Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Poznanski 1/5/18
For qualia to emerge there needs to be large number of nonlocal functional interactions that can be integrated. From this emerge qualia as a teleofunctionality vector potential (cf. magnetic vector potential in homogenous matter, like semi-conductors). It is a kind of 'quantum' force that causally interacts through energy exchange with quantum solitons as phonons and this gets transmitted via electro-solitons along protein elements. At this step information of the real world is tainted by intrinsic or active information from the quantum realm or I prefer to call it sub-molecular since it is not pure quantum state but a quantum-like macro state. Consciousness is the endogenous EM field at the sub-molecular level. At the classical realm the electric field dominates and subjectivity does not exist. What exists is the epistemological object that has been tainted by subjectivity. Again there is no pure subjectivity nor is there a pure quantum state in the brain since there is a nonreductive physicalist ontology in place. Ordered water surrounding the molecular protein ions is where this quantum-like state forms and subjectivity emerges from the integration of active information through teleosemantics. Bohm did mention the classical/non-classical divide as representing the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy in his work with Hiley.
I hope I didn't claim that qualia are related to quantum theory. What I thought I said is that qualia and quantum theory are the two great mysteries. I guess maybe I implied that maybe they are connected. That is wishful thinking." Qualia are a phenomenological term and should not be used in science. Quantum theory? Can you give us a heads up on what particular theory you mean? What is related is not a quantum theory but the sub molecular level to the molecular level. If we use reductionist materialism then sub-molecular is atomic level which is physics. But this is the problem!!! We need to have an integrative model of brain functioning. The sub-molecular level is not classical it is quantum-like and therefore I see no issues with the claim that subjectivity correlates with the sub-molecular level in the brain's hierarchy. This is the essence!!! It is a nonreductive materialist framework based on reality not theory.
Qualia are NOT the endogenous EM field. Consciousness is. Mechanization of consciousness requires the integration of nonlocal functions in heterogeneous matter (cf animate) between non-classical and classical worlds. Silicon chips or semi-conductors will not yield sentience because there are no nonlocal interactions. They are all local.
[Pereira?: "However, even if 'qualia' find a quantum theoretical explanation, the emerging theory is still a representation of reality, not a lived experience (presentation). I have proposed a theory of consciousness based on feelings, not on representations; but many of my colleagues claim that consciousness is based on representations, and attempt to reproduce it artificially by means of symbolic operations in machines, etc.etc - you are not alone!"]
You are moving subjectivity to sainthood and purity. All these are wrong notions of priests and gurus. Yes, subjectivity is a mental representation which we define as teleosemantics.
[Pereira?: “Quantum mechanics is a mathematical representation of micro reality, not a lived experience of reality. This is quite obvious, since we do not see, hear, smell, taste, etc. the particles. Or forces or Schrodinger cats? If we choose not to try to understand first person experience, we weaken ourselves in that realm.”]
This is your mistake. The particles at the atomic level are integrated in brain functioning. They play a major role in deciding why you like chocolate and not vanilla ice cream. It is because you are not aware of this non-classical world you seem oblivious to why you are having such raw subjectivity experiences. It has a lot to do with Freud's theory placed on an integrative physiological/biophysical plate. We are moving in the right direction. Diamat rules!
Pereira 1/5/18
When interpreting qualia as an EM field, you are assuming reductive materialism. For most non-reductive philosophers, qualia are lived experiences in the domain of interaction of brain, body and environment, generating the "what it is like to be" (or feeling) experienced in the first-person perspective (in other words, qualia require an experiencer; they are not the physical-chemical quality alone). As Maturana said, "all that is said is said by someone". I paraphrase it as "all that is experienced is experienced by someone". In this case a theory of consciousness cannot be limited to the quality that is experienced, but must also cover the mechanism by which this quality is felt by the experiencer. All too complicated!
Vimal
Roman’s emergence is voodoo-ism because it is just a jargon and its needs unpacking as done in (Vimal, 2013). He does not elaborate if his emergence is weak, medium, or strong one.
I do not see that he uses the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, where matter has the potentiality for subjective experiences (SEs). Therefore, I assume he uses science’s definition of matter (by default), i.e., the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter, which implies that matter is non-experiential and non-mental. If this is correct, then the e-gap remains.
On the other hand, if he uses the non-scientific definition (matter has potentiality of SEs), then his framework is not materialism anymore; instead, it is a version of dual-aspect monism (implicitly), which he claims bogus, meaning his framework is bogus. Now he must decide which concept of matter he wants to use: scientific or non-scientific.
I agree with Alfredo and Maturana; we need SEs as well as experiencer; both are irreducible and fundamental; Roman rejects that they are fundmental.
To sum up, Roman’s framework either has e-gap or is bogus (his word)!! In addition, his framework is unscientific unless he clearly proposes a testable experiment which has ability to reject it.
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
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320764837_Sentience_in_living_tissue_Commentary_on_Woodruff_on_Fish_Feel
Dear Alfredo,
Thanks. I have one query.
Pereira
The hydro-ionic wave is related to sentience, a basic modality of consciousness that appears in all multicellular organisms, beginning with plants. A brain is not needed for sentience. Of course TAM is different from Roman's Diamat, but we agree on the physiological substrate. Feelings cannot exist without matter because they are the effect (or affect) of information on matter.
Vimal
As per Wikipedia (as of 12 Dec. 2017 with minor modification), “Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experienc e subjectively. Eighteenth- century philosophers used the concept to distinguish the ability to think (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as "qualia"). In Eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that require respect and care. The concept is central to the philosophy of animal rights because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights. […] In the philosophy of consciousness, sentience can refer to the ability of any entity to have subjective perceptual experiences, or as some philosophers refer to them, "qualia". This is distinct from other aspects of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, s apience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which otherwise commonly and collectively describes sentience plus other characteristics of the mind. Some philosophers, notably Colin McGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a position known as "new mysterianism". They do not deny that most other aspects of consciousness are subject to scientific investigation but they argue that subjective experiences will never be explained; i.e., sentience is the only aspect of consciousness that can't be explained. Other philosophers (such as Daniel Dennett, who also argues that non-human animals are not sentient) disagree, arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually be explained by science. […] According to the theory of ideasthesia, a sentient system has to have the capability to categorise and to create concepts. Empirical evidence suggests that sentience about stimuli is closely related to the process of extracting the meaning of the stimuli. How one understands the stimuli determines how one experiences them. […] Eastern religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Jainism recognise non- humans as sentient beings. In Jainism and Hinduism, this is closely related to the concept of ahimsa, nonviolence toward other beings.”
However, I guess, by the term ‘consciousness’ Roman means SE without impurity, whereas by ‘sentience’, he means SE with impurity. Impurity = contamination in pure consciousness with the matter. In other words, sentience = SE emerges from or is identical with matter (such as a brain) as materialism proposes.
What is the definition of your use of the term “sentience” and how does it differ from SEs?
Do you mean to say that a brain is not needed for sentience, but a brain is needed for feelings (SEs, consciousness)? If this is true, then self-aware, self-referral, and self-conscious CC (cosmic consciousness) or Sehgal’s manifested consciousness (Purusha, OOO-God) (who are brainless) from very beginning must be rejected. The potentiality of SEs in the primal entity to actuality of a specific SE in us is the reality. What is your comment on this?
Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Friday 5 January 2018, 1:31:22 PM GMT-5, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:Thanks Kashyap.
Vasavada
Dear Ram and Roman,
I have been reading your debates, furious (!!) at times. Without weighing in who is right, let me add something.
Roman, if you want to be taken out of this list then write to the editors. None of us has the power to take you off the list. Otherwise do just as most of us do for junk mail. Delete without reading them!
Now about science: If I understand, Ram’s framework is quite general. He may be taking support from Indian spiritual Scriptures, but he uses quantum mechanical ideas of states and expansion in eigenstates etc.. In that case his formalism may be compatible with any molecular basis (Roman’s, Penrose-Hameroff’s, Morrison’s , Stapp’s and dozens of others). He also may not mind the process, electromagnetic or otherwise. Ram, please correct me if I am wrong.
On the other hand Roman insists that only his mechanism , bound water molecules (ions) and electromagnetic pathways is correct. That may be correct. But scientists would want an experimental confirmation.
Also quoting from the other e-mail I recently wrote” On the other hand controversy is always good for science in general in the long run. One would hope that the discussions would be civil and not like cats and dogs' fight!!
Vimal
I agree with you that the final judge to reject a framework is the empirical subjective and objective evidence. We cannot reject any framework; rather evidence rejects or maintains a specific framework. Therefore, we must provide testable experiments that have ability to reject our own frameworks; this is the main requirement for practicing good real science; otherwise, a framework selection is very hard just based on logic, which can be considered as pseudo-science.
I have provided such experiments for the eDAM in Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015g), which I like to make better so critical comments are most welcome. Similarly, Roman should provide such type of experiment, but he is unable to do so and still want his DiaMat scientific by talking loudly and by force, which is an irrational behaviour.
Of course, I do not mind the process, electromagnetic field such CEMI, hydro-ionic field, or otherwise. I think materialistic models are good for physical aspect. To link and address structure and function, there are many neuroscience models: (i) the classical axonal-dendritic sub-pathway for neuro-computation (Crick & Koch, 1998; Damasio, 1999; Litt, Eliasmith, Kroona, Weinstein, & Thagarda, 2006; Steriade, McCormick, & Sejnowski, 1993) and neural Darwinism (Edelman, 1993, 2003) and the classical sub-pathway related to consciousness electromagnetic information field (Cemi field) theory (McFadden, 2002a, 2002b, 2006), (ii) the quantum dendritic-dendritic sub-pathway for quantum-computation (Hameroff & Penrose, 1998), (iii) astro-glia-neuronal transmission (Pereira Jr., 2007), (iv) (a) the sub-pathway related to extracellular field, gaseous diffusion (Poznanski, 2002), or global volume transmission in the gray matter as fields of neural activity (Poznanski, 2009) and (b) the sub-pathway related to local extrasynaptic signaling between fine distal dendrites of cortical neurons (Poznanski, 2009), and (v) the sub-pathway related to information transmission via soliton propagation (Davia, 2006; Vimal & Davia, 2008).
However, creating SEs out of non-experiential matter (the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept) has well-known Levine’s explanatory gap (e-gap). If we assume that matter has potential for SEs (Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa- Aristotle’s concept) then it is no more materialism; it is a version of dual-aspect monism; but we need to understand where they originally come from.
Roman accepts the latter but proposes SEs originate at molecular level. I (and perhaps also Alfredo) propose they are potentially inherent in the primal entity and then actualize in living entities with various degrees, but in us the manifestation is much higher at wakeful conscious state and highest at Samādhi state (in my view).
Our (Roman vs. mine plus Alfredo) main difference is that at what level SEs are inherent. Roman thinks that potentially of SEs inherent at all levels including primal level is incorrect, but then question remains where from SEs come from at molecular level (the major problem, raised by Vinod ji).
Another difference is that he misleads that DiaMat is still materialism while accepting potentiality of SEs in matter. In my view, if DiaMat accepts the potentiality of SEs in matter then it is a version of dual-aspect monism, not materialism. He tricks the materialists by hiding this fact so that he can publish his article in materialism based scientific journals. In other words, he is practicing a version of dual-aspect monism (because of our (Alfredo and mine) teaching of multi-aspect monism over 2 years), but calling it bogus; instead he claims that his framework is based on materialism (where matter inherently has no potential for SEs, i.e., Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter used by modern science). In this sense, he is not an honest researcher. However, I consider it a minor problem, which he can fix it easily.
