bases. How? Actualization is thru matching and selection mechanisms as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010a).
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://s ites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/ Home
https://www.researchgate.net/p rofile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Tuesday 5 December 2017, 5:25:59 PM IST, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:Ram-"How will you decide what is the fundamental truth?Final Judgement from Supreme Court: Objective and subjective authentic and reproducible evidence: agreed?So all of us provide such type evidence until then all of us are not guilty of misleading each other"Then where is the objective and subjective authentic and reproducible evidence in favor of the existence of any mental aspect ( PEs) in the latent form with the inert discrete physical entities outside the functioning brain of the living organisms?Vinod SehgalOn Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:13 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Dr. Ram,I think you should desist from making personal comments on the personality traits of any participant in this group. This vitiates the very objective, scientific and neutral/secular atmosphere in which we want to discuss different issues pertaining primarily to Science/Metaphysics. For us, every participant should equally be learned, knowledgeable, intelligent, having rational logical attitude, therefore, deserve equal respect. You alleged that my self and Roman are having some obsession, which unfortunately you have diagnosed in a self-proclaimed manner as some mental disorder. I could also proclaim that you are having some obsessive mental disorders of eDAM, despite the absence of any logical epistemic framework and empirical evidence for any dual aspect mental aspect, but I shall desist from doing so since I realize that it is against the value/ethics of some group discussion which is quite open on online and which primarily discusses issues which are purely of scientific/metaphysical nature wherein personal traits should not come in the way in any manner.On my part, I always try to make conscious attempts to raise issues of eDAM and other metaphysical frameworks in a quite specific manner and expect that the relevant participant, if s/he has any convincing reply and also willing to respond, should reply in a specific manner instead of talking of peripheral issues like: "You are always seeing from Saankhya's/eDAM point of view" or "I have repeated many times" or first read my books/articles. These peripheral comments amount to avoiding the lead and key issue as raisedRegards.Vinod sehgalOn Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:Roman,
You and Vinod ji are two people in this group who are highly obsessed and cling to materialistic and idealistic/dualistic frameworks, respectively; one of you lives in North Pole and other in South Pole. Obsession is a clinical disorder in mental health. So just relax and live happily and let others to live happily. I understand, I am in the middle, so both of you, do not try to crush me from both sides; I am a good friend to both of you! My goal is to being both of you closer; so I honor both; materialism in terms of physical aspect and idealism in terms of mental aspect. Try to understand!
Roman: There are no mental aspects.
Ram: Do you have SEs of objects, emotional SEs, SE of yourself as subject from your 1pp; can you think from your 1pp; can you criticize others and make them feel bad like Trump does; can you detect and discriminate stimuli, such as colors red from green; do you feel there is Roman who exists in daytime and sleeps, dreams, and it is more or less the same Roman when you wake up and trying to write an article related to DiaMat? If answer to all these queries is YES, then I include them either experiential or functional sub-aspects of the mental aspect; you can call whatever you like, terminology does not matter.
Roman: There is no unified "god-like" field.
Vimal: Do you believe in Big Bang and evolution? Do you think there is unified field (many names such as ZPF, quantum vacuum field, etc) as physics says from which gravity, EM field, weak and strong field evolve? If answer is YES, then I am framing it as the physical aspect of primal field and extrapolating 1pp information to the mental aspect of a state of information in primal unified field. If idealist call it OOO-God, so let them call to let them to feel good; terminologies do not change the fact.
Roman: Teleonomic emergence of teleofunctionality as a solution to the mind-body problem. Anyone who can do it will be able to mechanize consciousness. We are in progress of achieving this. The framework is dialectical materialism.
Vimal: Yes, but only for the physical aspect as materialism does great job in this realm. But do not try to cross the gap of Atlantic Ocean to reach the idealism world where mental aspect lives; you will not get the visa unless you follow the laws of the land.
I guess, teleomatic is a more appropriate term compared to teleonomic because the former follows natural laws.
Ernst Mayr distinquished between two different kinds of natural processes that appear to be “goal directed”:
As per (Mayr, 1974), “Teleomatic processes: Processes that simply follow natural laws, i.e. lead to a result consequential to concomitant physical forces, and the reaching of their end state is not controlled by a built-in program. The law of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics are among the natural laws which most frequently govern teleomatic processes. Examples include the cooling to ambient temperature of a red hot bar of iron and the falling of a rock to the ground.
Teleonomic processes: Processes that owe their goal-directedness to the operation of a program. The term teleonomic implies goal-direction. This, in turn, implies a dynamic process rather than a static condition, as represented by a system. Examples include the development of an adult organism from a fertilized zygote and the building of a dam by beavers.
Mayr argues very strongly that the common use of teleological language by biologists is legitimate because it recognizes the goal-directedness of biological processes. He also stresses that, although many biological processes (such as ontogeny) are clearly goal-directed, they owe their goal-directedness to the operation of programs, such as the genetic program encoded in the DNA. He concludes that although such programs themselves are goal-directed (i.e. purposeful), the process by which such programs have come into being – evolution by natural selection – is NOT itself goal directed.
[ I would state this slightly differently from Mayr: that there is no observable evidence that the evolutionary processes by which such programs come into being are goal-directed (i.e. “designed” or “purposeful”). Therefore, although such purposes may exist, they are invisible to us on principle and therefore irrelevent to scientific explanations of natural phenomena.]
[Mayr concludes:]
• The use of so-called teleological language by biologists is legitimate; it neither implies a rejection of physico-chemical explanation nor does it imply non-causal explanation
• At the same time, it is illegitimate to describe evolutionary processes or trends as goal-directed (teleological). Selection [reifies] past phenomena (mutation, recombination, etc.), but does NOT plan for the future, at least not in any specific way [as far as we can tell]
• Processes (behavior) whose goal-directedness is controlled by a program may be referred to as teleonomic
• Processes which reach an end state caused by natural laws (e.g. gravity, second law of thermodynamics) but not by a program may be designated as teleomatic
• Programs [of the type described above] are in part or entirely the product of natural selection
• Teleonomic (i.e. programmed) behavior occurs only in organisms (and man-made machines) and constitutes a clear-cut difference between the levels of complexity in living and in inanimate nature [i.e. they are “emergent properties” of living systems, not present in the non-living materials of which living organisms or their artifacts are composed]
• Teleonomic explanations are strictly causal and mechanistic. They give no comfort to adherents of vitalistic concepts [including supporters of “intelligent design,” if such supporters believe that the kinds of programs described above come into existence as the result of a purposeful process].”Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://s ites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/ Home
https://www.researchgate.net/p rofile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Tuesday 5 December 2017, 2:46:27 PM IST, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:Ram wrote:"The mental aspects co-evolve from UPC (Universal Potential Consciousness), which is the mental of the dual-aspect information in the primal UF (unified field) as discussed before. Ontology of both aspects is the ontology of related information. These queries you asked many times and I replied many times; it is all repetitions."There are no mental aspects. There is no unified "god-like" field......all you need is to solve the mind-body problem.Teleonomic emergence of teleofunctionality as a solution to the mind-body problem. Anyone who can do it will be able to mechanize consciousness. We are in progress of achieving this. The framework is dialectical materialism.Roman-------
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering (FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot .com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal -of-integrative-neuroscience/On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:Dear Vinod ji,The mental aspects co-evolve from UPC (Universal Potential Consciousness), which is the mental of the dual-aspect information in the primal UF (unified field) as discussed before. Ontology of both aspects is the ontology of related information. These queries you asked many times and I replied many times; it is all repetitions.Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Tuesday 5 December 2017, 9:55:20 AM IST, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:Respected Dr. Ram,For a conscious state of the information in mind-brain system :SE is from 1pp = mental aspectThe key unresolved issues in e DAM are:i) How and from where 1pp state, which itself is a conscious state, will emerge out from whichany SE as the mental state will manifestii) eDAM postulates that in the inert entities some PEs ( some mental state) exist in the latent form. But again the unresolved issue of eDAM is: when the ontology of the inert entities comprises of the physical structure and physical attributes ( aka physical function) of mass, charge, spin, vibrations only from where ( from which ontology) and how any PEs as mental aspects will appear and in which form such PEs will exist?Any argument that in inert entities 1pp give birth to mental aspects has intra-contradiction since1pp its is a mental aspectNeural activity is from 3pp = physical aspectAbove is OKThese are robust evidence.Robust evidence is for the positive correlation from physical to mental and anyone can easily infer that correlation is not inseparabilityThen extrapolate to inert entities which do have physical aspectMental aspect is latent so appears absenti) When at the brain level itself, inseparability is NOt established, with misinterpreting correlation as inseparability, why to extrapolate?ii) Even after extrapolation to inert entities, is there any evidence that inert entities have any mental aspect in the latent format? Obviously NOiii) Even if we may ignore evidence as required at ii) above, there is no convincing epistemological framework as to from where, how any mental aspects emerge out in the inert entities, which is hypothesized to exist in the latent form, & in which such mental aspect exist?Details are in 5 articles I mentioned beforeInstead of stating that I am seeing from Saankhya angle, you should pay serious thoughts to above keyissues of eDAM which may be quite convincing.Regards.Vinod SehgalOn Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:45 AM, BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Vinod:Vinod - OK, you may not treat that as a code. But what I intended to highlight that "informational patterns" are required to be built on the value of some parameter of matter/energy. When these values are interpreted in some "meaningful" manner by some conscious observer that information is derived from those values of variables.Alfredo - They are not "required to be built..." This is the language of engineers. The just are.
