Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

In biology there is a technical name for this phenomenon - Gene Expression. I know very little about the mechanism. Perhaps biologists themselves are in the process of learning about it. Sometime later, I will talk to a biologist on our campus about progress in this field. If you are interested, perhaps you can also do the same thing in a nearby campus . As for the second e-mail, as I mentioned before, the whole area of wave function collapse is controversial. One point is that, in principle, everything we see is quantum mechanical. There is no such thing as purely classical except as an approximation to quantum mechanical system. Then the problem is:  how can  one quantum system  participate in collapse of another quantum system? So people tried to bring in consciousness, as something outside materially quantum mechanical. What happened before sentient beings were around is also a thorny problem!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 3:50 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

By why do genes turn on or off in different species? For example, you have stated that difference in the presence of genes in chimpanzee and humans is less than 1% but the difference in their mental development, intelligence and behavior is astronomical. This could be explained due to the turning on or off the mechanism of genes. But why such turn on or off mechanism set in?

 

Consciousness also turns on or off or manifest differently  in different species due to the difference in their biological developments particularly the brain structures.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear KSRAO,

First, scientists have not agreed on the definition of consciousness! And before they can explain it “ in simple terms to non-scientists” they have to understand it themselves!! Of course, even how life arises from atoms is not clear. That is why there are all these endless debates.

By the way I have one argument in favor of possibility that atoms or particles  may have some rudimentary consciousness. Biologists now know that the difference in genes between chimpanzee and humans may be at the most one percent. But genes can be turned on or off. That is what makes us different. Similarly, perhaps consciousness can be turned on or off.  Of course I cannot prove that. Otherwise I will buy a ticket to Stockholm to collect my Nobel Prize!!

Best Regards,

Kashyap

 

 

 

[Joseph McCard]

Kashyap,

..just a couple of notes, observations, not criticisms:

>Kashyap wrote: ...consciousness can be turned on or off.  

What do you take consciousness to be such that that is the case? 

I understand consciousness, like a spotlight, can be shone in different directions. Is that what you meant?  But, since it is fundamental, it can never be destroyed or created. 

>Of course I cannot prove that.

I think it is pretty clear that no one can prove anything, in the absolute sense of "prove". The Truth just is. Is that how you see it? 

>First, scientists have not agreed on the definition of consciousness! 

If we defined consciousness, we would limit it I think. However, we can, and do, express it, and release it in many ways from within us. I have several verbal expressions for consciousness, but of course, they are from my perspective : ) How do you express and release your own consciousness, if I may ask? 

>And before they can explain it “ in simple terms to non-scientists” they have to understand it themselves!!

Consistent with my just previous comment, I believe consciousness can only be understood by experiencing it in as many ways as possible. Change the focus of your awareness, shine the spotlight in a different direction, for example. Where do you shine your light? : ) Learn by doing.

>Of course, even how life arises from atoms is not clear.

I see. You believe life arises from atoms. What do you base that conclusion on? As I see it, consciousness and life create atoms. Atoms do not create consciousness and life. If all this sounds absurd to you, I can only say that there is a model of Reality I follow, and it seems to be productive for me.

>In biology there is a technical name for this phenomenon - Gene Expression. I know very little about the mechanism. Perhaps biologists themselves are in the process of learning about it. Sometime later, I will talk to a biologist on our campus about progress in this field.

Obviously there is a technical scientific approach. But, there is also a magical approach. And so, you and I, believe what we are wont to believe. In line with my previous claim, just as atoms do not create life, atoms do not form genes, or express genes. Do you think that the possibility of creative change must always be present to insure our species "resiliency'"? There seem to be genetic cultures operating with infinite variety, the idiot and the genius, the stupid and the wise, the athletic, the deformed, the beautiful and the ugly, and all variations in between, each with their place and reason. They each fit into the overall picture of Nature. 

There is no way to predict with complete certainty the development of any genetic element. See, for example, https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/sunday/crispr-upside-of-bad-genes.html, jun,18,2017, New York Times. We may "soon be able to edit off offending genes right out of their own sperm, eggs, or embryos, erasing it from the bloodline forever...But these genes probably helped us survive in the past, so is it wise to remove them now?"

Your thoughts, feelings, desires and intents, your reincarnational knowledge, modify the structures, bringing certain latent characteristics into actualization, minimizing others, as through the experience of your life you use your free will and constantly make new decisions.

...because, I believe understanding the nature of personal reality is critical, for you, and for me...Joseph

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

Not according to the current model of origin of universe. According to this model, our known universe arose from a very small patch of vacuum in which there was no matter, but there were quantum fields with very wild fluctuations, based on uncertainty principle. Then suddenly it expanded by a large exponential factor (the big bang) , something like a factor of 10^80 or so in 10^(-35) sec ! The fluctuation was frozen in because of rapid expansion. According to Guth, one of the fathers of inflation model, this resulted in an ultimate free lunch, a universe for which we may not have paid for in terms of energy budget !! Even if this model changes, the probabilistic structure and uncertainty principle have nothing to do with human observers. They are essential parts of quantum mechanics. QM will need a very drastic change, practically a new theory,  to make it a deterministic theory. The new theory will have to account for all the current successes of QM!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 8:56 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks.

 

But can we rule out the possibility that the universe in the primordial stage existed in some objective deterministic state and that all the quantum uncertainty and probability are the product of our subjective or objective measurement in the classical world? In other words, if no conscious observer or objective instruments stare at the particles in the quantum world ( implying nil measurement), there will no uncertainty, no probability, no superposition, no collapse required.

 

Vinod sehgal

[John Heininger]

TURKEY GIVES EVOLUTION THE BOOT!

About time! Cosmological and biological evolutionary "historical theories" are nothing but atheistic "philosophical"constructs that have no testable or verifiable empirical basis. Every breeder and horticulturist who has ever lived knows there are cross breeding and reproductive limits for every form of life in existence, without exception.Making the supposed evolutionary continuum impossible. No one in all of human history has ever observed the one form of life evolve into a different branch of life.Bacteria pull every trick in the book to “preserve”themselves as bacteria,and not change into something else.This true of all other forms of life.And is precisely why we have super-bugs that develop a resistance to antibiotics.In fact, the noted Harvard biologists the late Stephan J Gould openly acknowledged this established fact. And proposed his “punctuated equilibrium”theory to account for the “stasis” or stability of every form of live over time. This is why the geological strata are awash living fossils that still exist, and were suddenly buried. This flaky theory is precisely why the Nobel Committee does not regard cosmological and biological evolutionary “historical theories”about unobserved event in the distant past as “prize worthy” science, because there is no possible way of ever empirically substantiating that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether evolution happened at all.

The whole contrived evolutionary scenario operates on unverifiable assumptions, mere inferences, circular reasoning where interpretations conform to predictions .It's a surreal world where they conduct "science by explanations". And all these subjective opinion based "explanations" are given the same value as testable and verifiable empirical science. Revealing the extent to which science has truly gone mad.

Furthermore, both cosmological and biological evolutionary theories turn science on its head. Both of these theories operate on the absurd premise that an “effect” can not only be “far greater” than the cause, but actually “opposite to the cause”. For example, we have a cosmos that supposedly did not need God. And came from nothing out of nowhere. Life comes from non-life; consciousness comes from non-consciousness, intelligence from non-intelligence; reason from non-reason, and morals and altruism supposedly came from a undirected and unguided natural process that operates on the “survival of the fittest” and nature “red in tooth and claw”. Which is utter nonsense!

But wait, there is more! Darwin evolutionary theory does not fit reality in its foundational principle. Darwin stated that his whole naturalistic theory operated on the principle that NATURAL SELECTION ONLY PRESERVES THAT WHICH IS "USEFUL". So, why would "natural selection" largely preserve within the human genetics the inherent need for the vast majority of humanity to believe in God and other religious phenomena that supposedly don't exist. Why would natural selection preserve the widespread religious instincts if nothing exists beyond mere material matter and molecules in motion.

Little wonder Turkey has tossed evolution out on its ears. And no longer wants this contrived atheistic nonsense taught unchecked in schools.We should do likewise - and soon!

John Heininger Director AEAS 
http://thegodreality.org/conversations.html

--
----------------------------
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.
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/0362e95c-7c47-4c49-9712-791d6e992467%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

John Heininger <heining...@gmail.com> on June 26, 2017 wrote:

>Bacteria pull every trick in the book to "preserve" themselves 

>as bacteria,and not change into something else. This true of all 

>other forms of life.

.

[S.P.] Indeed, every living organism, to stay alive, must be expediently evolved (evolutionized), and it is satisfied of what it is. I would much like to know your opinion concerning my various ideas I have expressed on this forum which pertain to evolutionary problematic (see attached three text files).

.

Thanks in advance for you reaction,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: John Heininger <heining...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

TURKEY GIVES EVOLUTION THE BOOT!

About time! Cosmological and biological evolutionary "historical theories" are nothing but atheistic "philosophical"constructs that have no testable or verifiable empirical basis. Every breeder and horticulturist who has ever lived knows there are cross breeding and reproductive limits for every form of life in existence, without exception.Making the supposed evolutionary continuum impossible. No one in all of human history has ever observed the one form of life evolve into a different branch of life.Bacteria pull every trick in the book to “preserve”themselves as bacteria,and not change into something else.This true of all other forms of life.And is precisely why we have super-bugs that develop a resistance to antibiotics.In fact, the noted Harvard biologists the late Stephan J Gould openly acknowledged this established fact. And proposed his “punctuated equilibrium”theory to account for the “stasis” or stability of every form of live over time. This is why the geological strata are awash living fossils that still exist, and were suddenly buried. This flaky theory is precisely why the Nobel Committee does not regard cosmological and biological evolutionary “historical theories”about unobserved event in the distant past as “prize worthy” science, because there is no possible way of ever empirically substantiating that events happened one way, and not another way, or even whether evolution happened at all.

The whole contrived evolutionary scenario operates on unverifiable assumptions, mere inferences, circular reasoning where interpretations conform to predictions .It's a surreal world where they conduct "science by explanations". And all these subjective opinion based "explanations" are given the same value as testable and verifiable empirical science. Revealing the extent to which science has truly gone mad.

Furthermore, both cosmological and biological evolutionary theories turn science on its head. Both of these theories operate on the absurd premise that an “effect” can not only be “far greater” than the cause, but actually “opposite to the cause”. For example, we have a cosmos that supposedly did not need God. And came from nothing out of nowhere. Life comes from non-life; consciousness comes from non-consciousness, intelligence from non-intelligence; reason from non-reason, and morals and altruism supposedly came from a undirected and unguided natural process that operates on the “survival of the fittest” and nature “red in tooth and claw”. Which is utter nonsense!

But wait, there is more! Darwin evolutionary theory does not fit reality in its foundational principle. Darwin stated that his whole naturalistic theory operated on the principle that NATURAL SELECTION ONLY PRESERVES THAT WHICH IS "USEFUL". So, why would "natural selection" largely preserve within the human genetics the inherent need for the vast majority of humanity to believe in God and other religious phenomena that supposedly don't exist. Why would natural selection preserve the widespread religious instincts if nothing exists beyond mere material matter and molecules in motion.

Little wonder Turkey has tossed evolution out on its ears. And no longer wants this contrived atheistic nonsense taught unchecked in schools.We should do likewise - and soon!

John Heininger Director AEAS 
http://thegodreality.org/conversations.html

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

This model called “inflation” tops all models of modern physics in its weirdness! But it does explain lot of data coming from study of cosmic microwave background. These are (1) Flatness: Spatial curvature in the currently observable universe seems to be zero on the average. This is like the earth is round, but your street looks flat.(2) horizon problem: the universe looks same in all directions, including regions which did not have enough time to reach equilibrium, since the beginning of the universe.(3) people cannot find any magnetic monopoles, although every grand unified theory predicts abundance of them. In fact couple of years back the model was almost verified by data taken in a detector near south pole (BICEP). But there were lot of alternative explanations. So the interpretation is on hold, subject to newer more precise data. The Nobel prize for this model will have to wait. This model has lot of consensus, but not unanimous. In fact recently, the opposing group wrote an open  letter in scientific american magazine. Twenty seven believers , including some past Nobel Laureates, wrote a strong counter letter. Personally, the model looks all right to me. But who knows, what the new data will suggest? So stay tuned. There are quite a few articles on internet. You may want to read them when you have time.

About consciousness, science is as confused as ever! Just on this web site I see 5-6 different models! There are probably hundreds more outside.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 6:45 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

I can;t understand and comprehend how from a vacuum with almost vanishing energy density in the range of 6 protons/cubic. m, the universe could expand to 10^80 times in 10^(-35sec)? Such an astronomical rapid expansion demands an astronomical strong field. From where such an unimaginable strong field can manifest?

 

Vinod Sehgal

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

I just sent an e-mail. But I forgot to write something. Wild fluctuations come from the fact (uncertainty pr) that delta(t) and delta(x) are extremely small at the beginning of the universe. Our universe is supposed to have started in an extremely small patch of vacuum. Indeed, we have to postulate a very strong field, the so called Inflaton which is believed to be  responsible for this very rapid exponential expansion. These quantum fields were present in the original vacuum. The quantum field theory for this is on good ground.

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 6:45 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

I can;t understand and comprehend how from a vacuum with almost vanishing energy density in the range of 6 protons/cubic. m, the universe could expand to 10^80 times in 10^(-35sec)? Such an astronomical rapid expansion demands an astronomical strong field. From where such an unimaginable strong field can manifest?

 

Vinod Sehgal

[Joseph McCard]

 "Not according to the current model of origin of universe. According to this model, our known universe arose from a very small patch of vacuum in which there was no matter, but there were quantum fields with very wild fluctuations, based on uncertainty principle. Then suddenly it expanded by a large exponential factor (the big bang) , something like a factor of 10^80 or so in 10^(-35) sec ! The fluctuation was frozen in because of rapid expansion. According to Guth, one of the fathers of inflation model, this resulted in an ultimate free lunch, a universe for which we may not have paid for in terms of energy budget !! Even if this model changes, the probabilistic structure and uncertainty principle have nothing to do with human observers. They are essential parts of quantum mechanics. QM will need a very drastic change, practically a new theory,  to make it a deterministic theory. The new theory will have to account for all the current successes of QM! Best Regards. Kashyap"

FWIW, there is a different story.

In the beginning there was a divine psychological gestalt -and by that I mean a being whose reality escapes the definition of the word "being", since it is the source from which all being emerges. That being exists in a psychological dimension, a spacious present, in which everything that was or will be is kept in immediate attention, poised in a divine context that is characterized by such a brilliant concentration that the grandest and lowliest, the largest and the smallest, are equally held in a multiloving constant focus.

Our conceptions of beginnings and endings makes an explanation of such a situation most difficult, for in your terms the beginning of the universe is meaningless -that is, in those terms there was no beginning

The universe is always coming into existence, and each present moment brings its own built-in past along with it. You agree on accepting as fact only a small portion of the large available data that compose any moment individually or globally. You accept only that data that fit in with your ideas of motion and time. As a result, your archeological evidence usually presents a picture quite in keeping with your ideas of history, geological eras, and so forth.

The conscious mind sees with a spectacular but limited scope. It lacks all peripheral vision. You allow the conscious mind to accept as evidence only those physical data available for the five senses -while the five senses represent only a relatively flat view of reality that deals with the most apparent surface.

When I speak of the dream world, I am not referring to some imaginary realm, but to the kind of world of ideas, of thoughts, of mental actions, out of which all form as you think of it emerges. Your physical reality is but one materialization of that inner organization. All possible civilizations exist first in the realm of the inner mind..

The universe is the natural extension of divine creativity and intent, lovingly formed from the inside out -so there was consciousness before there was matter, and not the other way round. 

In the beginning, then, there was a subjective world that became objective.

In the beginning, then, there was a dream world, in which consciousness formed a dream of physical reality, and gradually became awake in that world. 

The beginning of the universe is just a step outside the moment.

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Kashyap, 

I concur with your observation:

"About consciousness, science is as confused as ever! Just on this web site I see 5-6 different models! There are probably hundreds more outside.

Best Regards."

One possible method for selecting those theories of consciousness that are likely to be true may be to apply the principle of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation).  Baed on ITR, it is possible to divided consciousness theories into two classes -- dyadic and triadic, as shown in Figure 1, and it is the triadic theories that are most likely to be true:

                     f                                               g

    Reality  ----->  Lived Consciousness -----> Theorized Consciousness

         |                                                                                       ^
         |                                                                                        |
         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |____________________________________________|

                                                    h

Figure 1.  The relation between lived consiousness and theories of consciousness.

 f = natural process; g = theorizing; h = grounding/information flow.  This diagram is thought to be equivlalent to the commutative triangle of category theory, so that f x g = h, or "f followed by g leads to the same result as h". 

Based on this diagram, I would suggest that, although theoreticians can conjure up their favorite metatheories of consciouosness consistent with their knowledge and beliefs, not all such metatheories may turn out to be be true or grounded in reality.   In other words, there may be two kinds of metatheories -- one satisfying Steps f and g and the other satisfying Steps f, g and h.  The former may be referred to as dyadic metatheories and the latter as triadic metatheories.  I think it is very likely that only triadic theories of consciusness as defined in Figure 1 are true.

With all the best.

Sung

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

This model called “inflation” tops all models of modern physics in its weirdness! But it does explain lot of data coming from study of cosmic microwave background. These are (1) Flatness: Spatial curvature in the currently observable universe seems to be zero on the average. This is like the earth is round, but your street looks flat.(2) horizon problem: the universe looks same in all directions, including regions which did not have enough time to reach equilibrium, since the beginning of the universe.(3) people cannot find any magnetic monopoles, although every grand unified theory predicts abundance of them. In fact couple of years back the model was almost verified by data taken in a detector near south pole (BICEP). But there were lot of alternative explanations. So the interpretation is on hold, subject to newer more precise data. The Nobel prize for this model will have to wait. This model has lot of consensus, but not unanimous. In fact recently, the opposing group wrote an open  letter in scientific american magazine. Twenty seven believers , including some past Nobel Laureates, wrote a strong counter letter. Personally, the model looks all right to me. But who knows, what the new data will suggest? So stay tuned. There are quite a few articles on internet. You may want to read them when you have time.

--

----------------------------
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.
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/936a39bbcdd64ebb8e76f83b2e4c50cc%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833

www.conformon.net

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on June 28, 2017 wrote:

>FWIW, there is a different story.

>...

>In the beginning, then, there was a subjective world that became objective.

.

[S.P.] An interesting story, and, what is particularly remarkable, -- entertaining. :-) The key phrase here is "FWIW", which means "for what it's worth", or "unverified reports suggest that", or "the rumors are that". 

.

In fact, in the beginning, there was nothing. Nothing means NOTHING. Why nothing? Because it was the beginning. There was no consciousness, no subjective world, no desire to become objective world, no dream world, no divine creativity and intent, no world of ideas, no mental actions, no inner mind, no history, no time, no events, no actions, no space -- nothing!  Nothing yet.

.

There was no consciousness-possessing observer who could witness anything. Therefore, this story is unverifiable in principle, and that is why it is labeled as FWIW by its author. 

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: vinodse...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Joseph McCard]

Sung,

I find your test intriguing. Would you be so kind as to  provide an example of a dyadic theory and a triadic theory, and then run them through your diagram? 

for example, would I be correct to infer that natural processes [f] are measurable, physical, bio-chemical?

Theorizing [g] involves scientific/ philosophical rationality following experience, as opposed to say magical thinking?

Grounding/ information flow[h] is theory applied to physical reality, a kind of feedback? 

Hence, true [g] and grounded [h]? g & h

"You wrote: 

                  f                                               g

    Reality  ----->  Lived Consciousness -----> Theorized Consciousness

         |                                                                                       ^

         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |____________________________________________|

                                                    h

Figure 1.  The relation between lived consiousness and theories of consciousness.

 f = natural process; g = theorizing; h = grounding/information flow.  This diagram is thought to be equivlalent to the commutative triangle of category theory, so that f x g = h, or "f followed by g leads to the same result as h". 

Based on this diagram, I would suggest that, although theoreticians can conjure up their favorite metatheories of consciouosness consistent with their knowledge and beliefs, not all such metatheories may turn out to be be true or grounded in reality.   In other words, there may be two kinds of metatheories -- one satisfying Steps f and g and the other satisfying Steps f, g and h.  The former may be referred to as dyadic metatheories and the latter as triadic metatheories.  I think it is very likely that only triadic theories of consciusness as defined in Figure 1 are true."

Joseph

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 06:37:37PM +0000, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

> In fact, in the beginning, there was nothing. Nothing means NOTHING.

Hi Serge,

In the spirit of this correction: In the beginning there was no time. So
since beginnings and endings are relative to time, there was no beginning.
And no ending.

Now, once we had time, and a beginning, in the time of that beginning we had
something. Except I shouldn't have said "once," as that's sneaking time in,
as it were, ahead of its time.

In any case, maybe instead of "in the beginning, there was nothing," you
might want to say "before the beginning, there was nothing"? Except "before"
puts time where it's not, again. This may be squarely in the "of that which
we cannot speak" catagory.

Either that, or we need to be comfortable with even our best models having
contradictions.

Best,
Whit

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> on June 29, 2017 wrote:

>Now, once we had time, and a beginning, in the time of that 

>beginning we had something.

.

[S.P.] The phrase "once we had time, and a beginning" is incorrect. Here, the word "and" is impertinent -- "time" and "beginning" could not be simultaneously, because, by definition, in the beginning there was nothing, time including.

.

The phrase "in the time of that beginning" is incorrect as well, since in the beginning there was no time.

.

[Whit Blauvelt] wrote:

> In any case, maybe instead of "in the beginning, there was nothing," 

>you might want to say "before the beginning, there was nothing"?

.

[S.P.] Here, I just used the original Joseph's formulation, namely, "in the beginning". So, in fact, it is not my expression. 

.

However, "before the beginning" there was nothing as well, and I quite assume that the state (of existence outside of time) when there was nothing could last for the whole eternity. Anything has appeared right after "beginning".

.

Thanks for your reply,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:57 AM

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

--
----------------------------

'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> Jun 28 at 11:42 PM

To

Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Message body

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Joseph,

Thanks for our interest.

I think you got the essence of the diagram, or the meaning of the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation), which can be viewed as the principle of communication, language, and the category theory.

Any system of thoughts embodying Steps f and g is what I came to call dyadic theory. For example, mathematics that is valid independent of empirical support, and some philosophical systems developed by scholars which are logicaly valid (i.e., g) but not empirically grounded (i.e., not h).

Any system of thoughts emobodying Steps f, g, and h is what I define as triadic theory.  The best example for me is the sign theory (semiotics) of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).  But I have encountered some semitoic scholars whose sign theories are dyadic, since their theoreis are groundless and hence artificial.

I would like to know what you think of these examples.  

With all the best.

Sung

--
----------------------------
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.
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/1db50483-c327-4445-ac94-5c3931d76470%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Eric Reyes]

Serge, you write ~

”In fact, in the beginning, there was nothing. Nothing means NOTHING. Why nothing? Because it was the beginning. There was no consciousness, no subjective world, no desire to become objective world, no dream world, no divine creativity and intent, no world of ideas, no mental actions, no inner mind, no history, no time, no events, no actions, no space -- nothing!"

My question is, do you actually believe this? You also say "There was no consciousness-possessing observer who could witness anything."

Do you really think that reality starts or originates from "nothing"? How is that possible? I think the exact opposite is true, for what is absolute or whole there is no beginning. If something exists it has always existed. We who are small and limited want to project limitations on the whole, but that's not reality. We ultimately cannot force reality into a little box to contain it, to control it. That's impossible. Reality has its own existence, it's own ideas.

Regards, Eric Reyes

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--
----------------------------
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/1815383657.705870.1498675057814%40mail.yahoo.com.

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Serge and Whit,

If there was absolutely nothing before the beginning of our universe,  then what caused it to begin?

Whilst I agree that the objective time dimension of our current universe began at the Big Bang,  I think we have no physical grounds to assume that there was no subjective time (i. e. Conscious experience) before that event - in fact my theory suggests there was (assuming that the universe began with a vacuum fluctuation as modern physics suggests). I rather like the theory suggested by a Jewish guy called John sometime in the late first century AD that 'In the Beginning was the information,  and the information was with the consciousness, and the information was the consciousness. It was with the consciousness in the beginning.  Through that information all things were made... '. In other words, all the power and knowledge and motivation to create our universe in a humane way with the properties needed to evolve living creatures (though not I think the knowledge of how to create them) were within the experience of a consciousness at the beginning of objective time.

I think that view avoids the logical impossibility of something coming from absolutely nothing.

Best wishes,
Colin

C.  S.  Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

Send from Huawei Y360

--

----------------------------
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/1884587326.973223.1498698109378%40mail.yahoo.com.

[BMP]

Dear Colin and friends,

Namaste. You give an interesting interpretation of John 1.1. You replace the Logos (Word) with information and God with consciousness (Concept, Idea).   Hegel identifies the Logos as the Idea of God in and for God's self with God's own reality as God. Thus God is absolute, i.e. that whose Idea and Reality are congruent. 

This may be difficult to understand if you are not familiar with Hegel, but the main point is to undestand if there is an incongruity between information [a nebulous term for me] and consciousness [which signifies concept or idea]. If we interpret 'information' as determination or thought [which is what 'Word' also implies] and consciousness as the reality of God then we seem to recover the original interpretation that Hegel gives. Of course, consciousness is not the reality of God, or at least not the whole reality of God. The abstract monists would like to identify God as consciousness, but in my humble opinion that is not the complete idea of the Absolute given by Veda as the tri-unity of sat cit ananda, in which consciousness [cit] is a part of the Complete Whole.

The next thing is that there is a difference between the ideas of Nothing and Beginning. Nothing as Serge said is Nothing. But Beginning implies  something more that mere Nothing. The word 'beginning' implies that there is something to follow. This is not true of the word 'nothing.' When we say 'beginning' we refer to the start of something that already exists and inquire about its origination. In this way Beginning already has implicit within it the presently existing world or anything else we are inquiring about its origin. This implicitness of the concept of Beginning may be called the Nothing of what is presently existing, but it is certainly distinct from pure Nothing which doesn't have anything implicit, including the concept of Beginning, within it. 

The implicit totality of present existence that the concept of Beginning contains within itself, i.e. its teleology, is ignored by abstract analytical thinking which sees only the Nothing of the present existence in the Beginning. Because such thinking ignores the implicit totality of the present existence, which we may call the unmanifested Idea, it has to come up with some way this Nothing can come to manifest the totality of present existence. It does this by proposing a contingent disturbance of a vacuum state and an explosion - something that happens spontaneously without cause , i.e. contingently. The idea here is to avoid teleology, a guiding principle or a final cause or purpose. But we may now understand that the very concept of Beginning implies that the presently existing totality is always and already necessarily there [as negated, as the Nothing of its present existence] within what we refer to as its beginning. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

---

From: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:18 AM

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Joseph McCard]

Colin,

"If there was absolutely nothing before the beginning of our universe,  then what caused it to begin?"

A reasonable question, one that suggests there was consciousness before our universe. 

"Whilst I agree that the objective time dimension of our current universe began at the Big Bang,  I think we have no physical grounds to assume that there was no subjective time (i. e. Conscious experience) before that event - in fact my theory suggests there was (assuming that the universe began with a vacuum fluctuation as modern physics suggests). I rather like the theory suggested by a Jewish guy called John sometime in the late first century AD that 'In the Beginning was the information,  and the information was with the consciousness, and the information was the consciousness. It was with the consciousness in the beginning.  Through that information all things were made... '. In other words, all the power and knowledge and motivation to create our universe in a humane way with the properties needed to evolve living creatures (though not I think the knowledge of how to create them) were within the experience of a consciousness at the beginning of objective time.

I have never heard of that one before, and I have heard a lot, so thank you for that quotation. It sounds consistent with my beliefs. "Information was the consciousness", very perceptive, as I see it. 

"I think that view avoids the logical impossibility of something coming from absolutely nothing."

There is an interesting argument that claims something coming from nothing:

"In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself—because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is… was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not. The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. 

 

This energy—this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy—chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.

 It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.

 And so All That Is divided Itself—becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.

 Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist.

 It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts."

Joseph

[Bruno Marchal]

That is what we get if we take seriously the digital mechanist assumption in the cognitive science. 

In that case, it is a theorem of elementary arithmetic that the sigma_1 arithmetical reality emulates a web of dreams, and the physical reality is a 1p plural sharable part which emerge on the frontier between the computable and the non-computable in arithmetic. Notice that since Gödel and Others we know today that the computable is only a tiny part of the arithmetical truth, and even more so when seen from inside. Arithmetic seen from inside (1p, 1pp) needs to assume much more than (3p) arithmetic!

Bruno

--
----------------------------
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/abb6bbc2-aacf-4aa7-a1e7-55fa88b9eacf%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

You have some interesting questions in the last two e-mails which are at the forefront of current cosmology research with lot of controversy and uncertainty in the models. I will try to answer some of these with this disclaimer. I have never worked in cosmology! At my age (will be 80 in July) I have hard time keeping up with the rapid development in the field anyway! Also, the usual caveat: one cannot really talk about modern physics without equations. But here is my impression. Currently cosmology is suffering from lack of precise experiments which would distinguish between various models, although people are trying with experiments at south-pole and in satellites.  Microwave Cosmic Background observed today came from what presumably happened some 300,000 years after the big bang. Earlier than that it is all theory. It is believed that first four nuclei, H, He, Li and Be were formed during the first three minutes and we can calculate the relative number. Astronomers can estimate how many of these were formed as primordial nuclei and how many were formed in stars later. This field called nucleosynthesis is fairly reliable and there is good agreement between theory and experiment. What happened in the first minute is all speculation, based on current knowledge of high energy physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. At some point the four interactions separated from the grand unified interaction, particles like protons, neutrons, electrons etc. were created from available energy and later nuclei were formed. Because of the rapid expansion, energy lowered. We know that weak and electromagnetic forces unify above about 246 GeV and separate below this energy. At some moment Higgs field was created. But all of this is model dependent with hardly any direct experimental confirmation. Hopefully, study of gravitational waves will throw some light on what happened in the first minute and the big bang. Also big bang wiped out evidence of what was before. Probably space-time were created at that point or it was a bounce from a previous big crunch .There are a number of cyclic models which cannot be ruled out. How entropy was reduced to minimum during the big crunch for the next cycle is a big mystery. Steinhardt is a big opponent of inflation model. You may want to look up his work.