In my view, Roman is irrational in this sense because he is unable to address these questions and uses objectionable and stressful language. He must STOP using such words and behave properly in a group discussion to make it pleasant. We discuss for pleasure, not for pain and stress. Therefore, humility and compassion towards each other are necessary and rudeness should be avoided.Cheers!Kind regards,Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Friday 5 January 2018, 12:54:42 PM GMT-5, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 12:38 PM, BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Paul and Roman,
Any knowledge starts from the first-person perspective (FPP), but science moves beyond this perspective into a an intersubjective testable representation of reality.Yes. I hope I have not said anything which gives an impression of disagreeing with that, though I think of it more as science BUILDING on the first person consciousness, not moving away exactly. It is like adding a floor to the building. Poetry and music do the same.While in the FPP we have "presentations" (lived experiences) of reality, in science we have "representations" of reality (using symbols, numbers, images, etc.).Here I disagree. In understanding our first person experience, we certainly can use words and mathematics.Quantum mechanics is a mathematical representation of micro reality, not a lived experience of reality. This is quite obvious, since we do not see, hear, smell, taste, etc. the particles.Or forces or Schrodinger cats? If we choose not to try to understand first person experience, we weaken ourselves in that realm.
University of Ireland
which many of us published with
Yet we find this at http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscinet/jin ;
"Announcement
Commencing Volume 16, World Scientific Publishing has ceased the
publication of this journal."
This is bad news, if true. Is Roman looking for a new publisher and can we help?
On 1/5/18, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy
association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
<Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Poznanski 1/5/18
>
> For qualiato emerge there needs to be large number of nonlocal functional
> interactionsthat can be integrated. From this emerge qualia as a
> teleofunctionality vectorpotential (cf. magnetic vector potential in
> homogenous matter, likesemi-conductors). It is a kind of 'quantum' force
> that causally interactsthrough energy exchange with quantum solitons as
> phonons and this getstransmitted via electro-solitons along protein
> elements. At this step information of the real world istainted by intrinsic
> or active information from the quantum realm or I preferto call it
> state. Consciousness is the endogenous EM field at the sub-molecularlevel.
> At the classical realm the electric field dominates and subjectivity doesnot
> exist. What exists is the epistemological object that has been tainted
> quantumstate in the brain since there is a nonreductive physicalist ontology
> in place.Ordered water surrounding the molecular protein ions is where this
> quantum-likestate forms and subjectivity emerges from the integration of
> active informationthrough teleosemantics. Bohm did mention the
> classical/non-classical divide asrepresenting the objectivity/subjectivity
>
> thought I saidis that qualia and quantum theory are the two great
> mysteries. I guess maybe I implied that maybe they areconnected. That is
> wishful thinking." Qualia are a phenomenological termand should not be used
> molecular level tothe molecular level. If we use reductionist materialism
> then sub-molecular isatomic level which is physics. But this is the
> problem!!! We need to have anintegrative model of brain functioning. The
> sub-molecular level is notclassical it is quantum-like and therefore I see
> no issues with the claim thatsubjectivity correlates with the sub-molecular
> level in the brain's hierarchy. Thisis the essence!!! It is a
> nonreductivematerialist framework based on reality not theory.
>
> Qualia areNOT the endogenous EM field. Consciousness is. Mechanization of
> consciousness requires theintegration of nonlocal functions in heterogeneous
> matter (cf animate) betweennon-classical and classical worlds. Silicon chips
> or semi-conductors will notyield sentience because there are no nonlocal
>
> explanation,the emerging theory is still a representation of reality, not a
> livedexperience (presentation). I have proposed a theory of consciousness
> based onfeelings, not on representations; but many of my colleagues claim
> thatconsciousness is based on representations, and attempt to reproduce
> itartificially by means of symbolic operations in machines, etc.etc - you
> are not alone!"]
>
> You are movingsubjectivity to sainthood and purity. All these are wrong
> notions of priestsand gurus. Yes, subjectivity is a mental representation
>
> [Pereira?: “Quantum mechanics is a mathematical representation of micro
> do not see,hear, smell, taste, etc. the particles. Or forces or Schrodinger
> cats? If wechoose not to try to understand first person experience, we
> weaken ourselves inthat realm.”]
>
> This isyour mistake. The particles at the atomic level are integrated in
> brainfunctioning. They play a major role in deciding why you like chocolate
> and notvanilla ice cream. It is because you are not aware of this
> non-classical worldyou seem oblivious to why you are having such raw
> subjectivity experiences. Ithas a lot to do with Freud's theory placed on an
> integrative physiological/biophysicalplate. We are moving in the right
>
> Pereira 1/5/18
>
> materialism. Formost non-reductive philosophers, qualia are lived
> experiences in the domain ofinteraction of brain, body and environment,
> generating the "what it islike to be" (or feeling) experienced in the
> first-person perspective (inother words, qualia require an experiencer; they
> are not the physical-chemicalquality alone). As Maturana said, "all that is
> said is said bysomeone". I paraphrase it as "all that is experienced is
> experiencedby someone". In this case a theory of consciousness cannot be
> limited to thequality that is experienced, but must also cover the mechanism
> by which thisquality is felt by the experiencer. All too complicated!
>
> Vimal
>
> Roman’semergence is voodoo-ism because it is just a jargon and its needs
> unpacking asdone in (Vimal, 2013). He does not elaborate ifhis emergence is
>
>
> On the other hand, if he uses the non-scientific definition (matter
> instead,it is a version of dual-aspect monism (implicitly), which he claims
> bogus, meaninghis framework is bogus. Now he must decide which concept of
> matter he wants touse: scientific or non-scientific.
>
> I agree with Alfredo and Maturana; we needSEs as well as experiencer; both
> are irreducible and fundamental; Romanrejects that they are fundmental.
>
> To sum up, Roman’s framework either has e-gapor is bogus (his word)!! In
> addition, his framework is unscientific unless heclearly proposes a testable
> consciousnessthat appears in all multicellular organisms, beginning with
> plants. A brain isnot needed for sentience. Of course TAM is different from
> Roman's Diamat, butwe agree on the physiological substrate. Feelings cannot
> exist without matterbecause they are the effect (or affect) of information
> on matter.
>
> Vimal
>
> As per Wikipedia (as of 12 Dec.2017 with minor modification), “Sentience is
> thecapacity to feel, perceive or experienc esubjectively. Eighteenth-
> century philosophers used the concept todistinguish the ability to think
> (reason) from the ability to feel (sentience). In modernWestern philosophy,
> of all things that requirerespect and care. The concept is central to the
> philosophy of animalrights because sentience is necessary for the ability
> to suffer, andthus is held to confer certain rights. […] In thephilosophy
> of consciousness, sentience can refer tothe ability of any entity to have
> subjective perceptual experiences, or as somephilosophers refer to them,
> such as creativity, intelligence, s
> thoughtsabout something). Sentience is a minimalistic way of
> defining consciousness,which otherwise commonly and collectively describes
> sentience plus othercharacteristics of the mind. Some philosophers,
> notably ColinMcGinn, believe that sentience will never be understood, a
> position knownas "new mysterianism". They do not deny that mostother aspects
> the only aspectof consciousness that can't be explained. Other philosophers
> (such as DanielDennett, who also argues that non-human animals are not
> sentient) disagree,arguing that all aspects of consciousness will eventually
> be explained byscience. […] According to the theory of ideasthesia,a
> closelyrelated to the process of extracting the meaning of the stimuli. How
> oneunderstands the stimuli determines how one experiences them. […]
> Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism,and Jainism recognise non- humans assentient
> beings. In Jainism and Hinduism, this is closely related to theconcept
> of ahimsa,nonviolence toward other beings.”
>
> sentience = SE emergesfrom or is identical with matter (such as a brain) as
> materialism proposes.
>
> What isthe definition of your use of the term “sentience” and how does it
> differ fromSEs?
>
> Do youmean to say that a brain is not needed for sentience, but a brain is
> needed forfeelings (SEs, consciousness)? If this is true, then self-aware,
> self-referral,and self-conscious CC (cosmic consciousness) or Sehgal’s
> manifestedconsciousness (Purusha, OOO-God) (who are brainless) from very
> beginning mustbe rejected. The potentiality of SEs inthe primal entity to
> actuality of a specificSE in us is the reality. What is your comment on
>
>
> Cheers!
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Rām
>
> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
>
> Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
>
> Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
>
> Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research
> Dept.
>
> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
>
> Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
>
> rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal
>
>
>
> Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
>
>
> On Friday 5 January 2018, 1:31:22 PM GMT-5, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
> <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Kashyap.
>
>
> Vasavada
>
>
> Dear Ramand Roman,
>
> who isright, let me add something.
>
> Roman, ifyou want to be taken out of this list then write to the editors.
> None of us hasthe power to take you off the list. Otherwise do just as most
> of us do for junkmail. Delete without reading them!
>
> Now aboutscience: If I understand, Ram’sframework is quite general. He may
> his formalismmay be compatible with any molecular basis (Roman’s,
> Penrose-Hameroff’s,Morrison’s , Stapp’s and dozens of others). He also may
> not mind the process, electromagnetic or otherwise. Ram,please correct me if
> I am wrong.
>
> On theother hand Roman insists that only his mechanism , bound water
> molecules (ions)and electromagnetic pathways is correct. That may be
>
> controversyis always good for science in general in the long run. One would
> hope that thediscussions would be civil and not likecats and dogs' fight!!
>
>
> Vimal
>
>
>
>
> I agreewith you that the final judge to reject a framework is the empirical
> subjectiveand objective evidence. We cannot reject any framework; rather
> evidence rejectsor maintains a specific framework. Therefore, we must
> provide testableexperiments that have ability to reject our own frameworks;
> this is the mainrequirement for practicing good real science; otherwise, a
> framework selectionis very hard just based on logic, which can be considered
> as pseudo-science.
>
> I haveprovided such experiments for the eDAM in Section 3.2 of (Vimal,
> 2015g), which I like to makebetter so critical comments are most welcome.
> Similarly, Roman should providesuch type of experiment, but he is unable to
> do so and still want his DiaMat scientificby talking loudly and by force,
>
> hydro-ionic field, orotherwise. I think materialistic models are good for
> physical aspect. To linkand address structure and function, there are many
> neurosciencemodels: (i) the classical axonal-dendritic sub-pathway for
> sub-pathway for quantum-computation (Hameroff & Penrose, 1998), (iii)
> activity (Poznanski, 2009)and (b) the sub-pathway related to local
> extrasynaptic signaling between finedistal dendrites of cortical neurons
> (Poznanski, 2009),and (v) the sub-pathway related to information
> transmission via solitonpropagation (Davia, 2006; Vimal & Davia, 2008).
> However, creatingSEs out of non-experiential matter
> gap(e-gap). If we assume that matter has potential for SEs
> (Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa- Aristotle’sconcept) then it is no more materialism;
> it is aversion of dual-aspect monism; but we need to understand where they
> originally comefrom.
>
> Roman acceptsthe latter but proposes SEs originate at molecular level. I
> (and perhaps also Alfredo)propose they are potentially inherentin the primal
> entity and then actualizein living entities with various degrees, but in us
> the manifestation is muchhigher at wakeful conscious state and highest at
>
> are inherent.Roman thinks that potentially of SEs inherent at all levels
> including primallevel is incorrect, but then question remains where from SEs
> come from at molecularlevel (the major problem, raised by Vinod ji).
