Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Hi Joe,
Vimal: In general, PEs are precursors of SEs.
McCard (10 Dec. 2017): Do you equate PE's with thoughts in the non-physical mind?
Vimal: SEs/PEs are the experiential sub-aspect of and thoughts are functional sub-aspect of the 1pp-mental aspect of a conscious state of the information in a mind-brain system or in the subtle level.
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
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
Ram,🤔Ram wrote: When the self or I is explicitly involved, as in “I saw a red tomato”, self- related neural networks (Bruzzo and Vimal 2007) such as cortical midline structures (Northoff and Bermpohl 2004, Northoff et al. 2006) might interact with the above feed-forward and feedback signals....joe asks: I have 2 questions here:1) What do you take the self to be? In contrast to "self- related neural networks", I take the self to be a state of the personality's consciousness which sits between the non-physical mind of inner reality and the material body of outer reality. The self is able to look both ways, in and out. It is simple to experience once you are aware that you do that frequently.2) Where is the mental aspect in this? For example, does it play a role in directing the signals to the appropriate locations?joeOn Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:Ram,🤔Ram wrote: This is perhaps related to first-order, phenomenal, or access (report- able) consciousness and experienced by the specific neural network. For example, the V4/V8/V0 neural net experiences the color of, say, a red tomato. For phenomenal consciousness, feedback attentional signals are not necessary and do not get time to become active (Block 2005, Lamme 2003, Vimal 2009g). [On the Quest of Defining Consciousness, 2012]joe asks: What about access consciousness? Is feedback required, and if so, where is it fed back to, for the identification of "tomato" and "red"? In PC, there is only experience, as Block says, "Phenomenal consciousness is experience.", no identity.joeOn Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:Ram,Thank-you for the opportunity to address your "problems".I will address only the Idealism problem and the panpsychism problem:I am comfortable if I view your framework from its own points of view, which are Sāṅkhya plus Vedānta. However, both have serious and unresolvable problems (in my view) as elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010b),Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013); I hope that you will appreciate these problems. Materialism also has problems because of its well-known explanatory gap problem.Ram wrote: 1.1.3 Idealism The problem of idealism is the opposite of that of materialism and emergentism: How can non-experiential matter such as neural networks of our brain emerge from non-material conscious experiences?joe wrote: I have just discussed this in my just previous post regarding your "Level-2" post. Purusha units, including the information they contain, gradually transform themselves, through a series of intermediate changes, into EE units. So, your thoughts and dreams become manifedsted, become the experienced physical reality. [I note it is interesting I answered your "problem" even before I read what it was 😂]Ram wrote: 1.1.4 Panpsychism... The relevant problems are as follows:(i) Combination problem: This problem refers to the question of “how low-level proto-experiential and other properties somehow together con- stitute our complex unified conscious experiences”joe wrote: what you call, "low-level proto-experiential and other properties" that "somehow together constitute our complex unified conscious experiences”depends on the nature of those units that contain "low-level proto-experiential and other properties', depends on the nature of the units that "together con- stitute our complex unified conscious experiences”. In my just previous post, related to your "Level-2" I proposed what I can call Purusha particles.Ram wrote: how a specific SE can emerge from the PEs [proto-experiences?] of constituent elements in a related neural net (Vimal 2009i, 2009j). In other words, “sub-minds, such as those of atoms, cannot be conceived to combine or sum into complex, unified minds such as humans have. Hence panpsychism is not an adequate account of mind” (Skrbina 2005, p. 265).joe wrote: First, what is the mind? It is a non-physical psychic pattern through which we form and interpret reality. You have physical limbs that you can see. Yoy have minds (yes, more than one) that are invisible. The minds works together with the brain to keep you alive. You use all of your minds, your intellectual mind, your emotional mind, your social mind, etc., to organize reality in different fashions. Each one deals with its own kind of knowledge.As in my previous post, the mind forms atoms, neural nets, the brain. Atoms, neural nets, and the brain, do not form the mind.Ram wrote: (ii) Verification problem: According to Seager (1995), “there is no evidence whatsoever of a nonphysical (nonmaterial) dimension to the elemental units of nature and there is no “sign” of mentality in the basic features of the world. In other words, there are “no ‘new facts’ or empirical basis on which to evaluate the panpsychist claim. . . . This includes the assumption that non-verifiable theories are invalid in some fundamental sense” (Skrbina 2005, p. 265).joe wrote: This is certainly a 3pp claim, and it is consistent with the scientific mind (see"mind" above) The scientific minsd delegates the world of nature as the realm of exterior events. Its view of nature is therefore materialistic. Telepathy and clairvoyance, for example, are a part of natural effects, but they belong to a nature so much more expansive than science's definitions that they have been made to appear as unnatural eccentricities of behavior rather than as natural components of consciousness(iii) Inconclusive analogy or not-mental problem: “The purported analogical basis between humans and other objects is groundless” (Skrbina 2005, p. 265). The similar “not-mental” problem (Seager 1995) is “identifying the conjectured ‘inner nature’ of, say, an atom with something we can reasonably call mental” (Skrbina 2005, pp. 262–263).joe wrote: Such a problem is the result of a limited conception of what "mental" means. ( I can expand this comment if you choose)(iv) Physical emergence problem: “Emergence is in fact possible because we see it in other realms of the physical world; mind is not ontologically unique; hence emergence of mind is conceivable” (Skrbina 2005, p. 265).joe wrote: It is, as I have suggested, a mistaken notion that the physical forms the mental.A related problem is the unconscious mentality problem, which is “accepting the mentality of the elemental units of mind while deny- ing that they are actually conscious experiences” (Seager 1995). In other words, “how can consciousness emerge from unconsciousness?” (Skrbina 2005, p. 262–263).joe wrote: Consciousness is the creative result of the constant dynamic instability between the action of energy within and upon itself and the identity that action creates, as I have repeated often. Perhaps it is similar to the question as to why EM radiation is the result of the action of an electric current on a magnetic field.(v) Implausibility problem: “Panpsychism is so implausible and counter- intuitive that it cannot be true. Also known as the reductio ad absurdum objection” (Skrbina 2005, p. 265).joe wrote: 😂(vi) Eternal mystery problem: “Mind-body problem is unsolvable in principle, and hence panpsychism, which purports to offer a solution, must be false” (Skrbina 2005, p. 265).joe wrote: Please??? Really? Why not give me some real problems?(vii) Restricted panpsychism problem: “Quantum thermofield dynamics does in fact prescribe a lower boundary below which there can be no cooperative dynamics, and without cooperative dynamics there is nothing mind-like . . .joe wrote: Current physics laws do not apply. Consciousness, for example, has no inertia, does not operate in psychological time or space, cannot be created or destroyed, seeks value fulfillment through growth, etc. So, for example, nonphysical consciousness is the result of a dynamic imbalance.If qualia were tied to the coherence of cooperative dynam- ics, then the descent into panpsychism would halt at the coherence length [of about 50 microns]” (Globus 2009).joe wrote: Consciousness is, as I have suggested tied to dynamics, the dynamics of which have nothing to do with measurements.A possible solution to the problems of most views above is addressed in the dual-aspect dual-mode PE-SE framework (Vimal 2008b, 2010a). It will be concisely described below.joe wrote: I look forward to reading it. 😀joeTherefore, I opted the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) that has the least number of problems and tries to bring science and spirituality/religion closer, where the physical aspect is related to materialism or the physical body of the Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya and inseparable mental aspect includes Puruṣa (the non-interacting experiencer) and astral and causal bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya, i.e., experiences, functions, and the self.
I understand that you feel uncomfortable, but, in my view, this is because you (like Vinod ji) have not yet tried to examine the eDAM from its own point of view, as I have done for the Vedic 3-in-1 model from its own point of view.
[2] Boyer: The deeper levels underlying and permeating the gross level can be described as ‘latent’ in the sense that gross, ordinary sensory experience and gross physical measurement processes, either direct or indirect, don’t yet seem to recognize/measure them. But the deeper levels seem necessary to infer when trying to explain the order in nature, mental intentions, and free will in a logically consistent manner according to orderly ‘laws of nature.’ Inert, fundamentally random processes, even with ‘inherent dynamism’ (such as zero-point motion), seem to preclude orderly laws. Underlying orderliness/ intelligence, even in terms of a few basic principles, seems quite necessary (at least three—sattva, rajas, tamas). These underlying orderly principles permeating all levels of nature are increasingly hidden with increasing tamas, as phenomenal nature condenses (becomes more concrete) from infinitely self-referral/self-interacting Unified field dynamics to phenomenally relative finite interdependent causal wave dynamics to phenomenally relative finite independent causal mechanics of physical processes and objects.
Vimal: I like the concept of “latent” in the sense of “hidden” or “unexpressed”. The eDAM is framed using this concept. In the Vedic 3-in-1 Model and Sāṅkhya, physical bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya is considered to have only physical aspect (fermions and bosons) and mental aspect is considered to be separated from it. In the eDAM language, these aspects are inseparable and the physical aspect is fully manifested and the mental aspect is “latent” in non-living entities. Mental aspect is latent because if a non-living entities are broken down to fermions and bosons and re-organized then a brain can be created (technically close to impossible), which possess mind as well. Nature does it thru co-evolution, which takes very long time (billions of years).
On the other hand, in Vedic 3-in-1 model, a soul (individualized/localized Puruṣa) is only experiencer part of mental aspect and the rest (Prakṛti) are separated from the soul. In the eDAM, however, the rest (Prakṛti) are considered latent because if the soul take rebirth (if it is true!), the soul will get body, brain, and mind (experiences and functions).
In other words, the degree of manifestation of aspects varies with the state of the information in the entity.
[3] Boyer: Also, I’m not comfortable attributing the word ‘physical’ to either the unified field or the subtle. Ch. 1 gives a definition of ‘physical’ that works best for me, with an empirical basis.
Also, Ch. 1 discusses how the third-person perspective (3pp) is a subset of the first-person perspective (1pp); I think this is an important way to think of it, rather than your use of this distinction to support the 'dual-aspect' model.
Vimal: As per (Boyer, 2018).Ch.1, “Physical refers to objects and processes limited by relativistic gravity, light-speed, local particle-interaction causality, and the Planck scale.” This is consistent with my definition of physical aspect in Level 1. In Levels 2 and 3, the 3pp-physical aspect is latent (hidden, unexpressed) because they can be expressed enough to be measurable at upper Level 1 through a condensation process. However, the 1pp-mental aspect appears ‘latent’ (hidden) to us in inert entities; this may be hidden in the sense we cannot measure it as it is inert entity’s 1pp that will always remain unknown to us; therefore, it appears latent to us.
It should be noted that the 3pp-physical aspect of a state of the information in an entity is from the 3pp with respect to the entity, but it will always be 1pp with respect to the observer. For example, when we, as 3rd person, look at NN of the subject, we experience white grey color of neurons (grey matter); this is our experience from our 1pp, but it is 3pp with respect to the subject. In this sense, you can say that 3pp is a subset of 1pp; however, 3pp is not a subset of 1pp with respect to the subject; they look entirely different; for example, 1pp will be SE = redness of ripe tomato, where 3pp will be related to subject’s NN will look grayness if grey matter neurons (very different in appearances).
[4] Boyer: (i) I wouldn’t describe the subtle level or the Prakriti level (Moola or not, para or apara) as Planck-scale quantized. (ii) And quite importantly, in my understanding of the Sankhya perspective, the notion of the ‘ego’ is not of a ‘false ego’ as you have depicted it. Rather, the ego is an ontologically real level of nature (even in a sense the most real level of finite individual existence).
Vimal: (i) (Srinivasan, 2017) seems to hypothesize Moola-Prakṛti particle (MPP) length of 10-51 m. If this is correct, then one could argue that the continuous physical unified field (PUF) can be quantized. There is no harm. Paranormal phenomena can still be explained. (ii) I agree and I have deleted it.
Furthermore, it is unclear if we really need self-referral quality and self-awareness in the UPC at UF level. Therefore, it is better to consider both possibilities.
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 Friday 8 December 2017, 3:19:47 AM IST, Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:In pointing out apparent differences, I want first to emphasize that there seems to be many fundamental agreements in our approach, which is most encouraging.Re: “one could argue for 3 levels for entities: gross, subtle, and subtlest levels”--Rather than this delineation of the 3, I’d consider the 3 levels as: gross, subtle, transcendent; or body, mind, Self; or matter, mind, Self; or manifest finite gross relative physical, manifest finite subtle relative non-physical including mind, unmanifest non-relative non-physical infinite eternal unified field (both Prakriti/Purusha); or matter, mind, consciousness; or somewhat corresponding to Bohm and Hiley’s explicate order, implicate order, super-implicate order/universal plenum—though they seem neither to distinguish Prakriti/Purusha nor clearly identify consciousness; or physical Planck-scale quantized, subtle non-physical non-Planck-scale-quantized including individual minds, infinite eternal unified field and its self-interacting/self-referral dynamics.We are talking here about ways to identify the 3-level ontology, mainly in the perspective of the Sankhya enumeration of a sequence of levels from Purusha or Atman condensing to phenomenally inert mahabhutas. At the same time, it seems important to keep in mind the completely holistic Vedic 3-in-1 account that all the levels are ultimately 1 (totality)--more a Vedant perspective of unity beyond all differences, said to be ‘directly experienced’ in the highest state of consciousness (the Reality, though lesser evolved states of consciousness each have their own relative realities).Re: “Gross Level: Dual-aspect…” and so on:I’m uncomfortable with your adding the ‘dual aspect’ language to the Sankhya enumeration of levels in the charts taken from the book “Pointless.” Though it reflects an important angle, I think it could be misleading. On the gross physical (body/brain level), it reminds me of the old ‘neural identity’ hypothesis in behaviorism that the mental aspect has no ontological reality and somehow is just in the physical neural activity. It also leads to ideas such as panpsychism (and multiverse notions that break up the fundamental unity,--dropping off the ‘uni’ from universe and replacing it with the fragmented term of ‘multiverse,’ which seems a redundant notion combining multiplicity and diversity that loses unity.You’ve discussed the issue of ‘dual aspect monism’ of the physical level extensively with Vinod; his concerns seem quite well-taken to me. Also, his points (12/01/17 email) related to particles, micro and ultra-micro, and the Planck scale seem excellent points in agreement with what I tried to depict in the book charts, in terms of the ‘physical’ (phenomenally independent particle and Planck-scale quantum layers of it) and deeper, permeating phenomenal levels that are more continuous in the sense of subtler, highly interdependent wave fields not Planck-scale quantized (although again in a deeper sense, all can be said to be nothing other than consciousness itself—the holistic Vedic 3-in-1 account (which the ‘1’ part Avtar beautifully enjoys emphasizing.)On the physical brain level, the dual-aspect idea seems to conflate the mental and the physical. In my understanding of Sankhya and Vedic science, the general one-to-one ‘correspondence’ of mind and body does not mean that mind and body are ‘inseparable,’ but that they ‘correspond’ to each other in the physical level of brain/body. When the ‘correspondence’ is broken, the brain breaks down to its phenomenally inert particles and stops functioning as a unitary system (ashes to ashes, dust to dust), while the ontologically real mind continues functioning on the subtle level of nature (jiva). Formal, modern scientific evidence for this is now being collected carefully, such as in research on NDEs, etc. (discussed in the google group); and logically consistent theories that can accommodate this evidence are being articulated by well-respected top scientists (see Ch. 5 for a few key examples).On a related issue, in my understanding of Sankhya, another way to distinguish the levels is to say that the gross physical cannot exist without the subtle and the transcendent (unified field) levels. And the subtle level cannot exist without the unified field level. On the other hand, the unified field can be said to exist whether or not it manifests as subtle or gross, and the subtle level can be said to exist whether or not it manifests into the gross physical.(As an aside, both of these also relate to different pralayas (dissolutions) in Vedic cosmology. In other terms, as I mentioned in another email, the process of manifestation or emergence of the entire manifest universe seems to be viewed better as not a ‘big bang’ but a ‘big condensation:’ the infinite eternal unified field begat relative creation, rather than ‘nothing’ somehow randomly begat the manifest 'multiverse.')The deeper levels underlying and permeating the gross level can be described as ‘latent’ in the sense that gross, ordinary sensory experience and gross physical measurement processes, either direct or indirect, don’t yet seem to recognize/measure them. But the deeper levels seem necessary to infer when trying to explain order in nature, mental intentions, and free will in a logically consistent manner according to orderly ‘laws of nature.’ Inert, fundamentally random processes, even with ‘inherent dynamism’ (such as zero-point motion), seem to preclude orderly laws. Underlying orderliness/ intelligence, even in terms of a few basic principles, seems quite necessary (at least three—sattva, rajas, tamas). These underlying orderly principles permeating all levels of nature are increasingly hidden with increasing tamas, as phenomenal nature condenses (becomes more concrete) from infinitely self-referral/self-interacting Unified field dynamics to phenomenally relative finite interdependent causal wave dynamics to phenomenally relative finite independent causal mechanics of physical processes and objects. (May I note that points in Vinod’s 12/01 email, and also in Joe’s 12/02 email, are also wonderful and directly relevant—seeming to have many consistencies as here.)Without going into detail, I’m also somewhat uncomfortable with your placement of these terms:‘dual aspect’ at all manifest levels: mind and body ‘correspond,’ but are not ‘inseparable’—except in the sense of the transcendent wholeness level where all is One and objective/subjective, mind/matter, and all other dualities are transcended (again in the context of emphasizing the Sankhya perspective).‘astral world’ (but maybe you are placing it in the general category of the ‘subtle’ level rather than the hierarchical structure intended in my chart).‘gunas’ (same issue as above--as well as with a number of others you inserted into the chart).Also, I need to understand where the 10-51 point came from (per Srinivasin) before addressing that insert.Also, I’m not comfortable attributing the word ‘physical’ to either the unified field or the subtle. Ch. 1 gives a definition of ‘physical’ that works best for me, with an empirical basis.Also, Ch. 1 discusses how the third-person perspective (3pp) is a subset of the first-person perspective (1pp); I think this is an important way to think of it, rather than your use of this distinction to support the 'dual-aspect' model.Also, I wouldn’t describe the samadhi state, Vedantist ‘wholeness,’ or Buddhist ‘emptiness’ quite in the way you have—though from some angles your descriptions have value.Also, I wouldn’t describe the subtle level or the Prakriti level (moola or not, para or apara) as Planck-scale quantized.Also, I would place astral and causal bodies in the subtle manifest (not unmanifest as you alluded to (again, even though all levels are within and inside the unified field in that no thing is ‘outside of’ it).Also, I wouldn’t depict ‘paranormal phenomena’ as ‘at or below’ astral level—though I think I get your point, and I agree that objects and process in the subtle are not subject to limitations of ‘light-speed’ in the manner of the gross physical field of relativistic spacetime gravity (akasha, or space mahabhuta).And quite importantly, in my understanding of the Sankhya perspective, the notion of the ‘ego’ is not of a ‘false ego’ as you have depicted it. Rather, the ego is an ontologically real level of nature (even in a sense the most real level of finite individual existence). In Maharishi’s explanation, the ego expands to fullness in the universal Self, in higher states of consciousness and ultimately unity consciousness (Vedant). Ego is not ‘annihilated’—in this context of understanding, it is a relative, phenomenally real level of nature. Rather than being annihilated, it is refined and purified to live fully its universal status. In natural growth to higher states, nothing of experience is lost (I guess we could say ignorance ends)—rather, Totality is regained. As Maharishi succinctly summarizes all this: “The individual is cosmic.”Sorry for the long email—taken out of context from the more smoothly developed flow in the book, I hope it is useful. Thanks for your lively interest, and for your wonderful intellect that helps me enjoy communicating about these very abstract and subtle issues that aren't so easily to access for many.Best wishes,Bob
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Vinod ji,
My responses to your queries on 1 Dec. 2017 email are given below in blue font texts.
“Paranormal phenomena […] without any obstruction.” (Vimal)
1. Wide scale gap between the brain and the Astral levels
Sehgal (1 Dec. 2017): The brain is composed of neurons, molecules, atoms, ‘elementary particles in the quantum scales’ -- all of which are in the scale in between 10-6 to 10-20 m. But the proposed Astral plane in the range of 10-36 to 10-51 m. So there is a very wide scale gap between the brain and the Astral levels. But, on one hand, it is stated that paranormal phenomenon may be at the end below the astral level (10-36 to 10-51 m) while also stating that all these levels are for a brain (10-6 to 10-20 m). It is an obvious intra-contradiction.
Vimal: Please recheck: it is not 10-6 to 10-20 m: where did you get this 10-20 m from (any reference)? Instead, it is 10-6 to 10-34 m for micro to ultra-micro. However, QM goes down up to 10-36 m (one order below Planck level). Therefore, the astral level should be below 10-36 m. So there is no contradiction. Why do you think that a brain is any different from other entities for the purpose of ultra-macro to deepest UF? They are for within a brain, but it could be for all entities/fields ubiquitously. The whole point is that relevant information can flow thru astral/causal sub-Planckian levels throughout the universe without any obstruction, such as a skull at macro level for EM wave mentioned by Stan (Klein). Of course, there is no crystal clear objective evidence. It is just a working hypothesis, which will change as we have objective/subjective evidence in future.