Now let me tell you about my understanding of the present status of our knowledge of what happened in first minute.  There was a very strong energetic field or several fields called inflaton(s). Status of energy conservation on a global scale is not clear in General Relativity. You might ask where is the energy for space expansion coming from?  Global energy conservation in GR does not follow from Gauss’s theorem because you have to integrate curvature tensors. That is why Guth remarked that we had an ultimate free lunch! There is one argument though. When matter is produced it has gravitational potential energy with a negative sign. This cancels the mass-energy of the created particles. So it may be true that the present total energy of the universe is zero which would be consistent with its origin from vacuum. In that sense we may have paid back for the free lunch! Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, something did not come out of nothing!! But where do these fields come from? God knows!!

Yes. Theoretically, there is a strong possibility of multiverses. But nobody knows how to find them.

As for deterministic theories, I am skeptical. Indeterministic QM has done so well that any replacement will have to reproduce all successes which may be hard. I have not seen any big movement following ‘t Hooft. He already had a Nobel prize. So probably he can afford to take a risk of being called senile by fellow physicists! By the way. I have not studied his papers, but we Hindus should be happy with super determination! That sounds like Karma or destiny!

Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. Only thing physicists can do is to make mathematical models and see if they are consistent with experiments. Speculations on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 10:24 PM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

There are some unresolved issues in this model which don't seem to have solutions.

I) Energy of vacuum is almost zero, therefore, from where a very very strong inflation field will emerge?

Ii) Quantum fluctuations being wild and random implying stochastic one. How universe will transit from stochastic  to deterministic one?

Iii) if universe starts from one patch of vacuum, is is a natural corollary  that some more universes might have started  from other parts of the vacuum also leading to multiverses ( not from single fluctuation) but from different fluctuations  from different patches.

Iv) if any entity has any existence, it means it should have some ontology. Nil ontology implies zero existence. If vacuum has some existence, it should have some ontology not to be equated with wild fluctuations. Fluctuations being wild and discrete should require some background  holistic medium for their existence and operation.

V) Heisenberg  uncertainty principle relates delta E and delta T with Planck constant h but within the existing variables. It does not speaks  of creation of energy out of nothing  even if E and T are related thru h.

Otherwise, manifestation of something  from nothing is illogical since nothing means non-existence of anything  it us from this prospective also if vacuum has existence, it should be full of some ontology at each of its point. On the contrary, I should say that vacuum bring a true holistic background medium for discrete fluctuations and low energy density field, should be indivisible to any point. An infinite  indivisible ontology and infinite vacuum, serving as background  to fluctuations, can be treated as synonymous.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Eric Reyes <eka...@yahoo.com> on June 29, 2017 wrote:

>My question is, do you actually believe this? ...

>Do you really think that reality starts or originates from "nothing"?

.

[S.P.] OK, let me clarify the issue. My reply to Joseph McCard is HUMOROUS. Why humorous? Because the author of the story started it with the phrase "FWIW" which means: "as one old lady said in the market". So, I have pointed out at clear contradictions in his story. Namely, if he uses the phrase "in the beginning", then he couldn't simultaneously assert that there were "subjective world", "world of dreams", "conscious mind", and so on. Please, re-read my post from this angle. See also my reply to Whit Blauvelt.

.

[Eric Reyes] wrote:

>I think the exact opposite is true, for what is absolute or whole 

>there is no beginning. If something exists it has always existed.

.

[S.P.] What I believe is that Noumenal Reality had no beginning and will have no ending. By "Noumenal Reality" I mean the one which is postulated to exist objectively and independently of what we think about it. However, every living organism has its own version of Phenomenal Reality as a sum of experience (knowledge, information, etc.) about Noumenal Reality, and this sum of experience the organism acquires due to activity of own consciousness in the course of its life. So, the given organism's version of Phenomenal Reality begins right after the moment of insemination, and ends when the organism dies -- it has its beginning and ending.

.

Second. I like your talking about Reality as a whole. I have even formulated what I call the General Law of Simultaneity, which holds that for (Noumenal) Reality to exist as a single whole, all the events and processes that belong to it, if they do take place, they must necessarily take place simultaneously, and this fact does not depend on a physical frame of reference we choose within our Reality, nor on a distance between these events and processes. (For details, see my reply to Jonathan Edwards on May 30, 2017).

.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:02 PM

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Kashyap Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

>Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in

> the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, 

>something did not come out of nothing!!

.

[S.P.] For anything to exist, there must be a concrete place, or a volume of space, where it exists. In the beginning there was no space, no vacuum, therefore nothing could be said to exist in the beginning. However, if we start from presuming the existence of "quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations", then it is the same as to assert that a tree has evolved from a seed -- an enough trivial statement.  

.

[Kashyap Vasavada] wrote:

> Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. ... Speculations

> on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

.

[S.P.] Then the "Big-Bang theory" and "Multiverse theory" should be treated as philosophic theories which bear no relation to Physics. I agree. I would also add that Physics should also stop trying to account for consciousness, since it is not its subject matter -- it is a subject matter for the Science of Consciousness as a new scientific discipline.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:16 AM
Subject: RE: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Dear Vinod,

You have some interesting questions in the last two e-mails which are at the forefront of current cosmology research with lot of controversy and uncertainty in the models. I will try to answer some of these with this disclaimer. I have never worked in cosmology! At my age (will be 80 in July) I have hard time keeping up with the rapid development in the field anyway! Also, the usual caveat: one cannot really talk about modern physics without equations. But here is my impression. Currently cosmology is suffering from lack of precise experiments which would distinguish between various models, although people are trying with experiments at south-pole and in satellites.  Microwave Cosmic Background observed today came from what presumably happened some 300,000 years after the big bang. Earlier than that it is all theory. It is believed that first four nuclei, H, He, Li and Be were formed during the first three minutes and we can calculate the relative number. Astronomers can estimate how many of these were formed as primordial nuclei and how many were formed in stars later. This field called nucleosynthesis is fairly reliable and there is good agreement between theory and experiment. What happened in the first minute is all speculation, based on current knowledge of high energy physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. At some point the four interactions separated from the grand unified interaction, particles like protons, neutrons, electrons etc. were created from available energy and later nuclei were formed. Because of the rapid expansion, energy lowered. We know that weak and electromagnetic forces unify above about 246 GeV and separate below this energy. At some moment Higgs field was created. But all of this is model dependent with hardly any direct experimental confirmation. Hopefully, study of gravitational waves will throw some light on what happened in the first minute and the big bang. Also big bang wiped out evidence of what was before. Probably space-time were created at that point or it was a bounce from a previous big crunch .There are a number of cyclic models which cannot be ruled out. How entropy was reduced to minimum during the big crunch for the next cycle is a big mystery. Steinhardt is a big opponent of inflation model. You may want to look up his work.

Now let me tell you about my understanding of the present status of our knowledge of what happened in first minute.  There was a very strong energetic field or several fields called inflaton(s). Status of energy conservation on a global scale is not clear in General Relativity. You might ask where is the energy for space expansion coming from?  Global energy conservation in GR does not follow from Gauss’s theorem because you have to integrate curvature tensors. That is why Guth remarked that we had an ultimate free lunch! There is one argument though. When matter is produced it has gravitational potential energy with a negative sign. This cancels the mass-energy of the created particles. So it may be true that the present total energy of the universe is zero which would be consistent with its origin from vacuum. In that sense we may have paid back for the free lunch! Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, something did not come out of nothing!! But where do these fields come from? God knows!!

Yes. Theoretically, there is a strong possibility of multiverses. But nobody knows how to find them.

As for deterministic theories, I am skeptical. Indeterministic QM has done so well that any replacement will have to reproduce all successes which may be hard. I have not seen any big movement following ‘t Hooft. He already had a Nobel prize. So probably he can afford to take a risk of being called senile by fellow physicists! By the way. I have not studied his papers, but we Hindus should be happy with super determination! That sounds like Karma or destiny!

Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. Only thing physicists can do is to make mathematical models and see if they are consistent with experiments. Speculations on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Serge -- You are having problems with colloquial English: "For what it's worth" does NOT mean what you think it does. It means, "I believe this is true, but you have to decide for yourself how important it is to you." [Of course, if FWIW is prefaced by something like "it is rumored that..." then it can take on a different meaning, namely "It's a rumor, and you have to decide for yourself whether to take the rumor seriously."]

And so, I fully agree that if the whole of reality was NOTHING in some sense of the word, it means that there was no conscious mind, etc. No Brahman. No Atman.  NOTHING. Just how our world, our existence, our consciousness can be reconciled with this -- that is YOUR problem, not mine, and I don't think it is Reyes's problem either.

Peter Nyikos

Professor of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:04 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SPAM]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

--

----------------------------
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/1094253606.1918588.1498788295568%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Serge--

I fully agree with your first paragraph.

But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind. That philosophy reaches back at least as far as the Chandogya Upanishad, but most Western professors of philosophy -- not all of whom deserve the title "Philosopher" by any means -- seem to think that it was all obscurity before Descartes began to meditate on it. Of course, almost all Western professors of philosophy who write books (Daniel Dennett is a good example) think they have gone far past Descartes, in the direction OPPOSITE Hindu philosopy!

And so, while agree with everything in your second paragraph before the dash that begins your last sentence, I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual consciousness. Some Hindus on this list might claim that my perception of my individual consciousness is an illusion. However, they need to account for that alleged illusion in a way similar to the way our ordinary everyday illusions (a blue dome above our heads on a cloudless day, a rainbow as something that has a definable end, etc.) are accounted for.

I must admit I haven't been following more than a small percentage of emails that emanate from Sadhu Sanga, so I may have missed such an account. If so, I would appreciate being made aware of one.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:59 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

-

Kashyap Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

>Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in

> the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, 

>something did not come out of nothing!!

.

[S.P.] For anything to exist, there must be a concrete place, or a volume of space, where it exists. In the beginning there was no space, no vacuum, therefore nothing could be said to exist in the beginning. However, if we start from presuming the existence of "quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations", then it is the same as to assert that a tree has evolved from a seed -- an enough trivial statement.  

.

[Kashyap Vasavada] wrote:

> Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. ... Speculations

> on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

.

[S.P.] Then the "Big-Bang theory" and "Multiverse theory" should be treated as philosophic theories which bear no relation to Physics. I agree. I would also add that Physics should also stop trying to account for consciousness, since it is not its subject matter -- it is a subject matter for the Science of Consciousness as a new scientific discipline.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 4:16 AM
Subject: RE: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Dear Vinod,

You have some interesting questions in the last two e-mails which are at the forefront of current cosmology research with lot of controversy and uncertainty in the models. I will try to answer some of these with this disclaimer. I have never worked in cosmology! At my age (will be 80 in July) I have hard time keeping up with the rapid development in the field anyway! Also, the usual caveat: one cannot really talk about modern physics without equations. But here is my impression. Currently cosmology is suffering from lack of precise experiments which would distinguish between various models, although people are trying with experiments at south-pole and in satellites.  Microwave Cosmic Background observed today came from what presumably happened some 300,000 years after the big bang. Earlier than that it is all theory. It is believed that first four nuclei, H, He, Li and Be were formed during the first three minutes and we can calculate the relative number. Astronomers can estimate how many of these were formed as primordial nuclei and how many were formed in stars later. This field called nucleosynthesis is fairly reliable and there is good agreement between theory and experiment. What happened in the first minute is all speculation, based on current knowledge of high energy physics, quantum mechanics and relativity. At some point the four interactions separated from the grand unified interaction, particles like protons, neutrons, electrons etc. were created from available energy and later nuclei were formed. Because of the rapid expansion, energy lowered. We know that weak and electromagnetic forces unify above about 246 GeV and separate below this energy. At some moment Higgs field was created. But all of this is model dependent with hardly any direct experimental confirmation. Hopefully, study of gravitational waves will throw some light on what happened in the first minute and the big bang. Also big bang wiped out evidence of what was before. Probably space-time were created at that point or it was a bounce from a previous big crunch .There are a number of cyclic models which cannot be ruled out. How entropy was reduced to minimum during the big crunch for the next cycle is a big mystery. Steinhardt is a big opponent of inflation model. You may want to look up his work.

Now let me tell you about my understanding of the present status of our knowledge of what happened in first minute.  There was a very strong energetic field or several fields called inflaton(s). Status of energy conservation on a global scale is not clear in General Relativity. You might ask where is the energy for space expansion coming from?  Global energy conservation in GR does not follow from Gauss’s theorem because you have to integrate curvature tensors. That is why Guth remarked that we had an ultimate free lunch! There is one argument though. When matter is produced it has gravitational potential energy with a negative sign. This cancels the mass-energy of the created particles. So it may be true that the present total energy of the universe is zero which would be consistent with its origin from vacuum. In that sense we may have paid back for the free lunch! Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, something did not come out of nothing!! But where do these fields come from? God knows!!

Yes. Theoretically, there is a strong possibility of multiverses. But nobody knows how to find them.

As for deterministic theories, I am skeptical. Indeterministic QM has done so well that any replacement will have to reproduce all successes which may be hard. I have not seen any big movement following ‘t Hooft. He already had a Nobel prize. So probably he can afford to take a risk of being called senile by fellow physicists! By the way. I have not studied his papers, but we Hindus should be happy with super determination! That sounds like Karma or destiny!

Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. Only thing physicists can do is to make mathematical models and see if they are consistent with experiments. Speculations on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

Best Regards.

kashyap

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/155067225.1937783.1498791570322%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Tina LIndhard]

"In the beginning there was nothing"

I have been following  the conversations with interest and I would now like to comment on the above phrase. As it is conceptualised I do not feel it gets us very far. I would like to suggest that "before the universe began to materialise" or "before the material universe began to form" is maybe a more appropriate way to phrase it. This enables us to envisage the type of forces that were very probably present before the  “material" forms came into being and very probably  are still present. 

Even if we build a table, we first have to have a conceptual image of it in our minds- so in the beginning the table was the thought. Then we have to put go through a series of steps of how to construct the table - this is a process - it does not just come into being.  In part of the abstract of my thesis entitled “Unlocking the secrets of the heart through meditating on the Self”, I say

“Inspired by Max Planck to look for the Absolute, the universally valid, the invariant that is normally absent when only concentrating on relative, testable relationships, the present study set out to understand the nature and role of the heart using different procedures. In the literature review, this study includes the application of the comparative method of Goethe to the ontological development of the heart and the notochord based on primary observations of other scientists. This revealed that with the advent of the pulsating heart, the morphological ontology of the embryo mirrors the different broad phylogenetic stages of creation from worms to mammals and invertebrates to vertebrate forms. Reflecting on the origin of the heartbeat, this researcher concurs with Arka that pulsation is probably the underlying core principle and property of universal existence, cosmic existence, and local existence. This suggests that all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings all particles to pulsation; a conscious Mind that is expressing itself through ever-changing pulsating forms” (Lindhard, 2016) . 

The yogis of old felt that if they knew their own nature then they would know the nature of the Universe. I also feel if we know about somatogenesis (formation of the body) we might know more about the origin of the Universe  how it came into being, how the forces work and what maintains it.

 

I present these ideas as an hypothesis to be considered. When it is combined with the definition of consciousness as supplied by Sen and Arka - the picture becomes clearer:

"In Classical Indian writings such as the Upanishads, consciousness is thought to be the essence of Atman, a primal, immanent self that is ultimately identified with Brahman—a pure, transcendental, subject-object-less consciousness that underlies and provides the ground of being of both Man and Nature" (Sen as cited in Velmans, 2009, p. 1) .

In talking about consciousness, Arka (2013) is consistent with the above view but clarifies it further. He says:

"Consciousness manifests itself through physical matter. Similar to bacteria that are able to survive with a complete lack of oxygen and in high temperatures, consciousness lacks boundaries, can take any form or shape and can emerge under challenging life conditions. In spirituality, consciousness is mainly a non-physical yet powerful entity that is the pivotal point of all life and activates the senses in every living being. It is highly responsive and expressive and activates many levels, especially in humans" (Arka, 2013, p. 37) (in Lindhard, 2016)

Kind regards - Tina 

Tina Lindhard

PhD Consciousness Studies (IUPS)

President CCAEspaña

CICA: Chair of Consciousness Research
conso...@gmail.com

www.tinalindhard.org

On 29 Jun 2017, at 03:01, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> on June 29, 2017 wrote:

>Now, once we had time, and a beginning, in the time of that 

>beginning we had something.

.

[S.P.] The phrase "once we had time, and a beginning" is incorrect. Here, the word "and" is impertinent -- "time" and "beginning" could not be simultaneously, because, by definition, in the beginning there was nothing, time including.

.

The phrase "in the time of that beginning" is incorrect as well, since in the beginning there was no time.

.

[Whit Blauvelt] wrote:

> In any case, maybe instead of "in the beginning, there was nothing," 

>you might want to say "before the beginning, there was nothing"?

[Tina LIndhard]

Dear Peter, 

Some Hindus on this list might claim that my perception of my individual consciousness is an illusion.

Not necessarily. I personally feel that the definition of Consciousness of Srinivas Arka that I included in my last post, gives scientists a way around this. In his theory he talks about "consciousness being mainly a non-physical yet powerful entity that is the pivotal point of all life and activates the senses in every living being. It is highly responsive and expressive and activates many levels, especially in humans." (Arka, 2013) He has a theory know as the Six Main Levels of Consciousness. The first level is  Mind or thinking mind consciousness. This is followed by SM (Subliminal-Mind) – Consciousness, F (Feeling-Mind) – Consciousness, H (Emotional-Heart) – Consciousness, HS (Heart-Soul) – Consciousness; PS (Pure-Self) – Consciousness. Most people who do not meditate, mostly  experience "Mind or thinking mind consciousness", as our educational system prizes this level of consciousness.  Children and elderly people are more situated in their hearts.  My thesis was to find our more about the quality of Feeling Mind Consciousness.

Warm regards - Tina 

Tina Lindhard

PhD Consciousness Studies (IUPS)

President CCAEspaña

CICA: Chair of Consciousness Research
conso...@gmail.com

www.tinalindhard.org

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634781284B7%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Serge,

Let us not carry this argument to extreme. Big bang theory does have some experimental support in cosmic microwave background study and expansion of universe, not as much as physicists would like but it is certainly non zero. Existence of primordial quantum fields is the only game in town! Critics do not have any alternative model without quantum fields.

Now whether consciousness is a subject matter of physics or not is a subtle issue. For one thing, QM strongly hints at that. But also, biology, neuroscience and medical science in general are so much dependent on physics and chemistry, that scientists do not know what else to do!! So in my opinion, it is perfectly OK for physicists to think about consciousness.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

--

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

I am not putting down philosophy and ontology. It is nice to discuss these issues with a philosopher who knows science also. Personally I am interested in knowing more about concept of Brahman and consciousness in Vedas and Upanishads. It is just that it is not clear how to incorporate these ideas in the usual scientific method. Most people will have to admit the enormous success of scientific method in the last 500 years and especially in the last 100 years. To repeat some obvious matters, almost everyone has a cell phone in pocket and almost everyone visits doctors and hospitals when he/she is sick. This would include philosophers and Swamijis also! So let us not overdo in criticism of scientific method. Nature of science is such that there will always be gaps in our knowledge. The question we have to ask is whether there are alternative models which explain these phenomena. Do Vedas tell you how cell phones, microwave ovens etc. work or indeed how heart attack comes about and what to do in case of heart attack?  If someone tells me that there are no gaps in knowledge in the religious books written 2 to 5 thousand years back, he has to be really naïve! However, it may very well be that in studying consciousness, science may have hit a brick wall which it cannot climb over. I grant you that. Time will tell.

Here is what I wrote to Serge few minutes back:

“Big bang theory does have some experimental support in cosmic microwave background study and expansion of universe, not as much as physicists would like but it is certainly non zero. Existence of primordial quantum fields is the only game in town! Critics do not have any alternative model without quantum fields.

Now whether consciousness is a subject matter of physics or not is a subtle issue. For one thing, QM strongly hints at that. But also, biology, neuroscience and medical science in general are so much dependent on physics and chemistry, that scientists do not know what else to do!! So in my opinion, it is perfectly OK for physicists to think about consciousness.”

Now about question on Higgs field. It was postulated more than 50 years back to explain spontaneous breaking of symmetry. Discovery of Higgs Boson in LHC was a big triumph for theoretical physics. Its role is to break electroweak symmetry into two separate forces electromagnetism and weak and in the process give masses to quarks and leptons (e.g. electrons). These particles, when they were created, would have zero masses and move with velocity of light .So atoms would not exist and the universe as we know would not be around. Yes exchange of Higgs boson will give rise to a fifth force, but it would be the weakest force, presumably unmeasurable at present. So no one talks about it now. Now the Higgs field is sitting in a potential energy minimum. But if it decays, we will not have time to say goodbye to the universe as we know it!!!

There are numerous models about these three quantities (fields). (1) Inflaton which gave rise to initial very rapid expansion (2) Cosmological constant in Einstein’s equation, which may be remnant of a quintessence field giving rise to current smaller acceleration of expansion and (3) Higgs. There are numerous models relating or not relating these. In fact, I am trying to find out if there is a reasonable model connecting these. But so far no luck.

Again I cannot put down  ‘t Hooft’s efforts. After all he is a great theoretical physicist and I am nothing compared to him!! In fact just recently, a Bell type experiment was done using starlight from a star some 600 light years far to set the angles of polarization detectors. It ruled out super determination. They are planning experiments to use light from stars even further out. I understand Vimalji has a number of models. I do not know if all of them depend on correctness of  ‘t Hooft’s theories. Some time I will read his papers and then ask him some questions. Right now my plate is full!

Concept of vacuum in quantum theory is complex. It is not absence of anything as common man would imagine. By uncertainty principle it has necessarily fluctuating quantum fields.

In summary, only thing scientists know is to make models and see if they “explain” experimental results. If they agree, then the model is believed to be right at that moment. Whether it represents ontology or not, a true scientist would not make any commitment, although as a human being he/she may have some opinion about reality. This is a matter of faith in the scientific method. But so also, believing what Rishis said thousands of years back is also a matter of faith. That is why I would like to talk to some Yogis who have experienced Samadhi! But no luck so far!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 6:51 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks for sending a detailed message touching different issues as raised by me in the last two emails. I agree that many of the issues as raised by me in the last two emails are in the forefront of the cosmology research and as you say there is a lot of uncertainty and controversy. My view has been that unless all the issues as raised by me in my last two email can be addressed in a convincingly and empirically verifiable manner, none of the models/theories of the creation of the universe including that of from the quantum vacuum can be treated as true and correct theories.model due to a lot of explanatory gaps. You will agree to that in any scientific model/theory unless all the explanatory gaps are plugged in by logical explanations and empirical verification, theory/model can neither be treated as correct/true nor the scientific one in true spirit. Now I would like to raise two issues in your present message:

 

i)  At what stage, Higgs Field enters the scene during the creation? How is it related to the Grand Unified Field and other fields of other 4 fundamental forces? From which Field, Higgs Field emerges out? If Higgs Field is as fundamental as the field of other 4 forces, why should we say there are 4  fundamental forces? We should that there are 5 fundamental forces.

 

ii) Regarding the issue of free lunch, it could be that the gravitational potential energy of matter may have the negative sign and mass-energy may have the positive effect. But this positive and negative signs may indicate their opposing effects but not amount to the annihilation of the stuff constituting the mass-energy. The stuff of the mass-energy may transform to some other form. I am deliberately using the word "stuff: instead of ontology since that appears philosophical to you having no scientific worth.

 

My view has been that any entity ( matter, energy, mass, field, force, particle). if it has some existential status, should either have its own existential stuff ( or structure or ontology) or derive its existence from some other stuff ( ontology). The existence of any existential entity without some corresponding stuff/ontology/structure is inconceivable.

 

You indicated that it is certain that some quantum field operates in the vacuum but no one knows from where such fields appears. OK. But here two points are worth noting. 

 

a) Quantum Field does exist and operate in the container of the vacuum implying background vacuum in which quantum fields do operate is distinct from the vacuum. So vacuum, as an existential entity can't be composed of quantum fields or ZPF or ZPE  since in the Ist place they operate WITHIN vacuum and secondly, distinct virtual particles/Quantum fluctuations ( QFs) emanate out from the vacuum. However, since the vacuum  has an existential status, therefore it should be composed out of some indivisible holistic stuff.

 

b)   Since Quantum Fields represent the entire stuff of the observable universe and any stuff can't come out of Nothing, therefore quantum fields can't emerge out from zero or almost vanishing energy of the vacuum.

 

In view of so many explanatory gaps, model/theories of the creation of the universe from out of the quantum vacuum does not appear to be a logical and valid theory/model.

 

However, if the vacuum, as background to the quantum  field, is replaced by a holistic Cosmic Consciousness -- Brahman of Upanishads/Vedas having infinite energy, potential, many of the logical problems of Quantum vacuum can be resolved but scientists will not agree to this since majority of them have some deep-rooted metaphysical disbelief in any such Cosmic Consciousness/Brahman/God.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________-

 

Regarding Hooft's hypothesis/theories, Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey, "Vimal" has done quite intensive and extensive studies of the same. I am also learning from him about Hooft's ideas.

 

Reagrds.

 

Vinod Sehgal

[Tusar Nath Mohapatra]

Dear Kashyap and Vinod,

Debate is at a very interesting point and I feel Sri Aurobindo can be of help to resolve issues.

1. On the Ontology front, he posits the Exclusive Concentration concept whereby the highest Consciousness restricts itself to become finite beings.

2. On the Epistemology front, he invokes the Logic of the Infinite principle which, in essence, means the highest Consciousness is not bound by our rationality and can manifest simultaneously as void as well as existence or something can arise out of nothing and things like that.

If one accepts these two aspects, other jigsaw pieces fall into place and there are no contradictions in Ontology. Otherwise, forced juxtaposition of distinct domains are bound to be at loggerheads, for a long time in future.

Thanks,

Tusar (b.1955)
June 30, 2017
https://selforum.blogspot.in/2017/06/starting-with-ultimately-full-and-actual.html

On Jun 30, 2017 9:52 PM, "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

I am not putting down philosophy and ontology. It is nice to discuss these issues with a philosopher who knows science also. Personally I am interested in knowing more about concept of Brahman and consciousness in Vedas and Upanishads. It is just that it is not clear how to incorporate these ideas in the usual scientific method. Most people will have to admit the enormous success of scientific method in the last 500 years and especially in the last 100 years. To repeat some obvious matters, almost everyone has a cell phone in pocket and almost everyone visits doctors and hospitals when he/she is sick. This would include philosophers and Swamijis also! So let us not overdo in criticism of scientific method. Nature of science is such that there will always be gaps in our knowledge. The question we have to ask is whether there are alternative models which explain these phenomena. Do Vedas tell you how cell phones, microwave ovens etc. work or indeed how heart attack comes about and what to do in case of heart attack?  If someone tells me that there are no gaps in knowledge in the religious books written 2 to 5 thousand years back, he has to be really naïve! However, it may very well be that in studying consciousness, science may have hit a brick wall which it cannot climb over. I grant you that. Time will tell.

--

----------------------------
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.

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/63e634cbcee3400ba42f4fda87a7c5e3%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[Julia Mossbridge]

Hi All,

Just an FYI -- at IONS we just put out a new smartphone app that uses
three simple "games" to test the population for precognition and
psychokinesis. It's available for iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch (iPhone must be
5 or later).

Though the design is very bare-bones (it's more of an experimental app
than a game app), we've have 2000 downloads so far, and we are already
getting interesting results. The back-end is where we put all our
effort, to make sure the random number generation was truly random.

Thought I'd let you know about it so you can try it, and please feel
free to let others know about it.

You can read about it and download it from the app store onto your
device here: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1196948825

Take care,
Julia

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Tina,

You wrote:

"Even if we build a table, we first have to have a conceptual image of it in our minds- so in the beginning the table was the thought. Then we have to put go through a series of steps of how to construct the table - this is a process - it does not just come into being."

You may be interested in considering the notions of "self-organization" (SO) such as Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction) and what I called "other-organization" (OO) [1] such as the Rayleigh–Bénard convection ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93B%C3%A9nard_convection).  The difference between SO and OO is that the energy needed for driving organization is provided within the system in the former while it is provided by an external agent in the latter. 

Your example of building a table belongs to the class of OO ("other" here being the carpenter), whereas the building of the Universe may belong to SO (i.e., the builder and the built here may be identical).  A God building a Universe is an example of OO, while a Universe building Itself would be an example of SO.  In the biological model of the Universe known as the Shillongator [2], I postulated that our Universe is self-organizing, not other-organizing.

With all the best.

Sung

References:
   [1] Ji, S. (2012).  Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.  Springer, New York.  P. 17.

   [2] Ji, S. (1991). The Biocybernetics Model of the Universe: The Shillongator. In: Molecular Theories of Cell Life and Death (S. Ji, ed.), The Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp. 1152-163, 230-237. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Shillongator_110720111.pdf

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Tina LIndhard <conso...@gmail.com> wrote:

"In the beginning there was nothing"

I have been following  the conversations with interest and I would now like to comment on the above phrase. As it is conceptualised I do not feel it gets us very far. I would like to suggest that "before the universe began to materialise" or "before the material universe began to form" is maybe a more appropriate way to phrase it. This enables us to envisage the type of forces that were very probably present before the  “material" forms came into being and very probably  are still present. 