>
> Anotherdifference is that he misleads that DiaMat is still materialism while
> acceptingpotentiality of SEs in matter. In my view, if DiaMat accepts the
> potentiality ofSEs in matter then it is a version of dual-aspect monism, not
> materialism. Hetricks the materialists by hiding this fact so that he can
> publish his article inmaterialism based scientific journals. In other words,
> he is practicing aversion of dual-aspect monism (because of our (Alfredo and
> mine) teaching ofmulti-aspect monism over 2 years), but calling it bogus;
> instead he claims thathis framework is based on materialism (where matter
> researcher. However, I consider it a minor problem,which he can fix it
> easily.
> Inmy view, Roman is irrational in this sense because he is unable to address
> thesequestions and uses objectionable and stressful language. He must STOP
> usingsuch words and behave properly in a group discussion to make it
> pleasant. Wediscuss for pleasure, not for pain and stress. Therefore,
> humility andcompassion towards each other are necessary and rudeness should
> ----------------------------
> 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/1410640233.1397576.1515211308962%40mail.yahoo.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
1. Sehgal: Consciousness at the mind and brain level is not an emergent phenomenon. Consciousness at the mind and brain levels manifests from the primordial CC level. Whatever hydro-ionic waves are observed in the brain are due to the mediation by the brain in the process of the manifestation of consciousness at the brain from CC.
Poznanski: This is cosmic consciousness at its best. What satisfaction do priests and gurus get at misleading the layperson or the population? If you look at the Catholic Church in Europe one would say that keeping people in darkness was part of their sick agenda to the masses. Those that have given light have been the scientists e.g. Pasteur, Copernicus. Yes the darkness remains in this field of consciousness. These people prey on the ignorance of the masses keeping them in the dark. Well, not for much longer! Alfredo, I have read again your paper in quantum biosystems on the "quantum-like conscious protectorate" You give a good definition of what is a protectorate and how to test the hypothesis with lasers. Very good. However in the last part of the paper your demons are showing Alfredo. Who are you Alfredo? A scientist or a bogus maverick? This is what Alfredo wrote: "I disagree with those who understand that consciousness has a biological nature, since biological constraints are necessary to establish the right kind of initial and boundary conditions for consciousness to merge from an inorganic medium". Alfredo, who are you? Explain yourself! I trusted you and you are a "cosmic consciousness" freak?
Vimal: Poznanski must understand that there are four groups of metaphysical foundational frameworks, which, in my view, partially elaborate different aspects of the fundamental truth, in analogy to the parable of the blind men and an elephant. In this sense, all frameworks are respectable and opponents should not be bullied until empirical evidence are available.
The cosmic consciousness (CC), in my view, can be considered as a part of 3 metaphysics:
(I) Sehgal’s theist eastern non-interactive dualistic SAnkhya, which has two independent non-interacting primal entities: (a) manifested cosmic consciousness (OOO-God, Purusha) and (b) Moola Prakriti (physical bodies, astral bodies, and causal bodies). This is in analogy to western Catesian Interactive Substance Dualism (ISD).
(II) The CC in Advaita (in anlogy to Idealism) is the fundamental attributeless aspectless Brahman (primal entity) from which Purusha and Moola Prakriti are derived; it is close to Neutral Monism. Stapp calls it Global Mind and claims that it is dual-aspect idealism.
(III) The extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM)’s (a) atheist Universal Potential Consciousness as the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of Unfied Information Field with information (UIF: primal entity/field, dual-aspect Brahman) and (b) Physical Unified Field (PUF) as its inseparable physical aspect.
In the Triple Aspect Monism (TAM) framework, it is primal energy field (PEF) that has 3 aspects: matter, information, and consciousness. Perhaps, TAM’s PEF = eDAM’s UIF. They are middle way between idealism/dualism and materialism.
GS’ SAnkhya is an atheist framework and is a scientific mathematical interpretation of original atheist Kapilamuni’s SAnkhya, where unitless ratio method is used in its mathematical derivation. Purusha (experiencer) surrounds Prakriti as if one could interpret it close to a version of dual-aspect monism or one could also interpret it as materialism.
(IV) Materialism is the 4th metaphysics, in which non-experiential non-mental matter is the only fundamental field from which somehow mind and subjective experiences (SEs) arise. Poznanski’s DiaMat (Dilectical Materialism) framework is a version of materialism. Here, matter does not have potentiality for SEs, therefore, (Levine, 1983)’s explanatory gap remains. Dennett’s view is that SEs are illusion. On the other hand, as per idealism, matter-in-itself is illusion (Kastrup, 2016).
Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pac Philos Quart, 64, 354–361.
2. (a) Vimal: You need to read Levine(1983) article for e-gap. This is well-known gap, which all materialists must address. There is no escape.
Poznanaski: Garbage in garbage out!
Vimal: Levine’s e-gap is not garbage; it is well-respected in scientific community especially in philosophy; see Chalmers’ work.
(b) Vimal: Alternatively, limit yourself to structure and function.
Poznanaski: Have not seen my abstract on teleological function. This is an immature reply, Wasting my time responding!
Vimal: Teleology is non-scientific; science’s evolution has no purpose; it is based on randomness, adaptation, and natural selection (“fittest survive”; since religions fits well in society it is still significant; personally I am agnostic). However, I like teleology and anthropic principle even it is unscientific; I have used it in the eDAM. In any case, the e-gap remains because of science’s definition of matter, which is non-mental and non-experiential. The e-gap is: how can you create subjective experiences (SEs) from the non-experiential matter that does not even have a trace of potentiality of SE? Here, teleological function is not going to help you. The fact is that matter, such as brain, has potentiality of SEs; that is why we have SEs; but then it is a version of dual-aspect monism, which you reject it as “bogus”.
(c) Vimal: If want to do research on SEs then eDAM or TAM is the best. Koch and Tononi and many materialists (including me) started considering DAM.
Poznanaski: Koch and Tononi don't have the mathematical prowess to look at the sub-molecular terrain.
Vimal: Mathematics is not going to create SEs; the e-gap will still remain.
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering
(FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
Roman,You need to read Levine(1983) article for e-gap. This is well-known gap, which all materialists must address. There is no escape.Alternatively, limit yourself to structure and function.If want to do research on SEs then eDAM or TAM is the best. Koch and Tononi and many materialists (including me) started considering DAM.Yes, you should learn TM ; it has helped millions. Bob (Boyer) is expert on TM (transcendental meditation). Bernie (Baars) also practices meditation. He can help you as well. You badly need it, Roman!You can also visit Hare Rama Hare Krishna temple or TM center
nearest you.All the best in your meditation!Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 5, 2018, at 11:54 PM, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:Ram, I am starting to think less of Levine's e-gap. If Levine assumes some sort of nonphysical vs physical dualism then there is no e-gap. As previously I mentioned 100 times in circlesssssssssssss mentalism is physical and there is no pure subjective experiences.Stop this time wasting exercise and start doing yoga...your time will be better spent then trying to act scientifically.-------
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering (FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski. blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Poznanski 1/5/18
For qualia to emerge there needs to be large number of nonlocal functional interactions that can be integrated. From this emerge qualia as a teleofunctionality vector potential (cf. magnetic vector potential in homogenous matter, like semi-conductors). It is a kind of 'quantum' force that causally interacts through energy exchange with quantum solitons as phonons and this gets transmitted via electro-solitons along protein elements. At this step information of the real world is tainted by intrinsic or active information from the quantum realm or I prefer to call it sub-molecular since it is not pure quantum state but a quantum-like macro state. Consciousness is the endogenous EM field at the sub-molecular level. At the classical realm the electric field dominates and subjectivity does not exist. What exists is the epistemological object that has been tainted by subjectivity. Again there is no pure subjectivity nor is there a pure quantum state in the brain since there is a nonreductive physicalist ontology in place. Ordered water surrounding the molecular protein ions is where this quantum-like state forms and subjectivity emerges from the integration of active information through teleosemantics. Bohm did mention the classical/non-classical divide as representing the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy in his work with Hiley.
I hope I didn't claim that qualia are related to quantum theory. What I thought I said is that qualia and quantum theory are the two great mysteries. I guess maybe I implied that maybe they are connected. That is wishful thinking." Qualia are a phenomenological term and should not be used in science. Quantum theory? Can you give us a heads up on what particular theory you mean? What is related is not a quantum theory but the sub molecular level to the molecular level. If we use reductionist materialism then sub-molecular is atomic level which is physics. But this is the problem!!! We need to have an integrative model of brain functioning. The sub-molecular level is not classical it is quantum-like and therefore I see no issues with the claim that subjectivity correlates with the sub-molecular level in the brain's hierarchy. This is the essence!!! It is a nonreductive materialist framework based on reality not theory.
Qualia are NOT the endogenous EM field. Consciousness is. Mechanization of consciousness requires the integration of nonlocal functions in heterogeneous matter (cf animate) between non-classical and classical worlds. Silicon chips or semi-conductors will not yield sentience because there are no nonlocal interactions. They are all local.
[Pereira?: "However, even if 'qualia' find a quantum theoretical explanation, the emerging theory is still a representation of reality, not a lived experience (presentation). I have proposed a theory of consciousness based on feelings, not on representations; but many of my colleagues claim that consciousness is based on representations, and attempt to reproduce it artificially by means of symbolic operations in machines, etc.etc - you are not alone!"]
You are moving subjectivity to sainthood and purity. All these are wrong notions of priests and gurus. Yes, subjectivity is a mental representation which we define as teleosemantics.
[Pereira?: “Quantum mechanics is a mathematical representation of micro reality, not a lived experience of reality. This is quite obvious, since we do not see, hear, smell, taste, etc. the particles. Or forces or Schrodinger cats? If we choose not to try to understand first person experience, we weaken ourselves in that realm.”]
This is your mistake. The particles at the atomic level are integrated in brain functioning. They play a major role in deciding why you like chocolate and not vanilla ice cream. It is because you are not aware of this non-classical world you seem oblivious to why you are having such raw subjectivity experiences. It has a lot to do with Freud's theory placed on an integrative physiological/biophysical plate. We are moving in the right direction. Diamat rules!
Pereira 1/5/18
When interpreting qualia as an EM field, you are assuming reductive materialism. For most non-reductive philosophers, qualia are lived experiences in the domain of interaction of brain, body and environment, generating the "what it is like to be" (or feeling) experienced in the first-person perspective (in other words, qualia require an experiencer; they are not the physical-chemical quality alone). As Maturana said, "all that is said is said by someone". I paraphrase it as "all that is experienced is experienced by someone". In this case a theory of consciousness cannot be limited to the quality that is experienced, but must also cover the mechanism by which this quality is felt by the experiencer. All too complicated!
Vimal
Roman’s emergence is voodoo-ism because it is just a jargon and its needs unpacking as done in (Vimal, 2013). He does not elaborate if his emergence is weak, medium, or strong one.
I do not see that he uses the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristot le’s concept of matter, where matter has the potentiality for subjective experiences (SEs). Therefore, I assume he uses science’s definition of matter (by default), i.e., the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter, which implies that matter is non-experiential and non-mental. If this is correct, then the e-gap remains.
On the other hand, if he uses the non-scientific definition (matter has potentiality of SEs), then his framework is not materialism anymore; instead, it is a version of dual-aspect monism (implicitly), which he claims bogus, meaning his framework is bogus. Now he must decide which concept of matter he wants to use: scientific or non-scientific.