Vinod - The entire concept of self-organizing of DNA information to DNA or no of protons/neutrons in the elements of the periodic table is a misnomer and illogical. Those who are the strong votaries of self-organization may demonstrate even a small incidents of Self-organization in our mundane life. Let them keep 100 parts of a car in front of them and see if these parts self-assemble/self-organize in form of a car? Let them place 10 ingredients in a dish on the working platform of a kitchen and test if these 10 ingredients re-assemble/re-org anize to prepare the dish. Self-organization/Self-assembl y is totally absent in our mundane life, to the extent we can examine.Alfredo - Your examples of self-organization are absurd. I have studied SO scientifically for 35 years, this kind of phenomenon happens "from physics to politics" (title of a book on SO). However, So is not magic as you seem to believe.
Vinod - If self-organization/self-assembl y is absent in our mundane life, on what basis it should be present in the cosmic/macro/micro areas in nature? This creates an epistemological need for some manifested Cosmic Consciousness (CC) -- which you call an Energy ( with capital E). A conscious code from the CC, which is the real information, when acting on DNA enables it to pass information to DNA or distribute protons/.neutrons among elements of periodic table. Since the majority of the scientists are unaware of the conscious code, they erroneously take the process of nature as self-organizing while forgetting that an inert element has no knowledge as to how to always organize in some pre-determined orderly fashion to give birth to a new product?Alfredo - The Energy metaphysical view IS NOT CREATIONISM OR INTELLIGENT DESIGN. I have spent too many hours discussing C and ID with the afficcionados and would not like to begin it all again here. I prefer just to state that this is not my belief.
Vinod - If there is no meaning in the information patterns, how and from where an unconscious receptor will derive any meaning?.Alfredo - From his inner constitution and life history.
Vinod - Suppose, I don't incorporate any"'meaning" in the information patterns/information as being sent to you. how will you derive any meaning despite being a conscious receptor, leave alone an unconscious receptor.Alfredo - From my inner constitution and my life history.Best Regards,Alfredo
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering
(FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal-of-integrative-neuroscience/
Roman,
Our world has over 8 billion population and different people have different views, which can be categorized in 4 major groups: materialism, idealism, dualism, and dual-aspect monism. We should appreciate that each metaphysics might be revealing different aspect of the fundamental truth (FT), which seems like the parable of the blind men and an elephant:
As per Wikipedia, “The parable of the blind men and an elephant originated in ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men, who have never come across an elephant before, learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their partial experience and their descriptions are in complete disagreement on what an elephant is. In some versions they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to project their partial experiences as the whole truth, ignore other people's partial experiences, and one should consider that one may be partially right and may have partial information.[1][2]”
(Boyer, 2018).Ch.5 has elegantly proposed only 3 types of information; one could argue for more types. Your view is that only physical information is correct, which includes quantum information. One could argue that this is related to the physical aspect of FT about information. This definition, which lacks semantic (subjective meaning), may or may not applicable to other types: such as guiding/shaping type biological information and meaningful psychological type information.
In my view, information is the same in all types; only the forms of information are different. These forms may look different because of the perspectives of “viewing” the same information is different. If we look at the information from 1pp we have SEs (psychological type information) and if we look at the same information from 3pp say in DNA then it is biological guiding/shaping type of information.
Does this help?
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday 6 December 2017, 6:21:48 AM IST, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:Ram, Not good. All information is physical. There is no religious information, unless you want to play Guru. I suggest the following:1. Shannon information2. Quantum informationBoth 1 and 2 are physical in nature.Roman
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
University of Ireland
puzzle" given new gloss
Insofar as it is coherent qua information, it has been solved by the
Bohmian Jack Sarfatti and will appear in our proceedings of fom5 early
2018
On 12/5/17, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy
association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
<Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> DearVinod ji and Roman,
>
> Iagree with no “explanatory gap” (e-gap) as a third criterion; other two
> aresubjective and objective evidence. However, how do we decide it is a real
> e-gapif the author of the framework claims there is none, but an opponent
> maintains thatthe e-gap remains?
>
> (Boyer,2018).Ch.5and others propose 3 types of information:
>
> 1. Physical Shannon type information such as “thequantum information field
>
>
> receivers—as forexample in language.” (Boyer,2018).
>
> bothaspects (mental and physical) have the same information, except its form
> may bedifferent and it appears different depending on the perspective of
> viewing it.Therefore, the ontology of both aspects is the ontology of this
> commoninformation.
> Themental aspect of a state of the information in an inert entity appears
> aspect from thepoint of view (1pp) of the inert entity may be known to the
> inert entity but itis unknown to us. The opponents will clearly reject it.
> It should be noted thatit is also a manifestation of the primal entity
> (Brahman) and certainly has a specificfunction that may be useful to us and
> hence we should respect it and do notlook at it in a degraded manner.
> cling to materialistic and idealistic/dualistic frameworks,respectively; one
> of you lives in North Pole and other in South Pole. Obsessionis a clinical
> disorder in mental health. So just relax and live happily and letothers to
> live happily. I understand, I am in the middle, so both of you, donot try to
> aspect and idealism in terms ofmental aspect. Try to understand!
>
>
> Roman: There are no mental aspects.
>
>
>
> from your 1pp; can you think from your 1pp; can you criticizeothers and make
> them feel bad like Trump does; can you detect and discriminatestimuli, such
> as colors red from green; do you feel there is Roman who existsin daytime
> and sleeps, dreams, and it is more or less the same Roman when youwake up
> queries is YES, then I include them either experiential or
> terminologydoes not matter.
>
>
> Roman: There is no unified"god-like" field.
>
>
>
> Vimal:Do you believe in Big Bang and evolution? Do you think there is
> says from whichgravity, EM field, weak and strong field evolve? If answer is
> YES, then I amframing it as the physical aspect of primal field and
> extrapolating 1ppinformation to the mental aspect of a state of information
> in primal unifiedfield. If idealist call it OOO-God, so let them call to let
>
>
>
> dialecticalmaterialism.
>
>
>
> Vimal: Yes, but only for the physical aspect asmaterialism does great job in
> this realm. But do not try to cross the gap ofAtlantic Ocean to reach the
> idealism world where mental aspect lives; you willnot get the visa unless
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> forces, and the reaching of their end state is not controlled by abuilt-in
> program. The law of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics areamong
> the natural laws which most frequently govern teleomatic processes.Examples
>
>
> Teleonomic processes: Processes that owe their goal-directedness tothe
> operation of a program. The term teleonomic implies goal-direction. This,in
> turn, implies a dynamic process rather than a static condition,
> organismfrom a fertilized zygote and the building of a dam by beavers.
> Mayr argues very strongly that the common use of teleological language
> ofbiological processes. He also stresses that, although many biological
> processes(such as ontogeny) are clearly goal-directed, they owe their
> goal-directednessto the operation of programs, such as the genetic program
> encodedin the DNA. He concludes that although such programs themselves
> aregoal-directed (i.e. purposeful), the process by which such programs have
> comeinto being – evolution by natural selection – is NOT itself goal
>
>
> [ I would state this slightly differently from Mayr: that there is
> come into being aregoal-directed (i.e. “designed” or “purposeful”).
> Therefore, although suchpurposes may exist, they are invisible to us on
> principle andtherefore irrelevent to scientific explanations of natural
>
> [Mayr concludes:]
>
>
> • The use of so-called teleological language by biologists is legitimate;
> implynon-causal explanation
>
> • At the same time, it is illegitimate to describe evolutionary processes
> [reifies] past phenomena(mutation, recombination, etc.), but does NOT plan
> for the future, at least notin any specific way [as far as we can tell]
>
> • Processes (behavior) whose goal-directedness is controlled by a program
>
> • Processes which reach an end state caused by natural laws (e.g.
>
> • Programs [of the type described above] are in part or entirely the product
>
> • Teleonomic (i.e. programmed) behavior occurs only in organisms (and
> ofcomplexity in living and in inanimate nature [i.e. they are
> “emergentproperties” of living systems, not present in the non-living
> materials of whichliving organisms or their artifacts are composed]
> • Teleonomic explanations are strictly causal and mechanistic. They give
> Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
> 81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
> Tel: +607-555-8496
> Mobile: +60-14-2347351
> ----------------------------
> Fifth International Conference
> Science and Scientist - 2017
> August 18—19, 2017
> Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
>
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services:
> http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
> (All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions
> under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
>
> Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
>
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?:
> http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view:
> http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>
> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>
> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>
> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D."