Even if we build a table, we first have to have a conceptual image of it in our minds- so in the beginning the table was the thought. Then we have to put go through a series of steps of how to construct the table - this is a process - it does not just come into being.  In part of the abstract of my thesis entitled “Unlocking the secrets of the heart through meditating on the Self”, I say

“Inspired by Max Planck to look for the Absolute, the universally valid, the invariant that is normally absent when only concentrating on relative, testable relationships, the present study set out to understand the nature and role of the heart using different procedures. In the literature review, this study includes the application of the comparative method of Goethe to the ontological development of the heart and the notochord based on primary observations of other scientists. This revealed that with the advent of the pulsating heart, the morphological ontology of the embryo mirrors the different broad phylogenetic stages of creation from worms to mammals and invertebrates to vertebrate forms. Reflecting on the origin of the heartbeat, this researcher concurs with Arka that pulsation is probably the underlying core principle and property of universal existence, cosmic existence, and local existence. This suggests that all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings all particles to pulsation; a conscious Mind that is expressing itself through ever-changing pulsating forms” (Lindhard, 2016) . 

The yogis of old felt that if they knew their own nature then they would know the nature of the Universe. I also feel if we know about somatogenesis (formation of the body) we might know more about the origin of the Universe  how it came into being, how the forces work and what maintains it.

 

I present these ideas as an hypothesis to be considered. When it is combined with the definition of consciousness as supplied by Sen and Arka - the picture becomes clearer:

"In Classical Indian writings such as the Upanishads, consciousness is thought to be the essence of Atman, a primal, immanent self that is ultimately identified with Brahman—a pure, transcendental, subject-object-less consciousness that underlies and provides the ground of being of both Man and Nature" (Sen as cited in Velmans, 2009, p. 1) .

In talking about consciousness, Arka (2013) is consistent with the above view but clarifies it further. He says:

"Consciousness manifests itself through physical matter. Similar to bacteria that are able to survive with a complete lack of oxygen and in high temperatures, consciousness lacks boundaries, can take any form or shape and can emerge under challenging life conditions. In spirituality, consciousness is mainly a non-physical yet powerful entity that is the pivotal point of all life and activates the senses in every living being. It is highly responsive and expressive and activates many levels, especially in humans" (Arka, 2013, p. 37) (in Lindhard, 2016)

Kind regards - Tina 

Tina Lindhard

PhD Consciousness Studies (IUPS)

President CCAEspaña

CICA: Chair of Consciousness Research
conso...@gmail.com

www.tinalindhard.org

On 29 Jun 2017, at 03:01, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> on June 29, 2017 wrote:

>Now, once we had time, and a beginning, in the time of that 

>beginning we had something.

.

[S.P.] The phrase "once we had time, and a beginning" is incorrect. Here, the word "and" is impertinent -- "time" and "beginning" could not be simultaneously, because, by definition, in the beginning there was nothing, time including.

.

The phrase "in the time of that beginning" is incorrect as well, since in the beginning there was no time.

.

[Whit Blauvelt] wrote:

> In any case, maybe instead of "in the beginning, there was nothing," 

>you might want to say "before the beginning, there was nothing"?

.

[S.P.] Here, I just used the original Joseph's formulation, namely, "in the beginning". So, in fact, it is not my expression. 

.

However, "before the beginning" there was nothing as well, and I quite assume that the state (of existence outside of time) when there was nothing could last for the whole eternity. Anything has appeared right after "beginning".

.

Thanks for your reply,

Serge Patlavskiy

--
----------------------------
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.
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/CD51458E-2EAC-4FD8-852D-13E5321A09C5%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jennifer Nielsen]

Where does the data go? Is privacy of the psychics protected? :)

Cheers,
Jenny Nielsen

---

From: Julia Mossbridge <jmoss...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 12:43 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] App for testing precognition and psychokinesis

--
----------------------------
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_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/33b4f9f2-5569-35ed-f66e-b4b3c17d83d0%40gmail.com.

[Srikrsna gauranga Nitai das]

Dear Sungchul ji...Whats the proof that the Universe is self
organizing ? Did you explore the Universe and its laws completely ? A
flower is also blossoming. You cannot perceive that a lemon tree is
inside a lemon seed. Still, a lemon tree produces a number of lemon
trees and each lemon seed in turn produces a lemon tree. Whats your
explanation behind these natural observable phenomena ?

Regards

On 6/30/17, Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Tina,
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Even if we build a table, we first have to have a conceptual image of it
> in our minds- so in the beginning the table was the thought. Then we have
> to put go through a series of steps of how to construct the table - this is
> a process - it does not just come into being."
>
> You may be interested in considering the notions of "self-organization"
> (SO) such as Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/

> wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction) and what I called

> "other-organization" (OO) [1] such as the Rayleigh–Bénard convection (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93B%C3%A9nard_convection).
> The difference between SO and OO is that the energy needed for driving
> organization is provided within the system in the former while it is
> provided by an external agent in the latter.
>
> Your example of building a table belongs to the class of OO ("other" here
> being the carpenter), whereas the building of the Universe may belong to SO
> (i.e., the builder and the built here may be identical). A God building a
> Universe is an example of OO, while a Universe building Itself would be an
> example of SO. In the biological model of the Universe known as the
> Shillongator [2], I postulated that our Universe is self-organizing, not
> other-organizing.
>
> With all the best.
>
> Sung
>
>
> References:
> [1] Ji, S. (2012). Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts,
> Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. P.
> 17.
> [2] Ji, S. (1991). The Biocybernetics Model of the Universe: The
> Shillongator.

> <http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Shillongator_110720111.pdf>
> In: *Molecular Theories of Cell Life and Death *(S. Ji, ed.), The Rutgers

>> pulsation; a *conscious Mind *that is expressing itself through

>> www.tinalindhard.org <http://www.tinalindhard.com/Prashamsa/Index.html>

>> 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/CD51458E-2EAC-4FD8-852D-13E5321A09C5%40gmail.com

>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CD51458E-2EAC-4FD8-852D-13E5321A09C5%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .

>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>
> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
> Rutgers University
> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
> 609-240-4833
>
> www.conformon.net
>

> 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/CA%2B9VsvOfG5yteC14%2B9iUjX7p%2BN1gULs%2BqXub1oH8d6HtpSzUYQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tina LIndhard]

Hi Sung, 

A God building a Universe is an example of OO, while a Universe building Itself would be an example of SO….whereas  the building of the Universe may belong to SO (i.e., the builder and the built here may be identical) 

Thanks for  the references.  There is another option -  the thinker (Divine Mind),  the creative principle (pulsation)  and what is build may  essentially be one- which is essentially very different to the Universe (table)  building Itself.  In my thesis I  suggests that "all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings all particles to pulsation; a conscious Mind (that is) expressing itself through ever-changing pulsating forms.  In this I feel your comment  "the builder and the built here may be identical” is very similar to what I  am saying.  I also hold that the creative principle and the created world also interact so in this sense, the universe is also building itself. 

warm regards  - tina 

Tina Lindhard

PhD Consciousness Studies (IUPS)

President CCAEspaña

CICA: Chair of Consciousness Research
conso...@gmail.com

www.tinalindhard.org

On 30 Jun 2017, at 19:06, Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (sji.co...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

Hi Tina,

You wrote:

"Even if we build a table, we first have to have a conceptual image of it in our minds- so in the beginning the table was the thought. Then we have to put go through a series of steps of how to construct the table - this is a process - it does not just come into being."

You may be interested in considering the notions of "self-organization" (SO) such as Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction) and what I called "other-organization" (OO) [1] such as the Rayleigh–Bénard convection ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh%E2%80%93B%C3%A9nard_convection).  The difference between SO and OO is that the energy needed for driving organization is provided within the system in the former while it is provided by an external agent in the latter. 

Your example of building a table belongs to the class of OO ("other" here being the carpenter), whereas the building of the Universe may belong to SO (i.e., the builder and the built here may be identical).  A God building a Universe is an example of OO, while a Universe building Itself would be an example of SO.  In the biological model of the Universe known as the Shillongator [2], I postulated that our Universe is self-organizing, not other-organizing.

With all the best.

Sung

References:
   [1] Ji, S. (2012).  Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications.  Springer, New York.  P. 17.

   [2] Ji, S. (1991). The Biocybernetics Model of the Universe: The Shillongator. In: Molecular Theories of Cell Life and Death (S. Ji, ed.), The Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, pp. 1152-163, 230-237. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Shillongator_110720111.pdf

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Tina LIndhard <conso...@gmail.com> wrote:

"In the beginning there was nothing"

I have been following  the conversations with interest and I would now like to comment on the above phrase. As it is conceptualised I do not feel it gets us very far. I would like to suggest that "before the universe began to materialise" or "before the material universe began to form" is maybe a more appropriate way to phrase it. This enables us to envisage the type of forces that were very probably present before the  “material" forms came into being and very probably  are still present. 

Even if we build a table, we first have to have a conceptual image of it in our minds- so in the beginning the table was the thought. Then we have to put go through a series of steps of how to construct the table - this is a process - it does not just come into being.  In part of the abstract of my thesis entitled “Unlocking the secrets of the heart through meditating on the Self”, I say

“Inspired by Max Planck to look for the Absolute, the universally valid, the invariant that is normally absent when only concentrating on relative, testable relationships, the present study set out to understand the nature and role of the heart using different procedures. In the literature review, this study includes the application of the comparative method of Goethe to the ontological development of the heart and the notochord based on primary observations of other scientists. This revealed that with the advent of the pulsating heart, the morphological ontology of the embryo mirrors the different broad phylogenetic stages of creation from worms to mammals and invertebrates to vertebrate forms. Reflecting on the origin of the heartbeat, this researcher concurs with Arka that pulsation is probably the underlying core principle and property of universal existence, cosmic existence, and local existence. This suggests that all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings all particles to pulsation; a conscious Mind that is expressing itself through ever-changing pulsating forms” (Lindhard, 2016) . 

The yogis of old felt that if they knew their own nature then they would know the nature of the Universe. I also feel if we know about somatogenesis (formation of the body) we might know more about the origin of the Universe  how it came into being, how the forces work and what maintains it.

 

I present these ideas as an hypothesis to be considered. When it is combined with the definition of consciousness as supplied by Sen and Arka - the picture becomes clearer:

"In Classical Indian writings such as the Upanishads, consciousness is thought to be the essence of Atman, a primal, immanent self that is ultimately identified with Brahman—a pure, transcendental, subject-object-less consciousness that underlies and provides the ground of being of both Man and Nature" (Sen as cited in Velmans, 2009, p. 1) .

In talking about consciousness, Arka (2013) is consistent with the above view but clarifies it further. He says:

"Consciousness manifests itself through physical matter. Similar to bacteria that are able to survive with a complete lack of oxygen and in high temperatures, consciousness lacks boundaries, can take any form or shape and can emerge under challenging life conditions. In spirituality, consciousness is mainly a non-physical yet powerful entity that is the pivotal point of all life and activates the senses in every living being. It is highly responsive and expressive and activates many levels, especially in humans" (Arka, 2013, p. 37) (in Lindhard, 2016)

Kind regards - Tina 

Tina Lindhard

PhD Consciousness Studies (IUPS)

President CCAEspaña

CICA: Chair of Consciousness Research
conso...@gmail.com

www.tinalindhard.org

On 29 Jun 2017, at 03:01, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> on June 29, 2017 wrote:

>Now, once we had time, and a beginning, in the time of that 

>beginning we had something.

.

[S.P.] The phrase "once we had time, and a beginning" is incorrect. Here, the word "and" is impertinent -- "time" and "beginning" could not be simultaneously, because, by definition, in the beginning there was nothing, time including.

.

The phrase "in the time of that beginning" is incorrect as well, since in the beginning there was no time.

.

[Whit Blauvelt] wrote:

> In any case, maybe instead of "in the beginning, there was nothing," 

>you might want to say "before the beginning, there was nothing"?

.

[S.P.] Here, I just used the original Joseph's formulation, namely, "in the beginning". So, in fact, it is not my expression. 

.

However, "before the beginning" there was nothing as well, and I quite assume that the state (of existence outside of time) when there was nothing could last for the whole eternity. Anything has appeared right after "beginning".

.

Thanks for your reply,

Serge Patlavskiy

--
----------------------------
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.

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/CD51458E-2EAC-4FD8-852D-13E5321A09C5%40gmail.com.

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 02:45:14PM +0000, Vasavada, Kashyap V wrote:

> Now whether consciousness is a subject matter of physics or not is a subtle
> issue. For one thing, QM strongly hints at that. But also, biology,
> neuroscience and medical science in general are so much dependent on physics
> and chemistry, that scientists do not know what else to do!! So in my opinion,
> it is perfectly OK for physicists to think about consciousness.

What I've been thinking about recently, without any resolution to speak of,
is the role of the goal of having, in the end, a single, total narrative of
everything. What prompted this was Jo's claim that in my defense of the
reality of self what I'm protecting is a belief in some particular narrative
of self. It's not. I feel I find myself when I step beyond the narratives,
the stories of myself. So there I agree neither with Jo nor with Dan
Dennett's claims for a "center of narrative gravity" as integral to an
"intentional stance." I like narrative; but for me it can be binding; I'm
not one for constructing myself of it. Also, intentionality is for me
obviously real and beyond language.

Despite this appreciation of the limits of narrative in the sphere of self,
I haven't previously seriously questioned the limits of narrative -- with or
without mathematical enhancements -- in the sorts of stories of everything
we like to tell. Clearly some strands of story come together over time.
Smaller nations merge into larger ones. Magnetism and electricity merge into
electromagnetism. On the other hand, much of progress consists in experts
developing their stories in every-more-delimited realms. And although we may
have faith that all the different expert realms are pieces which together
must reveal the image from a single larger puzzle, cross-disciplinary work
as often reveals discontinuities between narrative norms in diffent
sub-disciplines as it does congruencies.

Maybe hoping for a single story in the end is just the wrong hope. Maybe
psychology will always be different from physics; maybe even physics itself
will never unify. Maybe this is good; or anyway as good as it can get. Maybe
everything that's real is beyond telling; all narratives are approximations.
And it will always be thus.

We can't really know, yet, otherwise.

Best,
Whit

[Julia Mossbridge]

There's a whole consent form on the first page of the app, where you can read about our data and privacy policy and determine whether you are open to trying it!

Take care,

Julia

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/73165499.2072608.1498845158481%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

Julia Mossbridge, MA, PhD
Innovation Lab Director, Institute of Noetic Sciences
Science Director, FocusAtWill Labs
Visiting Scholar, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University
Associated Professor, Integral and Transpersonal Psychology, California Institute of Integral Studies

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi  Srikrsnaji,

(1) I have no proof.  It is my working hypothesis.

(2)  Plant biologists know a lot (if not all) about the molecular mechanisms underlying the development and morphogenesis of plants.  I am sure their knowledge will continue to grow.  Do you have any other explanations in mind than what can be offered by modern plant biologists?

Sung

>> email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

> 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/CA%2B9VsvOfG5yteC14%2B9iUjX7p%2BN1gULs%2BqXub1oH8d6HtpSzUYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)

Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org

Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga

Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

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/CAA4u5YQd6-LAOVmMVt3%3D%3DhjHnUTN0JYbkFCo-EThZ3BUrzLKUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Tina,

I am glad that our thoughts are not that far apart.

I also like your idea of "pulsation" being fundamental.  I came to a similar conclusion that waves are fundamental in all aspects of the Universe [1]. Waves and pulsations are both periodic motions.  I think there are two kinds of waves -- physical waves (electromagnetic, gravitational, mechanical, etc.) and non-physical (e.g., quantum mechanical probability waves).

Sung

References:

    [1] Ji, S. (2016). WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES.  Symmetry: Science and Culture 27 (2): 99-127 (2016).  http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_ SymmetryFestival_2016.pdf

   [2] Ji, S. (2015). Planckian distributions in molecular machines, living cells, and brains: The wave-particle duality in biomedical sciences.  In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biology and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, March 15-17, 2015. Pp. 115-137. 
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_ 2015.pPDE_Vigier9.pdf

   [3]  Ji, S. (2015). PLANCKIAN INFORMATION (IP): A NEW MEASURE OF ORDER IN ATOMS, ENZYMES, CELLS, BRAINS, HUMAN SOCIETIES, AND THE COSMOS.  In: Unified Field Mechanics: Natural Science beyond the Veil of Spacetime (Amoroso, R., Rowlands, P., and Kauffman, L. eds.), World Scientific, New Jersey, 2015, pp. 579-589)
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vigier9.pdf

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2B9VsvOfG5yteC14%2B9iUjX7p%2BN1gULs%2BqXub1oH8d6HtpSzUYQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
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/A322D10A-6855-41D8-892F-DB50E9BA7734%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

>Serge -- You are having problems with colloquial English: "For 

>what it's worth" does NOT mean what you think it does. It means, 

>"I believe this is true, but you have to decide for yourself how 

>important it is to you." [Of course, if FWIW is prefaced by 

>something like "it is rumored that..." then it can take on a different

> meaning, namely "It's a rumor, and you have to decide for 

>yourself whether to take the rumor seriously."]

.

[S.P.] AFAIKEL (as far as I know English language), the abbreviation FWIW ("for what it's worth") has two cardinally different meanings:

.

1) One may say: "I do not know to which extent this story is important for you." -- in so doing, the question of verity of the story is not being considered at all. What is considered here is an importance of the story for the hearer, but not its verity.

.

2) One may say: "I give you this story for what it is worth", or "I sell you this story for the price I have bought it myself.", or "I will tell this story to you just as I heard it." -- here, the verity of the story is put under question. But, why? The case is that the person could hear this story in the street, in the bus, in the market (where one old lady was telling it to others), and he could even read this story on the wall in a subway. In one word, a story itself may be as true so untrue, but what is accentuated is that the SOURCE of the story is unreliable, unverifiable, and it's up to the hearer to decide what to do with all this.

.

With respect,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:52 PM
Subject: RE: [SPAM]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

> But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the 

>Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind.

<skip>

> I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of 

>Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual 

>consciousness.

.

[S.P.] I consider scientific discipline as a collection of applied theories. An applied theory, unlike a meta-theory (or philosophic "theory", ontological "theory", etc.) must possess certain explanatory and predictive power, be testable, reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable, etc. Moreover, for there to be a scientific discipline, the problem of intersubjectivity in this research field has to be solved. 

.

In Physics, when we apply the third-person approach, the problem of intersubjectivity is basically solved, and when one physicist talks about piezoelectricity or birefringence, the other physicists understand well what is being talked about. So, I call "cognitive environment" a big group of researchers (or thinkers) in a certain research field for whom the problem of intersubjectivity is solved.

.

However, when studying consciousness, the most promising is a first-person approach. It is when the individual researcher tries to construct an applied theory of consciousness being based on a set of personally experienced consciousness-related phenomena. In so doing, the other researchers may not experience the phenomena that the given researcher experiences, and, in result, the problem of intersubjectivity stays unsolved.

.

Second. To do science means to apply the methods and models which correspond to the nature of the object of study. The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored. 

.

So, for there to be a Science of Consciousness, the problem of intersubjectivity has to be solved and the appropriate methods and models which correspond to informational nature of the object of study have to be constructed. I have my own solutions and I am looking for other thinkers (theoreticians) who have got their solutions as well -- we need to form a cognitive environment in this field.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Paul Werbos]

Because the scientific study of consciousness is such an important topic, I owe you a few quick words on questions you have asked, even though I will not have full Internet access for many days now.

Someone suggested -- science has not reached consensus on what systems are conscious and what are not. That is an understatement. At the cutting edge, people understand that none of the interesting variables hinted at by the fuzzy word consciousness are binary variables. Whenever someone asks "Is it conscious or is it not?" or "when did life on earth cross the (sharp) line between consciousness and unconsciousness," I cringe. My paper from 1999, in yasue's book and arxiv, elaborates.

Gene expression is part of course of the level of consciousness achieved just by brain organization. But many of us have reason to believe that higher levels of consciousness also exist, not always manifested in mundane struggles.

Best of luck,

Paul

On Jun 25, 2017 8:43 AM, "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

In biology there is a technical name for this phenomenon - Gene Expression. I know very little about the mechanism. Perhaps biologists themselves are in the process of learning about it. Sometime later, I will talk to a biologist on our campus about progress in this field. If you are interested, perhaps you can also do the same thing in a nearby campus . As for the second e-mail, as I mentioned before, the whole area of wave function collapse is controversial. One point is that, in principle, everything we see is quantum mechanical. There is no such thing as purely classical except as an approximation to quantum mechanical system. Then the problem is:  how can  one quantum system  participate in collapse of another quantum system? So people tried to bring in consciousness, as something outside materially quantum mechanical. What happened before sentient beings were around is also a thorny problem!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodsehgal1955@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 3:50 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

By why do genes turn on or off in different species? For example, you have stated that difference in the presence of genes in chimpanzee and humans is less than 1% but the difference in their mental development, intelligence and behavior is astronomical. This could be explained due to the turning on or off the mechanism of genes. But why such turn on or off mechanism set in?

 

Consciousness also turns on or off or manifest differently  in different species due to the difference in their biological developments particularly the brain structures.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear KSRAO,

First, scientists have not agreed on the definition of consciousness! And before they can explain it “ in simple terms to non-scientists” they have to understand it themselves!! Of course, even how life arises from atoms is not clear. That is why there are all these endless debates.

By the way I have one argument in favor of possibility that atoms or particles  may have some rudimentary consciousness. Biologists now know that the difference in genes between chimpanzee and humans may be at the most one percent. But genes can be turned on or off. That is what makes us different. Similarly, perhaps consciousness can be turned on or off.  Of course I cannot prove that. Otherwise I will buy a ticket to Stockholm to collect my Nobel Prize!!

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_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/b3ba27e145234f8899b56f15b20b4d89%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Hi Sungchul Ji,

Can you give  examples of dyadic and triadic theories amongst known theories in various sciences? This would clarify what you really mean by these.

Best regards.

Kashyap

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 1:06 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Hi Kashyap, 

 

I concur with your observation:

 

"About consciousness, science is as confused as ever! Just on this web site I see 5-6 different models! There are probably hundreds more outside.

Best Regards."

 

One possible method for selecting those theories of consciousness that are likely to be true may be to apply the principle of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation).  Baed on ITR, it is possible to divided consciousness theories into two classes -- dyadic and triadic, as shown in Figure 1, and it is the triadic theories that are most likely to be true:

 

 

                     f                                               g

    Reality  ----->  Lived Consciousness -----> Theorized Consciousness

         |                                                                                       ^
         |                                                                                        |
         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |____________________________________________|

                                                    h

 

Figure 1.  The relation between lived consiousness and theories of consciousness.

 f = natural process; g = theorizing; h = grounding/information flow.  This diagram is thought to be equivlalent to the commutative triangle of category theory, so that f x g = h, or "f followed by g leads to the same result as h". 

 

 

Based on this diagram, I would suggest that, although theoreticians can conjure up their favorite metatheories of consciouosness consistent with their knowledge and beliefs, not all such metatheories may turn out to be be true or grounded in reality.   In other words, there may be two kinds of metatheories -- one satisfying Steps f and g and the other satisfying Steps f, g and h.  The former may be referred to as dyadic metatheories and the latter as triadic metatheories.  I think it is very likely that only triadic theories of consciusness as defined in Figure 1 are true.

 

With all the best.

 

Sung

 

 

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

This model called “inflation” tops all models of modern physics in its weirdness! But it does explain lot of data coming from study of cosmic microwave background. These are (1) Flatness: Spatial curvature in the currently observable universe seems to be zero on the average. This is like the earth is round, but your street looks flat.(2) horizon problem: the universe looks same in all directions, including regions which did not have enough time to reach equilibrium, since the beginning of the universe.(3) people cannot find any magnetic monopoles, although every grand unified theory predicts abundance of them. In fact couple of years back the model was almost verified by data taken in a detector near south pole (BICEP). But there were lot of alternative explanations. So the interpretation is on hold, subject to newer more precise data. The Nobel prize for this model will have to wait. This model has lot of consensus, but not unanimous. In fact recently, the opposing group wrote an open  letter in scientific american magazine. Twenty seven believers , including some past Nobel Laureates, wrote a strong counter letter. Personally, the model looks all right to me. But who knows, what the new data will suggest? So stay tuned. There are quite a few articles on internet. You may want to read them when you have time.

About consciousness, science is as confused as ever! Just on this web site I see 5-6 different models! There are probably hundreds more outside.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 6:45 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

I can;t understand and comprehend how from a vacuum with almost vanishing energy density in the range of 6 protons/cubic. m, the universe could expand to 10^80 times in 10^(-35sec)? Such an astronomical rapid expansion demands an astronomical strong field. From where such an unimaginable strong field can manifest?

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

Not according to the current model of origin of universe. According to this model, our known universe arose from a very small patch of vacuum in which there was no matter, but there were quantum fields with very wild fluctuations, based on uncertainty principle. Then suddenly it expanded by a large exponential factor (the big bang) , something like a factor of 10^80 or so in 10^(-35) sec ! The fluctuation was frozen in because of rapid expansion. According to Guth, one of the fathers of inflation model, this resulted in an ultimate free lunch, a universe for which we may not have paid for in terms of energy budget !! Even if this model changes, the probabilistic structure and uncertainty principle have nothing to do with human observers. They are essential parts of quantum mechanics. QM will need a very drastic change, practically a new theory,  to make it a deterministic theory. The new theory will have to account for all the current successes of QM!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 8:56 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks.

 

But can we rule out the possibility that the universe in the primordial stage existed in some objective deterministic state and that all the quantum uncertainty and probability are the product of our subjective or objective measurement in the classical world? In other words, if no conscious observer or objective instruments stare at the particles in the quantum world ( implying nil measurement), there will no uncertainty, no probability, no superposition, no collapse required.

 

Vinod sehgal

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/936a39bbcdd64ebb8e76f83b2e4c50cc%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833

www.conformon.net

--

----------------------------
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/CA%2B9VsvPWBztgd_68xBxdcVpyCP5NXVO-RrTUkX4hL6KEoJzg%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Kashyap,

I answered the same question raised by Joseph.  Please see my post dated June 29.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sung

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 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/CA%2B9VsvPWBztgd_68xBxdcVpyCP5NXVO-RrTUkX4hL6KEoJzg%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

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/01188e317dd04d17ad88090c0c95128b%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Serge,

A nice summary of your metatheory.

You said,

"The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored."

I have two questions:

(1) How do you define "informational factor" ?

(2) In physics, particles cannot decide how to behave, but the experimenter can decide which of the possible experiments on, say, light to perform thereby affecting the result of the experiment.  Isn't this an example of "informaitonal factor"?  If not, why not ?

To me, all "informations" are the results of some selection process driven by free energy dissipation.  When quantifiable, such selection processes often produce long-tailed histograms, as compared to the normal distribution which is the reslut of random actions. I found that many long-tailed histograms fit PDE (Planckian Distribution Equaiton) regardless of the field of research, ranging from atomic physics (i.e., blackbody radiation) to protein folding, enzyme catalysis, cell metabolism, brain neurohemodynamcis as measured with fMRI (functional Magnetic Resoance Imaging), psychophysics (e.g., decision making), linguistics, econophysics and to cosmology. Such selecting processes are referred to as the Planckian processes [1-3].  

Thus, it may well be that all Plankian priocesses can be said to involve information,

All the best.

Sung

References:

Ji, S. (2016). WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES.  Symmetry: Science and Culture 27 (2): 99-127 (2016). http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_SymmetryFestival_2016.pdf

Ji, S. (2015). Planckian distributions in molecular machines, living cells, and brains: The wave-particle duality in biomedical sciences.  In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biology and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, March 15-17, 2015. Pp. 115-137.
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_2015.pdf

Ji, S. (2015). PLANCKIAN INFORMATION (IP): A NEW MEASURE OF ORDER IN ATOMS, ENZYMES, CELLS, BRAINS, HUMAN SOCIETIES, AND THE COSMOS.  In: Unified Field Mechanics: Natural Science beyond the Veil of Spacetime (Amoroso, R., Rowlands, P., and Kauffman, L. eds.), World Scientific, New Jersey, 2015, pp. 579-589)

http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_2015.pdf

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:20 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

> But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the 

>Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind.

<skip>

> I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of 

>Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual 

>consciousness.

.

[S.P.] I consider scientific discipline as a collection of applied theories. An applied theory, unlike a meta-theory (or philosophic "theory", ontological "theory", etc.) must possess certain explanatory and predictive power, be testable, reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable, etc. Moreover, for there to be a scientific discipline, the problem of intersubjectivity in this research field has to be solved. 

.

In Physics, when we apply the third-person approach, the problem of intersubjectivity is basically solved, and when one physicist talks about piezoelectricity or birefringence, the other physicists understand well what is being talked about. So, I call "cognitive environment" a big group of researchers (or thinkers) in a certain research field for whom the problem of intersubjectivity is solved.

.

However, when studying consciousness, the most promising is a first-person approach. It is when the individual researcher tries to construct an applied theory of consciousness being based on a set of personally experienced consciousness-related phenomena. In so doing, the other researchers may not experience the phenomena that the given researcher experiences, and, in result, the problem of intersubjectivity stays unsolved.

.

Second. To do science means to apply the methods and models which correspond to the nature of the object of study. The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored. 

.

So, for there to be a Science of Consciousness, the problem of intersubjectivity has to be solved and the appropriate methods and models which correspond to informational nature of the object of study have to be constructed. I have my own solutions and I am looking for other thinkers (theoreticians) who have got their solutions as well -- we need to form a cognitive environment in this field.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Serge--

I fully agree with your first paragraph.

But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind. That philosophy reaches back at least as far as the Chandogya Upanishad, but most Western professors of philosophy -- not all of whom deserve the title "Philosopher" by any means -- seem to think that it was all obscurity before Descartes began to meditate on it. Of course, almost all Western professors of philosophy who write books (Daniel Dennett is a good example) think they have gone far past Descartes, in the direction OPPOSITE Hindu philosopy!

And so, while agree with everything in your second paragraph before the dash that begins your last sentence, I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual consciousness. Some Hindus on this list might claim that my perception of my individual consciousness is an illusion. However, they need to account for that alleged illusion in a way similar to the way our ordinary everyday illusions (a blue dome above our heads on a cloudless day, a rainbow as something that has a definable end, etc.) are accounted for.