I agree with Alfredo and Maturana; we need SEs as well as experiencer; both are irreducible and fundamental; Roman rejects that they are fundmental.
To sum up, Roman’s framework either has e-gap or is bogus (his word)!! In addition, his framework is unscientific unless he clearly proposes a testable experiment which has ability to reject it.
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
Paul Werbos
Poznanski 1/5/18
For qualia to emerge there needs to be large number of nonlocal functional interactions that can be integrated.
Sergio Basbaum
Shouldn't we understand "consciousness" as a "in between" phenomena? A relational phenomena, just like gravity is a phenomena between masses? Don't we live, after all, in an intersubjective "world"?
After all, there's no consciousness without world.
--
----------------------------
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+unsubscribe@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/CACLqmgeOznV9mvqGHtqAz0Lhpy15HAR%3DvRSXkWwcZnjQz9uHDg%40mail.gmail.com.
Paul Werbos
Hi Paul. did we wake you from sleep?
Roman: For qualia to emerge there needs to be large number of nonlocal functional interactions that can be integrated.
PW: I see no justification for believing that fundamental nonlocal physical interactions are necessary for qualia to emerge. Caveat: local dynamics can result in nonlocal entropy functions and statistics at a higher aggregate level, and nonlocality of entropy functions is important to interesting patterns evolving.Roman: Ok this is physics. I don't disagree. diamat considers teleological functions .
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear All,
Yes we are going in circles!! The confusion about meaning of the words locality and non-locality may be due to a historical accident. Unfortunately Bell in his original paper on entanglement used the word “non-locality” instead of non-factorizability. I agree with Ram and Kafatos. Currently most physicists agree that in entanglement experiment there is no question of faster than light signals. If the two detectors are at space like separation, you cannot and do not send faster than light (FTL) signals for getting correlations. As Kafatos says both the observers will get random (though correlated) results when they make measurements. So you cannot use the correlations to send any signal. Hence there is no violation of SR! The explanation of correlations is not FTL signals. Rather the two systems are described by a joint wave function, psi (r(1), r(2)) which gives correlations. There is no requirement for r(1) and r(2) to be connected by light signals.
Most physicists now agree that the word locality should be used for agreement with SR ( no FTL signals). If you use the word non-locality in the context of a joint wave function, it creates confusion as here. The current quantum field theory is called local field theory precisely for that reason. If Avatar Singh wants to have a different theory for light and quantum mechanics that is a different issue. But it has nothing to do with the words local and non-local.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: Menas Kafatos [mailto:me...@kafatos.com]
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 6:40 PM
To: matters...@googlegroups.com; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Cc: paul....@gmail.com; alfredo...@gmail.com; vinodse...@gmail.com; rw.b...@yahoo.com; vvima...@gmail.com; sastr...@gmail.com; skl...@berkeley.edu; sisir.s...@gmail.com; murty...@yahoo.com; joseph....@gmail.com; gsva...@gmail.com;
p.bu...@gmail.com; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
We are going around in circles. The v > c condition cannot occur in space time. However, the Switzerland Nicolas Gisin team experiments (cf. for example Quantum Nonlocality with Arbitrary Limited Detection Efficiency) indicated some time back an equivalent speed of propagation of greater than 20 c. This is not a physical speed, it is an equivalent speed of correlations, this is the whole point of nonlocality! Way back in 1999, Nadeau and I (Oxford University Press) wrote a whole book about nonlocality.
|
And I agree with Henry Stapp. And it is not just Stapp. Look up d'Espagnat, all the papers about nonlocality experiments, particularly the Gisin et al. experiments. The point is that one cannot send signals with v > c. But correlations occur at, from what one can see, instantaneously. Because the data for each pair in an EPR experiment look random, you cannot send signals. This is prohibited by special relativity. Non-locality does not go against SR.
And of course there are the (hypothetical) tachyons, which have a minimum speed = c and max speed infinite). But that is another story.
From: 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind
<matters...@googlegroups.com>
To: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Cc: paul....@gmail.com;
alfredo...@gmail.com; vinodse...@gmail.com;
rw.b...@yahoo.com;
vvima...@gmail.com; sastr...@gmail.com;
skl...@berkeley.edu;
sisir.s...@gmail.com; murty...@yahoo.com;
joseph....@gmail.com;
gsva...@gmail.com; p.bu...@gmail.com;
vasa...@iupui.edu;
matters...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 2:39 PM
Subject: [MoM] Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
You can discuss with Stapp.
I never said that v>c is possible and I gave 4 justifications against QM Non-locality with v>c. I think locality prevails with v<=c in both CM and QM, but not Stapp.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 8, 2018, at 4:53 PM, Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Ram:
You are thoroughly misinterpreting the QM interpretations, there are tens of them and none of them specifically prove that V>C. Even, Einstein's own admitted blunders (Cosmological Constant) are proving to be correct by empirical universe observations. No data or test have as yet proven relativity theory to be wrong in spite of the disagreement between scientists on non-locality interpretations.
Local is V<C and V=C is non-local since space-time is fully dilated at V=C to cause any locality. When distance dimension is zero the effective speed of travel between two points appears to be infinite even at V=C since the travelling object is at both points simultaneously ie entangled. QM non-locality never needs V>C; V=C is enough for non-locality.
There is no data nor any studies that have proven V>C. Could you present any reference that proves V>C?
Regards
Avtar
-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
To: paul.werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; poznanski <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Cc: alfredo.pereira <alfredo...@gmail.com>; vinodsehgal1955 <vinodse...@gmail.com>; rw.boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; vvimaldhye <vvima...@gmail.com>; sastry.bvk <sastr...@gmail.com>; sklein <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir.sisirroy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; murty_hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; joseph.e.mccard <joseph....@gmail.com>; gsvasktg <gsva...@gmail.com>; p.budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Kashyap V. Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu>; To: From the Chief Editor J. Integr. Neurosci. IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Sent: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 11:02 am
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientificDear Avtar,
Thanks but I am not wrong! Kashyap can help you on this; he has been teaching physics for a long time.
You can look at any good QM book; nonlocality usually means v>c. v<c is timelike, v=c is lightlike, v>c is spacelike. v<=c is considered local because physical information can be transmitted and does not violate special relativity; Einstein likes locality; v>c is considered nonlocal because physical information cannot be transfered faster than light and violates relativity, which he does not like. Yes, some of physicists like QM nonlocality (see below), but they are wrong. There are 4 justifcations for rejecting nonlocality in QM (see below). We discussed this before. Perhaps, you need to reconsider your framework. My eDAM framework is fine if people can understand it correctly.
As per (Dodson, 2013), “The EPR paradox stated that the only ways of explaining the effects of quantum entanglement were to assume the universe is nonlocal, or that the true basis of physics is hidden (otherwise known as a hidden-variable theory). Nonlocality in this case means that events occurring to entangled objects are linked even when the events cannot communicate through spacetime, spacetime having the speed of light as a limiting velocity. Nonlocality is also known as spooky action at a distance (Einstein's phrase).
Einstein, as the primary prophet of relativity theory, was revolted by the notion of nonlocality, and hence regarded the EPR result as a demonstration that underlying quantum mechanics was a deterministic hidden-variable theory. On this occasion, however, Einstein was wrong.
John Bell, in the early 1960s, demonstrated that correlations between the properties of particles in any local theory (not just quantum mechanics) were weaker than the correlations predicted by quantum mechanics. In other words, quantum mechanics is intrinsically nonlocal. Bell's Inequality can be and has been thoroughly tested experimentally, and although a tiny loophole or two are still outstanding, these experiments show that the quantum world is indeed nonlocal.”
1. Quantum nonlocality is apparent (not real): four justifications
The apparent nonlocality is in our mental space in the eDAM-MDR-MTI framework. There are four justifications for quantum nonlocality being apparent (not real) as follows.
I. The nonlocality is apparent because of the peculiarity of consciousness in the MDR
As per (Mermin, 1998), “If two subsystems are spatially separated then the local properties of each are limited to their internal correlations. These are completely determined by the density matrix of each. The density matrix of either subsystem is unaffected by any dynamical process acting only on the other subsystem, even when the dynamical process consists of letting the other subsystem undergo a measurement interaction with a third subsystem that functions as an apparatus. The choice and performance of a measurement on one subsystem cannot alter the local properties of the other, far away subsystem. Otherwise one could use ‘quantum nonlocality’ to send instantaneous signals. The impossibility of doing this should be called physical locality. Quantum mechanics obeys physical locality. ‘Quantum nonlocality’ (a violation, so to speak, of metaphysical locality) arises when one tries to reconcile the actual results of specific experiments to the hypothetical results of other experiments that might have been performed but were not. […]
There are two options. The first is to abandon the implicit assumption that the perceived result of a later measurement is unaffected by the choice and/or outcome of an earlier one. This is a route taken by those who embrace quantum nonlocality. It has the disconcerting feature that which measurement process affects which depends on whether you are using Alice’s frame of reference or Bob’s, but since the influence is of one of two space-like separated events on another, this is unavoidable. The most determined efforts to extract nonlocality from this kind of reasoning are those of Henry Stapp.
The second option (which I prefer) is to deny that the combined predictions of Alice and Bob have any relevance to what would have been perceived if both measurements had actually been of type 1 [position measurement]. […]
This is to extend the peculiar but undeniable ability of consciousness to experience the particularity of a correlation in an actual individual case to a hypothetical ability to experience the fictional particularity of a correlation in a fictional case, and to impose a consistency on the actually and fictionally perceived particularities. It is hard to see how to make this compelling, unless what consciousness is directly perceiving are actual correlata underlying all the correlations. […]
The IIQM evokes the Everett interpretation in stressing that a measurement is nothing more than a particular kind of interaction between two particular types of subsystems, designed to yield a particular kind of correlation”.
In other words, the quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the peculiarity of consciousness (Mermin, 1998). When we open our eyes, we have phenomenal experience of the whole visual field in our mental space with a subjective feeling of almost instantaneously from the 1st person perspective (1pp). It takes less than 50 msec stimulus presentation (Sperling, 1960) for non-reportable phenomenal consciousness; it takes about 500 msec for reportable access consciousness.
Although we cannot see space-like separated A and B simultaneously but we can think of them in our minds. The “quantum nonlocality” arises when we try to reconcile the actual measured results of specific experiments at site A with the hypothetical results of other (counterfactual) experiments at site B that might have been performed but in reality were not performed. The feeling of nonlocality is because of the peculiarity of consciousness (Mermin, 1998) (see also (Fuchs et al., 2013)), i.e., in our thought processing, an illusory thought of nonlocality related to simultaneity arises to reconcile the anticorrelation and angular dependence of coincident detection of space-like separated particles A and B. In other words, apparent nonlocality is in our mental space (see later) in the eDAM-MDR-MTI framework.
What is mental space?
This is an abstract space for thought processing in our mind, where all thoughts reside. It is related to the 1pp-mental aspect of a mind-brain state related to our thoughts such as how to reconcile the actual measured results of specific experiments at site A with the hypothetical results of other experiments at site B (Mermin, 1998). The 3pp-physical aspect of this mind-brain state is the related brain’s neural network and its activities. This nonlocality in the mental space is apparent (not actual/real in the physical space out there in the real physical world). This is because once the mind is excluded by removing the human observer from the measurement (such as measurements without human observers), then the quantum nonlocality also disappears.
Since the coincident detection depends on the angular difference between the directions of space-like separated detectors, we think that it is due to the nonlocality in physical space where material information has to travel faster than light because coincident detection by definition implies simultaneity. However, this violates relativity and it is impossible to transfer physical information at faster than the speed of light.