2. Size of Moola Prakriti Particle (MPP) is unclear
Sehgal: It is unclear if 10-51 m level in (Srinivasan, 2017) that the ultimate lowest size of the Moola Prakriti Particle (MPP) is 10-51 m because it is unit-less ratio; its unit is unclear.
Vimal: Yes it is unclear, but since it is a ratio, we are free to use any unit. Therefore, it could length, time, or mass. The Planck time tp = (ħG/c5)½, Planck length lp = (ħG/c3)½ = ctp, Planck mass lp = (ħc/G)½, and Planck energy lp = (ħc5/G)½. The length, life-time, mass, energy of a Planck particle are about 1.62 x 10-35 m, 4.83 x 10-39 s, 38.5763 10-9 kg, 1.22 x 1028 eV (= energy of 57.2 L gasoline) respectively. The ratio 10-51 related to MPP cannot be mass/energy because it should be more than Planck mass/energy. MPP_length = c (MPP_time); c = 3 ×108 m/s. If we assume MPP_time = 10-51 s, then MPP_length = (3 ×108 m/s)(1.3462 × 10-51 s) = 4 × 10-43 m, which are still less than Planck time and length. If we assume MPP_length = 10-51 m, then MPP_time = (1.3462 × 10-51 m)/(3 ×108 m/s) ~ 4.5 × 10-59 s, which are much lower than Planck length and time. Unified field is the deepest bottom-most level, therefore the latter selection MPP_length = 10-51 m is more appropriate, where information transmission could be thru the obstruction-less super-highway.
3. Minimum empirical size of quantum particle is 10-20 m
Sehgal: Current Physics has studied, detected and verified empirically the nature comprising of quantum/elementary particles from the macro level to micro/quantum scales up to the size of 10-20. Below this scale, if nature is of particle or non-particle nature is any body's guess. I am also guessing and you are also equally guessing that nature below the quantum/micro scale (up to 10-20) is a particle in nature.
Vimal: Please provide references, which show the minimum empirical size of quantum particle is 10-20 m.
4. Entities between 10-20 to 10-36 m
Sehgal: Within the scale range of 10-21 to 10-34, you have included strings, branes, strong electroweak quantum fields, quantum gravity etc. But all these are the part of scientific hypothesis and lack any empirical pieces of evidence. Then in the theoretical hypothetical models of science, strings and branes are not particles. In view of this, it may not be appropriate to place these entities in particle size having scales in between 10-20 to 10-34.
Vimal: Particles are the modes of field, i.e., both particles and fields are essentially the same.
5. Entities below 10-36 m
Sehgal: (i) You have proposed the given chart based on the hypothesis that all the entities from UF till macro scale are having a dual aspect (physical and mental) in each and every discrete entity. That is why you have indicated of the presence of mental aspect even in the inert entities. But this view is neither supported by any empirical scientific evidence nor from the subjective evidence Samādhi state experiences by any yogi/sage of any spiritual tradition. Even if at the most primordial level, Brahman (the primal entity) is of dual aspect as per cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, this does not mean that Brahman also descends down along with each and every matter/energy particle and undergoes thru the same transformational/transmutational process as the discrete matter and energy particles go thru.
Vimal: The dual-aspect monism framework is close to an ancient views: (a) Kashmir Shaivism (860–925 AD) with Shiva as mental aspect and Shakti as physical aspect and (b) cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (Ramānujāchārya: 1017-1137 AD: cit as mental and acit as physical aspect (i.e., adjectives/aspects of Brahman), see (Vimal, 2012c) and (Radhakrishnan, 1960)). The latter is close to Āstika Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (theist version of the eDAM), which has been verified by an expert Padmabhushan Jagadguru Rambhadracharya (PhD, DLitt) of Chitrakut (India) (personal meeting on 23rd Dec 2011 night in Chitrakoot Ashram); for detail see Section 4.4.2 of (Vimal, 2012c). There are empirical evidences for conscious state that are unable to reject eDAM. For a critical test, experiments are proposed in Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015f) to reject it. The eDAM is based on the bottom-up approach: from the unmanifested UF (Brahman) of transcendent/subtlest level to the manifested causal and astral bodies of subtle level to the manifested physical bodies of gross level to the manifested Samādhi state where we acquire godly virtues such as compassion, humility, and love for all, and experience bliss and paranormal phenomena. However, further research is needed, especially the eDAM in non-living systems. The eDAM is the least problematic if you can understand it from its own point of view. Therefore, it is worth pursuing it and commenting it to make it better.
Sehgal: (ii) Dr. Robert Boyer possess an extensive and intensive knowledge of Sāṅkhya, therefore, he is in a better state to finally comment upon. However, as per my understanding, which I have gained primarily by constant contemplating over the experiences of Swamiji in his books from the state of Sāṅkhya and as mentioned in his books:
(a) The nature from the macro scale to the quantum scale (macro size to 10-20 m) is basically physical in nature and there is no mental content in it.
Vimal: The mental aspect is latent in gross level non-living entities but manifested in living systems with various degrees.
Sehgal: (b) It is not clear if the nature from 10-21 to Planck size 10-36 m (having strings/branes/quantum gravity/GUF) is particle in nature or of non-particle type. Regardless of the fact whether it is particle or of non-particle, nature in this regime should be essentially physical lacking any mental content.
Vimal: Particles are the modes of field, i.e., both particles and (non-particles) fields are essentially the same. The state of information in a field/particle has manifested physical aspect and unmanifested (latent) mental aspect.
Sehgal: (c) The nature at subtle level (10-36 to 10-51 m) is proposed by the astral and causal realm of nature. This includes Manas, Buddhi, Indriyās, Chitta, Ahaṃkāra, Tanmātra, etc. This is this part of nature which constitutes a MIND. This part of nature comprises of only mental aspect and NO physical content with physical as is understood and interpreted in the current science/physics Here one thing worth noting should be that here MIND DOES NOT INCLUDE CONSCIOUSNESS but only that part of the mental aspect what you call MENTAL FUNCTONS in the eDAM.
Another point worth noting is that though this region of nature in the range of (10-36 to 10-51 m: Astral and Causal realms) is termed as mind and serves all the functions of mind but it is basically physical in nature since this is the derivative of Moola Prakriti which is primarily physical in nature. Here the broad connotation of physical is the one having no innate consciousness of own and non-physical as the one having its own innate fundamental consciousness (Puruṣa/Brahman/UF).
Vimal: In the eDAM, the experiencer (Puruṣa), SEs, the causal and astral bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya, i.e., all 1pp entities (experiences and functions) are included in the mental aspect. The physical aspect is latent in this subtle level.
Sehgal: (iii) At the most primordial level, Moola Prakṛti (nature) exist at the most subtlest level that might be in the range of 10-51 m, as you and I are guessing. As the creation commences, Moola Prakriti starts undergoing a sequence of transformation changes. In the process of transformational process, the subtlest MPPs at 10-51 m start aggregating [condensing/congealing] to gross and grosser particles. When the transformational aggregation reaches the range from 10-51 to 10-36 m, the particles in this range aggregate and produce the phenomenal reality of the astral and causal realms of nature having Manas, Buddhi, Chitta, Ahaṃkāra, Tanmātra etc ( a broad MIND).
When nature further undergoes transformational aggregation and aggregation reaches the scale range of 10-35 to 10-20 m, strings, branes, quantum gravity, GUF are borne, which are essentially physical in nature and lack any mental content.
When the transformation of nature reaches further to the grosser level in the range of 10-35 to 10-20 m, elementary particles, atoms and molecules are born, which primarily serves the physical functions and don’t serve any mental content. This is this part of nature what is called the Physical world.
From the above scheme of things, one can also understand that there is nothing like any continuous field, like the e.m. field and as hypothesized by scientist. Scientists also hypothesize that it is by the excitation of a continuous field from which a particle takes birth. And this should be right since though scientists hypothesize the existence of some continuous field but they are unable to indicate/infer about the ontological single entity, which constitute a continuous field.
A continuous field should essentially be an aggregation of more subtle particles. When the subtler particles aggregate (a process what scientist call excitation of the field), some grossser particles emanate out.
From the above scheme of things, the Astral and Causal worlds/bodies take birth much prior to the creation of the physical world. When the universe dissolves at the time of grand destruction, it is the physical world which is destructed first. So before the physical bodies of the sentient beings appear at earth, their Astral bodies in the Astral world are already in position. And it is these Astral bodies which circulate from birth to birth in the endless cycle of birth/death.
Vimal: In the eDAM, the physical aspect of a state of the information in a non-living entity (physical body) is manifested, but its inseparable mental aspect is latent in the gross level. The condensation/congealing process used in idealism and/or Sāṅkhya is unclear how that can be possible. In the eDAM, the processes are the inter-dependently co-origination and co-evolution of both aspects.
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
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
Hi Joe,
Vimal: In general, PEs are precursors of SEs.
McCard (10 Dec. 2017): Do you equate PE's with thoughts in the non-physical mind?
Vimal: SEs/PEs are the experiential sub-aspect of and thoughts are functional sub-aspect of the 1pp-mental aspect of a conscious state of the information in a mind-brain system or in the subtle level.
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
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Namaste Sastryji,
I think, confusion, between the words Brahman and Brahmin , is a very excusable mistake on part of a western participant. I do not think it is a question of spelling in English. But you brought up a very important point about how to write Sanskrit (or any Indian language with 48 to 52 letters) words into Roman script with only 26 basic letters. In fact that is why there are spelling bees in America and never in India! But seriously, more effort should be spent on this. Remember our controversy about Sankhya and Saankhya! The current way (I am not sure if it is Harvard Kyoto or not) looks to me absurd. When you write Sujata as Sujatha, to make t soft you are making it worse!! Also to me writing Pragna as Prajna looks pretty bad!
I know Shreyas Munshi (from Mumbai) who has written a book:
Cambridge University Press (CUP), Hyderabad publication titled "Introducing PARSIL (Phonetic Alphabet for Romanization of Spellings in Indian Languages)"….a paperback edition listed as ISBN 9789384463380.
He claims that with about 93 symbols available on typewriter, any Indian language (including Sanskrit ) can be written in Roman Script with a unique unambiguous pronunciation. I do not know how well known his work is in India. But I wish him success.
The other question, how to explain Vedic concepts in English, where there are no corresponding words with same meaning , is a difficult issue. I do not have any answer for that except one should use several words and keep explaining.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL) [mailto:sastr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 11:19 PM
To: 'Joseph McCard' <joseph....@gmail.com>; 'VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL' <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; 'Paul Werbos' <paul....@gmail.com>; 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; 'BT APJ' <alfredo...@gmail.com>; 'Stanley A. KLEIN' <skl...@berkeley.edu>; 'sisir roy' <sisir.s...@gmail.com>;
'Robert Boyer' <rw.b...@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Namaste
A request: Can the Samskruth terms in these discussions be presented with diacritic marks or some standard convention like Harvard Kyoto to help read Samskruth terms properly please ? This would also help in understand EDAM theory, related discussions from Rooman and others, including the ‘ Saamkhya of GS’.
In the post below, what is intended is < Brahman >; but what is seen on screen is <Brahmin> . The meanings go poles apart.
I don’t call this as intentional error or wrong posting . It is just the way we read ‘ Samskruth Terms written in English’ differently. <Brahmin> is different from < Brahman >.
Reasons: A) In these threads of discussion, many terms from Samskruth and concepts from Indian philosophical resources using technical Samskruth terms are drawn upon.
The spelling representation of the terms, sometimes causes the confusion on what is being discussed.
Example: < Joe wrote: Brahmin is also incomprehensible consciousness bereft of all identities. > . Here I presume the intended term is ‘Brahman’ - the term from Upanishads to mean
<Consciousness = Chit, Chaitanya >.
It is not < Brahmin > which is used (i) technically to denote a person who has the knowledge and experience of ‘Brahman’ (ii) and to identify a social community, erroneously categorized as a ‘caste’
and following a ‘ priest profession’.
B) It is true that Samskruth terms writing in roman script have many challenges – by phonetic, by spelling convention and technology challenge of ‘ typing diacritic marks’ and much bigger challenge of
settings on computers- browsers-applications to make a proper display ! It is a combined complexity of technology and language issues ! When the term is ‘ misread’, the authors opinion , the intent cannot be captured accurately. This ‘term-meaning association distortion’ vitiates the progress of meaningful discussion. This is truly a challenge of ‘ Educating the meanings associated with Samskruth terms in a linguistically, contextually and grammatically appropriate way’. The Sanskrit –English dictionaries and ( majority of translations) have contributed to build more chaos that was really necessary in the name of promoting the knowledge from traditional resources. The flip side is many traditional scholars are not aware / not trained in the rigor expected of scientific discussions and articulations, formulae and measure terms; the traditional scholars use almost a Victorian and pre-colonial English model to present their ideas to the 21st century audience. There is a gap that needs to be bridged here in terms of ‘ Technical Term Meaning Precision mapping’, what the science terms would call as ‘ Term-Expression Definitional Clarity and Common ground understanding’. Traditional pedagogy of Samskruth calls this as ‘ Shaastra-Paribhashaa’.
My effort and contribution: I am continuing my sincere and humble efforts to address this challenge, A challenge of mammoth magnitude which has been let loose in to the society at large. The problem has its genesis in the ‘ Sanskrit Language study tools created about 200 years ago by ‘colonial missionary scholars; followed by the 18th and 19th English translations of Indian traditional texts as ‘ Schools of Indian Philosophy’, which have found its multifarious distorted promotions through social media and other researches not getting the right perspective of ‘Source Text and Tradition’.
When ‘ vision and Intention ( darshana and vivakshaa) are fuzzy, the language terms used in the text fail to yield the true meaning - communication. Any further argument built on ‘ inaccurate mapping of term to meaning –communication- vision- intention’ leads to emotionally disturbing series of verbal exchanges ! I am sure the purpose of all this dialogue is not to end up in ‘ hurting verbal exchanges’ !
A recent experience shared to highlight why this is important : I am currently at India and attended an ‘ invited program’ addressing the topic: Reality: Modern Science and Ancient Indian Wisdom. The speaker was Pujya Jagadguru Puri Shankaracharya Swami Nischalananda Saraswati. The venue was National Institute of Advanced Sciences . The participants were high profile scientists and philosophers.
The respected speaker eloquently presented the traditional concept of ‘reality’ in Hindi language well supported with the source texts from Samskruth and totally compliant with ‘Advaita’ tradition. Me sitting in the audience was looking for any pointers on the ‘ subtle measurement of the order of ten raised to negative power of 20 or more’ , so that a tangible measure parameter could be pegged. It is not enough to say ‘subtle’. The reference of subtleness along with the measure of subtleness was what I was looking for. This is what brings to the philosophical deliberation to the lab table of the scientist. When there is no ‘measure’, the rest of the deliberation becomes a ‘floating concept - a paradigm ( or paradise?!) – an individual’s experience expressed - a text explained as a third party writers experience analyzed now, as a Petri dish sample.
My feel was the learned respected speaker was presenting ‘oranges’ when the audience was looking for ‘apples’, both under the spell of an unarticulated hypothesis / axiom : Both are fruits; and any fruit can be understood by understanding any other fruit’. This is not the method of ‘Shaastra’ or ‘Science’.
What causes this frustrating experience is a document of ‘Science –Shaastra Paribhashaa’ = ‘ Term-Expression Definitional Clarity and Common ground understanding of Traditional Samskruth terms with Science Terms’. An exercise to map ‘Traditional pedagogy of Samskruth’ to the ‘ Research Methodology of Science’. The first step is getting at the ‘ Common Convention of writing Samskruth terms’.
Thanks and Regards
BVK Sastry
From: Joseph McCard [mailto:joseph....@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 11 December, 2017 8:10 PM
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Cc: Vasavada, Kashyap V; Paul Werbos; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; BT APJ; Stanley A. KLEIN; sisir roy; BVKSastry(Gmail); Robert Boyer
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Vinod,
Vinod wrote: The things we think of as our identity might be an illusion but the process of thinking can't be an illusion.
Joe wrote: What experience, and what identity, occurs when there is complete cessation of all thought-constructs? That is, what is our identity when we are not thinking?
Vinod wrote: Joseph McCard is incomprehensible consciousness bereft of all identities.
Joe wrote: In the absence of something else, I am not.
Vinod wrote: It is then that the pure and real consciousness as the true self will come to the fore.
Joe wrote: Brahmin is also incomprehensible consciousness bereft of all identities.
joe
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste Vasavada Kashyap
1. Thanks.
2. PARSIL is an approach to write < Phonetic Alphabet for Romanization of Spellings in Indian Languages >. This is a smaller part of the global plan called ‘ ROMANIZATION’, where entirety of world languages are desired to be scripted in ‘(Modern) Roman English Alphabets. This design was firmed up around 1803. I provide the link for the document where this work has been done for world languages . This was explored before Unicode thinking for Computers and IPA diacritic notations for Academic publication. The goal is a straight simple statement : Bible Translation in all languages of World’. The role of Colonial missionaries and activism of the UK empire is almost visionary ! This is the legacy behind many US American universities programs and Ford / Full bright grants showing interest in Sanskrit language studies as gateway to India.
3 . There is no point in lamenting on this issue which has acaused irreversible transformations in Indian languages and language studies through several generations ! With all this impact, Samskrutham: Paninian grammar still stands like a rock, albeit dwindling numbers of supporters.
4. Why is Samskruth study as Yoga an important issue in Consciousness –Reality – Cosmology studies ? The most ancient, most advanced studies on these experiences of seeking researching humans (= Rushi’s) has been articulated , documented, preserved and debated in this language: Samskrutham guarded by Paninian system and language tools. The ‘spirituality and spiritual standard of Language’ is essential to express the ‘ conscious experience of Spirituality’. That is (Language) Expression is manifest crystallization of(Conscious, Transcendental and mundane) Experience. History approach to Samskrutham will never unpack this dimension. Whether Newton was the finder or formulator of Gravity rules can be debated. But Gravity as a natures energy field existed –exists irrespective !
5. It is on this line, with all the team work and background this deliberation is holding at its reach, can we put together a project team for preparing a ‘Science –Shaastra Paribhashaa’ = ‘ Term-Expression Definitional Clarity and Common ground understanding of Traditional Samskruth terms with Science Terms in relation to the study of Consciousness, Reality and Cosmology, Cognition ’.
Here we can address issue of ‘ Common Convention of writing Samskruth terms’ in World languages, using Devanagari Script and conventions, which provides a stronger and wider base than Roman alphabet characters ? And without any hidden agenda and leaning to any religion side ? This is true ‘ Naama –Roopa Prakriyaa’ :: The True Form of Expression (Naama) of Cognition (Roopa) and Processes ( Prakriyaa)’ . This will also be a merger of two ‘Alpha part of ‘SAAMKHYA’ and Numeric part as ‘SAMKHYAA’ . Where one letter could make all the difference in understanding, like < < Brahman - Brahmin> >
If We don’t do this collaboratively, with concerned high profile in this team, Who else have the desire or competence to do this ?
I look forward for your inputs on the way I have formulated the project outline and goal and taking it as a Joint project ? .
Regards
BVK Sastry
Pandita Indrani Rampersad पंडिता इंद्राणी रामपरसाद
----------------------------
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/5a30ae7a.cc43620a.8fc4e.5160%40mx.google.com.
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste Indrani ji
Thanks for taking note of the key and yet disturbing issue that is playing a limitation to understand the Indian /Vedic Traditions. Thanks for the interest to be a part of this project.
I do have a working plan. And this needs team voice.
The reference point to peg the mark for beginning this work is the work done by Colonial missionary scholars and scholars of orient during 1800-1872. The roots of ‘ Romanization of Indian Languages’ and ‘Sanskrit-English Word –meaning mapping in Dictionary’, was set in motion as a part of ‘ (Bible) Scripture Translation: Printing and distribution at colonized countries’ and many initiatives backed by the Empire. These have set in motion irreversible changes in the ‘Samskruth studies program’- at India as well as West.
For more details, as a starting, you may explore the resource : The Bible of every land : a history of the Sacred Scriptures in every language and dialect into which translations have been made : illustrated with specimen portions in native characters, series of alphabets, coloured ethnographical maps, tables, indexes, etc
https://archive.org/stream/bibleofeveryland00unknuoft#page/n9/mode/2up .
Preferably explore the introduction and documented vision of Romanization of World language scripts way before there was a computer, internet and smart phones !
The variances that got introduced in to Samskruth studies in this period, have found their ‘ unaudited’ manifestations in multifold ways through many universities and institutions; and hitting back at India like ‘Pizza effect’.