> group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1179538362.2065276.1512493940110%40mail.yahoo.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Roman,
Our world has over 8 billion population and different people have different views, which can be categorized in 4 major groups: materialism, idealism, dualism, and dual-aspect monism. We should appreciate that each metaphysics might be revealing different aspect of the fundamental truth (FT), which seems like the parable of the blind men and an elephant:
As per Wikipedia, “The parable of the blind men and an elephant originated in ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men, who have never come across an elephant before, learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their partial experience and their descriptions are in complete disagreement on what an elephant is. In some versions they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to project their partial experiences as the whole truth, ignore other people's partial experiences, and one should consider that one may be partially right and may have partial information.[1][2]”
(Boyer, 2018).Ch.5 has elegantly proposed only 3 types of information; one could argue for more types. Your view is that only physical information is correct, which includes quantum information. One could argue that this is related to the physical aspect of FT about information. This definition, which lacks semantic (subjective meaning), may or may not applicable to other types: such as guiding/shaping type biological information and meaningful psychological type information.
In my view, information is the same in all types; only the forms of information are different. These forms may look different because of the perspectives of “viewing” the same information is different. If we look at the information from 1pp we have SEs (psychological type information) and if we look at the same information from 3pp say in DNA then it is biological guiding/shaping type of information.
Does this help?
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering
(FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal-of-integrative-neuroscience/
Dear Vinod ji and Roman,
I agree with no “explanatory gap” (e-gap) as a third criterion; other two are subjective and objective evidence. However, how do we decide it is a real e-gap if the author of the framework claims there is none, but an opponent maintains that the e-gap remains?
(Boyer, 2018).Ch.5 and others propose 3 types of information:
1. Physical Shannon type information such as “the quantum information field that generates relativistic spacetime”,
2. Biological “‘shaping information,’ referring to how biophysical structures and functions are guided, by DNA for example” and
3. Psychological information, which “includes purpose and intention in terms of the exchange of semantic meaning between conscious senders and receivers—as for example in language.” (Boyer, 2018).
In the eDAM, a state of the information in an entity has dual-aspect and both aspects (mental and physical) have the same information, except its form may be different and it appears different depending on the perspective of viewing it. Therefore, the ontology of both aspects is the ontology of this common information.
The mental aspect of a state of the information in an inert entity appears “latent” to us (as a 3rd person) because it, like us, is also made of related elementary particles. A dual-aspect panpsychist may argue that the mental aspect from the point of view (1pp) of the inert entity may be known to the inert entity but it is unknown to us. The opponents will clearly reject it. It should be noted that it is also a manifestation of the primal entity (Brahman) and certainly has a specific function that may be useful to us and hence we should respect it and do not look at it in a degraded manner.
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Syamala Hari
From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; From the Chief Editor J. Integr. Neurosci. IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 5:33 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Whit Blauvelt
You state that well. Yet there's a way in which the "inner" involves the
senses. Much of our "inner" content consists of expectations, projections
and hopes of the "outer, physical" world. Also "inner" are our visceral
senses, of the literal inner state of our bodies.
Also, all of the "outer," as far as we're conscious of it, also consists in
expectations and projections. To know something as a "rock" is to have
rock-like expectations of it; to know someone as "human" is to have
human-like expectations. To recognize a thing is to know what to expect of
it. All experimentation is based on honing recognition and expectation.
"Inner" speech is projections of what we and others might say, not the voice
of a homunculus within speaking in a realm beyond the senses. In this way,
nothing "inside" is in a realm beyond the senses. Expectation itself is how
senses work. What's "inside" is just the extended version of more immediate
expectations, such as are involved in recognition of immediate things.
Best,
Whit
Jesse Bettinger
Bravo Whit
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 8:00 AM
To: 'Syamala Hari' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Hi Syamala,
Thanks.
Hari, Syamala (12/6/17)
Physical and mental are NOT the same. What we usually call physical is directly or indirectly accessible to senses. Classical matter, for example, the measuring device in a quantum measurement experiment is observable by senses. The quantum particle being 'measured' is not directly observable unlike the device. Still, we tend to call the quantum particle as physical, probably because observers of the measuring device's readings make inferences which allow them to reach intersubjective agreements about some properties of the quantum.
As opposed to this, the 'mental' is not accessible to senses. In a conscious experience, we are aware of something: say of seeing a red apple, or being happy or having pain. Unless the first person experiencing these tells a third person, what he/she is aware of, there is no way for the third person to know the first person's object of awareness for example, happiness or anxiety which we call mental and which is not accessible to the senses of the third person or measured by means of a suitably designed experiment. That is why there is this great temptation in human beings to lie!
Yes, there is a neural correlate for each conscious experience, in other words, a neural correlate to what one is experiencing or aware of. Here, the first person is never aware of the neural correlate; the third person is never aware of what experience this neural correlate is providing the first person. Neural is physical because it is accessible to third persons. The content of the experience what the person is aware of is mental and not accessible to the senses of third persons or even the first person. (In fact, happiness, anxiety, etc. are not accessible to the senses of even the first person). Hence the physical and the mental are different kinds of reality.
Now what does it mean to say that they have the same information? Whatever information is, which is not defined in the message below, certainly cannot be the content of both the physical and the mental because the former is accessible to senses and the latter is not.
The word "information" is used with different meanings in different contexts by researchers. For example, well known biologist JZ Young says in his book Programs of the Brain that "information is stored or communicated using physical entities, such as books or sound waves or brains, but that information itself is not material". Shannon's "information" is entirely different. God and dog have the same Shannon's "information".
Vimal
The subjective experience (SE) from the 1st person perspective (1pp) such as redness looks entirely different from its related neural activities from the experiencer’s 3pp because the perspectives of viewing are different. However, the information is the same in both aspects.
Information in external light in physical form = physical information in neural form = common information in both aspects in abstract physical-mental form = mental information in experiential/psychological form. Thus, in a conscious state, information remains the same in both mental and physical aspects; only its form changes.
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Dear Vinod ji,
To avoid confusion, kindly qualify you writings, “As per Sāṅkhya plus Vedānta ….” in each paragraph as I do most of the time: “As per eDAM, ….”. This is because we are discussing many metaphysics.
I mostly agree with you from the Sāṅkhya’s point of view, but not from the eDAM’s point of view. I can say that because I have understood both as I have done lots of reading. But you understand only Sāṅkhya but not the eDAM because you do not like to read the related articles. I suggested you to design such an experiment so that experimentalists can try their best rejecting it as I have done for the eDAM; it will be considered viable until evidence rejects it. This effort is also awaited because your interest seems like just open emails and start writing whatever comes in your mind.
[1] Vimal: I agree with no “explanatory gap” (e-gap) as a third criterion; other two are subjective and objective evidence. However, how do we decide it is a real e-gap if the author of the framework claims there is none, but an opponent maintains that the e-gap remains?
Sehgal: Here it is the constant, objective and impassionate dialogue which will
reduce/eliminate the gap between the author and opponents
[2] Vimal: (Boyer, 2018).Ch.5 and others propose 3 types of information:
1. Physical Shannon type information such as “the quantum information field that generates relativistic spacetime”,
2. Biological “‘shaping information,’ referring to how biophysical structures and functions are guided, by DNA for example” and
3. Psychological information, which “includes purpose and intention in terms of the exchange of semantic meaning between conscious senders and receivers—as for example in language.”(Boyer, 2018).
Sehgal: Above 3 type of information should be the information built on different ontologies. Physical information built on the inert inorganic physical matter/energy, biological information built on the organic matter in the living organisms while psychological information on some mental (astral matter). But a common thread running across all the 3 ontologies is the common conscious signal due to which these ontologies develop an interface with the conscious signal in order the 'information' to arise. The main point which I want to highlight is that without an interface with some consciousness, none of the ontologies develop in "information"
Vimal: Logically, the ontology of an entity such as information should remain the same from very beginning. Changing ontology, as per our convenience, is illogical in my view.
Sāṅkhya assumes non-interactive Purusha, which does not interact, so He does not do anything (He is inactive); He simply watches whatever is going on. Vedānta assumes interactive OOO-God (you call it manifested consciousness, manifested Cosmic Consciousness) who can do everything, so there is nothing to argue and nothing to do further research; we are at the dead-end. On top of this, He never tells his devotees what the precise mechanisms are (to keep secret to Himself so that devotees keep on worshipping). For example, what the precise mechanism is to develop ontology of all 3 types of information. Therefore, this framework is not very useful to many.
In the eDAM, the ontology of both aspects is always the same as the ontology of common information because information is the same in both aspects at all levels. Therefore, aspects are inseparable. Whatever goes on in one aspect is the same in other aspect; it is just the perspectives of viewing are different. In other words, the ontology of mental aspect = the ontology of common information = the ontology of physical aspect.
[3] Vimal: In the eDAM, a state of the information in an entity has dual-aspect and both aspects (mental and physical) have the same information, except its form may be different and it appears different depending on the perspective of viewing it. Therefore, the ontology of both aspects is the ontology of this common information.
Sehgal: In the above context, I expect you to elaborate and explain in a specific manner as to how and from where any mental aspect can exist/arise in inert physical entities/UF given that the ontology of eDAM is fully exhausted in physical structure and physical attributes/functions (of mass, charge, spin, and vibrations) At the UF level, there is not even any mass, spin and charge of QFs. So unless and until you can't provide a sound epistemic framework for the mental aspect in inert entities/UF, it will not be rational and logical to speak of any dual aspect.