If relativity is correct in assuming that speed of material information transmission cannot be more than speed c of light, then the nonlocality must be the peculiarity of our thinking process in our consciousness, and hence the quantum nonlocality is property of our thinking process and the thought of nonlocality and FTL-IT (faster-than-light-information-transfer) must be in our hypothetical abstract space in our minds, which is named here as the ‘mental space’.
This mental space mysteriously emerges in our mind-brain system, which may be unpacked by assuming the mind-brain state has the 1pp-mental aspect that has an abstract 1pp-mental space in addition to the brain-representations in brain’s neural networks (the inseparable 3pp-physical aspect) related to external stimuli in physical space “out there in the real world”.
II. The nonlocality is apparent because observers obey CM but observed systems obey QM in the MDR
There is another way to deny nonlocality in QM, which is by introducing the third measurement called ‘comparision’ measurement of (Tipler, 2000) as elaborated before in Section 6.4. He used this concept in the MWI, but this can be used in any interpretation of QM. As per (Tipler, 2000), “Quantum nonlocality may be an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the [commutative] laws of classical mechanics, while observed systems obey [non-commutative law of] quantum mechanics.”
III. The nonlocality is apparent because QM is in configuration space in the MIR
As per (de la Peña et al., 2015), QM is an approximation of the phase space (p,x,t) to configuration space (x,t) or (p,t), which misleads to nonlocality. In other words, quantum nonlocality is an artifact of this approximation and hence it is unreal.
IV. The nonlocality is apparent because Bell’s inequality is based on classical-logic and QM is based on quantum logic in the MIR
As elaborated before, Susskind argues that QM appears nonlocal because Bell’s inequality is based on classical-logic; QM is based on quantum logic; so with or without experiments, they will differ. In my view, if we assume CM (classical mechanics) is real (in MIR world out there) and local (v≤c) then QM may appear as nonlocal (v>c) in our minds because of subjective probability, uncertainty, and superposition. Therefore, we need to derive Bell’s-like inequality based on quantum-logic. In other words, we should try to investigate nonlocality based on some other yardstick. We cannot take orange seeds and try to create apple out of it. Classical logic and quantum logic are of different kinds; it is a category mistake to use the former for investigating the latter. Do we have a violation of Bell’s inequality in CM?
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
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday 8 January 2018, 12:09:39 PM GMT-5, Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Ram:
Sorry, you are wrong at both - non-locality is not V>C and QM vindicates and not rejects non-locality.
Respectfully, if your theory is based on your stated (mis)understanding, then it is fundamentally wrong.
With Respect
Avtar
-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
To: paul.werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; poznanski <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Cc: alfredo.pereira <alfredo...@gmail.com>; vinodsehgal1955 <vinodse...@gmail.com>; rw.boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; vvimaldhye <vvima...@gmail.com>; sastry.bvk <sastr...@gmail.com>; sklein <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir.sisirroy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; murty_hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; joseph.e.mccard <joseph....@gmail.com>; gsvasktg <gsva...@gmail.com>; p.budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 8:31 am
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientificDear Avtar,
I understand that in your framework v<=c, which is excellent.
My understanding is that in QM, nonlocal usually means v>c and local v<=c. Since physical information cannot travel more than c as per special relativity, nonlocality (v>c) in QM is rejected.
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
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday 8 January 2018, 11:20:50 AM GMT-5, Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Ram:
Non-local means V=C and not V>C as you say. V never exceeds C, which is the absolute upper limit of V.
At V=C, all distances (dimensions) dilates zero and reality becomes non-local.
Thanks
Avtar
-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
To: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Cc: BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Sent: Mon, Jan 8, 2018 8:11 am
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientificThe term “nonlocal” in “nonlocal physical interactions” is misleading because it indicates v>c; all neural signals have v<<c; “nonlocal” should be replaced by “long range”, which is usually used in neurophysiology.
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
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday 8 January 2018, 8:37:10 AM GMT-5, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:
Fundamental nonlocal physical interactions are necessary for self-referential qualities to emerge across the brain sphere because through nonlocal dynamics integrated information can be accomplished. If the fundamental nonlocal physical interactions are themselves localized and result in nonlocal entropy functions and statistics at a higher aggregate level then the information is not integrated.
-------
Prof Roman R. Poznanski,
Director of Artificial Consciousness Laboratory
Department of Clinical Sciences
Faculty of Bioscience and Medical Engineering (FBME)
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Building V01, Block A, 4th Floor, Room 04-50-01
81310 UTM, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Tel: +607-555-8496
Mobile: +60-14-2347351
Email: pozna...@biomedical.utm.my
Websites: http://romanpoznanski.blogspot.com
and
Chief-Editor,
Journal of Integrative Neuroscience
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
Should we be considering putting a third alternative, neither eDAM nor Diamat on the table? I am in no position to put in so much effort myself today. So please forgive a smaller aspect.
On Jan 5, 2018 11:02 PM, "Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal" <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Poznanski 1/5/18
For qualia to emerge there needs to be large number of nonlocal functional interactions that can be integrated.
I agree with Roman's comment elsewhere about purity.. but since this sentence is concrete, I respond more concretely to it.
I see no justification for believing that fundamental nonlocal physical interactions are necessary for qualia to emerge.
Caveat: local dynamics can result in nonlocal entropy functions and statistics at a higher aggregafe level, and nonlocality of entropy functions is important to interesting patterns evolving.
I suppose bohm himself was a bit like Wittgenstein, taking opposite viewpoints fiercely at different times in his life. The later Bohm did try to make lemonade out of the lemons of the multiparticle Q potential. But it is not necessary.
From this emerge qualia as a teleofunctionality vector potential (cf. magnetic vector potential in homogenous matter, like semi-conductors). It is a kind of 'quantum' force that causally interacts through energy exchange with quantum solitons as phonons and this gets transmitted via electro-solitons along protein elements. At this step information of the real world is tainted by intrinsic or active information from the quantum realm or I prefer to call it sub-molecular since it is not pure quantum state but a quantum-like macro state. Consciousness is the endogenous EM field at the sub-molecular level. At the classical realm the electric field dominates and subjectivity does not exist. What exists is the epistemological object that has been tainted by subjectivity. Again there is no pure subjectivity nor is there a pure quantum state in the brain since there is a nonreductive physicalist ontology in place. Ordered water surrounding the molecular protein ions is where this quantum-like state forms and subjectivity emerges from the integration of active information through teleosemantics. Bohm did mention the classical/non-classical divide as representing the objectivity/subjectivity dichotomy in his work with Hiley.
I hope I didn't claim that qualia are related to quantum theory. What I thought I said is that qualia and quantum theory are the two great mysteries. I guess maybe I implied that maybe they are connected. That is wishful thinking." Qualia are a phenomenological term and should not be used in science. Quantum theory? Can you give us a heads up on what particular theory you mean? What is related is not a quantum theory but the sub molecular level to the molecular level. If we use reductionist materialism then sub-molecular is atomic level which is physics. But this is the problem!!! We need to have an integrative model of brain functioning. The sub-molecular level is not classical it is quantum-like and therefore I see no issues with the claim that subjectivity correlates with the sub-molecular level in the brain's hierarchy. This is the essence!!! It is a nonreductive materialist framework based on reality not theory.
Qualia are NOT the endogenous EM field. Consciousness is. Mechanization of consciousness requires the integration of nonlocal functions in heterogeneous matter (cf animate) between non-classical and classical worlds. Silicon chips or semi-conductors will not yield sentience because there are no nonlocal interactions. They are all local.
[Pereira?: "However, even if 'qualia' find a quantum theoretical explanation, the emerging theory is still a representation of reality, not a lived experience (presentation). I have proposed a theory of consciousness based on feelings, not on representations; but many of my colleagues claim that consciousness is based on representations, and attempt to reproduce it artificially by means of symbolic operations in machines, etc.etc - you are not alone!"]
You are moving subjectivity to sainthood and purity. All these are wrong notions of priests and gurus. Yes, subjectivity is a mental representation which we define as teleosemantics.
[Pereira?: “Quantum mechanics is a mathematical representation of micro reality, not a lived experience of reality. This is quite obvious, since we do not see, hear, smell, taste, etc. the particles. Or forces or Schrodinger cats? If we choose not to try to understand first person experience, we weaken ourselves in that realm.”]
This is your mistake. The particles at the atomic level are integrated in brain functioning. They play a major role in deciding why you like chocolate and not vanilla ice cream. It is because you are not aware of this non-classical world you seem oblivious to why you are having such raw subjectivity experiences. It has a lot to do with Freud's theory placed on an integrative physiological/biophysical plate. We are moving in the right direction. Diamat rules!
Pereira 1/5/18
When interpreting qualia as an EM field, you are assuming reductive materialism. For most non-reductive philosophers, qualia are lived experiences in the domain of interaction of brain, body and environment, generating the "what it is like to be" (or feeling) experienced in the first-person perspective (in other words, qualia require an experiencer; they are not the physical-chemical quality alone). As Maturana said, "all that is said is said by someone". I paraphrase it as "all that is experienced is experienced by someone". In this case a theory of consciousness cannot be limited to the quality that is experienced, but must also cover the mechanism by which this quality is felt by the experiencer. All too complicated!
Vimal
Roman’s emergence is voodoo-ism because it is just a jargon and its needs unpacking as done in (Vimal, 2013). He does not elaborate if his emergence is weak, medium, or strong one.
I do not see that he uses the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristot le’s concept of matter, where matter has the potentiality for subjective experiences (SEs). Therefore, I assume he uses science’s definition of matter (by default), i.e., the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter, which implies that matter is non-experiential and non-mental. If this is correct, then the e-gap remains.
On the other hand, if he uses the non-scientific definition (matter has potentiality of SEs), then his framework is not materialism anymore; instead, it is a version of dual-aspect monism (implicitly), which he claims bogus, meaning his framework is bogus. Now he must decide which concept of matter he wants to use: scientific or non-scientific.
I agree with Alfredo and Maturana; we need SEs as well as experiencer; both are irreducible and fundamental; Roman rejects that they are fundmental.
To sum up, Roman’s framework either has e-gap or is bogus (his word)!! In addition, his framework is unscientific unless he clearly proposes a testable experiment which has ability to reject it.
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
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
matters...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/7341CF20-C35A-4965-8739-4D86DD1E554D%40yahoo.co.in.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Roman,
I was referring to Bell type experiments using electrons or photons in inert systems. After extensive experiments and debates over decades, it is clear to most physicists that the observed correlation does not require any FTL signals or for that matter any light signals exchanged between the two systems. Most people mean by the word “local” , agreement with SR (no FTL) as in local field theory. The word non locality has been used by some but one has to be careful. It gives rise to confusion as in the present case. Entanglement is just correlation, a joint wave function between the two systems.
About consciousness and brain processes, there are hundreds of models. I do not have a pet model. Honestly, I do not know what is going on in the brain about consciousness. My guess is that science has to go a long, long, long way before it understands consciousness. If your model is right , it will win and scientists will surely give you credit for that. In science, the best model has always won. So I do not worry about it. At this point, I do not want to weigh in in your dispute with Ram. I am reading your debates. I hope the debates will be in the civilized form! Whatever model is successful has to agree with the established physics. If your model requires non FTL signals between correlated systems then you will have to prove by experimental means. Bell type experiments have been done by separating systems which were in contact once or by swapping entanglements with a third system. Presently they do not require any electrodynamic signals. I do not know what is happening in brain.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press [mailto:pozn...@biomedical.utm.my]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 4:59 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Kashyap, Stop right there! Halt!!
Are you referring to photon or electrons or fermions bosons etc. Second in brains there is a humongous amount interactions. How can nonlocal interactions be integrated? That is the crux of the matter not talking about vacuum scenarios in classical physics which is yesteryear.
As you know RAM's eDAM is a bogus framework based on nonphysical elements in matter. I hope you are not applying classical interpretations of physics to brains?
Diamat rules!
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
---
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.
Asingh2384
But you become inconsistent when you state that you agree with Ram who claims locality at V=C, and non-locality only at V>C violating Special Relativity. At V=C, space-time vanishes dilating to zero. Beyond V=C or V>C does not exist since there is no space-time and no physical speed V. Hence, V>C has no meaning, but a mere misinterpretation of non-existent "Spooky Action At A Distance".
From: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; poznanski <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.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.
Asingh2384
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Kashyap V. Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Roy Sisir <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; G. Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>
Sent: Tue, Jan 9, 2018 10:06 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: [MoM] Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Dear Avtar,
Thanks. It is an interesting but controversial discussion.
Singh: But you become inconsistent when you state that you agree with Ram who claims locality at V=C, and non-locality only at V>C violating Special Relativity. At V=C, space-time vanishes dilating to zero. Beyond V=C or V>C does not exist since there is no space-time and no physical speed V. Hence, V>C has no meaning, but a mere misinterpretation of non-existent "Spooky Action At A Distance".
Vimal: My interpretation of locality is based on the speed of transfer of physical information. Since there is a transfer of physical information at v<=c, it is local at v=c as well. Physical information is transferred from sun to earth by light at v=c, but it takes time.
What is your basis of defining non-locality at v=c and what is its meaning and is it possible (can you give some authentic example)? When space-time vanishes to zero, what is the meaning of physical information transfer; it seems that there is no transfer of anything across zero spacetime; it seems like an anomalous condition.
In the CI-vN-Stapp interpretation of QM, it is assumed the QM is nonlocal and hence FTL-IT (faster-than-light-information-transfer) is possible (Stapp, 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2013). As per (Stapp, 1977), “superluminal transfer of information is necessary”. However, there is no scientific evidence of nonlocality/FTL-IT. The violation of Bell’s inequality is not the proof of QM-nonlocality and FTL-IT because this inequality is based on classical logic and experiments are for a quantum system as discussed before. There is absolutely nothing (including correlation) that is transferred between Alice and Bob in EPR type experiments because correlation can also explained as elaborated in the 4 justifications given in my one of previous emails. Thus, QM-nonlocality and FTL-IT are controversial and unclear.
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute Inc, 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
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Hi Avtar,
As I mentioned in my previous e-mail, calling correlation coming from a joint wave function between two systems,
non-locality is a confusing language. This has been discussed on physics blogs. Most physicists now would like to reserve the word “locality” as implying consistency with SR as in local quantum field theory. Other than this we are in agreement that in Bell type experiments, not only there is no FTL, it does not need any electromagnetic communication between the two systems.
The statements in the second paragraph come from your new theory about photons. I think, it is not only in conflict with SR and the whole of modern physics developed and verified during last 100 years, but also in conflict with classical theory of electromagnetism by Maxwell. As you know, Maxwell proved that electromagnetic waves always travel with velocity c. Concept of photon as a particle aspect of electromagnetic waves has to agree with this. Otherwise wave-particle duality will break down. True, there are unsolved problems in modern physics. But with your model, you will have to explain the whole modern physics of last 100 years. It is a tall order since literally hundreds of experiments have established beliefs in photonic picture.
Best Regards.
kashyap
Asingh2384
Serge Patlavskiy
From: "'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: [MoM] Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
But you become inconsistent when you state that you agree with Ram who claims locality at V=C, and non-locality only at V>C violating Special Relativity. At V=C, space-time vanishes dilating to zero. Beyond V=C or V>C does not exist since there is no space-time and no physical speed V. Hence, V>C has no meaning, but a mere misinterpretation of non-existent "Spooky Action At A Distance".
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Roman,
A good question. Honestly, I do not know the answer. Most of the experiments I have heard about are done by producing entangled pairs in crystals or other solid state media. In this case it becomes easy to verify entanglement. However I saw the following in Wikipedia article:
“The electron shell of multi-electron atoms always consists of entangled electrons. The correct ionization energy can be calculated only by consideration of electron entanglement.[78]
It has been shown by femtosecond transition spectroscopy, that in the photosynthesis of plants, entangled photons exist. An efficient conversion of the photon energy into chemical energy is possible only due to this entanglement.[79][80]”
You may want to look this up.
For producing entanglement, the two objects, electrons or photons have to interact, lot of times just by coming together. So, although I am not sure, I do not see why they may not be entangled in fluidic environment.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press [mailto:pozn...@biomedical.utm.my]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:36 AM
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.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>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>;
Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Kashyap,
I thank you for response. What can you say about inert gas systems and plasma systems? Do both support Bell type experiments? Brains are many-body systems but I am not sure if one can use Uneswasa type approach and assume electrons are "free" to interact in all matter in brains. Does it require a quantum fluidic environment with a crystal like organization of the electrons like in ordered water adjacent to molecular ions. You response is appreciated.
Roman
Roman,
I was referring to Bell type experiments using electrons or photons in inert systems. After extensive experiments and debates over decades, it is clear to most physicists that the observed correlation does not require any FTL signals or for that matter any light signals exchanged between the two systems. Most people mean by the word “local” , agreement with SR (no FTL) as in local field theory. The word non locality has been used by some but one has to be careful. It gives rise to confusion as in the present case. Entanglement is just correlation, a joint wave function between the two systems.
About consciousness and brain processes, there are hundreds of models. I do not have a pet model. Honestly, I do not know what is going on in the brain about consciousness. My guess is that science has to go a long, long, long way before it understands consciousness. If your model is right , it will win and scientists will surely give you credit for that. In science, the best model has always won. So I do not worry about it. At this point, I do not want to weigh in in your dispute with Ram. I am reading your debates. I hope the debates will be in the civilized form! Whatever model is successful has to agree with the established physics. If your model requires non FTL signals between correlated systems then you will have to prove by experimental means. Bell type experiments have been done by separating systems which were in contact once or by swapping entanglements with a third system. Presently they do not require any electrodynamic signals. I do not know what is happening in brain.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
-------
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
Experimentally you can run a beam of incident particles like electrons, photons or whatever onto a target consisting of particles you want to do experiment on such as atoms, molecules etc. Technically this is called scattering. Sometime two beams are made to run into each other. The outgoing particles will be entangled to a certain extent. But more commonly, photons are passed through crystals or even an ordinary plate called beam splitter to produce two beams which are entangled. Entanglement is produced by the usual quantum mechanical forces, expressed as Hamiltonian or Lagrangian. These are spin dependent forces. The particles should be within range of interaction, not outside. This is different for each case.
The interesting thing is that what started as a mostly philosophical inquiry by Einstein about reality has become a big field of experimental physics! Entanglement is more common than we used to think. It may very well be that particles run into each other naturally and get entangled. It is very likely that nature uses entanglement at many places. Stay tuned!
Best Regards.
kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 3:40 AM
To: From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>;
Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>;
Ashish <ash...@guruprasadam.com>
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Dear Kashyapi,
You indicated that producing entanglement between two objects like two electrons or one electron
And one photon, they need to brought closer to each other.
What exact mechanism is involved for producing entanglement when the objects are brought closer to each other for many times.
Vinod Sehgal
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:
> Hi Kashap, How many photons are needed to be used for entanglement with electrons in atoms of the brain? We have a few bio-photons emerging from metabolic activity and other ways on histones. Roman
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Hi Roman,
Interesting question. I will look into it. Seems to me that not much work has been done in entanglement in brain and in general in fluid systems. But if by scattering photons and electrons (most likely bound in atoms) off each other, one can produce entangled pairs, these particles surely get entangled when they run into each other because of fluid motion in the body or electrodynamic movements. At any rate this may be worth looking into. I understand Penrose and Hameroff use entanglement and subsequent collapse of wave function to suggest consciousness experience. Perhaps in your model of hydronic ions , similar thing can happen.
It is very interesting to note that what started out as a mostly philosophical inquiry on reality by Einstein has become a big experimental field in physics! Now we know that entanglement is more common than we used to think. It is quite likely that nature is using this phenomenon for some purpose.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press [mailto:pozn...@biomedical.utm.my]
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 11:26 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Cc: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul
Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Roy Sisir <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; G. Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>;
George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: [MoM] Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Hi Kashap, How many photons are needed to be used for entanglement with electrons in atoms of the brain? We have a few bio-photons emerging from metabolic activity and other ways on histones. Roman
Roman,
A good question. Honestly, I do not know the answer. Most of the experiments I have heard about are done by producing entangled pairs in crystals or other solid state media. In this case it becomes easy to verify entanglement. However I saw the following in Wikipedia article:
“The electron shell of multi-electron atoms always consists of entangled electrons. The correct ionization energy can be calculated only by consideration of electron entanglement.[78]
It has been shown by femtosecond transition spectroscopy, that in the photosynthesis of plants, entangled photons exist. An efficient conversion of the photon energy into chemical energy is possible only due to this entanglement.[79][80]”
You may want to look this up.
For producing entanglement, the two objects, electrons or photons have to interact, lot of times just by coming together. So, although I am not sure, I do not see why they may not be entangled in fluidic environment.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
|
|
Virus-free. www.avast.com |
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Vinodji,
Good questions! In QM, Sch. Eq. says that the wave function does not change in time unless the Hamiltonian is changed. So unless some environmental disturbance causes some different Hamiltonian to act, magnitude of the two particle wave function will remain same as a function of time. This disturbance could be deliberate act of measurement. There is no need for the parts r(1) and r(2) to exchange signals, with v<c , v=c or v>c! This is the main conclusion of QM, mysterious if you want to call it. It has been verified to a fantastic amount. Correlations have been verified between two previously correlated photons at a distance of hundreds of kilometers when they are sent through carefully prepared fiber optics tubes. In a recent Chinese satellite experiment, they sent two correlated photons from a satellite to two Chinese cities some 1200 KM apart and they remained correlated after travelling through atmosphere! So entanglement is an established fact. People trying to develop quantum computers are working on how to maintain entanglement between a number of atoms until calculations are over, which take some time. The difficulties they are facing are due to environmental disturbances called decoherence. Also degree of decoherence or percentage of correlation would depend on size of disturbance.
Yes . Some people believe that everything in the universe ( including all of us on this Google group!!) is correlated to some extent since the big bang!. It may be outside the limit of our present day technology to detect. But it may be there!
So again, the correlations remain until they are wiped out completely by decoherence. There is no need to exchange any kind of signals with any speed. This idea removes all the paradoxes of entanglement.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 3:14 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>;
BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>;
Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IOS Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>; Leuvy Cacha <leuvy...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Thanks Kashyapji for explaining the mechanism of entanglement when two particles are brought together. But I still can't grasp fully as to what exactly happens in the dynamic setup of their quantum mechanical forces that afterward when taken apart, they can correlate or information passed from one particle to other exceeding C.
If entanglement is built in particles due to some effect of the quantum mechanical forces when the particles are in close vicinity for many times, it means these forces should be introducing an element of nonlocality in the particles to enable them to interact or correlate or pass physical information >c afterward when they are taken apart. But a straight question from Physics point of view is HOW?
