Re: Holistic 3-in-1 Vedic Model and the eDAM: Review of your book

[John Jay Kineman]

I meant to send this to the Sadhu_Sanga group.

We have been talking quite a bit via email in a sub-group of this larger discussion and I want to bring some of that separate discussion back to the main group. Of course summarizing part of that discussion from my own perspective alone is unavoidably biased so I must invite the other main conversants, Ram, Vinod, Roman, Joe, Paul, Bruno, Stan, Alex and others to also summarize or otherwise to just pick up with some of the more important points. Realistically I expect this has to be done one point at a time.

From my perspective the conversation was very helpful to sort out the various paradigms that are being pursued. I was most interested in the underlying metaphysical assumptions in the various approaches. Philosophers of science make a clear distinction between theories constructed on a set of reality assumptions, which are then testable ideas about empirical phenomena, and the underlying assumptions themselves, which are not directly tested by data, but by their ability to produce good theories. The underlying assumptions are evaluated on which spawn the better theories, while the theories are evaluated on which conform best to critically targeted empirical data. Consequently, progress requires that these two evaluations proceed as distinct and somewhat separate activities.

Most of the disagreements and counterpoints I observe here seem to result from conflating these two activities. Carl Popper concluded in his later philosophy that "Metaphysical Research Programs" (MRP) are essential and uniques aspects of science. Thomas Kuhn considered the same as World Views, and how they tend to change in the evolution of science through infrequent "revolutions", compared to the everyday activity of fleshing out the predictions and implications of a given theory. The situation is analogous to the evolution of species, which many have pointed out tends to be similarly "punctuated".  

Thus the metaphysics cannot be evaluated on the basis of empirical evidence directly because it is not about the dynamics of the world, but rather how we are to construct those dynamics and in which terms of reference that may be considered naturalistic (a 'realistic' belief about the ontology of nature), or instrumental (arbitrary terms that give sufficiently accurate predictions). Here we have the present dilemma between two schools of science, one looking for what is natural and the other looking for what is descriptive without proposing natural elements. It is easy to get confused when these two modes are conflated in discussion, and also when discussion crosses over between the MRP and a theory without clearly distinguishing the two.

So, to cap this point with the present example, I think Vinod is discussing a naturalistic view of the MRP in which we reify a transcendental category of existence that is not directly measurable and does not contain separate events or objects, but does exist and contains potentials, or as one author has suggested, "affordances" (a bit more general concept than probabilities) for possible events. The question then arises in the MRP, before we can consider empirical evidence of any kind,  if we are to associate consciousness and/or SE with that non-material domain, if that exists independently of its complementary material correlated domain, or if there is a third reality that is a complex combination of the two.

My own view, R-theory (i.e. What I proposed as an MRP synthesis of Robert Rosen's ideas, not to be confused with other versions of Relational Theory), falls in that last case; it is based on the assumption of a third domain where an information relation exists between mind and body, measurable brain/neuron states being of the body/material aspect and experiences on a continuum from SE to cosmic awareness being of the mind/context type. But that information relation is in a nested hierarchy (holarchy) as a contextual awareness linked to some physicality at the level of the observer (a whole mind-body observer) while being 'aware' of its own supervenience with respect to a whole mind-body relation that is the object ow awareness. Thus the term 'relation' in this view is between mind and body categories; whereas I would use the term "relationship" to describe other concepts of relation between material systems, such as the brain-object relationship. The term 'ship' thus means the case where we consider the material aspect of relation.

Then, in these terms, Vinod's statement makes sense to me, except that, in agreement with Ram, I would say that even in the case of the transcended yogi who has left the human body, that identity that was established in the body would then be associated with much more distributed material states, no longer focused in a single body as such. Thus the mind-body connection can be conserved throughout, the transition being from a materially focused body identification to a materially unfocused one. In this way, R-theory can agree with both Ram and Vinod's statements, if we can admit to a more entailed reality along with a greater causality that includes a mind-like real aspect if existence.

John

On May 15, 2018, at 11:48 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dr. Ram wrote to Bob:

"The eDAM requires brain or brain-like network for consciousness (defined as experiences and experiences), where your framework and Sankhya does not require. You may like to re-consider your framework because there is no concrete evidence for consciousness without brain or brain-like network in our mundane life. At Samadhi state, the brain of a yogi is always intact; therefore, it is unclear if a brain is not needed even at the highest Nirvikalpa samādhi state where presumably soul/jiva is presumed to leave the body-brain-mind system as per Sankhya (Swāmi Yogeshwarānanda Paramhans, 1997, 2008)."

Sehgal: The ultimate test of adjudging the reality of any framework is the reproducible Samaadhi state experiences which are akin to empirical test in the objective scientific experimentation. The reproducible Samaadhi state experiences reveal that consciousness is neither produced from the brain ( materialism) nor as a dual aspect of the brain ( eDAM). On the contrary, consciousness exists in form of cosmic consciousness(cc) at the most fundamental level as transcendental to both physical brain and astral mind. The brain serves as a mediation apparatus in the manifestation of consciousness in the wakeful/dream/sleep states from the level of  CC. The state of Samadhi is achieved as consciousness starts retracing back ( withdrawing) first from the physical body/brain ( Savikalpa SamaadhI) and then gradually from the astral body/mind ( Nirvikalpa Samadhi)

A Yogi can experience/observe this retracing back of consciousness in Samaadhi state both i) when he is alive in the physical world with the physical body/brain  AND ii) when he dies by leaving the physical body permanently and abides in the astral world with his astral body only without any physical body.

A Yogi while with his physical body/brain in the physical world can also observe,  in the state of Samaadhi, the astral bodies of others who have entered the astral world after leaving the physical bodies on death in the past. Though normally a yogi does not interact/interfere with these astral bodies ( since his ultimate purpose is not to get involved with all these astral bodies) but if he wishes to do the same with some specific purpose, he can interact with any of the astral body in the astral world.

All the above provide adequate evidence, though of the subjective nature, for the existence of consciousness and astral bodies as divorced from the physical body/brain.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:33 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Bob,

 

I completed reading your book (Boyer, 2018). You have very nicely written and I enjoyed reading it. Kindly provide full publication information for this book.

 

I have compared your Vedic 3-in-1 model (which seems based on idealism/Vedanta and dualistic Sankhya) with the eDAM. They are a sort of opposite in the sense of top-down (conscious unified field to us in your framework) vs. bottom-up approach (unconscious unified information field to the manifestation of consciousness in us in the eDAM framework), so enjoy reading. I have attached it in Word’s doc and PDF format; please feel to reply after each of my comment in Word’s doc file in the same format (such as Boyer (16 May 2018): … after Vimal: …. I am sorry, it is long but it is rigorous.

 

The eDAM requires brain or brain-like network for consciousness (defined as experiences and experiences), where your framework and Sankhya does not require. You may like to re-consider your framework because there is no concrete evidence for consciousness without brain or brain-like network in our mundane life. At Samadhi state, the brain of a yogi is always intact; therefore, it is unclear if a brain is not needed even at the highest Nirvikalpa samādhi state where presumably soul/jiva is presumed to leave the body-brain-mind system as per Sankhya (Swāmi Yogeshwarānanda Paramhans, 1997, 2008).

Cheers!

Kind regards,

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