Please, try to understand what I am stating. If there is the existence of something, it should be composed of some structure or function. If there is the existence of any mental aspect with the discrete physical entities or UF, the mental aspect should be composed of some mental structure/mental functions arising thereupon from the mental structure. But you will argue that this is dualism and eDAM postulates the dual aspects of the physical and mental aspects to arise from the same structure/functions But this not possible within the given postulates of eDAM since as per eDAM the entire ontology of the universe is exhausted in physical structure and physical attributes/functions, as known to the current science. Now see and understand the following dilemma and intra-contradictions of eDAM.
(i) The mental aspects can't arise from the known physical structure and physical functions since this will amount to materialism.
(ii) There is no mental structure or physical functions which may entail the mental aspects.
(iii) Any argument that corresponding to the physical functions, there may be mental functions is short of logic since
(a) Either these functions should arise out from some mental structure the way physical functions arise out from the physical structure but eDAM does not believe in any mental structure
(b) The physical functions, as such, when viewed from the 1pp, are the mental functions in inert entities is also not possible since viewable from 1pp itself is a mental aspect and then consciousness should be in the manifested form
So the dilemma persists as to from where and how any mental functions appear in the inert entities?
(iii) If there is an existence of any mental aspects, it should be composed of some structure or functions. Without this, there can't be the existence of anything.
(iv) Your any argument that physical functions itself when viewed from 1pp are manifested/appear as the mental aspects ( functional sub-aspect of the mental aspect to be more specific) is prima facie short of sound logic and rational view. Reasons being the viewable from 1pp itself requires some mental aspect, so a wide e -gap as to from where and how this mental aspect ( for 1pp) will appear.
The mental aspect of a state of the information in an inert entity appears “latent” to us (as a 3rd person) because it, like us, is also made of related elementary particles.
Here you have made a grave mistake by assuming that the mental aspects in us is made of the related particles of the brain. If one had to make this assumption, there was no need for any eDAM since Materialism already believes that the mental aspect arises/take birth from the related material particles of the brain. So to distinguish eDAM from materialism, you make an added assumption in eDAM that the mental aspect does not take birth from material particles but it already exists as some latent PEs as a dual aspect in inseparable form with the physical aspect of the physical particles. But (and this is very important,) you fail to provide any sound epistemic framework providing a convincing understanding as to from where and how any latent mental aspect in form of PEs appear with the physical particles particularly when the entire ontology of the universe, as known to Science and as believed by e DAM, is exhausted in physical structure and physical functions/attributes.
Vimal: In the eDAM, what is the relationship between mental and physical aspects of a state of information in an entity? An entity could be anything from UF to elementary particles/fields to classical living and non-living systems/fields to whole universe. As elaborated before, the ontology of both aspects are the same as the ontology to related common information because aspects are inseparable; it is just perspectives of “viewing” are different; so they look different. We start from a conscious state where we have robust evidence for both aspects as done above, then extrapolate to all states of all other living and non-living entities from the states of macro to ultra sub-Planckian entities/fields to UF. The ontology of both aspects = ontology of common information (say in inert entity) and is same or similar to that of a conscious state. For example, consider an inert table. What is the information in a static stable state related to the table? The information are related to its mass, its shape, light reflection property, and so on. Our equation is: physical information in physical form = common information in abstract form = mental information in mental form. Since we are not the table, there is no way we will ever know its 1pp-mental aspect (if any); therefore, for us, its mental aspect is “latent” (hidden, unexpressed); it is not absent as argued before in one of previous emails. Therefore, we should not ask any question related to its mental aspect because it is latent to us and hence we precisely do not know; we can only guess. Thus, interesting queries related to the table (and all non-living entities) is its physical information and its physical functions.
However, a curiosity still remains how aspects arise. So let us make a wild speculation. The information common to both aspects of the unmanifested state of information in the UF (the primal entity) is the source of that of all states of information in all inert/non-living and living entities including all the laws of Nature for all entities. We have postulated that the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of information in the UF is UPC (Universal Potential Consciousness) and its inseparable physical aspect is PUF (physical unified field). In general, both aspects inter-dependently co-arise and co-evolve and later co-develop and sensorimotor co-tune in living systems. More precisely, the ontology of both aspects is the same as that of the information common in them. What is the ontology of common information? The eDAM assumes that it is the Big Bang (BB) ontology because the BB “offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law”, although other models have been postulated instead of BB.
[4] Vimal: A dual-aspect panpsychist may argue that the mental aspect from the point of view (1pp) of the inert entity may be known to the inert entity but it is unknown to us. The opponents will clearly reject it.
Sehgal: The whole idea of mental aspect from the point of view of 1pp of an inert entity is absurd and illogical since
(i) 1pp itself requires some mental aspect?
(ii) There is no logical and convincing explanation as to from where and how any mental aspect (for enabling/activation of 1pp) -- called as the experiential sub-aspect of the mental aspect in eDAM, can appear in inert entities?
(iii) For enabling any 1pp, the consciousness (experimental sub-aspect of the mental aspect in eDAM) which will view the functional suspect of the mental aspect from 1pp should be in the manifested form. But as per eDAM, consciousness is manifested in the living organisms and NOT in the inert entities
The opponents are not opposing for the sake of opposition but there are sound arguments for the same. If you want to stick to your position, you should extend some sound/logical counter-arguments to rebut the above arguments.
Vimal: In the eDAM, the mental aspect of a state of information in an inert entity is latent (hidden and unexpressed), so why forcibly you are arguing as if the mental aspect is expressed in inert entities.
[5] Vimal: It should be noted that it is also a manifestation of the primal entity (Brahman) and certainly has a specific function that may be useful to us and hence we should respect it and do not look at it in a degraded manner.
Sehgal: But in that case, the primal entity or Brahman is not composed of only physical structure of quantum vacuum and some physical vibration of QFs popping out/in. Furthermore, any dual aspect Brahman with some mental aspect is short of any rational and logical understanding since entire structure and functions thereof are ONLY physical. And most important Brahman does not descend down with each and every matter/energy particle and undergoes thru the same transformational process thru which matter/energy particles undergo.
Vimal: In the eDAM, the primal entity (Brahman) is UF. In the inert entities, the PUF is manifested. However, the UPC is latent to us.
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
(Boyer, 2018).Ch.5 and others propose 3 types of information:
1. Physical Shannon type information such as “the quantum information field that generates relativistic spacetime”,
2. Biological “‘shaping information,’ referring to how biophysical structures and functions are guided, by DNA for example” and
3. Psychological information, which “includes purpose and intention in terms of the exchange of semantic meaning between conscious senders and receivers—as for example in language.”(Boyer, 2018).
Above 3 type of information should be the information built on different ontologies. Physical information built on the inert inorganic physical matter/energy, biological information built on the organic matter in the living organisms while psychological information on some mental ( astral matter). But a common thread running across all the 3 ontologies is the common conscious signal due to which these ontologies develop an interface with the conscious signal in order the 'information' to arise. The main point which I want to highlight is that without an interface with some consciousness, none of the ontologies develop in "information"
In the eDAM, a state of the information in an entity has dual-aspect and both aspects (mental and physical) have the same information, except its form may be different and it appears different depending on the perspective of viewing it. Therefore, the ontology of both aspects is the ontology of this common information.
In the above context, I expect you to elaborate and explain in a specific manner as to how and from where any mental aspect can exist/arise in inert physical entities/UF given that the ontology of eDAM is fully exhausted in physical structure and physical attributes/functions ( of mass, charge, spin, and vibrations) At the UF level, there is not even any mass, spin and charge of QFs. So unless and until you can't provide a sound epistemic framework for the mental aspect in inert entities/UF, it will not be rational and logical to speak of any dual aspect.
Dr. Ram! please, try to understand what I am stating. If there is the existence of something, it should be composed of some structure or function. If there is the existence of any mental aspect with the discrete physical entities or UF, the mental aspect should be composed of some mental structure/mental functions arising thereupon from the mental structure. But you will argue that this is dualism and eDAM postulates the dual aspects of the physical and mental aspects to arise from the same structure/functions But this not possible within the given postulates of eDAM since as per eDAM the entire ontology of the universe is exhausted in physical structure and physical attributes/functions, as known to the current science. Now see and understand the following dilemma and intra-contradictions of eDAM.
i) The mental aspects can't arise from the known physical structure and physical functions since this will amount to materialism.
ii) There is no mental structure or physical functions which may entail the mental aspects.
iii) Any arguemnt that corresponding to the physical functions, there may be mental functions is shot of logic since
a) Either these functions should arise out from some mental structure the way physical functions arise out from the physical structure but eDAM does not believe in any mental structure
b) The physical functions, as such, when viewed from the 1pp, are the mental functions in inert entities is also not possible since viewal from 1pp itself is a mental aspect and than consciousness should be in the manifested form
So the dilemma persists as to from where and how any mental functions appear in the inert entities?
iii) If there is an existence of any mental aspects, it should be composed of some structure or functions. Without this, there can't be the existence of anything.
iv) Your any argument that physical functions itself when viewed from 1pp are manifested/appear as the mental aspects ( functional subaspect of the mental aspect to be more specific) is prima facie short of sound logic and rational view. Reasons being the viewal from 1pp itself requires some mental aspect, so a wide e -gap as to from where and how this mental aspect ( for 1pp) will appear.