The project to < accessing Indian languages in roman script and as simple as possible without losing the key sounds> needs a combined effort of Linguists, Traditional Scholars and Technologists; not to leave out the grant fund support to set the project in motion. This is the request I have raised in the post below. If as a team we can highlight the importance of this, it will benefit not only academia, but large section of end users and technology- advancement also. Right now the available ‘ Voice-technology’ is not robust to meet the expressed requirements ( despite all the claims of SIRI and other programs.). I do know what would appropriately describe this ‘Battle: Sanskrit’ project : Resurrection of Samskrutham or Rejuvenation of Sanskrit !
Let us see how the rest of the team welcomes and picks the idea presented and appreciate the need.
Regards
BVK Sastry
Rajendra Bajpai
The attempt to correctly write Sanskrit in Roman script will do more harm. It may give satisfaction and pleasure to some but it will make reading of Sanskrit text more cumbersome. Many person will loose interest in reading Sanskrit text. There is a need for a consensus for using one common mode for transliteration. The Unicode used in Microsoft word for writings in Devanagari script. It can be adopted after some modifications. It is widely used. The problematic expressions may be compiled and their pronunciations may be made available in some web pages.
Rajendra Bajpai
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5a3146ac.4b92630a.8de4c.7f09%40mx.google.com.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
Let me jump little bit in your debate with Ram!
A man and a woman feel attraction to each other by looking (reflections of light from each other and their eyes processing and somehow converting into mental aspect.) Similarly about sound waves of speech. Now an electron and a proton feel attraction by exchanging photons. This is quantum mechanics. If there is a very primitive amount of consciousness related to QM, then this process could be similar. We do not know whether consciousness has anything to do with QM or not. But we cannot rule out this out rightly! So there could be a little bit of mental aspect (most likely hidden to us) in the fundamental particles.
Best Regards.
kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 8:59 AM
To: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail)
<sastr...@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Ram wrote that every entity ha two aspects. Its structure is its physical aspect while functions and experiences are its mental aspect. A macro level object like a car has motion as its function while production of sound and display of
picture by TV are its functions. A
Quantum particle like an electron has vibrations, spin, mass and charge as its functions. These functions are being produced from the physical structure, hence these functions are also physical.
we observe in the conscious living beings that they display mental aspect of emotions, perceptual and cognitive function of various types,memory,judgement, attention etc
By what logic the functions of the structures, both of which are essentially physical, can be classified under the mental aspect?
Another related issue is if a physical structure is not defined and describable by its physical functions, is there any other way to define/describe the structure? For example, if the structure of an electron is not defined/described thru its functions/attributes
vjz mass, charge, spin and vibrations, what is the other way out? In other words, what is the structure of an electron MINUS ITS FUNCTIONS/ATTRIBUTES LIKE MASS,CHARGE,SPIN AND VIBRATIONS
Vinod Sehgal
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste Rajendra Bajpai ji
1. Thanks for a suggestion to go by Microsoft and Unicode. It serves as a decent good starting point .
2. Yet, On deeper examination, and with years of working with the issue of ‘ True phonetic scripting of articulation’, the ground reality solution and situation stands: ‘ Microsoft and Unicode’ have miles to go before they can meet the basic needs of ‘ pada- akshara standards of Samskruth linguist’ !
3. True great work has been done by Technologists. All appreciation ; but it is not sufficient. Both Microsoft and Unicode understand what this statement means for ‘ Non-Roman Script languages’, especially Sanskrit/ Samskrutham.
4. The challenging issues is NOT satisfaction of seeing ones preferred script based display of character sequences /glyphs / diacritic symbols on the screen ! The ease of reading devanagari scrpt or IPA diacritic decorated roman alphabets or Kyoto Harvard convention - it is a readers specific convenience. The real challenge is the’ Transformation of phonemes to Graphemes’ – the visual to voice and vice versa, as a transformation simulating Mind –Cognition-Consciousness processes.
Philosophers analyze this human experience in a different frame. Scientists –Technologists –Linguists analyze this experience in a different perspective.
5. Here the need is to address ‘ Common Convention of writing Samskruth terms’ in World languages ? And achieve < Accurate Meaning Transmission – meaningful term Transcription>.
This is true ‘ Naama –Roopa Prakriyaa’ :: Designing The True Form of Expression (Naama) connected to a Cognition (Roopa) and Processes ( Prakriyaa)’ . This becomes unique, nay ‘ freezed / or ‘ defying time –social usage and becoming eternal/ immortal’. This is a much deeper problem in AI area than simple data entry word processing to print a page or write a blog post.
6. The right expression to be used in this context is not a’ font processing to make a voice visual on screen based on pixel rendering and recognize it as a language related character or a glyph combination. The right referential frame and term is ‘ Akshara’- which means the unique immutable visual representation of the spoken articulated word (Pada). Unicode uses the term ‘ AKSHARA’ for CHARACTER UNITS/ ALPHABETS / GLYPS’ as the case stands.
When Samskruth traditionalists have to close reading of any sacred text ’ like Ramayana, they submit: Yat- akshara-pada-bhrashtam, maatraa heenam ca yad bhavet’. Here one recognizes in how many ways the word distortion is taking place in voice and impacts meaning communication, and at what layers and levels. The testing ground for True Total accuracy of transmission (Entropy less) is ‘ Right formation of ‘Aksharas’ yielding the accurate ‘pada’ to convey the desired meaning.
7. The current technology of word processors and ‘ Visual Character rendering display Standards are still miles away from the ‘ akshara –pada’ model needed for Samskrutham.
8. My proposal : At the core level, to start with is ‘ Samskrutham -‘Alpha-numeric’ approach. The current model is based on Roman alphabet system and Hindu Arabic numerals. This is to be modified to Samskrutham Varna-Akshara Samketa paddahti. This which will help the machines to see the ‘Human language better and provide a proper language display’ . This is actually a drive to position the Linguists primacy over the design of technology that suits the languages.
This way, the attempt is NOT on < write Sanskrit in Roman script > BUT < write Sanskrit in SANSKRIT Appropriate way> for which Roman script base and basics with IPA/ UNICODE are not sufficient.>
This is to deliver the user convenience : < Accessing Indian languages in language Natural script and as simple as possible without losing the key sounds>. This , needs a combined effort of Linguists, Traditional Scholars and Technologists.>>
Regards
BVK Sastry
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5a315100.06ca620a.b1a11.b2d9%40mx.google.com.
Pandita Indrani Rampersad पंडिता इंद्राणी रामपरसाद
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Joe, Kashyap, and Vinod ji,
[1] Vinod: Another related issue is if a physical structure is not defined and describable by its physical functions, is there any other way to define/describe the structure?
McCard: Agreed, Ram has not been explicit, but, I think it fair to say he would agree to the following: Joe wrote: Physical structure can be defined as a pattern of physical energy.
Vimal: In the eDAM, one of the important postulates is that the information is the same in both aspects, so they are inseparable. In other words, whatever is going on physical aspect is also going on in the mental aspect of a state of the information in an entity. Ontology of the aspects is the ontology of information. If viewed from 3pp, the 3pp-physical aspect is physical structure and physical function. If viewed from 1pp, the 1pp-mental aspect is mental structure and mental function. So, what is wrong if we say 1pp-mental function = 3pp-physical function if the information is the same and it is just viewing the same information from two different perspectives 1pp or 3pp.
[2] Vasavada: Let me jump little bit in your debate with Ram! A man and a woman feel attraction to each other by looking (reflections of light from each other and their eyes processing and somehow converting into mental aspect.) Similarly about sound waves of speech. Now an electron and a proton feel attraction by exchanging photons. This is quantum mechanics. If there is a very primitive amount of consciousness related to QM, then this process could be similar. We do not know whether consciousness has anything to do with QM or not. But we cannot rule out this out rightly! So there could be a little bit of mental aspect (most likely hidden to us) in the fundamental particles.
Vimal: I agree with Kashyap. You may like to look at dual-aspect panpsychism, which hypothesizes that inert entities also have some rudiment functional sub-aspect of consciousness (see also 2009f); (Vimal, 2010d)). Let us not degrade inert entities because they are also manifestations of dual-aspect unmanifested Brahman (primal entity). Vinodji argues that Brahman is a privileged entity; I argue for democracy; his argument is related to master-slave relationship, which is old now and obsolete; my argument is related to equality, i.e., “All (entities) in One (Brahman) and One is All”.
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
Vinod wrote: . A macro level object like a car has motion as its function while production of sound and display of picture by TV are its functions...A Quantum particle like an electron has vibrations, spin, mass and charge as its functions. These functions are being produced from the physical structure, hence these functions are also physical....A Quantum particle like an electron has vibrations, spin, mass and charge as its functions. These functions are being produced from the physical structure, hence these functions are also physical.Ram wrote: .functions are related to the objective third-person perspective. [subjective experience is related to the 1pp.]... “function” as being understood either causally or teleologically... In my view, the term “function” could refer to either causal functions or teleological functions, depending on the context.
Vinod wrote: we observe in the conscious living beings that they display mental aspect of emotions, perceptual and cognitive function of various types,memory,judgement, attention etc
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
1. I agree on the < So, can we have short term plan and a long term plan? > model.
2. The qualifying ‘ perhaps’ – in the statement < perhaps the Indian Govt should be doing this > explains it all. Governments carry out their own priorities !
3. <Technology which will make <Peoples language > is also the aim of < Technology which is designed using Samskruth> . If one can design a technology –pedagogy system for Samskruth, which is more structured and rule regulated, it can also be made to work apropos for < Hindi, Avadhi, Odia….. > and also for <Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek…..> .
The tree ( = Language and Technology pedagogy solutions for society) comes from the seed in the fruit (= Languages adapted for conscious communication); and not from the bottled juice ( solutions designed for and based on specific languages and extended indiscriminately to other languages. This is the larger picture and impact of ‘ Romanization’. IF this issue is addressed properly, the original observation made by you - < < accessing Indian languages in roman script and as simple as possible without losing the key sounds> > can be achieved. Once this bridge is built, rest of the work is for the Linguists and scholars to use it and help people improve their lives.
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks. Here are the replies of your queries:
1. Subtlest vs. Transcendent in Level 3
Sehgal: The concept of subtlety is relevant where the ontological entity is size dependent. Whether designated as level 3 or 4, there is a level, beyond all subtle/subtler/subtlest levels, which is truly holistic, infinite, indivisible, continuous -- the realm of pure consciousness called Cosmic consciousness/Purusha/Brahman. Yes, this level is beyond all space/time. Whether to include this level in our universe or not depends on one's interpretation of the universe.
Vimal: As per Wikipedia (as of 13 Dec. 2017 with minor modification), “The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.[13][14] While the size of the entire Universe is still unknown,[6] it is possible to measure the observable universe. Halpern and Tomasello calculated the observable universe using data from European Space Agency's Planck satellite, estimating it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller than previously thought.[15] […] The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[22][23][24] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical lawsthat relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic.[25][26][27]”
The eDAM’s definition of universe is the same as science defines plus subtle and subtlest UF levels. The UF is within our universe, there is nothing beyond it.
2. Sāṅkhya vs. eDAM: which one correct?
Sehgal: Most of the problems of Sāṅkhya stem from not understanding the difference between the Mind and Consciousness and treating these two realities as synonymous. Secondly, current science has no awareness of the ontological reality of the Mind -- Manas, Buddhi, Indriyās, Tanmātras, Chitta, Ahaṃkāra etc (the entities comprising what we call the Astral Realm/world) & some mental energy permeating this realm. Therefore, any attempt to understand any mind and mind-consciousness interface thru the ontological reality of the physical world as known to Science - fermions, bosons, physical fields is bound to lead to a number of problems/issues.
So far, none of the Yogis/sages of any spiritual tradition/metaphysical framework has found any evidence, thru their experiences in the state of Samādhi, for the existence of any mental aspects with the discrete physical matter/energy particles.
The critical test deals with the issue of inseparability/separability at the functioning brain level and not outside the brain in inert entities. In the functioning brain also, it establishes a correlation between the physical and mental aspects and needless to say any correlation is quite different than the real inseparability.
Vimal: Perhaps, you clarify which problems are because of misunderstanding and try to get consensus esp. from opponents. Yes, the proposed critical testing establishes 1-1 correlation, which is close to inseparability; the goal was to reject inseparability by showing separability and hence reject eDAM. If you make an effort to improve the test then it is will be useful for both Sāṅkhya and the eDAM; just saying is not very useful.
3. Level 2: Subtle nonlocal field
Vimal: … In addition, in the eDAM, ‘Consciousness’ is the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) that is the 1pp-mental aspect of the unmanifested state of the information in the Unified field (UF) and its inseparable physical aspect is Physical Unified Field (PUF).
Sehgal: In the eDAM, consciousness is the UPC & UPC is the 1pp-mental aspect of the unmanifested state of information & unmanifested state of information is in UF. I have learned of the above quotes from Dr. Ram a no of times in his messages. But when I contemplate more deeply on the above quotes, no sense is derived due to following reasons:
(i) How and from where any 1pp mental aspect is created since without the presence of some manifested consciousness, none of the 1pp is feasible? And paradoxically, here consciousness itself is the result of 1pp.
Vimal: The aspects of the unmanifested state of information in the UF are latent, so God (manifested consciousness) is not necessary. It is the manifestation processes such as condensation process and the relevant laws are necessary, which are inherently embedded in UF by definition. It should be noted that the eDAM follows scientific bottom-up approach and UF is proposed in the same sense. Materialists, such as Poznanski, reject idealism based top-down approach on the name of Voodoo-ism. Therefore, to avoid such type critique, the proposal of self-referral and self-awareness attributes of the UF still need further justifications and why they would be mandatory.
Sehgal: (ii) Ontologically, as per the above quote, there are two things -- a UF and information.
(a) What is the ontology (structure/function) of the UF -- physical/mental/dual? So far Science is aware of the physical structure/functions of quantum vacuum and QFs only and that is what eDAM has adopted. If the ontology (structure/functions) of UF are physical, how can it support some dual aspect information? (b) What is the ontology of the information i.e. what is the entity that constitutes the information? (c) What is the source of the information?
Vimal: What is the structure inside the Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya and why and how He can experience (but not Prakṛti) and what is the precise mechanism? Are they not assumptions? In the eDAM, the ontology of UF, UPC, and PUF is the ontology of information in the UPC and PUF of UF. Information is the same in both UPC and PUF. What is information inside UF? I guess, all enormous processes and all possible laws. This information must be the same for both UPC and PUF; it is just looking from which perspective we like to view it; for the 1pp we can assume what we might experience. Since we are not UPC so there is no way to understand what the experiences UPC really might have. However, we can imagine by extrapolating. However, do not forget that UPC is related to the unmanifested state, so both UPC and PUF are latent for us. The source of information is UF, which is the same for both UPC and PUF.
Sehgal: (d) How any dual aspect information come into existence given that the postulated ontology (structure and function) of the universe terminates at the physical vacuum and physical QFs?
Vimal: The initial source of all information is UF. You do not seem to understand the meanings of the “latent”, “information in both aspects” “perspective of viewing” and so on because you raise illogical queries. The definition of universe is given above, which is levels 1-3 (gross, subtle, and subtlest). There is nothing outside of the eDAM’s Universe. Since you and your core are from Sāṅkhya, you see physical and mental aspects separable and you think they have different ontology. No, in the eDAM, the ontology of both aspects is the same as the ontology of related information.
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
Rajendra Bajpai
Sastry ji,
Pranam
I am not opposed to your core proposal, it should be pursued by some group. The only misgiving I have, is that the solution will not be commercially viable. People will mention it but may not use it.
There is a lot of material in Devanagari script in Gita press and Ashrams. There is a need to collate them and transliterate them in one universal font. There is also a need of a search engine ( counterpart of Google) that searches in roman fonts but gives results in both Devanagari and Roman fonts.
We have a strong force of retired professionals who want to do some worthwhile work for bringing our cultural heritage to the forefront. They will be too eager to do it and act as link between eastern and western worldviews. The missing ingredient is the free availability of material.
Rajendra Bajpai
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5a318fda.5412620a.a6c3a.ccdf%40mx.google.com.
Pandita Indrani Rampersad पंडिता इंद्राणी रामपरसाद
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:36 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
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: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; Kashyap V. Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Shiv Lakhan Pandey <shivl...@gmail.com>; Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>; Syamala Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:27 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Asingh2384
----------------------------
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.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji.
Again we are going into this endless loop of which came first consciousness or matter! I admit science does not understand consciousness. But you have to accept that it has made tremendous progress in understanding matter. So proponents of universal consciousness have to give a model of how matter , as we know it, came from consciousness. Experiments on matter can be routinely done. You have to come up with a link between consciousness and matter. Unfortunately you cannot keep on using what someone wrote in some books. As of today, for an average person, tanmatras etc. are just words. On the other hand electrons, protons etc. are not just words. Doubting people can actually do experiments and verify or shoot down the models. So we are back to the old hang-ups. According to you only Yogis in Samadhi can verify this. Unless experiments can be done with Yogis in Samadhi , this will never be resolved in thousand years!! Let us see what comes out of experiments suggested by Ram. Then debate correlation or inseparability.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 6:27 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; Stanley
A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Dear Kashyapji,
Some ubiquitous infinite cosmic consciousness, ubiquitous infinite Mind ( in Astral realm of nature)
is present everywhere in the universe including quantum particles and living conscious organisms.
But this consciousness is not identified with inert quantum particles the way it is identified with
the living conscious organisms. As such quantum particles can't be treated as the conscious entities
. Reasons for this being that consciousness across the infinite ocean of consciousness
does not and can not manifest directly on the matter. It manifests on matter thru the mediation by
the Astral mind and physical brain. Inert quantum particles lack both the Astral mind and physical
brain, therefore, consciousness does not manifest on these particles. But a question may arise in
your mind that in the ist sentence above, I have indicated of a ubiquitous infinite Astral Mind. But this
infinite Astral Mind is not identified with inert particles, therefore, it does not do any mediation
for the purpose of manifestation of the consciousness. In living human beings and other conscious
living organisms, the Astral Mind appears in localized format in the Astral body and when this Astral
body gets identified with the physical body/brain, mediation process become feasible by the mind
and body and which result in the manifestation of the consciousness, from and across the
infinite ocean of cosmic consciousness in the physical body/brain.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
You are separating the two: consciousness and Moola Prakriti. But ultimately there should be only one fundamental primordial entity. You may call it Brahman as in Vedanta or by any other name. But must be ONE only! Don’t you think so? It could separate into two later. But then the question comes back. Which one came first or are the two, two sides of the same coin as Ram is trying to prove?
Vinod- “Of course, science has made tremendous progress in understanding matter but its search is limited up to quantum particles up to size scale of 10*-20 with an implicit assumption that ends at this scale”.
No! Nobody says it ends there. That is just the current limit of experimentation. I should remind you (sorry to be blunt) the very fact about Plank scale came from modern physics and not from any ancient scriptures. In fact this idea of 10^(-51) m , although quite possible, has no experimental or theoretical basis. I do not think much about GS’ calculation, to be frank.
Please do not misunderstand my questioning as implying that these investigations about Vedic and Sankhya are useless. Certainly not. I am very much interested in these and look forward to the discussions.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:22 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>;
BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Dear kashyapji,
Why do you think that matter should come from the consciousness or consciousness should come from matter? Matter comes from its primordial physicality in form of Moola Prakriti which exist in its fundamental format by virtue of its existence. Similarly, consciousness
in biological organisms comes from the cosmic consciousness which also exist in its fundamental state by virtue of its existence.
Of course, science has made tremendous progress in understanding matter but its search is limited up to quantum particles up to size scale of 10*-20 with an implicit assumption that ends at this scale. But nature goes much deeper than this probably up to
scales of 10*-51. It is this part of nature below 10*-20,which is visible in the state of Samadhi as some phenomenal reality called the Astral realm.
Regards
Vinod Sehgal
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Avatar,
I like your first sentence very much.
“Spontaneous (self-induced) motion in the universe is an objective physical evidence of universal consciousness. A dead or unconscious universe would have no motion or change (time).”
But I have doubts about your last sentence.
“A conscious ignorance and denial of this reality would keep the mainstream science incomplete and impotent in predicting 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and would only encourage supernatural dogma of religion.”. I am not sure if understanding of consciousness will solve the dark energy and dark matter problem.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
Paul Werbos
Dear Vinodji.
Again we are going into this endless loop of which came first consciousness or matter!
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
1. I agree on : < There are online Sanskrit translation dictionaries but I suspect that they are "suspect".> It also extends to off line dictionaries with their origin in colonial missionary scholars, who modeled ‘Samskrutham’ studies in to the model of ‘ Greek and Latin Classical Languages’. I am not telling that this work is ‘suspect’. In fact, the work of colonial missionaries have contributed a great deal to save the ‘heritage documents’. But the second part of ‘ interpretation and translation is what is ‘ suspect’.
2. I agree< technology part will be worked out by experts > . And so should it be. What we have now is ‘Techno-Linguist deciding and guiding Language usage’. What we want is a ‘Technology that is guided by Language Expert and meeting the needs of the user’. The ‘ Language-Technology-Tool’ will be created through this collaborative process.