I must admit I haven't been following more than a small percentage of emails that emanate from Sadhu Sanga, so I may have missed such an account. If so, I would appreciate being made aware of one.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:59 PM

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

-

Kashyap Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

>Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in

> the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, 

>something did not come out of nothing!!

.

[S.P.] For anything to exist, there must be a concrete place, or a volume of space, where it exists. In the beginning there was no space, no vacuum, therefore nothing could be said to exist in the beginning. However, if we start from presuming the existence of "quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations", then it is the same as to assert that a tree has evolved from a seed -- an enough trivial statement.  

.

[Kashyap Vasavada] wrote:

> Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. ... Speculations

> on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

.

[S.P.] Then the "Big-Bang theory" and "Multiverse theory" should be treated as philosophic theories which bear no relation to Physics. I agree. I would also add that Physics should also stop trying to account for consciousness, since it is not its subject matter -- it is a subject matter for the Science of Consciousness as a new scientific discipline.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

--
----------------------------
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.

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/1684522783.2664924.1498872030738%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joseph McCard]

Sung,

So, following a master, Socrates in the Theaetetus, where he assumes the role of a midwife, let's walk your child (having given birth to your idea) around the room, to see if it has any life in it. 

At this point I am wondering about "h". It sounds like you are assuming the ability to [f], objectify consciousness. 

"I think you got the essence of the diagram, or the meaning of the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation), which can be viewed as the principle of communication, language, and the category theory."

How do you distinguish "communication" from "language", if indeed that is [f] to [g]?

"Any system of thoughts embodying Steps f and g is what I came to call dyadic theory. For example, mathematics that is valid independent of empirical support, and some philosophical systems developed by scholars which are logicaly valid (i.e., g) but not empirically grounded (i.e., not h)."

saying "a system of thoughts" seems to imply an [h]. Math, phil, logic, all [h's].

My conception of consciousness seems to be best described as a monism, neutral monism, or dual-aspect monism, Thom Mandel" (2 sides of the same coin), or even triple aspect monism "Alfredo Pereira Jr". 

joseph

--------

In order to avoid total confusion, I re-posted some of out remarks:

for example, would I be correct to infer that natural processes [f] are measurable, physical, bio-chemical?

Theorizing [g] involves scientific/ philosophical rationality following experience, as opposed to say magical thinking?

Grounding/ information flow[h] is theory applied to physical reality, a kind of feedback? 

Hence, true [g] and grounded [h]? g & h

"You wrote: 

                  f                                               g

    Reality  ----->  Lived Consciousness -----> Theorized Consciousness

         |                                                                                       ^

         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |                                                                                        |

         |____________________________________________|

                                                    h

Figure 1.  The relation between lived consiousness and theories of consciousness.

 f = natural process; g = theorizing; h = grounding/information flow.  This diagram is thought to be equivlalent to the commutative triangle of category theory, so that f x g = h, or "f followed by g leads to the same result as h". 

Based on this diagram, I would suggest that, although theoreticians can conjure up their favorite metatheories of consciouosness consistent with their knowledge and beliefs, not all such metatheories may turn out to be be true or grounded in reality.   In other words, there may be two kinds of metatheories -- one satisfying Steps f and g and the other satisfying Steps f, g and h.  The former may be referred to as dyadic metatheories and the latter as triadic metatheories.  I think it is very likely that only triadic theories of consciusness as defined in Figure 1 are true."

I think you got the essence of the diagram, or the meaning of the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation), which can be viewed as the principle of communication, language, and the category theory.

Any system of thoughts embodying Steps f and g is what I came to call dyadic theory. For example, mathematics that is valid independent of empirical support, and some philosophical systems developed by scholars which are logicaly valid (i.e., g) but not empirically grounded (i.e., not h).

Any system of thoughts emobodying Steps f, g, and h is what I define as triadic theory.  The best example for me is the sign theory (semiotics) of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914).  But I have encountered some semitoic scholars whose sign theories are dyadic, since their theoreis are groundless and hence artificial.

I would like to know what you think of these examples.  

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Peter,

My theory,  Position Selecting Interactionism,  may be what you are looking for. If interested see my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER below.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

You seem to agree with me that the so-called illusion of consciousness ought to be accounted for in a way similar to the way the most similar explained phenomena are accounted for (though I would disagree that the illusion of the blue dome above our head has yet been explained - blue is after all an aspect of our consciousness - I shall assume you mean the sensory patterns and brain processes responsible for that illusion). My theory is derived from applying a slightly more rigorous version of this principle.

The brain structures responsible for these 'every day illusions' are products of positive natural selection formed out of tiny particles interacting according to the established laws of physics.  The patterns formed by the sensory stimuli are created by the shape of a lens that has evolved by natural selection to focus light rays from adjacent points on a source to adjacent points on a retina. And of course there is the external source that selects the sensory stimuli itself (the size of nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the case of the sky or the shape of raindrops for the rainbow).

My theory explains all features of our consciousness as products of natural selection acting purely upon structures governed by the established laws of physics. Indeed its explanation for our subjective images is closely analogous to the evolutionary explanation for the eye's lens and retinal image. And as with these other so-called illusions, it fully explains why certain data external to consciousness (certain patterns of stimuli interacting with our sense organs) came to be appropriately represented in particular subjective qualities.

It indicates that, far from being an illusion, the existence of those subjective qualities and a consciousness that experiences them is a common aspect of matter - it is reality.  The illusion created by the brain is that this one instance of consciousness that we each experience is the brain itself,  or the whole organism,  or some large part of our brain's activity, or some ghostly entity filling the organism and steering it through life's choices. It is the idea that we are getting punished whenever our choices get the organism into damaging circumstances, and rewarded when they lead the organism to something good. And it is the idea that all consciousnesses are intelligent thinking entities like ourselves.

All the best,
Colin

C.  S.  Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

Send from Huawei Y360

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/956F056B71785C498214DC8208A55634781284B7%40CAE145EMBP04.ds.sc.edu.

[Joseph McCard]

Colin, B Madhava Puri, 

 'In the Beginning was the information,  and the information was with the consciousness, and the information was the consciousness. It was with the consciousness in the beginning.  Through that information all things were made... '. In other words, all the power and knowledge and motivation to create our universe in a humane way with the properties needed to evolve living creatures (though not I think the knowledge of how to create them) were within the experience of a consciousness at the beginning of objective time." (Colin)

By contrast with other conceptions of "information", I think Colin's expression of John 1.1 makes sense (although I think the normative view in the "West" is that the "Word" means "Jesus Christ", not "God"). 

Information is composed of consciousness, and it does not exist by itself.

"...the main point is to undestand if there is an incongruity between information [a nebulous term for me] and consciousness [which signifies concept or idea].(BMP)

Information is conscious, and does not exist by itself. It is connected with the consciousness of all those who understand it, perceive it, originate it. So there are not records in terms of objective, forever-available banks of information into which you tune. Instead the consciousness that held, or holds, or will hold the information attracts it like a magnet. The information itself wants to move toward consciousness. It is not dead or inert. It is not something you grab for, it is also something that wants to be grabbed, and so it gravitates to those who seek it. 'Seek and you shall find." 

"If we interpret 'information' as determination or thought [which is what 'Word' also implies] and consciousness as the reality of God then we seem to recover the original interpretation that Hegel gives."(BMP)

yes, a I asserted earlier, words stand for thoughts, represent thoughts. I would add that our thoughts, patterns of consciousness, become our physical realities (as I see it). Consciousness is the result of the desire of God to manifest Him/Her/It Self. That is, consciousness expresses the reality of God. [please assume ALL my comments are reality as I see it : ) 

"Of course, consciousness is not the reality of God, or at least not the whole reality of God."(BMP) 

I think, when you try to talk about "God", the difficulty is in trying to use words to do so. So, "the reality of God". O.K., with caveats. "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao". 

"The abstract monists would like to identify God as consciousness, but in my humble opinion that is not the complete idea of the Absolute given by Veda as the tri-unity of sat cit ananda, in which consciousness [cit] is a part of the Complete Whole." (BMP)

Consciousness is one aspect of the, I can say Absolute. So, O.K. "the Complete Whole", I understand what I think you are expressing. But again, words are most open to misinterpretation, most often misunderstood. It is your feelings, thoughts, and experiences that are most meaningful, most true, for you. 

"The next thing is that there is a difference between the ideas of Nothing and Beginning. Nothing as Serge said is Nothing. But Beginning implies  something more that mere Nothing. The word 'beginning' implies that there is something to follow. This is not true of the word 'nothing.' When we say 'beginning' we refer to the start of something that already exists and inquire about its origination. In this way Beginning already has implicit within it the presently existing world or anything else we are inquiring about its origin. This implicitness of the concept of Beginning may be called the Nothing of what is presently existing, but it is certainly distinct from pure Nothing which doesn't have anything implicit, including the concept of Beginning, within it. 

"The implicit totality of present existence that the concept of Beginning contains within itself, i.e. its teleology, is ignored by abstract analytical thinking which sees only the Nothing of the present existence in the Beginning."(BMP)

Yes, a great way to put it that all possibilities exist now, simultaneously. This means that, for example, time and space are artificial creations of the intellect. 

 "Because such thinking ignores the implicit totality of the present existence, which we may call the unmanifested Idea, it has to come up with some way this Nothing can come to manifest the totality of present existence. It does this by proposing a contingent disturbance of a vacuum state and an explosion - something that happens spontaneously without cause , i.e. contingently."

Very good, but "spontaneous" also works, I think. A vacuum state describes the situation in which there was only All That Is, and there was nothing else. Since All That Is was all there was, It had no identity. Hence, a vacuum. And so, All That Is acted within and upon itself, an explosion of energy, creating consciousness, and this and that followed. 

'The idea here is to avoid teleology, a guiding principle or a final cause or purpose."

Not sure why you want no telicity. God chose to manifest Him/Her/ItSelf, desired to do so. All That Is knew it was all there was—but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. "Desire is the womb from which all things had their birth or beginning." 

"But we may now understand that the very concept of Beginning implies that the presently existing totality is always and already necessarily there [as negated, as the Nothing of its present existence] within what we refer to as its beginning." Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

In that I agree, and I think, so does Leibniz. FWIW : )

joseph

[Joseph McCard]

Peter

"I fully agree that if the whole of reality was NOTHING in some sense of the word, it means that there was no conscious mind, etc. No Brahman. No Atman.  NOTHING. Just how our world, our existence, our consciousness can be reconciled with this -- that is YOUR problem, not mine, and I don't think it is Reyes's problem either."

Thank-you for your clear and concise interpretation of m words. 

Joseph

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

 

Dear Vinod,

As usual, you raise good questions.

At some point you have to postulate existence of certain things. This would be like in mathematics one has to start with axioms. So you assume that the fundamental quantum fields are just there. Sometime in future, we may have a theory that they came from something else. Then you will ask where that something came from! By the way, one can raise similar question, where did God come from? The only answer is God knows!!

Also, it seems that you think our everyday life deterministic classical world is universal. Majority opinion is exactly opposite. Quantum mechanics may be the law of the universe and our classical world may be illusion (approximation anyway since we do not see quantum effects. They need specially designed experiments). This is in perfect agreement with Shankaracharya’s Brahm Satyam Jagat Mithya (Maya) statement! It is not easy to see Brahman! Is consciousness needed for wave function collapse is a controversial and unresolved issue? It is hard to believe that universe was waiting for sentient life on a little measly planet which is so insignificant in the universe with billions and billions of galaxies each with billions of solar systems and planets!!

 

Now, first, according to theory of relativity, speed of light (electromagnetic wave in general) is the absolute upper limit that any particle can have. Light (photons) travels at speed of light (c), but as such this speed limit does not have anything to do with the fact that photons are responsible for electromagnetic force (except indirectly in details of theory)

 

Mathematically,

 

E= m (0)*c ^2/ Sqrt (1- v^2/c^2)

 

Where m (0) is the intrinsic mass of the particle in its rest frame and v is the speed of the particle. Thus it is an unavoidable conclusion that if v=c, m (0) has to be zero, otherwise E will be infinite. Then all the particles which move at c have zero mass and vice versa. In calculus 0/0 can be finite in the limit!

 

Next, according to the current model, matter consists of particles with half integral spins, such as quarks and leptons. Baryons such as protons and neutrons are supposed to be made out of quarks. Leptons such as electrons are supposed to be point particles and not composite. Quarks participate in strong and electromagnetic interactions and leptons participate in weak and electromagnetic interactions. All the particles exert gravitational forces. In quantum field theory, all forces are supposed to be transmitted by exchange of so called gauge bosons, which have integral spins. There are five kinds of known gauge bosons. (1) Gluons (8 of them) responsible for strong force (2) gravitons (not yet discovered directly, but there is very little doubt that they exist) responsible for gravitation (3) photons responsible for electromagnetic force (4) W-bosons (3 in number) responsible for weak force. (5) Recently discovered Higgs boson, exchange of which would give currently unmeasurable 5^th force. There is a theory for unification of weak and electromagnetic interactions. At energy above approx. 246 GeV, W- bosons and photons were part of the same multiplet. As the temperature (energy) lowered, symmetry was broken, photons acquired zero mass and W-bosons acquired high non zero masses. (Incidentally this is the reason to build high energy accelerators to reproduce conditions at the beginning of universe as far as possible. In the beginning the universe was undoubtedly hot and had lot of energy.) At the same time, many particles (not all) which had zero mass got masses by coupling to Higgs field. Some particles (such as photons and gravitons) remained with zero mass. Neutrinos were supposed to have zero masses for a long time. But now it seems they have non zero masses. This scenario is unfolding now. During the first minute, all this is supposed to have taken place. As for details, everybody and his brother may have different models. But I think, general features are true and will remain in any future theory.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 3:06 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks.

 

As usual, your email every time provides some new information with some I am already aware while some are new to me.

 

You indicated that at the time of the symmetry breaking of electroweak forces by the Higgs Field, weak and e.m forces separate out and in this process impart mass to the matter particles -- quarks and leptons. Then you indicated that before this, these particles had no mass and they propagated with the speed of light.

 

i) But my specific query was: How Higgs Field itself manifests and what connection it has with the Fundamental Unified Field encompassing the fields of all the 4 forces?

 

ii) Secondly, you indicated that before symmetry breaking by the Higgs Field, these particles ( presumably matter particles) had no mass and propagated with the speed of light.  Before imparting mass by the Higgs Field, what was the nature of these particles? Some energy particles? If so what type of energy and why should they propagate with the speed of light? The speed of light is related to the  e.m field which will manifest on breaking of the electroweak symmetry on the action of the Higgs Field, Before symmetry breaking, there was no e.m field or any e.m radiations like the light.

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

I agree that applied applications of the indeterministic QM in form of cell phones, TV, Computers is a sound testimony to the presence of stochasticity as an inherent nature. But our day to day classical world is deterministic. So a difficult issue to resolve is how the stochasticity of the initial universe transited to deterministic state when there was  neither any conscious observer to cause collapse of  the wavefunction of the superposition of the Quantum Fluctuations ( QFs), if we believe in the interpretation of  Consciousness causes Collapse ( CCC) interpretation NOR there was any deterministic physical system, which could serve as an apparatus, to cause collapse.

 

Please try to resolve the above issue if you can. I have been interacting with Dr  R.L Pandey Vimal also on this issue but he has no convincing solution for the issue.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

I appreciate your urge to know about the state of samadhi by talking to some.one who has really achieved the state of  Samaadhi. Rishis of Vedas and Upanishads happened thousands of years ago. The original texts written by them are now available in form of commentaries which carry the interpretation by such people who themselves have not experienced the state of Samaadhis. In this regard, a few days ago,  I had suggested you read following 3 books of Swami Yogeshawara Nand Ji.  Maharaj.

 

1. Science of Soul

 

2. Science of Divinity

 

3 Himalaya Kaa yogi Part I

 

These books, unfortunately, are not available online and you may have to get the same thru couriers from the following address.

 

Yog Niketan Trust

 

30A/78, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi.

 

For further information, you can see the following website

 

Website is http://www.yoganiketan.org/

 

Swami Yogeshawara Nand Ji Maharaj lived for 99 years from 1886 to 1985 and he devoted almost his entire life in the state of Samaadhis and internal subjective research on Astral, Causal bodies/World and Cosmic consciousness. I derived much of my understanding on these issues on account of the books of Swamiji.

 

I want that some Physicists/Scientists may make efforts understand the reality of the Astral, Causal bodies/worlds and Cosmic consciousness in the terminology of the current Physics/QM. But for this, they need to have a clear understanding of these elements as experienced by Yogis/Sages in the state of Samaadhi. Towards this purpose, the aforesaid books can play a major role. since Ist two of the aforesaid books were written by Swamiji himself in the age of 72-75 from 1959-1962, after some 55-60  years of his experience in the state of  Samaadhi.

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

 

[Cpmalik]

Sent from my iPad

--
----------------------------
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/a2b5a79f-05a8-4bad-af1b-a976e14954c4%40googlegroups.com.

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Joseph,

J:  "At this point I am wondering about "h". It sounds like you are assuming the ability to [f], objectify consciousness."

S: One way to differentiate between f and h may be to say that f is natural/physical processes while h is the formal correlations that have evolved from physical  interactions between material entities.   

J: How do you distinguish "communication" from "language", 

S:  Language is a code without which no communication can occur. Communication is irreducibly triadic, i.e, implicates f, g and h.  Language is what enables h.  Without h, no communication, only interactions.

                f                 g

Sender ----->  Sign ------> Receiver

    |                                            ^

    |                                            |

    |______________________| 

                          h

Figure 1. The irreducibly triadic aspect of communication.

f = encoding; g = decoding; h = information flow

All the best.

Sung

--
----------------------------
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.

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/a2b5a79f-05a8-4bad-af1b-a976e14954c4%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> on July 1, 2017 wrote:

>(1) How do you define "informational factor" ?

.

[S.P.] After having read my jcs-online post (jcs-online-post_15486.html which is attached to this post as well) you replied in your private message: "Thanks for the clear example of "informational factor" (IF)". So, as I can figure out from your today's question, you still do not understand what I mean by informational factor despite of your own confession that the example was clear.

.

Well. Several hints. First. As follows from existential condition (for details, see my reply to Siegfried Bleher attached below), if some entity is existent, it must be formalizable as a complex system which describes necessarily and simultaneously by 1-st, 2-nd, and 3-rd characteristics which pertain to activity of informational, material and energetic factors correspondingly.

.

The key word here is "simultaneously". I mean that in trying to define these factors, we have to define them simultaneously as well. There is no sense in "informational factor" if we pay no attention to other two factors. Moreover, from formulated existential condition also follows that there can be nothing existent which would be purely informational, or purely material, or purely energetic.

.

Second. The idea of "informational factor" (and other two factors which are required to formalize the complex system) is rooted in real life. See, for example, my another jcs-online post (jcs-online-post_15600.html, it is attached below as well) and start reading from the words "Suppose, I am a porter -- I carry on a pottery business". So, to understand how I define "informational factor", or better still, of which role the "informational factor" plays in formalizing/describing the complex system, a person must have own experience in doing some business.

.

[Sungchul Ji] wrote:

> (2) In physics, particles cannot decide how to behave, but the

> experimenter can decide which of the possible experiments on, 

>say, light to perform thereby affecting the result of the experiment.

.

[S.P.] Sorry, but the experimenter/researcher is not himself an object of study. When doing Physics, we apply its methods and model to physical phenomena, but not to those who study these phenomena. The researchers may be the objects of study, say, when we consider the problem of bias in scientific publications, or the problem of experimenter bias. 

.

As I have mentioned many times on this forum, the researcher's consciousness comes into battle ONLY AFTER the act of measurement has taken place (for details, see my another reply to Siegfried Bleher attached below). Yes, it would be trivial to mention that the experimenter is planning and conducting an experiment, but the activity of his consciousness does not affect the results of experiment.

.

Even when we consider the experiments on psychokinesis with REG (random event generators) being affected by some person or a group of persons, the very experimenter stays outside the scene until the experiment is finished.

.

[Sungchul Ji] wrote:

>To me, all "informations" are the results of some selection 

>process driven by free energy dissipation.

.

[S.P.] There are only two possible ways of using the term "information". I use the term "information" to stand for the product of consciousness. I mean that it is the bearer of consciousness which can be said to become "informed". I hold that information does not exist on its own out there. The Computer Science, as well as in vernacular language, the term "information" is used to stand for physical signals/signs which exist objectively out there.

.

If, what you call, "free energy dissipation" is able to perform "some selection process" which results in "information", then your approach is panpsychistic -- you treat "free energy dissipation" as consciousness-possessing. 

.

Thanks for your questions,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Hi Serge,

A nice summary of your metatheory.

You said,

"The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored."

I have two questions:

(1) How do you define "informational factor" ?

(2) In physics, particles cannot decide how to behave, but the experimenter can decide which of the possible experiments on, say, light to perform thereby affecting the result of the experiment.  Isn't this an example of "informaitonal factor"?  If not, why not ?

To me, all "informations" are the results of some selection process driven by free energy dissipation.  When quantifiable, such selection processes often produce long-tailed histograms, as compared to the normal distribution which is the reslut of random actions. I found that many long-tailed histograms fit PDE (Planckian Distribution Equaiton) regardless of the field of research, ranging from atomic physics (i.e., blackbody radiation) to protein folding, enzyme catalysis, cell metabolism, brain neurohemodynamcis as measured with fMRI (functional Magnetic Resoance Imaging), psychophysics (e.g., decision making), linguistics, econophysics and to cosmology. Such selecting processes are referred to as the Planckian processes [1-3].  

Thus, it may well be that all Plankian priocesses can be said to involve information,

All the best.

Sung

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Colin Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> on July 1, 2017 wrote:

>The brain structures responsible for these 'every day illusions' are 

>products of positive natural selection formed out of tiny particles 

>interacting according to the established laws of physics.

.

[S.P.] It is consciousness which is responsible for illusions (for details, see my reply to Rudy Tanzi, it is attached below). 

.

Second. There is no evolution of consciousness. Every organism, which is alive, must possess the fully "evolved", expediently functional, and equally potent exemplar of consciousness. Why? Because, otherwise, the organism would not be able to stay alive. There is nothing like "rudimentary consciousness" -- the exemplar of consciousness is either present or absent. For the living organism to possess the (permanently updating) model of the outer world (due to activity of own consciousness) is as important as to consume food and to take part in energetic interactions.

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

> My theory explains all features of our consciousness as 

>products of natural selection...

.

[S.P.] As I think, you are trying to open a door painted on a brick wall? I mean that consciousness is not a product of natural selection. Whether we have a unicell or a multicellular organism, its consciousness is a natural ability to transform the physical (sensory) signals into the elements of subjective experience, or into a model of the outer world, thereby reducing own overall entropy (in addition to other two natural abilities -- to reduce own overall entropy by consuming food and by taking part in energetic interactions).

.

Consciousness, as a natural ability, is irreducibly complex: to be consciousness (to perform its functions), it must be in its fully "evolved" form even in biologically simplest forms of life.

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

> And as with these other so-called illusions, it fully explains why 

>certain data external to consciousness (certain patterns of stimuli 

>interacting with our sense organs) came to be appropriately 

>represented in particular subjective qualities.

.

[S.P.] So, how "data external to consciousness" become turned into "subjective qualities"? How physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience? Just to mention that the sense organs themselves do not create experience -- they only transform the physical signals (e-m radiation, air vibrations, etc.) into physical sensory signals (electric impulses). 

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

> It indicates that, far from being an illusion, the existence of those 

>subjective qualities and a consciousness that experiences them is 

>a common aspect of matter - it is reality. 

.

[S.P.] Wait. Do you want to say that consciousness does not produce "subjective qualities" but just experiences them? To the point, your book THE BLIND MINDMAKER is already on my table and I do hope to finish reading it within this month.

.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Rudy Tanzi]

Dear Serge:

In reply to your response to me, which I am sorry to have missed earlier:

Sensory signals (fine.. I won't refer to them as information) must be recorded by the body-brain and then integrated by the brain in neural networks that put them in context with that which was learned and experienced in the past (in time and space) to create information in an associative process of learning.  The inability to do so, e.g. as an Alzheimer's patient, causes the loss of sense of self: "self subject" no longer experiencing self as "self object". This eventually leads to a loss of "self-awareness". 

Neural networks in the brain (and elsewhere?) enable the recording and recall of experiences as information. The input for this can be incoming sensory signals, or memory and imagination along with thoughts and feelings based on information resulting from integration of past sensory signals. The reductionist neuroscientist would argue that all experiences, either happening in the moment, or recalled as memory, or projected as imagination, along with all associated thoughts and feelings, stem originally from sensory input that was recorded and integrated as information (by association and learning) and that can be recalled (as memory), or be used to imagine the future (as visualization and creativity). 

In this process, we experience what we loosely call "consciousness".  But, we can also 

ask the neuroscientist, who is experiencing what the neuroscientist is defining as consciousness? Must consciousness (or some type of pure awareness) be primary to all that we experience in the process of what we loosely call "consciousness"

Rudy Tanzi

Sent from Rudy's iPhone 

--

----------------------------
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/487551980.3169933.1498945775508%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<Sadhu_Sanga-post_25-06-2017.txt>

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Serge,

(1)  Providing a clear example of what you call "informational factor" and  defining it in words is not the same.  In this sense, it seems to me that you still have not provided me with a clear definition of "informational factor". 

(2) You said:

"If, what you call, "free energy dissipation" is able to perform "some selection process" which results in "information", then your approach is panpsychistic -- you treat "free energy dissipation" as consciousness-possessing."

You are mis-interpreting "free energy dissipation".  Please recall that all selection processes entail free energy dissipation but not all free energy dissipation leads to selection (and hence to information production).  Your example of metal balls following through a tube into two boxes below entails energy dissipation but no selection is implicated.  In other words, energy dissipation is necessary but not sufficient for selection.

All the best.

Sung

 

On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 4:56 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Вірусів немає. www.avast.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_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/2014433692.3148217.1498942568645%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> on July 2, 2017 wrote:

> (1)  Providing a clear example of what you call "informational 

>factor" and  defining it in words is not the same. In this sense, it 

>seems to me that you still have not provided me with a clear 

>definition of "informational factor". 

.

[S.P.] Is it my obligation to provide you with something? Moreover, I do not understand what you may mean by "clear definition". For me, it is you who may extract a "clear definition" for you from the clear example of activity of informational factor I have provided. 

.

Second. When we talk about construction of a special meta-theory and we solve the problem of formation of the base of prime concepts, the definitions "garbed" in words will necessary suffer with the problem of tautology. So, I do not define informational factor alone -- I define all three factors simultaneously, and, in so doing, to evade the problem of tautology, I apply a specially constructed method of "tautological cycle" (it's a complex method which cannot be explained to a person who did not learn the fundamentals of my meta-theory yet).

.

Third. Do by "words" you mean English words? Please, see my reply to Paul Werbos (it is attached below) where I address his question of which language is mostly apt for talking about consciousness.

.

Fourth. Apart from definitions in words there may also be the definitions in graphic models, and definitions through acquiring personal experience. For example, how to define in words what is a sense of equilibrium? You can acquire clear definition of it only when you get experience of riding a bicycle. 

.

In general, understanding goes first -- the correspondent words (or terms) follow or may follow. In other words, a person may have a clear understanding of something without garbing this understanding into concrete words. Sometimes we say: "I do understand what it means but I cannot express it in words".

.

[Sungchul Ji] wrote:

> Please recall that all selection processes entail free energy dissipation

.

[S.P.] Do by "free energy dissipation" you mean dissipation of "free energy" (thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the capacity of a system to do work), or you mean "free dissipation" of energy? As to me, I do not consider any. Instead, I consider energy consumption. I mean that cognitive activity may require spending of energy. Or, more exact: the change of informational factor may require the change of energetic factor of the system{living organism} to keep the value of entropic characteristic of this system unchanged. But, the actual situation here is much more complicated.

.

And what do you mean by "selection"? If we do not mean the mechanical device which selects big potatoes and put them apart from small potatoes, the process of selection presumes the existence of consciousness-possessing subject.

.

[Sungchul Ji] wrote:

> but not all free energy dissipation leads to selection (and hence to 

>information production).

.

[S.P.] So, by saying this, you assume that SOME "free energy dissipation" may do lead to "selection" and producing information, yes? In other words, according to you, in some cases, what you call "free energy dissipation" may do perform the function of consciousness, yes? So, was I right calling your approach panpsychistic?

.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2017 3:55 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Hi Serge,

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

If by clustering you mean property which makes particles aggregate and make solids, liquids and gases as we know, then there is a clear answer. That has to do with forces between particles and not with masses. Clustering does not happen at the level of elementary particles. It happens at subsequent levels. Protons and neutrons are formed as bound states of quarks which are bound by exchange of gluons giving rise to ultra-strong force. Then neutrons and protons bind and form nuclei by strong force. Electrons and nuclei bind by mainly electromagnetic force forming atoms. Atoms bind and form molecules by long range electromagnetic (called Van Der Walls forces etc.,) and quantum mechanical forces coming from exchange of electrons called covalent binding. The usual clustering starts at the atomic and molecular level not at the elementary particle level. As a matter of fact there is Pauli Principle which says that not more than one fermion can have all the quantum numbers identical i.e. they cannot be in the same box! The box is defined by specifics of wave function, angular momentum and spin components and other quantum numbers we did not talk about. On the other hand Bosons (integral spin) can be within the same box with identical quantum numbers. The last fact is responsible for Bose-Einstein condensation, but that is a long story! The Pauli principle explains the whole chemistry as a part of physics, like chemical bonds, which atoms and molecules can be formed and which cannot.

Exchange of zero mass particles like photons and gravitons lead to infinite range forces like electromagnetic and gravitation. Exchange of massive W-bosons give rise to weak force which is a short range (less than 10^ (-13) cm, nuclear radius). Reason for short range of strong forces is more subtle and that will need a separate long discussion.