An important aspect not to be ignored is that before entanglement, particles behave subscribing to the principle of locality. What exactly and how quantum mechanical forces do that locality is transformed from nonlocality.
Another related issue arises that if the BB theory is correct, it means universe in the earlier stages was very small. This means all the particles of the universe had stayed in close proximity. This means all the particles of the present universe should be in a state of entanglement. But is it observed in the present universe? I think NO.
Reagrds.
Vinod Sehgal
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.
Siegfried Bleher
Dear Vinod and Kashyap,
A remark about entanglement that may be relevant for the current discussion is that entanglement does not happen instantaneously, nor does decoherence ('disentanglement'). If we consider, as Kashyap mentions, a particle that is scattering off a target particle, and they are assumed initially uncorrelated, then the scattering event can be described as a time dependent process: each particle may be represented as a coherent wave packet (e.g. Glauber coherent state, but something else if the target particle is in a collective state with other particles). As the source particle approaches the target particle, they each enter into the range where the interaction potential (Hamiltonian) is significant and wave functions of the particles begin to overlap and interfere. Now, as they interfere, they become entangled, which means the wave function for the two particles cannot be represented as a product of single particle wave functions. If the projectile particle is not captured by the target, it will continue to travel to a large enough distance away from the target particle that the interaction potential between them is insignificant. But, as long as each particle does not interact with any other particle, the coupled ('non-product') wave function does not change in time, as Kashyap points out (if they each move, then the wave function does exhibit a time dependence that reflects the translation of each particle, but the correlation of the two parts does not change). So far what I have described is not too hard to understand from a semiclassical perspective that tracks each particle wave packet with a corresponding classical trajectory--the fact that the interference between them remains even out of reach of the interaction potential is the mysterious part. Now, as to the process of disentanglement: suppose the two entangled particles, say A and B, have moved apart. If one of them, let's say A, begins to interact with a third particle C--its wave function overlaps with that of particle C, but both of these are out of range of B, then particle A becomes entangled with C. Is B now entangled with both A and C? Well the mutual Hamiltonian affects both A and C, but not B. On the other hand, the new wave function describing A and C is influenced partly by the Hamiltonian, which affects the spatial part of the wave function. If the Hamiltonian contains a coupling to spin, then the spin part of wave function is also affected, which implies coupling to the spin part of B as well. All three particles become entangled through the spin component of the wave function. If A is interacting with a measuring instrument or the environment, then a mixed state with ‘mixed state entanglement’ forms in that interaction (of A, B and the environment). The phases of the wave functions are always evolving, and if the environment has random phases, then coupling to the environment will ‘randomize’ the phases of the initial wave function of particle A (i.e. decoherence, although in principle I would expect some entanglement to persist, if we could track it). This has implications for Vinod’s question about global entanglement, although measuring the degree of entanglement in a many body system, and its implications, is not trivial.
Best wishes,
Siegfried
Sent from Outlook
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 11:26 AM
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
--
----------------------------
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/01abf2999d0a461fbfe60196f74f4f33%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
Bruno Marchal
On 10 Jan 2018, at 17:40, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:Dear Vinodji,
Experimentally you can run a beam of incident particles like electrons, photons or whatever onto a target consisting of particles you want to do experiment on such as atoms, molecules etc. Technically this is called scattering. Sometime two beams are made to run into each other. The outgoing particles will be entangled to a certain extent. But more commonly, photons are passed through crystals or even an ordinary plate called beam splitter to produce two beams which are entangled. Entanglement is produced by the usual quantum mechanical forces, expressed as Hamiltonian or Lagrangian. These are spin dependent forces. The particles should be within range of interaction, not outside. This is different for each case.
The interesting thing is that what started as a mostly philosophical inquiry by Einstein about reality has become a big field of experimental physics! Entanglement is more common than we used to think. It may very well be that particles run into each other naturally and get entangled. It is very likely that nature uses entanglement at many places. Stay tuned!
Best Regards.
kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 3:40 AM
To: From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Ashish <ash...@guruprasadam.com>
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Dear Kashyapi,
You indicated that producing entanglement between two objects like two electrons or one electron
And one photon, they need to brought closer to each other.
What exact mechanism is involved for producing entanglement when the objects are brought closer to each other for many times.
Vinod Sehgal
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018, From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my> wrote:
> Hi Kashap, How many photons are needed to be used for entanglement with electrons in atoms of the brain? We have a few bio-photons emerging from metabolic activity and other ways on histones. Roman
>
> Roman,
>
> A good question. Honestly, I do not know the answer. Most of the experiments I have heard about are done by producing entangled pairs in crystals or other solid state media. In this case it becomes easy to verify entanglement. However I saw the following in Wikipedia article:
>
> “The electron shell of multi-electron atoms always consists of entangled electrons. The correct ionization energy can be calculated only by consideration of electron entanglement.[78]
>
> It has been shown by femtosecond transition spectroscopy, that in the photosynthesis of plants, entangled photons exist. An efficient conversion of the photon energy into chemical energy is possible only due to this entanglement.[79][80]”
>
> You may want to look this up.
>
> For producing entanglement, the two objects, electrons or photons have to interact, lot of times just by coming together. So, although I am not sure, I do not see why they may not be entangled in fluidic environment.
>
> Best Regards.
>
> Kashyap
>
--
----------------------------
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/98588555720d423f93607ecc4a4590da%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
Paul Werbos
Dear Vinod and Kashyap,
A remark about entanglement that may be relevant for the current discussion is that entanglement does not happen instantaneously, nor does decoherence ('disentanglement'). If we consider, as Kashyap mentions, a particle that is scattering off a target particle, and they are assumed initially uncorrelated, then the scattering event can be described as a time dependent process: each particle may be represented as a coherent wave packet (e.g. Glauber coherent state, but something else if the target particle is in a collective state with other particles). As the source particle approaches the target particle, they each enter into the range where the interaction potential (Hamiltonian) is significant and wave functions of the particles begin to overlap and interfere. Now, as they interfere, they become entangled, which means the wave function for the two particles cannot be represented as a product of single particle wave functions. If the projectile particle is not captured by the target, it will continue to travel to a large enough distance away from the target particle that the interaction potential between them is insignificant. But, as long as each particle does not interact with any other particle, the coupled ('non-product') wave function does not change in time, as Kashyap points out (if they each move, then the wave function does exhibit a time dependence that reflects the translation of each particle, but the correlation of the two parts does not change). So far what I have described is not too hard to understand from a semiclassical perspective that tracks each particle wave packet with a corresponding classical trajectory--the fact that the interference between them remains even out of reach of the interaction potential is the mysterious part. Now, as to the process of disentanglement: suppose the two entangled particles, say A and B, have moved apart. If one of them, let's say A, begins to interact with a third particle C--its wave function overlaps with that of particle C, but both of these are out of range of B, then particle A becomes entangled with C. Is B now entangled with both A and C? Well the mutual Hamiltonian affects both A and C, but not B. On the other hand, the new wave function describing A and C is influenced partly by the Hamiltonian, which affects the spatial part of the wave function. If the Hamiltonian contains a coupling to spin, then the spin part of wave function is also affected, which implies coupling to the spin part of B as well. All three particles become entangled through the spin component of the wave function. If A is interacting with a measuring instrument or the environment, then a mixed state with ‘mixed state entanglement’ forms in that interaction (of A, B and the environment). The phases of the wave functions are always evolving, and if the environment has random phases, then coupling to the environment will ‘randomize’ the phases of the initial wave function of particle A (i.e. decoherence, although in principle I would expect some entanglement to persist, if we could track it). This has implications for Vinod’s question about global entanglement, although measuring the degree of entanglement in a many body system, and its implications, is not trivial.
Best wishes,
Siegfried
Sent from Outlook
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/01abf2999d0a461fbfe60196f74f4f33%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/DM2PR12MB00300E3F75A8105666DEAFEAA2150%40DM2PR12MB0030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Bruno,
“I would say that there is entanglement for each interaction, and that the superpositions never disappear. I read that some people try to explain the origin of space from quantum entanglement.”
I agree with this.
(1) Is ok with me.
(2) I prefer not use the word non locality because to many physicists it smell like violation of SR! I do not agree with (2). The whole point was that once a joint wave function between the two systems is formed and Hamiltonian is not changed, the wave function keeps on propagating, thousands of kilometers or light years. There is no need for any communication, physical action at a distance or hidden variables. Everything is built into the wave function. The only requirement is no decoherence from environment i.e. other significant Hamiltonian.
(3) I personally do not believe in many worlds or even many minds description. It introduces metaphysically arbitrary universes, from actions of human beings like measurement etc.(!) and do not solve any problems. I understand from various surveys many physicists do not care for it also. Of course, arguments on interpretation of QM are going on for 90 years! So with all the problems, majority of physicists still prefer Bohr’s collapse in knowledge of the observer model . I like that!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From:
online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 6:09 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Siegfried Bleher
Thank you, Paul, for inviting me to participate in a dedicated thread discussing the physics of entanglement and information (not sure what a good title would be)—it would be great to have a common starting point. My experience is mostly mathematical and computational, but I have local colleagues with expertise and labs in experimental condensed matter physics and plasma physics who might be interested in collaboration. I am not familiar with the literature of quantum optics, as my encounter with Glauber coherent states is in the context of phase space path integral analysis of classically nonlinear maps and their quantized versions. I will look at the CHSH paper, yours (Mind in Time, which you provided a link to in a previous post) and Shih’s chapter.
Best wishes,
Siegfried
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Paul Werbos
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 8:09 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Many thanks, Siegfried, both for taking care of this task, and for showing that there might be real hope here of some serious discussion of physics, as ONE of the important threads of discussion.
Since you seem to have real knowledge of quantum optics, extending even to the Glauber-Shudarshan "P" method for describing coherent states, I can't help asking whether you have access to an actual laboratory, or, if not, whether you have an interest in the mathematical details of making sense of experiments or technologies in this space?
This past month, as I have made more time for relaxing and going with the flow, the flow has taken me to a number of interesting places, including three major labs where curious questions have started to emerge.
For example -- many of the folks on this list make assertions about entanglement and information which seem to be echoes of the famous quality popularization by J.S. Bell, The Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. It explains the "Bell's Theorem" formulated by Clauser, Holt, Shimony and Horne (CHSH), and the very specific definition of "nonlocality" assumed in that Theorem. But it does not mention how the very first experiment to test the predictions of that theorem, by Richard Holt, disagreed with quantum mechanics. I had tea with Richard on the day when he had his first results, and will never forget the look on his face, and what he said then and later. The propaganda types try hard not to mention this, but the classic reviews by d'Espagnat and by Clauser and Shimony do clearly report it. The results are a mystery unexplained to this day. Was it just a result of imprecision much worse than Harvard could figure out? Was it like what Joe loves, a kind of parapsychology event? Or could there be a more satisfying and clear explanation in physics? In fact, his source of entangled photons was a thermal source (two-photon emission from thermally excited mercury), like the recent work of Yanhua Shih discussed in the new book Optical Tests of Foundations of Quantum Theory. (His chapter is visible in google scholar, with link to the chaper.)That work also saw anomalies for triple entanglement, for GHZ states, and it seems there is a need to revisit more carefully how predictions are made, especially when thermal sources are involved.
If you are interested, we should do it in a new thread, just a better subject line.
Best regards, Paul
On Jan 13, 2018 9:58 PM, "Siegfried Bleher" <SBl...@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Vinod and Kashyap,
A remark about entanglement that may be relevant for the current discussion is that entanglement does not happen instantaneously, nor does decoherence ('disentanglement'). If we consider, as Kashyap mentions, a particle that is scattering off a target particle, and they are assumed initially uncorrelated, then the scattering event can be described as a time dependent process: each particle may be represented as a coherent wave packet (e.g. Glauber coherent state, but something else if the target particle is in a collective state with other particles). As the source particle approaches the target particle, they each enter into the range where the interaction potential (Hamiltonian) is significant and wave functions of the particles begin to overlap and interfere. Now, as they interfere, they become entangled, which means the wave function for the two particles cannot be represented as a product of single particle wave functions. If the projectile particle is not captured by the target, it will continue to travel to a large enough distance away from the target particle that the interaction potential between them is insignificant. But, as long as each particle does not interact with any other particle, the coupled ('non-product') wave function does not change in time, as Kashyap points out (if they each move, then the wave function does exhibit a time dependence that reflects the translation of each particle, but the correlation of the two parts does not change). So far what I have described is not too hard to understand from a semiclassical perspective that tracks each particle wave packet with a corresponding classical trajectory--the fact that the interference between them remains even out of reach of the interaction potential is the mysterious part. Now, as to the process of disentanglement: suppose the two entangled particles, say A and B, have moved apart. If one of them, let's say A, begins to interact with a third particle C--its wave function overlaps with that of particle C, but both of these are out of range of B, then particle A becomes entangled with C. Is B now entangled with both A and C? Well the mutual Hamiltonian affects both A and C, but not B. On the other hand, the new wave function describing A and C is influenced partly by the Hamiltonian, which affects the spatial part of the wave function. If the Hamiltonian contains a coupling to spin, then the spin part of wave function is also affected, which implies coupling to the spin part of B as well. All three particles become entangled through the spin component of the wave function. If A is interacting with a measuring instrument or the environment, then a mixed state with ‘mixed state entanglement’ forms in that interaction (of A, B and the environment). The phases of the wave functions are always evolving, and if the environment has random phases, then coupling to the environment will ‘randomize’ the phases of the initial wave function of particle A (i.e. decoherence, although in principle I would expect some entanglement to persist, if we could track it). This has implications for Vinod’s question about global entanglement, although measuring the degree of entanglement in a many body system, and its implications, is not trivial.
Best wishes,
Siegfried
Sent from Outlook
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
--
----------------------------
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/DM2PR12MB00300E3F75A8105666DEAFEAA2150%40DM2PR12MB0030.namprd12.prod.outlook.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services:
http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Online_Sadhu_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/CACLqmgca3peLv4U1%3Dy-0XDjjE4hiLADof9rJVcdstffjqYC8bw%40mail.gmail.com.
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Dear Syamala,
You have an interesting model of tachyons in brain. One comment I have is that there are many particles which were not found in high energy physics, but were found as quasiparticles in condensed matter physics. So they could very well be like that! After all brain is more like condensed matter than an accelerator.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: Syamala Hari [mailto:murty...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 10:07 AM
To: From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>;
Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Sorry, I did not mean "acion-potential-integrating function" in the last part of my previous message; it needs to be replaced by active-information-integrating function.
Syamala
From: Syamala Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
To: "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; "From the Chief
Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul Werbos
<paul....@gmail.com>; "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>;
Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Stanley A.
KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
<rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>;
"Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>;
G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>;
BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Hi Roman,
Here are some issues pointed out by you which I copied from your posts:
1. How does active information get integrated to produce mentalism?
2. The mathematical equations are not yet derived to demonstrate!
3. Electromagnetic field differs from classical electromagnetism where teleofunctionality arises from the integration of nonlocal functional interactions.
4. We are proposing that a revision of Maxwell’s equations based on the endogenous electromagnetic field in animate matter is needed to be developed based on the teleofunctionality vector potential.
The first three questions are addressed in my papers https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/169/169 and
Any solution of the homogeneous Helmholtz equation (a field) can be associated with an electromagnetic four-potential. The four-potential's action upon the nonrelativistic quantum particles (of the brain) is introduced into the Schrodinger equations of the particles. The interaction produces a change in the quantum potential of each particle and does so simultaneously because the four-potential is a field. Thereby active information of several quantum particles is integrated.
As an example, the large number of probability amplitudes causing coherent action in exocytosis (release of transmitter molecules) in various synaptic terminals of a dendritic tree are coupled, producing strong enough EPSPs. Eccles thought that in the absence of mental activity these probability amplitudes would act independently, causing fluctuating EPSPs in the pyramidal cell. Thus the acion-potential-integrating function of the four-potential is indicative of a mental activity.
Teleofunctionality as well as production of subjective experience based on the above electromagnetic four-potential is explained in
From: "From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press" <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Shyamala,
Thanks. In general, I would be interested in any wave or particle mechanism inside the brain. But my knowledge of tachyons is minuscule! When I typed tachyons in condensed matter in google, it showed large number of articles. You may already be familiar with those or you may want to look at them.
Best.
kashyap
From: Syamala Hari [mailto:murty...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2018 3:54 PM
To: From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press <pozn...@biomedical.utm.my>
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>;
Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>;
BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Kashyap,
Thank you for your open-mindedness. Feinberg ruled out the possibility that tachyons can be produced from matter but he did not rule out the possibility of their existence and interaction with matter. Even now, their existence is not ruled out in general by theoretical physicists but they are mostly considered hypothetical because they have not been detected in any experiment as yet.
Roman,
Thanks for your response. Solutions of the homogeneous Helmholtz equation (SH) are what I call tachyons. They are fields and not particles localized in space. I suppose you have no objection to see any SH in a mathematical description of a process in the brain. I call the SHs in my papers tachyons because they have zero energy and non-zero momentum. The electromagnetic (EM) four-potential defined by a SH does not create non-zero electric or magnetic field. So, the SH-EM potentials are unphysical! That does not mean they do not exist. But what about the usual EM four-potentials, from which non-zero electric and magnetic fields are derived? They are usually said to be unphysical also because they are not observable, is it not? The well-known Aharonov-Bohm effect shows that there are observable effects in a space where electric and magnetic fields are zero. Similarly, SH-vector-potentials (although they do not create non-zero electric and magnetic fields), exchange momentum with a multitude of neurons (or other particles in the brain, which I said are all non-relativistic, and note that I never said that any material particle in the brain is a tachyon), at any instant, in other words, their interaction with the brain's material is nonlocal.
I do not say that the brain is a sphere. The shape of the brain is irrelevant as long as the SH-vector-potential is nonzero in a space which encloses the brain because the vector potential acts upon a charge where it is.
Regarding "teleofunctionality": In some earlier posts you were mentioning the "teleological function" I assumed that they both referred
to the samething (initiation and control of clearly goal-seeking processes by rational entities, such as ourselves). If so, the SH-vector-potential does this
initiation and control by imparting momentum to the neurons or other brain particles via the Eccles-exocytosis processes in volition, by entering into the Schrodinger equation of the brain's partcles.
The reference you requested can be downloaded from
http://www.informatica.si/index.php/informatica/article/view/89/82
Best
Syamala
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Roman,
My mention of looking at condensed matter physics was just casual since brain is closer to condensed matter physics than anything else in physics and chemistry. I am not working on consciousness , although I am quite interested in keeping up with various efforts. Syamala mentions work of Nobel laureate Eccles, which talks about quasi particles in cells. Models based on quasi particles are quite common in condensed matter physics. I would just say that all mechanisms like electromagnetic waves, photons, phonons, atoms and molecules in neurons may be worth looking. I understand Ram is interested in how to relate feelings to QM , without committing to any specific atomic or molecular process, while you and several others are looking for a specific process. More power to both of you! Thanks,
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: From the Chief Editor, J. Integr. Neurosci., IMR Press [mailto:pozn...@biomedical.utm.my]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 4:56 AM
To: Syamala Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Cc: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Siegfried Bleher <sbl...@msn.com>; Robert Boyer <rw.b...@yahoo.com>; Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>;
Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; G Srinivasan <gsva...@gmail.com>; Prateek Budhwar <p.bu...@gmail.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; sisir roy <sisir.s...@gmail.com>;
BVKSastry(Gmail) <sastr...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Kashyap.
So are you implying phonon-photon interaction forms the seed of entanglement or nonlocality?
Ram,
Jibu and Yasu theory is based on photons as the energy quanta liberated. My theory is a combination of photon-phonon interactions.
Bruno Marchal
On 14 Jan 2018, at 21:07, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:Dear Bruno,
“I would say that there is entanglement for each interaction, and that the superpositions never disappear. I read that some people try to explain the origin of space from quantum entanglement.”
I agree with this.
(1) Is ok with me.
(2) I prefer not use the word non locality because to many physicists it smell like violation of SR! I do not agree with (2). The whole point was that once a joint wave function between the two systems is formed and Hamiltonian is not changed, the wave function keeps on propagating, thousands of kilometers or light years. There is no need for any communication, physical action at a distance or hidden variables. Everything is built into the wave function. The only requirement is no decoherence from environment i.e. other significant Hamiltonian.
(3) I personally do not believe in many worlds or even many minds description. It introduces metaphysically arbitrary universes, from actions of human beings like measurement etc.(!)
and do not solve any problems.
I understand from various surveys many physicists do not care for it also.
Of course, arguments on interpretation of QM are going on for 90 years! So with all the problems, majority of physicists still prefer Bohr’s collapse in knowledge of the observer model . I like that!
Kashyap
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 6:09 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Diamat is unscientific and the eDAM is fully scientific
Dear Kashiap,
On 10 Jan 2018, at 17:40, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
Dear Vinodji,
Experimentally you can run a beam of incident particles like electrons, photons or whatever onto a target consisting of particles you want to do experiment on such as atoms, molecules etc. Technically this is called scattering. Sometime two beams are made to run into each other. The outgoing particles will be entangled to a certain extent. But more commonly, photons are passed through crystals or even an ordinary plate called beam splitter to produce two beams which are entangled. Entanglement is produced by the usual quantum mechanical forces, expressed as Hamiltonian or Lagrangian. These are spin dependent forces. The particles should be within range of interaction, not outside. This is different for each case.
The interesting thing is that what started as a mostly philosophical inquiry by Einstein about reality has become a big field of experimental physics! Entanglement is more common than we used to think. It may very well be that particles run into each other naturally and get entangled. It is very likely that nature uses entanglement at many places. Stay tuned!
I would say that there is entanglement for each interaction, and that the superpositions never disappear. I read that some people try to explain the origin of space from quantum entanglement.
My own conclusion, from the study of the EPR paper, Bohr's answer, Bell, and Aspect is that:
1) in all interpretation of QM, the violation of Bell’s inequality never allow to transfer information at a distance.
2) in all collapse interpretation, but also in Bohm-De Broglie type of theory, despite there is not transfer of information at a distance, there is a physical action at a distance. That is why the hidden variable theory are said to be non local.
3) in non-collapse interpretation (like Everett, Many-worlds), there is neither transfer of information at a distance possible, but there is also no need of any action at a distance at all. QM without collapse is a purely local and deterministic theory, explaining well the “illusion” of some non locality. Note that many disagree with this, but when asked to explain, they always use the collapse at some point, or they use a naive view of the MWI of the singlet state.
I can add that only “3)” makes sense with the computationalist hypothesis in the cognitive science.
Best Regards,
Bruno
Best Regards.
kashyap
--
----------------------------
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/935b6b753f4f4a218964256c5f2fa039%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.