3. On <" design a technology –pedagogy system for Samskruth, which is more structured and rule regulated" that we can use to create a seed to work with a specific stuti, for example? > The answer is Yes. The design for Technology needs to begin with the Language Expert. It is like the soccer game plan is designed by the Coach; but on the field, coach trained players play ( and not the coach!).
4. On < In the meantime, how am I going to communicate a sanskrit prayer to others? > : Hold on to the tradition and its structure. Some time the secrets will unravel.
5. On < What ahout the translation? > : There is no need for a literal translation. Veda, Ramayana or Stuti is NOT a story or history, not a novel or manual. It is ‘ Darshana = Vision’ . Become one with the Sounds and Sounds, properly used will grow the ‘ Meaning in the Practitioner and leads to the Vision’. This is ‘Name is the seed of the Form; Form ends as a Name. The Naama –Roopa Prakriyaa of Samskrutham, as Shabda Brahma’.
Regards
BVK Sastry
Asingh2384
----------------------------
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.
Pandita Indrani Rampersad पंडिता इंद्राणी रामपरसाद
Pandita Indrani Rampersad पंडिता इंद्राणी रामपरसाद
Asingh2384
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Fri, Dec 15, 2017 4:06 am
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Consciousness has two aspects viz causing motion and awareness of self and environment. The inert external universe exhibit only the motion aspect while living organisms exhibit both the aspects. Without an awareness, we can't say that there is the manifestation of the consciousness in its totality.
Vinod Sehgal
On Friday, December 15, 2017, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Dear Kashyap:
> Consciousness induced self-motion can be physically modeled using specific relativity wherein mass spontaneously converts to kinetic energy causing motion of the remaining mass. Such a mathematical formulation leads to a mathematical description of the cosmological constant representing the dark energy causing the observed accelerated expansion of the universe vindicated by the empirical data.
> Hence, a proper physical definition of consciousness resolves the dark energy problem.
> Best Regards
> Avtar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
> To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, Dec 14, 2017 3:11 pm
>
> I like your first sentence very much.
> “Spontaneous (self-induced) motion in the universe is an objective physical evidence of universal consciousness. A dead or unconscious universe would have no motion or change (time).”
> But I have doubts about your last sentence.
> “A conscious ignorance and denial of this reality would keep the mainstream science incomplete and impotent in predicting 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and would only encourage supernatural dogma of religion.”. I am not sure if understanding of consciousness will solve the dark energy and dark matter problem.
> Best Regards.
> Kashyap
>
>
>
> From: 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:40 AM
> To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; vinodse...@gmail.com
>
>
> Spontaneous (self-induced) motion in the universe is an objective physical evidence of universal consciousness. A dead or unconscious universe would have no motion or change (time).
>
> The biological consciousness definition requiring a biological being to have consciousness is a very very limited definition of consciousness. Physics of consciousness is governed by the physical laws at cosmic scale. Particles are only a complimentary form of waves or spontaneous motion, hence also a physical evidence of consciousness at cosmic scale. However, the restricted biological definition has misled the mainstream to believe that the universe is a dead place inhabited by dead particles and energy. This has led the religionists to claim the existence of a supernatural God to govern the birth, evolution, and death of the universe. The two extremist views of the mainstream science (a dead universe) and religion (a supernatural agent) are both incomplete and misleading.
>
> If the physics could only realize the spontaneity of the physical motion (change) in the universe as a consciousness phenomenon, it could be shown to resolve key paradoxes of physics and cosmology vindicating the empirical observations of the universe and revealing the physics behind the observed weirdness of QM. Cosmic Consciousness (spontaneity) is a physical phenomenon or property of the universe that also powers the biological consciousness and processes. The mystery of consciousness and QM could only be resolved via the revelation that the physical theories have to account for the observed spontaneity (free will) in nature as evidenced by the spontaneous decay of particles and wave-particle complimentarity. A conscious ignorance and denial of this reality would keep the mainstream science incomplete and impotent in predicting 96% (dark energy and dark matter) of the universe and would only encourage supernatural dogma of religion.
>
> Best Regards
> Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
> Alumni, MIT
> Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
> To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, Dec 13, 2017 1:36 pm
> Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
> Dear Vinodji,
> Let me jump little bit in your debate with Ram!
> A man and a woman feel attraction to each other by looking (reflections of light from each other and their eyes processing and somehow converting into mental aspect.) Similarly about sound waves of speech. Now an electron and a proton feel attraction by exchanging photons. This is quantum mechanics. If there is a very primitive amount of consciousness related to QM, then this process could be similar. We do not know whether consciousness has anything to do with QM or not. But we cannot rule out this out rightly! So there could be a little bit of mental aspect (most likely hidden to us) in the fundamental particles.
> Best Regards.
> kashyap
>
> From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
>
> ----------------------------
> 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.
> 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_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.
Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)
Namaste
On < we need to crystallise this into a statement >
1. These are key mother seed statements that express the essence of the note posted. I am not going to expand on the philosophical dimensions of these ‘ traditional’ statements that have been there for at least a thousand years as free floating knowledge accessible for all. There is no need for me to rearticulate the same again. All that I can do is to explain and guide for some practices . The essence of all these statements go way back to the Christian era . So there seems to be no need to recap and try to match John ( ) :
a) ब्रह्मवित् ब्रह्मैव भवति - brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati = The Knower becomes the Known.
b) पुरुषस्य वाक् रसः - puruṣasya vāk rasaḥ = The essence of (Supreme ) Being is the ‘Vak’ ( = The Word).
c) यो वेदादौ स्वरः प्रोक्तो , वेदान्ते च प्रतिष्ठितः । तस्य प्रकृति लीनस्य यः परः स महेश्वरः । - yō vēdādau svaraḥ prōktō , vēdāntē ca pratiṣṭhitaḥ | tasya prakr̥ti līnasya yaḥ paraḥ sa mahēśvaraḥ | - What exists in the commencement of Knoweldge is identified as ‘svara’ ( not the voice accent; but the act of transforamtion of sound to light), what is recognized as the final anchor of Knowledge is permeated and present as all pervasive in the Cosmos. The Supreme Divine Maheswara ( whose Body is Veda) stands transcending all this ‘ prakruti’.
d) वेदवेद्ये परे पुंसि जाते दशाथात्मजे । वेदः प्राचेतसादासीत् साक्षात् रामायणात्मना॥ ; भारतः पञ्चमो वेदः - vēdavēdyē parē puṁsi jātē daśāthātmajē | vēdaḥ prācētasādāsīt sākṣāt rāmāyaṇātmanā|| bhārataḥ pañcamō vēdaḥ -- When the Supreme Divine manifested in the finiteness of this creation and in this earth in a specific period of time cycle, as ‘ son of King Dasharatha, the ‘ Word- Body of the Supreme Being ( =Vedas) also manifested and got rearticulated as ‘ Ramayana’ through the medium of the sage Valmiki. Mahabharata is the essence of all Vedas, and so it is given the status of ‘ Fifth Veda’.
e) शब्द-ब्रह्मणि निष्णातः परं ब्रह्माधिगच्छति śabda-brahmaṇi niṣṇātaḥ paraṁ brahmādhigacchati – One who excels in the ‘practice of yoga guiding to experience the Supreme Divine Consciousness in the Sounds, will know, experience and become That.
f) पश्य मे पार्थ रूपाणि शतशोऽथ सहस्रशः । नानाविधानि दिव्यानि नानावर्णाकृतीनि च । - paśya mē pārtha rūpāṇi śataśō:'tha sahasraśaḥ | nānāvidhāni divyāni nānāvarṇākr̥tīni ca | - Gita : 11-5: Arjuna, look at my manifest manifold divine forms, countless, in the universe as ‘ Letters (Varna), Colors ( Varna) and structures made of sounds and colors (Varnaakruti)’.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
I am surprised that , according to you, Sankhya says that there are two independent primordial entities. Even a five year old will ask you ,from where these two came. All the religions believe in one primordial entity called God. Vedanta calls it Brahman. So what you are saying is similar to Descartes’ philosophy that mind and matter are different and have different origins! It is possible that I have misunderstood you. You have to relate the two somehow.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:20 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>;
Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Dear Kashyapji,
What is the epistemological problem in having two fundamental entities at the primordial level with each being different in its composition and nature? Cosmic Consciousness (CC)- Purusha being a single infinite indivisible, having the innate consciousness/awareness of its own -- an ocean of pure consciousness. Moola Prakriti being composed of inert, non-conscious particles indivisible particles and as existing and operating in CC. None is derivable from another one. This is not my view but the view of Sankhya philosophy which has prevailed since past more than 6000 years. A number of Yogis has become witness to this view thru their experiences in the state of Samaadhis.
There is a strong mathematical base behind G Srinivasan's claim of Moola Prakriti to exist at the primordial stage in the scale of 10^-51. Need is there to seriously pursue and understand the work of G Srinivasan. Since current Physics is unable to search any nature beyond 10^-20, so for all practical purposes, this is the limit of nature for it.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
Barry Urie
The endless loop you speak of as in this tweet:
I think the reason it is an unresolvable endless loop is because it is being addressed from a hierarchy/order/sequence frame of reference. Consider a frame of reference that nature and consciousness manifested simultaneously and are paired properties entangled in Light. Consciousness is the observer and nature is the observed with mind between them to associate, interpret, control and direct energy.
--
----------------------------
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/8272984a829f4d14b5695f5d796a519a%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
In that case Sankhya differs from every religion , including Vedanta, since all of them believe in one primordial quantity. This is not particularly epistemology. It is belief system.
By the way, ideal for quantum physicists is also one primordial quantum field. At this moment it is not clear. But we are slowly making progress towards it. Main problem is that, by self-imposed requirement, physicists have to be quantitative (mathematical) and no one will just buy words only!!
My personal guess is that primordial entity (Brahman) had both consciousness and matter aspect. For some reason matter materialized first. Universal consciousness was perhaps present all the time as hidden aspect. Then particles, atoms, molecules etc. were formed. Living systems came up later as assemblies of atoms and evolved finally into human beings. Consciousness became more and more explicit as evolution took place.
As I said before, science knows a lot about matter. We have to go a long way to understand consciousness.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 12:59 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>;
BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Dear Kashyapji,
Thanks.
No, You have not misunderstood me and that is what Saankhya philosophy states and there is the epistemological requirement for this also.
Purusha - Primordial Cosmic Consciousness(CC), an infinite, indivisible, pure continuous holistic ocean of self-referral, having ever manifest awareness, ocean of consciousness.
Moola Prakriti (MP) -- The substratum of primordial physicality, comprising of discrete inert non-conscious elemental particles -- Moola Prakriti Particles (MPPs), the subtlest particles of nature probably in the size scale of 10^-51. All the Physical, Astral and Causal worlds, ranging from 10^-51 to macro one, being the manifestation of MP
Both Purusha and MP have fundamental existence by virtue of their existence and none is derivable from the other. This is the Saankhya's view. What is the epistemological problem in accepting this view?
However, as per Vedanta, MP at the primordial state emerges from CC/Purusha. and its existence is NOT as fundamental as Purusha/CC. Which view is ultimately correct, I don't know.
In the Ist sentence, I indicated that there is the epistemological requirement for both MP and Purusha/CC. What is that requirement? MP comprises of subtlest inert discrete MPPs any substratum of discrete elements requires some continuous .holistic background medium for the existence and operation of the discrete elements. And this role of the background medium is performed by the CC/Purusha. This problem arises in the vacuum and quantum fluctuations of quantum physicists also
Vinod Sehgal
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Dear Vinodji,
I am surprised that , according to you, Sankhya says that there are two independent primordial entities. Even a five year old will ask you ,from where these two came. All the religions believe in one primordial entity called God. Vedanta calls it Brahman. So what you are saying is similar to Descartes’ philosophy that mind and matter are different and have different origins! It is possible that I have misunderstood you. You have to relate the two somehow.
Pandita Indrani Rampersad पंडिता इंद्राणी रामपरसाद
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 post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Serge Patlavskiy
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 4:20 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Yes. I agree, radius of an electron is not worth discussing here. No one thinks that electron is a billiard ball with a definite radius. Order of magnitude arrived at by phenomenological interpretation of experiments is more than enough. As a matter of fact many physicists believe that it follows from Bell type experiments that particles are not real (!) in that they do not have any properties before they are measured! But most physicists believe that as far as we can tell, electron is a point particle less than about 10^(-18)- 10 ^ (-20) m and proton is an extended object composite of quarks and of the size around 10^ (-15) m or little bit less than that. LHC energy would correspond to about 10 ^(-21)m as a probing distance. All talks of Planck and sub Planck size objects are strictly theoretical guesses!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:paul....@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 9:38 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>;
BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Hi, Ram!
My comment on the radius of the electron was that (1) it is currently debatable whether it is or is not <0.1 femtometer; and (2) it is not really a sensible topic for discussion on this particular list.
It really is an important issue, in my view, but involves prerequisites.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
As per Wikipedia on electron (as of 16 Dec. 2017 with minor modification), “The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity.
I should note however that wikipedia is usually not so far from reality. Einstein certainly did not hold a finite radius to be contrary to his premises, and I hope we can agree he did understand special relativity. Einstein was very excited at first by the hope the the DeBroglie/Schrodinger view of the electron as a vortex of energy, a pattern of waves extending over more than a femtometer, would actuallhy vindicate his views. The successful calculation of the spectrum of helium based on a very different view, more Heisenberg's, was a painful shock to him.
Relativity does not include specific models of specific pafrticles as such. The idea of particles as vortices of force, aka "solitions", is certainly consistent with special relativity.
On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity.[77] Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters (Dehmelt, 1988).
But high energy electron-electron scattering gives different results. Even different measurements of the proton yield different results within the usual models, which to me suggests the usual mokdels mivght actually be improved upon...
The upper bound of the electron radius of 10−18 meters ( Gerald Gabrielse webpage at Harvard University) can be derived using the uncertainty relation in energy.
Ah! Hermeneutics!
There is also a physical constant called the "classical electron radius", with the much larger value of 2.8179×10−15 m, greater than the radius of the proton. However, the terminology comes from a simplistic calculation that ignores the effects of quantum mechanics; in reality, the so-called classical electron radius has little to do with the true fundamental structure of the electron (Meschede, 2004).”
Ah, so Meschede could tell Einstein what that true fundamental structure is, and how jt works? Einstein has a quote (you can find on web..)... about all the people who energetically told him exactly what an electron is, how he replied he spent his whole life seriously trying to learn what it really is, and still did not know. (None of us know to the level of specific PDE and solitons; he was not referring to their interpretation accorsing to Talmud.)
Best of luck,
Paul
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 Sunday 17 December 2017, 1:33:43 AM IST, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 7:49 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Reference for 10^-20 stems from the fact that the size of all the detected elementary particles
has been found to be less than 10^-20, as found empirically.
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton):
Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a physical size, though not a definite one; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.84–0.87 fmor0.84×10−15 to0.87×10−15 m. At sufficiently low temperatures, free protons will bind to electrons.
===================================
I would claim that debates here about anything smaller than 1/10 femtometer is incredibly speculative and a waste of time.
(In physics, debates about whether electrons are or are not larger than that can be meaningful, if grounded well enough in the scientific method, which is essentially the same either from a first person or third person perspective, and not a matter of word games. But such debates don't seem to fit well here in any case.)
Asingh2384
From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>
Cc: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Madan Thangavel <madan.th...@gmail.com>; Mohan Srinivasan <Mohan_Sr...@nthdimenzion.com>; Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma <vedic...@gmail.com>; raghu <ragh...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Nilesh Modhwadia <n_mod...@yahoo.com>; HAri <har...@gmail.com>; Leuvy Cacha <leuvy...@gmail.com>; alfredo.pereiras <alfredo....@gmail.com>; cochran <coc...@ucsc.edu>; Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>; Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com>; Syamala Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Shiv Lakhan Pandey <shivl...@gmail.com>; Tulika Pandey <taurian...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, Dec 18, 2017 9:22 am
Subject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Kashyap wrote: Again we are going into this endless loop of which came first consciousness or matter! I admit science does not understand consciousness. But you have to accept that it has made tremendous progress in understanding matter. So proponents of universal consciousness have to give a model of how matter , as we know it, came from consciousness.
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: joseph....@gmail.com; gsva...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:12 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Great Hari pay them back in their own coin which has ONLY ONE SIDE!!!!!!
----- Original Message -----From: hAri RTo: Joseph McCardCc: G Srinivasan ; Asingh2384 ; George Weissmann ; sisir roy ; BVKSastry(Gmail) ; BT APJ ; Stanley A. KLEIN ; Paul Werbos ; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal ; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal ; Robert Boyer ; Vasavada, Kashyap V ; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL ; Madan Thangavel ; Mohan Srinivasan ; Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma ; raghu ; Prateek Budhwar ; Nilesh Modhwadia ; Leuvy Cacha ; alfredo....@gmail.com ; coc...@ucsc.edu ; Online Sadhu Sanga ; Matters Of Mind ; Syamala Hari ; Shiv Lakhan Pandey ; Tulika PandeySent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 9:41 AMSubject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Joe wrote: particles, such as scales to 10* -51 are artificial constructs composed of Consciousness units that have transformed (by the Inner Law of Energy Transformation) into electromagnetic energy units.These so called very small particles are actually the manifestations of the thoughts of their originators, the scientists etc. Thinking actually creates these particles.people here are truly understanding and learning sankhya for an objective reality that benefits society not to debate about """each individual thinking has created the world so don't think world will go out of existence """One can easily understand the intellectual malnutrition here. for the ones living just in aphorisms alone, logic and precision gives tremendous intellectual exercise that disturbs their fantasy wonder world built around the philosophical bundle of burdens.Please have some respect for the knowledge presented on the website free for humanity and help in ways everyone can utilize for the good.
terms like illusion etc were just outcome of mental inability to comprehend reality and sankhya also gives ways and clues to overcome the mental tiredness one reaches in beating around the bush === SIDDHI. For heaven sake please start with that basic construct and rejuvenate the mental stamina and come up with objective questions and not things that gets dragged into philosophical dungeons that once again will take the world into delusions.This seems to be the case with terms like consciousnesses etc outside the real framework that shows dynamism is consciousness and nothing else for anything beyond that has lead one into endless chicken an egg mental agony. If one wishes to go through that then please proceed. for us the framework is realistic, verifiable and reproducible experiences that the world can benefit in a realistic way.Sankhya has taught us If something as a framework is permanently dynamic then how can one define that dynamic entity logically. == only based on time because dynamism of cyclic nature alone can have time aspect intrinsic in its dynamism otherwise non cyclic or static things will lead one to dead state as starting point with the question of who gave the initial nod etc. and leads one into philosophy which is just intellectual failure to see reality as reality. MAYA AND YUGA are numeric features of cyclic actions and in a dynamic cycle every change is cyclic and the subsequent cycle etc adding more and more cycles is to be understood as an upset of the previous cycle leading to newer cycle and so on. we see this in nature everyday and time to time we tune into the natural cycle. so identifying precisely the detectable cycle from the undetected cyclic combinations gives the complete answer to the universal phenomena logically, so defining the base cyclic detectable volume count of change etc.,from the cycle proportion in the plurality of interactions that are dynamic in nature gives the detectable time constant and if such intrinsic cyclic phenomenon is always there then under what condition and what proportion is that so and so primordial change can take place axiomatically then that proportion becomes the dictum in every subsequent manifest states irrespective of the scale of manifestation it extends to. mathematically that can only be denoted as ratios as the infinitesimal interactions intrinsic in the volumetric space all acts together simultaneously so ratios give the flexibility to arrive at the proportion rather than how many components are interacting etc., this gives us the time proportion in simultaneous nature multiplicative nature and the sequential nature as three time varying aspects == THREE GUNA.Sankhya is only for the logical minded and sound intellectuals who objectively debates themselves and arrive at the answers themselves for numerical verification of events from the primordial tiniest change extending to the universal scale which already has been well laid out in the website.Units are human flexibility that can be accounted relatively as we already axiomatically identified the proportion any unit can take in one to two level of change then any unit can become valid as long as the cycle is complete since proportion will be same irrespective of what unit one uses for convenience. website has presented in the units that existing physics have been deriving phenomena so guna principle becomes perfectly valid in the modern times too. Elementality makes it mandatory for one to two to have eight of the original units from which the next extension of change in all directions. whatever the level of elementality we take same holds valid and hence recursively valid in any level top down and gives flexibility to approach manifestation without any external experimental inputs at all.so no human coloring of manifestation leading to problems of normalizations etc as we see in current physics. so sankhya is perfect in defining phenomenon in all levels. all these are on the website and can be logically discussed and learnt.In Ancient times ratios were contemplated mentally leading to logical conclusions for the mind in the siddhi state too logically behaves in simultaneous mode and one identified natural harmony in the three modes of variations in balance and used it effectively for the benefit of the self and all lifeforms too giving answers for ways and means of being harmonic with nature. Sankhya is the greatest gift humanity can have please use it for the good. Please be grateful for the one has taken the pain to decode and laid it out in the format our existing generations can also understand and learn.Sankhya has taught axiomatically plurality of interactions always change cyclically and the dynamic change is the only upset motivating driving force of dynamic nature and this time to time can upset the philosophers too. Sankhya is Vedanta and Advaitha == Not two can mean One and not too can also mean Plurality of components==source of every manifest phenomenon too. One and Many together is Advaitha.The whole discussion here is about a logical analysis of events that occurs in the non-detectable spectrum and validate with numerical precision extending it to the detectable spectrum and freeze the cycle so the validity of manifestation is objectively justified as interactive time bound cycles that recur always and prediction and foreseeing of universal phenomenon etc gets a logical answer. (and not the chicken egg fight of endless agony)Thanks and Regards,Hari
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
All,Thank-you for that Vinod 😀
Dear kashyapji,
Why do you think that matter should come from the consciousness or consciousness should come from matter? Matter comes from its primordial physicality in form of Moola Prakriti which exist in its fundamental format by virtue of its existence. Similarly, consciousness in biological organisms comes from the cosmic consciousness which also exist in its fundamental state by virtue of its existence.
Of course, science has made tremendous progress in understanding matter but its search is limited up to quantum particles up to size scale of 10*-20 with an implicit assumption that ends at this scale. But nature goes much deeper than this probably up to scales of 10*-51. It is this part of nature below 10*-20,which is visible in the state of Samadhi as some phenomenal reality called the Astral realm.
Joe wrote: particles, such as scales to 10* -51 are artificial constructs composed of Consciousness units that have transformed (by the Inner Law of Energy Transformation) into electromagnetic energy units. These so called very small particles are actually the manifestations of the thoughts of their originators, the scientists etc. Thinking actually creates these particles. And so, when you figure this out you will stop building larger and more expensive particle detectors to find what you have created. The awareness of consciousness units, and electromagnetic energy units, what monads Leibniz became aware of, is only done in a different state of consciousness, different from the one you commonly identify with.joe
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
C.10.21. Sehgal-Vimal (12-13 Dec. 2017): 3 Levels: Gross, subtle and subtlest UF
1. Subtlest vs. Transcendent in Level 3
Sehgal: The concept of subtlety is relevant where the ontological entity is size dependent. Whether designated as level 3 or 4, there is a level, beyond all subtle/subtler/subtlest levels, which is truly holistic, infinite, indivisible, continuous -- the realm of pure consciousness called Cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa/Brahman. Yes, this level is beyond all space/time. Whether to include this level in our universe or not depends on one's interpretation of the universe.
Vimal: As per Wikipedia (as of 13 Dec. 2017 with minor modification), “The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents, which includes planets, moons, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy. While the size of the entire Universe is still unknown, it is possible to measure the observable universe. Halpern and Tomasello calculated the observable universe using data from European Space Agency's Planck satellite, estimating it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller than previously thought. […] The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electromagnetic radiation and matter), and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic. […] age of universe (within Lambda-CDM model)=13.799 ± 0.021 ~ 13.8 billion years; diameter=at least 156–554 billion light-years (47.8–170 billion parsecs (or infinite); mass (ordinary matter)=at least 1053 kg; average density=4.5 x 10−31 g/cm3; main contents: ordinary (baryonic) matter (4.9%), dark matter (26.8%), dark energy (68.3%), shape: flat with only a 0.4% margin of error”.
The eDAM’s definition of universe is the same as science defines plus subtle and subtlest UF levels. The UF is within our universe, there is nothing beyond it.
2. Sāṅkhya vs. eDAM: which one correct?
Sehgal: Most of the problems of Sāṅkhya stem from not understanding the difference between the Mind and Consciousness and treating these two realities as synonymous. Secondly, current science has no awareness of the ontological reality of the Mind -- Manas, Buddhi, Indriyās, Tanmātras, Chitta, Ahaṃkāra etc (the entities comprising what we call the Astral Realm/world) & some mental energy permeating this realm. Therefore, any attempt to understand any mind and mind-consciousness interface thru the ontological reality of the physical world as known to Science - fermions, bosons, physical fields is bound to lead to a number of problems/issues.
So far, none of the Yogis/sages of any spiritual tradition/metaphysical framework has found any evidence, thru their experiences in the state of Samādhi, for the existence of any mental aspects with the discrete physical matter/energy particles.
The critical test deals with the issue of inseparability/separability at the functioning brain level and not outside the brain in inert entities. In the functioning brain also, it establishes a correlation between the physical and mental aspects and any correlation is quite different than the real inseparability.
Vimal: Perhaps, you clarify which problems are because of misunderstanding and try to get consensus esp. from opponents. Yes, the proposed critical testing establishes 1-1 correlation, which is close to inseparability; the goal was to reject inseparability by showing separability and hence reject eDAM. If you make an effort to improve the test, then it is will be useful for both Sāṅkhya and the eDAM; just saying is not very useful.
3. Level 2: Subtle nonlocal field
Vimal: In the eDAM, your term ‘Consciousness’ is related to the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) that is the 1pp-mental aspect of the unmanifested state of the information in the Unified field (UF) and its inseparable physical aspect is Physical Unified Field (PUF).
Sehgal: In the eDAM, consciousness is the UPC & UPC is the 1pp-mental aspect of the unmanifested state of information & the unmanifested state of information is in UF. When I contemplate more deeply on the above quotes, no sense is derived due to following reasons:
(i) How and from where any 1pp mental aspect is created since without the presence of some manifested consciousness, none of the 1pp is feasible? And paradoxically, here consciousness itself is the result of 1pp.
Vimal: The aspects of the unmanifested state of information in the UF are latent, so God (manifested consciousness) is not necessary. It is the manifestation processes such as condensation process and the relevant laws are necessary, which are inherently embedded in UF by definition. It should be noted that the eDAM follows scientific bottom-up approach and UF is proposed in the same sense. Materialists, such as Poznanski, reject idealism based top-down approach on the name of Voodoo-ism. Therefore, to avoid such type critique, the proposal of self-referral and self-awareness attributes of the UF still need further justifications and why they would be mandatory.
Sehgal: (ii) Ontologically, as per the above quote, there are two things -- a UF and information.
(a) What is the ontology (structure/function) of the UF -- physical/mental/dual? So far Science is aware of the physical structure/functions of quantum vacuum and QFs only and that is what eDAM has adopted. If the ontology (structure/functions) of UF are physical, how can it support some dual aspect information? (b) What is the ontology of the information i.e. what is the entity that constitutes the information? (c) What is the source of the information?
Vimal: What is the structure inside the Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya and why and how He can experience (but not Prakṛti) and what is the precise mechanism? Are they not assumptions? In the eDAM, the ontology of UF, UPC, and PUF is the ontology of information in the UPC and PUF of UF. Information is the same in both UPC and PUF. What is information inside UF? I guess, all enormous processes and all possible laws. This information must be the same for both UPC and PUF; it is just looking from which perspective we like to view it; for the 1pp we can assume what we might experience. Since we are not UPC so there is no way to understand what the experiences UPC really might have. However, we can imagine by extrapolating. However, do not forget that UPC is related to the unmanifested state, so both UPC and PUF are latent for us. The source of information is UF, which is the same for both UPC and PUF.
Sehgal: (d) How any dual aspect information come into existence given that the postulated ontology (structure and function) of the universe terminates at the physical vacuum and physical QFs?
Vimal: The initial source of all information is UF. You do not seem to understand the meanings of the “latent”, “information in both aspects” “perspective of viewing” and so on because you raise illogical queries. The definition of universe is given above, which is levels 1-3 (gross, subtle, and subtlest). There is nothing outside of the eDAM’s Universe. Since you and your core are from Sāṅkhya, you see physical and mental aspects separable and you think they have different ontology. No, in the eDAM, the ontology of both aspects is the same as the ontology of related information.
C.10.22. Sehgal-Vimal (14 Dec. 2017): Levels 1-3 in the eDAM
I have given my observations against your comments in a quite direct, specific and elaborative manner.
1. Subtlest vs. Transcendent in Level 3 and self-referral
Sehgal
The above Wiki's view of the universe is based on the materialistic/physicalist's knowledge of the ontology of the universe, which is incomplete in the sense that this does not include the realms of nature classified under the Astral, causal Worlds and Cosmic Consciousness. The stated view of the universe is incapable of explaining many issues viz.
(i) What is the source of the consciousness/mental aspects?
(ii) What is the source of the information and laws which propels the creation of the universe?
(iii) What propels and sustains the motion in the universe and what is that which guides/charters this motion?
In view of above, the Wikipedia’s definition of the universe is incomplete.
Vimal
Yes, I agree that Wikipedia’s definition is incomplete; it should include subtle (astral and causal) and subtlest (UPC and PUF in UF) realms. The manifested consciousness (soul and God: Poznanski’s Voodoo-ism) is not necessary because we have UPC and PUF in UF, which is an extension of physics. The queries you have come from the functions of Puruṣa (the experiencer, manifested consciousness) of Sāṅkhya.
(i) The source of self-referral, self-awareness, experiencer (self), SEs, thoughts, and all other mental entities is UPC; each of them is an excitation or a mode of UPC (the mental aspect of an unmanifested state of the information in UF). In the eDAM, the ‘manifested consciousness’ co-evolves at the end (after 13.8 billion years), i.e., at Samādhi state.
(ii) The source of everything is UF: UPC for mental and PUF is for the physical aspect of a manifested state of the information in the UF.
(iii) The processes and laws are inherent in the UF, which propel, sustain, guide and charter the motion in the universe.
As per (Visan, 2017) on the self-referential aspect of consciousness, “Following the phenomenology that is revealed by the emergent structure of consciousness, the path will lead to the acknowledgement of consciousness having a self-referential aspect. By following phenomenological clues, properties of self-reference will be revealed. The two most prominent properties of self-reference will be shown to be inclusion and transcendence that will be shown to be found everywhere in the phenomenology of consciousness. Also, self-reference will turn out to be unformalizable, this imposing limit on what a theory of consciousness can ever achieve. The unformalizability of self-reference would be shown to be because self-reference: is itself, includes itself, and transcends itself, all at the same time. Nevertheless, unformalizability will be shown to be an essential feature needed to bring essences into existence.”
To sum up, the manifested consciousness at the beginning is not necessary in the eDAM.
2. Sāṅkhya vs. eDAM: which one correct?
Sehgal
1. Are 11 problems in Sāṅkhya misunderstanding? For example, consciousness is treated synonymously with the mind or in other words mind is also considered as consciousness. Therefore, any interaction between the brain and mind is treated as the category mistake. However, if the true nature of the "Mind" in the sense that "mind" is also a derivative of the same Moola Prakṛti as whose derivative is the brain, the said category mistake problem will vanish.
2. Inseparability vs. separability: In my view, there is a significant difference between the correlation and inseparability. Inseparability means both aspects are being originated from a common entity while correlation means both aspects have some relation of correspondence at the time of manifestation but having their origin in different entities. There is a significant difference between the two. In view of this, your claim that correlation is close to inseparability is not logically correct. Yes, correlation could be taken as inseparability if the critical test could also prove that both aspects are being originated from one common entity/source or alternatively NOT having their origin from different entities/sources. But the critical test is incapable of dealing with this aspect. So in my view just on observing a correlation (a relation of correspondence) between the physical and mental aspects thru the critical test, any conclusion that both the aspects are inseparable is risky.
Vimal
(1) Since Puruṣa (the experiencer) does not interact with Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya, there is no category mistake in it. However, it creates an explanatory gap problem that how can Puruṣa experience whatever is going on in (perhaps Chitta of causal body of) Prakṛti? Is there any evidence or example in our universe that can experience without interacting with signals from Prakṛti? I queried but no answer from you? Furthermore, the 11 other problems still exist in it, which you need address them because they may not be misunderstanding.
(2) I elaborated you before in detail that the information common to both aspects come from the same source, such as external (or internal) stimulus. Therefore, it is indeed the inseparability, not the correlation as you have in mind. Of course, the inseparability can show significant positive correlation; so, some investigators erroneously use the term NCC (neural correlates of consciousness). In other words, we should use neural or physical basis instead of NCC as 3pp-physical aspect.
3. Level 2: Subtle nonlocal field
Sehgal
You stated above that both physical and mental aspects of the unmanifested state of the information in the UF are latent. Here, I am not speaking of the aspects being latent or manifest. My query has been how a mental aspect can appear in the information to make it the dual aspect since the postulated ontology of structure and functions (quantum vacuum with QFs) in the eDAM is purely physical? How can a pure physical ontology support any dual aspect information?
The second query has been: You say that some UPC exists when the dual aspect information is viewed from 1pp. But how any 1pp is possible when there is no prior presence of any manifested consciousness? So, to sum up, the critical foundational issues of the eDAM are:
(i) When the postulated ontology (stricture and functions) of quantum vacuum and QFs are pure physical, how can they support and support some dual aspect information?
(ii) How any 1pp view of dual aspect information is feasible when there is no manifested consciousness.
(iii) When the postulated ontology of vacuum and fluctuations is physical how and from where any dual aspect UF is possible. Any argument that vacuum and QFs itself have some dual aspect is short of logic and will amount to paraphrasing the issue since the key issue will continue' to persist: From where and how any mental aspect appears in vacuum and QFs.
The third query is that any concept that Laws exist in any UF on their own itself is voodoo-ism particularly when we observe in our mundane life that none of the law can exist/appear in any physical system of technology/IT/AI on its own without some interface with some manifested consciousness.
Vimal
The Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of the information in the Unified Filed (UF). The Physical United Field (PUF, such as quantum vacuum with QFs) is the physical aspect of the unmanifested state of the information in the UF. The ontology of mental and physical aspects is related to or derived from the ontology of the common information in the UPC and PUF. It is crystal clear if you do not look at from the point of view of materialism, Sāṅkhya or Vedānta. Here, your first query is based on materialism.
With reference to your second query, when aspects are latent, unmanifested, unexpressed, or hidden, you do not need manifested consciousness to look at from His 1pp or others from His 3pp because He cannot look at the hidden entities. You simply need to extrapolate from the aspects of a conscious state that has robust and reproducible 1pp-mental and 3pp-physical aspects. When you view from 1pp with the common information is mental aspect. This is how mental aspect is introduced in information.
With reference to your third query, all information related to all natural-laws, mechanisms, methods, and so on are embedded in the UPC and PUF of UF, in analogy to all information related the formation of a baby is latent in DNA; for this, the manifested consciousness (such as God/Purusha) is not needed.
4. Level 3: Subtlest nonlocal unified field
1. Vimal
What is the structure inside the Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya and why and how he can experience (but not Prakṛti) and what is the precise mechanism? Are they not assumptions?
Sehgal
Puruṣa itself is an infinite, indivisible, holistic single PRIMAL structure of consciousness. This is incomprehensible in the sense that it can't be "known" in any objective sense. It is self-referral with ever manifest awareness being its fundamental nature/attribute. He can experience since ever manifested awareness is its fundamental nature/attribute. Prakṛti can’t experience since it has no inherent consciousness or awareness. They are not assumptions since they are reproducibly experienceable in the state of Samādhi.
2. Vimal
In the eDAM, the ontology of UF, UPC, and PUF is the ontology of information in the UPC and PUF of UF. Information is the same in both UPC and PUF.
Sehgal
Above is OK and understood but how and from where any mental aspect will appear in the information to make it dual aspect and how a physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs will support and sustain any dual aspect information?
Vimal
The eDAM postulates that a state of information itself is a dual-aspect entity, which means, by definition, the mental aspect of a state of the information in an entity is already present. The ontology of both aspects is supported by the ontology of information, which is independent of the ontology of physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs.
3. Vimal
What is information inside UF? The eDAM postulates that all enormous processes, mechanisms of the creation, maintenance, and destruction of universe, and all possible natural laws. This information must be the same for both UPC and PUF; it is just looking from which perspective we like to view it; for the 1pp we can assume what we might experience. Since we are not UPC so there is no way to understand what the experiences of the UPC really might have. However, we can imagine by extrapolating from a conscious state. However, do not forget that UPC is related to the unmanifested state, so both UPC and PUF are latent for us. The ultimate source of information is UF, which is the same for both UPC (mental aspect) and PUF (physical aspect).
Sehgal
As indicated in the aforesaid that any concept of the Laws, which now you are equating with information, existing on their own is mystery. This is because neither it is supported by our observations in our mundane life in the areas of technology/IT/AI nor it conforms to the observed general view/definition of Law being one as a set of conscious commands. The existence/emergence of UPC itself is not accounted since either the appearance of any mental aspect in the information to make it of dual aspect can be explained nor 1pp can be explained in the absence of any manifested consciousness. Since the existence of any UPC or the presence of any mental aspects are unaccountable within the given postulates of eDAM, therefore, the whole issue of UPC experiencing anything, whether latent or otherwise, is irrelevant.
Vimal
It does not matter, laws have information, without it laws will not operate. Humans and their artifacts also have information. Your sentences are illogical for the eDAM; you are forcing by hand the “manifested Consciousness or God” in all your writings directly or indirectly and your arguments are tuned to Sāṅkhya and Vedānta that have serious problems. Thus, they are not constructive. The UF with UPC as mental aspect and PUF as physical aspect is fundamental and brute fact and it will be illogical from where they come. It is the same query where from God came. My point is that information in entities is common currency in all entities and its states are dual-aspect entities; both aspects are inseparable and the degree of manifestations of mental and physical aspects from UPC and PUF, respectively, of unmanifested state of information in UF varies with entities. This is a working hypothesis which can be tested and can be rejected on negative results as elaborated in Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015g) for testing the doctrine of inseparability.
4. Sehgal
How any dual aspect information come into existence given that the postulated ontology (structure and function) of the universe terminates at the physical vacuum and physical QFs?
Vimal
The initial source of all information is UF. You do not seem to understand the meanings of the “latent”, “information in both aspects”, “perspective of viewing” and so on because you raise illogical queries. The definition of universe is given above, which is levels 1-3 (gross, subtle, and subtlest). There is nothing outside of the eDAM’s Universe. Since you and your core are from Sāṅkhya, you see physical and mental aspects separable and you think they have different ontology. No, in the eDAM, the ontology of both aspects is the same as the ontology of related information.
Sehgal
You are saying that information is sourced out from UF. It means dual aspect information can be sourced out from UF only if UF itself is a dual aspect. How a dual aspect UF is possible when the entire ontology of the universe is exhausted in physical vacuum and is physical? Within the given physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs, "perspective of viewing from both sides", "dual aspect information", "dual aspect UF" are not possible. If possible, please explain in a specific manner how it is possible You are working on the premise that when brain particles/neurons exhibit some physical functions of charge, motion, vibrations, to be collectively represented as NCCs, some mental functions exist along with the physical functions which are when viewed from 1pp result in the manifestation of some SEs. But this premise/approach has some inherent/fundamental limitations viz.
(i) It does not explain as to from where and how any mental functions can appear along with the physical functions. Any argument that these mental functions appear from some PEs and PEs from UF or dual aspect information amounts to paraphrasing or taking backward the issue since then the issue will persist as to from where the mental aspect appears in the information/UF?
(ii) No 1pp is possible unless some manifested consciousness has some prior existence.
(iii) If any aspect whether the physical or mental has any existence the same should either be in the ontological structural or functional format. Since eDAM does not postulate any mental structure, therefore, manifestation of any mental aspects as functions is logically untenable.
Vimal
In the eDAM, it is incorrect to use materialistic claim that “the entire ontology of the universe is exhausted in physical vacuum and is physical”. This is because, in the eDAM, all entities starting from UF to whole manifested universe have information; a state of information is dual-aspect. The ontology of both aspects is based on the ontology of related information. In the eDAM, there is no physical ontology as in materialism.
(i) It is a hypothesis that the unmanifested state of information in the UF is dual-aspect with UPC as mental and PUF as physical aspects. This hypothesis of dual-aspect UF being the deepest level (Level 3 in the chart) in the eDAM is like Puruṣa and Prakṛti of dualistic Sāṅkhya, God in religions, Brahman in monastic Vedānta, and Śūnyatā in Buddhism. Any query, such as where they come from, ends here because they are assumed to be fundamental; they all are ubiquitous and eternal.
(ii) Manifest consciousness or God is not needed in the eDAM.
(iii) this is irrelevant in the eDAM as argued above.
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
Respected Dr. Ram,
I have given my observations against your comments in a quite
direct, specific and elaborative manner
1. Subtlest vs. Transcendent in Level 3
Sehgal: The concept of subtlety is relevant where the ontological entity is size dependent. Whether designated as level 3 or 4, there is a level, beyond all subtle/subtler/subtlest levels, which is truly holistic, infinite, indivisible, continuous -- the realm of pure consciousness called Cosmic consciousness/Purusha/Brahman. Yes, this level is beyond all space/time. Whether to include this level in our universe or not depends on one's interpretation of the universe.
Vimal: As per Wikipedia (as of 13 Dec. 2017 with minor modification), “The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, stars , galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.[13][14] While the size of the entire Universe is still unknown,[6] it is possible to measure the observable universe. Halpern and Tomasello calculated the observable universe using data from European Space Agency's Planck satellite, estimating it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller than previously thought.[15] […] The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[22][23][24] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electroma gnetic radiation and matter), and the physical lawsthat relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic.[25][26][27]”
The eDAM’s definition of universe is the same as science defines plus subtle and subtlest UF levels. The UF is within our universe, there is nothing beyond it.
Sehgal: The above wiki's view of the universe is based on the
materialistic/physicalist's knowledge of the ontology of the universe
which is incomplete in the sense that this does not include the realms
of nature classified under the Astral, causal Worlds and Cosmic
Consciousness. The stated view of the universe is incapable of
explaining many issues viz
i) What is the source of the consciousness/mental aspects?
ii) What is the source of the information and laws which propels
the creation of the universe?
iii) What propels and sustains the motion in the universe and what
is that which guides/charters this motion?
In view of above, the Wiki's definition/viewal of the universe is incomplete.
2. Sāṅkhya vs. eDAM: which one correct?
Sehgal: Most of the problems of Sāṅkhya stem from not understanding the difference between the Mind and Consciousness and treating these two realities as synonymous. Secondly, current science has no awareness of the ontological reality of the Mind -- Manas, Buddhi, Indriyās, Tanmātras, Chitta, Ahaṃkāra etc (the entities comprising what we call the Astral Realm/world) & some mental energy permeating this realm. Therefore, any attempt to understand any mind and mind-consciousness interface thru the ontological reality of the physical world as known to Science - fermions, bosons, physical fields is bound to lead to a number of problems/issues.
So far, none of the Yogis/sages of any spiritual tradition/metaphysical framework has found any evidence, thru their experiences in the state of Samādhi, for the existence of any mental aspects with the discrete physical matter/energy particles.
The critical test deals with the issue of inseparability/separability at the functioning brain level and not outside the brain in inert entities. In the functioning brain also, it establishes a correlation between the physical and mental aspects and needless to say any correlation is quite different than the real inseparability.
Vimal: Perhaps, you clarify which problems are because of
misunderstanding and try to get consensus esp. from opponents.
Yes, the proposed critical testing establishes 1-1 correlation, which is
close to inseparability; the goal was to reject inseparability by showing
separability and hence reject eDAM. If you make an effort to improve
the test then it is will be useful for both Sāṅkhya and the eDAM; just
saying is not very useful.
For example, consciousness is treated synonymously with the mind or in
other words mind is also considered as consciousness. Therefore, any
interaction between the brain and mind is treated as the category mistake. However, if the true nature of the "Mind" in the sense that "mind"
is also a derivative of the same Moola Prakriti as whose derivative
is the brain, the said category mistake problem will vanish.
Dr. Ram, you or for that person with moderate intelligence can
will understand the breat difference between the correlation and
inseparability. Inseparability means both aspects are being
originated from a common entity while correlation means both
aspects have some relation of correspondence at the time
of manifestation but having their origin in different entities.There
is a great difference between the two. In view of this, your claim that
correlation is close to inseparability is not logically correct.
Yes, correlation could be taken as inseparability if the critical test
could also prove that both aspects are being originated from one
common entity/source or alternatively NOT having their origin
from different entities/sources. But the critical test is incapable
of dealing with this aspect. So in my view just on observing a
correlation ( a relation of correspondence) between the physical
and mental aspects thru the critical test, any conclusion that
both the aspects are inseparable is a hurried and immature one
and not supported by logic and evidence. If you still want to
continue to such a conclusion, that will be your belief and NOT
a science based on evidence.
3. Level 2: Subtle nonlocal field
Vimal: … In addition, in the eDAM, ‘Consciousness’ is the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) that is the 1pp-mental aspect of the unmanifested state of the information in the Unified field (UF) and its inseparable physical aspect is Physical Unified Field (PUF).
Sehgal: In the eDAM, consciousness is the UPC & UPC is the 1pp-mental aspect of the unmanifested state of information & unmanifested state of information is in UF. I have learned of the above quotes from Dr. Ram a no of times in his messages. But when I contemplate more deeply on the above quotes, no sense is derived due to following reasons:
(i) How and from where any 1pp mental aspect is created since without the presence of some manifested consciousness, none of the 1pp is feasible? And paradoxically, here consciousness itself is the result of 1pp.
Vimal: The aspects of the unmanifested state of information in the UF
are latent, so God (manifested consciousness) is not necessary. It is
the manifestation processes such as condensation process and the
relevant laws are necessary, which are inherently embedded in UF by
definition. It should be noted that the eDAM follows scientific bottom-up approach and UF is proposed in the same sense.
Materialists, such as Poznanski, reject idealism based top-down
approach on the name of Voodoo-ism. Therefore, to avoid such type
critique, the proposal of self-referral and self-awareness attributes of
the UF still need further justifications and why they would be mandatory.
Sehgal: Dr. Ram! You stated above that both physical and mental aspects
are latent in the unmanifested state of information in UF. Here I am not speakingof the aspects being latent or manifest. My straight query to
you has been how a mental aspect can appear in the information to
make it the dual aspect since the postulated ontology of structure
and functions ( Quantum vacuum and QFs) in eDAM is purely physical?
How can a pure physical ontology support any dual aspect information?
The second straight query has been: You say that some UPC exist when the
dual aspect information is viewed from 1pp. But how any 1pp is possible
when there is no prior presence of any manifested consciousness?
So to sum up, the critical foundational issues of eDAM are :
i) How and from where any mental aspect of information can appear
to give birth to a dual aspect information.
ii) When the postulated ontology ( stricture and functions) of quantum
vaccum and QFs are pure physical, how can they support and support
some dual aspect information?
iii) How any 1pp view of dual aspect information is feasible when there
is no manifested consciousness.
iv) When the postulated ontology of vacuum and fluctuations is physical
how and from where any dual aspect UF is possible. Any argument that
vacuum and QFs itself have some dual aspect is short of logic and will
amount to paraphrasing the issue since the key issue will continue'
to persist: From where and how any mental aspect appears in vacuum
and QFs.
Any concept that Laws exist in any UF on their own itself is voodoo-ism
particularly when we observe in our mundane life that none of the law can
exist/appear in any physical system of technology/IT/AI on its own without
some interface with some manifested consciousness.
Sehgal: (ii) Ontologically, as per the above quote, there are two things -- a UF and information.
(a) What is the ontology (structure/function) of the UF -- physical/mental/dual? So far Science is aware of the physical structure/functions of quantum vacuum and QFs only and that is what eDAM has adopted. If the ontology (structure/functions) of UF are physical, how can it support some dual aspect information? (b) What is the ontology of the information i.e. what is the entity that constitutes the information? (c) What is the source of the information?
Vimal: What is the structure inside the Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya and why and
how He can experience (but not Prakṛti) and what is the precise mechanism
?
Purusha itself is an infinite, indivisible, holistic single PRIMAL structure of
consciousness. This is incoprehensable in the sense that it can't be
"known" in any objective sense. It is self referral with ever manifest
awareness being its fundamental nature/attribute. He can experience
since ever manifest awareness is its fundamental nature/attribute. Prakriti
can't experience since it has no inherent consciousness or awareness.
Are they not assumptions?
They are not assumptions since they are reproducibly experienceable
in the state of Samadhi
In the eDAM, the ontology of UF, UPC, and
PUF is the ontology of information in the UPC and PUF of UF. Information
is the same in both UPC and PUF.
Above is OK and understood but how and from where any mental aspect
will appear in the information to make it dual aspect and how a physical
ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs will support and sustain
any dual aspect information?
What is information inside UF? I guess,
all enormous processes and all possible laws. This information must be
the same for both UPC and PUF; it is just looking from which perspective
we like to view it; for the 1pp we can assume what we might experience.
Since we are not UPC so there is no way to understand what the
experiences UPC really might have. However, we can imagine by
extrapolating. However, do not forget that UPC is related to the
unmanifested state, so both UPC and PUF are latent for us.
The source of information is UF, which is the same for both UPC and PUF
As indicated in the aforesaid that any concept of the Laws, which now
you are equating with information, existing on their own is Vooddo-ism
in itself since neither it is supported by our observations in our mundane
life in the areas of technology/IT/AI nor it conforms to the observed
general view/definition of Law being one as a set of conscious commands.
The existence/emergence of UPC itself is not accounted since either
the appearance of any mental aspect in the information to make it of dual
aspect can be explained nor 1pp can be explained in the absence of any
manifested consciousness. Since the existence of any UPC or the presence
of any mental aspects are unaccountable within the given postulates of
eDAM, therefore, the whole issue of UPC experiencing anything, whether
latent or otherwise, is irrel .
Sehgal: (d) How any dual aspect information come into existence given
that the postulated ontology (structure and function) of the universe
terminates at the physical vacuum and physical QFs?
Vimal: The initial source of all information is UF. You do not seem to
understand the meanings of the “latent”, “information in both aspects”
“perspective of viewing” and so on because you raise illogical queries.
The definition of universe is given above, which is levels 1-3 (gross,
subtle, and subtlest). There is nothing outside of the eDAM’s Universe.
Since you and your core are from Sāṅkhya, you see physical and
mental aspects separable and you think they have different ontology.
No, in the eDAM, the ontology of both aspects is the same as the
ontology of related information.
Sehgal: Now you are saying that information is sourced out from UF.
It means dual aspect information can be sourced out from UF only if
UF itself is a dual aspect. Now please explain in a clear, straight and direct
manner how a dual aspect UF is possible when the entire ontology
of the universe is exhausted in physical vacuum and physical?
Within the given physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs,
"perspective of viewing from both sides", "dual aspect information",
"dual aspect UF" are not possible. If possible, please explain in a specific
manner how it is possible otherwise it is voodoo-ism.
You are working on the premise that when brain particles/nurons exhibit
some physical functions of charge, motion, vibrations, to be collectively
represented as NCCs, some mental functions exist along with the
physical functions which are when viewed from 1pp result in the
manifestation of some SEs. But this premise/approach has some
inherent/fundamental limitations viz
i) It does not expalins as to from where and how any mental functions
can appear along with the physical functions. Any arguemnt that these
mental functons appear from some PEs and PEs from UF or dual aspect
information amounts to parphrasing or taking backward the issue since
then the issue will persist as to from where the mental aspect appears
in the information/UF?
ii) No 1pp is possible inless some manifested consciosuness has some
prior existence
iii) If any aspect whether the physical or mental has any existence the
same should either be in the ontological structural or functional format.
Since eDAM does not postilates any mental structure, therefore,
manifestation of any mental aspects as functions is logically untenable.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
Joe wrote: The question, in my mind, is motion of a car, sound, vision, vibration, spin, mass and charge causal/teleological function or subjective experience?
Sehgal: The motion of a car, sound, vision, vibrations, spin, mass, charge are the physical functions ( teleological/causal) as originating out from some physical structure in the external environment. Whether we view these functions from 1pp or not, these physical functions shall continue to persist. As you have indicated above and Ram's eDAM also says that when these physical functions are viewed from 1pp, they become subjective SEs. But how and why these physical functions should be viewed as conscious SEs? eDAM further postulates that some potential experiences ( PEs) exist in the dual aspect with these physical functions.But there is no explanation for the following issues in eDAM in the above scheme of things:i) From where and how any PEs emerge out and what is its ontology in terms of structure/functions? Ram says that these are from some dual aspect information. But this amounts to para[phrasing the issue since the issue persist as to from where and how a mental aspect appears in the dual aspect information?ii) How any view is possible from 1pp when there is no manifested consciousness? Can any physical system bereft of the manifested consciousness have a 1ppp? Paradoxically, in eDAM, consciousness ( manifested or unmanifested) itself is the outcome of 1pp.
Ram wrote: The “brute fact” of dual aspects is motivated because SEs appear fundamental, inherent, and irreducible in normal waking states of mind-brain systems... "an optimal definition of consciousness describes it [consciousness] as a mental aspect of a [physical] system"
Yes, consciousness or any SEs are inherent and fundamental and not produced from any physical system ( materialist's view). But it is also too speculative that any distinct physical system say a macro level object say a tree or a quantum particle say an electron has any distinct mental aspect as distinctively identified with it since the existence of any mental system like that of a physical system is contingent on the presence of some ontology ( structure/function). Since in eDAM, there is no place for any mental ontology ( structure/function), therefore, any mental system, as distinctively identifiable with the physical system but NOT taking birth from it, is logically untenable.It is requested that Dr. Ram may pay special focus to the above issue and contemplate over it impassionately and constantly instead of persisting with some dogmatic but illogical beliefs.Regards.Vinod Sehgal
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks. Here are the replies of your queries:
1. Subtlest vs. Transcendent in Level 3
Sehgal: The concept of subtlety is relevant where the ontological entity is size dependent. Whether designated as level 3 or 4, there is a level, beyond all subtle/subtler/subtlest levels, which is truly holistic, infinite, indivisible, continuous -- the realm of pure consciousness called Cosmic consciousness/Purusha/Brahman. Yes, this level is beyond all space/time. Whether to include this level in our universe or not depends on one's interpretation of the universe.
Vimal: As per Wikipedia (as of 13 Dec. 2017 with minor modification), “The Universe is all of space and time (spacetime) and its contents,[12] which includes planets, moons, stars , galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space and all matter and energy.[13][14] While the size of the entire Universe is still unknown,[6] it is possible to measure the observable universe. Halpern and Tomasello calculated the observable universe using data from European Space Agency's Planck satellite, estimating it to be 90.68 billion light-years across, 0.7% smaller than previously thought.[15] […] The Universe can be defined as everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist.[22][23][24] According to our current understanding, the Universe consists of spacetime, forms of energy (including electroma gnetic radiation and matter), and the physical lawsthat relate them. The Universe encompasses all of life, all of history, and some philosophers and scientists suggest that it even encompasses ideas such as mathematics and logic.[25][26][27]”
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Regarding "intentionality", I would suggest anyone to just think with their own mind and don't just adopt concept without understanding. "Intentionality" is rejected instantaneously, by asking: "what is red directed towards ?". So, phenomenology is not structured around intentionality.Regarding emergence, the term refers to the following phenomena: objects emerge from colors, colors emerge from shades-of-gray, shades-of-gray emerge from black-and-white; music emerge from sounds; taste of chocolate emerge from sweet. And if you keep going down in levels, you get to the Self, which is the first manifestation of self-reference, the first looking-back-at-itself of self-reference.On Thursday, December 21, 2017 2:00 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Hi Cosmin,Visan, Cosmin (21 Dec. 2017)
If theories are not grounded in phenomenology, then they are just fantasies. Yes, I also claim that self-reference is fundamental. But I allow myself to claim such a thing because I see the manifestation of self-reference in the emergent phenomenology of consciousness. If I wouldn't have seen such a thing, I wouldn't have claimed anything.Vimal
As per (Smith, 2016), “Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions. […] The discipline of phenomenology may be defined initially as the study of structures of experience, or consciousness. Literally, phenomenology is the study of “phenomena”: appearances of things, or things as they appear in our experience, or the ways we experience things, thus the meanings things have in our experience. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the subjective or first person point of view. This field of philosophy is then to be distinguished from, and related to, the other main fields of philosophy: ontology (the study of being or what is), epistemology (the study of knowledge), logic (the study of valid reasoning), ethics (the study of right and wrong action), etc.”The self-reference refers to itself or its own referent. The term ‘emergent’ is a jargon, which needs unpacking as done in (Vimal, 2013), where emergence of a specific subjective experience (SE, such as redness when a trichromat looks at a ripe tomato) is unpacked thru the matching and section mechanism. Here, a specific SE selected after matching the stimulus dependent signals with cognitive feedback signal and then experienced by the self. In other words, SE does not emerge. Similarly, you need to unpack the term ‘emergence of self-reference’ first and then examine if self-reference is indeed one of the inherently fundamental entities and is not a derived entity. Roman Poznanski might argue that it is a derived entity rather than fundamental.
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 USAPh: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Dear Vinod ji,Thanks.Sehgal
1. How is any UPC an extension of Physics? Physics recognizes only some physical vacuum and physical QFs? From where and how any UPC can appear?2. Yes, the source of self-referral, self-awareness, experiencer could be UPC. This UPC in the eDAM could be an equivalent of Puruṣa in Sāṅkhya. But the accounting for of any UPC is a problem in the eDAM. The eDAM believes that the ontology (structure/functions) of the universe ends at the physical vacuum and physical QFs. No UPC can arise from this physical ontology otherwise it will be materialism. The eDAM also does not believe in any mental structure from which any UPC could manifest. So the UPC of eDAM is hanging in a vacuum since there is no ontology from which UPC could manifest. But Sāṅkhya believes in a Conscious Puruṣa, as the most primal structure, beneath the primal physical structure of Moola-Prakṛti. So UPC can be taken care by Puruṣa.SEs can't be the excitation modes of the mental aspects of any dual state information in UPC since the way existence of any UPC can't be accounted for in eDAM, as indicated above, similarly the mental aspect of any information to make it dual aspect also can't be accounted for in eDAM. Reasons are quite obvious. eDAM believes in the physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs and from this physical ontology, no mental aspect of information can take birth to create any dual aspect information.Furthermore, you believe that there does exist the sub-Planck Astral realm of nature below the quantum realm. In one of my previous messages, I had clarified that this sub-Planck Astral realm comes into shape before the quantum realm and that quantum realm takes birth from the sub-Planck realm. When the quantum realm ontology takes birth from the sub-Planck ontology, it is not that the entire ontology in the sub-Planck Astral realm is exhausted. A large part of sub-Planck Astral ontology remains as such. It is the excitations in this sub-Planckian Astral realm that produces SEs and not in any much deeper dual aspect information in the UF. Otherwise, there is no role of sub-Planckian Astral ontology.One more misconception from which you should try to get rid is: It is true that the deepest UF does exist in the physical brain even after the creation/manifestation of the brain. But it is NOT that the astral ontology does manifest from this UF (as present in the brain) after the creation/manifestation of the brain. Once UF starts transforming, it first manifests into sub-Planckian Astral ontology and from thereupon in the physical ontology of the physical brain. So even before the manifestation/creation of the physical brain, the sub-Planckian Astral ontology takes birth. In the physical brain, apart from the UF, the sub-Planckian Astral ontology also remains present in form of the Astral body (having Manas, Buddhi, Indriyās, Chitta, Ahaṃkāra, etc). So any hypothesis of eDAM that the Astral ontology arises from any mental aspects in UF (as present in the brain) or from the physical particles of the brain is redundant and superfluous.In the eDAM, the structures and functions end up to the level of physical vacuum and physical QFs. From this physical structure/physical functions, the physical aspect can appear in the information. But there is the problem of sourcing out of mental aspects/UPC in the information. There is no ontological source from which any mental aspect/UPC can appear in the information. Further, there is no clarity as to in which ontological format the information will exist.In which ontological form/state can Laws exist in UF? It is our observation in our mundane life that all Laws in our fields are set of conscious commands and these laws emerge out from some manifested consciousness. So how can any law exist at the primordial stage without these being the set of conscious commands and how can they exist on their own without an interface with some manifested consciousness? If anyone still sticks to the dogmatic notion of the existence of laws on its own at the primordial stage, as part some Voodoo-ism, s/he should demonstrate in practical life the existence of any law on its own in matter/energy in any area in our mundane life - be it technology/design/manufacturing. IT/AI. The sheer fact that this can't be demonstrated proves that the laws at the primordial stage are the set of conscious commands and as emerging out from some manifested consciousness.3. The observed phenomenology in the universe is NOT due to the emergent structure of consciousness. This is due to the emergent structural transformation of the primordial physicality in form of Moola Prakṛti.The “path will lead to the acknowledgement of consciousness having a self-referential aspect” is a faulty argument in establishing the self-referral nature of the consciousness. The consciousness is self-referral due to it being most fundamental beneath even the primordial physicality (or PUF). This self-referral aspect includes the non-emergence of consciousness from any other source, it being beyond space/time, and its non-emergent ever manifest awareness. As indicated, phenomenology pertains to the physicality and NOT to the consciousness.4. But without the manifested consciousness, the existence of any laws is Voodoo-ism since(i) Neither this explains the ontological form in which any Law will exist. The eDAM can't explain in which ontological form any law will exist. And this is a fact that if anything (here law) has any existence, it has to exist in some ontological form. The same logic applies to information also.(ii) This goes against the observation in our daily life wherein no Law in our mundane life in technology/design/manufacturing.AI/IT can exist on its own in matter/ energy without some interface with some manifested consciousness.Vimal
The eDAM is also an extension of physics in the sense that I have already introduced mental aspect in physics as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2016a, 2017b). The introduction of subtle astral and causal level (level 2) and subtlest UF level (level 3) below Planck level is another extension in physics. In other words, I am trying to extend the materialistic physics to dual-aspect monistic physics and hence interpreting QM in terms of the eDAM is another justification.Your claim is that OOO-God is always present and is needed in everything and whatever is going on this universe; but this is misleading. The atheist version of eDAM claims that He, as an agent external to universe, is not needed because all the natural laws, mechanisms, and processes needed are inherently in the UF in latent form with UPC and PUF as mental and physical aspects of the unmanifested state of the fundamental information in the UF. In other words, they together replace OOO-God, which is the invention of human minds to start with and has been misleadingly and supertitously used for the well-being of people. However, what does it mean by the phrase “latent form” and precisely how are they are unpacked during manifestation? This certainly needs further research. For example, consider gravitation because of it we are earth bound and do not fly away from earth to cosmic space. There are gravitation laws which precisely calculate force and other related parameters and tell us precise mechanisms. These laws, mechanisms, and processes must be coded in some forms that are latent to us, but they are revealed after manifestation and after lifetime enormous research.You, being a theist and a strong opponent of atheist system, can eternally ask unreasonable questions such as who provided such laws in UF and who created UF with UPC, PUF, and common information in them. This type of question can also be asked about OOO-God and your answer might be no such question should be asked because God is the fundamental, eternal, ubiquitous, and OOO. I can also argue that dual-aspect information in UF (with UPC and PUF as elaborated above) is fundamental.The eDAM DOES NOT believe that “the ontology (structure/functions) of the universe ends at the physical vacuum and physical QFs”. Instead it extends physics to include (a) mental aspects in all states of information in all entities and (b) levels 2 and 3 as elaborated above. The ontology of both aspects is related to the ontology of the common information in the UF. There is no separate ontology of UPC or PUF. The dualistic Sāṅkhya has separate ontology for Puruṣa and Prakṛti because it assumes to independent entities, but not the monistic eDAM. In the eDAM, the information in UF is fundamental and has ontology thru the doctrines of inter-dependent co-origination, co-evolution, and co-development, and sensori-motor co-tuning of both aspects, i.e., this ontology is for both aspects. The eDAM proposes two different perspectives of “viewing” the same common information. This is clear for an individual human (such as us) in a conscious state. It appears confusing to us for inert entities, and entities in Levels 2 and 3, but we can use our imagination that let us suppose we were that entity such as if we were UF; this is the best we can do in our conscious states; but presumably one might able to enter in inert entities, entities in Levels 2 and 3, and UF and become them presumably at Nirvikalpa Samādhi state. The mental aspect (such as UPC) of a state (such as the unmanifested state) of the information (such as the fundamental primal information) in an entity (such as the UF) is simply “viewing” this common information from the 1pp of an entity (such as the UF). Similarly for the inseparable physical aspect, i.e., it is simply “viewing” the same common information from 3pp? Unlike dualistic Sāṅkhya, there is no separate ontology of each aspect in the eDAM.I still hold my hypothesis that SEs are excitations/modes of UPC field (Kastrup, 2016) because you have misunderstood the eDAM that the extended physics does not have mental aspect. The idea of modes as particles is borrowed from QED where each quantum particle is a mode/excitation of a field.The subtle level dual-aspect entities (such as dual-aspect astral and causal bodies, SEs, etc.) are manifested from the subtlest dual-aspect UF. The QM level entities are manifested from subtle levels and CM level entities from QM level entities. Thus, we can argue that SEs are excitations of subtle level experiential field, which in turn is manifested from the subtlest level experiential field that is a part of UPC. It is unclear if the individuality is maintained only up to subtle level or it also goes down to subtlest UF level, which unmanifested state of Brahman. If souls exist and if after liberation, mukta (liberated) souls merge with Brahman and individual souls keep their identity to exercise their Free-Will/freedom, then individuality remain intact but if souls lose their Free-Will/freedom then individuality is up to subtle level. If it is the latter as scriptures claim then some of us might prefer to remain in the subtle level after death and take birth again and again to enjoy (or suffer) the human life.One could argue that human life is the highest and full manifestation of Brahman, especially at Samādhi state. In subtle level we lose our physical bodies and hence it is incomplete manifestation and in subtlest level we even lose our astral and causal body (too much loss) and then nothing remains, which is like complete death and at this UF level our manifestation is zero and everything is taken away from us, even our Free-Will/freedom is lost (meaning we are like slaves that has to obey the master Brahman!) and we become inactive and our existence is completely lost; this is a latent state.
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 USAPh: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Respected Dr. Ram,
My comments on balance issues which I had indicated in my previous emal to be sent in a separate email message. Obviously, there is a lot of divergence of our views despite our repeated discussions over a long periods. Key reasons for this lies in the fact that you want to subscribe to the physical ontology ( structure/functions) of the physical vacuum and physical QFs only , a view held by the materialist quantum physicists but at the same time don't want to have the birth of the mental aspects and consciousness from physical/ matter. This approach on your part gives birth to a no ofparadoxes/intra-contradictions/ inconsistencies and in this process e DAM fails to provide a clear/convincing explanation as to from where and how any UF/dual aspect information OR UPC/mental informationemerges?Any argument that dual aspect information exists due to its fundamental status does not remain logically sustainable and tenable since anything/entity ( maybe even information) needs to be related to some ontological structure/functions related to some structure and as taking birth from that structure for its ontological structure. In e DAM, there is no ontological structure/functions as related to some structure with which dual aspect information may be linked to providesome ontological base.Above is the crux of my whole arguments. Unless some rational and logical solution is available for the aforesaid issues, eDAM can't be accepted a rational and logical hypothesis, leave apart the issue ofany subjective or objective evidence in support of its key postulates.
Puruṣa itself is an infinite, indivisible, holistic single PRIMAL structure of consciousness. This is incomprehensible in the sense that it can't be "known" in any objective sense. It is self-referral with ever manifest awareness being its fundamental nature/attribute. He can experience since ever manifested awareness is its fundamental nature/attribute. Prakṛti can’ t experience since it has no inherent consciousness or awareness. They are not assumptions since they are reproducibly experienceable in the state of Samādhi.
2. Vimal
In the eDAM, the ontology of UF, UPC, and PUF is the ontology of information in the UPC and PUF of UF. Information is the same in both UPC and PUF.
In eDAM, the existence of any UPC, dual aspect information, UF can't be justified on logical grounds. If the ultimate structure ends at the physical level of physical vacuum and physical QFs. The dual aspect information or UF having both PUF and UPC could be justified if the structure/function itself were the dual aspects. If such a dual aspect structure and functions have any structure, that will different than quantum vacuum and QFs as believed in by e DAM. So let eDAM first search a dual aspect ontological structure/functions before hypothesizing any dual aspect information.One thing more, in any such structural/functional ontology, functionscan't exist on their own hanging in a vacuum. Functions are necessary to relate to some structure and take birth from that structure.
Sehgal
Above is OK and understood but how and from where any mental aspect will appear in the information to make it dual aspect and how a physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs will support and sustain any dual aspect information?Vimal
The eDAM postulates that a state of information itself is a dual-aspectentity, which means, by definition, the mental aspect of a state of the information in an entity is already present. The ontology of both aspects is supported by the ontology of information, which is independent of the ontology of physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs.
The above postulation of e DAM that state of information is of dual aspect or that mental information already exists in the information is illogical and absurd. And there are quite valid resons for this. Any information is supported by some structure. When the ultimate structure of e DAM at the physical level, how any dual aspect information can be supported by such a structure?Secondly, you indicated that dual aspect information can exist without physical vacuum and physical fluctuations, then you please also provide the clarification:i) In which ontological state/form such an information will exist?ii) On which other structure/functions, other than the physical quantum vacuum and physical QFs, such information will be based on and supported?There is no clear and convincing clarification in e DAM on the above two issues. Therefore, the whole concept of the dual aspect information is not logically tenable and it is nothing but a speculative thought.
3. Vimal
What is information inside UF? The eDAM postulates that all enormousprocesses, mechanisms of the creation, maintenance, and destructionof universe, and all possible natural laws. This information must be thesame for both UPC and PUF; it is just looking from which perspectivewe like to view it; for the 1pp we can assume what we might experience.Since we are not UPC so there is no way to understand what theexperiences of the UPC really might have. However, we can imagine byextrapolating from a conscious state. However, do not forget thatUPC is related to the unmanifested state, so both UPC and PUF arelatent for us. The ultimate source of information is UF, which is thesame for both UPC (mental aspect) and PUF (physical aspect).
In the Ist place, the existence of any UPC or UF itself is not logicallyjustified in e DAM since its structure and functions end at the physical level only. Second, the issue arises: in which ontological form/state, any Laws/process/ information will have its existence. Thirdly, from where such laws/ information/process will emerge out. As already discussed at length beforehand, the existence of any law/information, on its own, in matter/energy is logically untenable ( some voodoo-ism) as well as observationally inconsistent with our mundane life. The issue is not of whether UPC is latent or not. The key issue is from which ontological reality ( structure/function) any UPC/mental information OR UF/dual aspect information can emerge out?
Sehgal
As indicated in the aforesaid that any concept of the Laws, which now you are equating with information, existing on their own is mystery. This is because neither it is supported by our observations in our mundane life in the areas of technology/IT/AI nor it conforms to the observed general view/definition of Law being one as a set of conscious commands. The existence/emergence of UPC itself is not accounted since either the appearance of any mental aspect in the information to make it of dual aspect can be explained nor 1pp can be explained in the absence of any manifested consciousness. Since the existence of any UPC or the presence of any mental aspects are unaccountable within the given postulates of eDAM, therefore, the whole issue of UPC experiencing anything, whether latent or otherwise, is irrelevant.Vimal
It does not matter, laws have information, without it laws will not operate. Humans and their artifacts also have information. Your sentences are illogical for the eDAM; you are forcing by hand the “manifested Consciousness or God” in all your writings directly or indirectly and your arguments are tuned to Sāṅkhya and Vedānta that have serious problems. Thus, they are not constructive.The UF with UPC as mental aspect and PUF as physical aspect isfundamental and brute fact and it will be illogical from where they come.
No, it is neither illogical and irrelevant. Logically, any aspect whether physical or mental has to come from some structure/function ( someontology).Physical aspect can come from the physical structure but what about the mental aspects? From which structure any mental aspects can come? Your hypothesis that UPC/mental aspects have also the existence but not emanating out from any structure is prima facie illogical.
It is the same query where from God came. My point is that information in entities is common currency in all entities and its states are dual-aspect entities; both aspects are inseparable and the degree of manifestations of mental and physical aspects from UPC and PUF, respectively, of unmanifested state of information in UF varies with entities. This is a working hypothesis which can be tested and can be rejected on negative results as elaborated in Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015g) for testing the doctrine of inseparability.
The God ( manifested consciousness)/CC/Purusha is the MOST PRIMAL Structure and hence most fundamental the way Moola Prakriti (primordial physicality) is also the fundamental and primal structure. Questions as to from where the most primordial structures came is irrelevant since such primordial structures exist in the fundamental capacity by virtue of their existence.For example, no question is raised as to from where any primordial physical quantum vacuum and physical QFs appear since these are structure and primordial structure is considered as fundamental. But neither UPC is any structure nor any clarity as to with which structure UPC is related and from which structure, UPC emerges out. Therefore, the issue of from where and how any UPC appeared is quite relevant. The logic and relevance of from where any UPC/dual aspect information/UF is not applicable to "from where any God/CC/Purusha appeared"?
4. Sehgal
How any dual aspect information come into existence given that the postulated ontology (structure and function) of the universe terminates at the physical vacuum and physical QFs?Vimal
The initial source of all information is UF. You do not seem to understand the meanings of the “latent”, “information in both aspects”, “perspective of viewing” and so on because you raise illogical queries. The definition of universe is given above, which is levels 1-3 (gross, subtle, and subtlest). There is nothing outside of the eDAM’s Universe. Since you and your core are from Sāṅkhya, you see physical and mental aspects separable and you think they have different ontology. No, in the eDAM, the ontology of both aspects is the same as the ontology of related information.
Till e DAM subscribes to the physical ontology of the physical structure and physical functions of QFs, the existence of any UF, embodying the physical and mental aspects, dual aspect information, UPC, mental aspects and perspective of viewing - 1pp can't be logically justified. Reasons are quite obvious. Any UPC/mental information OR UF/dual aspect information is primarily dependent on some mental/dual ontology ( composed of some structure) Or some ontology ( composed of functions related to some structure and taking birth from that structure).But in e DAM there is no place for any mental or dual structure from which any UPC/mental information or UF/dual aspect information may originate out.
Sehgal
You are saying that information is sourced out from UF. It means dual aspect information can be sourced out from UF only if UF itself is a dual aspect. How a dual aspect UF is possible when the entire ontology of the universe is exhausted in physical vacuum and is physical? Within the given physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs, "perspective of viewing from both sides", "dual aspect information", "dual aspect UF" are not possible. If possible, please explain in a specific manner how it is possible You are working on the premise that when brain particles/neurons exhibit some physical functions of charge, motion, vibrations, to be collectively represented as NCCs, some mental functions exist along with the physical functions which are when viewed from 1pp result in the manifestation of some SEs. But this premise/approach has some inherent/fundamental limitations viz.(i) It does not explain as to from where and how any mental functions can appear along with the physical functions. Any argument that these mental functions appear from some PEs and PEs from UF or dual aspect information amounts to paraphrasing or taking backward the issue since then the issue will persist as to from where the mental aspect appears in the information/UF?(ii) No 1pp is possible unless some manifested consciousness has some prior existence.(iii) If any aspect whether the physical or mental has any existence the same should either be in the ontological structural or functional format. Since eDAM does not postulate any mental structure, therefore, manifestation of any mental aspects as functions is logically untenable.Vimal
In the eDAM, it is incorrect to use materialistic claim that “the entireontology of the universe is exhausted in physical vacuum and isphysical”. This is because, in the eDAM, all entities starting from UFto whole manifested universe have information; a state of information is dual-aspect. The ontology of both aspects is based on the ontology of related information. In the eDAM, there is no physical ontology as in materialism.
What is meant by the ontology? Ontology means the existence of some structure or function as related to some structure and as taking birth from that structure. How do you explain that dual aspect information is the prime ontology? In which ontological format of structure or functions ( as related to some structure and taking birth from that structure) will the dual aspect information exist and sustain? You please first have the conceptual clarity on these issues and then have the postulation of any dual aspect information. Merely proposing some dual aspect information without any ontological base to which it is related is an illogical and irrational hypothesis.
(i) It is a hypothesis that the unmanifested state of information in the UF is dual-aspect with UPC as mental and PUF as physicalaspects. This hypothesis of dual-aspect UF being the deepest level (Level 3 in the chart) in the eDAM is like Puruṣa and Prakṛti of dualistic Sāṅkhya, God in religions, Brahman in monastic Vedānta, and Śūnyatā in Buddhism. Any query, such as where they come from, ends herebecause they are assumed to be fundamental; they all areubiquitous and eternal.
I think, I have indicated many times and I want to reiterate thatin e DAM any existence of UF/dual information or UPC/mentalinformation becomes logically untenable till it subscribes to thephysical ontology of physical structure/functions of physical vacuumand physical QFs. And I have provided quite valid reasonsfor this also. Any ontology is on account of some structure/functions as related out and as taking birth from that structure.In e DAM, there is no dual aspect/mental structure/ functions as related to some structure from which UPC/ mental information OR UF/ dual aspect information. So the existence of any UF/dual aspect information OR UPC/mental information is logically untenable in the absence of any dual aspect/mental structure/function ( that is what is ontology)
(ii) Manifest consciousness or God is not needed in the eDAM.
In that case, any mental/dual aspect information or Laws take the shape of voodoo-ism and amounts to forcible placing the existence of any laws without any rational reason and logic butjust a part of a scientific dogmatic view.
(iii) this is irrelevant in the eDAM as argued above.
eDAM can't be immune to any rational reason, logic and observational facts. Yes, if as part of some dogmatic beliefs, it wants to continue with some illogical hypothesis it may continuebut this will be against all canons of rationality/logic/observational facts and evidence.Regards.Vinod SehgalOn Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:19 PM, G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com> wrote:Prateek and Hari,Have some compassion . Guide Joe with these alternatives:OBJECTIVITY >> accuracy, precision, neutrality, detachment, equity, fairness, open mindedness, dispassion, impersonal, honesty and similar characteristics aids understanding factual events.SUBJECTIVITY>> prejudice, bias, partiality, pride, self importance, hidden agendas leads to misunderstanding every event.In a dynamic Universe, total freedom to choose always exist.!!!!! But an axiomatic theory is founded on objectivity so there is no choice!!!!!Cheers----- Original Message -----
From: Prateek BudhwarTo: Joseph McCardCc: Venkatakrishna Sastry ; G Srinivasan ; Asingh2384 ; George Weissmann ; sisir roy ; BT APJ ; Stanley A. KLEIN ; Paul Werbos ; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal ; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal ; Robert Boyer ; Vasavada, Kashyap V ; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL ; Madan Thangavel ; Mohan Srinivasan ; Dr. S. Ramakrishna Sharma ; raghu ; Nilesh Modhwadia ; HAri ; Leuvy Cacha ; coc...@ucsc.edu ; Syamala Hari ; Shiv Lakhan Pandey ; Tulika PandeySent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:41 AMSubject: Re: Reply to Ram 12-01-17 inquiry
Yeah creative Joe you are right, you can't change anyone's mind, including yours...😁 So have your bread and eat it too.
On Dec 19, 2017 22:49, "Joseph McCard" <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
Prateek Budhwar,Joe, only confused people have feelings all the time and do nothing about them like "Siddhi". If you are not here to prove or disprove anything.Joe wrote: I have, years ago, given up thinking I can change anyone's mind.Prateek Budhwar: why you are continuously typing so much for no reason.Joe wrote: Why do you ask? For your own therapeutic satisfaction? Think about it. My question is your answer. Now, I hope you feel better. 😂Prateek Budhwar: There are other platforms to share your feelings. This is not a social therapy group.Joe wrote: All evidence to the contrary 😀joe
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
There is no brain. Consciousness is all there is. And consciousness is created step-by-step as self-reference looks-back-at-itself and includes and transcendes itself. Objects includes colors while transcending them. Music includes sounds while transcending them. And so on.On Thursday, December 21, 2017 4:08 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
It seems that emergence is miracle because you are not telling us its precise mechanism. Mind emerges from brain but what is precise mechanism?Can you see the problem?Sent from my iPhoneIs obtaining new levels of experience from what is already currently available. For example, to read a book is to obtain a new experience from the already levels of words and grammar that you already have. The words only get you that far. But from them you can emerge new experiences, first by emerging the level of sentences, then the level of paragraphs, and eventually the level of the whole book, that gives you a unitary experience over and above the previous levels. And this is the case with everything in consciousness. Even though you know the level of colors, to see an object is more than just to see its component colors. Even in thought this happens: to understand Pythagora's Theorem is more than merely understanding what triangles, angles, lengths, etc. are.
And since this structuring of consciousness happens over and over again everywhere, then it means there must be some fundamental "mechanisms" that are responsible for this. And self-reference is such a mechanism.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear All,
Can I repeat what someone else has already said? When you press reply button and then send your message, everything in the discussion is copied and sent, in some cases easily 10-20 pages! I have been guilty of the same practice often. So it is ok to press reply button, but please delete the subsequent pages before pressing send button. Otherwise every e-mail has repetitions of all the previous conversations. It is very inconvenient, useless and it will clog up the server and our mail boxes pretty soon!!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
Bruno Marchal
That is Idealism that has serious problem: how can matter-in-itself arise from consciousness?Remove the chair-in-itself you will not experience it.
--
----------------------------
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/BA0450D9-10EB-4C76-8CB6-D43793D9C505%40yahoo.co.in.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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
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
In that case matter-in-itself and consciousness-in-itself are real.Sent from my iPhoneYes, there is all the possibility that our mundane life may be an illusion. Brahma Satya Jagat Mithya -- Adi Shankaracharya. But this will be an illusion only when we shall experience that as an illusion. Till then it is hardcore truth and reality. A dream appears a dream and illusion only when we awaken up. Till that awakening, a dream appears very much real.Vinod SehgalOn Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:In that case, our mundane life is also illusionSent from my iPhoneIt could be that our experience in itself of chair does not exist in reality but it is an illusion. So both experiencing of the presence of a chair and its non-experiencing. of its absence, might not be existing in reality.Vinod Sehgal
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Bruno,I gave an example: if chair-in-itself does not exist, then if you remove the chair-in-itself (i.e., chair itself), then do you still experience it as an external object? No! Then it proves that chair-in-itself exists.
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
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Dear Vinod ji,Thanks.Sehgal
1. How is any UPC an extension of Physics? Physics recognizes only some physical vacuum and physical QFs? From where and how any UPC can appear?
2. Yes, the source of self-referral, self-awareness, experiencer could be UPC. This UPC in the eDAM could be an equivalent of Puruṣa in Sāṅkhya. But the accounting for of any UPC is a problem in the eDAM. The eDAM believes that the ontology (structure/functions) of the universe ends at the physical vacuum and physical QFs. No UPC can arise from this physical ontology otherwise it will be materialism. The eDAM also does not believe in any m ental structure from which any UPC could manifest. So the UPC of eDAM is hanging in a vacuum since there is no ontology from which UPC could manifest. But Sāṅkhya believes in a Conscious Puruṣa, as the most primal structure, beneath the primal physical structure of Moola-Prakṛti. So UPC can be taken care by Puruṣa.
SEs can't be the excitation modes of the mental aspects of any dual state information in UPC since the way existence of any UPC can't be accounted for in eDAM, as indicated above, similarly the mental aspect of any information to make it dual aspect also can't be accounted for in eDAM. Reasons are quite obvious. eDAM believes in the physical ontology of physical vacuum and physical QFs and from this physical ontology, no mental aspect of information can take birth to create any dual aspect information.Furthermore, you believe that there does exist the sub-Planck Astral realm of nature below the quantum realm. In one of my previous messages, I had clarified that this sub-Planck Astral realm comes into shape before the quantum realm and that quantum realm takes birth from the sub-Planck realm. When the quantum realm ontology takes birth from the sub-Planck ontology, it is not that the entire ontology in the sub-Planck Astral realm is exhausted. A large part of sub-Planck Astral ontology remains as such. It is the excitations in this sub-Planckian Astral realm that produces SEs and not in any much deeper dual aspect information in the UF. Otherwise, there is no role of sub-Planckian Astral ontology.One more misconception from which you should try to get rid is: It is true that the deepest UF does exist in the physical brain even after the creation/manifestation of the brain. But it is NOT that the astral ontology does manifest from this UF (as present in the brain) after the creation/manifestation of the brain. Once UF starts transforming, it first manifests into sub-Planckian Astral ontology and from thereupon in the physical ontology of the physical brain. So even before the manifestation/creation of the physical brain, the sub-Planckian Astral ontology takes birth. In the physical brain, apart from the UF, the sub-Planckian Astral ontology also remains present in form of the Astral body (having Manas, Buddhi, Indriyās, Chitta, Ahaṃkāra, etc). So any hypothesis of eDAM that the Astral ontology arises from any mental aspects in UF (as present in the brain) or from the physical particles of the brain is redundant and superfluous.In the eDAM, the structures and functions end up to the level of physical vacuum and physical QFs. From this physical structure/physical functions, the physical aspect can appear in the information. But there is the problem of sourcing out of mental aspects/UPC in the information. There is no ontological source from which any mental aspect/UPC can appear in the information. Further, there is no clarity as to in which ontological format the information will exist.
In which ontological form/state can Laws exist in UF? It is our observation in our mundane life that all Laws in our fields are set of conscious commands and these laws emerge out from some manifested consciousness. So how can any law exist at the primordial stage without these being the set of conscious commands and how can they exist on their own without an interface with some manifested consciousness? If anyone still sticks to the dogmatic notion of the existence of laws on its own at the primordial stage, as part some Voodoo-ism, s/he should demonstrate in practical life the existence of any law on its own in matter/energy in any area in our mundane life - be it technology/design/manufacturin g. IT/AI. The sheer fact that this can't be demonstrated proves that the laws at the primordial stage are the set of conscious commands and as emerging out from some manifested consciousness.
3. The observed phenomenology in the universe is NOT due to the emergent structure of consciousness. This is due to the emergent structural transformation of the primordial physicality in form of Moola Prakṛti.The “path will lead to the acknowledgement of consciousness having a self-referential aspect” is a faulty argument in establishing the self-referral nature of the consciousness. The consciousness is self-referral due to it being most fundamental beneath even the primordial physicality (or PUF). This self-referral aspect includes the non-emergence of consciousness from any other source, it being beyond space/time, and its non-emergent ever manifest awareness. As indicated, phenomenology pertains to the physicality and NOT to the consciousness.4. But without the manifested consciousness, the existence of any laws is Voodoo-ism since(i) Neither this explains the ontological form in which any Law will exist. The eDAM can't explain in which ontological form any law will exist. And this is a fact that if anything (here law) has any existence, it has to exist in some ontological form. The same logic applies to information also.
(ii) This goes against the observation in our daily life wherein no Law in our mundane life in technology/design/manufacturin g.AI/IT can exist on its own in matter/ energy without some interface with some manifested consciousness.
Vimal
The eDAM is also an extension of physics in the sense that I have already introduced mental aspect in physics as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009c, 2009d, 2009e, 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2016a, 2017b). The introduction of subtle astral and causal level (level 2) and subtlest UF level (level 3) below Planck level is another extension in physics. In other words, I am trying to extend the materialistic physics to dual-aspect monistic physics and hence interpreting QM in terms of the eDAM is another justification.Your claim is that OOO-God is always present and is needed in everything and whatever is going on this universe; but this is misleading. The atheist version of eDAM claims that He, as an agent external to universe, is not needed because all the natural laws, mechanisms, and processes needed are inherently in the UF in latent form with UPC and PUF as mental and physical aspects of the unmanifested state of the fundamental information in the UF. In other words, they together replace OOO-God, which is the invention of human minds to start with and has been misleadingly and supertitously used for the well-being of people. However, what does it mean by the phrase “latent form” and precisely how are they are unpacked during manifestation? This certainly needs further research. For example, consider gravitation because of it we are earth bound and do not fly away from earth to cosmic space. There are gravitation laws which precisely calculate force and other related parameters and tell us precise mechanisms. These laws, mechanisms, and processes must be coded in some forms that are latent to us, but they are revealed after manifestation and after lifetime enormous research.You, being a theist and a strong opponent of atheist system, can eternally ask unreasonable questions such as who provided such laws in UF and who created UF with UPC, PUF, and common information in them. This type of question can also be asked about OOO-God and your answer might be no such question should be asked because God is the fundamental, eternal, ubiquitous, and OOO. I can also argue that dual-aspect information in UF (with UPC and PUF as elaborated above) is fundamental.The eDAM DOES NOT believe that “the ontology (structure/functions) of the universe ends at the physical vacuum and physical QFs”. Instead it extends physics to include (a) mental aspects in all states of information in all entities and (b) levels 2 and 3 as elaborated above. The ontology of both aspects is related to the ontology of the common information in the UF. There is no separate ontology of UPC or PUF. The dualistic Sāṅkhya has separate ontology for Puruṣa and Prakṛti because it assumes to independent entities, but not the monistic eDAM. In the eDAM, the information in UF is fundamental and has ontology thru the doctrines of inter-dependent co-origination, co-evolution, and co-development, and sensori-motor co-tuning of both aspects, i.e., this ontology is for both aspects. The eDAM proposes two different perspectives of “viewing” the same common information. This is clear for an individual human (such as us) in a conscious state. It appears confusing to us for inert entities, and entities in Levels 2 and 3, but we can use our imagination that let us suppose we were that entity such as if we were UF; this is the best we can do in our conscious states; but presumably one might able to enter in inert entities, entities in Levels 2 and 3, and UF and become them presumably at Nirvikalpa Samādhi state. The mental aspect (such as UPC) of a state (such as the unmanifested state) of the information (such as the fundamental primal information) in an entity (such as the UF) is simply “viewing” this common information from the 1pp of an entity (such as the UF). Similarly for the inseparable physical aspect, i.e., it is simply “viewing” the same common information from 3pp? Unlike dualistic Sāṅkhya, there is no separate ontology of each aspect in the eDAM.I still hold my hypothesis that SEs are excitations/modes of UPC field (Kastrup, 2016) because you have misunderstood the eDAM that the extended physics does not have mental aspect. The idea of modes as particles is borrowed from QED where each quantum particle is a mode/excitation of a field.The subtle level dual-aspect entities (such as dual-aspect astral and causal bodies, SEs, etc.) are manifested from the subtlest dual-aspect UF. The QM level entities are manifested from subtle levels and CM level entities from QM level entities. Thus, we can argue that SEs are excitations of subtle level experiential field, which in turn is manifested from the subtlest level experiential field that is a part of UPC. It is unclear if the individuality is maintained only up to subtle level or it also goes down to subtlest UF level, which unmanifested state of Brahman. If souls exist and if after liberation, mukta (liberated) souls merge with Brahman and individual souls keep their identity to exercise their Free-Will/freedom, then individuality remain intact but if souls lose their Free-Will/freedom then individuality is up to subtle level. If it is the latter as scriptures claim then some of us might prefer to remain in the subtle level after death and take birth again and again to enjoy (or suffer) the human life.One could argue that human life is the highest and full manifestation of Brahman, especially at Samādhi state. In subtle level we lose our physical bodies and hence it is incomplete manifestation and in subtlest level we even lose our astral and causal body (too much loss) and then nothing remains, which is like complete death and at this UF level our manifestation is zero and everything is taken away from us, even our Free-Will/freedom is lost (meaning we are like slaves that has to obey the master Brahman!) and we become inactive and our existence is completely lost; this is a latent state.
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Respected Dr. Ram,
My comments on balance issues which I had indicated in my previous emal to be sent in a separate email message. Obviously, there is a lot of divergence of our views despite our repeated discussions over a long periods. Key reasons for this lies in the fact that you want to subscribe to the physical ontology ( structure/functions) of the physical vacuum and physical QFs only , a view held by the materialist quantum physicists but at the same time don't want to have the birth of the mental aspects and consciousness from physical/ matter. This approach on your part gives birth to a no of
paradoxes/intra-contradictions / inconsistencies and in this process e DAM fails to provide a clear/convincing explanation as to from where and how any UF/dual aspect information OR UPC/mental information
aspects. This hypothesis of dual-aspect UF being the deepest level (Level 3 in the chart) in the eDAM is like Puruṣa and Prakṛti of du alistic Sāṅkhya, God in religions, Brahman in monastic Vedānta, and Śūnyatā in Buddhism. Any query, such as where they come from, ends here
because they are assumed to be fundamental; they all areubiquitous and eternal.I think, I have indicated many times and I want to reiterate thatin e DAM any existence of UF/dual information or UPC/mentalinformation becomes logically untenable till it subscribes to thephysical ontology of physical structure/functions of physical vacuumand physical QFs. And I have provided quite valid reasonsfor this also. Any ontology is on account of some structure/functions as related out and as taking birth from that structure.In e DAM, there is no dual aspect/mental structure/ functions as related to some structure from which UPC/ mental information OR UF/ dual aspect information. So the existence of any UF/dual aspect information OR UPC/mental information is logically untenable in the absence of any dual aspect/mental structure/function ( that is what is ontology)(ii) Manifest consciousness or God is not needed in the eDAM.In that case, any mental/dual aspect information or Laws take the shape of voodoo-ism and amounts to forcible placing the existence of any laws without any rational reason and logic butjust a part of a scientific dogmatic view.(iii) this is irrelevant in the eDAM as argued above.eDAM can't be immune to any rational reason, logic and observational facts. Yes, if as part of some dogmatic beliefs, it wants to continue with some illogical hypothesis it may continue
but this will be against all canons of rationality/logic/observationa l facts and evidence.Regards.Vinod Sehgal
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BA0450D 9-10EB-4C76-8CB6-D43793D9C505% 40yahoo.co.in.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.
--
----------------------------
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.al s.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
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+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/582C52A 5-CFEA-4A56-821F-21BD660F2D69% 40ulb.ac.be.
Bruno Marchal
Dear Bruno,I gave an example: if chair-in-itself does not exist, then if you remove the chair-in-itself (i.e., chair itself), then do you still experience it as an external object? No! Then it proves that chair-in-itself exists.
Bruno Marchal
On 25 Dec 2017, at 16:25, Joseph McCard wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> Bruno wrote: ... the dream argument seems to allow the possibility
> that "matter-in-itself" remains unreal.
>
> Joe wrote: Matter does not exist by itself, independent of any
> consciousness that is aware of it. This is apparent in, for example,
> the writings of Plato (his world of forms), and in Kant's Noumena,
> Leibniz's, Lewis', and Everett's possible worlds.
>
> I think I am being consistent when I say consciousness, aware-ized
> energy, creates form. Forms, which we call matter, are created in
> the ratio of: E = mcc.
It seems to me that energy is a physical attribute, and indeed close
to matter by Einstein's relation. All this assumes "physics", but I
prefer to not look too much to physics, as it is the thing which needs
to derive from elementary arithmetic (and its internal self-reference)
if we search a solution of the mechanist mind body problem.
>
> Bruno wrote: This is even more strongly supported by the fact that
> computations, in a sort of "block-mindscape".
>
> describing how our mind organizes and forms physical reality.
> Gravity, for example, is part of a universal "block-mindscape."
> Mathematics, the one you accept and practice, is the result of your
> own ideas of order and predictability, and of those who originated
> it, and those who understands it, and those who agree with it.
Locally, yes. But we should not confuse the mathematical reality and
the theories on the mathematical reality made by humans. Then with
mechanism, it is simpler (and obligatory) to explain the origin of
matter and consciousness (including the human one) from the numbers,
than explaining consciousness and matter from matter alone, for the
reason that the universal digital machine, and all its computations,
exist in arithmetic, in the same sense of "exist" than the sense of
"it exist x such that x = 1 + 1".
>
> Bruno wrote: With mechanism, this should at the least rises the
> explain the appearance of a physical reality.
>
> structures create the "mechanisms" in your own minds (YOUR "own
> private "primitive" physical reality),
That is what happens "all the time" in arithmetic. All universal
numbers" consciousness differentiates on their possible
phenomenological histories. The physical are the long sharable one.
Consciousness differentiates by perception/association/distinction and
fuse by abstraction/dissociation/amnesia.
> and those thoughts become your actual physical reality.
I just study the theological/metaphysical consequences of the
assumption that the brain/body is Turing emulable, with respect to my
own consciousness.
I study, by some metamathematical means, what the machine can prove
and what is true, but unprovable by the sound machines.
> Such mathematical realities are accepted practices, and are
> experienced by many. That doe not make them mechanisms, in the sense
> you seem to suggest.
I am not sure that there are evidence for anything not Turing-emulable
in nature except for the "illusion of the wave packet reduction",
already predicted by mechanism.
Also, I have far less doubt that 24 is an even number, than of the
existence of the moon. I can conceive waking up in a world without
moon, but it is far harder to conceive waking up in a world where 24
is odd (except for trivial change of names and interpretations of
course).
Keep in mind that since Gödel we know that all effective theories of
the Arithmetical Reality can only scratch its surface.
>
> Bruno wrote: But things are worst here, as adding a primitively
> the mind-body problem unsolvable in the frame of the
> computationalist (digital mechanist) hypothesis/theory.
>
OK. But note that there are no evidence physicalism, or weak
materialism (the belief in some irreducible material reality) either.
It was a convenient hypothesis in the Natural Science, and now we can
test it against Mechanism in metaphysics (by comparing the physics in
the head of the universal numbers with the physics inferred from
actual observation).
We can also "test", in a different sense, the theology of the machine
by comparing with the religious or metaphysical treatise of human
inquirer, if not with personal experience.
Mechanism can be shown closer to Neoplatonism and Neopythagoreanism,
and I would think the early Vedas and early Chinese, than to the
Aristotelian (weakly material) or Indian materialists (as they have
also defend that idea, although it is hard to remember their name(*)).
With mechanism, (which I borrowed from molecular biology well before
arithmetic) it is up to the believer in a material reality to explain
how that reality can make some computations in arithmetic seeming more
"real" than others, which is virtually impossible without betraying
the digital mechanist assumption.
But you are right, if digital mechanism is false, it is logically
conceivable that some primitive matter, or some special infinities,
makes sense, but that seems to me a bit premature to invoke, given
that the universal numbers have a rich theology showing a non trivial
physics with startling prediction, most already retro-confirmed
through the very special "quantum weirdness" or "quantum logics".
Bruno
>
> joe
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Illusion, maya, appearances are because of the presence of our minds; if we somehow minimize the activity of mind (such as in Nirtvikalpa Samadhi state in Mind-dependent reality, MDR), then we might be closer to know entities in mind-independent reality (MIR) such as consciousness-in-itself and matter-in-itself.
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
Bruno Marchal
Bruno,What's the goal?
joe
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
Bruno,Bruno wrote: ... the dream argument seems to allow the possibility that "matter-in-itself" remains unreal.
Joe wrote: Matter does not exist by itself, independent of any consciousness that is aware of it. This is apparent in, for example, the writings of Plato (his world of forms), and in Kant's Noumena, Leibniz's, Lewis', and Everett's possible worlds.I think I am being consistent when I say consciousness, aware-ized energy, creates form. Forms, which we call matter, are created in the ratio of: E = mcc.
Bruno wrote: This is even more strongly supported by the fact that the additive+multiplicative structure of the numbers realize all computations, in a sort of "block-mindscape".
Joe wrote: Interesting, in that I just posted a comment to Vinod describing how our mind organizes and forms physical reality. Gravity, for example, is part of a universal "block-mindscape." Mathematics, the one you accept and practice, is the result of your own ideas of order and predictability, and of those who originated it, and those who understands it, and those who agree with it.
Bruno wrote: With mechanism, this should at the least rises the doubt that we need a "real" or "primitive" physical reality to explain the appearance of a physical reality.Joe wrote: I suggest your, and likeminded others, own psychological structures create the "mechanisms" in your own minds (YOUR "own private "primitive" physical reality), and those thoughts become your actual physical reality. Such mathematical realities are accepted practices, and are experienced by many. That doe not make them mechanisms, in the sense you seem to suggest.Bruno wrote: But things are worst here, as adding a primitively real matter to select some branch of the conscious-histories make the mind-body problem unsolvable in the frame of the computationalist (digital mechanist) hypothesis/theory.
Joe wrote: True, in that framework. 😀
Bruno Marchal
Bruno,Who do you want to be? Pythagoras of Samos, the secrets of the universe revealed in numbers?
joe
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
Bruno,What's the goal?joe
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:Bruno,Bruno wrote: ... the dream argument seems to allow the possibility that "matter-in-itself" remains unreal.Joe wrote: Matter does not exist by itself, independent of any consciousness that is aware of it. This is apparent in, for example, the writings of Plato (his world of forms), and in Kant's Noumena, Leibniz's, Lewis', and Everett's possible worlds.I think I am being consistent when I say consciousness, aware-ized energy, creates form. Forms, which we call matter, are created in the ratio of: E = mcc.Bruno wrote: This is even more strongly supported by the fact that the additive+multiplicative structure of the numbers realize all computations, in a sort of "block-mindscape".Joe wrote: Interesting, in that I just posted a comment to Vinod describing how our mind organizes and forms physical reality. Gravity, for example, is part of a universal "block-mindscape." Mathematics, the one you accept and practice, is the result of your own ideas of order and predictability, and of those who originated it, and those who understands it, and those who agree with it.Bruno wrote: With mechanism, this should at the least rises the doubt that we need a "real" or "primitive" physical reality to explain the appearance of a physical reality.Joe wrote: I suggest your, and likeminded others, own psychological structures create the "mechanisms" in your own minds (YOUR "own private "primitive" physical reality), and those thoughts become your actual physical reality. Such mathematical realities are accepted practices, and are experienced by many. That doe not make them mechanisms, in the sense you seem to suggest.Bruno wrote: But things are worst here, as adding a primitively real matter to select some branch of the conscious-histories make the mind-body problem unsolvable in the frame of the computationalist (digital mechanist) hypothesis/theory.Joe wrote: True, in that framework. 😀joe
Serge Patlavskiy
From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
Cc: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>;
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2017 11:57 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Idealism vs. eDAM
Bruno Marchal
Who do you want to be? Pythagoras of Samos, the secrets of the universe revealed in numbers?
joeOn Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:Bruno,What's the goal?joeOn Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:Bruno,Bruno wrote: ... the dream argument seems to allow the possibility that "matter-in-itself" remains unreal.Joe wrote: Matter does not exist by itself, independent of any consciousness that is aware of it. This is apparent in, for example, the writings of Plato (his world of forms), and in Kant's Noumena, Leibniz's, Lewis', and Everett's possible worlds.I think I am being consistent when I say consciousness, aware-ized energy, creates form. Forms, which we call matter, are created in the ratio of: E = mcc.Bruno wrote: This is even more strongly supported by the fact that the additive+multiplicative structure of the numbers realize all computations, in a sort of "block-mindscape".Joe wrote: Interesting, in that I just posted a comment to Vinod describing how our mind organizes and forms physical reality. Gravity, for example, is part of a universal "block-mindscape." Mathematics, the one you accept and practice, is the result of your own ideas of order and predictability, and of those who originated it, and those who understands it, and those who agree with it.Bruno wrote: With mechanism, this should at the least rises the doubt that we need a "real" or "primitive" physical reality to explain the appearance of a physical reality.Joe wrote: I suggest your, and likeminded others, own psychological structures create the "mechanisms" in your own minds (YOUR "own private "primitive" physical reality), and those thoughts become your actual physical reality. Such mathematical realities are accepted practices, and are experienced by many. That doe not make them mechanisms, in the sense you seem to suggest.Bruno wrote: But things are worst here, as adding a primitively real matter to select some branch of the conscious-histories make the mind-body problem unsolvable in the frame of the computationalist (digital mechanist) hypothesis/theory.Joe wrote: True, in that framework. 😀joe