The mental aspect of a state of the information in an inert entity appears “latent” to us (as a 3rd person) because it, like us, is also made of related elementary particles.
Here you have made a grave mistake by assuming that the mental aspects in us is made of the related particles of the brain. If one had to make this assumption, there was no need for any eDAM since Materialism already believes that the mental aspect arises/take birth from the related material particles of the brain. So to distinguish eDAM from materialism, you make an added assumption in e DAM that the mental aspect does not take birth from material particles but it already exists as some latent PEs as a dual aspect in inseparable form with the physical aspect of the physical particles. But (and this is very important,) you fail to provide any sound epistemic framework providing a convincing understanding as to from where and how any latent mental aspect in form of PEs appear with the physical particles particularly when the entire ontology of the universe, as known to Science and as believed by e DAM, is exhausted in physical structure and physical functions/attributes
A dual-aspect panpsychist may argue that the mental aspect from the point of view (1pp) of the inert entity may be known to the inert entity but it is unknown to us. The opponents will clearly reject it.
The whole idea of mental aspect from the point of view of 1pp of an inert entity is absurd and illogical since
i) 1pp itself requires some mental aspect?
ii) There is no logical and convincing explanation as to form where and how any mental aspect ( for enabling/activation of 1pp) -- called as the experiential subaspect of the mental aspect in e DAM, can appear in inert entities?
iii) For enabling any 1pp, the consciousness ( experimental subaspect of the mental aspect in eDAM) which will view the functional suspect of the mental aspect from 1pp should be in the manifested form. But as per eDAM, consciousness is manifested in the living organisms and NOT in the inert entities
The opponents are not opposing for the sake of opposition but there are sound arguments for the same. If you want to stick to your position, you should extend some sound/logical counter-arguments to rebut the above arguments
It should be noted that it is also a manifestation of the primal entity (Brahman) and certainly has a specific function that may be useful to us and hence we should respect it and do not look at it in a degraded manner.
But in that case, the primal entity or Brahman is not composed of only physical structure of quantum vacuum and some physical vibration of QFs popping out/in. Furthermore, any dual aspect Brahman with some mental aspect is short of any rational and logical understanding since entire structure and functions thereof are ONLY physical. And most important Brahman does not descends down with each and every matter/energy particle and undergoes thru the same transformational process thru which matter/energy particles undergo.
Vinod Sehgal
Dear Vinod ji and Roman,
I agree with no “explanatory gap” (e-gap) as a third criterion; other two are subjective and objective evidence. However, how do we decide it is a real e-gap if the author of the framework claims there is none, but an opponent maintains that the e-gap remains?
(Boyer, 2018).Ch.5 and others propose 3 types of information:
1. Physical Shannon type information such as “the quantum information field that generates relativistic spacetime”,
2. Biological “‘shaping information,’ referring to how biophysical structures and functions are guided, by DNA for example” and
3. Psychological information, which “includes purpose and intention in terms of the exchange of semantic meaning between conscious senders and receivers—as for example in language.” (Boyer, 2018).
In the eDAM, a state of the information in an entity has dual-aspect and both aspects (mental and physical) have the same information, except its form may be different and it appears different depending on the perspective of viewing it. Therefore, the ontology of both aspects is the ontology of this common information.
The mental aspect of a state of the information in an inert entity appears “latent” to us (as a 3rd person) because it, like us, is also made of related elementary particles. A dual-aspect panpsychist may argue that the mental aspect from the point of view (1pp) of the inert entity may be known to the inert entity but it is unknown to us. The opponents will clearly reject it. It should be noted that it is also a manifestation of the primal entity (Brahman) and certainly has a specific function that may be useful to us and hence we should respect it and do not look at it in a degraded manner.
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Paul Werbos
...
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Cc: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Leuvy Cacha <leuvy...@gmail.com>; Vivek Anand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 12:32 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Hi Syamala,
Thanks.
Hari: So now there are two forms for
information, one is mental and the other is physical. What is this
information? You still did not define it. Without defining it, and
without being able to measure it, how can you say that the two forms have the
same information? Probably, it is possible to define some measures to describe
the neural/physical form but the mental form is not measurable. So how
can you say that they have the same information?
Moreover, according to your eDAM these two forms do not interact because that would be a category mistake. When they have the same information, i.e., the same kind of whatever it is, there should not be any category mistake if they interact. When I said that the physical is accessible to senses and the mental is not, Whit pointed out that they interact in spite of that difference.
Vimal: In the eDAM, mental and physical aspects have the same information and are inseparable. When ‘viewed’ from 1pp, the information appears as SE; when ‘viewed’ from the subject’s 3pp the same information appears as neural activities. This is robust and reproducible data. Since information is the same in both aspects, there is no need for their interaction, there is no interaction between these two aspects and hence there is a category mistake. Aspects are like the two sides of a coin. The form of the information from 1pp is whatever we subjectively experience; we can subjectively measure its spatial form/shape (such as the rectangular-ness of a table top) for example. The spatiotemporal and spectral form of neural activities from 3pp can be objectively measured thru fMRI/EEG.
The 1pp and 3pp information appear entirely different because the perspectives of viewing are different, which misleads us as if either:
(i) They (mind/consciousness and matter/brain) are independent entities (dualism), but
(a) They can interact (as in interactive substance dualism) or
(b) The experiencer (Puruṣa) do not interact with Prakṛti (Sāṅkhya),
(ii) Mind/consciousness emerges from or identical with brain (materialism), or
(iii) Matter congeals from mind/consciousness.
Does this help?
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Hi Syamala,
Thanks.
Hari, Syamala (12/6/17)
Physical and mental are NOT the same. What we usually call physical is directly or indirectly accessible to senses. Classical matter, for example, the measuring device in a quantum measurement experiment is observable by senses. The quantum particle being 'measured' is not directly observable unlike the device. Still, we tend to call the quantum particle as physical, probably because observers of the measuring device's readings make inferences which allow them to reach intersubjective agreements about some properties of the quantum.
As opposed to this, the 'mental' is not accessible to senses. In a conscious experience, we are aware of something: say of seeing a red apple, or being happy or having pain. Unless the first person experiencing these tells a third person, what he/she is aware of, there is no way for the third person to know the first person's object of awareness for example, happiness or anxiety which we call mental and which is not accessible to the senses of the third person or measured by means of a suitably designed experiment. That is why there is this great temptation in human beings to lie!
Yes, there is a neural correlate for each conscious experience, in other words, a neural correlate to what one is experiencing or aware of. Here, the first person is never aware of the neural correlate; the third person is never aware of what experience this neural correlate is providing the first person. Neural is physical because it is accessible to third persons. The content of the experience what the person is aware of is mental and not accessible to the senses of third persons or even the first person. (In fact, happiness, anxiety, etc. are not accessible to the senses of even the first person). Hence the physical and the mental are different kinds of reality.
Now what does it mean to say that they have the same information? Whatever information is, which is not defined in the message below, certainly cannot be the content of both the physical and the mental because the former is accessible to senses and the latter is not.
The word "information" is used with different meanings in different contexts by researchers. For example, well known biologist JZ Young says in his book Programs of the Brain that "information is stored or communicated using physical entities, such as books or sound waves or brains, but that information itself is not material". Shannon's "information" is entirely different. God and dog have the same Shannon's "information".
Vimal
The subjective experience (SE) from the 1st person perspective (1pp) such as redness looks entirely different from its related neural activities from the experiencer’s 3pp because the perspectives of viewing are different. However, the information is the same in both aspects.
Information in external light in physical form = physical information in neural form = common information in both aspects in abstract physical-mental form = mental information in experiential/psychological form. Thus, in a conscious state, information remains the same in both mental and physical aspects; only its form changes.
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
------------------------------ ----------------------------
...
Whit Blauvelt
> .
> [S.P.] There is a difference between a term and a concept. The term
> "information", as used in Computer Sciences and Information Theory, stands for
> physical signals which exist objectively out there, can be embodied, stored,
> recorded, transmitted, and so on. However, the term "information" as used in
> the Science of Consciousness stands for the product of consciousness of the
> given subject of cognitive activity.
> .
> So, we should not confuse both concepts. If we construct a theory of
> consciousness, then we should consider the concept of information as a product
> of consciousness. We should accept that a book does not contain information but
> the black and white dots only -- information may appear only for the given
> subject of cognitive activity who will read the book. The Hard Disk Drive does
> not contain information as well but the magnetized regions only.
That's an important set of points. Still, our experience of a (good) book is
that, on reading it, our mind is filled with new information. Our experience
in writing (well) is also that we manage to represent such information as is
in our minds on the paper.
You argue the marks on the paper, absent a mind to either put them down or
take them in, may not count as "information" under the same definition.
Consider hunting. The animal, alive, is seen as "meat." Dead, it's seen as
"meat." Taken in, it's seen as "meat," and becomes (in part) part of our own
"meat." It's meat at every stage. So why then isn't what's in our minds --
and books -- information at every stage?
The answer you may be going for is that while it's part of a living being
"meat" is something more, something that's in the animal while hunted, and
in us after the animal is digested, but that's lacking while it's in the
refrigerator. In this sense, saying "information is consciousness" is as
wrong as saying "meat is life." The living part is precisely what's not
there in mere meat, or mere "information."