Higgs field imparts masses to many particles, both fermions and bosons. As a matter of fact the main reason to postulate Higgs field came from the need to break symmetry spontaneously and separate photons and W-bosons. By the way, W-bosons are not stable, while photons are stable. Different masses of the particles come from couplings to the Higgs field. I grant you that this is little bit of circular argument, since you have to agree with masses given by experiments. But in all sciences, consistency is the name of the game! In a way you are right. Standard model has so many parameters, masses, couplings etc. that a future theory will have to explain.

It is not clear when or how Higgs field emerged. There are many properties, called quantum numbers like charge and spin etc. with whimsical names like strangeness, charm, topness (truth), bottomness (beauty) etc! This is just to classify particles. Just as there is no reason to call someone Kashyap and someone Vinod!!

For some reason you are assuming that the universe was deterministic before sentient life emerged. As I said before, most physicists believe in non-deterministic, probabilistic quantum physics as the correct science from the beginning of the universe. So the universe was not waiting for sentient objects to emerge on a little measly planet! (The sentients did not know about QM until 1925 or so, for 3.5 to 4 Billion years!!) Universal consciousness is a different issue. For the large systems QM does agree with classical physics. This is called Bohr’s correspondence principle which can be proved. Engineers use classical physics all the time. And it works. Houses, bridges, cars and planes don’t fall most of the time! On the other hand, experimental physicists are finding quantum effects in larger and larger systems, such as lasers, superconductivity, super fluidity etc. Incidentally, it is not good to push deterministic arguments too far. We do not know what will happen to us tomorrow or what will happen to stock market tomorrow!! Also there is an unresolved issue of free will. Some people use QM to prove free will!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 2, 2017 7:22 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks for explaining in a graphical manner as to how different force and matter particles manifested.

I have been under an intuitive thinking that any particle which gains mass due to the action of the Higgs field should be a matter particle. My this intuitive thinking emerges out from the argument that it is the mass which localizes a particle and makes it a matter particle. However, later on, I came to learn that apart from mass, the feature which distinguishes a matter particle from that of force particle is the phenomenon of "clustering" i.e matter particles cluster together while force particles don't cluster together.

 

From your message and earlier also I knew that  W boson has some non-zero mass while photons have zero mass but both are treated as Bosons. Though my intuitive thinking yet dictates me that W boson having mass should be treated as a matter particle ( Fermions). One could argue that for a particle to be matter, it should have half-integral spin and W boson has integral spin.  But again my intuitive arguments tell me what is so in the integral spin that it prevents W bosons from 'clustering" and not making it a matter particle.

 

Then you have written:

 

In the beginning the universe was undoubtedly hot and had lot of energy.) At the same time, many particles (not all) which had zero mass got masses by coupling to Higgs field. Some particles (such as photons and gravitons) remained with zero mass. Neutrinos were supposed to have zero masses for a long time. But now it seems they have non zero masses. This scenario is unfolding now. During the first minute, all this is supposed to have taken place.

 

Some particles like leptons and quarks got masses ( presumably due to the Higgs Field while other ( like photons, gravitons, gluons) escaped from getting masses. This indicates that before the coupling with the Higgs Field, there was some distinctive feature with some particles due to which they got coupled with the Higgs Field while other particles were not having that feature, therefore, they did not have the mass. What was that distinctive feature due to which particles got masses? Then different elementary particles -- leptons in three flavors and quarks got different masses having no relation amongst each other. It seems different particles were endowed was different masses  as some hit and trial without following any Law/rule but it seems implausible that nature may endow mass to different particles not conforming to some Law. I know that this is the hierarchical problem in Standard Model having no solution. But unless some solution is not found by finding some mechanism which dictated the endowment of mass to different elementary particles, this will be a big explanatory gap in the Particle Physics.

 

I think there is no satisfactory, convincing and  empirical verifiable solution to the following issues which I and what  raised in my past message viz

 

i) From where the Higgs Field emerged and how it is linked to other fields?

 

ii) If primordially universe had stochasticity as the inherent feature of nature, how did it transited to deterministic state even in

the absence of any conscious observer or some deterministic physical system which could cause the collapse of the wavefunction?

 

You might have remained silent on the above issues in your present email due to reasons as stated above.

_____________________________________________________ 

 

In this email, I don't want to raise any philosophical/spiritual issue and want to limit myself to only issues of the Physics. Si would like to raise one more issue of Physics and then wind up.

 

Mass, charge, and spin are treated as the basic properties of  matter particles. Scientists have known with considerable details mechanism of mass endowment thru Higgs Field though a quite little is known about the origin of the Higgs Field itself. But what about other two properties? How did particles acquire charge and spin? By which mechanism and at which stage. From the available literature on online or otherwise, I don't learn much about this.

 

So far the picture of the manifestation of different elementary particles of both matter and force gives an isolated and piecemeal outlook and that too with many explanatory gaps. I hope researchers might be engaged in finding a consolidated a picture of all particles -- force and matter without any explanatory gaps.

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

 

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Serge

You wrote

[S.P.] It is consciousness which is responsible for illusions

C. M: Agreed.  But in my view our experience of the illusion is only the very last step in a complex brain process that,  for example,  fills in missing data in the case of blind spot, or adjusts the wavelength data in the case of colour constancy, or adds the missing limb in the case of phantom limbs,  etc.  It is the output of these brain processes prior to our experience of it that I was referring to when I was explaining the so-called illusion of consciousness in the same way as these 'everyday illusions'.

You also wrote

S. P: There is no evolution of consciousness. Every organism, which is alive, must possess the fully "evolved", expediently functional, and equally potent exemplar of consciousness. Why? Because, otherwise, the organism would not be able to stay alive. There is nothing like "rudimentary consciousness" -- the exemplar of consciousness is either present or absent. For the living organism to possess the (permanently updating) model of the outer world (due to activity of own consciousness) is as important as to consume food and to take part in energetic interactions.

C. M.: I do not agree.  But we may be talking about two different things.  For me consciousness is not an internal constantly updating model of the world. I do not, for example,  consider self-driving cars to be conscious. In my view it is a physical entity into which such a model has been encoded. As such, modern evolutionary theory suggests the adaption of that entity would be a gradual process. Therefore rudimentary consciousnesses must have existed in the past and probably still do.

You also wrote

S. P: Consciousness, as a natural ability, is irreducibly complex: to be consciousness (to perform its functions), it must be in its fully "evolved" form even in biologically simplest forms of life.

C. M: I have heard that argument about the eye and I do not find it convincing. The function I think consciousness was adapted for - injecting controllable randomness into the attention-focusing process - does not require the consciousness to contain any part of the internal model of the world it eventually evolved to have. The brain structures that adapted it gradually evolved to modify its experience in different ways to favour sources of data that were more likely to constitute the most beneficial focus of attention.  And this is what eventually resulted in the amazing organism-like experience we currently enjoy.

You also wrote

S. P: So, how "data external to consciousness" become turned into "subjective qualities"? How physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience? Just to mention that the sense organs themselves do not create experience -- they only transform the physical signals (e-m radiation, air vibrations, etc.) into physical sensory signals (electric impulses). 

C. M: As I said,  we are a physical entity in the brain. Our different modes of experience are ways in which that physical entity changes as a result of inputs from its neural environment.  Hence just as the sense organs transform the incoming physical signals into electrochemical nerve signals,  the neural environment of our consciousness is affecting the physical system that our consciousness constitutes in response to those signals in a way that generates the associated qualia. It has evolved to do so by natural selection.

[S.P.] Wait. Do you want to say that consciousness does not produce "subjective qualities" but just experiences them?

C. M: Precisely. The only thing it produces is the position of a particle. Its subjective experience is entirely produced by the brain.

S. P.: To the point, your book THE BLIND MINDMAKER is already on my table and I do hope to finish reading it within this month.

C. M: Hope you enjoy the read!

Best wishes,
Colin

C.  S.  Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

> ________________________________
> From: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
> To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>

> Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 6:38 PM

> Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness
>

> Dear Peter,
> My theory,  Position Selecting Interactionism,  may be what you are looking for. If interested see my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER below.
> https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
> You seem to agree with me that the so-called illusion of consciousness ought to be accounted for in a way similar to the way the most similar explained phenomena are accounted for (though I would disagree that the illusion of the blue dome above our head has yet been explained - blue is after all an aspect of our consciousness - I shall assume you mean the sensory patterns and brain processes responsible for that illusion). My theory is derived from applying a slightly more rigorous version of this principle.
> The brain structures responsible for these 'every day illusions' are products of positive natural selection formed out of tiny particles interacting according to the established laws of physics.  The patterns formed by the sensory stimuli are created by the shape of a lens that has evolved by natural selection to focus light rays from adjacent points on a source to adjacent points on a retina. And of course there is the external source that selects the sensory stimuli itself (the size of nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the case of the sky or the shape of raindrops for the rainbow).
> My theory explains all features of our consciousness as products of natural selection acting purely upon structures governed by the established laws of physics. Indeed its explanation for our subjective images is closely analogous to the evolutionary explanation for the eye's lens and retinal image. And as with these other so-called illusions, it fully explains why certain data external to consciousness (certain patterns of stimuli interacting with our sense organs) came to be appropriately represented in particular subjective qualities.
> It indicates that, far from being an illusion, the existence of those subjective qualities and a consciousness that experiences them is a common aspect of matter - it is reality.  The illusion created by the brain is that this one instance of consciousness that we each experience is the brain itself,  or the whole organism,  or some large part of our brain's activity, or some ghostly entity filling the organism and steering it through life's choices. It is the idea that we are getting punished whenever our choices get the organism into damaging circumstances, and rewarded when they lead the organism to something good. And it is the idea that all consciousnesses are intelligent thinking entities like ourselves.
> All the best,
> Colin
> C.  S.  Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
> https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
>
>
> Send from Huawei Y360
> On 30 Jun 2017 13:45, "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:

> Serge--
>
> I fully agree with your first paragraph.
>
> But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind. That philosophy reaches back at least as far as the Chandogya Upanishad, but most Western professors of philosophy -- not all of whom deserve the title "Philosopher" by any means -- seem to think that it was all obscurity before Descartes began to meditate on it. Of course, almost all Western professors of philosophy who write books (Daniel Dennett is a good example) think they have gone far past Descartes, in the direction OPPOSITE Hindu philosopy!
>
> And so, while agree with everything in your second paragraph before the dash that begins your last sentence, I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual consciousness. Some Hindus on this list might claim that my perception of my individual consciousness is an illusion. However, they need to account for that alleged illusion in a way similar to the way our ordinary everyday illusions (a blue dome above our heads on a cloudless day, a rainbow as something that has a definable end, etc.) are accounted for.
>
> I must admit I haven't been following more than a small percentage of emails that emanate from Sadhu Sanga, so I may have missed such an account. If so, I would appreciate being made aware of one.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Department of Mathematics
> University of South Carolina
> ________________________________

> From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]

> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:59 PM

> To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness
>
> -
> Kashyap Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

> >Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in
> > the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, 
> >something did not come out of nothing!!

> .
> [S.P.] For anything to exist, there must be a concrete place, or a volume of space, where it exists. In the beginning there was no space, no vacuum, therefore nothing could be said to exist in the beginning. However, if we start from presuming the existence of "quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations", then it is the same as to assert that a tree has evolved from a seed -- an enough trivial statement.  
> .
> [Kashyap Vasavada] wrote:

> > Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. ... Speculations

> > on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

> .
> [S.P.] Then the "Big-Bang theory" and "Multiverse theory" should be treated as philosophic theories which bear no relation to Physics. I agree. I would also add that Physics should also stop trying to account for consciousness, since it is not its subject matter -- it is a subject matter for the Science of Consciousness as a new scientific discipline.
> .
> Best,
> Serge Patlavskiy
>
>

> Вірусів немає. www.avast.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.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/487551980.3169933.1498945775508%40mail.yahoo.com.

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Joseph

You said ' By contrast with other conceptions of "information", I think Colin's expression of John 1.1 makes sense (although I think the normative view in the "West" is that the "Word" means "Jesus Christ", not "God"). '

C. M: Elsewhere in John's gospel, Jesus is reported to have said 'when you've seen me,  you have seen the Father' and 'I and the Father are one'. So in John's view, Jesus IS God. In actual fact I rather think THAT is the normative view in the "West". It is called the Trinity (mainly because Jesus also talks in John's gospel about sending another counsellor - the Spirit of Truth - typically referred to as the Holy Spirit).

Best wishes,
Colin

C.  S.  Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

Send from Huawei Y360

--

----------------------------
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/5e528b21-d665-425b-81bb-9fb6be3facab%40googlegroups.com.

[BMP]

Dear Joseph,

Namaste. Thank you for your reply to my message. If we look at the original text in John 1.1 in the King James version (KJV) of the Bible he writes:

John 1.1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

My commentary: The meaning appears to be that the Word and God are different, yet identical also. Ordinary understanding doesn't like contradictions so it tries to ignore the contradiction and simply accept the sameness of Word and God without the difference. However, that is not what John is saying here. He distinguishes the Word from God by stating the Word first, and then using the preposition "with" to connect the Word with God. Finally John then identifies the Word with God. What John is actually saying therefore is that Word and God are different and identical at the same time - a contradiction!

Western philosophy since Aristotle avoids contradiction like the plague. But this identity-in-difference is a very important concept in Vedantic philosophy called bedha-abedha in Sanskrit. So it is not to be swept under the rug without taking it seriously. It forms the basis of a very important conception of the Absolute Reality of Chaitanya Vaisnavism and other similar vaisnava traditions, and even in the Roman Catholic tradition it is the basis of what is known as the Holy Trinity - the Oneness and Difference of God in His three distinct individualities/Persons. 

'In the beginning" means that we must not identify the Word with Jesus Christ right away, as many do. Actually the identity of the Word with Christ will come in  John 1.14, so we don't want to skip over the significance that the other verses play in arriving at that identity. So sticking to John 1.1 we can recognize that the Word [in the original Greek it is Logos and that is translated as Word in the KJV] is related to thought or thinking. Words are used to express or utter [meaning outer or objectify] thoughts [which are internal or subjective]. So we can interpret John 1.1. as saying the thoughts of God are with God, certainly, and they are also God, because a person is only what his/her thoughts make them. Thinking reflected upon itself is what is meant by "I." Descartes; first indubitability was "I think, thus I am." He identifies thinking with his being as an ego or I. At the same time thinking and being an "I" are different - we naturally distinguish the two. We naturally presume that "I" am the agent who produces thinking. In the case of John 1.1 the Word [thinking] is conjoined with the Supreme "I" or God. Thus God expresses His thinking as the Word, which makes the Word the offspring or Son of God. So the idea of the Son as produced from God the original "I" is contained in John 1,1.

However, there is a subtle nuance here which is not normally recognized by theologians or philosophers. Since John 1.1 states that the Word was there first in the beginning, how then can the Son be before the Father God? Again we have to carefully examine the relation between thought and the "I" or ego. Without thinking there would be no ego. The ego is not independent of thinking. Descartes recognized this as well, thus he puts thinking first, and then the "I' is concluded. Of course, it is not that they are separable. Given thinking the "I" is implied already since thinking when reflected upon itself is what is meant by "I." Aristotle called this thinking reflection upon itself noesis noesios noesis, or thought thinking thought, thought thinking itself, which he identifies as theos, God. 

In summary what John 1.1 tells us is that God reveals His mind as the Word, or the revealed Word of God which is what the scriptures mean. Revelation of the Mind of God also comes in the form of the incarnation of the Son or Jesus Christ who speaks the same revelation of God's mind among the people of the world. Thus John describes in John 1.14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,  full of grace and truth. In this verse the third Person of the Trinity is  expressed as that which "dwelt among us" referring to the [Holy] Spirit of the community of believers. 

In between verses 1.1 and 1.14 John refers to two other principles: Life and Light. Both are explained as being in God and originating from Him. Light refers to reason or the rational world, and life to the senses or sensuous world. It is a peculiar fact that many people, including those in this forum, do not realize that the senses represent a form of consciousness - sensuous consciousness. Certainly the senses are an important form of consciousness by which the life of an organism interacts with its environment. However, the senses are not sufficient by themselves to interpret the environment they connect with. For this they require the mind [understanding] which some modern scientists believe is the brain. Other scientists understand the brain is superseded by a more subtle mind [intelligent understanding] beyond the unintelligent materials and processes of the brain. 

In fourteen lines John has thus explained the original Aristotelian absolute as the thinking thought of Theos (God), the expression or Word of the Mind of God, and how that can become known to Man through the Light of Reason, and the Life or consciousness of the Word as taught by the incarnation [in flesh] of His Word, begotten as His Son from God's own Mind. 

In fact, this sounds very much like the Puranic description in which Brahma, creates of the universe from the sound vibration originated from Maha Vishnu, and begets his progeny from his own mind.

What is important to understand from all this is that God or Ultimate Reality is not merely consciousness, and importantly is not unknowable. The abstract monist interpretations of Reality either coming from the scientists who are completely uneducated about consciousness and other spiritual truths or those who are novices in spiritual knowledge and bring only abstract notions to bear on such truths, both fail to understand that Brahman is not beyond all ability to know it. Among the novice class they do not even understand the very first principle of Vedanta which states athatho brahma jijnasa - that one must inquire about knowledge of Brahman. The whole of Vedanta-sutra or Brahma-sutra is based on such reasoning. The Bhagavad-gita is the expression [gita means song] of such knowledge, and so are the Upanisads [which means to sit and learn at the feet of the teachers]. The neophytes select certain verses from the scriptures that verify their own narrow presuppositions and ignore the majority of references to those statements that contradict such biased views. 

We can add one further nnote to this message concerning the very important principle of identity-in-difference. When we see so many differing opinions presented is this forum, each one different from the others, we may think there is nothing we can identify as the same in all of them. That would be a mistake if we consider the logic: if al,l x are different from one another (D), then all x are D, or x(D), i.e. all x are the same in their independence and freedom. Here we have an example of identity in difference. 

The universe is a single entity that combines diversity into it unity. So too is the body of an organism an identity of itself as a single organism with all its diverse members. A whole is a unity in difference with its parts. So this principle of contradiction of one and many, identity and difference, already has innumerable instances. it should not be so strange to us as it might at first seem.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: vinodse...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 11:06 AM

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

--

[Joseph McCard]

Colin,

You said ' By contrast with other conceptions of "information", I think Colin's expression of John 1.1 makes sense (although I think the normative view in the "West" is that the "Word" means "Jesus Christ", not "God"). '

"C. M: Elsewhere in John's gospel, Jesus is reported to have said 'when you've seen me,  you have seen the Father' and 'I and the Father are one'."

Yes, We are all one and we are all many. 'We' can be understood in various ways, we can be you and I, and we can be all that is. 

"So in John's view, Jesus IS God."

Yes, I agree. But I am still not sure that that is how I interpret what John is saying. Yes, Jesus is both God and Jesus. (here, let me dig out my NT : )

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. He himself was not the light but he came to testify to the light. The true light was the light , which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world" (New Revised Standard Edition)

So, that many in the West understand that the Word is Jesus Christ is evidenced in the fact that most current Christian religions emphasize the significance of the OT, and worship Jesus Christ, and the path to salvation he provides. The OT and the OT "God of wrath" is not emphasized

Here are a couple of quotes I easily fund to support my claim, as it is not simply MY opinion: 

"In several passages in the writings of John ὁ λόγος denotes the essential Word of God, i. e. the personal (hypostatic) wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in the creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah and shone forth conspicuously from his words and deeds: "

" lógos (from 3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit."

"In actual fact I rather think THAT is the normative view in the "West". 

What has happened in the West is that "Christianity separates Jesus, and by association, you and I, from God. You are right to reference the line, " 'when you've seen me,  you have seen the Father' and 'I and the Father are one', but this connection is broken in Modern Christianity.  Jesus Christ is the focus of attention since the middle of the 1800's. 

"It is called the Trinity (mainly because Jesus also talks in John's gospel about sending another counsellor - the Spirit of Truth - typically referred to as the Holy Spirit)."

I also bring your attention to the current lack of focus on the Holy Spirit. 

The NT can be understood as the metaphysical position that God , Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are, three-in-one, and by association we are all one and many. And, that Jesus Christ was the physicalized portion of God. God's thought become manifest. And, in parallel, we are all children of God, a part of God, and we all manifest are own thoughts (qua God's thoughts) in physical reality using our CONSCIOUSNESS. But, it is not usually interpreted that way. See, for example, "Conversations With God", (Neale Donald Walsch)

So, I think you are focused one way and the West is focused another way. I happen to agree with you : ), but not your argument here for your understanding of thew current state of affairs in Western Christianity. Its not called God-anity

Joseph

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Colin Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> on July 3, 2017 wrote:

>But in my view our experience of the illusion is only the very last 

>step in a complex brain process that,  for example,  fills in missing 

>data in the case of blind spot, or adjusts the wavelength data in the 

>case of colour constancy, or adds the missing limb in the case of 

>phantom limbs,  etc.

.

[S.P.] The illusion is a product of consciousness -- it is a kind of experience itself. Yes, consciousness can process as the new sensory input so the formerly memorized elements of experience. So we may get new experience due to processing the formerly memorized element of experience as well -- we, as if, "experience the experience". And yes, due to such an "experience the experience" we may conclude that the given experience is an illusion. So, a new element of experience goes first, and only then (on the next lap of the process of cognition) a conclusion goes whether this element of experience is an illusion, a hallucination, or an enough adequate model of the outer world.

.

And yes, consciousness fills in missing data (see my reply to Rudy Tanzi where I consider the reasons why consciousness is doing this; it is attached below). Hope, you have your own explanation to this facts -- it would be interesting to compare our solutions.

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

> It is the output of these brain processes prior to our experience of it...

.

[S.P.] Sorry for confusing you with my questions, but is "the output of these brain processes" an experience itself? 

.

Second. If the brain processes can produce experience, then consciousness is redundant in your model. Or, maybe, you assume that a human is like a two-processor computer: the processes in the brain produce illusions and consciousness produces experience of illusions? 

.

As to my approach, consciousness first produces new element of experience, and, on the next lap of the process of cognition, it performs the "experience of experience" and produces new element of experience in the form of a conclusion, say, "the previous experience was an illusion".

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

>I do not agree. ... For me consciousness is not an internal constantly 

>updating model of the world. I do not, for example, consider 

>self-driving cars to be conscious.

.

[S.P.] Me too. I do not treat consciousness as "an internal constantly updating model of the world" -- I treat consciousness as a producer of this model. Also, I do not consider self-driving cars (coffee-pots, vacuum cleaners, etc.) to be possessing consciousness -- I treat these gadgets as the products of consciousness-possessing engineers. So, I do not understand why you disagree with my approach.

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

> As I said, we are a physical entity in the brain. Our different modes

> of experience are ways in which that physical entity changes as a 

>result of inputs from its neural environment. 

.

[S.P.] The phrase "we are a physical entity in the brain" must be a physicalistic version of a traditional homunculus approach -- the brain as a physical entity contains another physical entity. Wow! It sounds like a "machine-in-the-machine", instead of a "ghost-in-the-machine". 

.

Second, a new word here is that in addition to sensory input you also consider "neural environment" as a factor that persuades "us as a physical entity in the brain" to produce experience. 

.

But what about the following empirical fact: when we hear a loud bang near our ear for the first time, we may become scared and even topple from a chair; but, on hearing this same (i.e., which has the same physical parameters) bang next time we will react calmly: "Hey, kids, don't make such a noise! Go shooting at each other outdoor!"

.

As follows from the above fact, our consciousness decides itself whether to process the given sensory input, or to ignore it, or to process it is some special way. So, when producing the elements of experience, consciousness plays a primary role, while the sensory input plays an ancillary role. 

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

>Hence just as the sense organs transform the incoming physical 

>signals into electrochemical nerve signals, the neural environment 

>of our consciousness is affecting the physical system that our 

>consciousness constitutes in response to those signals in a way 

>that generates the associated qualia.

.

[S.P.] From the above I may conclude that, according to you, the sense organs and "neural environment" act separately as two distinct factors.

.

Second. It seems that you hold that whatever consciousness does, it is only "in response" to sensory signals. But, this clearly contradicts the empirical facts. I mean that consciousness can produce new elements of experience even to the total exclusion of any sensory input.

.

At any rate, I still do not see your solution to the problem of how the sensory input (the physical sensory signals) become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. To the point, there is also a problem of how the products of consciousness (say, decisions, intentions, etc.) become transformed into physical signals which make the body muscles to contract. 

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

>It has evolved to do so by natural selection.

.

[S.P.] As I see, in your person I deal not only with a hard-boiled physicalist, but with inventive committed evolutionist as well. :-) Why inventive? The case is that even Charles Darwin himself said nothing about the evolution of consciousness. From the history of mankind follows that our distant forebears had to be by no means duller than we are now. Why? Because they would not be able to survive in a much more hostile environment than the one we live in nowadays.

.

You postulate that "rudimentary consciousnesses must have existed in the past". OK -- it is an element of your belief system. By "rudimentary consciousness" we should mean "not enough evolved consciousness", or "consciousness which functions not well yet". But, the empirical facts clearly indicate that whatever organism we consider, its behavior, on average, is to the great extent rational, or expediently rational. 

.

When I state that consciousness does not evolve I mean that its mechanisms are not changing. Let us consider the following analogy. Suppose, there is a hammer. A hammer -- it is a simple machine which works as a lever which rotates around the pivot. Its handle, by its one end, is fixed in the arm which plays the role of a pivot -- the handle rotates around this pivot. In result, we induce the required acceleration to the steel head fixed at the other end of the handle. Without rapid acceleration of the steel head it will not acquire enough kinetic energy, and no effect of "driving the nail into the wooden board" will be possible. 

.

One person may say: "I use the hammer to drive the nails into the wooden boards". A second person may say: "I use the hammer to cut the big stones into smaller stones". A third person may add: "I use the hammer to kill the bulls in a slaughterhouse". Does this mean that the hammer evolved? No. We just have different applications of the hammer, while the mechanisms of its functioning remain the same. A hammer is an irreducibly complex machine -- without a handle it will not be a hammer. Even when we use a stone instead of the steel head, our arm plays the role of a handle with a pivot in our elbow or shoulder joints.

.

Similarly, consciousness can produce different elements of experience and suggest solutions to different problems, but, in so doing, the mechanisms of consciousness remain unchanged.

.

With respect,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>

To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Dear Serge

You wrote

[S.P.] It is consciousness which is responsible for illusions

C. M: Agreed.  But in my view our experience of the illusion is only the very last step in a complex brain process that,  for example,  fills in missing data in the case of blind spot, or adjusts the wavelength data in the case of colour constancy, or adds the missing limb in the case of phantom limbs,  etc.  It is the output of these brain processes prior to our experience of it that I was referring to when I was explaining the so-called illusion of consciousness in the same way as these 'everyday illusions'.

You also wrote

S. P: There is no evolution of consciousness. Every organism, which is alive, must possess the fully "evolved", expediently functional, and equally potent exemplar of consciousness. Why? Because, otherwise, the organism would not be able to stay alive. There is nothing like "rudimentary consciousness" -- the exemplar of consciousness is either present or absent. For the living organism to possess the (permanently updating) model of the outer world (due to activity of own consciousness) is as important as to consume food and to take part in energetic interactions.

C. M.: I do not agree.  But we may be talking about two different things.  For me consciousness is not an internal constantly updating model of the world. I do not, for example,  consider self-driving cars to be conscious. In my view it is a physical entity into which such a model has been encoded. As such, modern evolutionary theory suggests the adaption of that entity would be a gradual process. Therefore rudimentary consciousnesses must have existed in the past and probably still do.

You also wrote

S. P: Consciousness, as a natural ability, is irreducibly complex: to be consciousness (to perform its functions), it must be in its fully "evolved" form even in biologically simplest forms of life.

C. M: I have heard that argument about the eye and I do not find it convincing. The function I think consciousness was adapted for - injecting controllable randomness into the attention-focusing process - does not require the consciousness to contain any part of the internal model of the world it eventually evolved to have. The brain structures that adapted it gradually evolved to modify its experience in different ways to favour sources of data that were more likely to constitute the most beneficial focus of attention.  And this is what eventually resulted in the amazing organism-like experience we currently enjoy.

You also wrote

S. P: So, how "data external to consciousness" become turned into "subjective qualities"? How physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience? Just to mention that the sense organs themselves do not create experience -- they only transform the physical signals (e-m radiation, air vibrations, etc.) into physical sensory signals (electric impulses). 

C. M: As I said,  we are a physical entity in the brain. Our different modes of experience are ways in which that physical entity changes as a result of inputs from its neural environment.  Hence just as the sense organs transform the incoming physical signals into electrochemical nerve signals,  the neural environment of our consciousness is affecting the physical system that our consciousness constitutes in response to those signals in a way that generates the associated qualia. It has evolved to do so by natural selection.

[S.P.] Wait. Do you want to say that consciousness does not produce "subjective qualities" but just experiences them?

C. M: Precisely. The only thing it produces is the position of a particle. Its subjective experience is entirely produced by the brain.

S. P.: To the point, your book THE BLIND MINDMAKER is already on my table and I do hope to finish reading it within this month.

C. M: Hope you enjoy the read!

Best wishes,
Colin

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Joseph McCard]

BMP,

"Namaste.  Thank you for your reply to my message."

Likewise : )

"My commentary: The meaning appears to be that the Word and God are different, yet identical also. Ordinary understanding doesn't like contradictions so it tries to ignore the contradiction and simply accept the sameness of Word and God without the difference. However, that is not what John is saying here. He distinguishes the Word from God by stating the Word first, and then using the preposition "with" to connect the Word with God. Finally John then identifies the Word with God. What John is actually saying therefore is that Word and God are different and identical at the same time - a contradiction!"(BMP)

As it so happens, my just posted response to Colin said pretty much the same thing. I am reading your post after I sent my response to him. We are one and we are many. It is an apparent contradiction, not an actual contradiction, for the reasons you give. If those, on this forum, come to understand the nature of consciousness, the contradiction dissolves. Have you ever sung in a choir? There is a feeling that is elicited in you, probably, in which you FEEL like you are one with the choir, not separate. 

"Western philosophy since Aristotle avoids contradiction like the plague. But this identity-in-difference is a very important concept in Vedantic philosophy called bedha-abedha in Sanskrit. So it is not to be swept under the rug without taking it seriously. It forms the basis of a very important conception of the Absolute Reality of Chaitanya Vaisnavism and other similar vaisnava traditions, and even in the Roman Catholic tradition it is the basis of what is known as the Holy Trinity - the Oneness and Difference of God in His three distinct individualities/Persons."(BMP) 

Yes.  I suspect we are reading from the same pages. And so, for those who are inclined, read the rest of BMP's statement. He and I are One, and Two  : )

Thank-you, bmp-jo 

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

First a clarification on Higgs. Higgs particle does not have zero mass. Its mass is 125 GeV (compared to proton mass 938 MeV and electron mass 0.5 MeV). GeV= 10^9 electron volt, MeV=10^6 electron volt. Although the discovery of Higgs particle was a major triumph of theoretical physics, its low mass value has created lot of puzzles also! It is ironic that if its mass was very high like Planck mass we would not have been able to discover it at LHC, but theoretically it would have been easier to understand!! It is produced by dumping lot of energy in a small region of space-time (called whacking the field!), which happens in LHC, but then it decays in about 10^ (-22) sec, leaving decay products like photons, muons, electrons and other particles which are detected. Thus outside accelerators (even there only momentarily), like in our houses, there are no Higgs bosons. On the other hand Higgs field has been around all the time everywhere since the Big bang. It is just that we did not know how to detect or even know about it until recently. It is like in your house, there are TV and radio waves (corresponding particles photons), but unless you have TV and radio, you are not aware of their presence! Waves are just fields changing as a function of space and time.  Thus there is this difference between fields and corresponding particles. Though every field has one or more associated particles, but they are not same quantities. In the case of electromagnetic waves or fields, it is easy to produce and detect photons because of their zero mass. It does not need an accelerator. Also photons are stable until they are absorbed. But Higgs particle did need an accelerator. Also Higgs field better not decay, otherwise all the atoms would be unbound and our universe would disappear in a moment!!

In particle, nuclear and atomic physics, it became clear that to probe deeper one needs higher and higher energy by uncertainty principle. So historically, as it became more and more feasible to do experiments with higher and higher energies, the inner structure started becoming clear like peeling onions and finding inner layers. Thus molecules->atoms-> nuclei and electrons-> neutrons and protons-> quarks, gluons and gauge bosons. As of today, we do not know if quarks and leptons (like electrons) have any further structure or not. In chemistry and biology, it is true, frequently function is related to structure. It may be that the postulated masses and couplings will be revealed by further sub structure. But currently, at the available energy we are limited to quarks, leptons and force gauge bosons.

In Quantum Field Theory, there is a theoretical construct called Lagrangian. In it you write symbols for fields and coupling constants which translates into various forces. In the case of interaction of other particles and Higgs field, you take coupling constants proportional to the known masses, which is little bit of cheating! Although to be fair, W- Boson masses came out from consistency of electro-weak theory with weak interaction data. Photons had to come out with zero mass to have agreement with electrodynamics. Particles are not created or destroyed theoretically until you apply these operators to quantum states. While writing Lagrangians you assume charges and spins of particles. Thus they are not theoretically predicted.

Distinction between matter and force particles comes from the behavior of fields corresponding to various particles, under the mathematical operations called gauge transformations. Presumably this Gauginess is involved when particles are created out of pure energy. Higgs field was kind of supervisor when particle production was going on! But it is not clear how particular values of masses came out. Lot of Nobel Prizes are waiting for people who can explain these!

Again, requirement of conscious observers to collapse of wave function is not universally accepted. It is interesting to know that  ‘t Hooft agrees with Sankhya philosophy. I wonder if he know that?!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 6:50 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks

 

you have further added refinement to my knowledge about Particle physics. But on some issues, I am still not getting some complete, clear and convincing answer viz

 

i) How and what differentiates a boson ( force particle) from fermions ( matter particles)? In other words, initially, all the particles were in some elementary form -- neither force particle nor matter particles. Some turned out to be matter particles while some became force particles. What mechanism might have gone in nature to deal with elementary particles differently to transform some articles as force particles while other as matter particles?

 

ii) In the previous message, you had indicated that Higgs Field coupled with some particles and they were endowed with mass while other particles did not couple with Higgs Field and were not endowed with mass. As I knew earlier also and you have also indicated that W Boson, though a force particle but has some mass. You had also indicated that in the electroweak regime, both photon and W Boson existed as one multiplet. with the break of symmetry, W boson acquired mass but photons did not though Higgs Field might have coupled with the multiplet.

 

What I mean to say that that there should be some universal and uniform rule/circumstances due to which some particles ( leptons, quarks get mass due to coupling with the Higgs Field) while other ( Photons, gluons, gravitons, Higgs particle itself) don't get mass. Here wonderful thing which I observe is that Higgs particle itself is not having any mass but endows mass to other particles. Really difficult to comprehend!

 

iii) Mechanism of mass endowment thru Higgs field is fairly understood. But what about Charge and Spin? By which Field and by which mechanism, particles get these properties.

 

I limit myself to above 3 issues of physics lest we may not lose focus on above issues

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

However, I can't stop myself from raising an issue which may appear philosophical one to you.

 

A particle, matter or otherwise is described by some properties viz mass, charge, and spin. These are the attributes or Functions of the particle by which particle is described. But is a particle merely an aggregate of these attributes or it has some structure?  Mu intuitive understanding dictates me that a particle should have some structure ( or ontology if you don't dislike this term) which is described by the attributes. The logic behind my this intuitive understanding is based upon the fact that per se attributes or functions have no existence. Functions are always based upon the structure.  The existence of any entity is derived out of its structure OR STUFF that constitutes that entity.This is another issue that we are dependent upon attributes ( or functions) to describe a structure and STRUCTURE INITSEF is indescribable.

 

What is you considered opinion on the above.?

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

____________________________________________________________________

 

NB : This is not my view that universe primordially was deterministic inherently. However, if the universe was stochastic primordially as inherently, as the majority of the Quantum physicists hold the view, how did the wave function collapsed to transit to a deterministic state in the absence of any conscious observer and deterministic physical system to serve as apparatus? This is an unresolved issue.

. By the way, t 'Hooft and  Sankhya Philosophy hold the view that universe inherently had been deterministic.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

 

 

 

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Serge

SP: So, a new element of experience comes first, and only then (on the next lap of the process of cognition) a conclusion comes whether this element of experience is an illusion, a hallucination, or a sufficiently adequate model of the outer world.

CM: Agreed

SP: and yes, consciousness fills in missing data (see my reply to Rudy Tanzi where I consider the reasons why consciousness is doing this; it is attached below). Hope, you have your own explanation to this facts -- it would be interesting to compare our solutions.

CM: I do, though in my view it is the brain that is filling in the gaps. Our consciousness is only choosing the position of a quantum particle.  Its experience is the particle's wave function - the direct cause of the Born probability distribution for a measurement of that particle's position. It is the effect of all the surrounding potentials upon how likely the particle is to be found at each of its possible locations.  It has evolved to seem like sensory and memory patterns because each potential position of the particle triggers a shift in attention to a particular source of data,  and those sensory and memory patterns were the most convenient way to ensure that the probability of each particular position was commensurate with the probability that the source of data it selects is the most beneficial choice at each moment in time. 

But you ask why the brain fills in the gaps?  Because each of those locations in our subjective experience represents a source of data upon which we could focus attention, and its likelihood of being the most beneficial choice does not diminish just because the optic nerve got in the way and the brain didn't receive any optical data from it. In fact that likelihood is most probably going to be same as that of nearby locations.  Consequently, the brain manipulates the wave function accordingly.

[S.P.] Sorry for confusing you with my questions, but is "the output of these brain processes" an experience itself? 

CM: Not at first.  As you will hopefully now have gathered,  it needs to be encoded in variations of the potentials that determine the position probability distribution for a quantum particle adapted to trigger shifts in our attention.

SP:. If the brain processes can produce experience, then consciousness is redundant in your model.

CM: I can't see how experiences can exist without consciousness.  They are inseparable. All I am trying to say is that consciousness does not produce its own experiences by its own free will or internal configuration.  The brain gives it all the experiences it wants it to have.  When you squeeze a coiled spring it is not the spring that produces the squeezing.  The spring produces the response when you let it go.  In my theory the only thing consciousness produces is the position of a quantum particle.  Every other aspect of its experience is determined by the brain - though that is not to say it wasn't caused by a previous free choice of position that the consciousness made.

SP: Or, maybe, you assume that a human is like a two-processor computer: the processes in the brain produce illusions and consciousness produces experience of illusions?

CM: I see nothing wrong with that assumption - though for me that is an implication rather than an assumption.

SP: As to my approach, consciousness first produces new element of experience, and, on the next lap of the process of cognition, it performs the "experience of experience" and produces new element of experience in the form of a conclusion, say, "the previous experience was an illusion".

CM: I don't disagree with this - though as I said it is the brain that produces those elements of experience within the consciousness.

[S.P.] I do not treat consciousness as "an internal constantly updating model of the world" -- I treat consciousness as a producer of this model.

CM: For me it is the brain that produces the model.  The consciousness just experiences it.  And consciousnesses experiencing such a model are an extremely tiny subset of all those that exist.

[S.P.] The phrase "we are a physical entity in the brain" must be a physicalistic version of a traditional homunculus approach -- the brain as a physical entity contains another physical entity. Wow! It sounds like a "machine-in-the-machine", instead of a "ghost-in-the-machine". 

CM: What is so amazing about that?  We are essentially a physical part of the brain,  but an extremely small one - a single particle!

SP: what about the following empirical fact: when we hear a loud bang near our ear for the first time, we may become scared and even topple from a chair; but, on hearing this same (i.e., which has the same physical parameters) bang next time we will react calmly: "Hey, kids, don't make such a noise! Go shooting at each other outdoor!"

CM: I suspect that our reaction to the sensory stimulus is triggered by the brain before we become aware of it. It has nothing to do with what we hear and feel.  In my view those feelings are supplied after the reaction is triggered to help us shift attention in the most beneficial way.

SP: It seems that you hold that whatever consciousness does, it is only "in response" to sensory signals. But, this clearly contradicts the empirical facts. I mean that consciousness can produce new elements of experience even to the total exclusion of any sensory input.

CM: No I don't hold that view. Memory and intention signals generated by the brain play a significant part too in modifying the probabilities of where we choose to shift our attention.

SP: I still do not see your solution to the problem of how the sensory input (the physical sensory signals) become transformed into the elements of subjective experience.

CM: They are encoded in the wave function of a quantum particle. The wave function is experience.

SP: There is also a problem of how the products of consciousness (say, decisions, intentions, etc.) become transformed into physical signals which make the body muscles to contract. 

CM: A shift in attention can act as a trigger for brain to produce particular action. In my view intentions are first formed by brain.

[S.P.] our distant forebears had to be by no means duller than we are now. Why? Because they would not be able to survive in a much more hostile environment than the one we live in nowadays.

CM: Bacteria are the best survivors and they aren't very intelligent.

SP: By "rudimentary consciousness" we should mean "not enough evolved consciousness", or "consciousness which functions not well yet". But, the empirical facts clearly indicate that whatever organism we consider, its behavior, on average, is to the great extent rational, or expediently rational. 

CM: In my theory consciousness is not responsible for most aspects of behaviour. By 'rudimentary' I simply mean that the changes in their qualia do not correspond well to the changes in the sensory stimuli or internal state of the organism they arise in.

SP: One person may say: "I use the hammer to drive the nails into the wooden boards". A second person may say: "I use the hammer to cut the big stones into smaller stones". A third person may add: "I use the hammer to kill the bulls in a slaughterhouse". Does this mean that the hammer evolved? No. We just have different applications of the hammer, while the mechanisms of its functioning remain the same. A hammer is an irreducibly complex machine -- without a handle it will not be a hammer. Even when we use a stone instead of the steel head, our arm plays the role of a handle with a pivot in our elbow or shoulder joints.

CM: An excellent argument against functionalism but not against evolution. The pivoting elbow didn't evolve to swing a hammer but probably to run or swing through trees or lift food to mouth.  Apes then learned to make it a hammer by attaching a stone to the end.  Later hominids improved its efficiency through attaching handle,  etc.

SP: Similarly, consciousness can produce different elements of experience and suggest solutions to different problems, but, in so doing, the mechanisms of consciousness remain unchanged.

CM: In my theory it is the brain that suggests the solutions. Consciousness is only responsible for choosing one of the possibilities through causing an appropriate shift in attention.

Best wishes,
Colin

C.  S.  Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.

https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953

>
>
>

> ________________________________
> From: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
> To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 3, 2017 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness
>
> Dear Serge
>
> You wrote
> [S.P.] It is consciousness which is responsible for illusions
>
> C. M: Agreed.  But in my view our experience of the illusion is only the very last step in a complex brain process that,  for example,  fills in missing data in the case of blind spot, or adjusts the wavelength data in the case of colour constancy, or adds the missing limb in the case of phantom limbs,  etc.  It is the output of these brain processes prior to our experience of it that I was referring to when I was explaining the so-called illusion of consciousness in the same way as these 'everyday illusions'.
>
> You also wrote
> S. P: There is no evolution of consciousness. Every organism, which is alive, must possess the fully "evolved", expediently functional, and equally potent exemplar of consciousness. Why? Because, otherwise, the organism would not be able to stay alive. There is nothing like "rudimentary consciousness" -- the exemplar of consciousness is either present or absent. For the living organism to possess the (permanently updating) model of the outer world (due to activity of own consciousness) is as important as to consume food and to take part in energetic interactions.
>
> C. M.: I do not agree.  But we may be talking about two different things.  For me consciousness is not an internal constantly updating model of the world. I do not, for example,  consider self-driving cars to be conscious. In my view it is a physical entity into which such a model has been encoded. As such, modern evolutionary theory suggests the adaption of that entity would be a gradual process. Therefore rudimentary consciousnesses must have existed in the past and probably still do.
>
> You also wrote
> S. P: Consciousness, as a natural ability, is irreducibly complex: to be consciousness (to perform its functions), it must be in its fully "evolved" form even in biologically simplest forms of life.
>
> C. M: I have heard that argument about the eye and I do not find it convincing. The function I think consciousness was adapted for - injecting controllable randomness into the attention-focusing process - does not require the consciousness to contain any part of the internal model of the world it eventually evolved to have. The brain structures that adapted it gradually evolved to modify its experience in different ways to favour sources of data that were more likely to constitute the most beneficial focus of attention.  And this is what eventually resulted in the amazing organism-like experience we currently enjoy.
>
> You also wrote
> S. P: So, how "data external to consciousness" become turned into "subjective qualities"? How physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience? Just to mention that the sense organs themselves do not create experience -- they only transform the physical signals (e-m radiation, air vibrations, etc.) into physical sensory signals (electric impulses). 
>
> C. M: As I said,  we are a physical entity in the brain. Our different modes of experience are ways in which that physical entity changes as a result of inputs from its neural environment.  Hence just as the sense organs transform the incoming physical signals into electrochemical nerve signals,  the neural environment of our consciousness is affecting the physical system that our consciousness constitutes in response to those signals in a way that generates the associated qualia. It has evolved to do so by natural selection.
>
> [S.P.] Wait. Do you want to say that consciousness does not produce "subjective qualities" but just experiences them?
>
> C. M: Precisely. The only thing it produces is the position of a particle. Its subjective experience is entirely produced by the brain.
>
> S. P.: To the point, your book THE BLIND MINDMAKER is already on my table and I do hope to finish reading it within this month.
>
> C. M: Hope you enjoy the read!
>
> Best wishes,
> Colin
>
>
>

> Вірусів немає. www.avast.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.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1483831630.4258544.1499093232735%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

Metaphysics is fine with me. I have respect for metaphysics and line between physics and metaphysics is getting more and more blurred every day! However, it is not clear how one can do usual physics with metaphysical arguments.

By dumping lot of energy, of course, I did not mean you can produce arbitrary number of particles with arbitrary masses, if you just have enough energy. Masses of particles are unique, but there should be enough available energy to produce particle with the appropriate mass and all other particles accompanying it to satisfy conservation of quantum numbers. When particles are produced in high energy reactions, unless quantum numbers are appropriate, some particles will not be produced. Also some processes have higher probability and some have lower probability. These factors depend on dynamics dictated by forces between the particles. Thus it requires special conditions and that is why it took a long time to find Higgs particle.

Only free (real) particles have the masses we talked about. Thus you start with free particles before reactions and end with free particles in your detectors. They may leave a track or click a counter etc. In between they are described by theory, such as Feynman diagrams (quantum field theory). Intermediate W- bosons may be real (usual mass) or they (or any other particle) may be virtual. Virtual particles are just field effects. They have to satisfy energy, momentum and other quantum number constraints, but not actual masses. These are described as off-mass-shell virtual particles. This is a pictorial way of describing dynamics of quantum field theory and it does work! Real W-boson will decay and you will see the end products. Higgs particle may be produced and decay. But the Higgs field giving masses to particles is always there. So on-mass-shell real particles in the detectors have always masses given in the tables. The masses are not acquired during specific reactions. Whether a particle is stable or unstable is governed by weak interaction dynamics.

“Before coupling with Higgs Field, there was no electron, quarks or even photons as such.” This may not be right. It is possible that zero mass quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons with distinct quantum numbers etc. were created and were roaming at velocity of light when a Higgs field emerged and gave them masses! It is also possible that as particles were created, the supervisor Higgs already present gave them masses one by one!!

Charge and spin are most likely natural realities. But they are assumed before you write Lagrangians for dynamics. So they are properties you start with to describe the particle world. Why only integral and half integral and not any other fraction of spins and why charges of most particles are integral multiples of electronic charge are intriguing questions. Some people have speculated about reasons for these. By the way quarks are supposed to have 1/3 and 2/3 of electronic charge. But they cannot be observed in free state.

Speculations about God’s plan are ok. But since, we do not know what God’s plan is and how he arrived at that plan, we have to simply accept it and see if we can work out the details in our mind. Primitive man could have stopped wondering about thunder and lightning, believing it to be just God’s plan and not trying to find reason for it.  Progress in science would not have been possible if people ascribed everything to God’s plan and stopped thinking about it anymore. I am sure you will agree that belief in God does not mean we should stop looking for reasons for natural phenomena.

It will be good to see if ‘t Hooft is right and other people are wrong. Time will tell. Only thing I was remarking about was that I had not seen any large scale movement towards his ideas. Also, he may be in the process of developing them.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 4, 2017 8:06 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap.

 

Thanks. With your each message, I came to know about the new mechanisms in  Physics. but by nature, I am inquisitive, therefore, it raises new issues also.

 

i) You indicated that dumping of the lot energy in a small area of space/time leads to the creation of a particle of that Field  This process has been termed as  the whacking of the field, as you have indicated.

 

So the next issues arise: Why and by which mechanism, whacking of the Field should take place.

 

ii) Then you indicated that Higgs boson having a mass of 125 GEV is a momentary particle lasting for only 10 -

_22 seconds. When it decays, an unstable W boson having mass and a stable photon are produced. W boson being unstable further decays into electrons and muons. A question arises when Higgs boson decays, why both W boson and Photons don't get mass? why only W boson gets mass, which further decays into electrons and muon, and Photon is escaped from getting mass?

 

A related question also arises why some particles are produced stable while others unstable and what makes a particle stable or  unstable one?

 

III) Then you wrote:

 

In Quantum Field Theory, there is a theoretical construct called Lagrangian. In it you write symbols for fields and coupling constants which translates into various forces. In the case of interaction of other particles and Higgs field, 

 

Which particles? From where and how these particles appeared? Before coupling with Higgs Field, there was no electron, quarks or even photons as such.

 

you take coupling constants proportional to the known masses, which is little bit of cheating! 

 

This is not a bit but total cheating. We wanted to derive masses of the particles as part of some theoretical derivation and we are using those masses, as found experimentally, in coupling constants to develop a theory. In language, this is nothing but paraphrasing

 

Although to be fair, W- Boson masses came out from consistency of electro-weak theory with weak interaction data. Photons had to come out with zero mass to have agreement with electrodynamics.

 

Above explanations are not convincing from a physicist's point of view. It appears that nature had a pre-existing metaphysical plan to produce e.m field and weak field, therefore,  photon came with zero mass to be inconsistent with e.m field and W  Boson with mass to remain consistent with weak fields. Either the Physicists should agree to some metaphysical plan of God that e.m fields and weak fields are destined to arise, therefore, photons came out with zero mass while W bosons came out with some mass but unstable OR they should come out with some physical mechanism before the decay of the Higgs particle   due to which photons don't get mass but W boson gets mass but unstable.

 

 Particles are not created or destroyed theoretically until you apply these operators to quantum states. While writing Lagrangians you assume charges and spins of particles. Thus they are not theoretically predicted.

 

But are charge and spin not the practical and inherent realities of particles in nature? Are these merely theoretical assumptions in QM? If these are the practical realities,  a natural query will be how and by which mechanism particles acquired charges and spins?

 

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

iv) Again you wrote:

 

Distinction between matter and force particles comes from the behavior of fields corresponding to various particles, under the mathematical operations called gauge transformations. Presumably this Gauginess is involved when particles are created out of pure energy. Higgs field was kind of supervisor when particle production was going on!

 

Again, I think, the explanation for the distinction between matter particles and force particles going to differences in the behavior of the respective fields amount to paraphrasing the problem. I think it is accepted in Physics that primordially all the 4 or maybe 5 fields were welded in one primordial field which split into  4 fields ( or maybe 5) at different energy levels. So if we want to have some explanation from the Physicist's perspective, we should ask what was the mechanism at the primordial field level due to which the primordial field split into different fields, HAVING DIFFERENT BEHAOUR, at different energy levels. However, if we want to have a metaphysical view that as per God's plan, matter and force particles were destined to take birth to sustain the universe, therefore, different fields having DIFFERENT BEHAVIOURS came out at the different energy level.

 

Anyhow, I hold the metaphysical view.

 

 

 But it is not clear how particular values of masses came out. Lot of Nobel Prizes are waiting for people who can explain these!

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

  

v) Again, requirement of conscious observers to collapse of wave function is not universally accepted. It is interesting to know that  ‘t Hooft agrees with Sankhya philosophy. I wonder if he know that?!

 

Leave away the conscious observer. How a deterministic physical system ( to serve as an apparatus) in the primordial universe in the presence of stochasticity which could cause the collapse of the wave function. Hooft might not have known about Saankhya philosophy but no wonder two unrelated people spread by time and territory may arrive at the same conclusion

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

These discussions have been useful to me. In fact they are making me curious to look up the literature to find out if researchers have made any progress in estimating the time sequence of the first minute. I will let you know if I find something new. As I said, there are no experiments to guide. So only thing to go by will be mathematical and theoretical consistency with previously accepted theories. It is of course possible that Higgs field was present before creation of particles. Then only photons and gravitons would be created with zero mass. But then without particles, talk about 4 interactions or even a grand unified interaction will be confined to presence of various fields only. That could be the case. Currently Higgs field is present. So when you create an electron-positron pair in your detector (tracks etc.) they will not have zero masses for sure. Anyway all this is gradually unfolding. The models about the first minute are controversial to say the least. Only thing physicists agree on is that we need quantum fields to get the universe we are familiar with!

Present day physics is based on sensory experiments and mathematical models (made of course in your mind!). Whether you can find out about nature by pure meditation is an interesting question. As I mentioned in my article, lot of metaphysical thinking about quantum theory turned out to be right in agreement with modern physics. But most physicists would not agree that without experiments there is a reliable way to find out about nature. Time will tell.

 

Then there are also wrong beliefs in Hindu religion. Everything written in Shastras is not right.  Reminds me about a controversy I am involved with our local temple administration (with some scientists and engineers!). This is about closing the temple at the time of eclipse because of the belief about Rahu and Ketu grasping sun and moon! I told the administrators that this is making us a laughing stock with the American society at this day and age! They say that we have to do what the priests say, otherwise they will be unhappy!! So the lesson is: one has to be careful about Shastras! Admittedly, so also about science! I will read carefully your debate with Vimalji and ask you and Vimalji questions.

About dumping of energy: The field may be present with low average energy, but more energy may be required to create particles or waves. This would be similar to TV stations increasing power to the antennas in TV towers to send electromagnetic waves.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 6:29 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear kashyap,

 

Metaphysics is fine with me. I have respect for metaphysics and line between physics and metaphysics is getting more and more blurred every day! However, it is not clear how one can do usual physics with metaphysical arguments.

 

I was asking for the physical explanations only. However when you mentioned that on breakdown of electroweak symmetry at 246GeV by Higgs Field,  appearance of a photon with zero mass and an unstable W boson ( which decays to electrons and muons) is consistent with the observed e.m forces and weak forces, this did not indicate any physical reasons behind the appearance of the massless photons and unstable W boson. When you say that massless photon and unstable W boson with mass appear to preserve consistency of the e.m and weak forces, then I raised the issue of the metaphysicality. It gives the impressions that nature was destined to produce e.m and weak forces, that is why it produced massless photon and unstable W boson.

By dumping lot of energy, of course, I did not mean you can produce arbitrary number of particles with arbitrary masses, if you just have enough energy. Masses of particles are unique, but there should be enough available energy to produce particle with the appropriate mass and all other particles accompanying it to satisfy conservation of quantum numbers. When particles are produced in high energy reactions, unless quantum numbers are appropriate, some particles will not be produced. Also some processes have higher probability and some have lower probability. These factors depend on dynamics dictated by forces between the particles. Thus it requires special conditions and that is why it took a long time to find Higgs particle.

 

I had raised the issue of why dumping of energy in a field ( whacking of the field) should take place at all? From the physics point of view, there should be some physical reasons behind whacking?

Only free (real) particles have the masses we talked about. Thus you start with free particles before reactions and end with free particles in your detectors. They may leave a track or click a counter etc. In between they are described by theory, such as Feynman diagrams (quantum field theory). Intermediate W- bosons may be real (usual mass) or they (or any other particle) may be virtual. Virtual particles are just field effects. They have to satisfy energy, momentum and other quantum number constraints, but not actual masses. These are described as off-mass-shell virtual particles. This is a pictorial way of describing dynamics of quantum field theory and it does work! Real W-boson will decay and you will see the end products. Higgs particle may be produced and decay. But the Higgs field giving masses to particles is always there. So on-mass-shell real particles in the detectors have always masses given in the tables. The masses are not acquired during specific reactions. Whether a particle is stable or unstable is governed by weak interaction dynamics.

“Before coupling with Higgs Field, there was no electron, quarks or even photons as such.” This may not be right. It is possible that zero mass quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons with distinct quantum numbers etc. were created and were roaming at velocity of light when a Higgs field emerged and gave them masses!

 

What was the mechanism and Field by which massless quarks, leptons and gauge bosons were produced before coupling with the Higgs Field? you had indicated that before the electroweak symmetry breaking with the Higgs Field, photons and w boson existed as a multiplet. On interaction with Higgs field, this multiplet split into a massless photon and unstable W boson decaying into electrons and muons. It means elctrons and photons had appeared only after the breaking of the electroweak symmetry. So where is the place for the existence of leptons, quarks and bosons before the interaction with the Higgs field?

 

Even if we assume that zero mass leptons, quarks, and bosons roamed freely and propagated with speed of light and when Higgs Field emerged, it started endowing masses to these free particles, it does not address the following issues

 

i) Why only leptons got masses and bosons were escaped from getting masses?

 

ii) Why Higgs Field gave differential masses to different leptons having no inter-lepton relation at all?

 

 It is also possible that as particles were created, the supervisor Higgs already present gave them masses one by one!!

 

But issue is how different particles were created and from which field?

 

Charge and spin are most likely natural realities.

 

If charge and spin are the inherent natural realities, there will some mechanism by which charge and spin are endowed to the particles the way Higgs Field endows mass to the particles. What was that mechanism?

 

Then before the endowment of the mass, charge, and spin, what were the particles and how to describe those particles?

 

 But they are assumed before you write Lagrangians for dynamics. So they are properties you start with to describe the particle world. 

 

Why only integral and half integral and not any other fraction of spins and why charges of most particles are integral multiples of electronic charge are intriguing questions. Some people have speculated about reasons for these. By the way quarks are supposed to have 1/3 and 2/3 of electronic charge. But they cannot be observed in free state.

 

Speculations about God’s plan are ok. But since, we do not know what God’s plan is and how he arrived at that plan, we have to simply accept it and see if we can work out the details in our mind. Primitive man could have stopped wondering about thunder and lightning, believing it to be just God’s plan and not trying to find reason for it.  Progress in science would not have been possible if people ascribed everything to God’s plan and stopped thinking about it anymore. I am sure you will agree that belief in God does not mean we should stop looking for reasons for natural phenomena.

 

People should continue to study nature in all its physical forms. It is not that people who believed God sat idle and continued to trust the god's plan. They entered the state of  Samaadhi and found that apart from the physical world, there are the ontological realities of the Astral Realm of nature having quite different space/time and laws of nature. They also found how the physical derivatives of the physical world viz atoms and molecules emerged out from Tanmaatras in the Austral Realm. Then they also found a  self-contained cosmic consciousness energizing all the Astral and Physical entities. 

It will be good to see if ‘t Hooft is right and other people are wrong. Time will tell. Only thing I was remarking about was that I had not seen any large scale movement towards his ideas. Also, he may be in the process of developing them.

 

 Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

[John Jay Kineman]

In R-theory the "information factors" would be the two epistemological archetypes of the system, structure and function. Which, mathematically are "functors" in category theory mediating the boundary constraint between contextual information 'models' and dynamics (function), and the exemplary event information that establishes such  natural models (like an ecological niche).

Sent from my iPhone

--
----------------------------
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/1315459259.3548678.1499013220751%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<Sadhu_Sanga-post_2-06-2017.txt>

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi John,

Can you elaborate your thoughts in more detail so that I can understand them ?

Thanks in advance.