Does this argument dovetail with yours?
Best,
Whit
Syamala Hari
From: "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
To: Syamala Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
Physical and mental are NOT the same. What we usually call physical is directly or indirectly accessible to senses. Classical matter, for example, the measuring device in a quantum measurement experiment is observable by senses. The quantum partical being 'measured' is not directly observable unlike the device. Still, we tend to call the quantum particle as physical, probably because observers of the measuring device's readings make inferences which allow them to reach intersubjective agreements about some properties of the quantum.As opposed to this, the 'mental' is not accessible to senses. In a conscious experience, we are aware of something: say of seeing a red apple, or being happy or having pain. Unless the first person experiencing these tells a third person, what he/she is aware of, there is no way for the third person to know the first person's object of awareness for example, happiness or anxiety which we call mental and which is not accessible to the senses of the third person or measured by means of a suitably designed experiment. That is why there is this great temptation in human beings to lie!Yes, there is a neural correlate for each conscious experience, in other words, a neural correlate to what one is experiencing or aware of. Here, the first person is never aware of the neural correlate; the third person person is never aware of what experience this neural correlate is providing the first person. Neural is physical because it is accessible to third persons. The content of the experience what the person is aware of is mental and not accessible to the senses of third persons or even the first person. (In fact, happiness, anxiety, etc. are not accessible to the senses of even the first person). Hence the physical and the mental are different kinds of reality.Now what does it mean to say that they have the same information? Whatever information is, which is not defined in the message below, certainly cannot be the content of both the physical and the mental because the former is accessible to senses and the latter is not.The word "information" is used with different meanings in different contexts by researchers. For example, well known biologist JZ Young says in his book Programs of the Brain that "information is stored or communicated using physical entities, such as books or sound waves or brains, but that information itself is not material". Shannon's "information" is entirely different. God and dog have the same Shannon's "information".Syamala Hari
From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com>
To: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; From the Chief Editor J. Integr. Neurosci. IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2017 5:33 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Dear Vinod ji and Roman,I agree with no “explanatory gap” (e-gap) as a third criterion; other two are subjective and objective evidence. However, how do we decide it is a real e-gap if the author of the framework claims there is none, but an opponent maintains that the e-gap remains?(Boyer, 2018).Ch.5 and others propose 3 types of information:1. Physical Shannon type information such as “the quantum information field that generates relativistic spacetime”,2. Biological “‘shaping information,’ referring to how biophysical structures and functions are guided, by DNA for example” and3. Psychological information, which “includes purpose and intention in terms of the exchange of semantic meaning between conscious senders and receivers—as for example in language.” (Boyer, 2018).In the eDAM, a state of the information in an entity has dual-aspect and both aspects (mental and physical) have the same information, except its form may be different and it appears different depending on the perspective of viewing it. Therefore, the ontology of both aspects is the ontology of this common information.The mental aspect of a state of the information in an inert entity appears “latent” to us (as a 3rd person) because it, like us, is also made of related elementary particles. A dual-aspect panpsychist may argue that the mental aspect from the point of view (1pp) of the inert entity may be known to the inert entity but it is unknown to us. The opponents will clearly reject it. It should be noted that it is also a manifestation of the primal entity (Brahman) and certainly has a specific function that may be useful to us and hence we should respect it and do not look at it in a degraded manner.
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
Syamala Hari
From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Syamala Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Cc: BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; Leuvy Cacha <leuvy...@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:53 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Siegfried Bleher
Dear Syamala,
Please forgive my intrusion on your discussion with Ram. The chain of argument that concludes all matter is really made of information always leaves me feeling something is missing. To me quantum mechanics doesn't really say that a quantum particle is a packet of unphysical phase waves--rather that the best we can do in our attempt to identify or study matter at the smallest scales is through its description as phase waves--given our starting point is classical mechanics. I do, however, agree consciousness is more fundamental than matter and information, at least from our human perspective, given that they are each conceptualizations of existing experience occurring within consciousness. I cannot speak to what may lie outside of this perspective. If the starting point is not classical mechanics (formed, as it is, from the psychological developmental process that begins with object constancy, and proceeds through a complex mixture of cultural and genetic adaptation), perhaps from states of mind that suppress developmental habits, then a different formulation of what is real may arise that collapses neither to information nor to matter, except to the degree such states overlap with nominal awareness.
Ram's eDAM makes sense--what appears dual does not if the apperceiving consciousness does not itself bifurcate into 1 pp and 3 pp.
Best wishes,
Siegfried
Sent from Outlook
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 9:13 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: BT APJ; From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press; Leuvy Cacha; Robert Boyer; BVKSastry(Gmail); Vasavada, Kashyap V; Stanley A. KLEIN; sisir roy; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal; Paul Werbos
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Syamala,
Thanks.
Hari: One can try to answer the question "Is information inherently fundamental?" only after what one knows what is meant by 'information' and what it is to be "fundamental" but I would make the following comment.
Vimal: I agree. To clarify what I mean by information, consider you are looking at a ripe-tomato. The light reflected from the ripe-tomato has some information in the form of physical attributes such as long wavelength and intensity. This information is transduced into neural information in the form of electrochemical signals from your 3pp. Then, V8-NN gets activated and matching and selection mechanism leads to the subjective experience of redness (hue of the color); this information is in psychological experiential form from your 1pp. In other words, information remains the same in all three different form. The eDAM frames this processing in terms of 1pp-mental aspect and inseparable 3pp-physical aspect of a conscious state of the information in your mind-brain system. Since information remains the same in both aspects, I call it inherently fundamental in your mind-brain system.
Hari: Quantum mechanics says that a quantum particle is a packet of the unphysical (not observable directly by senses) phase waves first defined by de Broglie. The phase wave is therefore an abstract concept in the minds of physicists. Since all matter, both classical and quantum, is supposed to be made of quantum particles, one may say that all matter is made of abstract concepts? If the latter can be called 'information' then all matter is really made of 'information'? If so, would you say information is more fundamental than matter? Also, there would be no category mistake if matter and such information interact, if matter is also made of the same substance, namely, information, is it not?
Vimal: There are over 46 interpretations of QM, which can be categorized based on the four metaphysics and you have elaborated one of them: Dualism: 11, materialism: 30, idealism: 2, NM/eDAM: 3 = 46.
Hari: BTW, I think consciousness is more fundamental than both matter and information because without one observing these (the observation is not necessarily by senses; note that the first person who is aware of the 'meaning' of the neural correlate is able to do so but cannot access the 'meaning' by senses), the question of their existence does not arise.
Vimal: I agree from the point of view of idealism, but disagree from the view of other metaphysics. After long online discussion, it seems that each metaphysics tells us different aspects of the Fundamental Truth. Therefore, all of them should be considered because each of them tells us only a partial truth; this is consistent with a parable of the blind men and an elephant.
Does this of any help?
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
vedat shehu
My explanation: Naturally, the world is perceived by ordinary matter and ordinary radiation,
both are matter, the first is atom-molecular shape of matter, the second is wave-corpuscular
flux of mater shape. Information is the tool that recognizes us with the multitude of forms of
ordinary invisible matter and the ways in which the forms of matter interact and transform into
Earth and the cosmos.
Respectfully
Vedat Shehu
(Author of https://www.amazon.com/Earths-Core-Energetic-Cosmic-Object/dp/1512290874 )
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 12/8/17, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
To: "Syamala Hari" <murty...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "BT APJ" <alfredo...@gmail.com>, "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>, "Leuvy Cacha" <leuvy...@gmail.com>, "Robert Boyer" <rw.b...@yahoo.com>, "BVKSastry(Gmail)" <sastr...@gmail.com>, "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>, "Stanley A. KLEIN" <skl...@berkeley.edu>, "sisir roy" <sisir.s...@gmail.com>, "VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL" <vinodse...@gmail.com>, "Vivekanand Pandey Vimal" <vvima...@gmail.com>, "Paul Werbos" <paul....@gmail.com>, "Online Sadhu Sanga" <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>, "b.whi...@massey.ac.nz" <b.whi...@massey.ac.nz>
Date: Friday, December 8, 2017, 12:18 PM
Ph.D. Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor
(Research)Vision Research
USAPh: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388
7907rl...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Homehttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal Researched at
USAPh: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388
7907rl...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Homehttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal Researched at
Research Dept.25
Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854
USAPh:
+1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388
rlpvimal/Homehttps://www.researchgate.net/
Research Dept.25
Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854
USAPh:
+1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388
rlpvimal/Homehttps://www.researchgate.net/
University of Chicago and Harvard Medical
Schools
On Wednesday 6 December 2017,
12:31:57 PM IST, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dear Dr. Ram,
Thanks
Ram - I agree with no
“explanatory gap” (e-gap) as a third criterion; other
two are subjective and objective evidence. However, how do
we decide it is a real e-gap if the author of the framework
claims there is none, but an opponent maintains that the
e-gap remains?
Here it is the constant, objective and
impassionate dialogue which
and opponents(Boyer,
propose 3 types of information:1. Physical
Shannon type information such as “the quantum information
field that generates relativistic
structures and functions are guided, by DNA for example”
terms of the exchange of semantic meaning between
conscious senders and receivers—as for example in
language.”(Boyer,
information built on the inert inorganic physical
matter/energy, biological information built on the organic
matter in the living organisms while psychological
information on some mental ( astral matter). But a common
thread running across all the 3 ontologies is the common
conscious signal due to which these ontologies develop an
interface with the conscious signal in order the
'information' to arise. The main point which I want
to highlight is that without an interface with some
consciousness, none of the ontologies develop in
"information"In the eDAM, a
state of the information in an entity has dual-aspect and
both aspects (mental and physical) have the same
information, except its form may be different and it appears
different depending on the perspective of viewing it.
Therefore, the ontology of both aspects is the ontology of
from where any mental aspect can exist/arise in inert
physical entities/UF given that the ontology of eDAM is
fully exhausted in physical structure and physical
attributes/functions ( of mass, charge, spin, and
vibrations) At the UF level, there is not even any mass,
spin and charge of QFs. So unless and until you can't
provide a sound epistemic framework for the mental aspect
in inert entities/UF, it will not be rational and logical to
something, it should be composed of some structure or
function. If there is the existence of any mental aspect
with the discrete physical entities or UF, the mental aspect
should be composed of some mental structure/mental functions
arising thereupon from the mental structure. But you will
argue that this is dualism and eDAM postulates the dual
aspects of the physical and mental aspects to arise from the
same structure/functions But this not possible within the
given postulates of eDAM since as per eDAM the entire
ontology of the universe is exhausted in physical structure
and physical attributes/functions, as known to the current
science. Now see and understand the following dilemma and
structure and physical functions since this will amount to
functions arise out from the physical structure but eDAM
inert entities is also not possible since viewal from 1pp
itself is a mental aspect and than consciousness should be
or functions. Without this, there can't be the existence
manifested/appear as the mental aspects ( functional
subaspect of the mental aspect to be more specific) is prima
facie short of sound logic and rational view. Reasons being
the viewal from 1pp itself requires some mental aspect, so a
wide e -gap as to from where and how this mental aspect (
for 1pp) will appear. The mental aspect
of a state of the information in an inert entity appears
“latent” to us (as a 3rd person) because it, like
us, is also made of related elementary
related particles of the brain. If one had to make this
assumption, there was no need for any eDAM since Materialism
already believes that the mental aspect arises/take birth
from the related material particles of the brain. So to
distinguish eDAM from materialism, you make an added
assumption in e DAM that the mental aspect does not take
birth from material particles but it already exists as some
latent PEs as a dual aspect in inseparable form with the
physical aspect of the physical particles. But (and this
is very important,) you fail to provide any sound epistemic
framework providing a convincing understanding as to from
where and how any latent mental aspect in form of PEs
appear with the physical particles particularly when the
entire ontology of the universe, as known to Science and as
believed by e DAM, is exhausted in physical structure and
physical functions/attributes
A
dual-aspect panpsychist may argue that the mental aspect
from the point of view (1pp) of the inert entity may be
known to the inert entity but it is unknown to us. The
aspect?ii) There is no logical and convincing
enabling/activation of 1pp) -- called as the experiential
subaspect of the mental aspect in e DAM, can appear in inert
which will view the functional suspect of the mental aspect
from 1pp should be in the manifested form. But as per eDAM,
consciousness is manifested in the living organisms and NOT
you want to stick to your position, you should extend some
sound/logical counter-arguments to rebut the above
arguments It
should be noted that it is also a manifestation of the
primal entity (Brahman) and certainly has a specific
function that may be useful to us and hence we should
respect it and do not look at it in a degraded
manner.
But in that case, the primal entity or
Brahman is not composed of only physical structure of
quantum vacuum and some physical vibration of QFs popping
out/in. Furthermore, any dual aspect Brahman with some
mental aspect is short of any rational and logical
understanding since entire structure and functions thereof
are ONLY physical. And most important Brahman does not
descends down with each and every matter/energy particle and
undergoes thru the same transformational process thru which
Research Dept.25
Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854
USAPh:
+1 978 954 7522;
eFAX: +1 440 388
rlpvimal/Homehttps://www.researchgate.net/
Department of Clinical
Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and
Medical Engineering
(FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Research Dept.25
Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854
USAPh:
+1 978 954 7522;
eFAX: +1 440 388
ites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/
Homehttps://www.researchgate.net/p
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Roman,
Poznanski: I am getting tired of this nonsense. Perhaps your SE aspect is just a teleological definition of function? Have you considered that and moved from this hubris about aspectism? To me this is voodoo-ism or should I say Guru-ism....
Vimal: Whatever Roman experiences from his 1st person perspective, the eDAM calls it his SE or the experiential sub-aspect of the mental aspect of a conscious state of the information in Roman’s related NN. If you want to call it “teleological definition of function” in DiaMat, then it would like you “feeling good” that you have created apples out of orange-seeds, which would indeed be a miracle and hence hubris/voodoo-ism/Guru-ism. The matching and selection mechanisms are crystal clear how stimulus-dependent FF-signals are matched with cognitive FB signals and a specific SE is selected from the LTM (long-term memory) and experienced by the ‘self’.Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering
(FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal-of-integrative-neuroscience/
Dear Syamala,
Thanks.
Hari: One can try to answer the question "Is information inherently fundamental?" only after what one knows what is meant by 'information' and what it is to be "fundamental" but I would make the following comment.
Vimal: I agree. To clarify what I mean by information, consider you are looking at a ripe-tomato. The light reflected from the ripe-tomato has some information in the form of physical attributes such as long wavelength and intensity. This information is transduced into neural information in the form of electrochemical signals from your 3pp. Then, V8-NN gets activated and matching and selection mechanism leads to the subjective experience of redness (hue of the color); this information is in psychological experiential form from your 1pp. In other words, information remains the same in all three different form. The eDAM frames this processing in terms of 1pp-mental aspect and inseparable 3pp-physical aspect of a conscious state of the information in your mind-brain system. Since information remains the same in both aspects, I call it inherently fundamental in your mind-brain system.
Hari: Quantum mechanics says that a quantum particle is a packet of the unphysical (not observable directly by senses) phase waves first defined by de Broglie. The phase wave is therefore an abstract concept in the minds of physicists. Since all matter, both classical and quantum, is supposed to be made of quantum particles, one may say that all matter is made of abstract concepts? If the latter can be called 'information' then all matter is really made of 'information'? If so, would you say information is more fundamental than matter? Also, there would be no category mistake if matter and such information interact, if matter is also made of the same substance, namely, information, is it not?
Vimal: There are over 46 interpretations of QM, which can be categorized based on the four metaphysics and you have elaborated one of them: Dualism: 11, materialism: 30, idealism: 2, NM/eDAM: 3 = 46.
Hari: BTW, I think consciousness is more fundamental than both matter and information because without one observing these (the observation is not necessarily by senses; note that the first person who is aware of the 'meaning' of the neural correlate is able to do so but cannot access the 'meaning' by senses), the question of their existence does not arise.
Vimal: I agree from the point of view of idealism, but disagree from the view of other metaphysics. After long online discussion, it seems that each metaphysics tells us different aspects of the Fundamental Truth. Therefore, all of them should be considered because each of them tells us only a partial truth; this is consistent with a parable of the blind men and an elephant.
Does this of any help?
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Friday 8 December 2017, 9:08:53 PM IST, 'Syamala Hari' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Ram,Thank you for your patience.One can try to answer the question "Is information inherently fundamental?" only after what one knows what is meant by 'information' and what it is to be "fundamental" but I would make the following comment.Quantum mechanics says that a quantum particle is a packet of the unphysical (not observable directly by senses) phase waves first defined by de Broglie. The phase wave is therefore an abstract concept in the minds of physicists. Since all matter, both classical and quantum, is supposed to be made of quantum particles, one may say that all matter is made of abstract concepts? If the latter can be called 'information' then all matter is really made of 'information'? If so, would you say information is more fundamental than matter? Also, there would be no category mistake if matter and such information interact, if matter is also made of the same substance, namely, information, is it not?BTW, I think consciousness is more fundamental than both matter and information because without one observing these (the observation is not necessarily by senses; note that the first person who is aware of the 'meaning' of the neural correlate is able to do so but cannot access the 'meaning' by senses), the question of their existence does not arise.Best WishesSyamala
From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com>
To: Syamala Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Cc: BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; Leuvy Cacha <leuvy...@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sadhu_sanga@ googlegroups.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 9:53 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Hi Syamala,Thanks.
Hari: So now there are two forms for information, one is mental and the other is physical. What is this information? You still did not define it. Without defining it, and without being able to measure it, how can you say that the two forms have the same information? Probably, it is possible to define some measures to describe the neural/physical form but the mental form is not measurable. So how can you say that they have the same information?Moreover, according to your eDAM these two forms do not interact because that would be a category mistake. When they have the same information, i.e., the same kind of whatever it is, there should not be any category mistake if they interact. When I said that the physical is accessible to senses and the mental is not, Whit pointed out that they interact in spite of that difference.Vimal: In the eDAM, mental and physical aspects have the same information and are inseparable. When ‘viewed’ from 1pp, the information appears as SE; when ‘viewed’ from the subject’s 3pp the same information appears as neural activities. This is robust and reproducible data. Since information is the same in both aspects, there is no need for their interaction, there is no interaction between these two aspects and hence there is a category mistake. Aspects are like the two sides of a coin. The form of the information from 1pp is whatever we subjectively experience; we can subjectively measure its spatial form/shape (such as the rectangular-ness of a table top) for example. The spatiotemporal and spectral form of neural activities from 3pp can be objectively measured thru fMRI/EEG.The 1pp and 3pp information appear entirely different because the perspectives of viewing are different, which misleads us as if either:(i) They (mind/consciousness and matter/brain) are independent entities (dualism), but(a) They can interact (as in interactive substance dualism) or(b) The experiencer (Puruṣa) do not interact with Prakṛti (Sāṅkhya),(ii) Mind/consciousness emerges from or identical with brain (materialism), or(iii) Matter congeals from mind/consciousness.Does this help?
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 933769138.140234. 1512620834691%40mail.yahoo.com .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ 588145697.1124206. 1512742393886%40mail.yahoo.com .
Paul Werbos
Ram wrote: 1pp-mental aspect = non-physical mind.The above is your grave stone in science!As I suspected all along. Hey Paul!!
Serge Patlavskiy
From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Syamala Hari
From: Siegfried Bleher <SBl...@msn.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 6:34 PM
Whit Blauvelt
Thanks for the lengthy response. My suggestion was merely this:
live animal 1 -> meat -> live animal 2
is parallel to
conscious animal 1 -> information -> conscious animal 2
where in common speech and conception we consider both live animals 1 and 2
to contain meat, and both conscious animals 1 and 2 to contain information.
Then the animal minus life also meat. There's something vital missing in the
meat (the physical remains), yet meat regains its vitality in being consumed
by another animal. By metaphorical suggestion, there's something vital
missing in information (the signals that remain), yet that information
regains its vitality in being "consumed" by another animal.
On the one hand, we're not supposed to be vitalists at this stage in
history; on the other hand, I believe I'm basically agreeing with you about
the status of "information," and agree with you that it's just signals,
where consciousness is something more than that -- as different from signals
as a living animal is from a block of meat, and perhaps in somewhat the same
way.
Best,
Whit
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Continuation of my previous email…
I am sorry that there were typographic errors in my previous email, so please ignore it. My modified response is as follows:
Vimal: As per Wikipedia (as of 12 Dec. 2017 with minor modification), “Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.[1] Eighteenth-century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights. […]In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia".[2] This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which otherwise commonly and collectively describes sentience plus other characteristics of the mind. Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett, who also argues that non-human animals are not sentient) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually be explained by science.[3] […] According to the theory of ideasthesia, a sentient system has to have the capability to categorise and to create concepts. Empirical evidence suggests that sentience about stimuli is closely related to the process of extracting the meaning of the stimuli. How one understands the stimuli determines how one experiences them. […] Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognise non-humans as sentient beings. In Jainism and Hinduism, this is closely related to the concept of ahimsa, nonviolence toward other beings.”
However, I guess, by the term ‘consciousness’ you mean SE without impurity, whereas by ‘sentience’, you mean SE with impurity. Impurity = contamination in pure consciousness with matter. In other words, sentience = SE emerges from or is identical with matter (such as a brain) or as in DiaMat as materialism proposes. This seems like your current framework, which is fine with me. However, you need to design an experiment to test your hypothesis because, in science, hypothesis must be tested. I hope that you agree with me.
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Poznanski: I have given up on consciousness and instead have focused on sentience because of this problem associated with purity. At least the culture we live in today one can accept impurity in sentience. What I mean by impurity is that the phenomenon carries the epistemological object at its core; one cannot separate SE as an identity per se. Sentience is something like qualia in the language of phenomenology. As I have said earlier I am against both phenomenology and purity since both align with pseudo-science.
My guess is Bohm and Hiley were on the right track with active information. SE are quantum effects based on a 'quantum force' . We will explain this in a forthcoming paper scheduled for Frontiers in Psychology.
Vimal: I guess, by the term ‘consciousness’ you mean SE without impurity, whereas by ‘sentience’, you mean SE with impurity. Impurity = SE + matter = SE emerge from or identical with matter (such as brain) or as in DiaMat. This seems like your current framework, which is fine with me. However, you need to design an experiment to test your hypothesis because in science, hypothesis must be tested. I hope that you agree with me.
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering
(FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal-of-integrative-neuroscience/
Hi Roman,
Thanks.
Vimal: 1pp-mental aspect = non-physical mind.
Poznanski: The above is your grave stone in science! As I suspected all along!
Vimal: Most of us will agree that empirical subjective and/or objective reproducible evidence is the final judge. I thought that you also accept this statement.
If you do accept, then please provide us a two-way design of a critical experiment that can critically test your DiaMat, i.e., it should have ability to reject it.
I have provided such design for my framework eDAM in Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015b). You and other colleagues are most welcome to examine it and provide comments so that I can sharpen it.
In my view, we all should follow our own framework and critically test it, which will take time. Meanwhile, we should respect each other’s framework and try our best to have constructive discussion to help each other to make it better instead of destructive discussion which you usually follow. I hope that you understand what I am trying to say!
Perhaps the parable of the blind men and an elephant might be true in consciousness research that each framework might be revealing us an aspect of Fundamental Truth. In that case, we should not honor each other’s framework until critical tests are performed.
Roman
Websites: http://romanpoznanski. blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/ journal-of-integrative- neuroscience/
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Roman,
Poznanski: I am getting tired of this nonsense. Perhaps your SE aspect is just a teleological definition of function? Have you considered that and moved from this hubris about aspectism? To me this is voodoo-ism or should I say Guru-ism....
Vimal: Whatever Roman experiences from his 1st person perspective, the eDAM calls it his SE or the experiential sub-aspect of the mental aspect of a conscious state of the information in Roman’s related NN. If you want to call it “teleological definition of function” in DiaMat, then it would like you “feeling good” that you have created apples out of orange-seeds, which would indeed be a miracle and hence hubris/voodoo-ism/Guru-ism. The matching and selection mechanisms are crystal clear how stimulus-dependent FF-signals are matched with cognitive FB signals and a specific SE is selected from the LTM (long-term memory) and experienced by the ‘self’.
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://s ites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/ Home
https://www.researchgate.net/p rofile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Saturday 9 December 2017, 8:37:37 AM IST, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:
Ram, I am getting tired of this nonsense. Perhaps your SE aspect is just a teleological definition of function? Have you considered that and moved from this hubris about aspectism? To me this is voodoo-ism or should I say Guru-ism....Roman
-------
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering (FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot .com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal -of-integrative-neuroscience/
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/ CACLqmgd3N_qJObzFykaq4- MDOcwerv7UWGeSVWCwg5Gsrb2vKg% 40mail.gmail.com.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Hi Roman,
Thanks.
Vimal: 1pp-mental aspect = non-physical mind.
Poznanski: The above is your grave stone in science! As I suspected all along!
Vimal: Most of us will agree that empirical subjective and/or objective reproducible evidence is the final judge. I thought that you also accept this statement.
If you do accept, then please provide us a two-way design of a critical experiment that can critically test your DiaMat, i.e., it should have ability to reject it.
I have provided such design for my framework eDAM in Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015b). You and other colleagues are most welcome to examine it and provide comments so that I can sharpen it.
In my view, we all should follow our own framework and critically test it, which will take time. Meanwhile, we should respect each other’s framework and try our best to have constructive discussion to help each other to make it better instead of destructive discussion which you usually follow. I hope that you understand what I am trying to say!
Perhaps the parable of the blind men and an elephant might be true in consciousness research that each framework might be revealing us an aspect of Fundamental Truth. In that case, we should not honor each other’s framework until critical tests are performed.
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Roman-------
Websites: http://romanpoznanski. blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/ journal-of-integrative- neuroscience/
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 6:26 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Roman,
Poznanski: I am getting tired of this nonsense. Perhaps your SE aspect is just a teleological definition of function? Have you considered that and moved from this hubris about aspectism? To me this is voodoo-ism or should I say Guru-ism....
Vimal: Whatever Roman experiences from his 1st person perspective, the eDAM calls it his SE or the experiential sub-aspect of the mental aspect of a conscious state of the information in Roman’s related NN. If you want to call it “teleological definition of function” in DiaMat, then it would like you “feeling good” that you have created apples out of orange-seeds, which would indeed be a miracle and hence hubris/voodoo-ism/Guru-ism. The matching and selection mechanisms are crystal clear how stimulus-dependent FF-signals are matched with cognitive FB signals and a specific SE is selected from the LTM (long-term memory) and experienced by the ‘self’.
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
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
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://s ites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/ Home
https://www.researchgate.net/p rofile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Saturday 9 December 2017, 8:37:37 AM IST, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:
Ram, I am getting tired of this nonsense. Perhaps your SE aspect is just a teleological definition of function? Have you considered that and moved from this hubris about aspectism? To me this is voodoo-ism or should I say Guru-ism....Roman
-------
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering (FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot .com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal -of-integrative-neuroscience/
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 3:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: What is fundamental? Is Information inherently fundamental?
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
http://www.iospress.nl/journal-of-integrative-neuroscience/