Sung

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:17 PM, John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu> wrote:

In R-theory the "information factors" would be the two epistemological archetypes of the system, structure and function. Which, mathematically are "functors" in category theory mediating the boundary constraint between contextual information 'models' and dynamics (function), and the exemplary event information that establishes such  natural models (like an ecological niche).

Sent from my iPhone

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

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/1315459259.3548678.1499013220751%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<Sadhu_Sanga-post_2-06-2017.txt>

--

----------------------------
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.

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/617466CF-D24B-4A70-991D-F2FF0FB6F3AC%40colorado.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli]

I agree explaining consciousness needs a different meta theory from physics etc those that explain the physical nature of the world. I also agree that first person approach holds more promise in approaching the subject. However to my mind the first challenge is what would be the acceptable modes of explanation that validate such a theory of consciousness?

Shankar

On Saturday, July 1, 2017 7:22 AM, "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

> But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the 

>Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind.

<skip>

> I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of 

>Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual 

>consciousness.

.

[S.P.] I consider scientific discipline as a collection of applied theories. An applied theory, unlike a meta-theory (or philosophic "theory", ontological "theory", etc.) must possess certain explanatory and predictive power, be testable, reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable, etc. Moreover, for there to be a scientific discipline, the problem of intersubjectivity in this research field has to be solved. 

.

In Physics, when we apply the third-person approach, the problem of intersubjectivity is basically solved, and when one physicist talks about piezoelectricity or birefringence, the other physicists understand well what is being talked about. So, I call "cognitive environment" a big group of researchers (or thinkers) in a certain research field for whom the problem of intersubjectivity is solved.

.

However, when studying consciousness, the most promising is a first-person approach. It is when the individual researcher tries to construct an applied theory of consciousness being based on a set of personally experienced consciousness-related phenomena. In so doing, the other researchers may not experience the phenomena that the given researcher experiences, and, in result, the problem of intersubjectivity stays unsolved.

.

Second. To do science means to apply the methods and models which correspond to the nature of the object of study. The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored. 

.

So, for there to be a Science of Consciousness, the problem of intersubjectivity has to be solved and the appropriate methods and models which correspond to informational nature of the object of study have to be constructed. I have my own solutions and I am looking for other thinkers (theoreticians) who have got their solutions as well -- we need to form a cognitive environment in this field.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>

To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Serge--

I fully agree with your first paragraph.

But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind. That philosophy reaches back at least as far as the Chandogya Upanishad, but most Western professors of philosophy -- not all of whom deserve the title "Philosopher" by any means -- seem to think that it was all obscurity before Descartes began to meditate on it. Of course, almost all Western professors of philosophy who write books (Daniel Dennett is a good example) think they have gone far past Descartes, in the direction OPPOSITE Hindu philosopy!

And so, while agree with everything in your second paragraph before the dash that begins your last sentence, I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual consciousness. Some Hindus on this list might claim that my perception of my individual consciousness is an illusion. However, they need to account for that alleged illusion in a way similar to the way our ordinary everyday illusions (a blue dome above our heads on a cloudless day, a rainbow as something that has a definable end, etc.) are accounted for.

I must admit I haven't been following more than a small percentage of emails that emanate from Sadhu Sanga, so I may have missed such an account. If so, I would appreciate being made aware of one.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:59 PM

To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

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/1684522783.2664924.1498872030738%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Whit Blauvelt]

In life, consciousness is largely developed in the second person, as the
child joins the parent in conjoint attention to the world, or the student
joins the teacher.

The notions that consciousness is to be properly explained from either the
first person or the third person view, then, is claiming that the view which
best captures it is other than the view which best develops it.

Whit

[Jennifer Nielsen]

It would be fun to write a sci fi story in which biological consciousness was the creation of intelligent viruses from another universe. (seems about as reasonable as panspermia lmao)

[0909.1469] Toward Quantum Superposition of Living Organisms

MIT team genetically engineers a quantum virus for efficient energy transport - ExtremeTech

[0909.1469] Toward Quantum Superposition of Living Organisms

MIT team genetically engineers a quantum virus for efficient energy transpo... Researchers have genetically engineered viruses to exploit quantum coherence effects for more efficient harvesti...

Are Viruses Alive?
Viruses ARE Alive, And They’re Older Than Modern Cells, New Study Suggests

Viruses ARE Alive, And They’re Older Than Modern Cells, New Study Suggests By Fiona MacDonald Viruses have a huge impact on our lives, and we're making great strides into understanding how to protect ou...

Are Viruses Alive? By Luis P. Villarreal Although viruses challenge our concept of what "living" means, they are vital members of the web of life

---

From: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 3:49 AM

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Because the scientific study of consciousness is such an important topic, I owe you a few quick words on questions you have asked, even though I will not have full Internet access for many days now.

Someone suggested -- science has not reached consensus on what systems are conscious and what are not. That is an understatement. At the cutting edge, people understand that none of the interesting variables hinted at by the fuzzy word consciousness are binary variables. Whenever someone asks "Is it conscious or is it not?" or "when did life on earth cross the (sharp) line between consciousness and unconsciousness," I cringe. My paper from 1999, in yasue's book and arxiv, elaborates.

Gene expression is part of course of the level of consciousness achieved just by brain organization. But many of us have reason to believe that higher levels of consciousness also exist, not always manifested in mundane struggles.

Best of luck,

Paul

On Jun 25, 2017 8:43 AM, "Vasavada, Kashyap V" <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod,

In biology there is a technical name for this phenomenon - Gene Expression. I know very little about the mechanism. Perhaps biologists themselves are in the process of learning about it. Sometime later, I will talk to a biologist on our campus about progress in this field. If you are interested, perhaps you can also do the same thing in a nearby campus . As for the second e-mail, as I mentioned before, the whole area of wave function collapse is controversial. One point is that, in principle, everything we see is quantum mechanical. There is no such thing as purely classical except as an approximation to quantum mechanical system. Then the problem is:  how can  one quantum system  participate in collapse of another quantum system? So people tried to bring in consciousness, as something outside materially quantum mechanical. What happened before sentient beings were around is also a thorny problem!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodsehgal1955@gmail. com]
Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 3:50 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

By why do genes turn on or off in different species? For example, you have stated that difference in the presence of genes in chimpanzee and humans is less than 1% but the difference in their mental development, intelligence and behavior is astronomical. This could be explained due to the turning on or off the mechanism of genes. But why such turn on or off mechanism set in?

 

Consciousness also turns on or off or manifest differently  in different species due to the difference in their biological developments particularly the brain structures.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear KSRAO,

First, scientists have not agreed on the definition of consciousness! And before they can explain it “ in simple terms to non-scientists” they have to understand it themselves!! Of course, even how life arises from atoms is not clear. That is why there are all these endless debates.

By the way I have one argument in favor of possibility that atoms or particles  may have some rudimentary consciousness. Biologists now know that the difference in genes between chimpanzee and humans may be at the most one percent. But genes can be turned on or off. That is what makes us different. Similarly, perhaps consciousness can be turned on or off.  Of course I cannot prove that. Otherwise I will buy a ticket to Stockholm to collect my Nobel Prize!!

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_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/ b3ba27e145234f8899b56f15b20b4d 89%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_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/CACLqmgc2nT-AMEXrDWHYY_gavNJsRwOYRD1a5UMCaGfc3gXOFw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jennifer Nielsen]

Says Sung: To me, all "informations" are the results of some selection process driven by free energy dissipation.  ---> close to the Shannon entropy interpretation

My own interpretation of information that I am developing right now is slightly different.

To me, information is always some variant of morse code  and doesn't actually convey meaning, but that can be encoded or decoded by a conscious entity (or via accidents/coincidences).

Semiotic meaning is something quite different and I suspect arises in quanglements.

I recommend Jaegger's books Quantum Information: An Overview and Entanglement, Information and Interpretation. Also Gennaro Auletta's "Cognitive Biology" and his massive book on quantum interpretations. Those four books and the books on "Quantum [Un]Speakables" I and II are good launching points for quantum info discussions and overlaps with consciousness.

Kauffman's ideas on agents are interesting but I think still infant-stage.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/stuart_a_kauffman-the-adjacent-possible

---

From: Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 4:31 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Hi Serge,

A nice summary of your metatheory.

You said,

"The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored."

I have two questions:

(1) How do you define "informational factor" ?

(2) In physics, particles cannot decide how to behave, but the experimenter can decide which of the possible experiments on, say, light to perform thereby affecting the result of the experiment.  Isn't this an example of "informaitonal factor"?  If not, why not ?

To me, all "informations" are the results of some selection process driven by free energy dissipation.  When quantifiable, such selection processes often produce long-tailed histograms, as compared to the normal distribution which is the reslut of random actions. I found that many long-tailed histograms fit PDE (Planckian Distribution Equaiton) regardless of the field of research, ranging from atomic physics (i.e., blackbody radiation) to protein folding, enzyme catalysis, cell metabolism, brain neurohemodynamcis as measured with fMRI (functional Magnetic Resoance Imaging), psychophysics (e.g., decision making), linguistics, econophysics and to cosmology. Such selecting processes are referred to as the Planckian processes [1-3].  

Thus, it may well be that all Plankian priocesses can be said to involve information,

All the best.

Sung

References:

Ji, S. (2016). WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES.  Symmetry: Science and Culture 27 (2): 99-127 (2016). http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_SymmetryFestival_2016.pdf

Ji, S. (2015). Planckian distributions in molecular machines, living cells, and brains: The wave-particle duality in biomedical sciences.  In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biology and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, March 15-17, 2015. Pp. 115-137.
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_2015.pdf

Ji, S. (2015). PLANCKIAN INFORMATION (IP): A NEW MEASURE OF ORDER IN ATOMS, ENZYMES, CELLS, BRAINS, HUMAN SOCIETIES, AND THE COSMOS.  In: Unified Field Mechanics: Natural Science beyond the Veil of Spacetime (Amoroso, R., Rowlands, P., and Kauffman, L. eds.), World Scientific, New Jersey, 2015, pp. 579-589)
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_2015.pdf

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 9:20 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

> But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the 

>Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind.

<skip>

> I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of 

>Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual 

>consciousness.

.

[S.P.] I consider scientific discipline as a collection of applied theories. An applied theory, unlike a meta-theory (or philosophic "theory", ontological "theory", etc.) must possess certain explanatory and predictive power, be testable, reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable, etc. Moreover, for there to be a scientific discipline, the problem of intersubjectivity in this research field has to be solved. 

.

In Physics, when we apply the third-person approach, the problem of intersubjectivity is basically solved, and when one physicist talks about piezoelectricity or birefringence, the other physicists understand well what is being talked about. So, I call "cognitive environment" a big group of researchers (or thinkers) in a certain research field for whom the problem of intersubjectivity is solved.

.

However, when studying consciousness, the most promising is a first-person approach. It is when the individual researcher tries to construct an applied theory of consciousness being based on a set of personally experienced consciousness-related phenomena. In so doing, the other researchers may not experience the phenomena that the given researcher experiences, and, in result, the problem of intersubjectivity stays unsolved.

.

Second. To do science means to apply the methods and models which correspond to the nature of the object of study. The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored. 

.

So, for there to be a Science of Consciousness, the problem of intersubjectivity has to be solved and the appropriate methods and models which correspond to informational nature of the object of study have to be constructed. I have my own solutions and I am looking for other thinkers (theoreticians) who have got their solutions as well -- we need to form a cognitive environment in this field.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:45 PM

Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Serge--

I fully agree with your first paragraph.

But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind. That philosophy reaches back at least as far as the Chandogya Upanishad, but most Western professors of philosophy -- not all of whom deserve the title "Philosopher" by any means -- seem to think that it was all obscurity before Descartes began to meditate on it. Of course, almost all Western professors of philosophy who write books (Daniel Dennett is a good example) think they have gone far past Descartes, in the direction OPPOSITE Hindu philosopy!

And so, while agree with everything in your second paragraph before the dash that begins your last sentence, I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual consciousness. Some Hindus on this list might claim that my perception of my individual consciousness is an illusion. However, they need to account for that alleged illusion in a way similar to the way our ordinary everyday illusions (a blue dome above our heads on a cloudless day, a rainbow as something that has a definable end, etc.) are accounted for.

I must admit I haven't been following more than a small percentage of emails that emanate from Sadhu Sanga, so I may have missed such an account. If so, I would appreciate being made aware of one.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:59 PM

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com

Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

-

Kashyap Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

>Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in

> the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, 

>something did not come out of nothing!!

.

[S.P.] For anything to exist, there must be a concrete place, or a volume of space, where it exists. In the beginning there was no space, no vacuum, therefore nothing could be said to exist in the beginning. However, if we start from presuming the existence of "quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations", then it is the same as to assert that a tree has evolved from a seed -- an enough trivial statement.  

.

[Kashyap Vasavada] wrote:

> Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. ... Speculations

> on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

.

[S.P.] Then the "Big-Bang theory" and "Multiverse theory" should be treated as philosophic theories which bear no relation to Physics. I agree. I would also add that Physics should also stop trying to account for consciousness, since it is not its subject matter -- it is a subject matter for the Science of Consciousness as a new scientific discipline.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

--
----------------------------
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.
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/ 1684522783.2664924. 1498872030738%40mail.yahoo.com .

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--

Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833

www.conformon.net

--
----------------------------
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/CA%2B9VsvM4-g7OY-cG5sA5rAkZ3M-GTof32wQUZyUECa%3DF90Q%3DGw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jennifer Nielsen]

That's actually psychologically interesting. My mentor Keith Ashman (globular clusters guy) played around in his fiction that consciousness can only exist in dyad.

---

From: Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
To: "'ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 8:32 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

--
----------------------------
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_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/20170707131701.GA27618%40black.transpect.com.

[ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli]

Not sure I understand, hence seeking some clarity -

"consciousness is largely developed in the second person"

1. What is meant by consciousness developing? Is it known for a fact that consciousness develops? Or is this a reference to someone becoming increasingly "conscious"? The reference here is the one that is bearing consciousness but not consciousness itself, if I get it right?

2. What is meant by consciousness developing in the second person? Is this a general observation or wrt a frame of witness vs object? If it is about adopting a witness frame, then consciousness itself needs to be categorized into witness and consumer frames, which is a fundamental epistemic distinction that needs to be made even before consciousness can be discussed.

Shankar

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli on July 7, 2017 wrote:

>However to my mind the first challenge is what would be the 

>acceptable modes of explanation that validate such a theory 

>of consciousness?

.

[S.P.] What are "modes of explanation"? Maybe, "models"? And, "acceptable" for whom? The case is that I consider objective criteria that can be used to assess the quality of the constructed applied theory. So, the given applied theory is good NOT because somebody thinks it is good. And, what it means "to validate"? A model does not "validate" -- it is an experimental testing that "validates". 

.

And why it is "a challenge"? A certain solution already exists. A "challenge" consists, rather, in that the others have to try to understand the existing solution. Can you, please, reformulate your question so that it has an answerable form?

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:36 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

[Whit Blauvelt]

Hi Shankar,

Admittedly I'm making claims which require evidence and argument. They
aren't original, but in the context of discussion here which has focused
mostly on 1st and 3rd perspectives, worth bringing in at least for balance.

On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 03:16:14AM +0000, 'ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli'

via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
wrote:

> Not sure I understand, hence seeking some clarity -
>
> "consciousness is largely developed in the second person"
>
> 1. What is meant by consciousness developing? Is it known for a fact that
> consciousness develops? Or is this a reference to someone becoming increasingly
> "conscious"? The reference here is the one that is bearing consciousness but
> not consciousness itself, if I get it right?

The level I'm speaking at here is that of developmental psychology. The
human individual's consciousness develops in a social context. That context
is importantly one of frequent joint attention, where the baby or child and
the caregiver or friend both attend in the same direction at the same time.
Arguably various spiritual traditions in which transmission of mind, in a
context of student and teacher being together, is held to be more important
than book learning, are also emphasizing second-person over third-person
perspectives for the development of consciousness. While the legend of
Gautama's solitary attainment of enlightenment would be first-person, it is
the second-person transmission of his insight that many Buddhist schools
emphasize. There have been similar claims here about the importance of the
teacher-student relationship.

> 2. What is meant by consciousness developing in the second person? Is this a
> general observation or wrt a frame of witness vs object? If it is about
> adopting a witness frame, then consciousness itself needs to be categorized
> into witness and consumer frames, which is a fundamental epistemic distinction
> that needs to be made even before consciousness can be discussed.

Okay, you've lost me. Joint attention is a co-witnessing. We gain our own
presence through the presence of others. Darshan would be an example; so is
any I-Thou sharing of presence (such as Martin Buber described). To my
thinking the third-person perspective emerges from the second-person. If
enough people look conjointly in the same direction, and have a congruent
set of observations, that's third-person triangulation on "objective" truth.
The first-person point of view, on the other hand, is a sort of degenerate
second-person perspective, typically characterized by inner dialog in which
we strive for the benefits of combining perspectives with another by
pretending to be multiple within ourselves.

Best,
Whit

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

I am curious. Are you retired or still working? Where do you work or were working?

We can always specify time in our reference frame which is moving away from the possible singularity with the expansion of the universe. In this frame it has been some 13.8 B years since big bang. Thus the first minute in our frame has a unique meaning. If there is something new in this area I will let you know. The scenario is still under discussion.

Rahu, Ketu concept is just old superstitious concept. In fact it is surprising why our Puranas have stuck to this. In ancient India, there were very good astronomers and mathematicians such as two Bhaskaracharyas, Varahmihir, Aryabhatta and others. They knew about the fact that the earth goes round the sun rather than the sun going round the earth , precession of equinoxes , approximate distances of sun and moon etc. But no one bothered to change or could change belief in Rahu, Ketu!!

About energy and creation of particles: One thing I should emphasize. In addition to mass, particles have several other quantum numbers such as charge (properties if you wish to call them).There are some conservation laws which initial and final states have to satisfy. For example, the total charge of the initial system has to be equal to the total charge of the final system. Then there are some more complicated conservation laws. Thus once energy is available and conservation of quantum numbers is possible then particles will be produced. This happens routinely in accelerators such as LHC and it happened at the beginning of the universe. As far as physicists are concerned, there is no mystery. As we discussed before, mass-energy are equivalent by E=mc^2. This goes both ways, left to right and  right to left . When energy is available masses are produced and when masses disappear energy is produced (as in atom bomb for example).

The general belief is that as fields came up, interaction also came up. That served as antenna!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 1:39 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks for your message. Though I had done PG in Physics long ago but Physics has never remained my profession. However, spirituality and Physics/Cosmology have been two area in which I have remained interested and curious right from my childhood. You are having a long standing in the area of studies and research in Physics in US universities, therefore,  I continue to raise queries to you in order to broaden and refine my knowledge.

 

I wonder what might have happened in the Ist minute when all the matter and energy of observable universe gushed out in a jerk with all the space/minutes from nowhere. This also makes me think if the Ist minute of the primordial universe was really same as the one minute of our present universe or something else. When I don't find any satisfactory and clear answer for these queries in the current Physics ( since majority of the Physicists say that state of the Ist minute in the primordial universe is beyond scientific scrutiny), this makes me think in terms of the Vedic/Upanishadic/Saankhya philosophy which indicates of the manifestation of the stuff of the physical world from one Astral World. But what is the Astral world? In the language of the Saankhya Philosophy, the Astral world can be well understood as well observed vividly in the state of  Samaadhi. But in terms of the terminology of the current Science/physics, there is no clarity on this part of nature. This might be a parallel world to our physical world which might yet not have been discovered by now.

 

The plausibility of the creation of various matter and force particles with zero mass and propagating with the speed of light can't be ruled out but there no clarity on the mechanism by which such particles might have been created before the appearance of the Higgs field. Then you had indicated l that difference in the matter and force particles lies in the difference in the behavior of the respective Fields from which such particles manifest. It means before the manifestation of the  Higgs Field, respective Fields from which matter and force particles with zero mass should be present. But this makes the whole picture w.r.t different fields very confusing. It means that before the manifestation of the Higgs Fields, there should be the presence of

 

i) Inflation field ii) Cosmological constant or dark energy Field iii) Field from which force particles with zero mass will take birth iv) Field from which matter particles with zero mass  shall take birth and then v) Higgs field

 

But there is no clarity of the mechanism and sequence by which above fields will manifest.

 

If there has been a long tradition of the closing temple during the eclipse when Rahu or Ketu might eat Sun and Moon, there could be some scientific reasons behind this with which we might be unaware of.  We might be unaware of the meanings  Sun, Moon, Rahu Ketu in the context of the eclipse.  Anyhow, these traditions are the religious traditions and have nothing to do with metaphysics. or spirituality.

 

I understand that in the context of the whacking of a field, Field may be present with the average low energy and dumping of energy 9 presence of more energy) may require in some area of space/time to create particles from that Field. But a question is what were the physical reasons for the dumping of energy. Physicists may speak in terms of symmetry breaking but that will amount to paraphrasing the issue since then the issue will arise what were the physical reasons behind symmetry breaking? When I don't find any satisfactory physical reasons, that make me think in the metaphysical terms that since the creation of the particles was necessary for the creation, symmetry breaking was incorporated as an inherent feature by God since in His scheme, Universe was destined to come into existence.

 

In the case of a TV antenna, it is understood that when the e.m field will interact with it, some dumping of energy may take place due to interaction and a particle ( photon) may manifest.

But in the case of primordial fields, from where a deterministic physical system could appear, which could serve as a physical apparatus akin to TV antenna, for the dumping of the energy and the creation of a particle from the field?  

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Jennifer,

My responses to your "comments" are in red:

Says Sung: To me, all "informations" are the results of some selection process driven by free energy dissipation.  ---> "close to the Shannon entropy interpretation"

Agreed.

"My own interpretation of information that I am developing right now is slightly different.  To me, information is always some variant of morse code  and doesn't actually convey meaning, but that can be encoded or decoded by a conscious entity (or via accidents/coincidences)."

I disagree.  To me, Morse code is not information itself but a necessary condition for transmitting information from the source to the receiver via a sign.  The proper relation between Morse code and information cannt be defined (in my opinion) without utilizing the 3-node network in Figure 1 which I suggest represent the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) of Peirce and the commutative triangle of category theory.

                            f                      g

           Source ------->  Sign  -------> Receiver

               |                                                  ^
               |                                                   |
               |__________________________________|

                                         h

Figure 1.  Communication as an irreducibly triadic process whose complete description requiring 3 nodes and 3 edges forming a closed network.  

 In other words, it is impossible to define what information is without defining the communication system (which implicates at least the 6 elements of the ITR network shown in Figure 1, Morse code being a necessary condition for Step h), just as it is impossible to define thermodynamic entropy without defining the thermodynamic system involved, i.e., open, closed or isolated. 

"Semiotic meaning is something quite different and I suspect arises in quanglements."

I agree.  It may well turn out that quantum entanglement can be represented as an example of Step h in the ITR network.  If this can be proven in the future, quantum mechanics may become a branch of semiotics, in agreement with the prediction  made by Brian Josephson who stated that semiotics will take over quantum mechanics just as quantum mechanics took over classical mechanics (https://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2277379), which statement I elected to refer to as the Josephson conjecture in [1]).

In passing I may point out that the following three kinds of consciousnesses (Consci) described by Penrose and Hameroff in [2] may also be fitted into the ITR with the following suggested identifications (other identifications are also possible):  

(A) Consciousness = Step f;
(B) Consciousness = Cosmological Consciousness;
(C) Consciousness = Step f.

                                      f                                    g

Cosmological Consci. ----> Manifest Consci.  ----> Theorized Consci. 

             |                                                                                 ^
             |                                                                                  |

             |                                                                                  |

             |______________________________________________________|

                                                     h

Figure 2.  Consciousness as an ITR (Irrreducible Triadic Relation).  f = natural process; g = mental process; h = grounding or information flow or entanglement (?).

(A) Consciousness is not an independent quality but arose as a natural evolutionary consequence of the biological adaptation of brains and nervous systems. The most popular scientific view is that consciousness emerged as a property of complex biological computation during the course of evolution. Opinions vary as to when, where and how consciousness appeared, e.g. only recently in humans, or earlier in lower organisms. Consciousness as evolutionary adaptation is commonly assumed to be epiphenomenal (i.e. a secondary effect without independent influence), though it is frequently argued to confer beneficial advantages to conscious species (Dennett, 1991; 1995; Wegner, 2002).

(B) Consciousness is a quality that has always been in the universe. Spiritual and religious approaches assume consciousness has been in the universe all along, e.g. as the 'ground of being', 'creator' or component of an omnipresent 'God'. Panpsychists attribute consciousness to all matter. Idealists contend consciousness is all that exists, the material world an illusion (Kant, 1781).

(C) Precursors of consciousness have always been in the universe; biology evolved a mechanism to convert conscious precursors to actual consciousness. This is the view implied by Whitehead (1929; 1933) and taken in the Penrose-Hameroff theory of 'orchestrated objective reduction' ('Orch OR'). Precursors of consciousness, presumably with proto-experiential qualities, are proposed to exist as the potential ingredients of actual consciousness, the physical basis of these proto-conscious elements not necessarily being part of our current theories of the laws of the universe (Penrose and Hameroff, 1995; Hameroff and Penrose, 1996a; 1996b).

With all the best.

Sung

References:

    [1] Ji, S. (2017).  The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter.

World Scientific, New Jersey (in press).
   [2] Penrose, R. and Hameroff, S. (2011).  Consciousness in the Universe: 

Neuroscience, Quantum Space-Time Geometry and Orch OR Theory. Journal of Cosmology Vol. 14.  http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html

"

On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 10:15 PM, 'Jennifer Nielsen' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Says Sung: To me, all "informations" are the results of some selection process driven by free energy dissipation.  ---> close to the Shannon entropy interpretation

My own interpretation of information that I am developing right now is slightly different.

To me, information is always some variant of morse code  and doesn't actually convey meaning, but that can be encoded or decoded by a conscious entity (or via accidents/coincidences).

Semiotic meaning is something quite different and I suspect arises in quanglements.

I recommend Jaegger's books Quantum Information: An Overview and Entanglement, Information and Interpretation. Also Gennaro Auletta's "Cognitive Biology" and his massive book on quantum interpretations. Those four books and the books on "Quantum [Un]Speakables" I and II are good launching points for quantum info discussions and overlaps with consciousness.

Kauffman's ideas on agents are interesting but I think still infant-stage.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/stuart_a_kauffman-the-adjacent-possible

---

From: Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 1, 2017 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Hi Serge,

A nice summary of your metatheory.

You said,

"The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored."

I have two questions:

(1) How do you define "informational factor" ?

(2) In physics, particles cannot decide how to behave, but the experimenter can decide which of the possible experiments on, say, light to perform thereby affecting the result of the experiment.  Isn't this an example of "informaitonal factor"?  If not, why not ?

To me, all "informations" are the results of some selection process driven by free energy dissipation.  When quantifiable, such selection processes often produce long-tailed histograms, as compared to the normal distribution which is the reslut of random actions. I found that many long-tailed histograms fit PDE (Planckian Distribution Equaiton) regardless of the field of research, ranging from atomic physics (i.e., blackbody radiation) to protein folding, enzyme catalysis, cell metabolism, brain neurohemodynamcis as measured with fMRI (functional Magnetic Resoance Imaging), psychophysics (e.g., decision making), linguistics, econophysics and to cosmology. Such selecting processes are referred to as the Planckian processes [1-3].  

Thus, it may well be that all Plankian priocesses can be said to involve information,

All the best.

Sung

References:

Ji, S. (2016). WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES.  Symmetry: Science and Culture 27 (2): 99-127 (2016). http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_SymmetryFestival_2016.pdf

Ji, S. (2015). Planckian distributions in molecular machines, living cells, and brains: The wave-particle duality in biomedical sciences.  In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biology and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, March 15-17, 2015. Pp. 115-137.
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_2015.pdf

Ji, S. (2015). PLANCKIAN INFORMATION (IP): A NEW MEASURE OF ORDER IN ATOMS, ENZYMES, CELLS, BRAINS, HUMAN SOCIETIES, AND THE COSMOS.  In: Unified Field Mechanics: Natural Science beyond the Veil of Spacetime (Amoroso, R., Rowlands, P., and Kauffman, L. eds.), World Scientific, New Jersey, 2015, pp. 579-589)
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_2015.pdf

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/CA%2B9VsvM4-g7OY-cG5sA5rAkZ3M-GTof32wQUZyUECa%3DF90Q%3DGw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

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/1373563766.982782.1499480125790%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Paul Werbos]

Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
wrote:

Arguably various spiritual traditions in which transmission of mind, in a
context of student and teacher being together, is held to be more important
than book learning, are also emphasizing second-person over third-person
perspectives for the development of consciousness. 

This reminds me of a huge question which is possibly the most important question for this specific group, which nine of us has valid complete answer: what is the most effective means of teaching and support, for the goal of maximally supporting the growth of people's practical level of consciousness beyond what brains alone Allow?

Somewhere in that space-- there are mystical traditions all over the earth where a teacher aims to enhance first person experience of the student, with minimal reliance on trust or belief in the words he provides.

But.. limited time here, as we prepare to walk to Notre Dame 

and whatever beyond.

Best of luck,  Paul

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.

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/20170708185240.GA20370%40black.transpect.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com> on July 9, 2017 wrote:

> The proper relation between Morse code and information cannot 

>be defined (in my opinion) without utilizing the 3-node network 

>in Figure 1 ...

.

[S.P.] Concerning your Figure 1. I hold that communication is possible even in case no physical signal is being sent between the "source" and the "receiver". For example, two persons may agree beforehand that in case at six o'clock in the evening there will be no cellphone call from the first person, the second person will have to leave her home immediately and to take a dog for a walk. So, in this case, no physical signal is sent from one person to another, and, this notwithstanding, the absence of such a physical signal is itself very informative. 

.

The only physical signal that is present here is the e-m wave reflected from the clock, captured by second person's sense organs (the eyes) and converted into physical sensory signal, and then transformed into information for the second person by her consciousness.

.

However, there can be no physical signals at all. For example, two persons may agree beforehand on the following: the second person should count to 100 in her mind, and, in case, while counting, there will be no cellphone call from the first person, the second person will have to leave her home immediately and to take a dog for a walk.

.

Regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 12:01 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Serge,

Your examples fails to prove that communication can occur between A and B without signal C.  No cell phone communication between A and B at certain time period P is the result of the earlier communication that transpired between A and B using signal C agreeing not to communicate at  P.

All the best.

Sung

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:15 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com> on July 9, 2017 wrote:

> The proper relation between Morse code and information cannot 

>be defined (in my opinion) without utilizing the 3-node network 

>in Figure 1 ...

.

[S.P.] Concerning your Figure 1. I hold that communication is possible even in case no physical signal is being sent between the "source" and the "receiver". For example, two persons may agree beforehand that in case at six o'clock in the evening there will be no cellphone call from the first person, the second person will have to leave her home immediately and to take a dog for a walk. So, in this case, no physical signal is sent from one person to another, and, this notwithstanding, the absence of such a physical signal is itself very informative. 

.

The only physical signal that is present here is the e-m wave reflected from the clock, captured by second person's sense organs (the eyes) and converted into physical sensory signal, and then transformed into information for the second person by her consciousness.

.

However, there can be no physical signals at all. For example, two persons may agree beforehand on the following: the second person should count to 100 in her mind, and, in case, while counting, there will be no cellphone call from the first person, the second person will have to leave her home immediately and to take a dog for a walk.

.

Regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com>

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Вірусів немає. www.avast.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_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/1264789315.1643913.1499577324905%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

TV Antenna is just a macroscopic form of particles and atoms. Each atom, particle or quantum field in general can radiate and emit particles which are photons in some cases. This is just a particle physics or atomic physics process. There is nothing special about it to distinguish it from any quantum physics process. In mathematical details it is the interaction Lagrangian which makes it radiate! Interaction Lagrangian is by definition called mechanism in quantum field theory!

By the way, through a review in the magazine Physics today, I found out that ‘t Hooft’s article which we downloaded from Vimalji’s suggestion, is published now as a book (expensive!!). So make sure you save it on a hard drive. My experience is that once a book is published, publishers stop distribution of free internet articles!! You may find physics today review of the book in some nearby campus, certainly in universities like Delhi and IITs. The review looks neutral. My feeling is that right now people may just regard it as one of some 15 interpretations of QM. So there is not that much interest. If he is able to get a theory of Quantum Gravity which will certainly involve Planck level physics, then people may take it seriously. As I mentioned previously, there is a Bell type experiment from starlight emitted some 600 years back, which has ruled out super determination. So for the time being I am holding my judgement for or against determinism!

I  was also reminded  that someone has a model which says until about 10^(-12) sec and several microseconds after that free massive quarks , leptons and gluons were roaming around. Baryons (protons and neutrons etc.) and atoms were not formed. Quarks and gluons formed a plasma which people are trying to detect at LHC and Brookhaven Accelerator called RHIC by colliding heavy nuclei against each other. Protons and neutrons were formed after the first minute and atoms were formed later as the universe cooled.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 2:36 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

You wrote:

 

"The general belief is that as fields came up, interaction also came up. That served as antenna!"

 

 

In the classical world, it can be understood that when e.m field will interact with some antenna, interaction will

come up, energy will be dumped and a particle ( photon) will be produced.

 

But in the primordial universe in the quantum realm, what is the mechanism which will lead to the creation of the particles?  How will interactions take place in the absence of any deterministic physical system?

 

you indicated that general belief is that as fields come up, interactions also come up. Right. But by which physical mechanism?

 

Regards

 

Vinod sehgal

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

You keep on asking for physical mechanism. But as we discussed before, there are big pitfalls in using non-mathematical classical language. For a physicist, the mechanism at atomic and sub-atomic scale is interaction Lagrangian between the fields and that is the end of it. We cannot and should not ask for mechanism like hammer and nail, rotating cog-wheel or planetary orbits at the quantum level. The reason is of course that our language is based on our everyday life and the moment you ask for a physical mechanism, you would have some classical picture in mind which is decidedly wrong. If philosophers are not happy with mathematical language, then it is ok for them to wonder about it, but as a matter of practice, most physicists would not worry about it!

Now antenna is a big classical system. It consists of trillions and trillions of atoms and electrons which emit electromagnetic wave (equivalent to trillions and trillions of photons). So in quantum mechanics we would think about these atoms and electrons coupled to radiation field and emit photons. In all cases QM has been shown to go to classical physics when the system is really large.  An engineer would just think that he is varying currents through the antenna and thus feeding electrical energy which is radiated as electromagnetic waves. Both pictures are entirely equivalent and there is no contradiction. If the antenna is absorbing incoming electromagnetic wave exactly opposite scenario will take place. Admittedly radio engineers do not have to worry about photons and atoms. Photon is not a classical object. Classical Electrodynamics is good enough. There are books on classical electrodynamics which do not mention photons at all, just currents and electromagnetic( electric and magnetic) fields and study radiation by antennas. Nothing goes wrong! But microwave engineers  using systems based on chips have to worry about electrons and photons.

At the beginning of universe we do not know if there was a change from deterministic to non-deterministic QM. Non deterministic QM works very well now at our energies. So the story may be unfolding. If ‘t Hooft can get a theory of quantum gravity based on his deterministic ideas at Planck energy, he will surely get a second Nobel Prize! The transition from quantum to classical picture at our energies can be shown to be due to the system containing very large number of sub systems where the relative phases cancel out because of randomness. This is called decoherence. Then QM goes into classical mechanics. If something like this happens at Planck energy, God knows!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 3:13 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

you wrote:

 

"TV Antenna is just a macroscopic form of particles and atoms. Each atom, particle or quantum field in general can radiate and emit particles which are photons in some cases. This is just a particle physics or atomic physics process. There is nothing special about it to distinguish it from any quantum physics process. In mathematical details it is the interaction Lagrangian which makes it radiate! Interaction Lagrangian is by definition called mechanism in quantum field theory!"

 

I was so far under the impression that when a e.m field interacts with a TV antenna, energy of  the field gets dumped around antenna and a particle ( photon) is created which gets absorbed by the antenna. From this context, there is no actual movement of the photons. I had discussions with Edwards Jonathan, a participant under this group and a Physicist of 40 years standing , on this issue since a few time ago. he has been of the views that there is neither  the  actual movement of the photons nor of the wave.

 

So my idea was to understand the physical mechanism behind the creation of a particle say a photon from a an e.m field i) first in the current world under the deterministic objective classical world ii) Then in the primordial world when there was no deterministic and objective reality.

 

Lagrangian, as you told, is a mathematical construct to describe the field. There will be some physical mechanism behind the creation of a particle from the field.

 

You wrote further:

 

"So for the time being I am holding my judgement for or against determinism!"

 

That is right. But which interpretation and mechanism do you adopt for explaining the transition from stochastic QM to deterministic CM?

 

Then you also wrote:

"I  was also reminded  that someone has a model which says until about 10^(-12) sec and several microseconds after that free massive quarks , leptons and gluons were roaming around"

 

Since you are saying that until about 10^(-12) sec, massive quarks, leptons and gluons were roaming, it means by this time, Higgs Field might have  been created. Then before  or after the creation and coupling  of the  Higgs Field, individual quarks, leptons  and gluons might have manifested from some Field. Obvious queries arise : By which  physical mechanism, these particle having different properties but WITHOUT mass arise from a Field and how and from where that field arise?

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

My intuitive understanding of a Field in the classical sense has been that it is spread of energy in space with almost uniform energy density at all the points in the space. In quantum sense, it is difficult to comment upon the energy density of the field at any point unless it is measured. When the uniform energy density of the field gets disturbed ( due to some physical mechanism), energy gets intensified at some points ( due to dumping of energy or whacking of the Field, as you have mentioned), a particle is created at the points where intensification of the energy density  happens. So what is that which causes disturbance in the uniform energy density  of the Field? In mathematical terms, this might be explainable in terms of the Lagrangian. But what about the physical reasons in the common language to be understood intuitively? From this perspective, this problem seems to me similar to that of the curvature of space?time in GR where mathematically phenomenon of the curvature is well understood and explainable but from the physical sense, as expressible in the common language as to be understood intuitively, there is lot of controversy even among experts.

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

“Is there a boundary between classical and quantum mechanics?” is an excellent and deep question. It used to be called ‘Heisenberg cut”. The general feeling now is that there is no such boundary. QM is the exact science. CM is an approximation good enough in everyday world. Whether you can see quantum effects or not depends on the technology or accuracy of your measurement. In principle all of us have wavelengths associated with us and we are fuzzy!!. But the wavelengths  are so tiny that they are impossible to measure. Thus Schrodinger cat we see is either dead or alive, not a superposition. Main argument is that as technology improves, we can see quantum effects in larger and larger systems. Lasers, superconductivity,  superfluidity, Bose-Einstein condensation etc.  are proofs of this idea. Some experiments used to be done at extremely low temperatures to diminish noisy thermal effects. But physicists are mastering the art of doing experiments at higher and higher temperatures. That makes me hope that someday it may be even possible to see quantum effects in brain.

Experiments have to be done with instruments of our size which we can see and manipulate. Internally they can consist of things we cannot see like atomic beams, electrons, lasers etc. So we already deal with things we cannot see, but final results we have to see by human eyes and understand by our brains. Even for observing galactic or universe size effects, very often, instruments using atoms, electrons and  photons are  used. For example, cosmic microwave back ground gives lot of information on universe, But again analysis has to be done with our size instruments. So at some point we have to interpret effects in classical terms. At that point, the question of using our daily language or mathematics arises and we do  not have any physical model we can “rationally” picture in brains!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:05 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kasyap,

 

You wrote:

 

 "In all cases QM has been shown to go to classical physics when the system is really large."

 

A few months ago, I discussed with some Physicists on this forum the boundary divide between classical and quantum if classical and quantum are really the functions of the size. But I could not get some satisfactory and convincing answer.

 

If the distinction between quantum and classical is really of the size, where is the boundary where quantum ends and classical takes over? No size is small or big in its absolute sense.  Smallness or largeness of the size is a relative phenomenon. Atoms/molecules are  of very small size when compared to the observational perspective of we conscious observers or objective classical instruments. Is it due to this very size differential between "objects to be observed" and "observing apparatus" that atoms/molecules exhibit stochastic quantum properties. If it is so, this raises following questions:

 

i) if the Observational platform is also taking down in size to the very miniature size at the atomic/molecular level, will atoms/molecules still exhibit the stochastic properties as ascribed to the quantum properties? 

 

ii) If the observational platform is taken to the galactic scale, then from that level, a tree will be as quantum (in size) as atoms/molecules are quantum from our present classical scale. If the stochastic properties are really size specific, it means from the galactic observational platform, a tree should also exhibit stochastic quantum properties. Will the tree exhibit the stochastic quantum properties?

 

My view has been that if stochasticity is really size specific then all the bodies should exhibit this property since no size is quantum or classical in itself. Any size is quantum or classical depending on the observational perspective. if stochasticity is not the size specific, then what makes the atoms and molecules to have this property which suddenly vanishes when it comes to our classical scale?

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

[Siegfried Bleher]

Dear Vinod and Kashyap,

 

The single number that determines ‘scale’ or size for the purpose of distinguishing classical and quantum behavior is Planck’s constant, 6.626 x 10^(-34) Joule.seconds, which is a measure of ‘action’.  So, whatever temperature characterizes the phenomenon in question, or whatever the length scale, our measuring instruments would need to be sensitive to differences in action on the order of Planck’s constant.  Or the phenomenon in question is easily observable with the simplest of instruments (or to unaided senses) if a macroscopic number of ‘quantum particles’ behave the same way.  Examples of the latter are superfluids, superconducting magnets, lasers, bright line emission spectra of gases, absorption spectra, photoelectric effect.

 

There is now convincing evidence (although not explicitly measured yet, I don’t think) of quantum effects in biomolecules.  That is, behavior that can’t be accounted for with classical equations of motion.

 

Best wishes,

 

Siegfried

--

----------------------------
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/f437a84e6524484285152b401be9289e%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

 

 

From: Vasavada, Kashyap V

Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 12:23 PM
To: 'VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL' <vinodse...@gmail.com>

Subject: RE: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Vinod.

I flatly vote against option i). According to De Broglie’s equation for matter waves,

Wavelength = h/p, p is momentum=mv for usual matter particles. Thus wavelength is inversely proportional to mass. If you put in mass of electron in the equation ,it comes out to be measurable with current technology. For human beings or even virus it is too small to be measured. Although for virus, we may be on threshold of measurement! Since it is the momentum which  occurs  in the equation and not mass individually ,there is no problem with zero mass particles.

Although we do need our size measuring equipment, it can detect quantum objects by interaction with say magnetic field or with individual photons. So the size of measuring apparatus is not a problem as yet! Your dusk to dawn lights which switch on and off due to quantum photoelectric effect are based on large number of individual photons exciting electrons and thus giving a measurable effect.

Siegfried ‘s comments are also good. When the system size (not measurement apparatus)  is comparable to h or if lot of quantum particles cooperate , it is possible to see quantum effects at our scale. Otherwise decoherence  (relative phases cancelling due to large number of random contributions of particles) takes place and it becomes impossible to see quantum effects.

I believe stochasticity is inherent part of quantum nature. If ‘t Hooft is right, his ideas will be completely revolutionary. Although, I understand , he says that our energies, quantum nature is stochastic.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:20 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks for your response elaborating your views on the boundary between classical Vs quantum. But my query was a bit different which i am paraphrasing and elaborating further.

 

i) Do we view the stochastic quantum effects due to difference in the size of the observing instrument and object to be measured?

 

                                         OR

 

 ii) stochastic quantum effects go on diminishing  on their own as the absolute size of the object to be measured  go on increasing?.

 

 If the former scenario i)  is correct, it means wavelength of a classical object  say  a tree appears to be very low since we measure the same from the same classical size and perspective as that of the tree. In other words, from the pint of view of our measuring instrument, a tree is not a quantum object. However, if the measuring instrument is magnified to a very high size say galactic one,  a tree will become an quantum object in comparison to measuring instruments and exhibit quite high degree of stochastic effects in form of high wavelength.

 

If the scenario ii) is correct, it means stochasticity  will continue to decrease in terms of decreased wavelength on its own  as the  size continue to diminish whatever may be the size of the measuring  instrument.

 

If scenario i) is correct, it means stochasticity is a product of measurements and if 

scenario ii) is correct, stochasticity  is an inherent property of nature which is inversely related to the absolute  size of the object.

 

I shall welcome your considered opinion on the above specific issue..

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Vinod,

Even at the college level, it takes one full semester to discuss ingredients of modern physics. So it is not surprising that every time I say something, some confusion is left over. It is not true that zero (rest) mass particle has zero momentum. The full connection between energy and momentum is given by E=Sqrt (c^2 p*2 + m(0) ^2 c^4). Thus even if m(0) is zero, p is not zero and for photon like particle E=cp. Energy and momentum are identical apart from a factor of c.  De Broglie eq. becomes wavelength = h/p = h c/E . With E=hf ( f is frequency) ,  wavelength=c/frequency, the usual equation of a wave. So everything is consistent. De Broglie equation is applicable to every particle. It is true, zero mass particles like photon cannot be localized. Uncertainty principle says delta(x) X delta (p) > = h/4pi. For photon of a given energy, p is certain , delta (p) =0, so delta (x) is infinity. It is all over!!

Incidentally for these reasons, it is not advisable to keep on with the old convention of using variable mass

(in  E= mc*2= m(0) X c^2 / sqrt (1 – v^2/c^2).  It leads to unnecessary confusion. When we say mass we usually mean rest mass in the frame in which particle is rest. For photons there cannot be such a frame. Mass  is consistently taken as zero. Einstein as a child wondered what would happen if he catches up with a photon (light) ! It used to be believed that neutrinos,although not force particles, have  zero mass. The current status is somewhat uncertain.  Although its mass , even if not zero, must be very small. More and more accurate experiments are being done.

Most physicists believe that stochasticity is intrinsic part of quantum theory. So it will be interesting to see if ‘t Hooft comes up with something.  As I mentioned last time, he cannot ignore success of quantum theory and his previous Nobel prize(!!). So he says that at our energies the usual quantum theory is good. At Planck energy, nobody knows!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 1:24 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear kashyap,

 

You wrote:

 

"it is the momentum which  occurs  in the equation and not mass individually ,there is no problem with zero mass particles."

 

For the zero mass particles, momentum p= mv will also become zero. So Wavelength= h/p will become infinite. Can it be so? Or alternatively, De Broglie equation is applicable on matter waves only not applicable on particles with zero mass. I think there can't be any matter particles with zero mass but force particles can be with or without mass ( e.g W boson and photons respectively).

 

Now that you have concluded that stochasticity is an inherent property of nature and inversely related to mass ( or with size indirectly), let us try to find how and why this property appears in nature. As I get an intuitive feeling, implicit in mass is the localization of a particle. Quantum particles have very low mass, therefore, the degree of localization is very low leading to the randomness, a measure of stochasticity.  As the mass increases ( or size indirectly), localization of the particle increases, randomness or stochasticity decreses leading to a reduction in wavelength.

 

Now let me comment as to if this property of randomness or stochasticity is intrinsic to a particle or due to some external factor ( field or force). I think stochasticity in the particle can't be intrinsic to the particle but due to some external field  ( force) -- either the same field from which the particle is born or some other field. Probably, after a particle is born from a field, its link with the field continue to persist and that field continues to cause randomness or stochasticity in the particle.

 

However, above are my intuitive ideas only and I don;t claim these to be true. However, you being an expert in Physics can give some conclusive ideas on the aforesaid intuitive ideas. I shall welcome your conclusive comments.

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

 

 

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:

Dear Vinod.

I flatly vote against option i). According to De Broglie’s equation for matter waves,

Wavelength = h/p, p is momentum=mv for usual matter particles. Thus wavelength is inversely proportional to mass. If you put in mass of electron in the equation ,it comes out to be measurable with current technology. For human beings or even virus it is too small to be measured. Although for virus, we may be on threshold of measurement! Since it is the momentum which  occurs  in the equation and not mass individually ,there is no problem with zero mass particles.

Although we do need our size measuring equipment, it can detect quantum objects by interaction with say magnetic field or with individual photons. So the size of measuring apparatus is not a problem as yet! Your dusk to dawn lights which switch on and off due to quantum photoelectric effect are based on large number of individual photons exciting electrons and thus giving a measurable effect.

Siegfried ‘s comments are also good. When the system size (not measurement apparatus)  is comparable to h or if lot of quantum particles cooperate , it is possible to see quantum effects at our scale. Otherwise decoherence  (relative phases cancelling due to large number of random contributions of particles) takes place and it becomes impossible to see quantum effects.

I believe stochasticity is inherent part of quantum nature. If ‘t Hooft is right, his ideas will be completely revolutionary. Although, I understand , he says that our energies, quantum nature is stochastic.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

 

 

From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:20 AM

To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

 

Dear Kashyap,

 

Thanks for your response elaborating your views on the boundary between classical Vs quantum. But my query was a bit different which i am paraphrasing and elaborating further.

 

i) Do we view the stochastic quantum effects due to difference in the size of the observing instrument and object to be measured?

 

                                         OR

 

 ii) stochastic quantum effects go on diminishing  on their own as the absolute size of the object to be measured  go on increasing?.

 

 If the former scenario i)  is correct, it means wavelength of a classical object  say  a tree appears to be very low since we measure the same from the same classical size and perspective as that of the tree. In other words, from the pint of view of our measuring instrument, a tree is not a quantum object. However, if the measuring instrument is magnified to a very high size say galactic one,  a tree will become an quantum object in comparison to measuring instruments and exhibit quite high degree of stochastic effects in form of high wavelength.

 

If the scenario ii) is correct, it means stochasticity  will continue to decrease in terms of decreased wavelength on its own  as the  size continue to diminish whatever may be the size of the measuring  instrument.

 

If scenario i) is correct, it means stochasticity is a product of measurements and if 

scenario ii) is correct, stochasticity  is an inherent property of nature which is inversely related to the absolute  size of the object.

 

I shall welcome your considered opinion on the above specific issue..

 

Regards.

 

Vinod Sehgal

...

[Message clipped]  

 

[ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli]

"What are "modes of explanation"? Maybe, "models"? And, "acceptable" for whom? "

By modes of explanation I meant deductive, teleological etc. As I understand not each kind of explanation is acceptable in every area (are genetic explanations acceptable in physics for instance), so my question is what are acceptable explanations for a theory of consciousness.

"And why it is "a challenge"?"

It is a challenge because if a new meta theory is to be there, and the same objective criteria are to be applied to validate it as those applied in the physical science, it is not certain that such a theory would sufficiently explain consciousness. In other words, is there an epistemology which we know for sure is sufficient to validate a hypothesis about consciousness? 

Shankar

--
----------------------------
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/1766819778.1185584.1499484571767%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli on July 14, 2017 wrote:

>It is a challenge because if a new meta theory is to be there, 

>and the same objective criteria are to be applied to validate 

>it as those applied in the physical science, it is not certain 

>that such a theory would sufficiently explain consciousness.

.

[S.P.] A meta-theory explains nothing -- it is not its task to explain something. It is just a set of postulates and general assertions concerning Reality. I hold that for there to be an applied theory of consciousness, it has to be constructed within the limits of a specially elaborated meta-theory. What does it mean "within the limits"? It means that the given applied theory uses the general method, the system of models, the base of prime concepts, the system of proofs, and other tools elaborated on a meta-theoretical level and applies them when accounting for some concrete object of study. 

.

The "physical science" is a set of applied theories constructed within the limits of a meta-theory called the Modern Materialistic Picture of the World. This meta-theory makes no room for the activity of informational factor in general and consciousness in particular. It provides no tools (methods, models, etc.) able to deal with complex systems like the living consciousness-possessing organisms. Therefore, it is not appropriate for constructing the applied theory of consciousness within its limits.

.

For the criteria of formal correctness see my post Sadhu_Sanga-post_21-04-2017.txt attached below. These criteria are universal and can be applied to all possible intellectual products. However, some philosophers insist that the criteria I suggested are too paranoid and cannot be applied to philosophic theories. Maybe, maybe ... maybe their "theories" are not intellectual? :-) 

.

There is also a special criterion I use to assess "goodness" of the constructed meta-theory. Namely, a meta-theory is "good" if the applied theories constructed within its limits have sufficient explanatory and predictive power, and it will be the more good the more such applied theories will be constructed (for details see my post Sadhu_Sanga-post_1-05-2017.txt attached below).

.

[ShankaraBharadwaj] wrote:

>In other words, is there an epistemology which we know 

>for sure is sufficient to validate a hypothesis about consciousness? 

.

[S.P.] What is "hypothesis about consciousness"? What does it mean "validate"? Why a meta-theory (or epistemological/conceptual framework) has to validate anything? What does the phrase "we know for sure is sufficient" mean here? You clearly make no difference between the AT-level and MT-level intellectual products. It is the applied theory (the AT-level intellectual product) which must have certain explanatory and predictive power, be testable, repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, etc.

.

I repeat again and again: according to my approach, the required applied theory of consciousness is not like an orphaned tree in a desert -- it, in fact, has to be accompanied by an appropriate meta-theory and a set of concomitant applied theories which have to be constructed in the first hand. In this sense my approach is very complex (maybe, the most complex of all possible approaches), since it considers the applied theory of consciousness as a top of an iceberg, or as an apartment in the multistorey skyscraper (for details, see the html-file attached below). But, I am afraid, the simpler approaches will not work, and there are no simpler solutions here.

.

A meta-theory is like a shop where you can buy a spade and a picker, and the applied theories are like the companies which hire you to do some concrete work, like digging trenches, digging pits for planting the trees, digging the graves, or unearthing the archeological artifacts. So, there can be many different applied theories constructed within the limits of the same meta-theory.

.

Best wishes,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 12:00 PM

[Alex Hankey]

Am beginning to appreciate you concept of a meta-theory. 

Quantum Field Theory is a Meta-Theory with many levels of 

applications to Elementary Particles, Nuclei, Atoms, Molecules, 

Material Science including Bizarre Materials like 

Superconductors and Superfluids of various kinds etc. etc. 

Critical Instabilities also form a meta-theory, with 

their own principle of universality. 

Integrating QFT and Critical Instability Physics might create a higher meta-theory?!

On 15 July 2017 at 14:37, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

---

From: "'ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, July 14, 2017 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

"What are "modes of explanation"? Maybe, "models"? And, "acceptable" for whom? "

By modes of explanation I meant deductive, teleological etc. As I understand not each kind of explanation is acceptable in every area (are genetic explanations acceptable in physics for instance), so my question is what are acceptable explanations for a theory of consciousness.

"And why it is "a challenge"?"

It is a challenge because if a new meta theory is to be there, and the same objective criteria are to be applied to validate it as those applied in the physical science, it is not certain that such a theory would sufficiently explain consciousness. In other words, is there an epistemology which we know for sure is sufficient to validate a hypothesis about consciousness? 

Shankar

On Saturday, July 8, 2017 2:26 PM, "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli on July 7, 2017 wrote:

>However to my mind the first challenge is what would be the 

>acceptable modes of explanation that validate such a theory 

>of consciousness?

.

[S.P.] What are "modes of explanation"? Maybe, "models"? And, "acceptable" for whom? The case is that I consider objective criteria that can be used to assess the quality of the constructed applied theory. So, the given applied theory is good NOT because somebody thinks it is good. And, what it means "to validate"? A model does not "validate" -- it is an experimental testing that "validates". 

.

And why it is "a challenge"? A certain solution already exists. A "challenge" consists, rather, in that the others have to try to understand the existing solution. Can you, please, reformulate your question so that it has an answerable form?

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

I agree explaining consciousness needs a different meta theory from physics etc those that explain the physical nature of the world. I also agree that first person approach holds more promise in approaching the subject. However to my mind the first challenge is what would be the acceptable modes of explanation that validate such a theory of consciousness?

Shankar

On Saturday, July 1, 2017 7:22 AM, "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Peter Nyikos <nyi...@math.sc.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

> But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the 

>Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind.

<skip>

> I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of 

>Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual 

>consciousness.

.

[S.P.] I consider scientific discipline as a collection of applied theories. An applied theory, unlike a meta-theory (or philosophic "theory", ontological "theory", etc.) must possess certain explanatory and predictive power, be testable, reproducible, verifiable, falsifiable, etc. Moreover, for there to be a scientific discipline, the problem of intersubjectivity in this research field has to be solved. 

.

In Physics, when we apply the third-person approach, the problem of intersubjectivity is basically solved, and when one physicist talks about piezoelectricity or birefringence, the other physicists understand well what is being talked about. So, I call "cognitive environment" a big group of researchers (or thinkers) in a certain research field for whom the problem of intersubjectivity is solved.

.

However, when studying consciousness, the most promising is a first-person approach. It is when the individual researcher tries to construct an applied theory of consciousness being based on a set of personally experienced consciousness-related phenomena. In so doing, the other researchers may not experience the phenomena that the given researcher experiences, and, in result, the problem of intersubjectivity stays unsolved.

.

Second. To do science means to apply the methods and models which correspond to the nature of the object of study. The methods and models used in Physics may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (say, the individual particle does not decide itself how to behave), and these methods and models are not good when studying consciousness when the activity of informational factor cannot be ignored. 

.

So, for there to be a Science of Consciousness, the problem of intersubjectivity has to be solved and the appropriate methods and models which correspond to informational nature of the object of study have to be constructed. I have my own solutions and I am looking for other thinkers (theoreticians) who have got their solutions as well -- we need to form a cognitive environment in this field.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "NYIKOS, PETER" <nyi...@math.sc.edu>

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

Serge--

I fully agree with your first paragraph.

But the second presumes that there can be such a thing as the Science of Consciousness distinct from the Philosophy of Mind. That philosophy reaches back at least as far as the Chandogya Upanishad, but most Western professors of philosophy -- not all of whom deserve the title "Philosopher" by any means -- seem to think that it was all obscurity before Descartes began to meditate on it. Of course, almost all Western professors of philosophy who write books (Daniel Dennett is a good example) think they have gone far past Descartes, in the direction OPPOSITE Hindu philosopy!

And so, while agree with everything in your second paragraph before the dash that begins your last sentence, I am thoroughly skeptical of whether there can be a Science of Consciousness that does justice to the nature of my individual consciousness. Some Hindus on this list might claim that my perception of my individual consciousness is an illusion. However, they need to account for that alleged illusion in a way similar to the way our ordinary everyday illusions (a blue dome above our heads on a cloudless day, a rainbow as something that has a definable end, etc.) are accounted for.

I must admit I haven't been following more than a small percentage of emails that emanate from Sadhu Sanga, so I may have missed such an account. If so, I would appreciate being made aware of one.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:59 PM

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: Vinod Sehgal, RE: KSRAO, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] RE: Consciousness

-

Kashyap Vasavada <vasa...@iupui.edu> on June 30, 2017 wrote:

>Nevertheless it is absolutely necessary to have quantum fields in

> the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations. So, in this sense, 

>something did not come out of nothing!!

.

[S.P.] For anything to exist, there must be a concrete place, or a volume of space, where it exists. In the beginning there was no space, no vacuum, therefore nothing could be said to exist in the beginning. However, if we start from presuming the existence of "quantum fields in the primordial vacuum and wild fluctuations", then it is the same as to assert that a tree has evolved from a seed -- an enough trivial statement.  

.

[Kashyap Vasavada] wrote:

> Question of ontology should be left to philosophers. ... Speculations

> on ontology does not help that much in doing physics,

.

[S.P.] Then the "Big-Bang theory" and "Multiverse theory" should be treated as philosophic theories which bear no relation to Physics. I agree. I would also add that Physics should also stop trying to account for consciousness, since it is not its subject matter -- it is a subject matter for the Science of Consciousness as a new scientific discipline.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

--
----------------------------
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.

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/975992652.1018864.1500109656565%40mail.yahoo.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India 
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 

Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789

____________________________________________________________

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy