Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

53 views
Skip to first unread message

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 24, 2017, 6:18:02 PM5/24/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: The primary astral matter is Tanmatras…
 
Vimal: The five Tanmātras are rūpa/visual form, śabda/sound, sparśa/touch, rasa/taste, and gandha/smell. How do you create 17 elementary particles and 4 forces out of these? The term Sankalpa is just a jargon to hide our ignorance, we need to unpack it and clarify in a step-by-step manner.
 
Sehgal: Saankhya concept is that of Chetan (conscious one) and Jada (inert - nonconscious).
 
Vimal: The eastern term 'Chetan' implies only experiences (Purusha) and the rest are Jada (non-Chetan or Prakriti). This is because the western term 'consciousness' includes both experiences and functions. Therefore, Chetan = consciousness is misleading and creates unnecessary confusion.
 
Sehgal: there is no likelihood of the objective empirical verification of Astral body and Astral world due to a variety of factors viz non-inclination by those who have really attained type of Samaadhis wherein these can be vividly observed in the state of Samaadhis, incapability of current technology to pierce the astral realm of nature, lack of serious interest in scientific community to know about this trans-physical realm of nature and above all a dogmatic approach amongst scientists that there is no reality beyond our physical body/world. […] Once a broad, clear and refined understanding of Astral bodies/worlds and cosmic consciousness dawns down, agnosticism will remain no longer as agnosticism. It will be replaced by a conviction.
 
Vimal: In subjective research, first, a researcher must be a subject and must experience whatever other yogis experienced previously. Then, only we can do useful research towards full conviction. Otherwise, agnosticism will always remain. How can an achromatic researcher have a full conviction of color vision? We have to accept this bitter truth, unfortunately. 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 12:12 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:


Dear Vinod ji,

Our goal is to compare all four metaphysics and address thier problems. Let us concentrate on them first.

Sehgal: The primary astral matter is Tanmatras…

Vimal: The five Tanmātras are rūpa/visual form, śabda/sound, sparśa/touch, rasa/taste, and gandha/smell. How do you create 17 elementary particles and 4 forces out of these?

 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 1:57 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Please, see my comments in red font text after your comments. I request you to please read my comments carefully. Any supplementary query shall be welcome.

Sehgal-Vimal (5/23/17)

1. Classification basis

Vimal: For rigorous comparison between all four groups of eastern and western metaphysics, the basis of classification must be the same; otherwise, how can we compare them if the references or bases are different? We can use any classification (eastern or western) but the reference or the basis for comparison must remain the same. This implies that we need to translate/interpret the terms of one classification to the other very carefully.”
 
Sehgal: Different metaphysics of the eastern and western thought process have a wide diversity in terms of their key features, knowledge of ontology, basic approach and the basis of classification and language/ terminology. This degree of diversity is quite high and seems irreconcilable in the metaphysics of East and West. In view of this, each metaphysics is unique in itself. If we develop classification basis for all the entities of the universe based upon one metaphysics say materialism, as you have done in terms of M and P and apply it on other metaphysics also, this is bound to lead to a number of false problems. To elaborate it further, in materialism, knowledge of the physical ontology is up to 17 basic particles and 4 basic forces. Therefore, classifying entities of the universe in two broad categories viz. P and M, with P= 17 basic particles+4 forces and M= all mental functions+ self+ consciousness may be right but if you will extend this basis of classification to Saankhya or Advaita, a number of false problems are bound to emerge. And that is what has happened in your books where you have tried to scrutinize all the 4 metaphysics based upon one basis for Materialism. Reasons for above anomalies are not hard to find.
 
In the materialistic classification, P is limited up to 17 particles and 4 forces. In Sankhya, there is no concept of Physical (P) and Mental (M). However, still, if we try to extend the concept of Physical (P) to Saankhya, P is not limited up to 17 particles and 4 forces. In Sankhya, the concept of P transcends beyond 17 particles and 4 forces and goes to 5 Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Chitta and Ahamkara -- all derivatives of the same Moola Prakriti of which 17 particles and 4 forces are also the derivatives.
 
Vimal: The Prakṛti’s astral and causal bodies (5 Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Chitta and Ahamkara) are for living systems especially for human beings and were subjectively proposed by Kapila muni because of OBEs and other experiences during meditation.

Not only you but a no of commentators on Saankhya, some quite learned one and renowned one but bereft of the knowledge of the Astral/Causal realms from someone who has really seen these realms in the state of Samaadhi, are under the misconception that Astral and Causal reality pertains to living systems only. But it is not so. Our physical bodies in the physical world are composed of the baryonic matter but outside there is the infinite abundance of the baryonic matter at the cosmological scales. In fact, first baryonic matter is created at the cosmological scales and then physical bodies of the individual living beings are created. 

Similarly, in the Astral world, Astral bodies are formed from the Astral matter but outside the Astral bodies of living beings, there is the infinite abundance of the Astral matter. The primary astral matter is Tanmmatras but Manas, Buddhi and 10 Indriyaas also contribute in the constitution of the Astral bodies which inhabit the physical bodies of the living beings. With the commencement of the creation, Primordial physicality ( Moola Prakriti) starts transforming into different layered structures and terminating at Panch Mahabhuttas -- Prithvi, Jala, Vaayu ( all the baryonic matter in 3 states), Agni ( all the energy of 4 forces) and Akaasha ( space). Before the manifestation of Pancha Mahabuhuttas, Moola Prakriti  transforms into different structures viz Buddhi, Manas, 10 Indriyaas and 5 Tanmmatras ( In order to not to make the matter complicated), I am not considering Chitta and Ahmkaaras) at cosmological scales. The manifestation of these structures viz Buddhi, Manas, 10 Indriyaas and 5 Tanmaatras take place in some sequential order as the transformative structures of Moola Prakriti ( Primordial Prakriti) at the cosmological scales. It is from these cosmological scales that Buddhi, Manas, 10 Indriyaas and 5 Tanmaatras are extracted out and then each of these element assembles in the formation of the individual Astral bodies. All these elements of the Astral world at the cosmological scales and astral bodies at the individual level are created before the manifestation/creation of Pancha MahaBhuttas  ( all the baryonic matter and 4 forces) of the physical world.

So there is a clear parallelism between physical and astral realms. Corresponding to the physical body, there is the physical world at the cosmological scales and corresponding to Astral body, there is the Astral world at the cosmological scales. Similarly, parallel to the physical body, there is Astral body and parallel to the physical world, there is the Astral world.

In view of above, let me clarify that Astral body/Astral world are not any functions of any brain-mind system, as erroneously interpreted in eDAM, but these are the tangible physical structural realities of a very wide nature. Our Physical world represents only a slice of that wide nature.

It is difficult to have the complete understanding of the above framework of nature unless one may not read the interpretation of someone, who himself has seen and understood the Astral body and Astral world in the state of Samaadhi.

Kapila Muni happened more than 5000 years ago. In between this long intervening period, there have been hundred and thousand of Yogis/Saints of Saankhya and non-Saankhya traditions who have witnessed the reality of the Astral world/Astral body with each of the individual element viz Buddhi, Manas, Indriyaas and Tanmaatras in a reproducible manner in the state of Samaadhi. 


 They do not have mass, charge, and spin. Therefore, they are not material entities (Prakṛti’s physical bodies); rather they are mental entities as per psychological science.

Mass, charge and spin pertain to only that part of wide nature viz physical world comprising of PanchBhuttas and out of these 5 Bhuttas, mass, charge, and spin have relevance to 3 Bhuttas only viz Prithvi, Jala, Akaasha ( baryonic matter only). For example, space though physical but has no relevance for mass, charge, and spin. Physicality of very wide nature ranging from Moola Prakriti till Physical world with the Astral world in the intermediate stages is not limited by mass, charge, and spin. In fact, in Saankhya, there is no concept of physical or non-physical. Saankhya concept is that of  Chetan (conscious one) and Jada ( inert - nonconscious). The concept of physicality is extendable to all that is Jada ( non-conscious one). All the Moola Prakriti and its transformative structures in form of Causal, Astral and Physical are Jada, therefore, physical.

 Once we understand these terminological differences, it is not a problem. Terminologies and man-made classifications do not define the fundamental truths (FTs), which are those we all, from both east and west, agree. The FT must remain the same in all kinds of man-made classifications. Problems arise in misconstruction, misunderstanding and misrepresentation (mmm). Our goal should be to find FT and avoid mmm.

From the aforesaid, you can well appreciate that question is not of classification and terminologies but physical body/brain and Astral body/brain have a difference of a very substantial nature. Though, there is no denying the fact that difference in classification and terminologies add to the confusion. So when in Materialistic/eDAM classification, Astral body with mind, buddhi and senses are mere functions of the mind/brain system but in the metaphysics of Saankhya, as elaborated in a quite  detailed manner above, these are the layered  structural realities of Moola Prakriti, on the same pattern as baryonic matter and 4 forces are the layered structures, it will be quite erroneous to extend classification made on the basis of Materialism/eDAM to Saankhya. That is why I have been reiterating that classification for any metaphysics should come out of that metaphysics only otherwise this will lead to a no of false problems.
 
For example, we all agree on (1) Prakṛti’s physical bodies which are the same as eDAM’s material entities (physical aspect), such as elementary particles and 4 forces/fields, (2) Prakṛti’s astral and causal bodies (5 Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Chitta and Ahamkara) within the realm of mind-brain system, which are the same as the eDAM’s “functional aspect of consciousness” within a mind-brain realm, and ( the existence (3) Sāṅkhya’s Puruṣa or ātman/self within the realm of mind-brain system is the same as the eDAM’s ‘experiential aspect of consciousness’. Since we all agree, they may be closer to FT.

(1) above is OK but (2) and (3) are not OK. (2) and (3) are the interpretations of eDAM but being made applicable to another metaphysics of Saankhya.  This is bound to lead to wrong inferences. This is a forcible and illogical equivalence. For the existence of the Astral, Causal bodies, which are the Saankhya's concept, interpretation should come out from Saankhya only. Since Saankhya's concepts are not verifiable thru objective empirical evidence, the only way left is to go for the subjective evidence of Samadhi, a lot of which are available for a sincere seeker to have to follow up.
 
The Sāṅkhya and the atheist eDAM do not agree on (I) the astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds beyond the mind-brain system (II) the existence of soul/ghost and God because there is no scientific easily reproducible evidence at any place and at any time. On the other hand, iff (if and only if) they really exist, then the Sāṅkhya and the theist eDAM might agree on (I) and (II). These are conditional FTs and hence they fall under agnosticism at present time. Therefore, further research is needed.

As indicated above, there is no likelihood of the objective empirical verification of Astral body and Astral world due to a variety of factors viz non-inclination by those who have really attained type of Samaadhis wherein these can be vividly observed in the state of Samaadhis, incapability of current technology to pierce the astral realm of nature, lack of serious interest in scientific community to know about this trans-physical realm of nature and above all a dogmatic approach amongst scientists that there is no reality beyond our physical body/world. Nevertheless, there are enough subjective evidence from the state of Samaadhis spanning over millennia and even during our own period which certifies the ontological reality of the Astral /the world.

Under the circumstances, the only option left for us to read and follow seriously descriptions of the Astral body/world by those who have really witnessed these ontological realities in the state of Samaadhi in a reproducible manner and then seek corroborative evidence by following the description of others who have also such experiences. In this manner, a broad and refined understanding of the trans-physical Astral body/world can be achieved.

Once a broad, clear and refined understanding of Astral bodies/worlds and comic consciousness dawns down, agnosticism will remain no longer as agnosticism. It will be replaced by a conviction.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

I will answer partially, but as I get time, I will answer slowly one-by-one.

Sehgal-Vimal (5/23/17)

1. Classification basis

Vimal: For rigorous comparison between all four groups of eastern and western metaphysics, the basis of classification must be the same; otherwise, how can we compare them if the references or bases are different? We can use any classification (eastern or western) but the reference or the basis for comparison must remain the same. This implies that we need to translate/interpret the terms of one classification to the other very carefully.”
 
Sehgal: Different metaphysics of the eastern and western thought process have a wide diversity in terms of their key features, knowledge of ontology, basic approach and the basis of classification and language/ terminology. This degree of diversity is quite high and seems irreconcilable in the metaphysics of East and West. In view of this, each metaphysics is unique in itself. If we develop classification basis for all the entities of the universe based upon one metaphysics say materialism, as you have done in terms of M and P and apply it on other metaphysics also, this is bound to lead to a number of false problems. To elaborate it further, in materialism, knowledge of the physical ontology is up to 17 basic particles and 4 basic forces. Therefore, classifying entities of the universe in two broad categories viz. P and M, with P= 17 basic particles+4 forces and M= all mental functions+ self+ consciousness may be right but if you will extend this basis of classification to Saankhya or Advaita, a number of false problems are bound to emerge. And that is what has happened in your books where you have tried to scrutinize all the 4 metaphysics based upon one basis for Materialism. Reasons for above anomalies are not hard to find.
 
In the materialistic classification, P is limited up to 17 particles and 4 forces. In Sankhya, there is no concept of Physical (P) and Mental (M). However, still, if we try to extend the concept of Physical (P) to Saankhya, P is not limited up to 17 particles and 4 forces. In Sankhya, the concept of P transcends beyond 17 particles and 4 forces and goes to 5 Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Chitta and Ahamkara -- all derivatives of the same Moola Prakriti of which 17 particles and 4 forces are also the derivatives.
 
Vimal: The Prakṛti’s astral and causal bodies (5 Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Chitta and Ahamkara) are for living systems especially for human beings and were subjectively proposed by Kapila muni because of OBEs and other experiences during meditation. They do not have mass, charge, and spin. Therefore, they are not material entities (Prakṛti’s physical bodies); rather they are mental entities as per psychological science. Once we understand these terminological differences, it is not a problem. Terminologies and man-made classifications do not define the fundamental truths (FTs), which are those we all, from both east and west, agree. The FT must remain the same in all kinds of man-made classifications. Problems arise in misconstruction, misunderstanding and misrepresentation (mmm). Our goal should be to find FT and avoid mmm.
 
For example, we all agree on (1) Prakṛti’s physical bodies which are the same as eDAM’s material entities (physical aspect), such as elementary particles and 4 forces/fields, (2) Prakṛti’s astral and causal bodies (5 Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Chitta and Ahamkara) within the realm of mind-brain system, which are the same as the eDAM’s “functional aspect of consciousness” within a mind-brain realm, and (3) Sāṅkhya’s Puruṣa or ātman/self within the realm of mind-brain system is the same as the eDAM’s ‘experiential aspect of consciousness’. Since we all agree, they may be closer to FT.
 
The Sāṅkhya and the atheist eDAM do not agree on (I) the astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds beyond the mind-brain system (II) the existence of soul/ghost and God because there is no scientific easily reproducible evidence at any place and at any time. On the other hand, iff (if and only if) they really exist, then the Sāṅkhya and the theist eDAM might agree on (I) and (II). These are conditional FTs and hence they fall under agnosticism at present time. Therefore, further research is needed.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Tuesday, 23 May 2017 6:33 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

For rigorous comparison between all four groups of eastern and western metaphysics, the basis of classification must be the same; otherwise, how can we compare them if the references or bases are different? We can use any classification (eastern or western) but the reference or the basis for comparison must remain the same. This implies that we need to translate/interpret the terms of one classification to the other very carefully.

Different metaphysics of the eastern and western thought process have a wide diversity in terms of their key features, knowledge of ontology, basic approach and the basis of classification and language/ terminology. This degree of diversity is quite high and seems irreconcilable in the metaphysics of East and West. In view of this, each metaphysics is unique in itself. If we develop classification basis for all the entities of the universe based upon one metaphysics say materialism, as you have done in terms of M and P and apply it on other metaphysics also, this is bound to lead to a no of false problems. To elaborate it further, in materialism, knowledge of the physical ontology is up to 17 basic particles and 4 basic forces. Therefore, classifying entities of the universe in two broad categories viz P and M, with P= 17 basic particles+4 forces and M= all mental functions+ self+ consciousness may be right but if you will extend this basis of classification to Saankhya or Advaita, a no of false problems are bound to emerge. And that is what has happened in your books where you have tried to scrutinize all the 4 metaphysics based upon one basis for Materialism. Reasons for above anomalies are not hard to find.

In the materialistic classification, P is limited up to 17 particles and 4 forces. In Sankhya, there is no concept of Physical (P) and Mental (M). However, still, if we try to extend the concept of Physical (P) to Saankhya, P is not limited up to 17 particles and 4 forces. In Sankhya, the concept of P transcends beyond 17 particles and 4 forces and goes to 5 Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Chitta and Ahamkara -- all derivatives of the same Moola Prakriti of which 17 particles and 4 forces are also the derivatives. However, Materialism and eDAM in the first place do not recognize these ontological structural derivatives and if eDAM recognizes these derivatives in some indirect manner, its recognition is limited up to these derivatives as some functions with such functions manifesting as the extensions of the NNs of physical brain system. So with such a wide diversity of the key features of Materialism/eDAM, any basis of classification based upon Materialism, when extended to Saankhya or Advaita is bound to result in a no of false problems. The reverse of this is also equally true i.e any classification basis based upon Saankhya/Advaita when extended to eDAM/Materialism is bound to create a no of false problems for these metaphysics.

The rigorous comparison does not imply comparing apples with oranges or comparing horses with donkeys.

Then what is the way out to find as to which metaphysics is correct. There can be a well laid down strategy to find out this though it is quite cumbersome. I am placing below broad roadmap towards that strategy.

i) We may spell out key features of each metaphysics as such with classification basis being evolved out of that metaphysics only. this is not an easy task since, 
for each metaphysics, there are scores of interpretations with each interpretation claiming to be correct. So the best way out to select the correct interpretation will be:
 
a) For the Eastern materialistic metaphysics, that interpretation should be chosen which meets the ends of the objective empirical evidence for its key doctrine and pass out the test of preliminary logical scrutiny.

b) For the Eastern metaphysics, Ist preference should be given to those interpretations which come out from the interpretations who are from our current period and whose interpretation is based upon their actual Samaadhi state experience. If the same is not available, we should go to the interpretation of those people who had originally pounded the metaphysics in the past after their Samadhi state experience. If that is also not available, we should go in for the interpretation of those, who though were not the original propounder of the metaphysics but were part of the chain of the original propounder and also had the Samaadhi state experience. Last preference should be given to those interpreters who are having neither any Samaadhi state experience nor in the chain of the original propounder of the metaphysics.

ii) After spelling out key features of each metaphysics, next step will be to devise some classification basis and criterion of scrutiny out of that metaphysics only.

iii) Once steps i) and ii) are accomplished for each metaphysics, next step will be to analyze thru logical deliberations each metaphysics independently in terms of classification basis and criterion of scrutiny and to arrive at the problems of each metaphysics which don't seem reconcilable.

iv) Next, lies in enlisting objective empirical and subjective empirical evidence in favor of different metaphysics and ascertaining the reliability of the evidence.

v) After completing steps iii) and iv), those problems of each metaphysics should be selected which are insurmountable and available evidence also does not seem to have a solution for such problems.

vi) In the last step, a comparative chart of the insurmountable problems of all metaphysics can be prepared. Based upon such a comparative chart, one metaphysics should be selected which seem to have least no of insurmountable problems and the degree of insurmountability of problems is also least.

Above task is not an easy task and quite mammoth running into a no of years and involving a lot of man days.

There are two ways to classify all entities: objective science and subjective Samadhi state experiences.
 
1. The western classification is based on science (objective research) with the premise that material entities are radically different from the non-material entity. All material entities are composed of elementary particles; there are 17 elementary particles, which are classified in two groups: fermions and bosons. Each of them has 3 properties: mass, charge, and spin as in Standard Model of particle physics. This classification is based on science as elaborated in Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013), Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), and Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c). Since experiences and functions do not have mass, charge, and spin, they are considered non-material entities. As discussed in (Vimal, 2009f), there are over 40 meanings attributed to the term consciousness by various investigators, which were classified in two groups: functions and experiences and thus functional and experiential sub-aspect of consciousness is valid.

Western's approach of including 17 elementary particles under material or more precisely physical category and all whatever is not known under physical category but experienced at the biological level viz consciousness, self, mind, the thoughts is correct from its perspective since awareness of western sciences/neuroscience up to 17 elementary particles and 4 forces.But this is not correct from the wider perspective of the reality. How could it include that part of physicality under its category of P, which Saankhya mentions of in terms of Tanmaatras, Manas, indriyaas, Manas and Buddhi etc, but with which Western Sciences/ neurosciences are unaware of? Further, in the western approach, since all structural reality is exhausted by the physical reality of 17 elementary particles and 4 forces, they hypothesized all whatever is left, which they termed as Mental including mind, consciousness, self, thoughts, as Functions. There has been no distinction in consciousness and mind and both have been treated as Functions. Though correct from its limited perspective, but this is also not representative of the complete wider reality of nature/universe. In The Saankhya and Advaita , "mind" and consciousness are not functions but these are the structural realities of consciousness being a conscious reality with consciousness being innate to its structure and Mind being an inert ( non-conscious) or extended physical structural reality.

Taking a cue from the Western metaphysics, in eDAM , you have also included everything at the biological level MINUS 17 elementary particles and 4 forces under the Mental category and that too in the functional forms. ( Not in the structural form as in Saankhyaa or Advaita). Therefore, your eDAM is closer to  Materialism than Saankhya or Advaita but with a difference that you have hypothesized one mental aspect as present with all the physical entities in some inseparable form. But due to some inexplicable reasons, eDAM does not hypothesize the birth of these mental functions from the structure, which as per materialism and eDAM is only physical. So here an awkward situation is created for eDAM for which there is no way to fget out. eDAM like materialism presumes mental functions to be FUNCTIONs and not STRUCTURES but unlike materialism, these functions do not come out of the structure. Then to add to the conundrum, eDAM wants to keep these functios alive in unmanifested form from the creation stage till the functioning of the brain level. But there is no rational and logical explanation with eDAM as to how and from where mental functions in unmanifested form emerge out and in which form such mental functios exist?

  In the aforesaid, I have tried to highlight how a quite contradictory and inconsistent situation can arise when one metaphysics imitates blindly the key features of another metaphysics. in the instant case, it was the case of eDAM blindly imitating mental functions to be functions from the materialism. 

Categorizing all entities as material or physical and mental on the basis of mass, charge, and spin is not correct since there are force particles say photon which have no mass, charge, and spin but they are not included in the mental category by any proportion of logic.

Another distinctive radical difference in the Western and Eastern approach towards consciousness and mind lies in the range of their respective approach. In the Western approach of Materialism towards consciousness/mind, the primary purpose is towards explaining the consciousness/mind at the human biological level. But in the Eastern Saankhya and Advaita approach, consciousness and mind transcends the biological/human frontiers and goes up to the cosmological scales. There is cosmological consciousness which is fundamental and non-emergent one and there is also cosmological Mind ( Samashti Mind) as emerging out from the primordial physicality( Moola Prakriti or Maaya). Once, the existence of the cosmological consciousness and Cosmological Mind is established thru experience in the state of Samaadhi, the problem of localized consciousness and mind at the biological level become quite easy since, at the biological level, consciousness and mind become merely manifestations of their cosmological counterparts.

Taking a cue from the Materialism, the primary purpose of eDAM has also been towards explaining consciousness and mind at the biological level with no relevance for the same at the cosmological scales.

Of course, you have compiled 40 definitions of consciousness from the different sources. But for different metaphysics, we should select that definition which is most appropriate in the context of that metaphysics. Other definitions need not be considered for that metaphysics. Nevertheless, of this approach, there is no meaning of consciousness ( at the biological level) without awareness and free will. As such, all those definitions of consciousness, at the biological level, which are devoid of awareness and free will should be rejected.

   

2. The eastern classification is based on Samādhi state experiences or subjective research. Yogis felt OBEs during focused meditation, so they thought that experiences must be of different category from the rest. Thus, Kapila Muni invented two terms Puruṣa for experiences and Prakṛti for the rest. Then, he further created finer classification of Prakṛti into 3 sub-groups: physical, astral and causal bodies, which were further divided as in Gaudapada’s Classical Interpretation of Sāṅkhya Kārikā as in (Swami Virupakshananda, 1995) and (Pandit Sitaram Shastri, 1973). Since it is based on counting, he called it Sāṅkhya. There was no Ishwar in his original Sāṅkhya, so it is an atheist system.


Ishwar was added later on (perhaps by Vyas in Gita) to make it theist system. There was very important purpose for this: to make illiterate society organized with godly virtues using the concept of fear of hell. There are 7 groups of Rakhaseeya Saktiyan given to each of us by Mother Nature during birth for self protection: kaam, krodh, mad/ego, lobh, moh, eershya and prem. The positive aspect of these energies was called deva/sur and negative aspect rakshas/asur. For example, we all have devasur sangram every moment in our lives and it is the fear of hell, most of us decide to do good karma in this sangram.

There was no Ishwara or theist system in the original Saankhya or in the original Vedic texts and that it was incorporated afterward by some scholars to bring order in the society is a speculative interpretation by some scholars who themselves were either devoid of the Samadhi experience or were not fully conversant with the Vedic philosophy. Geeta is 3240 years BC and there is mention of Sankhya, Kapil Muni in Geeta. Bhagwaan Krishna says that among Munis, I am Kapila. Had Kapila Muni propagated an atheist system, how Lord Krishna pronounced in Geeta that He is Kapila Muni amongst Munis. Then Geeta also mentions of 4 Vedas. It means Vedas are older than Geeta i.e more than 3240 BC old. Vedas propagates theist system in form of OM. Puranas which are much older than Geeta mentions of various hells and heavens. So the interpretation of some scholars that theist system and the existence of hells/heavens or Law of Karma was incorporated, with the purpose to bring order in the society, is a speculative and not supported by the historical facts.

As a subjective evidence to above inference, some fully realized Yogis in the past, as well as present, can observe in the state of Samaadhi  the mechanism of the Law of Karma and sometimes can cure some of their closest disciples from severe diseases by postponing the effect of Karma or reducing the effect of karma or shifting the effect of karma to some other one or taking themselves. Nevertheless, in Vedic philosophy, Law of karma is considered as the cardinal principle governing the cycle of our birth/death, our rewards/sufferings and to some extent behind the creation of the universe. To get rid of the effect of karmas is considered one of the ultimate purpose of spiritual practice.
 
Advaita went further to convert dualism into monism. For example, there are 6 sub-schools of Vedanta. The cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism, Rāmānujāchārya: 1017–1137 or 1077-1157) claims that Brahman is a dual-aspect monistic entity from which Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sā ṅkhya can be derived. This is further elaborated in the ebook (Vimal, 2012c).

6 sub-schools of Vedanta in some formal and structured form appeared between 8th century (Aadi Shankaracharya) onwards till 15th century ( Chaitanya Mahaprabhu) but the idea of Vedanta had been alive in India since long much before Shankaracharya in Upanishads, Brahma Sutras, Geeta, and Vedas. Even after Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the idea of Vedanta has remained alive in the teachings of medieval period Saints Kabir, Nanak Dev and all 10 Sikh Gurus on the same lineage.

But there is no comparison between Brahman of cit-acit Vishitadvaita of Raamaanujachaarya and mental aspects of eDAM. Brahman of Raamaanujachaaryaa is a cosmic, all-pervading, a holistic whole, always manifested and all powerful conscious structural power. But the hypothesized mental aspect( consciousness) of eDAM is quite powerless, localized with QFs and matter particles, discrete one, always unmanifested and manifested at the functional brain level only. In Vishitadvaita, Brahman occupies a dominant, pivotal and privileged position over matter from which matter also manifest out. But in eDAM, the mental aspect is like matter particles since whatever transformations, changes, transmutations matter particles undergo in the journey of the universe, inseparable mental particles also undergo thru concurrently. So in eDAM, for namesake, only mental aspect is conscious one otherwise it also undergoes thru the same process and governed by the same Laws thru which physical functions of the discrete matter particles viz mass, charge, and spin is governed. Above all, Brahman of Visjitaadvaita is the most Fundamental Structure of Consciousness from which all the physical and non-physical structures manifest BUT in eDAM, mental aspect including consciousness are FUNCTIONS ( but no clarity as to from which structure such function manifest, No function can be fundamental, only structures can be fundamental).

In view of above, there is no comparison between mental aspects of eDAM and Brahman of Vishitadavita. Any forced comparison is misconceived and prima facie illogical.
 
It is possible to compare east and west, but we need to translate carefully the terms with clarity. For example, Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya is equivalent to the experiential sub-aspect of consciousness in the eDAM. The astral and causal bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya are equivalent to the functional sub-aspect of consciousness (mental aspect) in the eDAM. The physical body of Sāṅkhya is equivalent to physical aspect in the eDAM.

Again you are imposing some misconceived and illogical forced comparisons and equivalences. Purusha of Saankhya is an all pervading, comic holistic, STRUCTURE of CONSCIOUSNESS which always remains manifest before, during and after the creation of the universe. It never assumes discrete forms and undergoes thru the same changes/transformations as thru which matter particles undergoes. It is never governed by the quantum or non-quantum physical Laws thru which matter at the quantum or classical scales undergoes. But experiential sub-aspect of consciousness exist in a discrete format with the matter particles and it manifests only at the Functional brain level and above all, it is a FUNCTION since in eDAM all the mental aspects are functions.

So where is the scope for any equivalence?

Again when you state that functional aspects of consciousness are equivalent to Astral and causal bodies of Saankhya, it is a misconceived and forced comparison, In eDAM, astral and causal bodies are FUNCTIONS of consciousness which in turn again is a function due to all mental aspects being functions.  I don't understand what is the meaning of Functions of an entity which in itself is a function in eDAM.
In eDAM, the function of astral and causal bodies manifest at the stage of Functioning brain level only. further, in eDAM, there is no clarity on the elements constituting Astral and causal bodies and mechanism for their creation. In contrast to eDAM, in Saankhya,  Astral and causal bodies are the structural physical ontological realities as taking birth from Moola Prakriti in some sequential order. They take birth and do exist much before the creation of the physical body/brain and continue to exist after the death of the physical body/brain. Further, there is a well-defined scheme for the elements constituting Astral and Causal bodies and there is also quite a clarity on the mechanism of the creation of these elements and same can be observed in the state of Samaadhi.

From aforesaid, it can be easily and safely deduced that there is no comparison between the metaphysics of Saankhya and eDAM. Any attempted equivalence or comparison is misconceived and illogical at the very face value.

Any forced and misconceived/illogical equivalence/comparison of eDAM with quite old and established metaphysics is not going to give any extra credence to eDAM.


Regards.

Vinod Sehgal


On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

For rigorous comparison between all four groups of eastern and western metaphysics, the basis of classification must be the same; otherwise, how can we compare them if the references or bases are different? We can use any classification (eastern or western) but the reference or the basis for comparison must remain the same. This implies that we need to translate/interpret of the terms of one classification to the other very carefully.
 
There are two ways to classify all entities: objective science and subjective Samadhi state experiences.
 
1. The western classification is based on science (objective research) with the premise that material entities are radically different from the non-material entity. All material entities are composed of elementary particles; there are 17 elementary particles, which are classified in two groups: fermions and bosons. Each of them has 3 properties: mass, charge, and spin as in Standard Model of particle physics. This classification is based on science as elaborated in Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013), Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), and Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c). Since experiences and functions do not have mass, charge, and spin, they are considered non-material entities. As discussed in (Vimal, 2009f), there are over 40 meanings attributed to the term consciousness by various investigators, which were classified in two groups: functions and experiences and thus functional and experiential sub-aspect of consciousness is valid.
 
2. The eastern classification is based on Samādhi state experiences or subjective research. Yogis felt OBEs during focused meditation, so they thought that experiences must be of different category from the rest. Thus, Kapila Muni invented two terms Puruṣa for experiences and Prakṛti for the rest. Then, he further created finer classification of Prakṛti into 3 sub-groups: physical, astral and causal bodies, which were further divided as in Gaudapada’s Classical Interpretation of Sāṅkhya Kārikā as in (Swami Virupakshananda, 1995) and (Pandit Sitaram Shastri, 1973). Since it is based on counting, he called it Sāṅkhya. There was no Ishwar in his original Sāṅkhya, so it is an atheist system.
 
Ishwar was added later on (perhaps by Vyas in Gita) to make it theist system. There was very important purpose for this: to make illiterate society organized with godly virtues using the concept of fear of hell. There are 7 groups of Rakhaseeya Saktiyan given to each of us by Mother Nature during birth for self protection: kaam, krodh, mad/ego, lobh, moh, eershya and prem. The positive aspect of these energies was called deva/sur and negative aspect rakshas/asur. For example, we all have devasur sangram every moment in our lives and it is the fear of hell, most of us decide to do good karma in this sangram.
 
Advaita went further to convert dualism into monism. For example, there are 6 sub-schools of Vedanta. The cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism, Rāmānujāchārya: 1017–1137 or 1077-1157) claims that Brahman is a dual-aspect monistic entity from which Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya can be derived. This is further elaborated in the ebook (Vimal, 2012c).
 
It is possible to compare east and west, but we need to translate carefully the terms with clarity. For example, Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya is equivalent to the experiential sub-aspect of consciousness in the eDAM. The astral and causal bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya are equivalent to the functional sub-aspect of consciousness (mental aspect) in the eDAM. The physical body of Sāṅkhya is equivalent to physical aspect in the eDAM.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Monday, 22 May 2017 8:41 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks

That is what I had dwelt upon in my previous email that for each metaphysics we need to devise classification basis based upon that metaphysics only. Before that, we need to spell out salient features of each metaphysics Then we should analyze the problems of each metaphysics. However, in your ebooks, you have devised classification basis between M and P based upon materialism and uniformly applied upon all 4 metaphysics. This has led to the wrong picture of problems of different metaphysics. For example, in materialism and I think even in eDAM, no distinction is made in consciousness/self and mind but in the metaphysics of Saankhya and maybe even in Advaita, there is a distinction between consciousness and mind.

Now devising classification basis for each metaphysics, on the basis of the salient features of that metaphysics, and then analyzing the problems of different metaphysics may not be a such a difficult and mammoth task but rewriting your ebooks based upon the revised classification basis may really be very long and herculean task.

Vimal  --"For example, in SAnkhya, the experiential sub-aspect of consciousness is in Purusha and the rest is in Prakriti." 

Vinod __ In Saankhya, Purusha in itself is consciousness and there is no need to define experiential sub-aspect of the consciousness. Experiential and functional and sub-aspect is the language of eDAM and it is not applicable upon Saankhya or Advaita.

In Saankhya, there are no functional aspects of consciousness. All the mental functions do take place in the "Mind" which is the derivative of the Prakriti on the same footing as the brain is the derivative of Prakriti. So the interaction between brain and mind is within the same category. 

Now you can see and appreciate what sort of problems can arise when we use the classification basis, terms, and terminology of one metaphysics upon the other metaphysics
 

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

I agree that the bases of classifications are different in eastern (Indian) and western frameworks. We need to clarify in the Introduction section of our joint article. We can compare these bases. For example, in SAnkhya, the experiential sub-aspect of consciousness is in Purusha and the rest is in Prakriti. 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Sunday, 21 May 2017 12:25 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

But the whole issue rests upon our mutual consensus on whether a problem is really a problem in different metaphysics. For example, in chapter 3, Vimal 2012c, you have classified all the entities of the universe in two categories viz Physical (P) and Mental (M) based upon scientific materialistic Western thinking. Your P include all the particle matter from basic 17 particles and 4 forces and M includes all that is not P viz attention, intention, self, and consciousness. There is no clarity on the elements of P and it is quite a vague concept.

However, above classification of M and P, as made on the basis of scientific materialistic western thinking, has been made equally applicable on all other 3 metaphysics also viz Saankhya, Idealism ( Advaita) and eDAM also. This is obviously bound to lead to a no of many problems of Saankhya and Advaita metaphysics. Strictly speaking, classification of entities into P and M  based upon Materialism should have been made applicable upon Materialism only or at the most for eDAM. Applicability of classification based upon materialism on other metaphysics viz Saankhya and Advaita is prima facie an illogical approach. For Saankhya and Advaita, classification of different entities should have been made upon these metaphysics only. How can classification based upon one metaphysics be made applicable to other metaphysics?

So before fixing the problems of different metaphysics, there is the need to devise classification basis for each metaphysics based upon that metaphysics only and that basis of classification should carry our mutual consent. Problems of each metaphysics should be analyzed in the light of classification as devised for that metaphysics

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. 

Your initial idea of the comparative study of problems/solutions of all 4 metaphysics in table/chart is excellent. This will suggest us which metaphysics is the best for further research. Please try to implement this idea. 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Sunday, 21 May 2017 4:47 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Today I went thru chapter 2 ( pages 21 to 35) of Vimal 2012c. Since I was conversant with the basic concepts of eDAM  due to the earlier exchange of email with you, it did not take a long time for me comprehend the contents of this chapter I would like to submit my comments on this chapter, para wise and line by line, to the extent possible, provided you are free from your urgent assignment. You may please like to give tour consent for the submission of comments from my side, as per your convenience and availability of time. It will take 2-3 days to me to prepare the final draft of my comments.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Chapter 2 of the ebook  (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 1 of (Vimal, 2010d), and Section 2 of (Vimal, 2013)


 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 18 May 2017 11:23 PM, Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr Ram,

But my immediate purpose was to look at the problems of each metaphysics, as enlisted by you and as claimed by you. For that purpose, why to go into the entire texts of your quite bulky volume of your books. ? I think you should not have problems in indicating relevant sections of your books wherein you have indicated problems of different metaphysics. If right now, you  are busy, you may indicate of the relevant sections afterwards when you are free.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Sent: ‎19-‎05-‎2017 07:25
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear Vinod ji,
You need to read them all.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 18 May 2017 9:46 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

It is good idea. Kindly read (Vimal, 2010d), (Vimal, 2012c), and (Vimal, 2013) where I have done this.

Could you please indicate relevant sections of the above-referred ebooks wherein you have identified problems of different metaphysics.


 However, please prepare the chart as you like, I will review it, and we can eventually publish it.

I will be very busy so I will not able to respond the rest of your comments at present time until I am free.

All the best and enjoy reading and writing.

Vinod Sehgal



On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Meanwhile please prepare the chart as I elaborated in my prev email.

Thanks.
...

[Message clipped]  








Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
May 24, 2017, 9:29:05 PM5/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Vimal,

Please call me kashyap ( even ji is not necessary!). Some time I hope to read at least some of your papers. But in the meantime, would you mind if I ask you a question? Unfortunately, I have not seen or talk to anyone who has  gone into Samadhi and coming back. Also I have not met anyone who has seen someone doing that. Same thing about experiences of astral and causal bodies. Reading in books is not quite the same thing. Did you have any such experiences? Thanks.

Best Regards.

Kashyap

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1876223133.1836721.1495663347295%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 25, 2017, 2:40:11 AM5/25/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Dear Kashyap ji,

I am glad that you are also interested in making effort towards Samadhi state. I have attached about yoga whatever I am doing. I have not yet reached samadhi state, but I am trying and need colleagues to get motivated better. Vinod ji is also interested.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


Yoga-3.pdf

Mukundan P.R.

unread,
May 25, 2017, 4:32:21 AM5/25/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
God does not sit where the scholars debate about his existence. God lies beyond human intelligence (buddhi). The Upanishadic Rishis said, prajnanam brahm, i.e. God is consciousness. That consciousness or soul exists in man enveloped within five sheaths -ego (the feeling of I), intellect, mind, energy (prana) and food sheath. Physical body is only a cage for the soul to live or exist. Why so much confusion and debate about this? Through mental absorption and sharp intelligence one person can experience the Light behind, the soul, which is part of that eternal consciousness - Paramatma. There are two types of souls,individual soul and supreme soul.  Like the individual soul, the supreme soul is also enveloped within ten spiritual sheaths or levels of consciousness. Human soul expands and evolves to merge with that Supreme Self through a number of incarnations passing through various stages from a human to become a  Pitru>Deva>Rishi>Sanyasi>Eshwara>Brahm>Para Brahm etc. That is the purpose of birth. The solar system is a mechanism for this evolution.     

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

Bhakti Vijnana Muni

unread,
May 25, 2017, 11:35:34 AM5/25/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Laj Utreja,

Namaste and Pranams. The very first point that you have made is that, ‘Consciousness prevails (It is termed Brahman)’. Secondly, you have stated, ‘It exists on its own’.

To articulate in this manner is a general tendency in India and also sometimes in the Western world that has been influenced by the impersonal ideas. This tendency follows from the impersonal descriptions of Brahman in most cases. Other times people are just quoting others. But a proper understanding of the Upanishads is necessary before assigning such ideas to the Upanishads.

Consciousness and Brahman are not equal terms in all respect. The Sanskrit term for consciousness is ‘chetana’. Upanishads make a distinction such as jada shakti (material energy) and chit shakti (conscious energy). And Brahman has been described as the source (janmadyasya yatah) of all that be. Janma means beginning or origin. The suffix adi on janma implies not only janma but also destructive principle as well as the maintenance principle. Thus Brahman is the source of everything including this entire material realm. However Brahman exists by itself and for itself. It is so because according to Srimad Bhagavatam, all the great sages like Vedavyasa meditate on the Brahman as that which is svarat meaning fully independent (Original Person) and complete by itself (Original Substance). Or Brahman is the cause of all causes and the substantial truth of all reality. Thus it becomes important to study the full details about Brahman when we study the Upanishads.

Definition of Brahman

The definition of Brahman is given in taittireya upaishad 3.1:

Yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante yena jātāni jīvanti
yat prayanty abhisaṁ-viśanti tad brahma tad vijijñāsasva
 
Srila Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhar Dev Goswami Maharaja, the foremost leader of Gaudiya Vaisnavas in the latter half of the 20th century explained this as: “The Supreme Brahman is the origin and shelter of all living beings. When there is a creation, He brings them forth from their original state, and at the time of annihilation, He devours them. After creation, everything rests in His omnipotence, and after annihilation, everything again returns to rest in Him.” [1]
 
Further he explains, “The Upanisads say, if you want to know anything, then know the whole. And what is the nature of the whole? Everything is coming from Him, everything is being maintained by Him, and again everything enters into Him. That is Brahman; so try to know that. If you can know that, everything will be known to you.” [2]
 
The Main schools of Vedanta
 
The Vedantic schools are categorized into two main streams. They are the (i) Personal schools of Vedanta. And (ii) The impersonal school of Vedanta started by Adi Sankaracharya. Our school (Sri Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-Sampradaya) is a Personal school of Vedanta and is led by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and followers. The special commentary of Vedanta was given by Sripad Baladeva Vidyabhushana Prabhu in the 18th Century, which was highly appreciated by the Ramanuja Sampradaya of Vaisnavism and today all over the world as an authentic commentary on the Vedanta-Sutra.
 
Problem of One and Many in Western Thought
 
First it is important to study the problem of ‘One and Many’ that has bothered philosophers and scientists since the ancient times. In the western world there is a prominent dialogue between Socrates and Parmenides in a treatise called Plato’s Parmenides (http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.html ). In this dialogue there were many participants including Zeno, Aristoteles and others.
 
In this dialogue the principle of One and Many was discussed by Socrates. Parmenides was not very happy with Socrates’ position. Parmenides was old at that time and Socrates was young. But the ensuing dialogue brings out many points about Wholeness, Oneness, Sameness, distinctions and Manyness. When Parmenides asserts in the later parts of the dialogue, he is responded to by Aristoteles whom Parmenides had himself selected for the dialogue, as he was youngest in the company, who would according to him be the least problem in establishing the points that Parmenides wanted to establish.
 
Parmenides position is in his own words, “If one is, the one cannot be many?” But in reply Aristoteles said, “In that case, One cannot be a whole as it cannot have parts. Because every part is part of a whole; is it not? And what is a whole? Would not that of which no part is wanting be a whole. Then, in either case, the one would be made up of parts; both as being a whole, and also as having parts? And in either case, the one would be many, and not one?”
 
In this way a most interesting dialogue ensued, which in which Parmenides was taking positions. And his abstract position was being responded to by Aristoteles. At the end of the dialogue Parmenides had to say, “I cannot tell you” when Aristoteles had asked, “And what are its relations to other things?”
 
For Socrates, one and the same thing can be both like and unlike. It can be both one and many. It is so because it participates in the Forms of Likeness and Unlikeness as well as Unity and Plurality. As an one man, one partakes of the Form of Unity. But the man also has many parts like the hands, legs, mouth etc., and therefore a man also partakes of the Form of Plurality. There is no difficulty in demonstrating that the sensible things have opposite attributes. But Socrates extended this argument to Forms and indicated that someone would earn the admiration of Socrates, if he would show that the Forms themselves were capable of admitting contrary predicates. Socrates had no difficulty in accepting that there existed a Plurality in the category of Forms itself such as Unity, Plurality, Goodness, Beauty, Aesthetics etc.
 
Hegel praised Parmenides for his insights in the following words, “Philosophy began in the Eleatic school, especially with Parmenides. Parmenides, who conceives the absolute as Being, says that ‘Being alone is and Nothing is not’. Such was the true starting-point of philosophy, which is always knowledge by thought: and here for the first time we find pure thought seized and made an object to itself”. 

However Hegel urges we must go further than the position of Parmenides. Hegel says, “The Eleatics are celebrated as daring thinkers. But this nominal admiration is often accompanied by the remark that they went too far, when they made Being alone true, and denied the truth of every other object of consciousness. We must go further than mere Being, it is true. And yet it is absurd to speak of the other contents of our consciousness as somewhat as it were outside and beside Being, or to say that there are other things, as well as Being.
 
The true state of the case is rather as follows. Being, as Being, is nothing fixed or ultimate: it yields to dialectic and sinks into its opposite, which, also taken immediately, is Nothing. After all, the point is that Being is the pure Thought; whatever else you may begin with (the I = I, the absolute indifference, or God himself), you begin with a figure of materialised conception, not a product of thought; and that, so far as its thought-content is concerned, such beginning is merely Being.”[4]
 
Problem of One and Many in Modern Science
 
Modern science is dominated by the atomistic thought. This is also an ancient thought as well. Being a thought it is also a vital stage that presents itself in the evolutionary history of ideas that in modern times we are again witnessing. Oftentimes people and scientists are not so much interested in Philosophy, especially the finer development of Philosophy that deals with consciousness, universe and Reality. In this stage the attraction is for atomism. Here the concept of Many is in the form of Being-for-itself in the shape of Many. The old atomists philosophized the world as many as if the atoms were floating about in a void. However this does not address the unity of the atoms. But Kant successfully explained that the complete theory of matter can be seen in the principle of unity of attraction and repulsion. In this regard Hegel explains, “The theory is correct, so far as it recognizes attraction to be the other of the two elements involved in the notion of being-for-self: and to be an element no less essential than repulsion to constitute matter.” Sure enough modern scientists are very much bothered about the origin of repulsion and also attraction, which is only accepted as truth from experiments. But really no rational explanation occurs that is worthy of real philosophical merit to account for the origin of attraction/repulsion. Indeed being blind as far as deduction of such truths is concerned and being fully dependent on experimental observations, scientists cannot even say for sure whether a repulsive component of gravity exists. Today scientists are so much concerned about realizing quantum gravity, but it eludes them. Hence we have to accept they are feeling a need for a deeper understanding of the principles involved, which however their equations cannot always deduce on their own. And that is the reason Hegel says, “Still, this dynamic construction of matter, as it is termed, has the fault of taking for granted, instead of deducing, attraction and repulsion. Had they been deduced, we should then have seen the How and Why of a unity which is merely asserted.” [4]
 
Problem of One and Many in the Vedantic Thought
 
The Vedantic thought has been existing in India from time immemorial and we find that presented in the form of Upanishads, Vedanta Sutra and other texts by the Great Sage Veda Vyasa. However modern debate is focused mostly around the ideas of Sripad Adi Sankaracharya. However that Vedantic school is only one of the schools and it focuses on Impersonalism.

Buddhism claimed that there was no soul, there was no permanent individual soul. However Sankaracharya countered Buddhism by saying that although there was no individual soul, the conscious substance Brahman exists as the Ultimate reality. For this purpose he had to selectively utilize the upanishadic statements and avoided the full purport of the Upanishads as the Buddhist philosophers who were prominent in his time did not believe in the revealed nature of the Upanishads. The Buddhists considered the Upanishads as man-made and Sankaracharya countered them effectively by approaching them in a way that was suitable in the atmosphere of voidism. According to Sankaracharya only this consciousness is true. He said however that consciousness of separate existence was false. In this view the individual soul is only a reflection of the ultimate conscious substance and is non-existent in the ultimate plane of reality. The individuality in this view vanishes as soon as the mental system of each soul vanishes and only the Ultimate substance or Brahman remains. Sankaracharya gave the example of the moon and its reflection in the mirror. As soon as the mirror is removed there is no reflection. In his view similarly the individual souls are the reflections from a common source called Brahman, consciousness.

Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s opinion is quite different from Sankaracharya and is quite a revolutionary exposition of the Vedantic Truth. The classic dialogue is given in Sri Chaitanya Charitamrita in the treatise called the dialogue between Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya in the celebrated temple of Sri Jagannath Puri. The first point that Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said was that one has to accept the entirety of the Vedic truth without any modifications. Adi Sankaracharya due to prevailing situation accepted only a few aphorisms of the Vedanta Sutra for his explanation. However Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu explained the aphorism “sarvam khalvam idam brahma” as sarva or everything exists and brahma or Spirit also exists. The One exists and the Many also exists. Both the relative and absolute exist. They coexist together. That is also implied in the aphorism ‘tat tvam asi”. Here That (tat) and you (tvam) both exists. Thus both variety and unity are found to exist in one verse. But Sankaracharya accepts the One and rejects the Many. Thus Sankaracharya has thrust forward his own interpretation on Vedanta and therefore the Acharyas did not agree with his explanations. [3]

In the light of these points, Lal Utreja’s statement that, “It is the absolute frame of reference from which everything that changes can be measured (experienced in living beings), hence the Absolute Truth, the Only Truth (Ekam Satya) that never changes or dies” is interesting. But Ekam Satya as used here somehow indicates the Monistic sense of the Absolute. 

However, the Upanisadic concept of Absolute truth harmonizes both One and Many in terms of Independent real and dependent reals. Absolute truth is One only from the point of view of viewing Reality as the totality of God and His dependent multifarious energies, which includes the innumerable living entities. Absolute also is Many because there is existence of these dependent conscious substances as well as the inferior material energies, which is insentient. The understanding of the dynamic relation between these entities is therefore a great science and that is explained in the Upanishads and by the vaisnava acharyas. Thus not only is the Absolute that which does not die, but also that the living entities also do not die. Even in the state of realization of truth, the living entities persist as dependent reals and therefore their existence is eternal. Thus the eternal truth is Pluralistic and not Monistic. 

Thus Utreja’s statement, “hence the Absolute Truth, the Only Truth (Ekam Satya) that never changes or dies” does not quite agree with the Vedantic concept of Reality. Both living entities exist and Brahman also exists. But the difference is that the living entities are dependent reals and exist eternally as relative truths. And Brahman is fully independent real or the Absolute truth. Of course there cannot be Many Absolutes. But there can be many relative truths and they depend on the absolute and they depend on the Being of Absolute. Absolute is that which can find itself even beyond its limit. Therefore Absolute is unlimited. Developing a conception proper is to say Reality must be a dynamic organic whole and not a fixed monistic concept of being. It cannot but be.

Categories of Conscious Substances

Upanishads clearly establish that there are two kinds of conscious substances. The first category is called vibhu chetana (Infinite conscious substance) and the other anu chetana (infinitesimal conscious substance.) E.g. the vibhu chetana is compared to the Sun and the minute conscious substances which are uncountable in number are compared with the sunrays, as units of conscious existences. The infinitesimal conscious substances are all dependent upon the infinite conscious substance just as the sunrays are dependent on the Sun. Both the infinite conscious substance and the infinitesimal conscious substances are real.

Brahman is explained in the Vedanta sutra as the source of all that exists. And the Brahman exists by itself. Or Brahman is the cause of itself. In the beginning the students of Upanishads may realize the impersonal aspect of Brahman by which the all accommodating substance is understood. But on more realization the personal features are realized gradually. When the Brahman is realized as Personal, it is called vasudeva conception. And further when the transcendental service connection is realized, it is called Bhagavan conception, or God-by Himself-and-for-Himself. This is the topmost existential realization of the Brahman.

However the impersonal philosophy of Acharya Sankara considers only the identity between the minute conscious substance and the Infinite conscious substance. But it does not consider their distinctions. A comprehensive explanation must account not only for their identity but also for their difference. Traditionally the main argument for such an idea was based upon the idea of ignorance. They gave the example of the mirror of ignorance in which the One original substance (called Brahman) is reflected and therefore appears as many to the ignorant. But such an explanation is not supported by Sri Chaitanya Maharabhu.

Secondly it is also not sufficient to say that conscious prevails. Rather it is the conscious substance that is nitya or eternal. The content of the conscious substance can change. Therefore we can find that when consciousness is attached to matter it is called material consciousness, and when consciousness is attached to higher spiritual energy, it is called spiritual consciousness. Thus the living entity which is of the conscious nature is eternal, but the contents of its consciousness can change. Thus consciousness is produced by the conscious substance which is called soul or jivatma in the Upanishads. In conclusion we can’t say consciousness exists on its own. Rather their dependence on Brahman is to be inferred.

When Lal Utreja says, “The principles (or the seeds) of: matter (tamas; static, ignorance, inertia), energy (rajas; motion, activity, change) and thought (sattva; balance, knowledge, light) are ever present in Consciousness, the potencies of Consciousness” he does not explain which consciousness.

Brahman is the original conscious substance and tiny living entities are also eternal. Yet the living entities are very weak in comparison with Brahman and hence inferior to Brahman, although they are superior to insentient material energy. The three modes tamas, rajas and sattva which are all material do not touch Brahman. They manifest when Pradhan is moved by the glance of Mahavishnu, (a plenary subjective portion of the Adi Purusha - Sri Govinda). This Pradhan is transformed into mahat-tattva by a process that begins with the glance of Mahavisnu from a far distance. At that stage, time manifests, as well as the three modes of material nature manifest and gradually the creation enfolds. Thus Pradhan is one of the potencies of the Spirit. But pradhan remains in an unmanifest state and there is no objective existence of any material element at that time. Thus the unmanifest material energy requires agitation to come out. And this is provided by Spirit (Brahman, in the form of one of his subjective portions).

The other problem is that Lal Utreja mentions that thought is contained in consciousness. However it is just the other way round. It is actually thinking which produces consciousness (in an actual form). This is another detailed subject. The Vedanta explains that Brahman has three characteristics – jnana (Thinking), bala (Willing) and kriya (Satisfaction or fulfillment). These are present in minute quantities in the living entities also. However the living entity is not the master of his own thought, will and satisfaction. He is weak and is liable to be swept away by the deluding potency where he thinks himself as the lord of all that he surveys. This is the source of his misery. His own weak constitution and finite thinking produces his misery. Thus these categories are often misunderstood.
 
References

[1] Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Goswami Maharaja, "The Search for Sri Krishna, Reality the Beautiful", Sri Chaitanya Sarawat Math, Nabadwipa, Guardian of Devotion Press, Published by Ananta Printing & Publishing, Soquel, California, pp. 89, 1989.
[2] ibid., 1, pp 75-76.
[3] Srila Bhakti Rakshak Sridhar Goswami Maharaja, "Subjective Evolution of Consciousness", Sri Chaitanya Sarawat Math, Nabadwipa, Guardian of Devotion Press, Published by Ananta Printing & Publishing, Soquel, California, pp. 42, 75, 1989.
 
Thanking you,
Bhaktivijnana Muni, PhD

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:56:17 PM UTC+5:30, lutreja7 wrote:
My views on Consciousness based mostly on Upanishads follow:
1.       Consciousness prevails (It is termed Brahman).
2.       It exists on its own;
3.       It is an entity that is unborn, ever present and omnipresent, without end, changeless and indestructible.
4.       It is immaterial, thus without qualifications (beyond comparison) and without attributes (shapeless, formless), that is why it is beyond the capacity of the senses of perception.
5.       It is the absolute frame of reference from which everything that changes can be measured (experienced in living beings), hence the Absolute Truth, the Only Truth (Ekam Satya) that never changes or dies.
6.       The principles (or the seeds) of: matter (tamas; static, ignorance, inertia), energy (rajas; motion, activity, change) and thought (sattva; balance, knowledge, light) are ever present in Consciousness, the potencies of Consciousness.
7.       Since it is the only entity that prevails, it exercises its potencies to expresses itself to know itself. Human beings are considered highest in creation, because in human life alone in the sequence of evolution, one questions, ponders and ultimately attains enlightenment about the source, or experiences the source through disciplines such as Samadhi. 
8.       All phenomenal existence of matter (and its continuous evolution), energy (including life energy, prana) and life (and its continuous evolution) with action, motion and change are perceived, only in Consciousness. Correspondingly, from Consciousness arise all: the perceiver (the Subjective Principle in the perceiver, the so-called soul, atman, a unit of Consciousness), the object of perception (the material existence), and perception (the conditioned soul with the individual state of mind, individual awareness)
9.       Correspondingly, all intentions (will to know and will to do), all knowledge (to perform a willed action), and all activities (whether pre-programmed or with intention and knowledge) take place in Consciousness.
10.   All living beings have a mind (the subtle body), the interface between the physical body and the individual consciousness. It is the mind which filters perception based on its quality and conditioning. If there were no mind, there would be matter and Consciousness.

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:
No sir. Nothing can be conceived outside of consciousness.  All that exists is consciousness.

Regards

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:
Can you conceive a theory outside of consciousness ? 





 
 





On Apr 21, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:


On 20 Apr 2017, at 20:04, Deepak Chopra wrote:

Peter - great comments 
All theories are conceived in consciousness alone 

I agree. But that does not mean that the things pointed on by those theories were also conceived in consciousness alone. 
We must distinguish a theory, and what the theory tries to talk about.



Materialists cannot explain any experience including the experience of doing science 

I partially agree. Materialist usually invoke computationalism to explain the experience, and the doing of science. When we dig on that issue, the explanation of experience makes sense, but fail to explain the stability of the experiences of matter. Then they get wrong by invoking matter to explain that stability, but this endows the subject with an ability to detect the difference between a computation or themselves done in arithmetic and a computation or themselves done in a physical universe, which makes no sense when supposing computationalism.  

The problem, for me, with a theory assuming consciousness and/or matter at the start, is that they assume what I am asking an explanation for.

With mechanism, it has to be like NUMBER ==> CONSCIOUSNESS ==> MATTER     (and consciousness here is not human consciousness, but universal number consciousness, it is mainly an ability to know that there is *some* reality).

Bruno Marchal





On Apr 20, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Peter Nyikos <new...@mailbox.sc.edu> wrote:

On 04/20/2017 06:43 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:
-
[Deepak Chopra] on April 20, 2017 wrote:
>What came first consciousness or theories about consciousness?

[S.P.] Let us call a spade a spade. By a "theory of consciousness" I suggest to mean an explanatory framework which is able to explain how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into experience. 


This is a very demanding concept of theory that you are dealing with here, Serge.  Most theories outside mathematics only try to explain things while leaving basic features unexplained. Newton's theory of gravity only explains the effects of gravity mathematically. It does not even address the question of how gravity is able to affect objects  at a distance, through seemingly empty space. Newton himself admitted that he had no explanation for that.

Einstein had a sort of explanation: objects curve space around them in such a way that objects follow a path that can be calculated. But he could not explain just how masses can do such a thing as curving space.

If a theory is not able to explain this, then it is not a theory of consciousness. 

Materialists have a theory of  "consciousness" in which they give a concept of "experience" in purely behavioristic terms. For instance, they might fall back on a "third person"  interpretation of consciousness in terms of  responses to stimuli. According to this, someone is "conscious" of something in the environment if his responses to it are the sort that we have come to associate with being conscious of it. 

Sometimes materialists will even act as though the only use of the word is to indicate whether someone is "conscious" or "unconscious" in an everyday sense of the word.

So, may I as Deepak to name, at least, one theory of consciousness known for him? Who is its author? If he will not name, at least, one theory, then his question should be treated as senseless.


I second the motion. I hope Deepak will name some theories of consciousness that go beyond the behavioristic theory, about which many books have been written.

Peter Nyikos
Thanks in advance,
Serge Patlavskiy


From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:23 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

What came first consciousness or science ? 
What came first consciousness or theories about consciousness ? 



Deepak Chopra MD

-- 
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference 
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191

 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

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

--- 
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.

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
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191

 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

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

--- 
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.

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
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191

 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

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

--- 
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.

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
 
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2016.1160191

 
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
 
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org

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

--- 
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.

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

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 25, 2017, 3:02:16 PM5/25/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Kashyap Vasavada, Robert Boyer, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Matter particles and forces of the physical world are created from Tanmātras of the Astral World as per some Laws of Nature. These Laws could have been incorporated in nature by the Sankalpa of the cosmic consciousness.
 
Vimal: What are those Laws of Nature that creates 17 elementary particles from 5 Tanmātras?
 
Sehgal: A Broad roadmap for the comparison of four groups of metaphysics is described in 5/23/17 email.
 
Vimal: We need to start somewhere; so it will be fine with me as a starting step. However, for comparison, we need to have common reference basis. In my view, there are two bases:
(i) Eastern top-down systems (such as SAnkhya, VedAnta, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and so on): two groups of entities, namely, Purusha and Prakriti.
(ii) Western bottom-up (such as science and eDAM): two groups of entities, namely, physical (fermions and bosons: P) and non-physical or mental (M).
We need to translate correctly the terms used for comparison. It is better to use the original terms in each basis. Then we try our best to translate them. For example, The Eastern system should use "Chetan" rather than the Western term "consciousness". Closest correct translation may be: Chetan = experiencer; consciousness has over 40 meanings, which has been categorized into two groups:  (a) experiences including experiencer, and (b) functions including thoughts.

Best metaphysics should be selected based on empirical subjective and objective verification, logic, and has the least number of problems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 25 May 2017 6:55 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: The primary astral matter is Tanmatras…
 
Vimal: The five Tanmātras are rūpa/visual form, śabda/sound, sparśa/touch, rasa/taste, and gandha/smell. How do you create 17 elementary particles and 4 forces out of these? The term Sankalpa is just a jargon to hide our ignorance, we need to unpack it and clarify in a step-by-step manner.

Matter particles and forces of the physical world are created from Tanmaatras of the Astral World as per some Laws of Nature. These Laws could have been incorporated in nature by the Sankalpa of the cosmic consciousness. Don't be under any misconception that physical derivatives of the physical world viz atoms/molecules and forces are created by the Sankalpa of some Yogi. However, occasionally, a Yogi may take over the process of nature and create physical derivatives out of his Sankalpa.But this process happens for quite limited Tanmaatras/physical derivatives in a limited space/time interval.  A Sankalpa is a firm resolution as emanating from the level of the consciousness. As indicated in some previous email also, localized consciousness of a fully realized Yogi is identified with the cosmic consciousness, therefore, any Sankalpa emanating from it very powerful.

An analogy. Visualize consciousness with electric voltage and Mind/Sankalpa as some electric motor. When a voltage of 220 V will act on motor what will be its power and when a voltage of 600 KV (600000 volts) will act on the motor, what a great power will be produced by the motor? Same is applicable to the sankalpa of a commoner and a realized yogi..

Regarding the transformation of Tanmatraas to physical derivatives, I have sent a separate email to you
 
Sehgal: Saankhya concept is that of Chetan (conscious one) and Jada (inert - nonconscious).
 
Vimal: The eastern term 'Chetan' implies only experiences (Purusha) and the rest are Jada (non-Chetan or Prakriti). This is because the western term 'consciousness' includes both experiences and functions. Therefore, Chetan = consciousness is misleading and creates unnecessary confusion.

I can't understand where is the confusion? 'Chetan" means the only EXPERIENCER. All the process of the experience takes place in the 'Jada" physical brain and 'Jada" astral mind. In the Western concept of consciousness including both EXPERIENCER and FUNCTIONS ( which I have termed as the process) is not in conformity with Eastern/Saankhya's metaphysics. As per Saankhya's metaphysics, everything  including physical brain and astral mind except the one  conscious experiencer is inert and therefore it is physical
 
Sehgal: there is no likelihood of the objective empirical verification of Astral body and Astral world due to a variety of factors viz non-inclination by those who have really attained type of Samaadhis wherein these can be vividly observed in the state of Samaadhis, incapability of current technology to pierce the astral realm of nature, lack of serious interest in scientific community to know about this trans-physical realm of nature and above all a dogmatic approach amongst scientists that there is no reality beyond our physical body/world. […] Once a broad, clear and refined understanding of Astral bodies/worlds and cosmic consciousness dawns down, agnosticism will remain no longer as agnosticism. It will be replaced by a conviction.
 
Vimal: In subjective research, first, a researcher must be a subject and must experience whatever other yogis experienced previously. Then, only we can do useful research towards full conviction. Otherwise, agnosticism will always remain. How can an achromatic researcher have a full conviction of color vision? We have to accept this bitter truth, unfortunately. 

No, it is not necessary that a researcher may experience the same whatever other Yogis may have experienced previously. Once a Yogi can enter the Astral world and gain proficiency, he/she can maintain his/her identity to explore the Astral world as per any route and have new experiences. Initially, a Yogi has to follow the route as per advised/directed by his Guru but afterward, he/she can reserach on any entity/route. A simple analogy. A trainee pilot during the initial days of his flying will fly an aircraft from Boston to Delhi under the guidance of his guide pilot and as per the route as prescribed by the guide. Obviously, he will see/experience only those cities/ mountain/lakes as falling on that route only. However, one trainee pilot becomes sufficiently competent to fly the craft at his own, he can take the flight from Boston to Delhi from other many routes also and on each route, he will see and experience different cities and manmade/nature made objects. If a pilot has never followed a particular route it does not implies that cities/nature made/man made objects at that route don't exist. So is with the experiences in the state of Samaadhi.

Regards

Vinod sehgal


 

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:35 PM, Mukundan P.R. <mukundan...@gmail.com> wrote:
God does not sit where the scholars debate about his existence. God lies beyond human intelligence (buddhi). The Upanishadic Rishis said, prajnanam brahm, i.e. God is consciousness. That consciousness or soul exists in man enveloped within five sheaths -ego (the feeling of I), intellect, mind, energy (prana) and food sheath. Physical body is only a cage for the soul to live or exist. Why so much confusion and debate about this? Through mental absorption and sharp intelligence one person can experience the Light behind, the soul, which is part of that eternal consciousness - Paramatma. There are two types of souls,individual soul and supreme soul.  Like the individual soul, the supreme soul is also enveloped within ten spiritual sheaths or levels of consciousness. Human soul expands and evolves to merge with that Supreme Self through a number of incarnations passing through various stages from a human to become a  Pitru>Deva>Rishi>Sanyasi> Eshwara>Brahm>Para Brahm etc. That is the purpose of birth. The solar system is a mechanism for this evolution.     
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:32 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: The primary astral matter is Tanmatras…
 
Vimal: The five Tanmātras are rūpa/visual form, śabda/sound, sparśa/touch, rasa/taste, and gandha/smell. How do you create 17 elementary particles and 4 forces out of these? The term Sankalpa is just a jargon to hide our ignorance, we need to unpack it and clarify in a step-by-step manner.
 
Sehgal: Saankhya concept is that of Chetan (conscious one) and Jada (inert - nonconscious).
 
Vimal: The eastern term 'Chetan' implies only experiences (Purusha) and the rest are Jada (non-Chetan or Prakriti). This is because the western term 'consciousness' includes both experiences and functions. Therefore, Chetan = consciousness is misleading and creates unnecessary confusion.
 
Sehgal: there is no likelihood of the objective empirical verification of Astral body and Astral world due to a variety of factors viz non-inclination by those who have really attained type of Samaadhis wherein these can be vividly observed in the state of Samaadhis, incapability of current technology to pierce the astral realm of nature, lack of serious interest in scientific community to know about this trans-physical realm of nature and above all a dogmatic approach amongst scientists that there is no reality beyond our physical body/world. […] Once a broad, clear and refined understanding of Astral bodies/worlds and cosmic consciousness dawns down, agnosticism will remain no longer as agnosticism. It will be replaced by a conviction.
 
Vimal: In subjective research, first, a researcher must be a subject and must experience whatever other yogis experienced previously. Then, only we can do useful research towards full conviction. Otherwise, agnosticism will always remain. How can an achromatic researcher have a full conviction of color vision? We have to accept this bitter truth, unfortunately. 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 24 May 2017 12:12 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:


Dear Vinod ji,

Our goal is to compare all four metaphysics and address thier problems. Let us concentrate on them first.

Sehgal: The primary astral matter is Tanmatras…

Vimal: The five Tanmātras are rūpa/visual form, śabda/sound, sparśa/touch, rasa/taste, and gandha/smell. How do you create 17 elementary particles and 4 forces out of these?

 
Kind regards,
Rām

 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.
--
----------------------------
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
 
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.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 27, 2017, 10:33:31 AM5/27/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Kashyap Vasavada
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

As you noted, we cannot have objective evidence of 3 worlds outside of a brain-mind system. This is the major problem of top-down approach. We have a neural basis of dream or some levels of samādhi state. You can look at them thru wiki and PUBMED and Google search and see if they can be used. It is not useful to research on somebody else’s experiences until we have our own. This is the fundamental of subjective research.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 27 May 2017 6:41 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

I have been contemplating over Saankhya metaphysics since a quite long period and I don;t any serious
problems but I have not expressed my views in the structured format the way you have expressed your views on eDAM and other metaphysics in your ebooks. Most of the 8 problems as listed by you arise from your non-recognition of the structural reality of the astral realm of nature having Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas and Tanmaatras. Your conception that Astral body having Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas and Tanmaatras  are functions and same manifest as an extension of the NNs of the mind-brain system is an interpretation of Materialism/eDAM as arising out of the axioms/key features of these metaphysics. As I have dwelled upon in my emails since the past a few days, all metaphysics need to be examined within its axioms/key features only and then we should analyze and arrive at the key problems. This will project a correct picture of a [particular metaphysics.

From the above perspective, I don't find the mechanism in Saankyaa by which signal of the physical energy ( Agni Mahabhuttas), from the stimulus, get translated/manifested at the Astral mind level in form of Astral energy ( Rupa Tanmaatra). But this could be again due to non-absence of objective empirical research in the Astral realm due to a variety of reasons. In the state of Samaadhi, though all the elements of the Astral body/world can be observed subjectively in a  quite vivid  manner and their mechanism also observed but this can't match the degree of precision with which empirical objective instruments in the physical world can deal with physical objects in the physical world. I am doubtful if physical instruments can be taken to Astral world  to do  empirical objective research since, in the Astral world, physical instruments will no longer remain as physical, as they are physical in our physical world.This is the limitation of our consciousness and physicality as operating in the respective Physical/Astral/Causal realm of nature. To substantiate this hypothesis, we know that no scientist can take his empirical objective instruments and also his logic/arguments/theories/hypothesis  of the awakened state TO the dream conscious state to deal/research on the objects of the dream  consciosus state.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

As you suggested in your broad roadmap, I agree that we should first concentrate on individual metaphysics to find at least internal consistency and problems.
 
Then, try to select the metaphysics that has empirical subjective and objective evidence/verification, logic, and has the least number of problems.
 
Therefore, you go ahead and try your best.
 
I have already tried my best as elaborated in Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013), Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), and Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c).
 
Once you are done, then we can discuss further. 

Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 26 May 2017 1:33 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Matter particles and forces of the physical world are created from Tanmātras of the Astral World as per some Laws of Nature. These Laws could have been incorporated in nature by the Sankalpa of the cosmic consciousness.
 
Vimal: What are those Laws of Nature that creates 17 elementary particles from 5 Tanmātras?
 
Sehgal: A Broad roadmap for the comparison of four groups of metaphysics is described in 5/23/17 email.
 
Vimal: We need to start somewhere; so it will be fine with me as a starting step. However, for comparison, we need to have common reference basis. In my view, there are two bases:
(i) Eastern top-down systems (such as SAnkhya, VedAnta, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and so on): two groups of entities, namely, Purusha and Prakriti.
(ii) Western bottom-up (such as science and eDAM): two groups of entities, namely, physical (fermions and bosons: P) and non-physical or mental (M).

In the aforesaid, you have divided different metaphysics into two broad categories top-bottom and bottom-top. On this basis, how can we compare different metaphysic?

I think, there is no way out to have a comparison between different metaphysics since they are based on different axioms, varying approaches were employed to arrive at each of metaphysics and there is a difference in the definition of basic concepts. For example, most of the metaphysics of East arrived as an after the findings of spiritual practices by a no of Yogis/Saints of different periods spanning into thousand of years in past  while Materialism and eDAM are the results of logical formulations ( akin to any theory on some physical phenomenon) and based on the scientific knowledge of matter and physical energy acquired as on date. 
Similarly, in Materialism and eDAM, the mind is treated as some functions but in Saankhya, the mind is a subtle structure of the primordial physicality( Moola Prakriti), as such, mind is physical implying lacking any innate consciousness. Then in Materialism and eDAM, no distinction is made between mind and consciousness. That is why it uses a word 'qualia' -- conscious experience but in Saankhya, consciousness, and mind are basically different. In this manner, there is a lot of diversity in different metaphysics. Therefore, we can't compare different metaphysics from a common criterion or reference basis.

In view of above, I had suggested a roadmap wherein we may arrive at problems of each metaphysics by analyzing the same in isolation and deduce empirical subjective and empirical objective evidence in support of each evidence. I am reproducing below the road map as suggested by me in my email dated 23/5/2017
Then what is the way out to find as to which metaphysics is correct. There can be a well laid down strategy to find out this though it is quite cumbersome. I am placing below broad roadmap towards that strategy.

i) We may spell out key features of each metaphysics as such with classification basis being evolved out of that metaphysics only. this is not an easy task since, for each metaphysics, there are scores of interpretations with each interpretation claiming to be correct. So the best way out to select the correct interpretation will be:
 
a) For the Western materialistic metaphysics, that interpretation should be chosen which meets the ends of the objective empirical evidence for its key doctrine and pass out the test of preliminary logical scrutiny.

b) For the Eastern metaphysics,

(1) Ist preference should be given to those interpretations which come out from the interpretations who are from our current period and whose interpretation is based upon their actual Samaadhi state experience. 

(2) If (1) above is not available, we should go in for the interpretation of those people who had originally pounded the metaphysics in the past after their Samadhi state experience.

(3)) If  (2) above is also not available, we should go in for the interpretation of those, who though were not the original propounder of the metaphysics but were in the lineage of the original propounder and also had the Samaadhi state experience.

94)  if  (3) above is also not available, then last preference should be given to those interpreters who are having neither any Samaadhi state experience nor in the lineage `original propounder of the metaphysics.

ii) After spelling out key features of each metaphysics, next step will be to devise some classification basis and criterion of scrutiny out of that metaphysics only.

iii) Once steps i) and ii) are accomplished for each metaphysics, next step will be to analyze thru logical deliberations each metaphysics independently in terms of classification basis and criterion of scrutiny and to arrive at the problems of each metaphysics which don't seem reconcilable.

iv) Next, lies in enlisting objective empirical and subjective empirical evidence in favor of different metaphysics and ascertaining the reliability of the evidence.

v) After completing steps iii) and iv), those problems of each metaphysics should be selected which are insurmountable and available evidence also does not seem to have a solution for such problems.

vi) In the last step, a comparative chart of the insurmountable problems of all metaphysics can be prepared. Based upon such a comparative chart, one metaphysics should be selected which seem to have least no of insurmountable problems and the degree of insurmountability of problems is also least.

Above task is not an easy task and quite mammoth running into a no of years and involving a lot of man days.

Now you may please give your considered opinion if the above-indicated roadmap for comparison of different metaphysics is feasible is implementable and if yes, how?

We need to translate correctly the terms used for comparison. It is better to use the original terms in each basis. Then we try our best to translate them. For example, The Eastern system should use "Chetan" rather than the Western term "consciousness". Closest correct translation may be: Chetan = experiencer; consciousness has over 40 meanings, which has been categorized into two groups:  (a) experiences including experiencer, and (b) functions including thoughts.

Above is an issue difficult to reconcile, In Eastern metaphysics particularly Saankhya, consciousness serves primarily two purposes i) Ultimate experiences ii) Providing requisite power to body and mind to do functions including thoughts. So thoughts are the functions of mind which basically is inert ( non-conscious), so thought are also basically inert but thoughts are produced from the mind in the presence of consciousness. But in Materialism, both mind and consciousness are the products of physical matter which in itself lacks any consciousness and further, there is no difference in the consciousness and mind. In eDAM, potential mental aspect, as inseparable with each and every physical entity is treated as Function ( but whose structure, no clarity, from where such functions manifest -- no clarity, how and in which such functions exist- no clarity). Then at the functional brain stage, these functions again split into two categories -- experiences and functions. I can't understand what is the meaning of manifestation/splitting up some functions as experience and functions again when they are already some functions.

So hereinabove, I have just touched one aspect of 3 metaphysics viz  Saankhya, materialism, and eDAM. How can we reconcile using equivalent terminology?

Best metaphysics should be selected based on empirical subjective and objective verification, logic, and has the least number of problems.

Yes, I agree to above methodology for which I have spelled out a roadmap ( as indicated in italics blue font text) to elicit your considered opinion on its impenetrability.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal



 

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Matter particles and forces of the physical world are created from Tanmātras of the Astral World as per some Laws of Nature. These Laws could have been incorporated in nature by the Sankalpa of the cosmic consciousness.
 
Vimal: What are those Laws of Nature that creates 17 elementary particles from 5 Tanmātras?
 
Sehgal: A Broad roadmap for the comparison of four groups of metaphysics is described in 5/23/17 email.
 
Vimal: We need to start somewhere; so it will be fine with me as a starting step. However, for comparison, we need to have common reference basis. In my view, there are two bases:
(i) Eastern top-down systems (such as SAnkhya, VedAnta, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and so on): two groups of entities, namely, Purusha and Prakriti.
(ii) Western bottom-up (such as science and eDAM): two groups of entities, namely, physical (fermions and bosons: P) and non-physical or mental (M).
We need to translate correctly the terms used for comparison. It is better to use the original terms in each basis. Then we try our best to translate them. For example, The Eastern system should use "Chetan" rather than the Western term "consciousness". Closest correct translation may be: Chetan = experiencer; consciousness has over 40 meanings, which has been categorized into two groups:  (a) experiences including experiencer, and (b) functions including thoughts.

Best metaphysics should be selected based on empirical subjective and objective verification, logic, and has the least number of problems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
...

[Message clipped]  






Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 28, 2017, 10:51:06 AM5/28/17
to Vinod Sehgal, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: [1] How can we have empirical objective evidence for the 3 worlds when methodology of objective empirical experimentation does not go beyond the physical world?
 
[2] Can you produce any objective empirical evidence that we all human beings have any conscious self or mind?
 
[3] The need for the objective empirical evidence shall become redundant.
 
[4] Having neural basis does imply that conscious experiences are produced solely due to NNs.
 
Vimal: I am agnostic about astral, causal, and the manifested/Chetan Cosmic worlds and the top-down approach unless I experience myself.
 
[1] The same ways as for the lucid dream world or simple dream world even though the latter is not under our control.  
 
[2] Yes. This is because the conscious self, conscious "I-ness", or mind has a related neural basis.
 
[3] I disagree that the need for the objective empirical evidence will ever become redundant.
 
[4] This is correct interpretation in problematic materialism, but it is incorrect in the eDAM, experiences are part of 1pp-mental aspect and the related NN and its activities are the inseparable 3pp-physical aspect. 

 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 27 May 2017 11:15 AM, Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr Ram,

Thanks.

How can we have empirical objective evidence for the  3 worlds when methodology of  objective empirical experimentation does not go beyond the physical world? Even the staunchest of the votaries of objective empirical evidence have no answer to one obvious fact viz they can't deny  the existence of our conscious " I-ness", conscious self and mind despite there being no objective empirical evidence for the same. Can you produce any objective empirical evidence that we all human beings have any conscious self ir mind? I think there is no such evidence. Yet, every sane person agrees unequivocally  that we have some conscious self and mind which is not our physical body /brain. Reason for this being that our conscious self and mind falls within the subjective experience of every one if us., therefore, we don't try to seek objective empirical evidence. And even if we may try to seek empirical objective evidence, same will not be feasible. And interesting thing is that even if by some objective empirical evidence, it is proved, say hypothetically, that we don't have any conscious self or mind, no one will agree to that evidence. Reasons for this are quite obvious. When any phenomenon comes under our subjective experience and that too of reproducible nature, need for the objective empirical evidence  becomes redundant. In case of the experience of the transphydicsl Astral, Causal realms and cosmic consciousness, there are one  out of millions who achieve  that state Samaadhi. In fact, one out of lacs, seriously try to achieve that state and out of such people,  one out of hundred/ thousand really achieve the final state. If  even one tenth of the population of the world is able to achieve the state of Samadhi  in which Astral and Causal reality becomes vividly known, physicists and neuroscientists  shall stop asking for the objective empirical evidence. This being due to reasons that millions of people around the globe will have their own subjective  evidence, which will be of the matching and reproducible  nature, therefore, need for the objective empirical evidence shall become redundant. So absence of objective empirical evidence in top down  approach is not a problem since  for phenomenon  falling within the domain of subjective experiences, there can't be any objective empirical evidence, the way there can't be any objective empirical evidence for our conscious  self, conscious  " I-ness" and mind.

There are neural  basis  for all our experiences  in the awakened state, dream state and for Dhayaana and Dhaarna, stages lower than the Samaadhi state since consciousness  remain operative  in the physical brain level. Therefore, any experience  at the astral mind kevel leaves its effect upon the physical brain level in form of NNs. Having neural basis  does imply that conscious experiences  are produced  solely due to NNs. Till consciousness  resides and operates in the physical body/ brain level, any experience  is manifested due to the joint aggregate of the astral Mind and physical brain, therefore, need for NNs for such experiences  is imperative. However, once consciousness  can cross the physical body/brain in the state of advanced level Samaadhi, experiences can take place at the astral mind level but no impact percolates  down  at the physical brain level presumably due to the absence if any consciousness  operating at the brain level. Hence no NNs for such  experiences.

Like in objective empirical  research, in subjective empirical research also, we remain dependent upon the guidance and learning from other"s  experiences  and researches till we achieve our own experience. In fact, in subjective empirical research, we remain dependent more on other's experiences  since path is unknown  and full of darkness.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal


Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

[The entire original message is not included.]


Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 29, 2017, 10:18:45 AM5/29/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Our goal is to compare the 4 metaphysics and address the problems, rather than endless discussion. I did my part in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013) in my way. You are supposed to do the same in your way. Try your best whatever you can.

Sehgal: But with an agnostic mindset, the likelihood of self-experiences of astral, causal and manifested consciousness are very low.  This could be your deep-rooted metaphysical belief which does not listen to evidence and logical reasoning.
 
Vimal: In research, we must be unbiased/agnostic, which is mandatory and a prerequisite for a researcher; otherwise, subjective biases will occur as happens to all yogis during many years of training by their gurus. If you are a firm believer then what is the point of doing research; you get what you think.
 
Sehgal: State of Samaadhi leading to the experiences of Astral, Causal worlds and manifested consciousness is fundamentally different than that of -lucid dream world state/dreams. Former is under control, having reproducibility and matching descriptions between a group of people at a different time and places while later one lacks all these elements of the reality. Even the dream state is not unreal in the sense that in the dream conscious state, the experience of the dream appears real. Despite the best of your logic and arguments, try you best in the dream conscious state, when you go to dreams next time, that dreams may appear unreal (illusions). Why do dreams appear real when we are in the dream conscious state?
 
Vimal: My definition of reality is that it must exist in the real physical world out there. When I am flying like Hanuman ji in a dream after watching the related TV, it is unreal because I cannot fly in the real physical world out there. If I build a palace with firm Sankalpa during SS state, it is unreal in our physical world because that palace does not exist when I open my eyes.
 
Sehgal: Please note that empirical objective evidence is for the NNs which is a physical aspect and NOT for the conscious self or mind conscious "I-ness". Evidence for the conscious self or conscious "I-ness" or mind is given by our subjective version of the person which is not an objective empirical evidence. But that is happening every moment in our daily life in the case of the existence of our conscious self, conscious  "I-ness" and mind. Do you or any sane person has ever asked for the empirical objective evidence for the existence of conscious self or mind for any human beings?
 
 
Vimal: I mean that conscious self or mind conscious "I-ness" as the 1pp-mental aspect of a beable ontic conscious/SS/NS state and its inseparable 3pp-physical aspect, such as cortical and subcortical midline structures and their activities. This is the best I can do at present time until I have SS/NS state experiences.
 
 
Sehgal: In eDAM, the mental aspect is treated as Functions. There is no way out in eDAM to explain in logical terms as to how can any functions exist on their own without taking birth from a structure as a consequent of change in the structure. It is a logical axiomatic fact that none of the functions can exist on their own unless some change in structure is produced and that functions are necessary to take birth from structure only. Functions are always inseparable from the structure, whether in materialism or in eDAM.
 
Vimal: I have written many times that, in the eDAM, functions do not take birth from structures or they are not independent entities, rather functions are in the mental aspect and structures are the inseparable physical aspect. Information is the same; it is just viewing from two different perspectives (1pp and 3pp, respectively).
 

Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Monday, 29 May 2017 1:56 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: [1] How can we have empirical objective evidence for the 3 worlds when methodology of objective empirical experimentation does not go beyond the physical world?
 
[2] Can you produce any objective empirical evidence that we all human beings have any conscious self or mind?
 
[3] The need for the objective empirical evidence shall become redundant.
 
[4] Having neural basis does NOT imply that conscious experiences are produced solely due to NNs.
 
Vimal: I am agnostic about astral, causal, and the manifested/Chetan Cosmic worlds and the top-down approach unless I experience myself.

But with an agnostic mindset, the likelihood of self-experiences of astral, causal and manifested consciousness are very low.  This could be your deep-rooted metaphysical belief which does not listen to evidence and logical reasoning.
 
[1] The same ways as for the lucid dream world or simple dream world even though the latter is not under our control.  

State of Samaadhi leading to the experiences of Astral, Causal worlds and manifested consciousness is fundamentally different than that of -lucid dream world state/dreams. Former is under control, having reproducibility and matching descriptions between a group of people at a different time and places while later one lacks all these elements of the reality.

Even the dream state is not unreal in the sense that in the dream conscious state, the experience of the dream appears real. Despite the best of your logic and arguments, try you best in the dream conscious state, when you go to dreams next time, that dreams may appear unreal ( illusions). Why do dreams appear real when we are in the dream conscious state?


[2] Yes. This is because the conscious self, conscious "I-ness", or mind has a related neural basis.

Please note that empirical objective evidence is for the  NNs which is a physical aspect and NOT for the conscious self or mind conscious "I-ness". Evidence for the conscious self or conscious "I-ness" or mind is given by  our subjective version of the person which is not an objective empirical evidence
 
[3] I disagree that the need for the objective empirical evidence will ever become redundant.

But that is happening every moment in our daily life in the case of the existence of our conscious self, conscious  "I-ness" and mind. Do you or any sane person has ever asked for the empirical objective evidence for the existence of conscious self or mind for any human beings?

[4] This is correct interpretation in problematic materialism, but it is incorrect in the eDAM, experiences are part of 1pp-mental aspect and the related NN and its activities are the inseparable 3pp-physical aspect. 

In eDAM, the mental aspect is treated as Functions. There is no way out in eDAM to explain in logical terms as to how can any functions exist on their own without taking birth from a structure as a consequent of change in the structure. It is a logical axiomatic fact that none of the functions can exist on their own unless some change in structure is produced and that functions are necessary to take birth from structure only. Functions are always inseparable from the structure, whether in materialism or in eDAM.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: [1] How can we have empirical objective evidence for the 3 worlds when methodology of objective empirical experimentation does not go beyond the physical world?
 
[2] Can you produce any objective empirical evidence that we all human beings have any conscious self or mind?
 
[3] The need for the objective empirical evidence shall become redundant.
 
[4] Having neural basis does imply that conscious experiences are produced solely due to NNs.
 
Vimal: I am agnostic about astral, causal, and the manifested/Chetan Cosmic worlds and the top-down approach unless I experience myself.
 
[1] The same ways as for the lucid dream world or simple dream world even though the latter is not under our control.  
 
[2] Yes. This is because the conscious self, conscious "I-ness", or mind has a related neural basis.
 
[3] I disagree that the need for the objective empirical evidence will ever become redundant.
 
[4] This is correct interpretation in problematic materialism, but it is incorrect in the eDAM, experiences are part of 1pp-mental aspect and the related NN and its activities are the inseparable 3pp-physical aspect. 

 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 11:15 AM, Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr Ram,

Thanks.

How can we have empirical objective evidence for the  3 worlds when methodology of  objective empirical experimentation does not go beyond the physical world? Even the staunchest of the votaries of objective empirical evidence have no answer to one obvious fact viz they can't deny  the existence of our conscious " I-ness", conscious self and mind despite there being no objective empirical evidence for the same. Can you produce any objective empirical evidence that we all human beings have any conscious self ir mind? I think there is no such evidence. Yet, every sane person agrees unequivocally  that we have some conscious self and mind which is not our physical body /brain. Reason for this being that our conscious self and mind falls within the subjective experience of every one if us., therefore, we don't try to seek objective empirical evidence. And even if we may try to seek empirical objective evidence, same will not be feasible. And interesting thing is that even if by some objective empirical evidence, it is proved, say hypothetically, that we don't have any conscious self or mind, no one will agree to that evidence. Reasons for this are quite obvious. When any phenomenon comes under our subjective experience and that too of reproducible nature, need for the objective empirical evidence  becomes redundant. In case of the experience of the transphydicsl Astral, Causal realms and cosmic consciousness, there are one  out of millions who achieve  that state Samaadhi. In fact, one out of lacs, seriously try to achieve that state and out of such people,  one out of hundred/ thousand really achieve the final state. If  even one tenth of the population of the world is able to achieve the state of Samadhi  in which Astral and Causal reality becomes vividly known, physicists and neuroscientists  shall stop asking for the objective empirical evidence. This being due to reasons that millions of people around the globe will have their own subjective  evidence, which will be of the matching and reproducible  nature, therefore, need for the objective empirical evidence shall become redundant. So absence of objective empirical evidence in top down  approach is not a problem since  for phenomenon  falling within the domain of subjective experiences, there can't be any objective empirical evidence, the way there can't be any objective empirical evidence for our conscious  self, conscious  " I-ness" and mind.

There are neural  basis  for all our experiences  in the awakened state, dream state and for Dhayaana and Dhaarna, stages lower than the Samaadhi state since consciousness  remain operative  in the physical brain level. Therefore, any experience  at the astral mind kevel leaves its effect upon the physical brain level in form of NNs. Having neural basis  does imply that conscious experiences  are produced  solely due to NNs. Till consciousness  resides and operates in the physical body/ brain level, any experience  is manifested due to the joint aggregate of the astral Mind and physical brain, therefore, need for NNs for such experiences  is imperative. However, once consciousness  can cross the physical body/brain in the state of advanced level Samaadhi, experiences can take place at the astral mind level but no impact percolates  down  at the physical brain level presumably due to the absence if any consciousness  operating at the brain level. Hence no NNs for such  experiences.

Like in objective empirical  research, in subjective empirical research also, we remain dependent upon the guidance and learning from other"s  experiences  and researches till we achieve our own experience. In fact, in subjective empirical research, we remain dependent more on other's experiences  since path is unknown  and full of darkness.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Sent: ‎27-‎05-‎2017 19:31
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal; Kashyap Vasavada
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

As you noted, we cannot have objective evidence of 3 worlds outside of a brain-mind system. This is the major problem of top-down approach. We have a neural basis of dream or some levels of samādhi state. You can look at them thru wiki and PUBMED and Google search and see if they can be used. It is not useful to research on somebody else’s experiences until we have our own. This is the fundamental of subjective research.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 6:41 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

I have been contemplating over Saankhya metaphysics since a quite long period and I don;t any serious
problems but I have not expressed my views in the structured format the way you have expressed your views on eDAM and other metaphysics in your ebooks. Most of the 8 problems as listed by you arise from your non-recognition of the structural reality of the astral realm of nature having Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas and Tanmaatras. Your conception that Astral body having Manas, Buddhi, Indreyaas and Tanmaatras  are functions and same manifest as an extension of the NNs of the mind-brain system is an interpretation of Materialism/eDAM as arising out of the axioms/key features of these metaphysics. As I have dwelled upon in my emails since the past a few days, all metaphysics need to be examined within its axioms/key features only and then we should analyze and arrive at the key problems. This will project a correct picture of a [particular metaphysics.

From the above perspective, I don't find the mechanism in Saankyaa by which signal of the physical energy ( Agni Mahabhuttas), from the stimulus, get translated/manifested at the Astral mind level in form of Astral energy ( Rupa Tanmaatra). But this could be again due to non-absence of objective empirical research in the Astral realm due to a variety of reasons. In the state of Samaadhi, though all the elements of the Astral body/world can be observed subjectively in a  quite vivid  manner and their mechanism also observed but this can't match the degree of precision with which empirical objective instruments in the physical world can deal with physical objects in the physical world. I am doubtful if physical instruments can be taken to Astral world  to do  empirical objective research since, in the Astral world, physical instruments will no longer remain as physical, as they are physical in our physical world.This is the limitation of our consciousness and physicality as operating in the respective Physical/Astral/Causal realm of nature. To substantiate this hypothesis, we know that no scientist can take his empirical objective instruments and also his logic/arguments/theories/ hypothesis  of the awakened state TO the dream conscious state to deal/research on the objects of the dream  consciosus state.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 1:46 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

As you suggested in your broad roadmap, I agree that we should first concentrate on individual metaphysics to find at least internal consistency and problems.
 
Then, try to select the metaphysics that has empirical subjective and objective evidence/verification, logic, and has the least number of problems.
 
Therefore, you go ahead and try your best.
 
I have already tried my best as elaborated in Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013), Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), and Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c).
 
Once you are done, then we can discuss further. 

Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

priyedarshi jetli

unread,
May 29, 2017, 10:43:52 AM5/29/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Vinod,

"Logical axiomatic fact" is the first such a term has been used. Must have profound meaning.

Priyedarshi

--
----------------------------
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/763854699.2879956.1496067147570%40mail.yahoo.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 29, 2017, 8:09:53 PM5/29/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

I am sorry to say that you still cannot differentiate data from interpretations. For example, you still think that astral, causal and manifested Puruṣa (chetanta) worlds are the data; they are NOT the data; they are Sāṅkhya’s interpretations of the subjective personal/private data; the subjective data are SS/NS subjective experiences.
 
Furthermore, I think that you have misunderstood what I mean by objective evidence. Subjective experiences at any state of mind-brain system are subjective data; it does not matter whether they are of dream state, wakeful or samādhi state. They are always from 1pp, but they are subjective and personal. The related brain activities that are recorded are objective data from 3pp, which are for the public. They can be easily measured using fMRI and EEG. These are data, which are reproducible. I do not see any problem in these data if collected carefully. My objection is not in these data.
 
My objection is in the interpretations of these data. These data can be interpreted using any of the 4 metaphysics in their own ways. The materialism, idealism and interactive substance dualism (or Sankhya) metaphysics have serious problems as elaborated in my Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). The eDAM is the least problematic metaphysics. If you want to defend any metaphysics then you need to address those problems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Monday, 29 May 2017 12:42 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Our goal is to compare the 4 metaphysics and address the problems, rather than endless discussion. I did my part in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013) in my way. You are supposed to do the same in your way. Try your best whatever you can.

I had clarified my position in my email dated May 27, 2017

Sehgal: But with an agnostic mindset, the likelihood of self-experiences of astral, causal and manifested consciousness are very low.  This could be your deep-rooted metaphysical belief which does not listen to evidence and logical reasoning.
 
Vimal: In research, we must be unbiased/agnostic, which is mandatory and a prerequisite for a researcher; otherwise, subjective biases will occur as happens to all yogis during many years of training by their gurus. If you are a firm believer then what is the point of doing research; you get what you think.

There are some basic and fundamental differences in the objective empirical research employing physical instruments and subjective empirical research. In objective empirical research, physical data is collected by the physical instruments but in the subjective empirical research, experiences are gained by achieving the state of Samaadhi. For achieving the state of Samaadhi, an unwavering mind with the firmness of consciousness are mandatory. An agnostic and wavering mind can't be of much help ( on the contrary it is a hindrance) for achieving the state of Samaadhi.

I had indicated in one of my previous email that initially, an aspirant has to trust his guide Guru for ascending the state of  Samaadhi. Once he gains the proficiency in entering the Astral world and Causal world on his own without any aid from his Guru then he can explore and research on the Astral, Causal world and manifested consciousness at his own from any angle and from any route. Please try to understand from one analogy. You want to ascend Mount Everest for the Ist time. Initially, you will seek help from some guide who has ascended Mount Everest previously and has gained efficiency for the same. So you have no other way out but to trust the route and en-route scenery as is told by the guide. If you will argue, why should I trust guide about the route and en-route scenery, you may try for years but will never be able to ascend Mount Everest. However, after taking the help of guide for a few times and trusting his versions of the route and en-route scenery, you will gain proficiency of your own that you will be able to ascend Mount Everest at your own. On the contrary, you may be able to discover many routes at your own and research on the en-route scenery at your own.

Trusting one's version, who has already completed any journey, is not bias but it can make our mind firm which is a pre-requisite to start the internal journey of the spiritual journey to Astral and Causal bodies and cosmic consciousness.

Having firm belief but as supported by logic, observation and evidence AND  one's own personal experience are two different things. I possess the former but lack the later one.


Sehgal: State of Samaadhi leading to the experiences of Astral, Causal worlds and manifested consciousness is fundamentally different than that of -lucid dream world state/dreams. Former is under control, having reproducibility and matching descriptions between a group of people at a different time and places while later one lacks all these elements of the reality. Even the dream state is not unreal in the sense that in the dream conscious state, the experience of the dream appears real. Despite the best of your logic and arguments, try you best in the dream conscious state, when you go to dreams next time, that dreams may appear unreal (illusions). Why do dreams appear real when we are in the dream conscious state?
 
Vimal: My definition of reality is that it must exist in the real physical world out there. When I am flying like Hanuman ji in a dream after watching the related TV, it is unreal because I cannot fly in the real physical world out there. If I build a palace with firm Sankalpa during SS state, it is unreal in our physical world because that palace does not exist when I open my eyes.

When you open your eyes in the dream conscious state, where the reality of your physical world vanishes? Where your palace, your house, your car, your logic, your knowledge, your theories, your hypothesis and all that you treat as so real in the physical world become so unreal and where does that vanish? And why do all the experiences of the dream state including flying like Hanuman and your logic of dream state appears real to you? You please contemplate over these issues and you may get the answers on your own as to what is real and unreal.

I have indicated many times ( but it seems you have not paid attention to the same) that there is no parallel between the experiences of SS and dream state. Experiences of the SS are under control, reproducible and of corroborative nature having nature of verification from other people also. But experiences of dreams lack all these characteristics.

What is the evidence or explanation with you that experiences of our physical world only are real? If they had been so real, what happens to their realness, when we go to the dream conscious state?


Sehgal: Please note that empirical objective evidence is for the NNs which is a physical aspect and NOT for the conscious self or mind conscious "I-ness". Evidence for the conscious self or conscious "I-ness" or mind is given by our subjective version of the person which is not an objective empirical evidence. But that is happening every moment in our daily life in the case of the existence of our conscious self, conscious  "I-ness" and mind. Do you or any sane person has ever asked for the empirical objective evidence for the existence of conscious self or mind for any human beings?
 
 
Vimal: I mean that conscious self or mind conscious "I-ness" as the 1pp-mental aspect of a beable ontic conscious/SS/NS state and its inseparable 3pp-physical aspect, such as cortical and subcortical midline structures and their activities. This is the best I can do at present time until I have SS/NS state experiences.

The issue was not that what you have stated above. The issue was that there is no objective empirical evidence for the existence of our conscious self, conscious "I-ness" and mind. Objective empirical evidence of Neurosciences are for the existence of the physical NNs, that is all and NOT for the conscious self, conscious "I-ness" and mind. Evidence for the existence of mind, conscious self and conscious  "I-ness" is provided to us subjectively by our own consciousness only in all human beings. This is where objective empirical evidence becomes redundant.
 
 
Sehgal: In eDAM, the mental aspect is treated as Functions. There is no way out in eDAM to explain in logical terms as to how can any functions exist on their own without taking birth from a structure as a consequent of change in the structure. It is a logical axiomatic fact that none of the functions can exist on their own unless some change in structure is produced and that functions are necessary to take birth from structure only. Functions are always inseparable from the structure, whether in materialism or in eDAM.
 
Vimal: I have written many times that, in the eDAM, functions do not take birth from structures or they are not independent entities, rather functions are in the mental aspect and structures are the inseparable physical aspect. Information is the same; it is just viewing from two different perspectives (1pp and 3pp, respectively).

But above is not the answer to the core issues of eDAM as raised by me. I had raised the issue: how and in which form any function can exist on its own? if a function will not take birth from a structure, from where will it emerge out? You have not addressed this issue.

The whole concept of eDAM that functions can exist on their own, without taking birth from some structure is illogical. In fact, there is no concept of any function unless some change takes place in the structure and consequently some function manifest automatically. 

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal
 


On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 7:42 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Our goal is to compare the 4 metaphysics and address the problems, rather than endless discussion. I did my part in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013) in my way. You are supposed to do the same in your way. Try your best whatever you can.

Sehgal: But with an agnostic mindset, the likelihood of self-experiences of astral, causal and manifested consciousness are very low.  This could be your deep-rooted metaphysical belief which does not listen to evidence and logical reasoning.
 
Vimal: In research, we must be unbiased/agnostic, which is mandatory and a prerequisite for a researcher; otherwise, subjective biases will occur as happens to all yogis during many years of training by their gurus. If you are a firm believer then what is the point of doing research; you get what you think.
 
Sehgal: State of Samaadhi leading to the experiences of Astral, Causal worlds and manifested consciousness is fundamentally different than that of -lucid dream world state/dreams. Former is under control, having reproducibility and matching descriptions between a group of people at a different time and places while later one lacks all these elements of the reality. Even the dream state is not unreal in the sense that in the dream conscious state, the experience of the dream appears real. Despite the best of your logic and arguments, try you best in the dream conscious state, when you go to dreams next time, that dreams may appear unreal (illusions). Why do dreams appear real when we are in the dream conscious state?
 
Vimal: My definition of reality is that it must exist in the real physical world out there. When I am flying like Hanuman ji in a dream after watching the related TV, it is unreal because I cannot fly in the real physical world out there. If I build a palace with firm Sankalpa during SS state, it is unreal in our physical world because that palace does not exist when I open my eyes.
 
Sehgal: Please note that empirical objective evidence is for the NNs which is a physical aspect and NOT for the conscious self or mind conscious "I-ness". Evidence for the conscious self or conscious "I-ness" or mind is given by our subjective version of the person which is not an objective empirical evidence. But that is happening every moment in our daily life in the case of the existence of our conscious self, conscious  "I-ness" and mind. Do you or any sane person has ever asked for the empirical objective evidence for the existence of conscious self or mind for any human beings?
 
 
Vimal: I mean that conscious self or mind conscious "I-ness" as the 1pp-mental aspect of a beable ontic conscious/SS/NS state and its inseparable 3pp-physical aspect, such as cortical and subcortical midline structures and their activities. This is the best I can do at present time until I have SS/NS state experiences.
 
 
Sehgal: In eDAM, the mental aspect is treated as Functions. There is no way out in eDAM to explain in logical terms as to how can any functions exist on their own without taking birth from a structure as a consequent of change in the structure. It is a logical axiomatic fact that none of the functions can exist on their own unless some change in structure is produced and that functions are necessary to take birth from structure only. Functions are always inseparable from the structure, whether in materialism or in eDAM.
 
Vimal: I have written many times that, in the eDAM, functions do not take birth from structures or they are not independent entities, rather functions are in the mental aspect and structures are the inseparable physical aspect. Information is the same; it is just viewing from two different perspectives (1pp and 3pp, respectively).
 

Kind regards,
Rām

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 30, 2017, 2:20:55 PM5/30/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Vimal: I am sorry to say that you still cannot differentiate data from interpretations. For example, you still think that astral, causal and manifested Puruṣa (chetanta) worlds are the data; they are NOT the data; they are Sāṅkhya’s interpretations of the subjective personal/private data; the subjective data are SS/NS subjective experiences.
 
Sehgal: With the exchange of emails with you since past more than a year, I can well differentiate between data and interpretation. For example, your above assertion that astral, causal and manifested consciousness are the interpretation of Saankhya is wrong since, in Sankhya, these are the ontological physical structures of nature as emanating out from the Primordial Prakriti( Moola Prakriti). Yes, as per eDAM or Materialism, these could be interpretations, as you have been stating. But as I have been dwelling upon since a quite past few days, interpretation for any metaphysics should come out from that metaphysics only and not from other metaphysics. Therefore, to interpret any experience of Saankhya from the eDAM or Materialism perspective that these experiences are interpretations and not data is basically a faulty approach.
 
Vimal: I strongly disagree that astral, causal, and manifested chetanta worlds are data. They are clearly the interpretation of Sāṅkhya. The data are clearly SS/NS state subjective experiences from 1st person perspective, which are private and personal. I am 100% confident that any good researcher will agree with me. I suggest that you should contact other colleagues and make sure that you understand the difference between data and interpretation.
 
Sehgal: … interpreting data of any metaphysics from the perspective any other metaphysics is basically a wrong approach.
 
Vimal: Data are simply either subjective data from 1pp (1st person perspective) or objective data from 3pp. Data do not belong to any metaphysical interpretation. The four groups of metaphysics are interpretations of these data.
 
An example is that there are experimental objective data of QM but there are over 45 interpretations of the same objective data.
 
Another example is that we experience that there is a table. This subjective experience (SE) in our wakeful conscious state is a subjective datum. This subjective datum can be interpreted by 4 metaphysics differently. For example, materialism will claim that the SE emerged from our brain. Sāṅkhya will claim that there are 4 worlds: the table is in physical world, which arose from (Moola) Prakṛti thru manifested chetan world, causal world, and astral world thru the mechanism of firm Sankalpa and Puruṣa is the experiencer. Idealism will claim that the appearance of table arose from Universal Potential Consciousness and table-in-itself does not exist. The eDAM will claim that the subjective experience (mental aspect) of table is from 1pp, and the neural basis of this experience is the related NN and its activities (physical aspect).
 
Once you understand clearly (not just saying that you understand) the difference between data and interpretations, then our discussion will be fruitful.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 1:36 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

I am sorry to say that you still cannot differentiate data from interpretations. For example, you still think that astral, causal and manifested Puruṣa (chetanta) worlds are the data; they are NOT the data; they are Sāṅkhya’s interpretations of the subjective personal/private data; the subjective data are SS/NS subjective experiences.

With the exchange of emails with you since past more than a year, I can well differentiate between data and interpretation. For example, your above assertion that astral, causal and manifested consciousness are the interpretation of Saankhya is wrong since, in Sankhya, these are the ontological physical structures of nature as emanating out from the Primordial Prakriti( Moola Prakriti). Yes, as per eDAM or Materialism, these could be interpretations, as you have been stating. But as I have been dwelling upon since a quite past few days, interpretation for any metaphysics should come out from that metaphysics only and not from other metaphysics. Therefore, to interpret any experience of Saankhya from the eDAM or Materialism perspective that these experiences are interpretations and not data is basically a faulty approach.
 
Furthermore, I think that you have misunderstood what I mean by objective evidence. Subjective experiences at any state of mind-brain system are subjective data; it does not matter whether they are of dream state, wakeful or samādhi state. They are always from 1pp, but they are subjective and personal. The related brain activities that are recorded are objective data from 3pp, which are for the public. They can be easily measured using fMRI and EEG. These are data, which are reproducible. I do not see any problem in these data if collected carefully. My objection is not in these data.

But I also never raised any issue regarding the objective evidence for 3pp physical data for the NNs. The issue which I had raised in my past 3-4 emails was that there is no objective empirical evidence for the existence of conscious self, conscious "I-ness" and mind in all we human beings yet none of any sane person refutes the existence of the conscious domain having self, mind and "I-ness". Please note that objective empirical evidence is for the physical aspect in the brain in form of NNs and NOT for the conscious domain in we human beings. For certification of the conscious domain of self, mind and "I-ness", we still have to remain dependent upon the subjective versions from the human beings. This is from this point of view that I had highlighted the limitation of the objective empirical evidence in the conscious domain of human beings. 

So when objective empirical evidence becomes irrelevant and redundant  even in the every moment experience of mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness"  of all human beings, it is quite natural that empirical objective experience should  have its limitations in exploring subjective experiences of the higher state Samaadhis which are experienced by not more than  one out of a million. Therefore, for certification of such higher state Samaadhi state experiences, the only option is the subjective evidence as flowing out from the subjective versions of such people who have had such experiences. Therefore, in the area of the higher state Samaadhi state experiences, subjective version of self or of others ( if self-version is not available) is more superior and relevant than objective empirical evidence with which physicality can be explored.  
 
My objection is in the interpretations of these data. These data can be interpreted using any of the 4 metaphysics in their own ways. 

As I have emphasized in my previous email,  that interpreting data of any metaphysics from the perspective any other metaphysics is basically a wrong approach.Reasons for this being quite obvious. Different metaphysics have different fundamental features and if you will interpret a metaphysics A having fundamental features X from the perspective of another metaphysics B having fundamental features Y, wrong problems are bound to arise in metaphysics A. This error has uniformly crept in all your ebooks. For example in eDAM, the mind is a Function. This is a fundamental feature of eDAM and not of Saankhya. Now if you will start interpreting Saankhya from this perspective of EDAM that "Mind is a function", wrong errors are bound to arise in Saankhya In Saankhya As per Saankhya's fundamental feature Mind is a structural ontological reality, a transformative state of the Primordial physicality. Now when you will interpret Saankhya from its own fundamental features, majority of the false problems, as enlisted by you in your ebooks, will vanish


The materialism, idealism and interactive substance dualism (or Sankhya) metaphysics have serious problems as elaborated in my Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). The eDAM is the least problematic metaphysics. If you want to defend any metaphysics then you need to address those problems.

As indicated above, you have adopted basically a faulty approach in your ebooks wherein you have analyzed the problems of different metaphysics viz Materialism, Idealism, and ISD from the perspective of eDAM. All these metaphysics need to be analyzed from within and out of its own fundamental axioms. For example, in Idealism,  there is the all powerful cosmic consciousness with awareness as its intrinsic feature. So for the all powerful cosmic consciousness, it shold not be a problem to create matter, which you state as non-experiential, out of its womb. Than, cosmic consciousness at the cosmological scales is having awareness as its intrinsic feature and localized consciousness is a manifested form of that cosmic consciousness. Therefore feature of intrinsic awareness shall remain present in the localized consciousness also, Therefore, for the localized consciousness, 'sensing' of the physical signalsof matter by localized consciousness should not be a problem, as envisaged by you.

Therefore, correct approach lies in analyzing the problems of each metaphysics from its own perspective i.e. taking all  the fundamental features of that metaphysics as true on its face value.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

I am sorry to say that you still cannot differentiate data from interpretations. For example, you still think that astral, causal and manifested Puruṣa (chetanta) worlds are the data; they are NOT the data; they are Sāṅkhya’s interpretations of the subjective personal/private data; the subjective data are SS/NS subjective experiences.
 
Furthermore, I think that you have misunderstood what I mean by objective evidence. Subjective experiences at any state of mind-brain system are subjective data; it does not matter whether they are of dream state, wakeful or samādhi state. They are always from 1pp, but they are subjective and personal. The related brain activities that are recorded are objective data from 3pp, which are for the public. They can be easily measured using fMRI and EEG. These are data, which are reproducible. I do not see any problem in these data if collected carefully. My objection is not in these data.
 
My objection is in the interpretations of these data. These data can be interpreted using any of the 4 metaphysics in their own ways. The materialism, idealism and interactive substance dualism (or Sankhya) metaphysics have serious problems as elaborated in my Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). The eDAM is the least problematic metaphysics. If you want to defend any metaphysics then you need to address those problems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 2:27:29 PM6/1/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Matters Of Mind
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Data

[1] Vimal: First of all, the subjective experiences (such as that of a tree) in the dream world, the wakeful conscious physical world, and the astral world are ONLY data, which are subjective. The objective empirical measured data in the wakeful conscious physical world are the only objective data. 
 
Sehgal: I agree with your above views. No doubt, data is collected in any of the worlds-wakeful conscious state, dream conscious state, and SS conscious state. Due to reasons indicated in my previous email, empirical objective data can be collected thru physical instruments in the wakeful conscious state only.
 
Vimal: OK.
 
[2] Vimal: The rest are the interpretations based on metaphysics. Thus, we must agree clearly the clear-cut difference between data and interpretations to avoid confusion.

Sehgal: Yes, I also agree that interpretation of data is made based upon metaphysics. But I DON"T AGREE with your views that Saankhya or for that purpose any other metaphysics is the result of interpretation of data. Every metaphysics has its own some fundamental distinctive features, some axioms and interpretation of data is made based upon those features. For example, the eDAM has a feature that mind and consciousness are some FUNCTIONS and there is no basic difference between the two. But Saankhya makes a basic distinction between Mind and Consciousness and Mind is not a function but a structural ontological reality as emanating out from Moola Prakriti in some sequential order.
 
Vimal: I agree. However, the eDAM clearly differentiates between experiences, functions, self, thoughts, and so on although they are the sub-aspects of the 1pp-mental aspect.

Interpretations

[1] Vimal: In the Sāṅkhya, we can argue that the tree is subjectively ‘real’ in all these 3 worlds and therefore all worlds really exist in addition to causal world and chetan (manifested consciousness) world. Based on this metaphysics, Kapila muni and later yogis hypothesized OOO-God theory. The theist India believes this theory over thousands of years and theist life-styles are based on the Sāṅkhya and Vedāntic metaphysics. However, this is simply an interpretation of the subjective data.
 
Sehgal: Hereinabove, you are again committing the same mistake which you have been making so far viz metaphysics are the result of interpretations. I say metaphysics are not the result of interpretations but it is the interpretations which result from the pre-existing metaphysics. Then how do you metaphysics emanate? Metaphysics emanate out from some fundamental axioms, some hypothesis, but such axioms/hypothesis are subject to verification by both subjective and objective methodology, observations and logical deliberations. For example, when in Saankhya, it was hypothesized that there is the ontological existence of Tanmaatras as being transformed from Moola Prakriti and that the physical derivatives are the transformed structures of Tanmaatras, then this hypothesis should be subject to verification in the state of Samaadhi. And in the state of Samaadhi, a Yogi can really observe in a quite vivid manner as to how Moola Prakriti is transformed to Tanmaatras and then in turn to the Physical derivatives of our physical world. Once verified, it will no longer remain an axiom or hypothesis but a fact forming a part of the Metaphysics. Similarly, the eDAM makes an axiom/hypothesis that every entity of the universe has, in addition to the physical aspect, some mental aspect as inseparable with the physical aspect. But there is no objective empirical thru physical instruments or subjective empirical verification thru Samādhis of this hypothesis and this is subject to speculation.
 
Vimal: I agree that each metaphysics has certain assumptions/postulates, features, axioms, hypotheses, based on which data are interpreted. However, I strongly disagree that Moola Prakriti, tanmātras, astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds, etc. and various derivations, clearly ‘seen’/‘observe’ during the SS/NS states are the data and/or validation/proof of the subjective data. I argue that they are simply the interpretations of the SS/NS state subjective experiences (subjective data) at SS/NS states based on Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya. Yogis, such as Swami ji and his guru ji and guru ji of guru ji and whole chain of gurus are trained for number of years in Sāṅkhya, Advaita etc, which force them to interpret the subjective/personal/private data according to the metaphysics they are trained. This is the major problem in subjective research. You think they (Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya) are the fundamental realities and you are fully under conviction and hence 100% biased; and you see other metaphysics are hopeless and wrong and are full of problems. This is the major mistake you have been making from very beginning. You deny this, but this is the bitter truth.
 
There are subjective data from 1pp and objective data from 3pp in wakeful conscious states and also in deep sleep, dreams, and some levels of samādhi states.
 
These data can be interpreted in all metaphysics (including Sāṅkhya) in their own ways. The eDAM is also an interpretation. The postulates of the eDAM, such as the doctrine of inseparability, are scientifically testable.
 
However, the postulates of the Sāṅkhya, such as astral, causal, and manifested worlds cannot be tested scientifically and you agree on this. You think that since yogis can clearly see Moola Prakriti, tanmātras, astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds, etc. and various derivations; therefore, these observations validate the postulates subjectively. This is totally wrong because they are simply interpretations of the subjective data. Here, you are trying to mix data and interpretation, which is a major mistake you make. However, if yogis can clearly demonstrate each steps (in step-by-step manner in very slow motion frame-by-frame, such as materialization) so that scientists can understand how this is happening and then test them in lab-setting in reproducible manner at any place and at any time, then we can say that the Sāṅkhya is worth further research. We all agree that this is not possible because of yogis have different mindset and they will never agree. Thus, the postulates of Sāṅkhya are not testable scientifically.
 
[2] Vimal: On the other hand, in ‘real’ science and the eDAM (that requires logic plus subjective and objective reproducibility), only physical world is subjectively and objectively real. This reality is called mind-dependent reality (MDR) in the eDAM because our minds are involved in the collection of both subjective and objective data.
 
Sehgal: But why the only physical world is real? On what basis, you assign an extra tag of realness to the physical world vis a vis dream conscious world and Astral world as visible in the SS state? 
 
In all three states viz dream conscious state, wakeful conscious state, and Astral world Samādhi state, data are collected of some phenomenal reality by mind and senses and the phenomenal reality of the objects appears equally real. It is right that in the dream conscious state, logic does not operate (and there are reasons for this) and experiences are also not reproducible. But in the SS state giving experiences of the phenomenal reality of the Astral objects, experiences are quite reproducible any number of times in the Samādhi state and logic also does operate quite equally as in the wakeful conscious state.
 
In my previous email, I had requested you to please give reasons for the above (in blue font text) but somehow, you have not provided any rational and logical reasons.
 
Vimal: ‘Real entity’ means that the entity physically exists in our physical world out there, which can be objectively measured. Astral, causal, and manifested worlds and entities in them are not real in this sense. In addition, they are interpretations by Sāṅkhya; they are not the data as argued above. Lucid dream experiences are under subject’s control to some extent; so they are somewhat similar to SS/NS state subjective experiences, which are subjective data. As per neuroscience, each experience must have a neural basis; so SS/NS experiences must have their respective neural basis.
 
[3] Vimal: The MIR is unknown or known to some extent thru MDR as per the eDAM. However, the eDAM is also simply an interpretation but it is based on the objective data in addition to the subjective data.
 
Sehgal: There is no question of some extent or the full extent of knowing of MIR thru MDR means. If MIR shall become known thru mind, where it will remain MIR? It will become MDR immediately.
 
Vimal: As per Neo-Kantians (that includes me), since a mind is also a product of Nature, so it must be giving us some information about the MIR-entity, such as chair-in-itself. For example, the height of chair is invariant, i.e., it would be the same in both MDR and MIR. When the mind is minimized in NS state, perhaps, we would better matter-in-itself (such as chair-in-itself) and consciousness-in-itself.
 
Sehgal: In fact, in the eDAM the whole concept of MIR is a wrong conception. When eDAM hypothesizes that all the experiences arise out from the NNs of the mind/brain system, where is the scope for any MIR?
 
Vimal: I disagree. MIR cannot be rejected in the eDAM because if we remove the chair-in-itself, its appearance also vanishes. This proves the existence of chair-in-itself in MIR. Our subjective experiences do not arise/emerge out of NNs because then it would be the problematic materialism, which is rejected in the eDAM.
 
Sehgal: However, in SAnkhya and Idealism, the concept of MIR is a valid one since it is based on a principle that there is the existence of both cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti, the primordial storehouse of the entire physicality of the universe. Both Cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti are distinct from both brain and mind. In fact, Moola Prakriti is the basic cause for the creation of mind and brain (with both brain and mind having distinct identities). So when localized consciousness crosses the realm of the brain and mind, realm of MIR starts and whatever experiences are made in that realm are the experiences of MIR.
 
Vimal: These are interpretations. In the matter-in-itself (such as chair-in-itself) is included in the physical aspect and consciousness-in-itself in the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of the primal entity.
 
[4] Vimal: How do we decide which interpretation is better? I argue that since the latter is based on both subjective and objective data, it has higher weight. Therefore, we should select the science-based eDAM.
 
Sehgal: In objective experimentation, though data is collected by the physical instruments and also more precisely, ultimately data has to be interpreted subjectively (by the minds of the scientists). Then important fact is that data collected thru objective means by physical instruments pertain to physical aspects i.e. NNs and not of the conscious aspects viz. conscious self, mind and conscious "I-ness". The fact of the existence of these conscious aspects has yet be ascertained by subjective means only.
 
The eDAM like other 3 metaphysics deals with the conscious aspect of mind and conscious self. Though like Materialism, the collection of data thru objective empirical means is feasible in eDAM but this does not provide any extra edge due to reasons as indicated above. Extra edge in favor of any metaphysics shall come from evidence -- both subjective and objective one and logical analysis of problems.
 
Vimal: If you want to defend any metaphysics, you need to address its problems, first. However, you just put them under the carpet by giving irrational reasons, which makes comparisons impossible. The Sāṅkhya postulates 3 worlds out of our mind-brain system and out of our physical world. This is major problem which cannot be addressed by any logics.

Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 1 June 2017 1:50 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Had you stuck to the line of views as expressed by me in my previous email, we could continue with discussions in a more productive manner. Anyway, I am submitting my comments against your present email.

Data: First of all, the subjective experiences (such as that of a tree) in the dream world, the wakeful conscious physical world, and astral world are ONLY data, which are subjective. The objective empirical measured data in the wakeful conscious physical world are the only objective data. 

I agree with your above views. No doubt, data is collected in any of the worlds-
 wakeful conscious state, dream conscious state, and SS conscious state. Due to reasons indicated in my previous email, empirical objective data can be collected thru physical instruments in the wakeful conscious state only.

The rest are the interpretations based on metaphysics. Thus, we must agree clearly the clear-cut difference between data and interpretations to avoid confusion.

Yes, I also agree that interpretation of data is made based upon metaphysics. But I DON"T AGREE with your views that Saankhya or for that purpose any other metaphysics is the result of interpretation of data. Every metaphysics has its own some fundamental distinctive features, some axioms and interpretation of data is made based upon those features. For example, eDAM has a feature that mind and consciousness are some FUNCTIONS and there is no basic difference between the two. But Saankhya makes a basic distinction between Mind and Consciousness and Mind is not a function but a structural ontological reality as emanating out from Moola Prakriti in some sequential order.


Interpretations: In the Sāṅkhya, we can argue that the tree is subjectively ‘real’ in all these 3 worlds and therefore all worlds really exist in addition to causal world and chetan (manifested consciousness) world. Based on this metaphysics, Kapila muni and later yogis hypothesized OOO-God theory. The theist India believes this theory over thousands of years and theist life-styles are based on the Sāṅkhya and Vedāntic metaphysics. 

However, this is simply an interpretation of the subjective data.

Hereinabove, you are again committing the same mistake which you have been making so far viz metaphysics are the result of interpretations. I say metaphysics are not the result of interpretations but it is the interpretations which result from the pre-existing metaphysics. Then how do you metaphysics emanate? Metaphysics emanate out from some fundamental axioms, some hypothesis/ but such axioms/hypothesis are subject to verification by both subjective and objective methodology, observations and logical deliberations. For example, when in Saankhya, it was hypothesized that there is the ontological existence of Tanmaatras as being transformed from Moola Prakriti and that the physical derivatives are the transformed structures of Tanmaatras, then this hypothesis should be subject to verification in the state of Samaadhi. And in the state of Samaadhi, a Yogi can really observe in a quite vivid manner as to how Moola Prakriti is transformed to Tanmaatras and then in turn to the Physical derivatives of our physical world. Once verified, it will no longer remain an axiom or hypothesis but a fact forming a part of the Metaphysics.

Similarly, eDAM makes an axiom/hypothesis that every entity of the universe has, in addition to the physical aspect, some mental aspect as inseparable with the physical aspect. But there is no objective empirical thru physical instruments or subjective empirical verification thru Samaadhis of this hypothesis and this is subject to speculation.


On the other hand, in ‘real’ science and the eDAM (that requires logic plus subjective and objective reproducibility), only physical world is subjectively and objectively real. This reality is called mind-dependent reality (MDR) in the eDAM because our minds are involved in the collection of both subjective and objective data.

But why the only physical world is real? On what basis, you assign an extra tag of realness to the physical world vis a vis dream conscious world and Astral world as visible in the SS state? 

In all three states viz dream conscious state, wakeful conscious state, and Astral world Samaadhi state, data is collected of some phenomenal reality by mind and senses and the phenomenal reality of the objects appears equally real. It is right that in the dream conscious state. logic does not operate ( and there are reasons for this) and experiences are also not reproducible. But in the SS state giving experiences of the phenomenal reality of the Astral objects, experiences are quite reproducible any no of times in the Samaadhi state and logic also does operate quite equally as in the wakeful conscious state.

In my previous email, I had requested you to please give reasons for the above ( in blue font text) but somehow, you have not provided any rational and logical reasons.

 The MIR is unknown or known to some extent thru MDR as per the eDAM. However, this is also simply an interpretation but it is based on the objective data in addition to the subjective data.

There is no question of some extent or the full extent of knowing of MIR thru MDR means. If MIR shall become known thru mind, where it will remain MIR? It will become MDR immediately.

In fact, in eDAM the whole concept of MIR is a wrong conception. When eDAM hypothesizes that all the experiences arise out from the NNs of the mind/brain system, where is the scope for any MIR?

 However, in Sankhya and Idealism, the concept of MIR is a valid one since it is based on a principle that there is the existence of both cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti, the primordial storehouse of the entire physicality of the universe. Both Cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti are distinct from both brain and mind. In fact, Moola Prakriti is the basic cause for the creation of mind and brain ( with both brain and mind having distinct identities). So when localized consciousness crosses the realm of the brain and mind, realm of MIR starts and whatever experiences are made in that realm are the experiences of MIR

How do we decide which interpretation is better? I argue that since the latter is based on both subjective and objective data, it has higher weight. Therefore, we should select the science-based eDAM.

In objective experimentation, though data is collected by the physical instruments and also more precisely, ultimately data has to be interpreted subjectively  ( by the minds of the scientists). Then important fact is that data collected thru objective means by physical instruments pertain to physical aspects i.e NNs and not of the conscious aspects viz conscious self, mind and conscious "I-ness". The fact of the existence of these conscious aspects has yet be ascertained by subjective means only.

eDAM like other 3 metaphysics deals with the conscious aspect of mind and conscious self.Though like Materialism, the collection of data thru objective empirical means is feasible in eDAM but this does not provide any extra edge due  to reasons as indicated above. Extra edge in favor of any metaphysics shall come from evidence -- both subjective and objective one and logical analysis of problems.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal




On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Data: First of all, the subjective experiences (such as that of a tree) in the dream world, the wakeful conscious physical world, and astral world are ONLY data, which are subjective. The objective empirical measured data in the wakeful conscious physical world are the only objective data. 

The rest are the interpretations based on metaphysics. Thus, we must agree clearly the clear-cut difference between data and interpretations to avoid confusion.

Interpretations: In the Sāṅkhya, we can argue that the tree is subjectively ‘real’ in all these 3 worlds and therefore all worlds really exist in addition to causal world and chetan (manifested consciousness) world. Based on this metaphysics, Kapila muni and later yogis hypothesized OOO-God theory. The theist India believes this theory over thousands of years and theist life-styles are based on the Sāṅkhya and Vedāntic metaphysics. However, this is simply an interpretation of the subjective data.

On the other hand, in ‘real’ science and the eDAM (that requires logic plus subjective and objective reproducibility), only physical world is subjectively and objectively real. This reality is called mind-dependent reality (MDR) in the eDAM because our minds are involved in the collection of both subjective and objective data. The MIR is unknown or known to some extent thru MDR as per the eDAM. However, this is also simply an interpretation but it is based on the objective data in addition to the subjective data.

How do we decide which interpretation is better? I argue that since the latter is based on both subjective and objective data, it has higher weight. Therefore, we should select the science-based eDAM.

 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 2:46 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: With the exchange of emails with you since past more than a year, I can well differentiate between data and interpretation. For example, your above assertion that astral, causal and manifested consciousness are the interpretation of Saankhya is wrong since, in Sankhya, these are the ontological physical structures of nature as emanating out from the Primordial Prakriti( Moola Prakriti). Yes, as per eDAM or Materialism, these could be interpretations, as you have been stating. But as I have been dwelling upon since a quite past few days, interpretation for any metaphysics should come out from that metaphysics only and not from other metaphysics. Therefore, to interpret any experience of Saankhya from the eDAM or Materialism perspective that these experiences are interpretations and not data is basically a faulty approach.
 
Vimal: I strongly disagree that astral, causal, and manifested chetanta worlds are data. They are clearly the interpretation of Sāṅkhya. The data are clearly SS/NS state subjective experiences from 1st person perspective, which are private and personal. I am 100% confident that any good researcher will agree with me. I suggest that should contact other colleagues and make sure that you understand the difference between data and interpretation.

Sehgal: Let me proceed a bit more systematically and sequentially to remove any confusion of data/experiences and interpretation.

In the physical world, we see the phenomenal reality of a physical object say a tree. Here the data or experience about the tree is collected subjectively and it appears real to us and as such we interpret tree as a reality on its face value. We can also collect data from the tree objectively thru some instruments to ascertain its reality but we rarely resort to this objective methodology and normally any experience of mind/senses is treated as real of some real ontology of the physical world.

Now in the dream conscious state also, we experience the phenomenal reality of objects says a tree. This experience is not in the physical world but in the Astral World. In the dream conscious state, the data or experience of a tree is also collected thru mind and senses and it appears as real ( in that conscious state) as a tree appears real in the physical world. In view of this, experiences ( data) of the dream conscious state should also be interpreted as real of some real ontology of the Astral Ontology.

Now let me come to the conscious state of SSs, wherein we also experience or collect data of the phenomenal reality of some ontological reality say Manas, it appears real to us in that state and Saankhya interprets this as real of some real Astral ontology of nature. One more fact which we should not ignore is that in the physical world, the experience of a physical tree is under our control, reproducible one and verifiable thru some other people also. Similarly, in SS states also, experiences are reproducible, under control and also verifiable by other people.

In the dream conscious state and in SS states, physical instruments of the objective methodology of this physical world can't be taken, otherwise, data of the experiences in the dream and SS conscious state could also be collected by such instruments. We don't know, in the Astral world also some scientists might be collecting data of the objects of the Astral world thru instruments composed of Astral matter.

Now  instead of adopting  a dogmatic and obstinate approach, you may please explain in a logical manner

i) What is some unique or special feature of the physical world that subjective experiences of the physical world should be treated as real of some real physical ontology and experiences of the dream conscious state and of the SS conscious state should be taken as unreal of some unreal Astral Ontology?

ii) Your interpretation that experiences of the Astral world the mind-brain are an extension of the NNs of the mind-brain system is rooted in a presumption of the eDAM that only ontological reality of the Physical body.brain/world is real and that there is no ontological reality of the Astral world. Let me reiterate that this interpretation of the metaphysics of Saankhya stems from an axiom of another metaphysics viz eDAM which is a faulty approach.

In terms of Saankhya's interpretation, ontological reality of the Astral realm is even more  pronounced than that of the physical body.brain/world since the entire ontology of the physical realm manifests from the Astral realm. And in the state of Samaadhi the mechanism of the transformation of the Astral structures to the Physical structures can be observed and also understood.

I request you to please refute my aforesaid point of view by providing line by line or para by para counter-logical arguments. But merely asserting some statements out of dogmatic approach is not a rational approach. 


Sehgal: … interpreting data of any metaphysics from the perspective any other metaphysics is basically a wrong approach.
 
Vimal: Data are simply either subjective data from 1pp (1st person perspective) or objective data from 3pp. Data do not belong to any metaphysical interpretation. The four groups of metaphysics are interpretations of these data.

I agree to above and as elaborated in the foregoing data can be collected subjectively by mind and senses or objectively. I also agree that these data can be interpreted from the perspective of any metaphysics having some unique features of its own. It is not that all the metaphysics have been merely derived from interpretation of these data. Behind each metaphysics, there are some unique axioms also, some of which are verifiable while other not. For example, Saankhya stands upon the axiom that there is the fundamental identity of some Moola Prakriti representing the primordial physicality and Purusha representing cosmic consciousness. The existence of both these fundamental identities is subjectively verifiable in the state of Samaadhi, thus, above axioms carry the force of the subjective evidence.

Similarly, metaphysics of eDAM makes an axiom that all the entities of the universe have some mental aspect, in addition to the physical aspects, as inseparable with the physical aspects. But there is no objective empirical or subjective empirical evidence for this axiom of eDAM.

So your above assertion that all the metaphysics are the mere interpretation of data does not stand the preliminary scrutiny of logic and evidence. Different metaphysics are the result of interpretation of data, observations, and evidence -- both objective and subjective
 
An example is that there are experimental objective data of QM but there are over 45 interpretations of the same objective data.

But depending upon the availability of evidence, may interpretations shall be dropped. Then in QM, all the data are collected by the same common methodology and underlying assumption are also same i.e there is the physicality and that is the particle in nature. In spiritual metaphysics dealing with consciousness.mind, in some metaphysics ( Materialism and eDAM) data is collected by objective methodology thru physical instruments but in Saankhya and Idealism, data is collected subjectively in the state of Samaadhi. Further, while QM deals with only physicality in form of particles but spiritual metaphysics deal with two entirely different aspects viz that of physical and consciousness. Therefore, example given by you does not hold good upon the 4 metaphysics.
 
Another example is that we experience that there is a table. This subjective experience (SE) in our wakeful conscious state is a subjective datum. This subjective datum can be interpreted by 4 metaphysics differently. For example, materialism will claim that the SE emerged from our brain. Sāṅkhya will claim that there are 4 worlds: the table is in physical world, which arose from (Moola) Prakṛti thru manifested chetan world, causal world, and astral world thru the mechanism of firm Sankalpa and Puruṣa is the experiencer. Idealism will claim that the appearance of table arose from Universal Potential Consciousness and table-in-itself does not exist. The eDAM will claim that the subjective experience (mental aspect) of table is from 1pp, and the neural basis of this experience is the related NN and its activities (physical aspect).

As elaborated in the foregoing paras, different metaphysics are not the result of only different interpretation of the data or experiences of the table. Behind every metaphysics, there are some unique and fundamental features or some axioms based upon which data is interpreted. You are stating reverse of this that fundamental and unique features of different metaphysics are the results of the interpretations of same data. Had there been no different unique and fundamental features behind different metaphysics, how and why there would have been different interpretations of the same data?

The issue which I have been dwelling upon since a quite long time that first

i) Specify clearly unique and fundamental features of each of the 4 metaphysics.

ii) Analyze the problems of each metaphysics in the light of fundamental features of that metaphysical only by rational logical deliberation.

iii) Collect subjective and objective evidence in favor of each metaphysics

It is after completing the above exercise that we can arrive at some correct picture as to which metaphysics is closest to reality.

The gross error which you have made in your books has been that you have analyzed all the 4 metaphysics from a common yardsticks ( some fundamental features) of eDAM/Materialism that there is no distinction between the consciousness and mind OR that consciousness manifest out from some potential mental aspects as present in all the entities of the universe and which manifests at the functioning brain level. These yardsticks of eDAM should have been made applicable upon eDAM only and not upon Saankhya or Idealism. For Saankhya, yardsticks for analysis should have come out from Saankhya only viz existence of a Moola Prakriti and Purusha ( Cosmic consciousness at the fundamental levels.

Had you adopted the correct approach wherein problems of each metaphysics been analyzed based upon its fundamental features/axioms, this would have projected a true picture of the problems of each metaphysics. then subjective and objective evidence in favor of each metaphysics should have been marshaled out. By this exercise, a true picture of different metaphysics would have arisen


Once you understand clearly (not just saying that you understand) the difference between data and interpretations, then our discussion will be fruitful.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 1:36 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

I am sorry to say that you still cannot differentiate data from interpretations. For example, you still think that astral, causal and manifested Puruṣa (chetanta) worlds are the data; they are NOT the data; they are Sāṅkhya’s interpretations of the subjective personal/private data; the subjective data are SS/NS subjective experiences.

With the exchange of emails with you since past more than a year, I can well differentiate between data and interpretation. For example, your above assertion that astral, causal and manifested consciousness are the interpretation of Saankhya is wrong since, in Sankhya, these are the ontological physical structures of nature as emanating out from the Primordial Prakriti( Moola Prakriti). Yes, as per eDAM or Materialism, these could be interpretations, as you have been stating. But as I have been dwelling upon since a quite past few days, interpretation for any metaphysics should come out from that metaphysics only and not from other metaphysics. Therefore, to interpret any experience of Saankhya from the eDAM or Materialism perspective that these experiences are interpretations and not data is basically a faulty approach.
 
Furthermore, I think that you have misunderstood what I mean by objective evidence. Subjective experiences at any state of mind-brain system are subjective data; it does not matter whether they are of dream state, wakeful or samādhi state. They are always from 1pp, but they are subjective and personal. The related brain activities that are recorded are objective data from 3pp, which are for the public. They can be easily measured using fMRI and EEG. These are data, which are reproducible. I do not see any problem in these data if collected carefully. My objection is not in these data.

But I also never raised any issue regarding the objective evidence for 3pp physical data for the NNs. The issue which I had raised in my past 3-4 emails was that there is no objective empirical evidence for the existence of conscious self, conscious "I-ness" and mind in all we human beings yet none of any sane person refutes the existence of the conscious domain having 
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Vimal: I am sorry to say that you still cannot differentiate data from interpretations. For example, you still think that astral, causal and manifested Puruṣa (chetanta) worlds are the data; they are NOT the data; they are Sāṅkhya’s interpretations of the subjective personal/private data; the subjective data are SS/NS subjective experiences.
 
Sehgal: With the exchange of emails with you since past more than a year, I can well differentiate between data and interpretation. For example, your above assertion that astral, causal and manifested consciousness are the interpretation of Saankhya is wrong since, in Sankhya, these are the ontological physical structures of nature as emanating out from the Primordial Prakriti( Moola Prakriti). Yes, as per eDAM or Materialism, these could be interpretations, as you have been stating. But as I have been dwelling upon since a quite past few days, interpretation for any metaphysics should come out from that metaphysics only and not from other metaphysics. Therefore, to interpret any experience of Saankhya from the eDAM or Materialism perspective that these experiences are interpretations and not data is basically a faulty approach.
 
Vimal: I strongly disagree that astral, causal, and manifested chetanta worlds are data. They are clearly the interpretation of Sāṅkhya. The data are clearly SS/NS state subjective experiences from 1st person perspective, which are private and personal. I am 100% confident that any good researcher will agree with me. I suggest that you should contact other colleagues and make sure that you understand the difference between data and interpretation.
 
Sehgal: … interpreting data of any metaphysics from the perspective any other metaphysics is basically a wrong approach.
 
Vimal: Data are simply either subjective data from 1pp (1st person perspective) or objective data from 3pp. Data do not belong to any metaphysical interpretation. The four groups of metaphysics are interpretations of these data.
 
An example is that there are experimental objective data of QM but there are over 45 interpretations of the same objective data.
 
Another example is that we experience that there is a table. This subjective experience (SE) in our wakeful conscious state is a subjective datum. This subjective datum can be interpreted by 4 metaphysics differently. For example, materialism will claim that the SE emerged from our brain. Sāṅkhya will claim that there are 4 worlds: the table is in physical world, which arose from (Moola) Prakṛti thru manifested chetan world, causal world, and astral world thru the mechanism of firm Sankalpa and Puruṣa is the experiencer. Idealism will claim that the appearance of table arose from Universal Potential Consciousness and table-in-itself does not exist. The eDAM will claim that the subjective experience (mental aspect) of table is from 1pp, and the neural basis of this experience is the related NN and its activities (physical aspect).
 
Once you understand clearly (not just saying that you understand) the difference between data and interpretations, then our discussion will be fruitful.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
...

[Message clipped]  






Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 6, 2017, 11:57:03 AM6/6/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind
Dear Vinod ji,

Vimal: All available empirical fMRI/EEG data are consistent with the doctrine of inseparability. If anyone can empirically show that the mental and physical aspects of a conscious state of our mind-brain system are separable, then only the doctrine of inseparability can be rejected. Until then science allows us to keep it. Please see Section 3.8 of (Vimal, 2016b) for further detail. This is the best I can do at present time.
 
Sehgal: Please try to appreciate that the inseparability as established thru fMRI/EEG, Section 3.8 of (Vimal, 2016b) is an apparent inseparability and equally present in all the 4 metaphysics. This apparent inseparability in none of the ways establishes eDAM…
 
Vimal: The doctrine of inseparability is not present in other metaphysics as it is in the eDAM. In the eDAM, both aspects are inseparable also in the unmanifested state although both are latent and does not make category mistake during manifestation. Since the inseparability is the fundamental postulate in the eDAM, it is “real” in the sense of “by definition” in the unmanifested and all manifested states; it is invariant over states and hence inseparability is eternally invariant. In other words, if the inseparability is true in a conscious state, it has to be true in all states (unmanifested and all manifested states) “by definition” in the eDAM. This is not a case in other metaphysics. For example:
 
Dualism clearly claims that mental and physical aspects are separable because they can exist independently; in addition, it makes category mistake because mind and matter can interact and has 9 serious problems.
 
Materialism claims that mind emerges/arises from matter but in unmanifested state only matter is the fundamental reality and in manifested states, it makes a category mistake and has serious explanatory gap problem of materialism (how experiences can arise from matter), therefore, materialism is untenable metaphysics.
 
Idealism is opposite of materialism. In other words, idealism claims that matter emerges/arises from the mind but in the unmanifested state only the mind is the fundamental reality and in manifested states, it makes a category mistake and has serious explanatory gap problem of idealism (how matter can arise from experiences), therefore, idealism is untenable metaphysics. 
 
Thus, all three metaphysics are rejected because of their serious problems. At present time, only the eDAM metaphysics has survived. If you want to defend any other metaphysics, kindly first address their problems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Tuesday, 6 June 2017 2:36 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

I am not the only one who criticizes Sankhya; please see below:

Criticism should not be for the sake of criticism. Thre should be some concrete reasons for the criticism as based upon logical reasoning, observations, and evidence -- both subjective as well as objective. Then there is high likelihood of interpretation  of any metaphysics unless there is the actual Samaadhi state experience
Adapted From (Vimal, 2012c):

3.1.1. Gītā and Sāṃkhya, and Critique

1. Gita

Gītā, in general, seems to imply a sort of mixture of problematic Advaita (idealism),dualism/Sāṅkhya, and/or separable dual-aspect monism as in Verses II/17-25 (especially II.20 and II.22) of Gītā ((Swami Chinmayananda, 2000) and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita related commentary of (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 1998b)). This is because soul/jīvātman separates from dead body/brain after death and eventually returns to parmātman (God) after Moksha (liberation). However, soul/'self' interacts with brain/body when we are alive.I

e2. Sāṃkhya
nIn Sāṃkhya, there are two independently existing fundamental entities: (i) experiential/conscious entity Puruṣa and (ii) non-experiential/non-conscious entityPrakṛti. Sāṃkhya is little different from ISD. The experiencer Puruṣa, and the causal bodies/world (kāran jagat) and astral bodies/world (sukshma jagat) of Prakṛti are all included in the Western term ‘mind’. The non-experiential/non-mental physical bodies (sthūla jagat) of Prakṛti are equivalent to western non-experiential/non-mental ‘matter’.
Puruṣa
In Sāṃkhya (which is a dualistic metaphysics, in analogy to Interactive Substance Dualism), Puruṣa (Parmātman/jīvātman: the experiential aspect of consciousness) is like a witness (Sākshi) of whatever activities go on in subject’s brain but does not affect its activities; however, Puruṣa is the real experiencer. Subject’s brain is simply a physical machine/instrument; Puruṣa ‘shines’ (throws ‘lights’ on) this machine to experience. In other words, Puruṣa is only an experiencer/witness/dristā/sāk shi.Puruṣa is like a match-stick that can only ignite an incense, but cannot change its attributes such as its smell; if it is rose fragrance, then He has to experience the smell of rose; it does not matter He likes it or not. He will not know anything about the smell until He gets help from olfactory nerves and related cortex of a brain. Thus a brain is needed for Him to experience for example the smell. Therefore, omnipresent Puruṣa by himself is powerless and knowledgeless.
Prakṛti
Prakṛti consists of
(i) Causal world (kāran jagat) is composed of 3 gunas (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas), Chitta, and Ahamkāras;
(ii) Astral world (sukshma jagat) consists of five Tanmātras (rūpa, śabda, sparśa, rasa, and gandha), Buddhi, Manas, and ten senses; and
(iii) Physical world (sthūla jagat) containing fermions, bosons and four fundamental forces.
Sāṃkhya is similar to the problematic interactive substance dualism. Atheist version of Sāṃkhya denies the existence of God, which is criticized by Vedantists. The relationship of Brahm, Jīva, and matter (Jagat) are summarized in Table 1.

Critiques on Sāṃkhya

As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960).(BS:II.2.1-10), “Even according to Sāṃkhya, the original disturbance of the three guṇas [sattva, rajas, tamas] from the condition of equipoise which is essential for creative manifestation cannot be due to the unintelligent pradhāna [which is Prakṛti with 3 guṇas].  Clay does not change into pots without the help of a potter […] So pradhāna cannot be the cause of the world [and emotions] unless there is an ultimate intelligent principle. [p367…]

R. [Rāmānujāchārya] says that the Sāṃkhya assumes three guņas and not one ultimate cause [Brahman] […] if they [guņas] are unlimited and therefore omnipresent, then no inequality can result and so no effects can originate. To explain the origination of results, it is necessary to assume limitation of the guņas. [p368…] Puruṣa is indifferent and so cannot cause action or cessation from activity. God [kārya Brahman], on the other hand, as a principle of intelligence, can act or not[,] as he chooses. [p369…] If nearness [of Puruṣa/soul] to prakṛti  makes the soul capable of fruition, i.e., of being conscious of pleasure and pain which are special modifications of prakṛti, it follows that as prakṛti is ever near, the soul will never accomplish emancipation. … how can the indifferent Puruṣa move the Pradhāna? [p370 …] Pradhāna is non-intelligent and Puruṣa is indifferent [inactive] and there is no third principle and so there can be no connection between the two. If the soul sees and pradhāna is capable of being seen, then capacities which are permanent imply the impossibility of final release.

For Ś [Śankarāchārya], the Highest Self [Brahman] endowed with māyā is superior to the Puruṣa of the Sāṃkhya. […] Pradhāna cannot be active as the three guṇas, sattva, rajas, and tamas abide in themselves in a state of equipoise without standing to one another in the relation of principal and subordinate. For activity the equipoise should be disturbed. There is no external principle to stir the guṇas.  […] so the world cannot originate. If it be said that there is a certain inequality even in the state of pralaya, then creation would be eternal. […] We may infer the nature of the guṇas from that of their effects and say that guṇas are of an unsteady nature and so enter into a relation of mutual inequality even while they ate in a state of equipoise. Even then […] non-intelligent Pradhāna cannot account for the orderly arrangement of world. [p371 …]

Ś. points out that the Sāṃkhya mentions seven senses and sometimes eleven. In some places it teaches that the subtle elements of material things proceed from the great principle, mahat, at others from the self-sense or ahaṁ-kāra. Sometimes it speaks of three internal organs, and sometimes of one only. Besides, it contradicts Scripture which declares that the Lord is the cause of the world. […]
R. criticizes […] the Sāṃkhya view.  The eternally non-active, unchanging puruṣacannot become witness, an enjoying and cognizing agent. It cannot be subject to error resting on superposition for these are of the nature of change. Mere proximity to prakṛti cannot bring about changes. The Sāṃkhya teaches that prakṛti, when seen by any soul in her true nature, retires from that soul […] But as the soul is eternally released and above all change, it does not see prakṛti; nor does it attribute to itself her qualities. Prakṛti cannot see herself as she is non-intelligent; she cannot impute to herself the soul’s seeing of itself as her seeing of herself. R. says that these difficulties are to be found in the theory of an eternally unchanging Brahman which, being conscious of Avidyā, experiences unreal bondage and release. He feels that the Advaita doctrine is more irrational than the Sāṃkhya which admits a plurality of souls. [p372]”.

The atheist and theist version of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework can address these problems easily because the intelligent self and subjective experiences are potentially superposed in the mental aspect of the unmanifested state ofBrahman.

In verses II/26-28 of Gītā, the materialism/Cārvāka/nāstika view is presented that jīvātman is ‘nityajAtam’ (nirantara janma lene wālā: always takes birth as body is born) and ‘nityam vā manyase’ (nirantara marne wālā: always dies as body dies); in other words, jīvātman as being constantly born and constantly dying (Swami Chinmayananda, 2000). The state of jīvātman-brain-body before birth and after death is in unmanifested/potential (avyakta) form of Brahman; and the period between birth and death, i.e., during one is alive is in manifested/realized (vyakta) form of Brahman (verse II/28) (Swami Chinmayananda, 2000). At this point, both theist and atheists agree that life is continuous chain of birth and death. However, the materialistic view has the explanatory gap problem (how the mental entity ‘jīvātman’ can emerge/born from physical (inert) entity, such as brain).

One could attribute multiple meanings to the term Brahman: (i) Brahman is aspectless, formless, and attributeless in Sankarāchārya’s Advaita, (ii) Brahman hascit (mind) and acit (matter) as adjectives in cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, (iii) Brahman is fundamental matter from which mind emerges in materialism, (iv) Brahman has two inseparable (mental and physical) aspects in the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, and so on.


On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

I am not the only one who criticizes Sankhya; please see below:

Adapted From (Vimal, 2012c):

3.1.1. Gītā and Sāṃkhya, and Critique

1. Gita

Gītā, in general, seems to imply a sort of mixture of problematic Advaita (idealism), dualism/Sāṅkhya, and/or separable dual-aspect monism as in Verses II/17-25 (especially II.20 and II.22) of Gītā ((Swami Chinmayananda, 2000) and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita related commentary of (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 1998b)). This is because soul/jīvātman separates from dead body/brain after death and eventually returns to parmātman (God) after Moksha (liberation). However, soul/'self' interacts with brain/body when we are alive.

2. Sāṃkhya

In Sāṃkhya philosophy (Radhakrishnan & Moore, 1957; Rao, 1998; Sen Gupta, 1986), Puruṣa (experiencer, consciousness) and Prakṛti (astral and causal bodies) are independent entities but they interact, via the ‘shining’ or the ‘fusion’ process because of the proximity of Puruṣa with Prakṛti, to create universe including us (चित् पुरुष के सान्निध्य से इसी एक तत्व ‘प्रकृति’ को क्रमश: तेईस अवांतर तत्वों में परिणत होकर समस्त जड़ जगत् को उत्पन्न करती हुई माना गया है)[i].
In Sāṃkhya, there are two independently existing fundamental entities: (i) experiential/conscious entity Puruṣa and (ii) non-experiential/non-conscious entity Prakṛti. Sāṃkhya is little different from ISD. The experiencer Puruṣa, and the causal bodies/world (kāran jagat) and astral bodies/world (sukshma jagat) of Prakṛti are all included in the Western term ‘mind’. The non-experiential/non-mental physical bodies (sthūla jagat) of Prakṛti are equivalent to western non-experiential/non-mental ‘matter’.
Puruṣa
In Sāṃkhya (which is a dualistic metaphysics, in analogy to Interactive Substance Dualism), Puruṣa (Parmātman/jīvātman: the experiential aspect of consciousness) is like a witness (Sākshi) of whatever activities go on in subject’s brain but does not affect its activities; however, Puruṣa is the real experiencer. Subject’s brain is simply a physical machine/instrument; Puruṣa ‘shines’ (throws ‘lights’ on) this machine to experience. In other words, Puruṣa is only an experiencer/witness/dristā/sāk shi. Puruṣa is like a match-stick that can only ignite an incense, but cannot change its attributes such as its smell; if it is rose fragrance, then He has to experience the smell of rose; it does not matter He likes it or not. He will not know anything about the smell until He gets help from olfactory nerves and related cortex of a brain. Thus a brain is needed for Him to experience for example the smell. Therefore, omnipresent Puruṣa by himself is powerless and knowledgeless.
Prakṛti
Prakṛti consists of
(i) Causal world (kāran jagat) is composed of 3 gunas (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas), Chitta, and Ahamkāras;
(ii) Astral world (sukshma jagat) consists of five Tanmātras (rūpa, śabda, sparśa, rasa, and gandha), Buddhi, Manas, and ten senses; and
(iii) Physical world (sthūla jagat) containing fermions, bosons and four fundamental forces.
Sāṃkhya is similar to the problematic interactive substance dualism. Atheist version of Sāṃkhya denies the existence of God, which is criticized by Vedantists. The relationship of Brahm, Jīva, and matter (Jagat) are summarized in Table 1.

Critiques on Sāṃkhya

As per (Radhakrishnan, 1960).(BS:II.2.1-10), “Even according to Sāṃkhya, the original disturbance of the three guṇas [sattva, rajas, tamas] from the condition of equipoise which is essential for creative manifestation cannot be due to the unintelligent pradhāna [which is Prakṛti with 3 guṇas].  Clay does not change into pots without the help of a potter […] So pradhāna cannot be the cause of the world [and emotions] unless there is an ultimate intelligent principle. [p367…]

R. [Rāmānujāchārya] says that the Sāṃkhya assumes three guņas and not one ultimate cause [Brahman] […] if they [guņas] are unlimited and therefore omnipresent, then no inequality can result and so no effects can originate. To explain the origination of results, it is necessary to assume limitation of the guņas. [p368…] Puruṣa is indifferent and so cannot cause action or cessation from activity. God [kārya Brahman], on the other hand, as a principle of intelligence, can act or not[,] as he chooses. [p369…] If nearness [of Puruṣa/soul] to prakṛti  makes the soul capable of fruition, i.e., of being conscious of pleasure and pain which are special modifications of prakṛti, it follows that as prakṛti is ever near, the soul will never accomplish emancipation. … how can the indifferent Puruṣa move the Pradhāna? [p370 …] Pradhāna is non-intelligent and Puruṣa is indifferent [inactive] and there is no third principle and so there can be no connection between the two. If the soul sees and pradhāna is capable of being seen, then capacities which are permanent imply the impossibility of final release.

For Ś [Śankarāchārya], the Highest Self [Brahman] endowed with māyā is superior to the Puruṣa of the Sāṃkhya. […] Pradhāna cannot be active as the three guṇas, sattva, rajas, and tamas abide in themselves in a state of equipoise without standing to one another in the relation of principal and subordinate. For activity the equipoise should be disturbed. There is no external principle to stir the guṇas.  […] so the world cannot originate. If it be said that there is a certain inequality even in the state of pralaya, then creation would be eternal. […] We may infer the nature of the guṇas from that of their effects and say that guṇas are of an unsteady nature and so enter into a relation of mutual inequality even while they ate in a state of equipoise. Even then […] non-intelligent Pradhāna cannot account for the orderly arrangement of world. [p371 …]

Ś. points out that the Sāṃkhya mentions seven senses and sometimes eleven. In some places it teaches that the subtle elements of material things proceed from the great principle, mahat, at others from the self-sense or ahaṁ-kāra. Sometimes it speaks of three internal organs, and sometimes of one only. Besides, it contradicts Scripture which declares that the Lord is the cause of the world. […]
R. criticizes […] the Sāṃkhya view.  The eternally non-active, unchanging puruṣa cannot become witness, an enjoying and cognizing agent. It cannot be subject to error resting on superposition for these are of the nature of change. Mere proximity to prakṛti cannot bring about changes. The Sāṃkhya teaches that prakṛti, when seen by any soul in her true nature, retires from that soul […] But as the soul is eternally released and above all change, it does not see prakṛti; nor does it attribute to itself her qualities. Prakṛti cannot see herself as she is non-intelligent; she cannot impute to herself the soul’s seeing of itself as her seeing of herself. R. says that these difficulties are to be found in the theory of an eternally unchanging Brahman which, being conscious of Avidyā, experiences unreal bondage and release. He feels that the Advaita doctrine is more irrational than the Sāṃkhya which admits a plurality of souls. [p372]”.

The atheist and theist version of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework can address these problems easily because the intelligent self and subjective experiences are potentially superposed in the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of Brahman.

In verses II/26-28 of Gītā, the materialism/Cārvāka/nāstika view is presented that jīvātman is ‘nityajAtam’ (nirantara janma lene wālā: always takes birth as body is born) and ‘nityam vā manyase’ (nirantara marne wālā: always dies as body dies); in other words, jīvātman as being constantly born and constantly dying (Swami Chinmayananda, 2000). The state of jīvātman-brain-body before birth and after death is in unmanifested/potential (avyakta) form of Brahman; and the period between birth and death, i.e., during one is alive is in manifested/realized (vyakta) form of Brahman (verse II/28) (Swami Chinmayananda, 2000). At this point, both theist and atheists agree that life is continuous chain of birth and death. However, the materialistic view has the explanatory gap problem (how the mental entity ‘jīvātman’ can emerge/born from physical (inert) entity, such as brain).

One could attribute multiple meanings to the term Brahman: (i) Brahman is aspectless, formless, and attributeless in Sankarāchārya’s Advaita, (ii) Brahman has cit (mind) and acit (matter) as adjectives in cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita, (iii) Brahman is fundamental matter from which mind emerges in materialism, (iv) Brahman has two inseparable (mental and physical) aspects in the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, and so on.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Monday, 5 June 2017 9:46 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:


Dear Vinod ji,

Vimal: If anyone can empirically show that the aspects are separable, then only the doctrine of inseparability can be rejected. Until then science allows us to keep it.
 
Sehgal:  Absence of objective evidence for one hypothesis does not imply the presence of objective evidence for the anti-hypothesis. The question of inseparability or separability of the physical and mental aspects in the matter will be relevant only when there is evidence at all that in the inert matter, there exist some mental aspects. Where is the objective or subjective evidence that the inert matter has any mental aspects at all?
 
Vimal: In addition to my previous response, all the empirical fMRI/EEG data are consistent with inseparability. Please see Section 3.8 of (Vimal, 2016b) for further detail. This is the best I can do at present time.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Monday, 5 June 2017 12:50 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Though at the manifestation stage, 1-pp mental and 3pp physical aspects appear inseparable from this perceived inseparability we can't infer that before the manifestation also, these aspects were inseparable. The possibility of these two physical and mental aspects existing and emanating out from two distinct sources (BEFORE MANIFESTATION) can't be ruled out from the perceived inseparability.
 
Vimal: If anyone can empirically show that the aspects are separable, then only the doctrine of inseparability can be rejected. Until then science allows us to keep it.

Sehgal:  Absence of objective evidence for one hypothesis does not imply the presence of objective evidence for the anti-hypothesis.


The question of inseparability or separability of the physical and mental aspects in the matter will be relevant only when there is an evidence at all that in the inert matter, there exist some mental aspects. Where is the objective or subjective evidence that the inert matter has any mental aspects at all?

I go a one step further. Where is the empirical objective evidence that in human beings or other living organisms, there is the existence of any mental aspects having the mind, conscious "I-ness" and conscious self? Your contention that fMRE or EEG techniques do provide objective empirical evidence for the existence of our conscious "I-ness", conscious Self and mind is mistaken. These techniques do provide objective empirical evidence for the built up and the existence of NNs only. But the assertion that these NNs relate to any conscious element viz of mind or self does not come out from the objective empirical evidence. But this comes from the subjective evidence as flowing out from the subjective version of the subject.

This indicates the absence of infallibility of the empirical objective evidence in matters related to mind and consciousness.

I had touched on the above issue in detail in my email dated June 3, 2017. I am reproducing below the relevant extracts for your perusal once again and your comments.

"Vimal: ‘Real entity’ means that the entity physically exists in our physical world out there, which can be objectively measured.

Above is an arbitrary definition of reality devoid of any precise criteria for the definition of reality and grounded deeply in one benchmark of Scientific materialism viz " whatever is verifiable by objective physical instruments is real." If we may go as per this definition, there is no existence of even our mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness". You may say that NNs, as are empirically verifiable by the neurobiological imaging techniques like MRI and EEG, are the objective empirical evidence for the existence of a conscious domain having elements of Mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness" in human beings. But a little examination of this inference will reveal that this inference in wrong. EEG and MRI establish the existence of some NNs which is a physical aspect and we PRESUME that there is the existence of some conscious aspect corresponding to the physical aspects of NNs. This PRESUMPTION of the conscious aspect of Mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness" comes out from the subjective experiences of all human beings and NOT from any objective empirical evidence.

Actually, neurobiological experiments are conducted by some scientists who themselves possess Mind, Conscious Self and Conscious "I-ness" and these experiments are conducted on the subjects who are also having Mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness". So any relational mechanism linking NNs with the conscious domain has an IN-BUILT SUPPOSITION that scientists and subjects, on whom experiments are being done, possess some Conscious domain. And please don't forget that this supposition of the conscious domain is provided in a subjective manner by human beings only -- whether scientists conducting experiments and subjects upon whom experiments are being done. 

So kindly don't remain under any misconception that there is any objective empirical evidence for the existence of Mind, conscious "I-ness" and conscious self. Yet every sane human being recognizes the existence of a conscious domain in him/her having elements of Mind, Self and "I-ness".

So your definition of the reality as one as existing in the physical world and as empirically verifiable by the objective methodology fails even in its preliminary scrutiny.

Let a mechanical robot devoid of any consciousness and any program having linkages of  NNs with conscious domain investigate the existence of any conscious domain in human beings and establish the existence of conscious elements by linking with  NNs. Robots will fail since no presupposition of the existence of any conscious domain will come out from the robot.

Above establishes that there is no objective empirical evidence for the existence of any conscious elements in human beings ( but they are very much real), therefore, hypothesis that anything which exist in the physical world and which is verifiable by the objective empirical methodology"

From above, we can easily infer that in consciousness and mind related matters, subjective empirical evidence as coming out from the state of Samaadhi is more infallible and, as such, superior than that of the objective empirical evidence employing physical instruments.

From the experiences in the state of Samaadhi, it becomes clearly evident that consciousness and mind are distinct from the physical body/brain and further consciousness is distinct from mind. So herein lies the evidence of the separability of the two aspects.

 Now you will assert, but without any basis of logic and evidence, that this perceived distinctiveness is due to some interpretation or training in Saankhya. But let me reiterate that in matters of any direct and real experience which are also reproducible, whether in our physical world or in the Astral world, there is no scope for  any interpretation or training

If someone trains you that an apple is a mango, apple will not appear mango to you.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 12:13 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. Let us work on just one issue at a time, say the doctrine of inseparability.

Vimal: You have written in a very confusing and unclear form. The correct way to write is as follows:
 
The eDAM is based on the two sources of robust reproducible empirical data at our awake conscious state: (i) our mundane private subjective experiences from the 1stperson perspective (1pp) and (ii) their NCC from fMRI and EEG objective data from the 3rd person perspective (3pp) for the public. To interpret these data, the eDAM postulated (I) 1pp-mental and inseparable 3pp-physical aspects and ...

Sehgal: Though at the manifestation stage, 1-pp mental and 3pp physical aspects appear inseparable from this perceived inseparability we can't infer that before the manifestation also, these aspects were inseparable. The possibility of these two physical and mental aspects existing and emanating out from two distinct sources (BEFORE MANIFESTATION) can't be ruled out from the perceived inseparability.
 
Vimal: If anyone can empirically show that the aspects are separable, then only the doctrine of inseparability can be rejected. Until then science allows us to keep it.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Sunday, 4 June 2017 7:00 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: The eDAM postulates that all the mental aspects exist in some FUNCTIONAL and unmanifested form in all the entities of the universe, as an inseparable aspect with the physical aspect, right from the beginning till the brains in the living organisms become operative. To show it off different than Materialism, it postulates that functions don't take birth from the structure. 
 
Vimal: You have written in a very confusing and unclear form. The correct way to write is as follows:
 
The eDAM is based on the two sources of robust reproducible empirical data at our awake conscious state: (i) our mundane private subjective experiences from the 1stperson perspective (1pp) and (ii) their NCC from fMRI and EEG objective data from the 3rd person perspective (3pp) for the public. To interpret these data, the eDAM postulated (I) 1pp-mental and inseparable 3pp-physical aspects and 

Though at the manifestation stage, 1-pp mental and 3pp physical aspects appear inseparable from this perceived inseparability we can't infer that before the manifestation also, these aspects were inseparable. The possibility of these two physical and mental aspects existing and emanating out from two distinct sources ( BEFORE MANIFESTATION) can't be ruled out from the perceived inseparability. An analogy will highlight this point of view.

On the screen of a live TV, different pictures and sounds appear continuously.  Suppose the structure of the TV screen is akin to the physical aspects of the brain-- 3pp physical aspects. Various pictures and sounds appearing on the screen may be taken akin to the 1 pp mental aspects. Prima facie both these aspects appear inseparable and there is all the possibility that anyone can infer that

 i) Pictures and sounds are being produced from the physicality of the screen (Materialism)

ii) Pictures and sounds are being manifested from some special aspects which is inseparable with  the physical aspects of the screen ( eDAM)

And interesting thing is that aforesaid notion of the inseparability is further reinforced when we find that on changing the characteristics of the TV screen, nature of the pictures and sounds also changes. That is happening with most of the neuroscientists in their research. When they change the characteristics of the physical aspects of the brain thru electro-chemo intervention ( change in 3pp aspects), a change in the 1pp aspects is also reported by the subjects. This further reinforces the belief of the neuroscientists following the metaphysics of the Materialism and eDAM  that mental aspects are taking birth from the physicality of the brain or mental aspects manifesting from some latent mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects.

But we know that both the interpretations i) and ii) above in the context of the pictures and sounds on a TV screen are wrong. We know that pictures and sounds on the screen of a TV neither take birth from the physicality of the screen nor manifest from some latent aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects of the screen BUT pictures and sounds manifest due to some signals as taking birth from the underlying circuits which are hidden beneath the screen. Any person who is unaware with the underlying circuits is bound to commit an error to interpret wrongly as indicated at i0 or ii) above. The Same error is being committed by the neuroscientists having a commitment to Materialism or eDAM. They being unaware with the underlying circuits of Mind ( in the Astral realm of nature)but hidden behind the physical body/brain  make wrong interpretations  of the consciousness and mental aspects as  being made by a lay person in the context of pictures/sounds on a TV screen  and who is unaware the underlying circuits hidden behind the TV screen.

(II) the degree of the manifestation of these aspects depend on the entities and their states.

 The validity of Inference (II) above is dependent upon inference (I) above. Since inference (I) is not valid, therefore, inference (II) is also not valid

 A conscious state or any state of any state in our real physical world is a beable ontological state.

Above inference is based upon two postulations viz

i) All the macro level objects have some beable ontological state

ii) All those beable ontological states had both the physical and mental aspects.

Regarding i) above, the concept of a beable ontological states is not applicable upon a macro level object say the bodies of we human beings. It is applicable to the quantum level objects/particles. Regarding ii) above, there is no evidence even at the manifestation stage leave alone before the manifestation.


 So far, at conscious state, we have both subjective and objective reproducible evidence at every conscious moment of over 7.2 billion people. There is no way, anybody can deny such evidence.

That is OK but this is at the manifestation stage giving an appearance of 'inseparability". In the TV analogy, the issue has been clarified abundantly.
 
Then the eDAM framework is extrapolated to other states of other living and non-living entities from current period to pre-Big Bang era. We apply logic and use whatever evidence (such as function and structure) is available; this is the best anybody can do at the present time, which clearly means further research is needed.

When there is no evidence of the real inseparability  (before manifestation) even at the current stage of functioning brain level, how can we extrapolate it to the non-living entities? Further, there has been no evidence of the existence of any FUNCTIONs as the mental aspect in the non-living entities.


 In the Standard Model, A physical entity consists of a material entity fermion and/or a force carrier entity boson, which has mass, spin, and charge. Since a function is not a physical entity, the eDAM categorizes it a sub-aspect of the mental aspect of a state of an entity. Similarly, an experience is a sub-aspect of the mental aspect the same state of the same entity.

Yes, a function may not be a structural entity but it is a mistake to say that a function is not physical. Mass, Charge, and Spin are the functions of a structural entity say an atom but these are very much physical. The functions of a physical structural entity shall always be physical. Therefore, it is a mistake to categorize functions of a physical structural entity say mass, charge, and spin under the mental aspect. For example, a car has some physical structure and motion is a function but this function is a physical one and by any amount of logic/imagination, motion can't be categorized under the mental aspect.

You have made illogical and wrong postulations that all the functions of a physical structural entity should come under the mental aspects.

Logically speaking, a physical structure should have physical functions and a mental structure should have mental functions and in both cases, such functions should take birth from the respective structures only.

If we treat mental aspects as FUNCTIONs, these functions should necessarily take birth from some MENTAL  structure only
 
In other words, a non-living inert entity chair in a functional state is also a beable ontological state.

There is no meaning of the existence of a non-living entity say a chair existing in some functional state and that too in some beable ontological state. When a log of wood will undergo some structural change to the shape of a chair, its functions shall manifest automatically. Beable ontological states should pertain to quantum particles which compose the chair. Before the particles aggregated to form a macro level object like the log of wood or chair, there was no existence of the chair in any of the beable ontological states. 

 Thus, there are innumerable beable ontological states corresponding to innumerable states of innumerable living and non-living entities. These innumerable beable ontological states are introduced as innumerable basis states in the eDAM’s Hilbert space.

As indicated above, there is no existence of any macro level object existing in some beable ontological state. Beable ontological states should pertain to quantum particles. Hilbert space has no ontological existence but merely a mathematical construct as hypothesized in QM.

 A state of an entity (including the dual-aspect unmanifested state of the primal entity) is composed of the superposition of these innumerable basis states. The eDAM starts from current period and goes back to the pre-BB era and then returns to the current period and does not find any logical contradiction. This is detailed in Section 3.15 of (Vimal, 2016b).

The concept of the beable ontological states and superposition is applicable to quantum objects and NOT to the macro level objects say human brains or some rocks. When there is no evidence for the existence of a real dual state ( implying the existence of the real inseparability) even at the functioning brain level, we can't extrapolate it to all the entities of the universe till the start of BB( if any) and hypothesize in the Primal state ( Brahman). 

Even if some dual aspect existed in Brahman, it will not the way as interpreted by you wherein Brahman also gets differentiated and discrete in the stratified structures of the physicality and also passes thru the same process of transformation/transmutation thru which the matter particles pass thru. Despite being in dual aspect, Brahman shall maintain its holistic, changeless status. in none of the Vedantic metaphysics the following dualism viz Vishishtaadvaita of Ramanujachaarya or Kashmiri Shaivism, Brahman has been interpreted the way, you have interpreted. In this metaphysics, despite being in the dual aspect, Brahman maintain its exalted status. In eDAM, Brahman has been reduced to the mundane material status, which only for namesake is Brahman, but otherwise, its status is like matter wherein same Laws continue to be applicable to Brahman as applicable to matter particles

I will email you my response for the rest when I get time; I am very busy on my previous commitments. Meanwhile, kindly re-read Section 3.15 of (Vimal, 2016b) few times and make sure you really understand it with involving materialism or Sankhya. If you really understand the eDAM, then most of your queries will be automatically answered.

You may please take your own time and respond when you are free. In the meantime, please seriously think about the issues as raised by me above and in my previous mail as sent yesterday. When you will think over seriously and repeatedly, many limitations and inconsistencies of eDAM will come to your mind. Then you will realize where you have made mistakes  while proposing eDAM.

Regards.


Vinod Sehgal

On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: The eDAM postulates that all the mental aspects exist in some FUNCTIONAL and unmanifested form in all the entities of the universe, as an inseparable aspect with the physical aspect, right from the beginning till the brains in the living organisms become operative. To show it off different than Materialism, it postulates that functions don't take birth from the structure. 
 
Vimal: You have written in a very confusing and unclear form. The correct way to write is as follows:
 
The eDAM is based on the two sources of robust reproducible empirical data at our awake conscious state: (i) our mundane private subjective experiences from the 1st person perspective (1pp) and (ii) their NCC from fMRI and EEG objective data from the 3rd person perspective (3pp) for the public. To interpret these data, the eDAM postulated (I) 1pp-mental and inseparable 3pp-physical aspects and (II) the degree of the manifestation of these aspects depend on the entities and their states. A conscious state or any state of any state in our real physical world is a beable ontological state. So far, at conscious state, we have both subjective and objective reproducible evidence at every conscious moment of over 7.2 billion people. There is no way, anybody can deny such evidence.
 
Then the eDAM framework is extrapolated to other states of other living and non-living entities from current period to pre-Big Bang era. We apply logic and use whatever evidence (such as function and structure) is available; this is the best anybody can do at the present time, which clearly means further research is needed. In the Standard Model, A physical entity consists of a material entity fermion and/or a force carrier entity boson, which has mass, spin, and charge. Since a function is not a physical entity, the eDAM categorizes it a sub-aspect of the mental aspect of a state of an entity. Similarly, an experience is a sub-aspect of the mental aspect the same state of the same entity.
 
In other words, a non-living inert entity chair in a functional state is also a beable ontological state. Thus, there are innumerable beable ontological states corresponding to innumerable states of innumerable living and non-living entities. These innumerable beable ontological states are introduced as innumerable basis states in the eDAM’s Hilbert space. A state of an entity (including the dual-aspect unmanifested state of the primal entity) is composed of the superposition of these innumerable basis states. The eDAM starts from current period and goes back to the pre-BB era and then returns to the current period and does not find any logical contradiction. This is detailed in Section 3.15 of (Vimal, 2016b).

I will email you my response for the rest when I get time; I am very busy on my previous commitments. Meanwhile, kindly re-read Section 3.15 of (Vimal, 2016b) few times and make sure you really understand it with involving materialism or Sankhya. If you really understand the eDAM, then most of your queries will be automatically answered.

Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 3 June 2017 12:08 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

I have responded in detail against each of the issues as raised by you, therefore, my response is line by line and para by para. As such, it has become a bit lengthy message. I  have prepared my response based upon logical arguments, observations, and evidence and not upon any dogmatic metaphysical belief. If you think, I have deviated anywhere from this approach anywhere, please point out promptly. I shall rectify myself.

Now if you opt to respond, please respond to each of my point/issues in sequential order based upon logic/evidence/observations. When you don't stick to the sequential order of issues as raised by me and send a new and fresh unilateral message, all the points/issues as raised by me in my previous email get dissolved and chain of logical treatment of different issues also get disrupted.In this way whole of my time and resources taken in writing the message gets wasted. Further, kindly whenever you make any assertive statement please substantiate that with logical argument or evidence. For example, when you state that existence of the Astral world is an interpretation and that only our physical world is a real one,  please substantiate it with some logical argumentative basis or evidence with you to support your statements. With this introductory lines, let me send my reply which is given in red font text and key issues have been marked in green font texts. 

Data


Sehgal: I agree with your above views. No doubt, data is collected in any of the worlds-wakeful conscious state, dream conscious state, and SS conscious state. Due to reasons indicated in my previous email, empirical objective data can be collected thru physical instruments in the wakeful conscious state only.
 
Vimal: OK.

Sehgal: OK, I agree.
 
[2] Vimal: The rest are the interpretations based on metaphysics. Thus, we must agree clearly the clear-cut difference between data and interpretations to avoid confusion.

Sehgal: Yes, I also agree that interpretation of data is made based upon metaphysics. But I DON"T AGREE with your views that Saankhya or for that purpose any other metaphysics is the result of interpretation of data. Every metaphysics has its own some fundamental distinctive features, some axioms and interpretation of data is made based upon those features. For example, the eDAM has a feature that mind and consciousness are some FUNCTIONS and there is no basic difference between the two. But Saankhya makes a basic distinction between Mind and Consciousness and Mind is not a function but a structural ontological reality as emanating out from Moola Prakriti in some sequential order.
 
Vimal: I agree. However, the eDAM clearly differentiates between experiences, functions, self, thoughts, and so on although they are the sub-aspects of the 1pp-mental aspect.

Sehgal: eDAM postulates that all the mental aspects exist in some FUNCTIONAL  and unmanifested form in all the entities of the universe, as an inseparable aspect with the physical aspect, right from the beginning till the brains in the living organisms become operative. To show it off  different than Materialism, it postulates that functions are don't take birth from  the structure. 

However, eDAM fails to account for following aspects, on which I have I have drawn your attention many times in my past emails, viz

i) It is an obvious and logical observational fact that any FUNCTION takes birth from the structure when some structural change takes place in the structure. But eDAM does not agree to this logical and obvious fact. But why? No explanation from eDAM.

ii) In eDAM, if Functions don't take birth from the structure, how do Functions emerge out and in what form such functions exist? If you say that Functions don't not take birth i.e they are fundamental and never emerge, how will they exist on their own? It is a logical inference that FUNCTIONS can't hang at their own. If any entity hangs on its own, it will no longer remain a FUNCTION but it will become structure.

For example body of a car is a structure and motion of the car is a FUNCTION. So we can't infer that before a structural change took place in the structure of the car, any FUNCTION of the motion did exist.

iii) Mental aspects itself exist in Functional forms. You are transforming these Functions again as different Functions and experience and consciousness at the functional brain level. I don't understand what is meant by dividing any Function again as different Functions and experience and consciousness.

It is easy to postulate that in eDAM, FUNCTIONS do not take birth from the structure, to differentiate itself from Materialism, but difficult to explain how such FUNCTIONS exist on their own since it is inconceivable and illogical.

Now you may please provide a logical explanation to address above issues of eDAM. 

Interpretations

[1] Vimal: In the Sāṅkhya, we can argue that the tree is subjectively ‘real’ in all these 3 worlds and therefore all worlds really exist in addition to causal world and chetan (manifested consciousness) world. Based on this metaphysics, Kapila muni and later yogis hypothesized OOO-God theory. The theist India believes this theory over thousands of years and theist life-styles are based on the Sāṅkhya and Vedāntic metaphysics. However, this is simply an interpretation of the subjective data.
 
Sehgal: Hereinabove, you are again committing the same mistake which you have been making so far viz metaphysics are the result of interpretations. I say metaphysics are not the result of interpretations but it is the interpretations which result from the pre-existing metaphysics. Then how do you metaphysics emanate? Metaphysics emanate out from some fundamental axioms, some hypothesis, but such axioms/hypothesis are subject to verification by both subjective and objective methodology, observations and logical deliberations. For example, when in Saankhya, it was hypothesized that there is the ontological existence of Tanmaatras as being transformed from Moola Prakriti and that the physical derivatives are the transformed structures of Tanmaatras, then this hypothesis should be subject to verification in the state of Samaadhi. And in the state of Samaadhi, a Yogi can really observe in a quite vivid manner as to how Moola Prakriti is transformed to Tanmaatras and then in turn to the Physical derivatives of our physical world. Once verified, it will no longer remain an axiom or hypothesis but a fact forming a part of the Metaphysics. Similarly, the eDAM makes an axiom/hypothesis that every entity of the universe has, in addition to the physical aspect, some mental aspect as inseparable with the physical aspect. But there is no objective empirical thru physical instruments or subjective empirical verification thru Samādhis of this hypothesis and this is subject to speculation.
 
Vimal: I agree that each metaphysics has certain assumptions/postulates, features, axioms, hypotheses, based on which data are interpreted. However, I strongly disagree that Moola Prakriti, tanmātras, astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds, etc. and various derivations, clearly ‘seen’/‘observe’ during the SS/NS states are the data and/or validation/proof of the subjective data. I argue that they are simply the interpretations of the SS/NS state subjective experiences (subjective data) at SS/NS states based on Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkh ya.

Again you have started arguing from a dogmatic and some deep metaphysical belief point of view. In the physical world, you collect the data of the phenomenal reality of a physical object and treat that as data and physical ontology of the tree as real. In the Astral world, when our mind and senses collect data and experience the phenomenal reality of some astral entities say Moola Prakriti or Tanmaatras, you don't treat this as data and don't consider the ontology of the objects of the Astral Wold as real but some interpretation. How can you employ a different set of logic for the phenomenon reality in the two realms of nature when both are experienced in the same vividness and with the same reproducibility? It is the demand of the logic and rationality that you should employ same yardsticks while analyzing phenomenal reality in the Physical and Astral World.

When you say that experience of a tree in the physical world is data and based upon some real ontology but experience of a tree in the Astral world is not data but mere interpretation and not based on some real ontology ( when both have reproducible experiences), you don't make this statement without any logic or rational basis but this statement comes out of some deep-rooted dogmatic belief. If you have some basis or logic, please support your statement with that basis and logic. 


 Yogis, such as Swami ji and his guru ji and guru ji of guru ji and whole chain of gurus are trained for number of years in Sāṅkhya, Advaita etc, which force them to interpret the subjective/personal/private data according to the metaphysics they are trained. This is the major problem in subjective research.

I think I have indicated many times previously also that until trust Saadhak ( Seeker) is not proficient enough, he has to trust and follow his Guru Yogi. However, once Saadhak can gain adequate proficiency to enter the Astral World at his/her own, he /she can explore the Astral world at his own and do research as per his independence irrespective of the teachings of his Guru Yogi. For entering the Astral body/world or realm of the cosmic consciousness, there can be many routes. Initially, Saadhak will follow the same route as dictated by his Guru but on gaining adequate proficiency, he can enter thru any route and accordingly describe the ontological reality of the entities/scenes on that route. He can even invent any route on his own. I have also given examples of a trainee pilot and his guide pilot when a person learn to fly an aircraft from one place to another. But it seems you have not paid adequate attention to my above quotes as repeated previously also. So there is no question of the personal bias.


 You think they (Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya ) are the fundamental realities and you are fully under conviction and hence 100% biased;

And there are reasons for this. In the state of Samaadhi, these are visible in quite vivid and reproducible manner. One thing more. In the physical world, the experience of the Physical entities is gained thru mind and senses. Experiences gained thru mind and senses can be illusions since illusions are produced in mind. In the state of Samaadhi, experiences of some part of nature are made by mind and senses ( like in the physical world), therefore, there can be illusions. But these illusions also get eliminated by repeated experiences, higher concentration, and logical contemplation.  But in some part of nature, no mind and senses persist but such experiences are made by consciousness directly, therefore, such experiences are more realistic without any illusions since illusions are produced in mind.

There should be no question of my bias or your bias but we should go forward based on logic, observations, and evidence. That is why I have asked you to provide your logic and evidence for the issues as raised in green font texts as above.

Now when I  say that Purusha and Prakriti are the Fundamental entities, I have extended some logical basis for that as given above in green font texts. I expect that you may please support each of your assertions with logic, observation or evidence.


 and you see other metaphysics are hopeless and wrong and are full of problems. This is the major mistake you have been making from very beginning. You deny this, but this is the bitter truth.

As indicated above, I want to base our conversation/debate based upon some evidence -- subjective or objective, observation and logic and not merely one-sided assertive statements.


There are subjective data from 1pp and objective data from 3pp in wakeful conscious states and also in deep sleep, dreams, and some levels of samādhi states.
 
These data can be interpreted in all metaphysics (including Sāṅkhya) in their own ways. The eDAM is also an interpretation. 

The postulates of the eDAM, such as the doctrine of inseparability, are scientifically testable.

Now above is a one-sided statement not based upon any evidence, so how can it be scientific? Kindly note that in eDAM, there is no evidence -- both objective and subjective that in all the entities of the universe, there is the existence of some mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects. At the functional brain level, inseparability is an apparent one at the manifestation stage only but not at the existence stage before the manifestation. Such perceived manifestation shall be equally observable in all other 4 metaphysics and this perceived inseparability does not provide any extra edge to eDAM for the doctrine of inseparability.  I have repeated this point of view many times but when you say that doctrine of inseparability is scientifically testable, I am constrained to repeat my point pf view again. You very weel appreciate the difference between inseparability at the manifestation stage and before manifestation.
 
However, the postulates of the Sāṅkhya, such as astral, causal, and manifested worlds cannot be tested scientifically and you agree on this.

Yes, I agree to this but the objective empirical experimentation as employed in Science only collects the data thru physical instruments in more precise manner. That is all. Ultimate analysis of that data has yet to be made subjectively by human minds. So in this way, empirical experimentation does nor provide any extra edge for ascertaining reality. Extra edge is imparted when subjectivity of mind and senses goes away and that becomes feasible in the state of Samaadhi when consciousness can perceive directly by getting rid of mind and senses. The concept of consciousness getting rid of mind and senses appears alien to you and you find it difficult to digest the same due to your mindset deeply rooted on the observable physicality of the Materialism.

 You think that since yogis can clearly see Moola Prakriti, tanmātras, astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds, etc. and various derivations; therefore, these observations validate the postulates subjectively. This is totally wrong because they are simply interpretations of the subjective data. Here, you are trying to mix data and interpretation, which is a major mistake you make. 
 
When in the physical world, you see some physical object clearly and you treat that object as real and don't say that these are interpretations, then on what basis you conclude that experiences of different ontological entities in the state of Samaadhi are interpretations? And please don't forget that all the experiences in the Astral worlds are reproducible and logic also operates in the state of Samaadhi. I reiterate that you may please support your statements with some logical base, observations and logic and not merely one-sided assertive statements as you have done above

However, if yogis can clearly demonstrate each steps (in step-by-step manner in very slow motion frame-by-frame, such as materialization) so that scientists can understand how this is happening and then test them in lab-setting in reproducible manner at any place and at any time, then we can say that the Sāṅkhya is worth further research. We all agree that this is not possible because of yogis have a different mindset and they will never agree. Thus, the postulates of Sāṅkhya are not testable scientifically.

Yes, you have judged correctly that Scientists and Yogis having a different mindset, objective empirical testing of the phenomenon and mechanism of the Astral world is not feasible in the laboratory conditions. But there are some other reasons also, which you need to understand.

Consciousness state of scientists in the wakeful state in labs represents one level of consciousness. Physical instruments of the lab exist in one realm of nature -- physical wherein consciousness operate at one unique level. In the dream conscious state, consciousness exists at another level while in the Samaadhi state, wherein nature exists in its Astral form, consciousness exists at another level. Experiences of nature at one level of the consciousness can not be reproduced at another level of consciousness. Leave alone experiences of the Astral World in the state of SS, you can't even reproduce the experiences of the wakeful conscious state in the dream conscious state. You can't carry forward your empirical physical instruments to the dream conscious state. You may please explain why experiences of the wakeful conscious state can't be reproduced in the dream conscious state and vice versa and why physical instruments of the labs can't be taken to the dream conscious state?

The whole problems arise when scientists make the observed physicality, as observable thru mind and senses, as the benchmark of the reality. this is an arbitrary approach.

Sehgal: But why the only physical world is real? On what basis, you assign an extra tag of realness to the physical world vis a vis dream conscious world and the Astral world as visible in the SS state? 
 
In all three states viz dream conscious state, wakeful conscious state, and Astral world Samādhi state, data are collected of some phenomenal reality by mind and senses and the phenomenal reality of the objects appears equally real. It is right that in the dream conscious state, logic does not operate (and there are reasons for this) and experiences are also not reproducible. But in the SS state giving experiences of the phenomenal reality of the Astral objects, experiences are quite reproducible any number of times in the Samādhi state and logic also does operate quite equally as in the wakeful conscious state.
 
In my previous email, I had requested you to please give reasons for the above (in blue font text) but somehow, you have not provided any rational and logical reasons.
 
Vimal: ‘Real entity’ means that the entity physically exists in our physical world out there, which can be objectively measured.

Above is an arbitrary definition of reality devoid of any precise criteria for the definition of reality and grounded deeply in one benchmark of Scientific materialism viz " whatever is verifiable by objective physical instruments is real." If we may go as per this definition, there is no existence of even our mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness". You may say that NNs, as are empirically verifiable by the neurobiological imaging techniques like MRI and EEG, are the objective empirical evidence for the existence of a conscious domain having elements of Mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness" in human beings. But a little examination of this inference will reveal that this inference in wrong. EEG and MRI establish the existence of some NNs which is a physical aspect and we PRESUME that there is the existence of some conscious aspect corresponding to the physical aspects of NNs. This PRESUMPTION of the conscious aspect of Mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness" comes out from the subjective experiences of all human beings and NOT from any objective empirical evidence.

Actually, neurobiological experiments are conducted by some scientists who themselves possess Mind, Conscious Self and Conscious "I-ness" and these experiments are conducted on the subjects who are also having Mind, conscious self and conscious "I-ness". So any relational mechanism linking NNs with the conscious domain has an IN-BUILT SUPPOSITION that scientists and subjects, on whom experiments are being done, possess some Conscious domain. And please don't forget that this supposition of the conscious domain is provided in a subjective manner by human beings only -- whether scientists conducting experiments and subjects upon whom experiments are being done. 

So kindly don't remain under any misconception that there is any objective empirical evidence for the existence of Mind, conscious "I-ness" and conscious self. Yet every sane human being recognizes the existence of a conscious domain in him/her having elements of Mind, Self and "I-ness".

So your definition of the reality as one as existing in the physical world and as empirically verifiable by the objective methodology fails even in its preliminary scrutiny.

Let a mechanical robot devoid of any consciousness and any program having linkages of  NNs with conscious domain investigate the existence of any conscious domain in human beings and establish the existence of conscious elements by linking with  NNs. Robots will fail since no presupposition of the existence of any conscious domain will come out from the robot.

Above establishes that there is no objective empirical evidence for the existence of any conscious elements in human beings ( but they are very much real), therefore, hypothesis that anything which exist in the physical world and which is verifiable by the objective empirical methodology

Astral, causal, and manifested worlds and entities in them are not real in this sense.

Leave alone Astral and Causal worlds, above definition of the reality, fails even to establish the existence of even our daily life experiences of  Mind, Conscious Self, and our Conscious "I-ness". However despite the absence of the objective evidence no sane individual will negate the existence of Mind, Conscious Self and Conscious "I-ness" in him/her


 In addition, they are interpretations by Sāṅkhya; they are not the data as argued above.

There is no logical base or evidence in support of your above inference. It is merely a dogmatic deep-rooted metaphysical belief

 Lucid dream experiences are under subject’s control to some extent; so they are somewhat similar to SS/NS state subjective experiences, which are subjective data
 
Dream- whether lucid or non-lucid represent the reality of nature in the Astral realm of nature, But they are not comparable to the SS experience since these are not reproducible the way experiences in the Samaadhi state are reproducible. Secondly, such experiences are not under control but SS experiences are under control. Thirdly, in the lucid dream state, no logical power of discrimination operates but in the SS state, logical discrimi
...

[Message clipped]  








Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 7, 2017, 2:33:41 PM6/7/17
to George Weissmann, matters...@googlegroups.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Dear Goeorge,

Thanks for the reference related to Fontana’s book.
 
Let us suppose that paranormal phenomena, such as Out-of-the-Body Experiences (OBEs), are true. Then how do we explain them without invoking dualism and/or idealism that have serious problems. (Fontana, 2005) seems to invoke problematic dualism/idealism, so it is not much help. The materialism (that has serious problems and is the dominant metaphysics for science) cannot even explain our mundane wakeful subjective experiences, so there is no hope that it can ever explain paranormal phenomena. The problems of these three foundational metaphysics are elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013).

Thus, the only remaining framework is the least problematic eDAM and it would be interesting to investigate if any (normal or paranormal) data can reject it. I am concentrating on OBEs, some of which also occur during meditation. I have experienced OBE during my 3-4 hrs meditation but it was of very low intensity as my thoughts were not at minimum level. I proposed my working hypothesis before.[i] Furthermore, I found the following reports and I would be interested in critical comments.

Neural basis of OBEs

As per (Blanke, Ortigue, Landis, & Seeck, 2002), “'Out-of-body' experiences (OBEs) [the experience of dissociation of self from the body] are curious, usually brief sensations in which a person's consciousness seems to become detached from the body and take up a remote viewing position. Here we describe the repeated induction of this experience by focal electrical stimulation of the brain's right angular gyrus in a patient who was undergoing evaluation for epilepsy treatment. Stimulation at this site also elicited illusory transformations of the patient's arm and legs (complex somatosensory responses) and whole-body displacements (vestibular responses), indicating that out-of-body experiences may reflect a failure by the brain to integrate complex somatosensory and vestibular information.”
As per (Blanke et al., 2005), “The spatial unity of self and body is challenged by various philosophical considerations and several phenomena, perhaps most notoriously the "out-of-body experience" (OBE) during which one's visual perspective and one's self are experienced to have departed from their habitual position within one's body. Although researchers started examining isolated aspects of the self, the neurocognitive processes of OBEs have not been investigated experimentally to further our understanding of the self. With the use of evoked potential mapping, we show the selective activation of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) at 330-400 ms after stimulus onset when healthy volunteers imagined themselves in the position and visual perspective that generally are reported by people experiencing spontaneous OBEs. Interference with the TPJ by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) at this time impaired mental transformation of one's own body in healthy volunteers relative to TMS over a control site. No such TMS effect was observed for imagined spatial transformations of external objects, suggesting the selective implication of the TPJ in mental imagery of one's own body. Finally, in an epileptic patient with OBEs originating from the TPJ, we show partial activation of the seizure focus during mental transformations of her body and visual perspective mimicking her OBE perceptions. These results suggest that the TPJ is a crucial structure for the conscious experience of the normal self, mediating spatial unity of self and body, and also suggest that impaired processing at the TPJ may lead to pathological selves such as OBEs.”
As per (Bünning & Blanke, 2005), “Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are defined as experiences in which a person seems to be awake and sees his body and the world from a location outside his physical body. More precisely, they can be defined by the presence of the following three phenomenological characteristics: (i) disembodiment (location of the self outside one's body); (ii) the impression of seeing the world from an elevated and distanced visuo-spatial perspective (extracorporeal, but egocentric visuo-spatial perspective); and (iii) the impression of seeing one's own body (autoscopy) from this perspective. OBEs have fascinated mankind from time immemorial and are abundant in folklore, mythology, and spiritual experiences of most ancient and modern societies. Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. We argue that the experimental investigation of the interactions between these multisensory and cognitive mechanisms in OBEs and related illusions in combination with neuroimaging and behavioral techniques might further our understanding of the central mechanisms of corporal awareness and self-consciousness much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.”
As per (Blanke & Arzy, 2005), “Folk psychology postulates a spatial unity of self and body, a "real me" that resides in one's body and is the subject of experience. The spatial unity of self and body has been challenged by various philosophical considerations but also by several phenomena, perhaps most notoriously the "out-of-body experience" (OBE) during which one's visuo-spatial perspective and one's self are experienced to have departed from their habitual position within one's body. Here the authors marshal evidence from neurology, cognitive neuroscience, and neuroimaging that suggests that OBEs are related to a failure to integrate multisensory information from one's own body at the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). It is argued that this multisensory disintegration at the TPJ leads to the disruption of several phenomenological and cognitive aspects of self-processing, causing illusory reduplication, illusory self-location, illusory perspective, and illusory agency that are experienced as an OBE.”
As per (De Ridder, Van Laere, Dupont, Menovsky, & Van de Heyning, 2007), “An out-of-body experience was repeatedly elicited during stimulation of the posterior part of the superior temporal gyrus on the right side in a patient in whom electrodes had been implanted to suppress tinnitus. Positron-emission tomographic scanning showed brain activation at the temporoparietal junction--more specifically, at the angular-supramarginal gyrus junction and the superior temporal gyrus-sulcus on the right side. Activation was also noted at the right precuneus and posterior thalamus, extending into the superior vermis. We suggest that activation of these regions is the neural correlate of the disembodiment that is part of the out-of-body experience.”
As per (Tai, 2008), “The single-subject study design used by De Ridder et al. (Nov. 1 issue)1 makes it difficult to conclude whether the changes seen on positron-emission tomography (PET) were due to out-of-body experiences or simply to the differential effects of stimulation at 3.7 V in 40-Hz burst mode as compared with other modes, a confounder that has not been controlled for. A more robust approach would be to compare this patient with a group of patients with tinnitus, but without the out-of-body experiences, receiving the same stimulation. Furthermore, the short duration of the out-of-body experiences in this patient (average duration, 17 seconds, starting within 1 second after stimulation) means that the experiences had almost disappeared by the time the scans started (10 seconds after stimulation started). Therefore, it is possible that most of the PET changes reported in this study, despite being consistent with the authors' hypothesis, were due to the effects of stimulation alone.”
As per (Greyson, Parnia & Fenwick, 2008), “The report by De Ridder and colleagues describing a sense of disembodiment elicited by temporoparietal-junction stimulation in a patient with tinnitus extends similar findings in patients with epilepsy.1 We should be cautious, however, about drawing analogies between an induced sense of disembodiment and spontaneous out-of-body experiences. That they have similar neuroanatomical loci is a plausible hypothesis but an untested one.
The sense of disembodiment induced by electrical stimulation is limited to a fixed location; those in whom this experience is induced by stimulation perceive the environment from the visual perspective of the physical body, and they perceive the event as illusory. Spontaneous out-of-body experiences often involve accurate perception of the environment (including the physical body) from an extracorporeal visual perspective; the disembodied center of consciousness may seem to move about independently of the physical body, and those who have such a spontaneous experience usually perceive the event as profoundly real.2,3 Given the differences in phenomenology and in psychological aftereffects for those who have the experience, it is premature to assume that the mechanism of an induced sense of disembodiment also applies to spontaneous experiences.4”
As per (De Ridder, Van Laere & Van de Heyning, 2008), “In response to Tai's comments, comparison of the patient with a group of patients receiving the same stimulation without out-of-body experiences is practically impossible because of the interindividual variability of the anatomy of this area, both topographically (1.5 to 2.0 cm)1 and morphologically, which precludes delivery of an identical stimulus2 at the exact same functional area and thus comparable data.
Regarding PET signal interpretation, we argue that it is unlikely that the PET changes reported simply reflect the effects of stimulation alone and not the out-of-body experience. Stimulation started about 35 seconds after the start of the tracer injection (10 seconds before the start of the scan) and lasted until the end of the scan. The start of the scan was initiated by the sharp increase in the intracranial radioactivity count rate on the acquisition monitor, thereby capturing the full out-of-body experience. Nevertheless, we agree that even with this optimal acquisition, the out-of-body experience was reported by the subject only in the first 15 to 20 seconds after stimulation; thus, only a portion of the PET signal reflected the perfusion changes during the out-of-body experience. On the other hand, this also means that the peak maximum of the temporoparietal cluster was strongly underestimated because of temporal averaging out.
We fully agree with Greyson et al. that one should be cautious about drawing analogies between an induced sense of disembodiment and spontaneous out-of-body experiences. However, because of the unpredictable and infrequent occurrence of spontaneous out-of-body experiences, it seems impossible to image them functionally with current technology in a scientific way. Our opinion is that it is highly likely that both induced and spontaneous experiences of disembodiment have common neuroanatomical circuits.”
As per (Aspell, Lenggenhager & Blanke, 2012), “Despite the apparent unitary, global character of bodily self-consciousness, experimental manipulations have mainly focused on subglobal aspects, such as the sense of ownership and agency for one’s hand and its movements (Botvinick and Cohen 1998; Ehrsson et al. 2004; Jeannerod 2006, 2007; Knoblich 2002; Pavani et al. 2000; Tsakiris and Haggard 2005; Tsakiris et al. 2007). These latter studies on body-part representation are important (and will be discussed below in detail), yet we have argued (e.g., see Blanke and Metzinger 2009) that they fail to account for a key feature of bodily self-consciousness: its global character. This is because a fundamental aspect of bodily self-consciousness is its association with a single, whole body, not with multiple body parts (Blanke and Metzinger 2009; Carruthers 2008; Lenggenhager et al. 2007; Metzinger et al. 2007). A number of recent studies (Aspell et al. 2009; Ehrsson 2007; Lenggenhager et al. 2007, 2009; Mizumoto and Ishikawa 2005; Petkova and Ehrsson 2008) have demonstrated that more global aspects of body perception can also be experimentally manipulated using multisensory conflicts. These experimental studies on healthy subjects were inspired by an unusual and revealing set of neurological phenomena—autoscopic phenomena—in which the sense of the body as a whole is disrupted in different ways, and which are likely to be caused by an underlying abnormality in the multisensory integration of global bodily inputs (Blanke and Mohr 2005). In this chapter, we first examine how the scientific understanding of bodily self-consciousness and its multisensory mechanisms can be informed by the study of autoscopic phenomena. We then present a review of investigations of multisensory processing relating to body-part perception (“rubber hand” illusion studies: Botvinick and Cohen 1998; Ehrsson et al. 2004; Tsakiris and Haggard 2005) and go on to discuss more recent “full body” illusion studies that were inspired by autoscopic phenomena and have shown that it is also possible to dissociate certain components of bodily self-consciousness—namely, self-location, self-identification, and the first-person perspective—in healthy subjects by inducing multisensory conflicts.”
As per (Serino et al., 2013), “Recent research on bodily self-consciousness has assumed that it consists of three distinct components: the experience of owning a body (body ownership); the experience of being a body with a given location within the environment (self-location); and the experience of taking a first-person, body-centered, perspective on that environment (perspective). Here we review recent neuroimaging studies suggesting that at least two of these components-body ownership and self-location-are implemented in rather distinct neural substrates, located, respectively, in the premotor cortex and in the temporo-parietal junction. We examine these results and consider them in relation to clinical evidence from patients with altered body perception and work on a variety of multisensory, body-related illusions, such as the rubber hand illusion, the full body illusion, the body swap illusion and the enfacement illusion. We conclude by providing a preliminary synthesis of the data on bodily self-consciousness and its neural correlates.”


[i] 

4.5.5. A working hypothesis and three experiments to test OOO-God theory

From Sections 3.8.13.5 of (Vimal, 2016b) and 3.19.10 of (Vimal, 2016c), the working hypothesis and the three experiments on OOO-God theory are given below. My working hypothesis is as follows:
No mental entity (such as astral body, causal body, soul/Self, or God) is beyond our mind-brain-body system. It appears beyond only through the incompleteness of our knowledge such as related to the out-of-body experience (OBE). A complete knowledge must include the fact that an OBE has a neural basis. Thus, enlightened yogis, mystics, and people who propose life-after-death appear to disregard the knowledge related to neuroscience that all experiences, including OBEs at SS/NS states, have their respective neural bases and all mental entities are within the scope of mind-brain systems.
Experiences are subjective data; data are immortal if collected carefully, and hence they cannot be rejected. Therefore, whatever yogis experienced cannot be rejected. Only its interpretation can be questioned. The interpretation such as based on Sāṅkhya, Vedānta, and Buddhism has incomplete knowledge if knowledge from neuroscience is not included.
The above hypothesis related to OBEs can be tested as discussed before. For example, three experiments are proposed:
(I) Expt.1: Ask yogis to tell us what events are happening on specific days with randomly selected 100 people in many different countries.
(II) Expt.2: Inject anesthetics to yogis during NS-state and then, later on, ask yogis if they still experienced OBEs under deep anesthesia and/or
(III) Expt.3: Measure the neural correlates of OBEs by using fMRI/EEG or more sensitive techniques that can measure the neural basis of such very strong OBEs.
If results are positive in Expts. 1 and 2, then only we can claim that the Sāṅkhya-based OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are tenable. In other words, the theist eDAM can still interpret the data as follows: the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of soul, God, astral body, or causal body is very high and that of its inseparable physical aspect is latent. Thus, even in that case, the theist version of the eDAM cannot be rejected. However, the atheist version of the eDAM can be rejected.

If results are negative in Expts. 1 and 2, then the Sāṅkhya-based OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are rejected. 
However, the atheist version of the eDAM will hold.

If we are able to find a neural basis in Expt.3, then the Sāṅkhya-based OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are rejected. Alternatively, one can argue that techniques used were not sensitive enough to measure the neural basis and more sensitive technology needs to be developed.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 2:54 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
Thank you
Rita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.

Stanley A. KLEIN

unread,
Jun 7, 2017, 9:55:47 PM6/7/17
to matters...@googlegroups.com, George Weissmann, Online Sadhu Sanga, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Hi George and others, 
If anyone is interested in doing out of body experiments I'd love to be involved with the experimental design. It could be a cell phone that is put in a holder by the ceiling.  I could be in charge of generating a random number sent to the phone with encryption. There would be a camera to ensure that there were no mirrors or other ways by which the random number may have determined by something other than the OOB mechanism.   Has anyone been part of that sort of experiment with that sort of controls? 
Stan

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/479374051.5183299.1496857020753%40mail.yahoo.com.

Anil Rajvanshi

unread,
Jun 8, 2017, 5:03:54 AM6/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, George Weissmann, matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Hello Sadhu Sanga group,

I have been following for some time with interest some of the exchanges in this group.

I have been writing in Speaking Tree (Times of India) on some of the issues of spirituality and technology for almost 15 years. My writings on this subject are at; www.nariphaltan.org/writings.htm

Some of you may find them interesting.

Continue the discussion!

Kind regards.

Anil
 

Anil K Rajvanshi, Ph.D.
Director and Hon. Secretary
Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
Tambmal, Phaltan-Lonand Road,
P.O.Box 44, Phaltan - 415523
Maharashtra, India
Ph: +91-9168937964 (office)
cell:+91-9422402326 (BSNL)
cell:+91-9588636327 (JIO)
www.nariphaltan.org

http://www.nariphaltan.org/writings.htm (AKR's articles and talks)
AKR's autobiography www.nariphaltan.org/mylife.pdf (Life of an ordinary Indian...)
http://www.huffingtonpost.in/dr-anil-k-rajvanshi/ (Huffington Post blogs) 
http://nariphaltan.org/nari-in-press/ (articles and news published about NARI)
http://www.thebetterindia.com/author/anilrajvanshi/ (ocassional blogs in Better India)


alternate e-mail:
narip...@gmail.com  



To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups.com.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_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/479374051.5183299.1496857020753%40mail.yahoo.com.

M. R. N. Murthy

unread,
Jun 8, 2017, 7:50:15 AM6/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com, George Weissmann, matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
8 June 2017

Dear Anil,

I regularly read comments / notes you present so well in the
Speaking Tree. Occasionally I had some comments / criticisms on
your article. I now have an address to which I could respond!

Keep writing.

Kind regards,

Murthy
>> <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-DefineC-LVCR-3-2.pdf>,
>> Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c)
>> <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2016-Vimal-Scientific-Hinduism-Bringing-Science-and-Hinduism-closer-eDAM-5-4-book.pdf>,
>> and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013)
>> <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2012-Vimal-Emergence-UMBW-CUP.pdf>.
>> <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc073315#ref1-SA1> makes it
>> difficult to conclude whether the changes seen on positron-emission
>> tomography (PET) were due to out-of-body experiences or simply to the
>> differential effects of stimulation at 3.7 V in 40-Hz burst mode as
>> compared with other modes, a confounder that has not been controlled for. A
>> more robust approach would be to compare this patient with a group of
>> patients with tinnitus, but without the out-of-body experiences, receiving
>> the same stimulation. Furthermore, the short duration of the out-of-body
>> experiences in this patient (average duration, 17 seconds, starting within
>> 1 second after stimulation) means that the experiences had almost
>> disappeared by the time the scans started (10 seconds after stimulation
>> started). Therefore, it is possible that most of the PET changes reported
>> in this study, despite being consistent with the authors' hypothesis, were
>> due to the effects of stimulation alone.”
>> As per (Greyson, Parnia & Fenwick, 2008), “The report by De Ridder and
>> colleagues describing a sense of disembodiment elicited by
>> temporoparietal-junction stimulation in a patient with tinnitus extends
>> similar findings in patients with epilepsy.1
>> <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc073315#ref1-SA2> We should be
>> cautious, however, about drawing analogies between an induced sense of
>> disembodiment and spontaneous out-of-body experiences. That they have
>> similar neuroanatomical loci is a plausible hypothesis but an untested one.
>> The sense of disembodiment induced by electrical stimulation is limited to
>> a fixed location; those in whom this experience is induced by stimulation
>> perceive the environment from the visual perspective of the physical body,
>> and they perceive the event as illusory. Spontaneous out-of-body
>> experiences often involve accurate perception of the environment (including
>> the physical body) from an extracorporeal visual perspective; the
>> disembodied center of consciousness may seem to move about independently of
>> the physical body, and those who have such a spontaneous experience usually
>> perceive the event as profoundly real.2,3
>> <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc073315#ref2-SA2> Given the
>> differences in phenomenology and in psychological aftereffects for those
>> who have the experience, it is premature to assume that the mechanism of an
>> induced sense of disembodiment also applies to spontaneous experiences.4
>> <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc073315#ref4-SA2>”
>> As per (De Ridder, Van Laere & Van de Heyning, 2008), “In response to
>> Tai's comments, comparison of the patient with a group of patients
>> receiving the same stimulation without out-of-body experiences is
>> practically impossible because of the interindividual variability of the
>> anatomy of this area, both topographically (1.5 to 2.0 cm)1
>> <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc073315#ref1-SA3> and
>> morphologically, which precludes delivery of an identical stimulus2
>> <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc073315#ref2-SA3> at the exact
>> ------------------------------
>> [i]
>> 4.5.5. A working hypothesis and three experiments to test OOO-God theory
>> From Sections 3.8.13.5 of (Vimal, 2016b) and 3.19.10 of (Vimal, 2016c),
>> the working hypothesis and the three experiments on OOO-God theory are
>> given below. My working hypothesis is as follows:
>> No mental entity (such as astral body, causal body, soul/Self, or God) is
>> beyond our mind-brain-body system. It appears beyond only through the
>> *incompleteness* of our knowledge such as related to the out-of-body
>> experience (OBE). A complete knowledge must include the fact that an OBE
>> has a neural basis. Thus, enlightened yogis, mystics, and people who
>> propose life-after-death appear to disregard the knowledge related to
>> neuroscience that all experiences, including OBEs at *SS/*NS states, have
>> their respective neural bases and all mental entities are within the scope
>> of mind-brain systems.
>> Experiences are subjective data; data are immortal if collected carefully,
>> and hence they cannot be rejected. Therefore, whatever yogis experienced
>> cannot be rejected. Only its interpretation can be questioned. The
>> interpretation such as based on *Sā**ṅ**khya,* *Vedānta*, and Buddhism
>> has incomplete knowledge if knowledge from neuroscience is not included.
>> The above hypothesis related to OBEs can be tested as discussed before.
>> For example, three experiments are proposed:
>> *(I) Expt.1*: Ask yogis to tell us what events are happening on
>> specific days with randomly selected 100 people in many different
>> countries.
>> *(II) Expt.2*: Inject anesthetics to yogis during NS-state and then,
>> later on, ask yogis if they still experienced OBEs under deep anesthesia
>> and/or
>> *(III) Expt.3*: Measure the neural correlates of OBEs by using fMRI/EEG
>> or more sensitive techniques that can measure the neural basis of such very
>> strong OBEs.
>> If results are positive in Expts. 1 and 2, then only we can claim that the
>> *Sā**ṅ**khya*-based OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are
>> tenable. In other words, the theist eDAM can still interpret the data as
>> follows: the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of
>> soul, God, astral body, or causal body is very high and that of its
>> *inseparable* physical aspect is latent. Thus, even in that case, the
>> theist version of the eDAM cannot be rejected. However, the atheist version
>> of the eDAM can be rejected.
>>
>> If results are negative in Expts. 1 and 2, then the *Sā**ṅ**khya*-based
>> OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are rejected.
>> However, the atheist version of the eDAM will hold.
>>
>> If we are able to find a neural basis in Expt.3, then the *Sā**ṅkhya*-based
>> OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are rejected.
>> Alternatively, one can argue that techniques used were not sensitive enough
>> to measure the neural basis and more sensitive technology needs to be
>> developed.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Rām
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> *Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.*
>> *Amarāvati-Hīrāma**ṇ**i Professor (Research)*
>> *Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness
>> Research Dept.*
>> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
>> Ph: +1 978 954 7522 <+1%20978-954-7522>; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
>> <+1%20440-388-7907>
>> *rlpv...@yahoo.co.in
>> <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
>> <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home>*
>> *https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal> *
>> Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 2:54 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature
>> you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
>> Thank you
>> Rita
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Matters Of Mind" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
>> 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/479374051.5183299.1496857020753%40mail.yahoo.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/479374051.5183299.1496857020753%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
> 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/CAD8wfiFUVOEYtTE6ANML1nnH8wbQppdgDOWw%2B8DjmEZs0n8H-A%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


Prof. M.R.N. Murthy
Molecular Biophysics Unit
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012
INDIA

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 4:53:04 AM6/9/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, georg...@aol.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

In your comments, you have implicitly assumed that the problematic dualistic Sāṅkhya is valid, i.e., consciousness (Puruṣa) is independent of its neural basis (physical body component of  Prakṛti) and they can be separated. This is not data, rather it is an interpretation. OBEs are subjective data; data are always real data. 

I am sorry to say that you have two major problems in your critiques, which is unfortunately persistent in your all communications: 

(i) You are unable to differentiate data from interpretation; you think that the dualistic Sāṅkhya (which is simply an interpretation) is correct and hence the reported data are pseudo OBEs because in real OBEs consciousness (soul) must be withdrawn from subject's mind-brain system and must reside in fictitious/mysterious astral, causal and God's worlds beyond our physical universe. This will happen only in very rare Nirvikalpa Samadhi state when a soul is completely withdrawn from the subject's brain and resides in God's (manifested consciousness) world. This means that all scientific experiments are totally useless because no true yogi will agree for carrying out any experiments because of his/her mindset. To sum up, in your view, we must accept wholeheartedly dualistic Sāṅkhya because your favorite yogi Y.N. Swami ji says so because you have 100% faith in him. 

(ii) You do not see any problem in dualistic Sāṅkhya that has 9 serious problems. In your view, we cannot compare different metaphysics, and, in my view, we can as long as we have the common reference basis and carefully understand eastern and western terminologies. 

Thus, your arguments are untenable in my view.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 8 June 2017 9:52 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear Dr. Ram and Dr. George,

My comments in red font text.

Thanks for the reference related to Fontana’s book.
 
Let us suppose that paranormal phenomena, such as Out-of-the-Body Experiences (OBEs), are true. Then how do we explain them without invoking dualism and/or idealism that have serious problems. (Fontana, 2005) seems to invoke problematic dualism/idealism, so it is not much help. The materialism (that has serious problems and is the dominant metaphysics for science) cannot even explain our mundane wakeful subjective experiences, so there is no hope that it can ever explain paranormal phenomena. The problems of these three foundational metaphysics are elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013).

This is a misconception that dualism or Idealism has problems. These problems arise due to non-understanding the true nature of the mind and making no distinction in the ontologies of the mind and the brain. Further, misconceptions arise due to having no distinctions between the consciousness and mind. In my email dated June 2017, I had elaborated upon these issues. 

Thus, the only remaining framework is the least problematic eDAM and it would be interesting to investigate if any (normal or paranormal) data can reject it. I am concentrating on OBEs, some of which also occur during meditation. I have experienced OBE during my 3-4 hrs meditation but it was of very low intensity as my thoughts were not at minimum level. I proposed my working hypothesis before.[i]Furthermore, I found the following reports and I would be interested in critical comments.

In my email dated June 7, 2017, I had also highlighted two key problems of eDAM.

Neural basis of OBEs

As per (Blanke, Ortigue, Landis, & Seeck, 2002), “'Out-of-body' experiences (OBEs) [the experience of dissociation of self from the body] are curious, usually brief sensations in which a person's consciousness seems to become detached from the body and take up a remote viewing position. Here we describe the repeated induction of this experience by focal electrical stimulation of the brain's right angular gyrus in a patient who was undergoing evaluation for epilepsy treatment. Stimulation at this site also elicited illusory transformations of the patient's arm and legs (complex somatosensory responses) and whole-body displacements (vestibular responses), indicating that out-of-body experiences may reflect a failure by the brain to integrate complex somatosensory and vestibular information.”
As per (Blanke et al., 2005), “The spatial unity of self and body is challenged by various philosophical considerations and several phenomena, perhaps most notoriously the "out-of-body experience" (OBE) during which one's visual perspective and one's self are experienced to have departed from their habitual position within one's body. Although researchers started examining isolated aspects of the self, the neurocognitive processes of OBEs have not been investigated experimentally to further our understanding of the self. With the use of evoked potential mapping, we show the selective activation of the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) at 330-400 ms after stimulus onset when healthy volunteers imagined themselves in the position and visual perspective that generally are reported by people experiencing spontaneous OBEs. Interference with the TPJ by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) at this time impaired mental transformation of one's own body in healthy volunteers relative to TMS over a control site. No such TMS effect was observed for imagined spatial transformations of external objects, suggesting the selective implication of the TPJ in mental imagery of one's own body. Finally, in an epileptic patient with OBEs originating from the TPJ, we show partial activation of the seizure focus during mental transformations of her body and visual perspective mimicking her OBE perceptions. These results suggest that the TPJ is a crucial structure for the conscious experience of the normal self, mediating spatial unity of self and body, and also suggest that impaired processing at the TPJ may lead to pathological selves such as OBEs.”
As per (Bünning & Blanke, 2005), “Out-of-body experiences (OBEs) are defined as experiences in which a person seems to be awake and sees his body and the world from a location outside his physical body. More precisely, they can be defined by the presence of the following three phenomenological characteristics: (i) disembodiment (location of the self outside one's body); (ii) the impression of seeing the world from an elevated and distanced visuo-spatial perspective (extracorporeal, but egocentric visuo-spatial perspective); and (iii) the impression of seeing one's own body (autoscopy) from this perspective. OBEs have fascinated mankind from time immemorial and are abundant in folklore, mythology, and spiritual experiences of most ancient and modern societies. Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. We argue that the experimental investigation of the interactions between these multisensory and cognitive mechanisms in OBEs and related illusions in combination with neuroimaging and behavioral techniques might further our understanding of the central mechanisms of corporal awareness and self-consciousness much as previous research about the neural bases of complex body part illusions such as phantom limbs has done.”
As per (Blanke & Arzy, 2005), “Folk psychology postulates a spatial unity of self and body, a "real me" that resides in one's body and is the subject of experience. The spatial unity of self and body has been challenged by various philosophical considerations but also by several phenomena, perhaps most notoriously the "out-of-body experience" (OBE) during which one's visuo-spatial perspective and one's self are experienced to have departed from their habitual position within one's body. Here the authors marshal evidence from neurology, cognitive neuroscience, and neuroimaging that suggests that OBEs are related to a failure to integrate multisensory information from one's own body at the temporo-parietal junction (TPJ). It is argued that this multisensory disintegration at the TPJ leads to the disruption of several phenomenological and cognitive aspects of self-processing, causing illusory reduplication, illusory self-location, illusory perspective, and illusory agency that are experienced as an OBE.”
As per (De Ridder, Van Laere, Dupont, Menovsky, & Van de Heyning, 2007), “An out-of-body experience was repeatedly elicited during stimulation of the posterior part of the superior temporal gyrus on the right side in a patient in whom electrodes had been implanted to suppress tinnitus. Positron-emission tomographic scanning showed brain activation at the temporoparietal junction--more specifically, at the angular-supramarginal gyrus junction and the superior temporal gyrus-sulcus on the right side. Activation was also noted at the right precuneus and posterior thalamus, extending into the superior vermis. We suggest that activation of these regions is the neural correlate of the disembodiment that is part of the out-of-body experience.”
As per (Tai, 2008), “The single-subject study design used by De Ridder et al. (Nov. 1issue)1 makes it difficult to conclude whether the changes seen on positron-emission tomography (PET) were due to out-of-body experiences or simply to the differential effects of stimulation at 3.7 V in 40-Hz burst mode as compared with other modes, a confounder that has not been controlled for. A more robust approach would be to compare this patient with a group of patients with tinnitus, but without the out-of-body experiences, receiving the same stimulation. Furthermore, the short duration of the out-of-body experiences in this patient (average duration, 17 seconds, starting within 1 second after stimulation) means that the experiences had almost disappeared by the time the scans started (10 seconds after stimulation started). Therefore, it is possible that most of the PET changes reported in this study, despite being consistent with the authors' hypothesis, were due to the effects of stimulation alone.”
As per (Greyson, Parnia & Fenwick, 2008), “The report by De Ridder and colleagues describing a sense of disembodiment elicited by temporoparietal-junction stimulation in a patient with tinnitus extends similar findings in patients with epilepsy.1 We should be cautious, however, about drawing analogies between an induced sense of disembodiment and spontaneous out-of-body experiences. That they have similar neuroanatomical loci is a plausible hypothesis but an untested one.
The sense of disembodiment induced by electrical stimulation is limited to a fixed location; those in whom this experience is induced by stimulation perceive the environment from the visual perspective of the physical body, and they perceive the event as illusory. Spontaneous out-of-body experiences often involve accurate perception of the environment (including the physical body) from an extracorporeal visual perspective; the disembodied center of consciousness may seem to move about independently of the physical body, and those who have such a spontaneous experience usually perceive the event as profoundly real.2,3 Given the differences in phenomenology and in psychological aftereffects for those who have the experience, it is premature to assume that the mechanism of an induced sense of disembodiment also applies to spontaneous experiences.4”
As per (De Ridder, Van Laere & Van de Heyning, 2008), “In response to Tai's comments, comparison of the patient with a group of patients receiving the same stimulation without out-of-body experiences is practically impossible because of the interindividual variability of the anatomy of this area, both topographically (1.5 to 2.0 cm)1 and morphologically, which precludes delivery of an identical stimulus2 at the exact same functional area and thus comparable data.
Regarding PET signal interpretation, we argue that it is unlikely that the PET changes reported simply reflect the effects of stimulation alone and not the out-of-body experience. Stimulation started about 35 seconds after the start of the tracer injection (10 seconds before the start of the scan) and lasted until the end of the scan. The start of the scan was initiated by the sharp increase in the intracranial radioactivity count rate on the acquisition monitor, thereby capturing the full out-of-body experience. Nevertheless, we agree that even with this optimal acquisition, the out-of-body experience was reported by the subject only in the first 15 to 20 seconds after stimulation; thus, only a portion of the PET signal reflected the perfusion changes during the out-of-body experience. On the other hand, this also means that the peak maximum of the temporoparietal cluster was strongly underestimated because of temporal averaging out.
We fully agree with Greyson et al. that one should be cautious about drawing analogies between an induced sense of disembodiment and spontaneous out-of-body experiences. However, because of the unpredictable and infrequent occurrence of spontaneous out-of-body experiences, it seems impossible to image them functionally with current technology in a scientific way. Our opinion is that it is highly likely that both induced and spontaneous experiences of disembodiment have common neuroanatomical circuits.”
As per (Aspell, Lenggenhager & Blanke, 2012), “Despite the apparent unitary, global character of bodily self-consciousness, experimental manipulations have mainly focused on subglobal aspects, such as the sense of ownership and agency for one’s hand and its movements (Botvinick and Cohen 1998; Ehrsson et al. 2004; Jeannerod 2006, 2007; Knoblich 2002; Pavani et al. 2000; Tsakiris and Haggard 2005; Tsakiris et al. 2007). These latter studies on body-part representation are important (and will be discussed below in detail), yet we have argued (e.g., see Blanke and Metzinger 2009) that they fail to account for a key feature of bodily self-consciousness: its global character. This is because a fundamental aspect of bodily self-consciousness is its association with a single, whole body, not with multiple body parts (Blanke and Metzinger 2009; Carruthers 2008; Lenggenhager et al. 2007; Metzinger et al. 2007). A number of recent studies (Aspell et al. 2009; Ehrsson 2007; Lenggenhager et al. 2007, 2009; Mizumoto and Ishikawa 2005; Petkova and Ehrsson 2008) have demonstrated that more global aspects of body perception can also be experimentally manipulated using multisensory conflicts. These experimental studies on healthy subjects were inspired by an unusual and revealing set of neurological phenomena—autoscopic phenomena—in which the sense of the body as a whole is disrupted in different ways, and which are likely to be caused by an underlying abnormality in the multisensory integration of global bodily inputs (Blanke and Mohr 2005). In this chapter, we first examine how the scientific understanding of bodily self-consciousness and its multisensory mechanisms can be informed by the study of autoscopic phenomena. We then present a review of investigations of multisensory processing relating to body-part perception (“rubber hand” illusion studies: Botvinick and Cohen 1998; Ehrsson et al. 2004; Tsakiris and Haggard 2005) and go on to discuss more recent “full body” illusion studies that were inspired by autoscopic phenomena and have shown that it is also possible to dissociate certain components of bodily self-consciousness—namely, self-location, self-identification, and the first-person perspective—in healthy subjects by inducing multisensory conflicts.”
As per (Serino et al., 2013), “Recent research on bodily self-consciousness has assumed that it consists of three distinct components: the experience of owning a body (body ownership); the experience of being a body with a given location within the environment (self-location); and the experience of taking a first-person, body-centered, perspective on that environment (perspective). Here we review recent neuroimaging studies suggesting that at least two of these components-body ownership and self-location-are implemented in rather distinct neural substrates, located, respectively, in the premotor cortex and in the temporo-parietal junction. We examine these results and consider them in relation to clinical evidence from patients with altered body perception and work on a variety of multisensory, body-related illusions, such as the rubber hand illusion, the full body illusion, the body swap illusion and the enfacement illusion. We conclude by providing a preliminary synthesis of the data on bodily self-consciousness and its neural correlates.”

Real OBEs can't be studied in patients having epilepsy and by the induced mechanism by the electrical stimulation of any part of the brain whether right angular gyrus or temporoparietal Junction ( TPJ). Such interventions only build  a sensory disintegration mechanism between the brain and limbs ( arms or legs) or part or full disembodiment. In all such studies, consciousness does continue to exist and operate within the body/brain but due to disabling of the integrative and identity system of the brain, a feeling arises that consciousness or self has gone out of the body ( since integrative and identity powers of the brain are disabled due to stimulation). Such OBEs are Pseudo OBEs in the sense that these are not the actual OBEs but givea feeling of OBEs. But from such experiments, we can't conclude if the consciousness or OBEs are NNNs based. you may recall the analogy of a TV screen as given by me in a past message wherein I had indicated that a change in the characteristics of the TV screen results in changing the nature of the picture and sounds but this does not imply  that picture and sounds are being produced due to the physical characteristics of the screen. Behind the physical screen, there is a signal from the underlying circuits as hidden from it.  Similarly, due to electrical stimulation, brain undergoes changes in its characteristics and this results in changed experiences having feelings of disembodiment ( which you say as OBEs) but from this we can't conclude that this experiences of OBEs are NNs based. In fact, these are not OBEs in the real sense since these are the illusions of OBEs.

Real OBEs are one in which the consciousness actually withdraws from the body/brain. Real OBEs can't be achieved by any electro-chemo stimulation of any part of the brain. Real OBEs are neither inducible nor spontaneous nor for short duration running into a few seconds or minutes. Real OBEs can't be achieved in patients at all.

Real OBEs can be achieved by healthy individuals having quite strong and determined minds/will after years of sustained and systematic practice of thoughts control in meditation. For achieving real OBEs, apart from the systematic meditation, the prerequisite is the ability to withdraw mind and senses from the worldly phenomena from the perspective to create a sense of detachment to world and worldly phenomena. By this method, as thoughts can be fully controlled and consciousness starts withdrawing from the body/brain slowly and slowly in a systematic manner. In this method, there is no disabling of the sensory integration and identity mechanism of the brain thru any induced artificial electro-chemo stimulation which gives a feeling of pseudo OBEs.

When the state of OBEs is achieved thru above methodology, it is not that only a feeling of disembodiment is achieved but internal lights either in some part of the body or complete body appear. Sometimes, internal sounds are also heard internally in the mind by the internal ears. When light of quite high intensity manifest in the complete body, it can illuminate the body/brain internally to such an extent that all the organs and system of the body/brain can be seen and studied in as vividness and coherence as a surgeon  can dissect the body/brain and see  and study the internal organs. As the consciousness withdraws further inwards, Astral body and mind can be seen and studied. In all such experiences, body/brain is actually left behind much downwards and such experiences are not NNs based. When the consciousness actually leaves the body/brain completely, all the experiences are the real OUT OF BODY state, therefore, no effect is cast upon the brain. In view of this, no NNs are created at the brain level for such experiences.

In view of above, the aforesaid experiences can't be studied by any imaging technique of the neuroscience. As such, we are dependent upon the subjective versions of such people who have had such experiences.





[i] 

4.5.5. A working hypothesis and three experiments to test OOO-God theory

From Sections 3.8.13.5 of (Vimal, 2016b) and 3.19.10 of (Vimal, 2016c), the working hypothesis and the three experiments on OOO-God theory are given below. My working hypothesis is as follows:
No mental entity (such as astral body, causal body, soul/Self, or God) is beyond our mind-brain-body system. It appears beyond only through the incompleteness of our knowledge such as related to the out-of-body experience (OBE). A complete knowledge must include the fact that an OBE has a neural basis. Thus, enlightened yogis, mystics, and people who propose life-after-death appear to disregard the knowledge related to neuroscience that all experiences, including OBEs at SS/NS states, have their respective neural bases and all mental entities are within the scope of mind-brain systems.

As elaborated above, in all the pseudo OBEs, NNs are built. Unless and until the consciousness shall exist and act upon the body/brain, NNs of all the experiences, whether in the wakeful conscious state or of pseudo OBEs, NNs shall continue to be built in the brain.

However, when real OBEs are achieved implying complete withdrawal of the consciousness from the body/brain, no NNs shall be built. Therefore, empirically and objectively, neuroscience is blind to such real OBEs since access of neuroscience is up to NN and for real OBEs no NNs are built.
Experiences are subjective data; data are immortal if collected carefully, and hence they cannot be rejected. Therefore, whatever yogis experienced cannot be rejected. Only its interpretation can be questioned. The interpretation such as based on Sāṅkhya, Vedānta, and Buddhism has incomplete knowledge if knowledge from neuroscience is not included.

Neuroscience can't be included in the study of the real OBEs due to the limitations of the neuroscience having the access up to NNs only and real OBEs don't leave any signal on the brain to manifest as NNS.
The above hypothesis related to OBEs can be tested as discussed before. For example, three experiments are proposed:
(I) Expt.1: Ask yogis to tell us what events are happening on specific days with randomly selected 100 people in many different countries.
(II) Expt.2: Inject anesthetics to yogis during NS-state and then, later on, ask yogis if they still experienced OBEs under deep anesthesia and/or

But Yogis of the type having real powers as indicated above are quite rare. So where will you find such Yogis? Further, there is a wide gulf in the mindset of such yogis and neuroscientists/scientists. As such, they are not inclined to submit themselves as subjects for the neurobiological investigation. for such yogis, their internal real OBEs of the Astral body/brain are obvious and self-evidence. For any person,  when any conscious experience is obvious and self-evidenced, he rarely bothers for the empirical objective verification of the same. A quite popular example in our daily life is that we all human being experience every minute and second that we have a  non-physical mind, a conscious self and conscious "I-ness". These experiences are obvious and self-evidenced for each of the human beings. Does any same human ask for the empirical objective verification for his conscious domain in the wakeful conscious state thru neurobiological imaging technique? Obviously, No. Even if some neurobiological techniques may like to investigate the existence of the conscious domain, same is not feasible since such techniques will image the physical domain of NNs only. Any correlation of these NNs with the conscious domain has to come from the subjective version of the conscious human only who is the subject of the experiment.
(III) Expt.3: Measure the neural correlates of OBEs by using fMRI/EEG or more sensitive techniques that can measure the neural basis of such very strong OBEs.

As indicated above, real OBEs don't leave any NNs on the brain, therefore, can't be studied by fNRI/EEGs. A Yogi will be in the real OBEs, having all the experiences of the Astral body/world but the brain in terms of NNs of such experiences shall be blank.
If results are positive in Expts. 1 and 2, then only we can claim that the Sāṅkhya-based OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are tenable. In other words, the theist eDAM can still interpret the data as follows: the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of soul, God, astral body, or causal body is very high and that of its inseparable physical aspect is latent. Thus, even in that case, the theist version of the eDAM cannot be rejected. However, the atheist version of the eDAM can be rejected.

If results are negative in Expts. 1 and 2, then the Sāṅkhya-based OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are rejected. 
However, the atheist version of the eDAM will hold.

If we are able to find a neural basis in Expt.3, then the Sāṅkhya-based OOO-God theory and the theist version of the eDAM are rejected. Alternatively, one can argue that techniques used were not sensitive enough to measure the neural basis and more sensitive technology needs to be developed.

Regards.

Vinod sehgal
 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 2:54 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
Thank you
Rita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@go oglegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups.c om.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 4:53:04 AM6/9/17
to georg...@aol.com, Matters Of Mind, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear George,

Thanks.

There are two versions of the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita): atheist and theist as elaborated in (Vimal, 2012c). The real survival of ‘self’ (individual consciousness) beyond physical (information theoretic) death will reject only the atheist version of eDAM.

In the theist version of the eDAM, the self/ātman is assumed to survive and really exist after physical death, where the degree of manifestation of mental aspect is very high and that of physical aspect is latent (Vimal, 2012c, 2016c).

As per (Vimal, 2016c), “There are multiple definitions of the term ‘death’, such as (Section 2.1): (I) Biological death (termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism), which includes cell death where each cell/neuron dies (a cell stops functioning), (II) Clinical death (cardiac arrest: cessation of blood circulation and breathing), (III) Brain death (complete and irreversible loss of brain functions, used in legal death), (IV) Information-theoretic death (information stored in the brain can no longer be retrieved, used in cryonics), and (V) Gene death (complete and irreversible loss of gene functions).”
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 8 June 2017 2:34 AM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:


Dear Ram,

Let me first answer the simple issue we started with, namely with my challenge to your assertion that no observed phenomenon is outside our physical brain/mind system. This seems to be a basic presupposition for eDAM, so it is worth clarifying this issue before we proceed into any more detail. I understan that the apparent survival of (a form of) individual consciousness beyond physical death would be direct refutation of your claim; do you agree?
Then I further stated that strong and copious empirical evidence for such survival.
In  response, you asked for some references for that claim.
I responded by giving the book by David Fontana as an introduction to the topic, which summarizes all the main avenues of research into survival, and gives many references. I would add now what I wrote Rita: namely another more recent book by Dr. Piero Calvi-Parisetti "21 days into the afterlife"

Since the evidence for survival of individual consciousness (or aspects thereof) beyond physical death has decisive implications for eDAM, I would think it is important for you to look into it.  OBE's and psi are evidence against materialism, but not necessarily against eDAM (because, as you correctly say, they could in principle be argued to be physical brain functions). Therefore, I don't think we need to discuss OBE's in this context. However evidence for survival does lead. I believe, to a refutation of eDAM. Am I correct in that?

Best regards,
george
-----------------------------------------


Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 2:54 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
Thank you
Rita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 10:29:01 AM6/9/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vinod ji,

Sehgal: No, it is not an assumption or interpretation but it is data (or experiences) since in the Samaadhi state ontological reality of the entities of the Astral body/Astral world, as distinct from the body/brain, is clearly experienced in the reproducible manner. So how can you say that it is not data but an interpretation? 
 
Vimal: The experiences are data. The claim, “Astral body/Astral world, as distinct from the body/brain” is an interpretation of Sāṅkhya. This is because experiences can be interpreted by any of the four groups of metaphysics.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 9 June 2017 10:07 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:


Dear Stan,

Thanks for asking.

The eDAM does not claim that psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT. In the eDAM, the physical aspect of a state of an entity is the same as current QM/QFT. The eDAM simply introduces the inseparable mental aspect of the same state of the same entity. Here, an entity can be one of 18 elementary particles. 

Information is the same in both aspects; it is simply viewing the same information from two different perspectives: mental aspect is from 1st person perspective (1pp) and physical aspect is from 3rd pp (3pp). 

A non-living (inert) system has a function, which is a part of the mental aspect. A living system, such as a conscious human, has function(s) and/or experience(s), which are the components of the mental aspect. 

The paranormal phenomena such as ESP, OBEs, NDEs, and so on are simply experiences and hence they are subjective data; each of which must have a neural basis and hence they should be explained within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. 

The atheist eDAM should able to explain them if it is a good framework. In worst case, we can tentatively invoke theist eDAM, where the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of a paranormal entity (such as soul, ghost, and God) is high and its physical aspect is latent; this however may be because of our ignorance and further research is required to minimize the related mystery.  

We certainly do not need to invoke dualism and mysterious astral, causal, and God’s (manifested consciousness) worlds.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 8 June 2017 11:35 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:


Hi George and Ram, 
I'm posting this to just MoM. 
My question to the two of you is do you claim psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT? By QFT I mean the 18 known particles: photons, quarks, higgs, graviton, etc. I suspect Ram will say that his eDAM is different from standard QM/QFT. George if you are saying standard QM/QFT can account for ESP, could you give us your thinking of how that works in brains of humans. 
thanks,
Stan

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you very much George: it will take time to deepen.
Best
Rita
In data 08 giugno 2017 07:13:45 AM georgeweis via Matters Of Mind <matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com> ha scritto:
Dear Rita,

as I already told Ram, I recommend David Fontana's book to start with. It contains a summary of the field of after life studies, and a rich research bibliography. A more recent book by Piero Calvi-Parisetti '21 days into the afterlife' also gives a good and very readable introduction into the various phenomena pertaining to survival research, and also a good bibliography. Once you have read one of these books, you can delve more deeply into any one of these avenues.

I think one needs to read one of these books (there are also others, but I think these two are good for a first reading) to appreciate the breadth and depth of the research, before going into one area or the other more deeply.

Best regards,

George





-----Original Message-----
From: Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com>
To: Matters Of Mind <matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 11:54 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
Thank you
Rita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/matters-of-mind/ KH1fpbGCbss/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/matters-of-mind/ 15c86564c43-219f-3f40e% 40webprd-m27.mail.aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/matters-of-mind/ 15c86c403e0.2788. bc865524edb343ccb4e4ff871249da c3%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 1:43:37 PM6/9/17
to matters...@googlegroups.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Dear Stan,

We need to take each paranormal phenomenon and investigate it in depth if we can explain it thru the atheist eDAM.

For example, OBEs have a respective neural basis, which can be explained thru the eDAM as discussed before; see also (Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy, & Persinger, 2010).

Another example is the brain-to-brain communication. As per (Persinger, Saroka, Koren, & St-Pierre, 2010), “The human brain is the locus of all human experiences. The substantial microstructural and neuroelectrical differences between the two cerebral hemispheres predicts two major classes of mystical experiences which involve the sensed presence and the out-of-body experience. Their occurrence and their attributions to cosmic origins have been reported for centuries and have been the bases for social belief systems. Direct cerebral electrical stimulation during the 20th century evoked these experiences. In the 21st century the non-invasive, external transcerebral application of complex, physiologically-patterned weak magnetic fields has been shown to produce similar experiences that can be correlatively mapped by quantitative electroencephalographic inferences of interhemispheric coherence. The experimental production and control of these powerful experiences by more sophisticated technologies might be employed to understand the intricate nature and function of mystical/altered states within large populations of human beings.”
 
For the experimental demonstration of potential entanglement of brain activity over 300 km for pairs of subjects sharing the same circular rotating, angular accelerating magnetic fields: verification by s_LORETA, QEEG measurements, see (Burke, Gauthier, Rouleau, & Persinger, 2013).
 
These can be interpreted and explained in the atheist eDAM.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 9 June 2017 10:20 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:


Dear Ram, 
We now have great understanding of the capabilities of the 18 elementary particles. Only one of those particles, the photon, has any chance of being able to have information get from the brain to outside the skull. The electrical aspect of the photon can't do it because of the conductivity aspects of another one of the 18 - the electron. Only the magnetic aspects of the brain can be picked up by fancy superconductive magnetism detectors. There is no way for that information to be detected by other brains a few cm away.  So that is why eDAM or quantum mechanics in general can not account for any sort of paranormal phenomena.  Or could you suggest a mechanism whereby it is able to do any sort of psi?
Stan

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:07 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Stan,

Thanks for asking.

The eDAM does not claim that psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT. In the eDAM, the physical aspect of a state of an entity is the same as current QM/QFT. The eDAM simply introduces the inseparable mental aspect of the same state of the same entity. Here, an entity can be one of 18 elementary particles. 

Information is the same in both aspects; it is simply viewing the same information from two different perspectives: mental aspect is from 1st person perspective (1pp) and physical aspect is from 3rd pp (3pp). 

A non-living (inert) system has a function, which is a part of the mental aspect. A living system, such as a conscious human, has function(s) and/or experience(s), which are the components of the mental aspect. 

The paranormal phenomena such as ESP, OBEs, NDEs, and so on are simply experiences and hence they are subjective data; each of which must have a neural basis and hence they should be explained within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. 

The atheist eDAM should able to explain them if it is a good framework. In worst case, we can tentatively invoke theist eDAM, where the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of a paranormal entity (such as soul, ghost, and God) is high and its physical aspect is latent; this however may be because of our ignorance and further research is required to minimize the related mystery.  

We certainly do not need to invoke dualism and mysterious astral, causal, and God’s (manifested consciousness) worlds.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 1:43:37 PM6/9/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vinod ji,

Sāṃkhya has two versions:
(i) Nāstika(nirīshvaravadī)-Sāṃkhya with 25 elements (tatvas): Puruṣa (Ātmā), and 24 elements of Prakṛti, namely, 4 Antah-karanas/inner-instruments (mana/manas, buddhi/mahat, chitta, and ahamkāra), 5 jñāna-indriyas (netra/eyes, karṇ/ears, nāsikā/nose, jivha/tongue and tvachā/body), 5  karma-indriyas (hasta/hands, pāda/legs, vāka/voice/vocal-apparatus, upastha/urino-genital-organ, and gudā/pāyu/anus), 5 Tanmātrās (rūpa/color, shabd/sound, gandha/smell, rasa/taste, sparsh/touch), and 5 mahābhūtas (jala/water, prithavī/earth, agni/fire, vāyu/air, Ākāsh/sky/ether). 
(ii) Āstika(seshvaravadī)-Sāṃkhya with Parmātman  as 26th tatva  (Jagadguru Rāmabhadrāchārya, 2000h).p.76 and p.94 (ShwetAshwataropanishad).[i] Puruṣa and Prakṛti are assumed to be derived from Parmātman (in analogy to the Neutral Monism: (Hameroff & Powell, 2009)) as its two aspects (viśeṣaṇas). This implies that SāṃkhyAchrya Kapila (~1000–550 BC) somehow seems to know about theism-atheism phenomenon; however, Sāṃkhya is close to interactive substance dualism that has 9 problems. In other words, so far, the eDAM framework is closest to the Fundamental Truth.

[i]  Critique1: Sāṃkhya has no Parmātman.
Author: So you reject the 26th tatva: the unmanifested Brahman: many names; some investigators call it Parmātman to make it as a part of theistic philosophy. Some claim that Gītā was before 3000 BC and Sāṃkhya (1000–600 BC?, Kapila: 550 BC?) came later. Krishna declared himself as Parmātman with Puruṣa and Prakṛti as part of him. Kapila seems atheist but some sub-school of Vedānta coined 26th tatva and made Sāṃkhya also part of theist Vedānta. It is unclear how this happened.
NM (Nityanand Misra): On the two versions of Sāṅkhya, I can confirm that two traditions do exist in the Sāṅkhya lineage. In the atheistic version there are 25 elements, and in the theistic one 25 elements + Paramātman as 26th. The original aphorisms (Sūtras) of Sāṅkhya by Kapila are almost entirely lost and only some of them are available today. What we see as Sāṅkhyasūtras today are widely believed to be composed by Vijñānabhikṣu in 15th century.
An introduction to the two traditions can be found in (Raju, 1985).(p.304-335). You can see this on Google Books under http://books.google.com.hk/books?id=wZ_iahRQomwC&pg=PA304
Raju also discusses the two possibilities, whether Sāṅkhya was originally atheistic, and later turned theistic, or if it was originally theistic, turned atheistic in the middle, and later returned to its theistic roots. The last part of (Tīrtha, 2007) presents many arguments in favour of Kapila being theistic. However, no doubt that the Sāṅkhya system as expounded in later commentaries is theistic, and it is counted as one of the Āstika systems today.
Author: Thanks for the precise and interesting information with references. As per (Tīrtha, 2007).p.305, “The Yoga philosophy of Pantaňjali … is also called by the name theistic Sāṅkhya (seśvarasāṅkhya), for Pantaňjali explicitly accepts the reality of God and the only main difference between the two schools is the rejection or acceptance of God. […] So far as the general practice goes, it is customary to present mostly the views of the atheistic Sāṅkhya of Īśvarkṛṣṇa as the main Sāṅkhya; for his work is the main authoritative one now available. […] The Sāṅkhya accepts three valid means of knowledge—perception, inference, and verbal testimony. […] indeterminate (nirvikalpaka) and determinate (savikalpaka) perception … There is … the contact between sense and object, and then between sense and the inner sense (antahkaraṇa), and then some kind of relation between inner sense and the ātman, which the Sāṅkhya calls generally by the word Puruṣa, before knowledge of the object becomes a full cognition.”
Krishna declared himself Parmātman with Puruṣa and Prakṛti as part of him. Did Sāṃkhya come later than Gītā? If this is correct, then ṛṣi Kapila and other Sāṃkhya followers might be aware of Gītā’s theist view of Puruṣa and Prakṛti metaphysics. What caused them to reject it and delete Parmātman? The metaphysics of Puruṣa and Prakṛti as derived entities from Parmātman has explanatory gap problem of neutral monism: how Puruṣa and Prakṛti can be derived from the third neutral entity Parmātman? Is this a reason for rejecting Parmātman?
NM: I might be wrong, but I believe Sāṅkhya predates Vedānta and Gītā. Here is my reasons: In the Bhāgavatam, Kapila is listed as the fifth Avatāra (SB 1.3.10) and Vyāsa as the seventeenth (SB 1.3.10). So as per the Bhāgavatam, Sāṅkhya propounded by Kapila came before Vedānta propounded by Vyāsa. In the Gītā the Lord says, siddhānāṃ kapilo muniḥ (BG 10.26) - I am Kapila amongst the Siddhas. Also see BG 3.3 loke'simandvividhā niṣṭhā purā proktā mayānagha jñānayogena sāṅkhyānāṃ karmayogena yoginām ॥
Author: Your reference seems authentic. If you are correct, then Kapila might be before Gītā (Mahābhārata war: 3067 BC, 5561 BC, Vyas). Further research is needed, such as astronomical analysis as done by Vartak and Achar on Mahābhārata.
Critique1: Since I don't have an understanding why universe must exist I would like to hear any closure theory (could be erroneous in language but might have a physical meaning!).
Author: 'Why universe must exist the way it is' is an interesting question. There is no satisfactory answer. For some, God-theory says that God was very lonely before universe was created, so He created universe the way it is. So that people can interact with Him by worshipping Him and by always begging Him to fulfill their wish-lists. Scientific hypothesis is multiverse theory.
Critique1: The multiverse theory doesn't explain life.
Big Bang itself is artificial.
Author: The Big Bang is strongly supported by astronomical observations. A hypothesis for life in our universe is the anthropic principle.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 5:54:54 PM6/9/17
to matters...@googlegroups.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Dear George,

Thanks.

1. Physical death depends on the definition of death, which varies depending on investigators as I elaborated. If you like to define that physical death is when dead-body is destroyed by burning it or it decays after it is buried, it is fine with me because information stored in long-term memory is eventually destroyed.
 
2. In the eDAM, one of the fundamental principles is that the degree of manifestation of aspects varies with an entity and its states because it is self-evident that the degree of manifestation of aspects varies in non-living and living systems. In an inert entity, the degrees of manifestation of physical aspect and functional sub-aspect of mental aspect are high (a structure has a function) but the experiential sub-aspect of mental aspect is latent. If ātman/soul/ghost/God really exists, then this principle should be preserved. The physical aspect of soul/ātman after physical death is latent because the physical aspect should return back when appropriate conditions prevail. For example, when a ātman/soul is reborn, it acquires a new body-brain-mind system. In some religions, it is assumed that soul acquires the latent form of the old body (which can cross all hindrances such as walls) until next birth. If we assume that it is absent then we are implicitly accepting the dualism or idealism, which has serious problems that cannot be addressed as elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013).
 
3. The major problem of idealism is that it rejects matter-in-itself, which is unacceptable. For example, if we remove the chair-in-itself, its appearance also vanishes, which proves that chair-in-itself cannot be rejected. Another argument is that when living entities were not present over 10 billion years after Big Bang, galaxies, stars etc were still present. It is unclear what Cosmic or Global mind really is and how you can congeal consciousness into chair-in-itself. 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 9 June 2017 4:22 PM, georgeweis via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


Dear Ram,

thank you for your comments. I want to pose a few clarifying questions and challenges to you, in order to understand your paradigm, eDAM, better.

I question your presupposition that physical death (at whatever level, even the  most complete) equals "information theoretic death". To the extent taht the accounts of many spiritual and esoteric traditions, as well as modern subtle energy research, and maybe also suggested by OBE's are true, there is a karmic memory ("transmission" of information from moment to moment) that is carried by more subtle levels of information carriers (than physical particles), often referred to as astral, emotional, mental etc bodies, operating that generates the observed continuation of individual consciousness , albeit in different form, after physical death, and connecting different lives lives (reincarnation), often referred to as "souls". In other words, physical death does not imply complete merging with cosmic consciousness with loss of all individual attributes and memories (much less the nothingness of materialist conceptions of death).

A question: why do you refer to the physical aspect of Atman's survival as latent, rather than (as I would do) as absent? So you can still uphold the dual-aspect monism of eDAM?

I also disagree with the idea (which others have also noted on this thread) that
"idealism" has serious flaws which make it untenable as a fundamental paradigm. This is true for versions of idealism which accept the (individual) subject-object dichotomy as basic, and try to conceptualize the world as subjective, "in my mind".
This is obviously flawed, and can lead to solipsism. But if one accepts that the subject-object distinction is not a dichotomy, and not fundamental (as we have shown in our recent paper), then the claim is that all appearance (including of the material world, and of individuals, and of the subject-object perspective) arises within cosmic mind (or fundamental awareness, rigpa, Dharmakaya, the Void, the One, or whatever else it has been called), and there is fundamentally nothing BUT fundamental awareness. In particular, the material and the mental are categories that describe aspects of cosmic mind, they arise. co-dependently. This kind of idealism is unexceptionable,  and I have seen no cogent arguments against it.

For this reason, because completely different kinds of fundamental paradigms are confusingly named the same way, namely idealism, I tend to avoid that term.

With kind regards,

george
-------------------------------


To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.

georg...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 9:25:38 PM6/9/17
to rlpv...@yahoo.co.in, vinodse...@gmail.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Ram,

thank you for clarifying this for me. So "theist eDAM" does allow for subtle bodies, and subtle transmission of karma. So the  theist eDAM has a concept like One Mind/Cosmic Consciousness/ Fundamental Awareness, right, and has a larger concept of causality than just gross material information transfer?

I have already mentioned that there is overwhelming empirical evidence for survival of individual consciousness after death
and I have given you two source book (Fontana, and Parisetti) which you could read to inform yourself about this vast body of research, and subsequently, if you are interested, look up the original publications. That implies, to use your terms, that atheist eDAM is dead. Long live deist eDAM! Blush

kind regards,

George

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
To: georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>; vinodsehgal1955 <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear George,

Thanks.

Sehgal’s (Vinod ji's) framework is dualistic Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya, which has 9 serious problems in my view and the eDAM is not dualism or materialism; it is an extended version of dual-aspect monism. Therefore, I disagree with Sehgal. In my view, the astral body, causal body, and manifested consciousness are within the realm of the mind-brain system, not outside of it. If individual conscious survive after physical death, then atheist eDAM will be rejected, but theist eDAM cannot be rejected. However, so far, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of soul/ghost/God after physical death. The authentic paranormal data can be explained without assuming such entities beyond our universe. It is possible that the hypothesis of survival of individual conscious after physical death is apparent (not real) because you may have interpreted paranormal data in idealism and/or dualism frameworks, which have serious problems. I could argue that my individual consciousness and my karmas will survive after my physical death in my publications, in my children thru the transfer of genetic information, information recorded in the environment (entities beside me) and so on.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 9 June 2017 5:58 PM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:


Dear Vinod,

thank you for further clarifying the implications of the eDAM paradigm for the connection between brain and consciousness, and therefore for the survival of individual consciousness upon physical death. Am I correct inn assuming, Ram, that you agree with Vinod on this?

Based upon my knowledge (as well as personal experience) of survival, i would therefore have to conclude that eDAM is falsified. However, before concluding that I could see an escape hatch for eDAM if it opened its definition of "brain" to include subtle energy bodies (sometimes referred to as astral, emotional,  mental,  causal etc, as well as in Buddhist terminology "seeds of karma in the 8th consciousness"). If you do  admit that in eDAM, then I would have no basic objection to that framework; if not, then I consider it empirically falsified.

Best regards,

George




-----Original Message-----
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 4:57 am
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear Dr. Ram and Dr. George,

Dr. Ram wrote:

There are two versions of the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita): atheist and theist as elaborated in (Vimal, 2012c). The real survival of ‘self’ (individual consciousness) beyond physical (information theoretic) death will reject only the atheist version of eDAM.

"In the theist version of the eDAM, the self/ātman is assumed to survive and really exist after physical death, where the degree of manifestation of mental aspect is very high and that of physical aspect is latent (Vimal, 2012c, 2016c).

As per (Vimal, 2016c), “There are multiple definitions of the term ‘death’, such as (Section 2.1): (I) Biological death (termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism), which includes cell death where each cell/neuron dies (a cell stops functioning), (II) Clinical death (cardiac arrest: cessation of blood circulation and breathing), (III) Brain death (complete and irreversible loss of brain functions, used in legal death), (IV) Information- theoretic death (information stored in the brain can no longer be retrieved, used in cryonics), and (V) Gene death (complete and irreversible loss of gene functions).”

As per eDAM, all the entities of the universe have unmanifested mental aspect in the inseparable  form with their physical aspects. At the functioning brain level, when some specified necessary conditions are fulfilled, the mental aspect as inseparable with the physical aspects of the brain matter particles becomes manifest. That is how consciousness, mind and conscious self  manifest in the framework of eDAM.

   With death, brain matter particles disintegrate and brain no longer remain in the existential and functional format. By death here, I mean, death from all the above 5 considerations when body/brain are burnt down. Therefore, with the death, mental aspect will revert back to the unmanifested state in the matter particles which will be scattered away. Further, one thing worth consideration is that in eDAM, consciousness, mind, and self-manifest only when some matter particles aggregate in a specific configuration in an organ what we call brain and brain become functional thru some chemical and electrical pre-requisites. In view of this, in eDAM, the manifestation of the consciousness and self is not plausible from the individual matter particles.

In eDAM, the individuality of the self-take birth only when matter particles aggregate into the organ called the brain. With the disintegration of the brain matter particles upon death ( death from all the above 5 considerations). The individuality of the self also become extinct and that individuality can never be regained since same matter particles will never aggregate to form the same brain.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. Ram and Dr. George,

Dr. Ram wrote:

There are two versions of the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita): atheist and theist as elaborated in (Vimal, 2012c). The real survival of ‘self’ (individual consciousness) beyond physical (information theoretic) death will reject only the atheist version of eDAM.

"In the theist version of the eDAM, the self/ātman is assumed to survive and really exist after physical death, where the degree of manifestation of mental aspect is very high and that of physical aspect is latent (Vimal, 2012c, 2016c).

As per (Vimal, 2016c), “There are multiple definitions of the term ‘death’, such as (Section 2.1): (I) Biological death (termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism), which includes cell death where each cell/neuron dies (a cell stops functioning), (II) Clinical death (cardiac arrest: cessation of blood circulation and breathing), (III) Brain death (complete and irreversible loss of brain functions, used in legal death), (IV) Information- theoretic death (information stored in the brain can no longer be retrieved, used in cryonics), and (V) Gene death (complete and irreversible loss of gene functions).”

As per eDAM, all the entities of the universe have unmanifested mental aspect in the inseparable  form with their physical aspects. At the functioning brain level, when some specified necessary conditions are fulfilled, the mental aspect as inseparable with the physical aspects of the brain matter particles becomes manifest. That is how consciousness, mind and conscious self  manifest in the framework of eDAM.

   With death, brain matter particles disintegrate and brain no longer remain in the existential and functional format. By death here, I mean, death from all the above 5 considerations when body/brain are burnt down. Therefore, with the death, mental aspect will revert back to the unmanifested state in the matter particles which will be scattered away. Further, one thing worth consideration is that in eDAM, consciousness, mind, and self-manifest only when some matter particles aggregate in a specific configuration in an organ what we call brain and brain become functional thru some chemical and electrical pre-requisites. In view of this, in eDAM, the manifestation of the consciousness and self is not plausible from the individual matter particles.

In eDAM, the individuality of the self-take birth only when matter particles aggregate into the organ called the brain. With the disintegration of the brain matter particles upon death ( death from all the above 5 considerations). The individuality of the self also become extinct and that individuality can never be regained since same matter particles will never aggregate to form the same brain.

So how do you say that after death, as per theist's or atheists version's of eDAM, Aatman/Self can survive?

The key problem with eDAM has been that there is no evidence, of whatsoever kind, that there is the existence of any mental aspect at all in the matter particles and that too in some inseparable format with their physical one. All this is some part of speculation only to show it off different than Materialism.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal 

 

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 8:06 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear George,

Thanks.

There are two versions of the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita): atheist and theist as elaborated in (Vimal, 2012c). The real survival of ‘self’ (individual consciousness) beyond physical (information theoretic) death will reject only the atheist version of eDAM.

In the theist version of the eDAM, the self/ātman is assumed to survive and really exist after physical death, where the degree of manifestation of mental aspect is very high and that of physical aspect is latent (Vimal, 2012c, 2016c).

As per (Vimal, 2016c), “There are multiple definitions of the term ‘death’, such as (Section 2.1): (I) Biological death (termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism), which includes cell death where each cell/neuron dies (a cell stops functioning), (II) Clinical death (cardiac arrest: cessation of blood circulation and breathing), (III) Brain death (complete and irreversible loss of brain functions, used in legal death), (IV) Information-theoretic death (information stored in the brain can no longer be retrieved, used in cryonics), and (V) Gene death (complete and irreversible loss of gene functions).”
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 2:54 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
Thank you
Rita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@go oglegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups.c om.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
 Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 9:25:39 PM6/9/17
to georg...@aol.com, vinodse...@gmail.com, Online Sadhu Sanga

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 10, 2017, 3:21:03 PM6/10/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, georg...@aol.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, matters...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vinod ji,

[1] Vimal: The eDAM does not claim that psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT. In the eDAM, the physical aspect of a state of an entity is the same as current QM/QFT. The eDAM simply introduces the inseparable mental aspect of the same state of the same entity. Here, an entity can be one of 18 elementary particles.
 
Sehgal: But where is the evidence of the existence of any mental aspect as the function of 18 elementary particles? The physical aspect of the elementary particles comprises of two aspects viz its structure and physical functions viz mass, charge and spin and other motions. These physical functions take birth from the physical structure of the elementary particles.  The eDAM as part of some speculation introduces mental aspects as part of the same group of the physical functions of the elementary particles viz mass, charge, spin and other motions. But this contradicts eDAM's its own postulates that mental functions don't take birth from the structure but exist on their own. But how the mental aspects as functions exist on their own or in what form or from where mental functions emerge? No explanation from eDAM on this aspect. In fact, it is a mistake in eDAM to club mental functions with the physical functions in the same category since then no difference will remain in eDAM and materialism and eDAM shall become another version of Materialism.
 
Vimal: You have misconstrued the eDAM as usual. Since a function of an elementary particle does not have mass, charge, spin, and volume, it is classified as a part of mental aspect in the eDAM. The mental and physical aspects dependently co-originate, co-evolve and co-develop in the eDAM framework.

[2] Vimal: Information is the same in both aspects; it is simply viewing the same information from two different perspectives: the mental aspect is from 1st person perspective (1pp) and physical aspect is from 3rd pp (3pp). A non-living (inert) system has a function, which is a part of the mental aspect. A living system, such as a conscious human, has function(s) and/or experience(s), which are the components of the mental aspect. 
 
Sehgal: A non-living system will have functions which will be physical in nature and not the mental one. For example, a car has the function of motion which is the physical one. It can't have a mental function of the consciousness or cognitive abilities. Further, physical and mental functions can't be clubbed under the same category. If the physical functions do take birth from the physical structure say motion of the car takes birth from the structure of the car, its mental functions shall also take birth from the structure making eDAM as another version of the Materialism.
 
Vimal: In the eDAM, a function is classified as a part of mental aspect; justification is given above in [1].
 
[3] Vimal: The paranormal phenomena such as ESP, OBEs, NDEs, and so on are simply experiences and hence they are subjective data; each of which must have a neural basis and hence they should be explained within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. 
 
Sehgal: It is not necessary that all the experiences may have neural basis. Unless and until, the consciousness exit and operates at the body/brain level, experiences shall build NNs. In the state of Samaadhi, when the consciousness leaves body/brain, no NNs are built at the brain level.
 
Vimal: This is a dualistic Sāṅkhya’s interpretation, which has 9 serious problems.
 
[4] Vimal: The atheist eDAM should able to explain them if it is a good framework. In worst case, we can tentatively invoke theist eDAM, where the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of a paranormal entity (such as soul, ghost, and God) is high and its physical aspect is latent; this, however, may be because of our ignorance and further research is required to minimize the related mystery. 
 
Sehgal: How eDAM will explain ESP's phenomena whether within theist or non-theist version?  For example, how eDAM can explain ESP of clairvoyance within the known ontology of the physiology of the body/brain? Our body/brain physiology is capable of sensing only visible light signals and not IR/UV/Radio signals.
 
Vimal: The eDAM explain it thru the mechanism of 6th sense that has a neural basis. Information transfer is as usual without violating physics (both CM and QM).
 
[5] Vimal: We certainly do not need to invoke dualism and mysterious astral, causal, and God’s (manifested consciousness) worlds.
 
Sehgal: We invoke 'something' as part of some hypothesis when we are unaware with that and don't have any evidence for that. When in the state of Samaadhi, the existence of an ontological reality of the Astral body/world, as distinct from the body/brain, is verifiable in a reproducible manner, where is the place for invocation or branding these realities as fictitious?
 
Vimal: The Astral body/world, as distinct from the body/brain, is not a subjective data; it is dualistic Sāṅkhya’s interpretation, which has 9 serious problems. In a dream, some people “see” buildings in the air, flying humans, and so on; these are our visual subjective experiences; these buildings and flying humans in the dream can be called astral entities, but they are not ‘real’ entities in our physical world. The argument is similar for Samadhi states. On this basis, we cannot accept the astral world as a real world. In addition, why should we invoke dualism, if we can explain the data thru monism?

Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 10 June 2017 6:08 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dr. Ram  wrote to Stan:

The eDAM does not claim that psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT. In the eDAM, the physical aspect of a state of an entity is the same as current QM/QFT. The eDAM simply introduces the inseparable mental aspect of the same state of the same entity. Here, an entity can be one of 18 elementary particles.

But where is the evidence of the existence of any mental aspect as the function of 18 elementary particles? 

The physical aspect of the elementary particles comprises of two aspects viz its structure and physical functions viz mass, charge and spin and other motions. These physical functions take birth from the physical structure of the elementary particles.  

eDAM as part of some speculation introduces mental aspects as part of the same group of the physical functions of the elementary particles viz mass, charge, spin and other motions. But this contradicts eDAM's its own postulates that mental functions don't take birth from the structure but exist on their own. But how the mental aspects as functions exist on their own or in what form or from where mental functions emerge? No explanation from eDAM on this aspect.

In fact, it is a mistake in eDAM to club mental functions with the physical functions in the same category since then no difference will remain in eDAM and materialism and eDAM shall become another version of Materialism.



Information is the same in both aspects; it is simply viewing the same information from two different perspectives: mental aspect is from 1st person perspective (1pp) and physical aspect is from 3rd pp (3pp). 

A non-living (inert) system has a function, which is a part of the mental aspect. A living system, such as a conscious human, has function(s) and/or experience(s), which are the components of the mental aspect. 

A non-living system will have functions which will be physical in nature and not the mental one. For example, a car has the function of motion which is the physical one. It can't have a mental function of the consciousness or cognitive abilities. Further, physical and mental functions can't be clubbed under the same category.
If the physical functions do take birth from the physical structure say motion of the car takes birth from the structure of the car, its mental functions shall also take birth from the structure making eDAm as another version of the Materialism.

The paranormal phenomena such as ESP, OBEs, NDEs, and so on are simply experiences and hence they are subjective data; each of which must have a neural basis and hence they should be explained within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. 

It is not necessary that all the experiences may leave neural basis. Unless and until, the consciousness exit and operates at the body/brain level, experiences shall build NNs. In the state of Samaadhi, when the consciousness leaves body/brain, no NNs are built at the brain level

The atheist eDAM should able to explain them if it is a good framework. In worst case, we can tentatively invoke theist eDAM, where the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of a paranormal entity (such as soul, ghost, and God) is high and its physical aspect is latent; this however may be because of our ignorance and further research is required to minimize the related mystery. 

How eDAM will explain ESP's phenomena whether within theist or non-theist version?  For example, how eDAM can explain ESP of clairvoyance within the known ontology of the physiology of the body/brain? Our body/brain physiology is capable of sensing only visible light signals and not IR/UV/Radio signals.

We certainly do not need to invoke dualism and mysterious astral, causal, and God’s (manifested consciousness) worlds.

We invoke 'something' as part of some hypothesis when we are unaware with that and don't have any evidence for that. When in the state of Samaadhi, the existence of an ontological reality of the Astral body/world, as distinct from the body/brain, is verifiable in a reproducible manner, where is the place for invocation or branding these realities as fictitious?

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal


On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Anna-Riitta Lindgren <anna-riitt...@uit.no> wrote:
I will unsubscribe from Sadhu-Sanga.
Anna-Riitta Lindgren
Fra: georgeweis via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com>
Sendt: 10. juni 2017 01:34
Til: rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; vinodse...@gmail.com
Kopi: online_sadhu_sanga@ googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM
 
Dear Ram,

thank you for clarifying this for me. So "theist eDAM" does allow for subtle bodies, and subtle transmission of karma. So the  theist eDAM has a concept like One Mind/Cosmic Consciousness/ Fundamental Awareness, right, and has a larger concept of causality than just gross material information transfer?

I have already mentioned that there is overwhelming empirical evidence for survival of individual consciousness after death
and I have given you two source book (Fontana, and Parisetti) which you could read to inform yourself about this vast body of research, and subsequently, if you are interested, look up the original publications. That implies, to use your terms, that atheist eDAM is dead. Long live deist eDAM! Blush

kind regards,

George

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
To: georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>; vinodsehgal1955 <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sadhu_sanga@ googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear George,

Thanks.

Sehgal’s (Vinod ji's) framework is dualistic Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya, which has 9 serious problems in my view and the eDAM is not dualism or materialism; it is an extended version of dual-aspect monism. Therefore, I disagree with Sehgal. In my view, the astral body, causal body, and manifested consciousness are within the realm of the mind-brain system, not outside of it. If individual conscious survive after physical death, then atheist eDAM will be rejected, but theist eDAM cannot be rejected. However, so far, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of soul/ghost/God after physical death. The authentic paranormal data can be explained without assuming such entities beyond our universe. It is possible that the hypothesis of survival of individual conscious after physical death is apparent (not real) because you may have interpreted paranormal data in idealism and/or dualism frameworks, which have serious problems. I could argue that my individual consciousness and my karmas will survive after my physical death in my publications, in my children thru the transfer of genetic information, information recorded in the environment (entities beside me) and so on.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ unsub...@googlegroups.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 11, 2017, 4:10:18 PM6/11/17
to georg...@aol.com, vinodse...@gmail.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind
Dear George,

Thanks.

1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”. I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common; for example, color experiences of a trichromat and an achromat cannot be combined; we need to keep both experiences in this group (such as redness of ripe tomato experienced by the trichromat and grayness by the achromat). However, where is this group mind located and what are the mechanisms of storage and recall? You may like to look at (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010) on the emergence of group cognition. The term ‘whole’ also needs unpacking.

2. There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term consciousness, which have been grouped in two functions and experiences as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009e). What meaning do you assign? Perhaps, you mean experiences and experiencer: is this correct?

3. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism, which you have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson, 2017). How can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe tomato into ripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How do we select one of them?

4. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAM framework because it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormal phenomena. The survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and the experiencer) after physical death is an easy interpretation of these data; it does not appear an empirical datum.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 10 June 2017 7:57 PM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:


You are discussing here (based on two different paradigms), the question whether conventional objects or particles have an inherent mental aspect, or whether mental aspects on emergent from and depend on complex and very specifically structured processes systems interact in very specified ways (for example those we call animal brains and nervous systems).

My take on the issue

, Don't you both agree that conventional entities like objects, particles etc, are, by their very nature as concepts, mental constructs and thus manifest in the domain of the mind, and hence in the domain of Mind (Cosmic Mind). As the conventional entities they are), they don't fundamentally "have" consciousness. You might object here that though the mental concept of "particle" doesn't have consciousness, the "noumenon", the objectively existing "thing in itself" that we are naming "particle" , can, and as you apparently believe, does have consciousness. But a self-consistent understanding of quantum theory has shown us that such particles (or any other reified entity, for that matter, does not objectively exist. The whole distinction between object and subject breaks down. So the conclusion stands: particles and other apparent objects do not objectively exist, and so they "have" no consciousness.

So then what about you and me? Couldn't the same conclusion (namely that we have no  consciousness) be reached about any living being, which would then apparently reduce the whole argument ad absurdum, since we "obviously have consciousness" (you might add tongue-in-cheek "maybe YOU have no consciousness, but I certainly know I do ":-)  )

Here we have to take into consideration the other insight reached by the above investigation of the foundations of quantum theory: namely that it is a theory of the statistical causal structure of EXPERIENCE, not of a (non-existent) objective state of affairs. The first answer (given by relational quantum theory and QB'ism), is that it is the experience of the specific observer whose observations are being correlated through Quantum Theory. This answer suffices to make quantum theory consistent (solving the measurement problem and Wigner's friend problem), But the price is that the description of reality is fragmented into individual INCOMMENSURABLE accounts. Every observer-participant is so to say living in his or her world. To  restore wholeness (an intersubjective "we" account of the world) requires giving up the idea of a single Universe, and demands a multiverse. At that level the concept of a "Cosmic Mind" replaces that of individual observer-participants. We individuals are all dissociated fragments of that Whole, although we don't perceive that, operating as we do in an individual-centered paradigm. And we are deeply conditioned to identify with that fragment we call I or the small self.
So from that perspective, consciousness is an inherent quality, you might even say, the essence, of that Cosmic Mind.  Our individual sense of identity; mind, and consciousness is derived from the secondary perspective that cosmic Mind has set up as "the individual". So now you can see that consciousness as the quality of fundamental awareness, the "I am", doesn't not belong to the small I, as much as the small I believes and experiences that it does. This insight and the paradigm which it defines is arrived at here from quantum theory and rational reasoning. But of course it is nothing new in itself: it is the essential insight of the perennial phiillosophy, of Vedic and Buddhist teachings and other contemplative wisdom traditions. These teachings not only state that this is the nature of reality, but they offer us a path of practice which can realize (actualize) this our true nature. and allow us to live us that (enlightenment.

The conditions necessary to lend the individual consciousness structures any degree of stability are the self-reproducing and -perpetuating quantum probability structures that we call our bodies, including our brains. 

So now we can try to answer the question you were discussing: no, particles, objects including human bodies and brains don't "have" consciousness; they actually don't even have an ontological status at all, since they are reified abstractions. But of course they are related to consciousness, insofar as the "locus" where they "exist"is the conceptual (Platonic) space, within thought. And whenever the conditions (probability structures arise and are sustained that we call functioning brains and nervous sytems and bodies, than the familiar structures of human and other animal consciousness arise (cognition, perception, memory, intention etc).  So we can say that the familiar appearance of individual consciousness airses whenever these strctures are operating,  which is Vinod's point;  except that it is inaccurate to say that these structures "have" consciousness, rather they are accompanied by the attributes of (individual) consciousness. And by the way,  these structures are not necessarily "material", they can be "subtle" as in  the case of the spirit domain etc


How does this make sense to you, Ram and Vinod?

Warm regards,

George

PS: if you want to learn more about this paraidgm,  you can look up the paper I wrote with Cynthia Larson: here attached
---------------------------------


-----Original Message-----
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; matters-of-mind <matters...@googlegroups.com>; georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 11:33 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dr. Ram  wrote to Stan:

The eDAM does not claim that psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT. In the eDAM, the physical aspect of a state of an entity is the same as current QM/QFT. The eDAM simply introduces the inseparable mental aspect of the same state of the same entity. Here, an entity can be one of 18 elementary particles.

But where is the evidence of the existence of any mental aspect as the function of 18 elementary particles? 

The physical aspect of the elementary particles comprises of two aspects viz its structure and physical functions viz mass, charge and spin and other motions. These physical functions take birth from the physical structure of the elementary particles.  

eDAM as part of some speculation introduces mental aspects as part of the same group of the physical functions of the elementary particles viz mass, charge, spin and other motions. But this contradicts eDAM's its own postulates that mental functions don't take birth from the structure but exist on their own. But how the mental aspects as functions exist on their own or in what form or from where mental functions emerge? No explanation from eDAM on this aspect.

In fact, it is a mistake in eDAM to club mental functions with the physical functions in the same category since then no difference will remain in eDAM and materialism and eDAM shall become another version of Materialism.



Information is the same in both aspects; it is simply viewing the same information from two different perspectives: mental aspect is from 1st person perspective (1pp) and physical aspect is from 3rd pp (3pp). 

A non-living (inert) system has a function, which is a part of the mental aspect. A living system, such as a conscious human, has function(s) and/or experience(s), which are the components of the mental aspect. 

A non-living system will have functions which will be physical in nature and not the mental one. For example, a car has the function of motion which is the physical one. It can't have a mental function of the consciousness or cognitive abilities. Further, physical and mental functions can't be clubbed under the same category.
If the physical functions do take birth from the physical structure say motion of the car takes birth from the structure of the car, its mental functions shall also take birth from the structure making eDAm as another version of the Materialism.

The paranormal phenomena such as ESP, OBEs, NDEs, and so on are simply experiences and hence they are subjective data; each of which must have a neural basis and hence they should be explained within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. 

It is not necessary that all the experiences may leave neural basis. Unless and until, the consciousness exit and operates at the body/brain level, experiences shall build NNs. In the state of Samaadhi, when the consciousness leaves body/brain, no NNs are built at the brain level

The atheist eDAM should able to explain them if it is a good framework. In worst case, we can tentatively invoke theist eDAM, where the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of a paranormal entity (such as soul, ghost, and God) is high and its physical aspect is latent; this however may be because of our ignorance and further research is required to minimize the related mystery. 

How eDAM will explain ESP's phenomena whether within theist or non-theist version?  For example, how eDAM can explain ESP of clairvoyance within the known ontology of the physiology of the body/brain? Our body/brain physiology is capable of sensing only visible light signals and not IR/UV/Radio signals.

We certainly do not need to invoke dualism and mysterious astral, causal, and God’s (manifested consciousness) worlds.

We invoke 'something' as part of some hypothesis when we are unaware with that and don't have any evidence for that. When in the state of Samaadhi, the existence of an ontological reality of the Astral body/world, as distinct from the body/brain, is verifiable in a reproducible manner, where is the place for invocation or branding these realities as fictitious?

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal




On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Stan,

Thanks for asking.

The eDAM does not claim that psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT. In the eDAM, the physical aspect of a state of an entity is the same as current QM/QFT. The eDAM simply introduces the inseparable mental aspect of the same state of the same entity. Here, an entity can be one of 18 elementary particles. 

Information is the same in both aspects; it is simply viewing the same information from two different perspectives: mental aspect is from 1st person perspective (1pp) and physical aspect is from 3rd pp (3pp). 

A non-living (inert) system has a function, which is a part of the mental aspect. A living system, such as a conscious human, has function(s) and/or experience(s), which are the components of the mental aspect. 

The paranormal phenomena such as ESP, OBEs, NDEs, and so on are simply experiences and hence they are subjective data; each of which must have a neural basis and hence they should be explained within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. 

The atheist eDAM should able to explain them if it is a good framework. In worst case, we can tentatively invoke theist eDAM, where the degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of a paranormal entity (such as soul, ghost, and God) is high and its physical aspect is latent; this however may be because of our ignorance and further research is required to minimize the related mystery.  

We certainly do not need to invoke dualism and mysterious astral, causal, and God’s (manifested consciousness) worlds.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 8 June 2017 11:35 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:


Hi George and Ram, 
I'm posting this to just MoM. 
My question to the two of you is do you claim psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT? By QFT I mean the 18 known particles: photons, quarks, higgs, graviton, etc. I suspect Ram will say that his eDAM is different from standard QM/QFT. George if you are saying standard QM/QFT can account for ESP, could you give us your thinking of how that works in brains of humans. 
thanks,
Stan
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you very much George: it will take time to deepen.
Best
Rita
In data 08 giugno 2017 07:13:45 AM georgeweis via Matters Of Mind <matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com> ha scritto:
Dear Rita,

as I already told Ram, I recommend David Fontana's book to start with. It contains a summary of the field of after life studies, and a rich research bibliography. A more recent book by Piero Calvi-Parisetti '21 days into the afterlife' also gives a good and very readable introduction into the various phenomena pertaining to survival research, and also a good bibliography. Once you have read one of these books, you can delve more deeply into any one of these avenues.

I think one needs to read one of these books (there are also others, but I think these two are good for a first reading) to appreciate the breadth and depth of the research, before going into one area or the other more deeply.

Best regards,

George





-----Original Message-----
From: Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com>
To: Matters Of Mind <matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 11:54 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
Thank you
Rita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/matters-of-mind/ KH1fpbGCbss/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 11, 2017, 8:48:44 PM6/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear George,

Thanks.

1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”.






The conscious cosmic mind is the pattern of PQM EPR "tensor/spinor networks" on our future dark energy de Sitter event 2D horizon "hologram screen" that used Yakir Aharonov's "Destiny Wave" to construct us as 3D hologram images. This is consistent with ER = EPR,  but for traversable ER wormholes beyond where Susskind's head is at (no-cloning and all that) see papers below by Roderick Sutherland on the new PQM action-reaction Lagrangian at the deeper non-statistical locally retrocausal level of physical reality where God loads the dice in the Cosmic Casino.

Back From the Future

A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

By Zeeya Merali|Thursday, August 26, 2010

Dispelling the Quantum Spooks--a Clue that Einstein Missed?

https://arxiv.org › physics
by H Price - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 13 - ‎Related articles
Jul 29, 2013 - Submission history. From: Huw Price [view email] [v1] Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:25:09 GMT (28kb,D). Which authors of this paper are endorsers?

A Live Alternative to Quantum Spooks

https://arxiv.org › quant-ph
by H Price - ‎2015 - ‎Cited by 4 - ‎Related articles
Oct 22, 2015 - Authors: Huw Price, Ken Wharton ... (even conclusive) news for spooky action-at- a-distance, and bad news for ... From: Huw Price [view email]

Can retrocausality solve the puzzle of action-at-a-distance? | Aeon ...

Sep 14, 2016 - FollowHuw. Ken Wharton ... FollowKen .... confirmed that the “spooky action-at-a- distance” that [Einstein] famously hated… is an inherent part of ... Huw Price was a young philosopher in Sydney at the time, and plucked up the ..

Tensor Networks and Entanglement | Quanta Magazine

Apr 28, 2015 - “Entanglement is the fabric of space-time,” said Swingle, who is now a researcher at ... A tensor network has a geometry, just like space-time.

Entanglement and tensor network states

https://arxiv.org › quant-ph
by J Eisert - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 35 - ‎Related articles
Aug 15, 2013 - ... methods of entanglement theory applied to the study of quantum many-body systems, as well as of tensor network states capturing quantum …

1.  arXiv:1706.02290 [pdf]
How Retrocausality Helps
Comments: AIP Conference Proceedings 2016
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
2.  arXiv:1509.07380 [pdf]
Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density
Comments: 6 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
3.  arXiv:1509.02442 [pdf]
Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics -- Entangled Many-Particle Case
Comments: 34 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
4.  arXiv:1509.00001 [pdf]
Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
Comments: 9 pages
Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)
5.  arXiv:1502.02058 [pdf]
Naive Quantum Gravity
Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
6.  arXiv:1411.3762 [pdf]
Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle Case
Comments: 12 pages
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
7.  arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 [pdf]
Causally Symmetric Bohm Model
Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added
Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)

I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common; for example, color experiences of a trichromat and an achromat cannot be combined; we need to keep both experiences in this group (such as redness of ripe tomato experienced by the trichromat and grayness by the achromat). However, where is this group mind located and what are the mechanisms of storage and recall? You may like to look at (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010) on the emergence of group cognition. The term ‘whole’ also needs unpacking.

2. There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term consciousness, which have been grouped in two functions and experiences as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009e). What meaning do you assign? Perhaps, you mean experiences and experiencer: is this correct?

3. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism, which you have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson, 2017). How can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe tomato into ripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How do we select one of them?

4. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAM framework because it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormal phenomena. The survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and the experiencer) after physical death is an easy interpretation of these data; it does not appear an empirical datum.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 10 June 2017 7:57 PM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:


You are discussing here (based on two different paradigms), the question whether conventional objects or particles have an inherent mental aspect, or whether mental aspects on emergent from and depend on complex and very specifically structured processes systems interact in very specified ways (for example those we call animal brains and nervous systems).

My take on the issue

Don't you both agree that conventional entities like objects, particles etc, are, by their very nature as concepts, mental constructs and thus manifest in the domain of the mind, and hence in the domain of Mind (Cosmic Mind). As the conventional entities they are), they don't fundamentally "have" consciousness. You might object here that though the mental concept of "particle" doesn't have consciousness, the "noumenon", the objectively existing "thing in itself" that we are naming "particle" , can, and as you apparently believe, does have consciousness. But a self-consistent understanding of quantum theory has shown us that such particles (or any other reified entity, for that matter, does not objectively exist. The whole distinction between object and subject breaks down. So the conclusion stands: particles and other apparent objects do not objectively exist, and so they "have" no consciousness.

So then what about you and me? Couldn't the same conclusion (namely that we have no  consciousness) be reached about any living being, which would then apparently reduce the whole argument ad absurdum, since we "obviously have consciousness" (you might add tongue-in-cheek "maybe YOU have no consciousness, but I certainly know I do ":-)  )

Here we have to take into consideration the other insight reached by the above investigation of the foundations of quantum theory: namely that it is a theory of the statistical causal structure of EXPERIENCE, not of a (non-existent) objective state of affairs. The first answer (given by relational quantum theory and QB'ism), is that it is the experience of the specific observer whose observations are being correlated through Quantum Theory. This answer suffices to make quantum theory consistent (solving the measurement problem and Wigner's friend problem), But the price is that the description of reality is fragmented into individual INCOMMENSURABLE accounts. Every observer-participant is so to say living in his or her world. To  restore wholeness (an intersubjective "we" account of the world) requires giving up the idea of a single Universe, and demands a multiverse. At that level the concept of a "Cosmic Mind" replaces that of individual observer-participants. We individuals are all dissociated fragments of that Whole, although we don't perceive that, operating as we do in an individual-centered paradigm. And we are deeply conditioned to identify with that fragment we call I or the small self.
So from that perspective, consciousness is an inherent quality, you might even say, the essence, of that Cosmic Mind.  Our individual sense of identity; mind, and consciousness is derived from the secondary perspective that cosmic Mind has set up as "the individual". So now you can see that consciousness as the quality of fundamental awareness, the "I am", doesn't not belong to the small I, as much as the small I believes and experiences that it does. This insight and the paradigm which it defines is arrived at here from quantum theory and rational reasoning. But of course it is nothing new in itself: it is the essential insight of the perennial phiillosophy, of Vedic and Buddhist teachings and other contemplative wisdom traditions. These teachings not only state that this is the nature of reality, but they offer us a path of practice which can realize (actualize) this our true nature. and allow us to live us that (enlightenment.

The conditions necessary to lend the individual consciousness structures any degree of stability are the self-reproducing and -perpetuating quantum probability structures that we call our bodies, including our brains. 

So now we can try to answer the question you were discussing: no, particles, objects including human bodies and brains don't "have" consciousness; they actually don't even have an ontological status at all, since they are reified abstractions. But of course they are related to consciousness, insofar as the "locus" where they "exist"is the conceptual (Platonic) space, within thought. And whenever the conditions (probability structures arise and are sustained that we call functioning brains and nervous sytems and bodies, than the familiar structures of human and other animal consciousness arise (cognition, perception, memory, intention etc).  So we can say that the familiar appearance of individual consciousness airses whenever these strctures are operating,  which is Vinod's point;  except that it is inaccurate to say that these structures "have" consciousness, rather they are accompanied by the attributes of (individual) consciousness. And by the way,  these structures are not necessarily "material", they can be "subtle" as in  the case of the spirit domain etc


How does this make sense to you, Ram and Vinod?

georg...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 11, 2017, 9:41:41 PM6/11/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, vinodse...@gmail.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com, matters...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vimal,

1) Cosmic Consciousness cannot be defined, because it is the most fundamental, real Ground of all being. Something fundamental cannot be defined in terms of something less fundamental. It can only be pointed at like the famous Buddhist metaphor of the finger pointing at the moon. You  have to llet go of the finger (the concrete things of ordinary language) to be metaphorically transported to the moon (the transcendent reality being pointed at). 
The cosmic consciousness (Buddha Nature, Source, Ground of all Being, (maybe?), One Mind, Brahman, Nature of Mind, rigp, dharmakaya etc) is the ground of "our own" individual consciousness, of subject as well as object,  The Cosmic Consciousness that can be defined is not the real Cosmic Consciousness :-)
I am sure that within your own tradition you have a pointer, a name for Cosmic Consciousness

It is also the ground of all other minds in the ecology of minds: group consciousness, noosphere (collective consciousness of humanity), Gaia (collective mind of all life on Earth), and beyond.

How can we gather that there are such collective minds? For example, Gregory Bateson wrote a book (the ecology of mind", about that, and much has been explored since then. The Noosphere Project has done some interesting experiments that indicate the existence of a noosphere. Telepathy, tantric sexual union, love (agape) and empathy are some of the ways in which we transcend our individual mind barriers, synchronicity is a direct evidence for  a bigger Mind at work, and finally the experience of enlightenment (at various levels) allows some of us, often only temporarily, to merge with Cosmic Consciousness, or at least with a larger mind than the individual one we usually identify.

I personally have participated in deep community groups , one of them for over 20 years, where we experienced group mind and used it to gain insights into questions we were exploring. Socratic and Bohmian dialogue, deep interparadigmatic communication, and sometimes group brainstorming are some of the ways that we can utilize that group  mind synergistically because the group mind is more powerful than the sum of its individual components.

As to the locus of group mind? What is the locus of individual mind, Vimal. In our heads? Hardly, since as a category mind is non-localizable, or nonlocal. What we can say is that the physical aspect of the "mechanism" that organizes our thoughts and perceptions, namely the brain, nervous system, heart, etc) are located in our bodies. But that is not the totality of systems that structure our individual consciousness, and above all it is not the mind itself. Mind is NOT equal to brain!

Is there a kind of "group brain" which has a physical aspect that can be similarly localized? I do not know, that is a very pertinent question.

2) I am sorry, Vimal, I admit that like most Westerners, I use words like consciousness, awareness, mind, etc without the necessary fine discrimination, as we are not inculturated into such a discriminating use of language. In fact our languages lack the wealth of words that for example Sanskrit has in its fine distinctions of mind-functions and of the spiritual realm. So to answer your question concretely, you would have to say which example of each my uses of "consciousness" that you are referring to, and then I could give it a try. But you rightly point out a weakness we all have to work on here in the West. I don't know whether modern Indians are better at that, but at least they have the benefit of their Sanskrit philosophical tradition.

3. How do I use dualism and idealism: please point that out to me.
As for quantum interpretations, I am working within the one I call Quantum Paradigm. I will  answer you request to place it within your matrix of classifications in a separate email. I am nearly doe with that. 
We do reify bundles of experiences into a reified concept, for example tomato. What do you want me to do? Describe it in fine detail. You  can do that as well as I do if you observe your mind process contemplatively.

4. Psi phenomena do not lend themselves to a materialist or classical physicalist interpretation, partly because of their non-locality.  That is precisely the reason why materialists HAVE to reject psi if they want to preserve their fundamental world view. And boy, do they reject it in in full sight of all the rigorous evidence for it. True belief is a strong force, and true believers in scientism don't even get that they ARE true believers :-)
So I don't know what you mean by saying that psi is compatible with eDAM (which you say has adopted the physics of science), especially with atheist eDAM, but I would dearly like to know.

I take it that you are saying that the strong evidence for survival of individual consciousness after physical death is an "interpretation". I take it then you have a different interpretation in terms of which that same evidence can be understood. Please share it with me, Vimal. I am definitely open to that, because our whole range of concepts which we have developed in dealing with this physical life may be poorly suited to describe the larger realm that opens up with death. But because that realm also opens up with spiritual practice, it is possible that there may be better paradigms in which to comprehend the survival phenomena.



So to conclude, Vimal, can you answer my question about whether, in the light of all this, the statement that conventional entities of any kind (from particles, animals such as humans, and galaxies "have" consciousness makes fundamental sense (granting that it has a heuristic meaning for some entities, such as human beings, to say we "have" consciousness)

best regards,

George
---------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>; vinodsehgal1955 <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>; Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sun, Jun 11, 2017 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear George,

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

Oliver Manuel

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 5:56:31 AM6/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
The Creator's Mind is elegant simplicity, unlike the complicated and irrational creations of the human mind.      Only an elegantly simple mind could create an infinite , cyclic universe out of two forms of one fundamental particle, that is far superior to the little finite universe made in a single imaginary "Big Bang."

Humility is required to experience the Creator's Mind.  Atomic, nuclear and particle physicists made great contributions to science before becoming convinced that they were superior to others and therefore I unteachable.      
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 9:34:08 AM6/12/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind, georg...@aol.com
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. This is the first time we apparently agree on something. 

My point was that if we cannot create a fully manifested group-experience/consciousness of just three of us then how can you, dualistic Sāṅkhya, monistic 6 sub-schools of Vedānta propose that the fully manifested Cosmic Consciousness/Mind or OOO-God (such as God Vishnu/Krishna or trideva Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh) exist in which all of us (our souls after Moksha/liberation) reside in the manifested consciousness worlds such as Vishnu loka, Brahma loka, Shiva loka etc. and experience what God experience?

I am still not convinced that individual consciousness (soul) survives after physical death. I am not aware of any authentic paranormal data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM within the realm of our mind-brain system because all kinds of experiences must have their respective neural basis. Therefore, I am not sure we can reject atheist eDAM framework. The theist eDAM is valid only if souls/ghosts/God exist beyond our mind-brain systems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Monday, 12 June 2017 8:41 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dr. Ram wrote to George:

"I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common"

I agree with you that experiences of two individuals can't be combined to create a group or cosmic mind. Leave alone the experiences of two persons, even the experiences of one person at one moment will be different than his experience the next moment. So there is no question of their combination.

Our experiences are the conscious experiences as arising in our mind in the 1pp. Unlike the physical objects/particles, our experiences lack the distinctive characteristics, therefore, no mathematical numbers can be associated with the experiences. In view of this, there is no question of their combination by any mathematical or physical technique.

Every experience is a holistic whole in itself and it exists as such. It is irreducible into other parts. Experiences as "wholes" can't be combined with other experiences, either of the self or of others.

Reagrds.

Vinod Sehgal

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear George,

Thanks.

1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”. I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common; for example, color experiences of a trichromat and an achromat cannot be combined; we need to keep both experiences in this group (such as redness of ripe tomato experienced by the trichromat and grayness by the achromat). However, where is this group mind located and what are the mechanisms of storage and recall? You may like to look at (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010) on the emergence of group cognition. The term ‘whole’ also needs unpacking.

2. There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term consciousness, which have been grouped in two functions and experiences as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009e). What meaning do you assign? Perhaps, you mean experiences and experiencer: is this correct?

3. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism, which you have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson, 2017). How can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe tomato into ripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How do we select one of them?

4. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAM framework because it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormal phenomena. The survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and the experiencer) after physical death is an easy interpretation of these data; it does not appear an empirical datum.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 12:57:48 PM6/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Jack: "Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”."

It's not mysterious at all, Jack. I defined it decades ago, and to a remarkable degree of precision.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Oliver Manuel <omat...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Creator's Mind is elegant simplicity, unlike the complicated and irrational creations of the human mind.      Only an elegantly simple mind could create an infinite , cyclic universe out of two forms of one fundamental particle, that is far superior to the little finite universe made in a single imaginary "Big Bang."

Humility is required to experience the Creator's Mind.  Atomic, nuclear and particle physicists made great contributions to science before becoming convinced that they were superior to others and therefore I unteachable.      

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:48 PM 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
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.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHut5vNh_XhAG2a5Ow%3DXWH8UjJdLGRXnBW-fCXutMm09PiOH%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 2:14:54 PM6/12/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, George Weissmann, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Since you don't accept the ontological existence of the Astral body or Astral Mind [beyond a mind-brain system], as distinct from the Physical brain, that is why you are constrained to presume that all the experiences should be produced due to NNs.

Vimal: In the eDAM, experiences are not produced by the NNs; otherwise, it would be materialism. A specific subjective experience is selected by the matching and selection mechanisms as elaborated in  (Vimal, 2010c). The primary subjective experiences are irreducible excitations of UPC as elaborated in (Vimal, 2016b) and (Kastrup, 2016). We have hypothesized that experiences (such as redness, greenness, blueness, and so on) are quantized as excitations of UPC (Hameroff, Email communication on 6 March 2016 and (Kastrup, 2016)), in analogy to elementary particles are quantized modes of excitations of the quantum field.

You have not responded my main query: If we cannot create a fully manifested group-consciousness (experiences) of just two of us then how can you, dualistic Sāṅkhya, monistic 6 sub-schools of Vedānta propose that the fully manifested cosmic group consciousness (God) exist in which all of us (our souls after liberation) reside and experience what God experience? 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Monday, 12 June 2017 10:51 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Thanks. This is the first time we apparently agree on something.

Why will I not agree to something if it is logically correct? 

My point was that if we cannot create a fully manifested group-experience/consciousness of just three of us then how can you, dualistic Sāṅkhya, monistic 6 sub-schools of Vedānta propose that the fully manifested Cosmic Consciousness/Mind or OOO-God (such as God Vishnu/Krishna or trideva Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh) exist in which all of us (our souls after Moksha/liberation) reside in the manifested consciousness worlds such as Vishnu loka, Brahma loka, Shiva loka etc. and experience what God experience?

I have been trying to convey and highlight since a quite long time that Cosmic Consciousness/OOO God/soul are entirely different than our Mind/thoughts/experiences. Cosmic Consciousness or God, as an infinite holistic conscious most fundamental entity without any cause, exist at each and every point of the universe. In view of it being existing at all the points of the universe, it exists within us also.  Soul as the localized consciousness at our mind/body/biological level is the manifestation of the same cosmic consciousness. But in the process of the manifestation, actual power, potency and purity of the cosmic consciousness is considerably diminished at the biological consciousness level. Why? there is a different story for that. I am not going into that story at this juncture. No thought/experiences take place in the soul/biological localized consciousness. It is merely the experiencer/ultimate observer of thoughts/experiences. But it is also true that none of the thoughts/experiences can be produced without the presence of the soul/localized consciousness.

All thoughts and experiences are produced in Mind which is entirely different than the brain and localized consciousness ( a manifestation of the cosmic consciousness). The mind is a westernized name for the aggregate of individual elements of Manas, Buddhi, Indriyyas,  Tanmaatras, Chitta and Ahmkaras in Saankhya's terminology. It is a structural transformation of the Moola Prakriti in some sequential order. Moola Prakriti is the reservoir of all the physicality of the Physical, Astral and causal worlds. All these structural ontological realities constitute what we call the Astral realm and Causal realm of nature. It is from these Astral elements that physical derivative of our physical world in form of elementary particles and 4 forces take birth.

At the micro/human/organism level, brain constitutes the physical infrastructure and Mind constitutes the subtle Astral infrastructure on which thoughts/experiences are produced. In Saankhya's philosophy, Mind has to interpreted in two ways:

i) As a subtle Astral Structure

ii) As an aggregate of thoughts/experiences.

The infrastructure of the subtle Astral Mind and physical brain are the derivatives of the same Moola Prakriti in some sequential order, so basically they both came from the same primordial source. In the wakeful conscious state, there is constant interaction between the Astral structure of Mind and Physical structure of the brain.There is no category mistake in this since both are the derivatives of the same Primordial physicality. Due to this interaction between the Astral structure of mind and Physical structure of the brain, thoughts as experiences are produced which are experienced by the soul/localized biological consciousness. Each person has hos own unique experiences at the 1pp level.

Siva Loka, Brahma Loka, and Vishnu Loka refer to the inner realms of the transformative stages of Moola  Prakriti. As indicated above, the way cosmic consciousness can exist in each of the person irrespective of the differences of experiences, similarly, these Lokas can also exist in each person irrespective of the difference in thoughts/experiences

I am still not convinced that individual consciousness (soul) survives after physical death.

Individual soul or consciousness is the manifestation or identification of the cosmic consciousness with the Astral and Causal body. At the time of the death, Astral and Causal body leave our physical body and recycles to the next birth. The soul being identified with these bodies also recycles to the next birth.

 I am not aware of any authentic paranormal data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM within the realm of our mind-brain system because all kinds of experiences must have their respective neural basis. 

Since you don't accept the ontological existence of the Astral body or Astral Mind, as distinct from the Physical brain, that is why you are constrained to presume that all the experiences should be produced due to NNs. In the wakeful conscious state, I agree that all the experiences are from the built up of NNs in the brain but it is not only the NNs of the brain. It is due to the Astral Mind as distinct from the physical brain PLUS physical brain. In fact, all thoughts and experiences are first initiated from the Astral Mind level. In the state of Samaadhi, a delink take place between the Astral Mind and the Physical Brain, thoughts continue to be produced in the astral Mind but due to delink, no effect is reflected on the brain in form of NNs.
Therefore, I am not sure we can reject atheist eDAM framework. The theist eDAM is valid only if souls/ghosts/God exist beyond our mind-brain systems.



Regards

Vinod sehgal


On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. This is the first time we apparently agree on something. 

My point was that if we cannot create a fully manifested group-experience/consciousness of just three of us then how can you, dualistic Sāṅkhya, monistic 6 sub-schools of Vedānta propose that the fully manifested Cosmic Consciousness/Mind or OOO-God (such as God Vishnu/Krishna or trideva Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh) exist in which all of us (our souls after Moksha/liberation) reside in the manifested consciousness worlds such as Vishnu loka, Brahma loka, Shiva loka etc. and experience what God experience?

I am still not convinced that individual consciousness (soul) survives after physical death. I am not aware of any authentic paranormal data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM within the realm of our mind-brain system because all kinds of experiences must have their respective neural basis. Therefore, I am not sure we can reject atheist eDAM framework. The theist eDAM is valid only if souls/ghosts/God exist beyond our mind-brain systems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 4:36:52 PM6/12/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
My definition of "cosmic mind" is in terms of Popper-falsifiable real physics using concepts of Einstein's classical general relativity, standard model of cosmology and quantum information theory as extended by Roderick Sutherland.

Yours is completely different and is not scientific i.e. not Popper falsifiable


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.

Andris Heks

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 6:10:22 PM6/12/17
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Oliver Manuel,


I could not agree with you more.


To me behind what you call 'the one fundamental particle' is the Creator who is the primordial and eternal

Unconditional Cosmic yet Personal Lover.


With love,


Andris Heks



From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Oliver Manuel <omat...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 12 June 2017 12:33 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is Hawking's Mind of God?
 
The Creator's Mind is elegant simplicity, unlike the complicated and irrational creations of the human mind.      Only an elegantly simple mind could create an infinite , cyclic universe out of two forms of one fundamental particle, that is far superior to the little finite universe made in a single imaginary "Big Bang."Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
DavisFig1-1Hologram(1).jpg

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 12, 2017, 8:11:27 PM6/12/17
to georg...@aol.com, vinodse...@gmail.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind
Dear George,

Thanks for the comments; my responses are as follows:

1. Cosmic Mind

The ‘Cosmic Mind’ in your QP (Quantum Paradigm) might be related to Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) in the eDAM framework, which is based on scientific bottom-up approach, which starts from potentiality to actualization/realization. This is just opposite to the OOO-God theory based top-down approach where the manifestations of living and non-living entities starts from the eternal fully manifested/actualized consciousness God.

The eDAM postulates that the mental aspect of the unmanifested state of the primal entity (Brahman) is the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) field and its inseparable physical aspect is the ‘(quantum) vacuum potential field’/‘ubiquitous zero-point field (ZPF)’. The UPC has many names, such as Cosmic Mind, Global Mind, Buddha’s Nature, Nāgārjuna’s ‘Śūnyatā’ or emptiness, Source, Ground of all Being, One Mind, Brahman, Nature of Mind, Rigpa, Dharmakāya etc as you suggested. Both aspects of the the unmanifested state of the primal entity were initially latent in pre-Big Bang era. The information is the same, but the same information can be imagined from two different perspectives (1pp and  3pp); they should ‘look’ different in the same way 1pp-mental SE ‘looks’ different from the 3pp-physical neural activities. In the unmanifested state, there is no specificity because all innumerable beables ontological (ontic) states are superposed as basis states of Hilbert space in the unmanifested state of the primal entity; therefore, all manifested ontological entities have potentiality, but they are undifferentiated/unified/unmanifested/latent form in the pre-BB era.

2. Meanings attributed to the term ‘consciousness’

If by ‘consciousness’ you mean experiences and experiencer, then non-living entities are not conscious, i.e., the experiential sub-aspect of consciousness (mental aspect) is latent in them. If you include a function of a structure as functional sub-aspect of consciousness (mental aspect) in non-living systems, then yes, an inert structure (including elementary particles) has a function, which can be argued to be a part of the mental aspect of a state of the structure. It should be understood clearly that structure and function dependently co-arise; a function does not arise (or is not created) after the related structure is fully manifested; one could take an example of making a chair with four legs; if two of them are in place the function ‘holding something’ is also 50%.

3. Interpretation of paranormal data (experiences) by atheist eDAM

My interpretation is that the atheist eDAM can explain paranormal phenomena data because they (including our spirituality) are simply experiences, which have respective neural basis within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. Therefore, there must be some specialized NNs doing that, which needs further investigation. Invoking dualism and idealism beyond our mind-brain systems, such as survival of individual consciousness (i.e., arguing for the existence of soul after physical death), is mystery to me. My dead relatives and friends never gave me any signal about their status; if even any such signal comes to any believer then it would still be simply an experience that has a neural basis. We really do not know if astral, causal, and God’s worlds exist beyond our mind-brain systems. Therefore, we should remain agnostic about it, and try our best to search for even an authentic single datum that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM. If we cannot explain then only we should argue for the theist eDAM cautiously with the understanding that our arguments may be just due to our ignorance.

As per (Calvi-Parisetti, 2008)(online).p5, “First: our mind is not entirely dependent on the physical brain. A part of the mind shows what physicists call nonlocal and nontemporal behaviour: it can be conscious of events happening at a different location and in the future. This part of the mind can also transmit thoughts at a distance and can influence inanimate matter.

Second: human personality survives physical death and is capable of interacting with the physical world it has left behind.”

This is indeed very interesting and well written and summarizes the essence of the whole book. Let us look at closely.
First: My understanding is that there are at least four justifications[i] against ‘real’ nonlocality and nontemporal behavior in QM; they are apparent (not real). However, let us suppose that they are true. However, the part of mind that “can be conscious of events happening at a different location and in the future” are simply experiences or thoughts of related subjects (call them A), which are subjective data and let us suppose they are highly reproducible at any place and at any time, similar to empirical data in ‘real’ science. These experiences/thoughts have respective neural basis within the realm of the subjects’ mind-brain systems and hence local within their brains. The claim “This part of the mind can also transmit thoughts at a distance and can influence inanimate matter” is an interpretation of the subjective data that consists of seeing/experiencing influences on inanimate matter at a long distance from the subjects by other observers (call them B), which also have respective neural basis, which is again local in observers’ brain. Thus, we have subject’s (A’s) NN and observer’s (B’s) NN, which are correlated thru entanglement between A and B (it can be measured by EEG/fMRI) and hence reflected as influencing the matter. One could argue that if physical information was indeed transferred from A to B, a measuring apparatus between A and B should show up, which could be decoded. A further research can be done by moving the measuring apparatus from A to B at many places to investigate what is really going on. One can cook up many such explanations, which are less mysterious than invoked by (Calvi-Parisetti, 2008).

Second: As per Wikipedia (as of 12 June 2017), “Personality is a set of individual differences that are affected by the development of an individual: values, attitudes, personal memories, social relationships, habits, and skills.[1][2]” The human personality does survive after death. For example, the personalities of Gandhi ji and Einstein have survived in their work and many books are published, which inspire all of us. There is no mystery in such explanations. Why should we invoke mysterious explanations such as existence of souls or the survival of consciousness (experiencers and experiences) after physical death? Similar arguments can be made for rebirth/reincarnation, karmas, and other paranormal phenomena. This is what I mean by proposing a working hypothesis that the less mysterious atheist eDAM might explain all paranormal phenomena; for this we need to take each phenomenon seriously and work on it. I have taken OBEs as my project and you may like to take whatever you like the best and try to explain in less mysterious frameworks.

4. Reification/congealing/materialization and no objective reality in QM

I do not mean the reification in our minds. I mean to really produce the ripe-tomato and potato just from thinking hard so that I can cook it and eat. Shri Vinod Sehgal claims that this type of materialization is possible by the mechanism of Sankalpa (firm conviction and very strong concentration as some yogis presumably is capable of doing it). I will never believe it unless it is done in front of me in very slow motion so that I can make video of it and show it to world and then do it by myself.

The process of reification/congealing/materialization experiences/thoughts to matter-in-itself is mystery. Not all 45 interpretations of QM will accept that “there is no objective reality because the distinction between object and subject falls away at the quantum level)”. QM is in BIG mess. There are 11 dualism-based interpretations, 30 materialism-based, 2 idealism-based, and 2 dual-aspect-monism-based interpretations of QM. Can you congeal/reify the experience of chair into the chair-in-itself (not just in mind, but in reality in our physical world)? It is going to take long time even if you want to combine elementary particles to chair. In modern era, we cannot demonstrate to materialize experiences/thoughts to say a car and a chair even if we try our whole lives. There are more efficient ways to manufacture a car and a chair as human artifacts than the materialization of experiences. Do you agree?

[i] As  per (Vimal, 2017).(Section 47.8.1.1), “The four justifications for quantum nonlocality being apparent (not real) are as follows.
 
1. As per (de la Peña, Cetto & Valdes-Hernandez, 2015), QM is an approximation of the phase space (p,x,t) to configuration space (x,t) or (p,t), which misleads to nonlocality. In other words, quantum nonlocality is an artifact of this approximation and hence it is unreal.
 
2. As elaborated before, Susskind argues that QM appears nonlocal because Bell’s inequality is based on classical-logic; QM is based on quantum logic; so with or without experiments, they will differ. In my view, if we assume CM (classical mechanics) is real (in MIR world out there) and local (v≤c) then QM has to appear as nonlocal (v>c) in our minds because of subjective probability, uncertainty, and superposition. Therefore, we need to derive Bell’s-like inequality based on quantum-logic. In other words, we should try to investigate nonlocality based on some other yardstick. We cannot take orange seeds and try to create apple out of it. Classical logic and quantum logic are of different kinds; it is a category mistake to use the former for investigating the latter. Do we have a violation of Bell’s inequality in CM?
 
3. There is a third way to deny nonlocality in QM, which is by introducing the third measurement called ‘comparision’ measurement of (Tipler, 2000) as elaborated in Section 2.7. He used this concept in the MWI, but this can be used in any interpretation of QM. As per (Tipler, 2000), “Quantum nonlocality may be an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the [commutative] laws of classical mechanics, while observed systems obey [non-commutative law of] quantum mechanics.”
 
4. The quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the peculiarity of consciousness (Mermin, 1998). When we open our eyes, we have phenomenal experience of the whole visual field in our mental space with a subjective feeling of almost instantaneously from the 1st person perspective (1pp). It takes less than 50 msec stimulus presentation (Sperling, 1960) for non-reportable phenomenal consciousness; it takes about 500 msec for reportable access consciousness.
 
Although we cannot see space-like separated A and B simultaneously but we can think of them in our minds. The ‘quantum nonlocality’ arises when we try to reconcile the actual measured results of specific experiments at site A with the hypothetical results of other (counterfactual) experiments at site B that might have been performed but in reality were not performed. The feeling of nonlocality is because of the peculiarity of consciousness (Mermin, 1998) (see also (Fuchs, Mermin & Schack, 2013)), i.e., in our thought processing, an illusory thought of nonlocality related to simultaneity arises to reconcile the anticorrelation and angular dependence of coincident detection of space-like separated particles A and B. In other words, apparent nonlocality is in our mental space in the eDAM-MDR-MTI framework.”

 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Sunday, 11 June 2017 10:04 PM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:


Dear Vimal,

there is a great variety f observations and studies, to quote on or two of them would not do justice to the totality of the evidence justice. It is as if you were asking me to prove the validity of quantum theory. A vast field of research. Therefore I would either, if you are really interested in the topic, get the book "is there an afterlife?" by Fontana, or otherwise look at the book by Piero Calvi Parisetti "21 days into the afterlife", which you see on Amazon,

at the link: https://smile.amazon.com/21-Days-into-Afterlife-scientific/dp/1499250584/ref=smi_www_rco2_go_smi_2609328962?_encoding=UTF8&%2AVersion%2A=1&%2Aentries%2A=0&ie=UTF8

and read inside the book online.

If after that you have further questions or want some guidance for studying the field, I will gladly assist you. I can assure you taht it is worth your time if you are interested in the nature of reality; it seems to me that your current paradigm is too narrow to accommodate a lot of experiences that are real and extremely pertinent, both philosophically and existentially,

with kind regards,

George




-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
To: George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear George,

Thanks.

I do not have access to books you mentioned except whatever is available online, which is not much. Therefore, kindly elaborate some empirical data (or email me a relevant article) that can clearly reject the atheist eDAM.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 9 June 2017 9:25 PM, "georgeweis via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:


Dear Ram,

thank you for clarifying this for me. So "theist eDAM" does allow for subtle bodies, and subtle transmission of karma. So the  theist eDAM has a concept like One Mind/Cosmic Consciousness/ Fundamental Awareness, right, and has a larger concept of causality than just gross material information transfer?

I have already mentioned that there is overwhelming empirical evidence for survival of individual consciousness after death
and I have given you two source book (Fontana, and Parisetti) which you could read to inform yourself about this vast body of research, and subsequently, if you are interested, look up the original publications. That implies, to use your terms, that atheist eDAM is dead. Long live deist eDAM! Blush

kind regards,

George

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
To: georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>; vinodsehgal1955 <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear George,

Thanks.

Sehgal’s (Vinod ji's) framework is dualistic Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya, which has 9 serious problems in my view and the eDAM is not dualism or materialism; it is an extended version of dual-aspect monism. Therefore, I disagree with Sehgal. In my view, the astral body, causal body, and manifested consciousness are within the realm of the mind-brain system, not outside of it. If individual conscious survive after physical death, then atheist eDAM will be rejected, but theist eDAM cannot be rejected. However, so far, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of soul/ghost/God after physical death. The authentic paranormal data can be explained without assuming such entities beyond our universe. It is possible that the hypothesis of survival of individual conscious after physical death is apparent (not real) because you may have interpreted paranormal data in idealism and/or dualism frameworks, which have serious problems. I could argue that my individual consciousness and my karmas will survive after my physical death in my publications, in my children thru the transfer of genetic information, information recorded in the environment (entities beside me) and so on.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 9 June 2017 5:58 PM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:


Dear Vinod,

thank you for further clarifying the implications of the eDAM paradigm for the connection between brain and consciousness, and therefore for the survival of individual consciousness upon physical death. Am I correct inn assuming, Ram, that you agree with Vinod on this?

Based upon my knowledge (as well as personal experience) of survival, i would therefore have to conclude that eDAM is falsified. However, before concluding that I could see an escape hatch for eDAM if it opened its definition of "brain" to include subtle energy bodies (sometimes referred to as astral, emotional,  mental,  causal etc, as well as in Buddhist terminology "seeds of karma in the 8th consciousness"). If you do  admit that in eDAM, then I would have no basic objection to that framework; if not, then I consider it empirically falsified.

Best regards,

George




-----Original Message-----
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; georgeweis <georg...@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Jun 9, 2017 4:57 am
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear Dr. Ram and Dr. George,

Dr. Ram wrote:

There are two versions of the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita): atheist and theist as elaborated in (Vimal, 2012c). The real survival of ‘self’ (individual consciousness) beyond physical (information theoretic) death will reject only the atheist version of eDAM.

"In the theist version of the eDAM, the self/ātman is assumed to survive and really exist after physical death, where the degree of manifestation of mental aspect is very high and that of physical aspect is latent (Vimal, 2012c, 2016c).

As per (Vimal, 2016c), “There are multiple definitions of the term ‘death’, such as (Section 2.1): (I) Biological death (termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism), which includes cell death where each cell/neuron dies (a cell stops functioning), (II) Clinical death (cardiac arrest: cessation of blood circulation and breathing), (III) Brain death (complete and irreversible loss of brain functions, used in legal death), (IV) Information- theoretic death (information stored in the brain can no longer be retrieved, used in cryonics), and (V) Gene death (complete and irreversible loss of gene functions).”

As per eDAM, all the entities of the universe have unmanifested mental aspect in the inseparable  form with their physical aspects. At the functioning brain level, when some specified necessary conditions are fulfilled, the mental aspect as inseparable with the physical aspects of the brain matter particles becomes manifest. That is how consciousness, mind and conscious self  manifest in the framework of eDAM.

   With death, brain matter particles disintegrate and brain no longer remain in the existential and functional format. By death here, I mean, death from all the above 5 considerations when body/brain are burnt down. Therefore, with the death, mental aspect will revert back to the unmanifested state in the matter particles which will be scattered away. Further, one thing worth consideration is that in eDAM, consciousness, mind, and self-manifest only when some matter particles aggregate in a specific configuration in an organ what we call brain and brain become functional thru some chemical and electrical pre-requisites. In view of this, in eDAM, the manifestation of the consciousness and self is not plausible from the individual matter particles.

In eDAM, the individuality of the self-take birth only when matter particles aggregate into the organ called the brain. With the disintegration of the brain matter particles upon death ( death from all the above 5 considerations). The individuality of the self also become extinct and that individuality can never be regained since same matter particles will never aggregate to form the same brain.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal
On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:17 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. Ram and Dr. George,

Dr. Ram wrote:

There are two versions of the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita): atheist and theist as elaborated in (Vimal, 2012c). The real survival of ‘self’ (individual consciousness) beyond physical (information theoretic) death will reject only the atheist version of eDAM.

"In the theist version of the eDAM, the self/ātman is assumed to survive and really exist after physical death, where the degree of manifestation of mental aspect is very high and that of physical aspect is latent (Vimal, 2012c, 2016c).

As per (Vimal, 2016c), “There are multiple definitions of the term ‘death’, such as (Section 2.1): (I) Biological death (termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism), which includes cell death where each cell/neuron dies (a cell stops functioning), (II) Clinical death (cardiac arrest: cessation of blood circulation and breathing), (III) Brain death (complete and irreversible loss of brain functions, used in legal death), (IV) Information- theoretic death (information stored in the brain can no longer be retrieved, used in cryonics), and (V) Gene death (complete and irreversible loss of gene functions).”

As per eDAM, all the entities of the universe have unmanifested mental aspect in the inseparable  form with their physical aspects. At the functioning brain level, when some specified necessary conditions are fulfilled, the mental aspect as inseparable with the physical aspects of the brain matter particles becomes manifest. That is how consciousness, mind and conscious self  manifest in the framework of eDAM.

   With death, brain matter particles disintegrate and brain no longer remain in the existential and functional format. By death here, I mean, death from all the above 5 considerations when body/brain are burnt down. Therefore, with the death, mental aspect will revert back to the unmanifested state in the matter particles which will be scattered away. Further, one thing worth consideration is that in eDAM, consciousness, mind, and self-manifest only when some matter particles aggregate in a specific configuration in an organ what we call brain and brain become functional thru some chemical and electrical pre-requisites. In view of this, in eDAM, the manifestation of the consciousness and self is not plausible from the individual matter particles.

In eDAM, the individuality of the self-take birth only when matter particles aggregate into the organ called the brain. With the disintegration of the brain matter particles upon death ( death from all the above 5 considerations). The individuality of the self also become extinct and that individuality can never be regained since same matter particles will never aggregate to form the same brain.

So how do you say that after death, as per theist's or atheists version's of eDAM, Aatman/Self can survive?

The key problem with eDAM has been that there is no evidence, of whatsoever kind, that there is the existence of any mental aspect at all in the matter particles and that too in some inseparable format with their physical one. All this is some part of speculation only to show it off different than Materialism.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal 

 

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 8:06 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear George,

Thanks.

There are two versions of the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita): atheist and theist as elaborated in (Vimal, 2012c). The real survival of ‘self’ (individual consciousness) beyond physical (information theoretic) death will reject only the atheist version of eDAM.

In the theist version of the eDAM, the self/ātman is assumed to survive and really exist after physical death, where the degree of manifestation of mental aspect is very high and that of physical aspect is latent (Vimal, 2012c, 2016c).

As per (Vimal, 2016c), “There are multiple definitions of the term ‘death’, such as (Section 2.1): (I) Biological death (termination of all biological functions that sustain an organism), which includes cell death where each cell/neuron dies (a cell stops functioning), (II) Clinical death (cardiac arrest: cessation of blood circulation and breathing), (III) Brain death (complete and irreversible loss of brain functions, used in legal death), (IV) Information-theoretic death (information stored in the brain can no longer be retrieved, used in cryonics), and (V) Gene death (complete and irreversible loss of gene functions).”
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Thursday, 8 June 2017 2:34 AM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:


Dear Ram,

Let me first answer the simple issue we started with, namely with my challenge to your assertion that no observed phenomenon is outside our physical brain/mind system. This seems to be a basic presupposition for eDAM, so it is worth clarifying this issue before we proceed into any more detail. I understan that the apparent survival of (a form of) individual consciousness beyond physical death would be direct refutation of your claim; do you agree?
Then I further stated that strong and copious empirical evidence for such survival.
In  response, you asked for some references for that claim.
I responded by giving the book by David Fontana as an introduction to the topic, which summarizes all the main avenues of research into survival, and gives many references. I would add now what I wrote Rita: namely another more recent book by Dr. Piero Calvi-Parisetti "21 days into the afterlife"

Since the evidence for survival of individual consciousness (or aspects thereof) beyond physical death has decisive implications for eDAM, I would think it is important for you to look into it.  OBE's and psi are evidence against materialism, but not necessarily against eDAM (because, as you correctly say, they could in principle be argued to be physical brain functions). Therefore, I don't think we need to discuss OBE's in this context. However evidence for survival does lead. I believe, to a refutation of eDAM. Am I correct in that?

Best regards,
george
------------------------------ -----------


-----Original Message-----
From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>
To: George Weissmann <georg...@aol.com>
Cc: matters-of-mind <matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com>; Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sadhu_sanga@googlegrou ps.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, Jun 7, 2017 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 2:54 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
Thank you
Rita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@go oglegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups.c om.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
 Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe @googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.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.

georg...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:55:33 AM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Cosmic Mind is not strictly speaking a scientifically definable concept, as it points to (but does not describe) a realm that underlies all phenomena, but is the fundamental ground out of which all phenomena, all seeming individual consciousness, Everything, arises. Contemplative wisdom traditions like Buddhism or Taoism have been very clear about that (:the Tao which can be said is not the real Tao" etc). It can be realized by Enlightened Mind, but not conceptualized. Something more fundamental cannot be defined in terms of something less fundamental, and therefore Cosmic Mind (One Mind, the Ground of Being, the Source, the Tao, Buddha Nature, Dharmakaya, rigpa or whatever other names have been given to it, cannot be defined at all; Our task is rather to see how all the ten thousand things (phenomena) arise from it, which is the program of the Quantum Paradigm.

Your definition Jack,  is not the definition of any mind or consciousness, much less of Cosmic Mind, as it in terms of mathematical entities which themselves have no reference to qualia/consciousness.experience. Your definition may, if it physically relevant, have implications for the structure of experience, but does not touch the essence of experience ("I am").

best regards,

George

PS: what is your definition, Chris?

George
-------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: 'JACK SARFATTI' 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: Mon, Jun 12, 2017 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is Hawking's Mind of God?

Joy Roy Choudhury

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 7:32:58 AM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks George...this makes sense and is the right approach to defining
TAO or the Way or the Primordial Mind/Brahman whichever term we use to
designate it. - EMPTY IN ESSENCE AND COGNIZANT BY NATURE AND ITS
CAPACITY IS SUFFUSED WITH SELF-EXISTING AWARENESS - This, therefore,
is the UNIVERSAL GROUND from which '10 thousand things' seem to arise
(becomes cognizant!) - from which everything arises - it does not fall
into any category such as an entity that exists or does not exist. TAO
or Buddha-Nature does not fall into any category as being or
non-being. Neither does it fit into the category called 'beyond being
and not being' - it is beyond that formulation as well. Basis for
experience is the cognizant quality (Empty in essence and cognizant by
nature) - there is unity since 2 aspects of emptiness and cognizance
cannot be separated.

HARI OM TAT SAT

Love and Peace

Joy

On 6/13/17, georgeweis via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of
Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:
> <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under
> the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
> <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear George,
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> 1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree withyou that an individual mind includes experiences, function,
> thoughts, concepts,and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3
> minds (your, mine, andSehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do
> we can combine? Oursubjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except
> whatever we havecommon; for example, color experiences of a trichromat and
> an achromat cannotbe combined; we need to keep both experiences in this
> group (such as redness ofripe tomato experienced by the trichromat and
> grayness by the achromat). However,where is this group mind located and what
> are the mechanisms of storage andrecall? You may like to look at (Theiner &
> O’Connor,2010)on the emergenceof group cognition. The term ‘whole’ also
> needs unpacking.
>
>
> 2. There are over 40meanings assigned to the term consciousness, which have
> been grouped in twofunctions and experiences as elaborated in (Vimal,
> 2009e). What meaning do you assign?Perhaps, you mean experiences and
> experiencer: is this correct?
>
>
> 3. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism,which you
> have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson,2017).How
> can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe tomato
> intoripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How do
> weselect one of them?
>
>
>
> 4. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAMframework because
> it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormalphenomena. The
> survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and theexperiencer) after
> physical death is an easy interpretation of these data; itdoes not appear 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/15c9f215ea8-61b8-963d%40webprd-a70.mail.aol.com.

Tusar Nath Mohapatra

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 7:32:58 AM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Cosmic Mind is ordinarily understood as containing the secret of the whole Creation but in Sri Aurobindo's interpretation, it lies somewhere in between in the ladder of Consciousness representing the whole Existence. He redefines the ill-understood concept of Maya and fuses it with Myers' Subliminal and Vedic Hiranyagarbha to conceive an ever-emergent Supermind which is only an intermediary rung in the march of Evolution.

It's hoped that physicists here make some effort to know Sri Aurobindo's ontological formulations.

Thanks

Tusar (b.1955)
June 13, 2017
https://selforum.blogspot.in/2017/06/new-vistas-open-through-life-divine-and.html


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

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

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

--
----------------------------
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/15c9f215ea8-61b8-963d%40webprd-a70.mail.aol.com.

Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 10:04:03 AM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
At this late stage of the game, gentlemen, the idea is to get a structural handle on Cosmic Mind. Unfortunately, most Asian philosophy - and Western philosophy, for that matter - does nothing to provide such a handle. Philosophy yields tantalizing clues, of course, but nothing sufficiently precise and mathematical to be appreciated by most scientists. Jack is trying to get a structural handle on the concept. On the other hand, I've already done so, and it's quite clear that no one here is remotely capable making a coherent case to the contrary. 

(By the way, Joy, if Cosmic Mind were not to exist in any sense, then it would not exist even as a concept, and would not support coherent reference. In referring to it, you embrace its conceptual existence at the very least.) 

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Tusar Nath Mohapatra <tusarnm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cosmic Mind is ordinarily understood as containing the secret of the whole Creation but in Sri Aurobindo's interpretation, it lies somewhere in between in the ladder of Consciousness representing the whole Existence. He redefines the ill-understood concept of Maya and fuses it with Myers' Subliminal and Vedic Hiranyagarbha to conceive an ever-emergent Supermind which is only an intermediary rung in the march of Evolution.

It's hoped that physicists here make some effort to know Sri Aurobindo's ontological formulations.

Thanks

Tusar (b.1955)
June 13, 2017
https://selforum.blogspot.in/2017/06/new-vistas-open-through-life-divine-and.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+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.

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

--
----------------------------
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/CA%2BLR%2B%3DVYcmjmfCCeG_dTMdTCh7XOL-vPyX%3D650j%2BiitjGYXacA%40mail.gmail.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 10:04:22 AM6/13/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, George Weissmann, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind
Dear Vinod ji,

Sehgal: Kindly don't go after the semantics. I follow that in eDAM, experiences from 1pp are not produced by the 3pp-physical aspect. However, it is also true that unless physical 3pp aspects NNs are built up, related 1pp experiences from the mental aspects don't manifest. In other words, the manifestation of the 1pp experiences  is contingent upon built up of 3pp NNs only. The biggest flaw in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. The functions of the structure of the inert entities is also a physical aspect and any mental aspect by any proportion  of logic. Further, there is also no evidence to the effect if non-conscious living beings have any mental aspects in the potential format in the inseparable  state with their physical  aspects.

Vimal: I disagree. In the eDAM, a function is a part of mental aspect because a function does not have mass, charge, spin, and volume, so it is not a physical entity; a structure and a function dependently co-arise. The empirical evidence is that a structure has a function and vice-versa and they are inseparable. The experiential sub-aspect of mental aspect of a state of an inert entity is latent. We have discussed this many times. You are looking from the eyes of Sāṅkhya; that is why you feel differently; this is a major problem in your thinking process. I cannot help you further on this.

Sehgal: You have not followed that the existence of any group experience is not connected to the existence of manifested consciousness in different humans. Please read my previous message carefully again and try to understand  the difference  between cosmic consciousness, localized consciousness (soul), Mind as the subtle structure of nature in the Astral realm, Mind as the aggregate of thoughts. Mind as the aggregate of thoughts or experiences is unique to every person in his/her 1pp status. But manifested consciousness, localized consciousness (soul and Mind as subtle structure in the Astral realm is universally present in all humans irrespective of their unique individual experience. Please also try to understand the difference between Mind as a subtle structure of the physicality of nature in the Astral realm and Mind as an aggregate of thoughts/experiences. This approach has a subjective evidence by the repeated and reproducible experiences in the state of Samaadhi.

That there is no reservoir of common experiences in nature should not lead to an inference that humans can not have the same or similar type of the experiences. When circumstances of the experiences are same and instruments of experience viz. senses and mind are also same, a group of people will have the same or similar type of experiences. For example, sugar will be experienced as sweet and ice will be senses cold more or less in a similar manner to a group of people.

Vimal: Perhaps, I am not clear on my query. Let me try again. I am asking what happens after the liberation of souls. My understanding is that the liberated souls merge with God (such as Vishnu/Krishna) and experiences the same what God experiences. Therefore, God (the eternal manifested consciousness) might have a group-experience, which is not possible. For example, when the liberated souls of trichromats and achromats merge with God, then what is the group-experience related to color: is it aggregate of redness and grayness when God with merged souls of trichromats and achromats look at a ripe-tomato (thru divya-chaksu or celestial eyes), so that trichromats will experience redness and achromats will experience grayness? Then what God’s experience will be: redness, grayness, or in-between such as less saturated redness (redness + grayness)? I hope that you will see the problem. In addition, Sāṅkhya has 9 more problems. Therefore, it is not a tenable metaphysics. We are just wasting time on this dualistic philosophy. George and I (and many including Buddhists and Vedāntists) have already rejected it.

Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 4:03 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks,

Kindly don't go after the semantics. I follow that in eDAM, experiences in 1pp are not produced by the physical 3pp aspect. However, it is also true that unless physical 3pp aspects NNs are built up, related 1pp experiences from the mental aspects don't manifest. In other  words, manifestation of the 1pp experiences  is contingent upon built up og 3pp NNs only. The biggest flaw  in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. The functions of the structure  of the inert  entities is also a physical aspect and any mental aspect by any proportion  of logic. Further, there is also no evidence to the effect if non-conscious  living beings  have any mental aspects in the potential format in the inseparable  state with their physical  aspects.

You have not followed that the existence  of any group experience  is not connected to the existence of manifested consciousness  in different humans. Please read my previous message carefully again and try to understand  the difference  between cosmic consciousness, localized consciousness (soul), Mind as the subtle structure of nature in the Astral realm, Mind as the aggregate of thoughts. Mind as the aggregate of thoughts or experiences  is unique to every person in his/her 1pp status. But manifested consciousness, localized consciousness (soul and Mind as subtle structure in the Astral realm is universally present in all humans irrespective  of their unique individual experience. Please also try to understand  the difference  between  Mind as a subtle structure  of the physicality  of nature  in the Astral  realm and Mind as an aggregate  of thoughts/experiences. This approach has a subjective  evidence by the repeated and reproducible  experiences  in the state of Samaadhi.

That there is no reservoir of common experiences  in nature should not lead  to an inference that humans can not have the same or similar type of the experiences. When circumstances of the experiences  are same and instruments of experience viz senses and mind are also same, a group of people will have the same or similar type of experiences. For example, sugar will be experienced  as sweet and ice will be senses cold more or less in a similar manner to a group of people.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

Joy Roy Choudhury

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 4:31:35 PM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, ch...@ctmu.org
Yes, Chris, you are right! Any expression via language/symbols is
bound. As long as subject is centered in a phenomenal object (here the
sense of conceptualisation!), and thinks and speaks thereform, subject
is identified with that object is bound.

Abandonment of phenomenal centre - is the Practice and such
abandonment is not an act volitionally performed by the identified
subject but a non-action (Wu Wei) leaving the noumenal centre in
control of phenomenal activity, and free from fictitious interference
by an imaginary 'self'.

Love and Peace

Joy
>>> Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga
>>> Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <
>>> Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear George,
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> *1.* Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The conscious cosmic mind is the pattern of PQM EPR "tensor/spinor
>>> networks" on our future dark energy de Sitter event 2D horizon "hologram
>>> screen" that used Yakir Aharonov's "Destiny Wave" to construct us as 3D
>>> hologram images. This is consistent with ER = EPR, but for traversable
>>> ER
>>> wormholes beyond where Susskind's head is at (no-cloning and all that)
>>> see
>>> papers below by Roderick Sutherland on the new PQM action-reaction
>>> Lagrangian at the deeper non-statistical locally retrocausal level of
>>> physical reality where God loads the dice in the Cosmic Casino.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Home <http://discovermagazine.com/>
>>> - »
>>> - April <http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr>
>>> - »
>>> - Back From the Future
>>>
>>> FROM THE APRIL 2010 ISSUE <http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr>
>>> Back From the FutureA series of quantum experiments shows that
>>> measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does
>>> that
>>> mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us
>>> inexorably
>>> toward our prewritten fate?
>>> By Zeeya Merali
>>> <http://discovermagazine.com/authors/zeeya-merali>|Thursday,
>>> August 26, 2010
>>> http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
>>> /article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
>>> https://ricochet.com/archives/saturday-night-science-flying-
>>> saucers-explained/
>>> http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4982779
>>> https://vimeo.com/171013596
>>> Dispelling the Quantum Spooks--a Clue that Einstein Missed?
>>> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7744>
>>> https://arxiv.org › physics
>>> by H Price - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 13
>>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=6168384682634443457>
>>> -
>>> ‎Related articles
>>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:wfpi9i-BmlUX2M:scholar.google.com/>
>>> Jul 29, 2013 - Submission history. From: Huw Price [view email] [v1]
>>> Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:25:09 GMT (28kb,D). Which authors of this paper are
>>> endorsers?
>>> A Live Alternative to Quantum Spooks <https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.06712>
>>> https://arxiv.org › quant-ph
>>> by H Price - ‎2015 - ‎Cited by 4
>>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=15312780679515801276>
>>> -
>>> ‎Related articles
>>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:vAYBvuXsgdTYgM:scholar.google.com/>
>>> Oct 22, 2015 - Authors: Huw Price, Ken Wharton ... (even conclusive)
>>> news for spooky action-at- a-distance, and bad news for ... From: Huw
>>> Price [view email]
>>> Can retrocausality solve the puzzle of action-at-a-distance? | Aeon ...
>>> <https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance>
>>> https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-o
>>> f-action-at-a-distance
>>>
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Huw+Price+Ken+Wharton+spook&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#>
>>>
>>> 1.
>>>
>>> <https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UjI471ATMFIJ:https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari>
>>>
>>> Sep 14, 2016 - FollowHuw. Ken Wharton ... FollowKen .... confirmed that
>>> the “spooky action-at-a- distance” that [Einstein] famously hated… is an
>>> inherent part of ... Huw Price was a young philosopher in Sydney at the
>>> time, and plucked up the ..
>>> Tensor Networks and Entanglement | Quanta Magazine
>>> <https://www.quantamagazine.org/tensor-networks-and-entanglement-20150428/>
>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/tensor-networks-and-entanglement-20150428/
>>>
>>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=entanglement+tensor+network&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#>
>>>
>>> 1.
>>>
>>> <https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:32sjuD6MtgkJ:https://www.quantamagazine.org/tensor-networks-and-entanglement-20150428/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari>
>>>
>>> Apr 28, 2015 - “Entanglement is the fabric of space-time,” said Swingle,
>>> who is now a researcher at ... A tensor network has a geometry, just
>>> like space-time.
>>> Entanglement and tensor network states <https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3318>
>>> https://arxiv.org › quant-ph
>>> by J Eisert - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 35
>>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=5765242303682300031>
>>> -
>>> ‎Related articles
>>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:f8gJY1RBAlAhuM:scholar.google.com/>
>>> Aug 15, 2013 - ... methods of entanglement theory applied to the study
>>> of quantum many-body systems, as well as of tensor network states
>>> capturing quantum …
>>>
>>> 1. arXiv:1706.02290 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02290> [pdf
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02290>]
>>> How Retrocausality Helps
>>> Roderick Sutherland
>>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>>> Comments: AIP Conference Proceedings 2016
>>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>>> 2. arXiv:1509.07380 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.07380> [pdf
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.07380>]
>>> Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density
>>> Roderick Sutherland
>>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>>> Comments: 6 pages
>>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>>> 3. arXiv:1509.02442 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02442> [pdf
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02442>]
>>> Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
>>> -- Entangled Many-Particle Case
>>> Roderick Sutherland
>>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>>> Comments: 34 pages
>>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>>> 4. arXiv:1509.00001 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.00001> [pdf
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.00001>]
>>> Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
>>> Roderick Sutherland
>>> <https://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>>> Comments: 9 pages
>>> Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)
>>> 5. arXiv:1502.02058 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.02058> [pdf
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02058>]
>>> Naive Quantum Gravity
>>> Roderick I. Sutherland
>>> <https://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>>> Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum
>>> Physics (quant-ph)
>>> 6. arXiv:1411.3762 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.3762> [pdf
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3762>]
>>> Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum
>>> Mechanics:
>>> Single-Particle Case
>>> Roderick I. Sutherland
>>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>>> Comments: 12 pages
>>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>>> 7. arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 <https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0601095> [pdf
>>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0601095>]
>>> Causally Symmetric Bohm Model
>>> Rod Sutherland
>>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>>> Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added
>>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>>>
>>> I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function,
>>> thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our
>>> 3
>>> minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and
>>> what
>>> do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined
>>> except whatever we have common; for example, color experiences of a
>>> trichromat and an achromat cannot be combined; we need to keep both
>>> experiences in this group (such as redness of ripe tomato experienced by
>>> the trichromat and grayness by the achromat). However, where is this
>>> group
>>> mind located and what are the mechanisms of storage and recall? You may
>>> like to look at (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010) on the emergence of group
>>> cognition <http://www.indiana.edu/~scotus/files/EmergGrpCognition.pdf>.
>>> The term ‘whole’ also needs unpacking.
>>>
>>> *2*. There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term consciousness
>>> <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Meanings-LVCR-2-10.pdf>,
>>> which have been grouped in two functions and experiences as elaborated
>>> in
>>> (Vimal, 2009e). What meaning do you assign? Perhaps, you mean
>>> experiences
>>> and experiencer: is this correct?
>>>
>>> *3*. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism, which
>>> you have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson,
>>> 2017). How can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe
>>> tomato
>>> into ripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How
>>> do
>>> we select one of them?
>>>
>>> *4*. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAM framework
>>> because it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormal
>>> phenomena. The survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and the
>>> experiencer) after physical death is an easy interpretation of these
>>> data;
>>> it does not appear an empirical datum.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Rām
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.*
>>> *Amarāvati-Hīrāma**ṇ**i Professor (Research)*
>>> *Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness
>>> Research Dept.*
>>> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
>>> Ph: +1 978 954 7522 <(978)%20954-7522>; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
>>> <(440)%20388-7907>
>>> * <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>rlpv...@yahoo.co.in
>>> <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
>>> <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home>*
>>> *https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
>>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal> *
>>> 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/ms
>>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/7ED3BEE5-759E-4D38-A922-0C1FE60ADBFD%40aol.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/7ED3BEE5-759E-4D38-A922-0C1FE60ADBFD%40aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>> 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.al
>>> s.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/ms
>>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHut5vNh_XhAG2a5Ow%3DXWH8UjJdLGRXnBW
>>> -fCXutMm09PiOH%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHut5vNh_XhAG2a5Ow%3DXWH8UjJdLGRXnBW-fCXutMm09PiOH%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.al
>>> s.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/ms
>>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAL%3DOAbUV9CYGw-s-ZGcuuPX%3DEU9e2b1Z
>>> N0MnD5%3DNDVJb9HFBMg%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAL%3DOAbUV9CYGw-s-ZGcuuPX%3DEU9e2b1ZN0MnD5%3DNDVJb9HFBMg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>> 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.al
>>> s.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/ms
>>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BE9725F6-6318-4505-AC97-42E2718627CF%40aol.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BE9725F6-6318-4505-AC97-42E2718627CF%40aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>> 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.al
>>> s.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/ms
>>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15c9f215ea8-61b8-963d%40webprd-a70.mail.aol.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15c9f215ea8-61b8-963d%40webprd-a70.mail.aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>> 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/CA%2BLR%2B%3DVYcmjmfCCeG_dTMdTCh7XOL-vPyX%3D650j%
>> 2BiitjGYXacA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BLR%2B%3DVYcmjmfCCeG_dTMdTCh7XOL-vPyX%3D650j%2BiitjGYXacA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
> 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/CAL%3DOAbVqfpRM_8oq7LifFEKfLDQGNzcJ5LJpPZBOr4Zj1MsCJA%40mail.gmail.com.

Joy Roy Choudhury

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 4:31:35 PM6/13/17
to chris@ctmu.org Langan, Online Sadhu Sanga
There is no denial of self....we are what we are but this present existence is far from the absolute truth....therefore manifested, we must suffer pain or pleasure but noumenon is invulnerable and cannot be otherwise- it is the unmanifested aspect of what we are, sentient beings, are: Phenomenon is our manifestation. Noumenon -timeless,spaceless, imperceptible being-is what we are: phenomena-temporal finite, sensorially perceptible- are what we appear to be as separate objects. Phenomena -it to time are impermanent, illusory figments of consciousness but they are nothing but noumenon in manifestation, in a dream context. Similarly noumenon is nothing; factually, demonstrably, cognizably and therefore objectively is nothing, that is, no thing, but-apart from -its manifestation as phenomena. 

If you follow this logic then you probably know there is no controversy of self or anything in the creation. The problem lies in using conditioned language and symbols.

Love and peace

J

On Jun 13, 2017 7:58 PM, "Chris Langan" <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:
But, Joy. If the self is "imaginary", then what exactly "imagines" it? If the universe is nothing but an illusion, then for what is it an illusion, and by what is the illusion generated? In making such statements, Asian philosophers put themselves in a logically untenable position. There must be something sufficiently coherent to qualify as "self", or denials of self make no sense at all. Surely you can see this. 

>>> Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga
>>> Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <
>>> * <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> To post to this group, send email to
>> email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
>> msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BLR%2B%3DVYcmjmfCCeG_dTMdTCh7XOL-vPyX%3D650j%
>> 2BiitjGYXacA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BLR%2B%3DVYcmjmfCCeG_dTMdTCh7XOL-vPyX%3D650j%2BiitjGYXacA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>

> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 4:31:40 PM6/13/17
to Joy Roy Choudhury, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
But, Joy. If the self is "imaginary", then what exactly "imagines" it? If the universe is nothing but an illusion, then for what is it an illusion, and by what is the illusion generated? In making such statements, Asian philosophers put themselves in a logically untenable position. There must be something sufficiently coherent to qualify as "self", or denials of self make no sense at all. Surely you can see this. 
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Joy Roy Choudhury <e.ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga
>>> Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <
>>> * <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> To post to this group, send email to

>>> To post to this group, send email to
>> email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
>> msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BLR%2B%3DVYcmjmfCCeG_dTMdTCh7XOL-vPyX%3D650j%
>> 2BiitjGYXacA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BLR%2B%3DVYcmjmfCCeG_dTMdTCh7XOL-vPyX%3D650j%2BiitjGYXacA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> 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

Jack Sarfatti

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 4:31:40 PM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com


Sent from my iPad

On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:46 PM, georgeweis via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Cosmic Mind is not strictly speaking a scientifically definable concept

Wrong, it is now.

, as it points to (but does not describe) a realm that underlies all phenomena, but is the fundamental ground out of which all phenomena, all seeming individual consciousness, Everything, arises. Contemplative wisdom traditions like Buddhism or Taoism have been very clear about that (:the Tao which can be said is not the real Tao" etc). It can be realized by Enlightened Mind, but not conceptualized. Something more fundamental cannot be defined in terms of something less fundamental, and therefore Cosmic Mind (One Mind, the Ground of Being, the Source, the Tao, Buddha Nature, Dharmakaya, rigpa or whatever other names have been given to it, cannot be defined at all; Our task is rather to see how all the ten thousand things (phenomena) arise from it, which is the program of the Quantum Paradigm.

Your definition Jack,  is not the definition of any mind or consciousness, much less of Cosmic Mind, as it in terms of mathematical entities which themselves have no reference to qualia/consciousness.experience. Your definition may, if it physically relevant, have implications for the structure of experience, but does not touch the essence of experience ("I am").

Wrong in my opinion. I have a precise falsifiable definition of conscious qualia in terms of a minimal extension of quantum mechanics applicable to living matter. 

George Weissmann

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:30:21 PM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Contemplative Wisdom traditions 
DO provide a handle on cosmic mind
By showing a way that a committed 
practitioner can achieve a realization
Of who we are, already and always , 
although we usually lose sight of that
When we identify with our small 
self and our physical bodies. But this 
"handle" is not a 3. Person descriptive one
Because the "Tao that can be said is not the 
True Tao"; rather it makes contact with the 
Cosmic mind by being it.
That doesn't mean that cosmic mind 
Is not a useful concept, it just means that 
words can only point at it but not define it


Sent from my iPhone
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.

Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:30:57 PM6/13/17
to Joy Roy Choudhury, Online Sadhu Sanga
I think I see where you're coming from, Joy, but it's not logical. It's just the old Kantian noumenon-phenomenon distinction, which was never a logically well-formed distinction in the first place. 

In making a statement like "noumenon is invulnerable", you are of course explicitly referring to "noumenon". But then you are purporting to identify it on some level, as otherwise, the reference and the label are unidentifiable and therefore meaningless. Kant originally defined "noumenon" as existing completely independently of cognition, but this is an oxymoron in the sense that Kant has already made it an object of cognition by referring to it. His act of reference cannot connect with its object if the object is completely independent of it. 

In other words, while we may grant that phenomena are "impermanent, illusory figments of consciousness", we may not say that that they are "nothing but noumena in manifestation". On the other hand, in order to say that "noumenon is nothing; factually, demonstrably, cognizably and therefore objectively nothing ... apart its manifestation as phenomena," we must identify noumena with phenomena, so that the terms are in some sense synonymous.

I think that what you may be getting at is this: where noumena and phenomena are understood as identifications rather than just objects thereof, they can be associated with different levels of identification, with noumenon being the ultimate generic characterization of phenomenon. Applying this insight to the universe or "cosmic mind", we once again find ourselves in a position to discuss its ultimate generic ("noumenal") structure.

And just as we might have expected, it is this ultimate generic structure on which any meaningful discussion of "cosmic mind" comes to rest.  

Joy Roy Choudhury

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:52:17 PM6/13/17
to chris@ctmu.org Langan, Online Sadhu Sanga
A bit more than Kant, I meant noumenal subject simply now means any plane or body of consciousness above a lower plane or body of consciousness so no metaphysical upper limit to the spiritual subtlety of higher dimensions....continuous ontological enquiry without accepting platitudes or dogmas that would end all enquiry is both the origin and consummation of philosophy. (Husserl's Cartesian meditations) and Martin Heidegger and pre-socratic philosophers. 

Love and peace

J

PS: the problem lies at the root of discriminative mind. 

Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:52:17 PM6/13/17
to Joy Roy Choudhury, Online Sadhu Sanga
Agreed (mostly), but I have one small reservation about your view of ontology. That is, you appear to endorse "continuous ontological enquiry ... as both the origin and consummation of philosophy," even if it involves going around in circles or wandering blindly to nowhere in particular. 

Remember, the identification of sound metaphysical invariants is not the same as resorting to "platitudes or dogmas that would end all enquiry". As long as the invariants do not preclude additional knowledge, they can be invaluable to spiritual, philosophical, and scientific inquiry. As, for example, is the CTMU.

Joy Roy Choudhury

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:52:40 PM6/13/17
to chris@ctmu.org Langan, Online Sadhu Sanga
Chris I meant grand recursive function not going around in circles...

When Buddha says give up desire then how do we get rid of the desire to get rid of another desire...it's a same circular loop...the answer comes from tao or from zen -and finally from hui-neng or others -we leave the mind to settle on its own /analogy of muddy water how it separates itself....we simply trust it - receive the grace and move on...the desire for enlightenment is also the last hurdle... it happens on its own when time is ripe...annutara samyog sambodhi complete unexcelled enlightenment....
Too much perfection or excellence is not required...

Love and peace

J

Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:52:40 PM6/13/17
to Joy Roy Choudhury, Online Sadhu Sanga
For some purposes, this is a satisfactory account of the personal dimension of spiritual enlightenment. All in the fullness of time, with neither rush nor anxiety. 

However, what's going on right here, right now, is a search for general, random-access knowledge of the structure of reality or "Cosmic Mind". I'm sure you'll agree that we cannot push this search aside, or put it off, merely to perpetuate the longstanding practice of sitting around in the lotus position waiting for the meaning of it all to descend upon us.   

Rich Norman/Blair Neuman

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:57:50 PM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Joy Roy Choudhury, ch...@ctmu.org
Hi, Joy and Chris: Perhaps the distinction is psychological and anatomical.  Self at it motor center, according to affective neuroscience is associated with real neuroanatomy defined where the periaqueductal grey meet the deep layers of the colliculi, and, we can see its developmental precursors within my studies, which can be derived to extend back to the Cambrian, where at 300 neuronal mass, evolution become abundantly teleological.  The vanishing Self-Mediating structure Joy acknowledges, corresponds to ego, which is demonstrably associated with DMN, and that, is destructuralized in meditative practice, psychedelic drug use and temporal lobe epilepsy.  Rich
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.

George Weissmann

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 5:58:05 PM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jack, 

I respect your intellect and your understanding 
Of physics. We go back a long way, till the  Fundamental 
Fysiks Group. 

But this point, namely that 
consciousness/experience
is not just an issue of the
structure of experience
expressible in concepts,
but that it is of the ineffable 
essence of awareness, 
an intrinsically 1. Person 
Quality, has not penetrated 
and informed your paradigm,
And perhaps it never will. 
Until it does, you will continue 
To respond to statements like
mine here with incomprehension.

So be it. 

Respectfully yours
George
-------

Sent from my iPhone

Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 13, 2017, 8:54:10 PM6/13/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Perhaps we should try a little poll to see what's actually going on here.

Consider the following:

1. That which cannot be defined cannot be identified.

2. That which cannot be identified cannot be meaningfully referenced in reasoned discourse. 

3. People have nothing to gain by sitting around pretending to engage in reasoned discourse about that which cannot be defined, identified, or referenced.

Is there anyone here who doesn't understand any part of this? I'd be very surprised if a single participant here were willing to admit to such incomprehension.

The problem is easy to understand: those of us who were raised in the Asian philosophical traditions have had certain anti-intellectual platitudes drilled into our heads by sages, gurus, and bodhisattvas about what is not definable, expressible, or conceivable, and it's hard to get over thousands of years of conditioning. But then what is it that we think we're trying to define, express, or conceptualize here?

It's easy for those who prefer the touchy-feely side of spirituality to prevail when they choose Jack as their target. Jack is easy; he's merely asserting the existence of a universal Lagrangian symmetry that does nothing to explain the existence, composition, or purpose of reality.
 
But what's the point of sinking into the poppy-stuffed satin pillow of Eastern mysticism while picking on Jack? For what worthwhile problem is this a method of solution?

Think about it.

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:31 PM, 'George Weissmann' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Jack, 

I respect your intellect and your understanding 
Of physics. We go back a long way, till the  Fundamental 
Fysiks Group. 

But this point, namely that 
consciousness/experience
is not just an issue of the
structure of experience
expressible in concepts,
but that it is of the ineffable 
essence of awareness, 
an intrinsically 1. Person 
Quality, has not penetrated 
and informed your paradigm,
And perhaps it never will. 
Until it does, you will continue 
To respond to statements like
mine here with incomprehension.

So be it. 

Respectfully yours
George
-------

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 13, 2017, at 09:22, 'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:



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

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

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

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

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

--
----------------------------
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/8290C78C-F253-40C4-A022-B98A21CF126D%40aol.com.

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:50 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
  1. 1. 
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
  2.  


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.

Joy Roy Choudhury

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:50 AM6/14/17
to Chris Langan, Online Sadhu Sanga
And there is so much unrest in the world at this time because
internally our mind is not at rest, it has not found its true source.
explicate and implicate are 2 sides of the same coin. If the
(collective)mind is at rest, the world will be at rest.

Love & Peace

Joy

On 6/14/17, Joy Roy Choudhury <e.ar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris,
>
> In Advanced stages of Spirituality, the aim is to decondition the mind
> from set patterns and habits, therefore, to understand that sitting in
> lotus posture is not the only way to do meditation. Contemplative
> practices can be done while walking, lying down (Tibetan Dream and
> Sleep Yoga, Bon Dzogchen), sitting and standing (* considered as 4
> noble postures for man). Butting getting conditioned to one way of
> practice interferes with the practitioner's overall evolution of
> consciousness in advanced stages. In Zen, there is conscious effort by
> the master or roshi to break any sort of habitual ideas that the
> students may have and also to plunge them into what is called a state
> of 'Great Doubt', Kensho or satori experiences will come naturally,
> there is no need to desire that.
>
> You see where this leads to - whichever tradition you follow the
> original idea is to de-condition the mind (obviously now we know what
> this means - serious neurophysiological changes are taking place) so
> that stillness and a calm abiding state is reached. The ego or the
> self is purified in the process, the scenario changes
> post-enlightenment in such way that the practitioner sees the world
> differently. He understands the 'relative existence' and also knows
> how to point in the direction of the absolute or the whole mind or the
> cosmic mind/self. He has experienced it now takes that into account in
> everything he does which remains the same- writing or washing dishes
> or painting or making coffee. ( mountains as mountains, and rivers as
> rivers {stage1); mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not
> rivers {Stage 2 realization}; mountains once again as mountains, and
> rivers once again as rivers {stage 3 realization})
>
> Nothing spectacular has happened, it is downright ordinary and simple,
> but the practitioner sees the picture differently, his mind is at rest
> and not wandering (he has been successful in deconditioning the
> 'monkey mind'). This is really good for society and community, the
> right vision and deconditioning leads to opening of the heart and the
> practitioner (he can be doctor or scientist or nurse or gardener or
> political leader anything!) deals everything with compassion and love.
> This is One Stage...beyond that you only practice non-discriminative
> yielding of the mind by wu-wei where the practitioner as a bodhisattwa
> APPERCEIVES (beyond duality at any level). He dwells in non-dual
> consciousness or rigpa anytime. There are even higher stages than that
> but we have to be realistic in what we can achieve in one life and
> what is good for the while.
>
> Love and peace
>
> Joy
>>>>> to*
>>>>> identify* it on some level, as otherwise, the reference and the label
>>>>> are unidentifiable and therefore meaningless. Kant originally defined
>>>>> "noumenon" as existing completely independently of cognition, but this
>>>>> is
>>>>> an oxymoron in the sense that Kant *has already made it* an object of
>>>>> cognition by referring to it. His act of reference cannot connect with
>>>>> its
>>>>> object if the object is completely independent of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, while we may grant that phenomena are "impermanent,
>>>>> illusory figments of consciousness", we may not say that that they are
>>>>> "nothing but noumena in manifestation". On the other hand, in order to
>>>>> say
>>>>> that "noumenon is nothing; factually, demonstrably, cognizably and
>>>>> therefore objectively nothing ... apart its manifestation as
>>>>> phenomena,"
>>>>> we
>>>>> must identify *noumena* with *phenomena*, so that the terms are in
>>>>> some
>>>>> sense synonymous.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that what you may be getting at is this: where noumena and
>>>>> phenomena are understood as identifications rather than just objects
>>>>> thereof, they can be associated with *different levels* of
>>>>> identification, with *noumenon *being the ultimate generic
>>>>> characterization of *phenomenon*. Applying this insight to the
>>>>>>>> >>> Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>> >>> On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via
>>>>>>>> Sadhu-Sanga
>>>>>>>> >>> Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <
>>>>>>>> >>> * <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>rlpv...@yahoo.co.in
>>>>>>>> >>> <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; http://sites.google.com/site/r
>>>>>>>> lpvimal/Home
>>>>>>>> >>> email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> >>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>>>>>> >>> Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> >>> 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/grou
>>>>>>>> p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/ms
>>>>>>>> >>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHut5vNh_XhAG2a5Ow%3DXWH8UjJdLGRXnBW
>>>>>>>> >>> -fCXutMm09PiOH%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHut5
>>>>>>>> vNh_XhAG2a5Ow%3DXWH8UjJdLGRXnBW-fCXutMm09PiOH%3Dg%40mail.gma
>>>>>>>> il.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>>>>>>> >>> 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/grou
>>>>>>>> p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/ms
>>>>>>>> >>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAL%3DOAbUV9CYGw-s-ZGcuuPX%3DEU9e2b1Z
>>>>>>>> >>> N0MnD5%3DNDVJb9HFBMg%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>>>>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAL%3D
>>>>>>>> OAbUV9CYGw-s-ZGcuuPX%3DEU9e2b1ZN0MnD5%3DNDVJb9HFBMg%40mail.g
>>>>>>>> mail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>>>>> >>> 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/grou
>>>>>>>> p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/ms
>>>>>>>> >>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BE9725F6-6318-4505-AC97-42E2718627CF%
>>>>>>>> 40aol.com
>>>>>>>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BE9725
>>>>>>>> F6-6318-4505-AC97-42E2718627CF%40aol.com?utm_medium=email&ut
>>>>>>>> >>> 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/grou
>>>>>>>> p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>>>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/ms
>>>>>>>> >>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15c9f215ea8-61b8-963d%40webprd-a70.ma
>>>>>>>> il.aol.com
>>>>>>>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15c9f2
>>>>>>>> 15ea8-61b8-963d%40webprd-a70.mail.aol.com?utm_medium=email&u
>>>>>>>> >> 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/grou
>>>>>>>> p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>>>>> > email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>>>> > To post to this group, send email to
>>>>>>>> > Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup
>>>>>>>> s.com.
>>>>>>>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou
>>>>>>>> p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
>>>>>>>> > To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>>>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAL%3DO
>>>>>>>> AbVqfpRM_8oq7LifFEKfLDQGNzcJ5LJpPZBOr4Zj1MsCJA%40mail.gmail.com.

M. R. N. Murthy

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:50 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
14 June 2017

I have some comments of the three premises set out by Chris:

> 1. That which cannot be defined cannot be identified.
> 2. That which cannot be identified cannot be meaningfully referenced in
> reasoned discourse.

I am not sure why this statement was made. We all experience
thirst. You may define it as the creepy feeling we have when we are
dehydrated. That definition is unsatisfactory because we are using
another undefined term to describe "thirst". The description is not
like identifying a table or a house that are accessible to our senses.
However, we could meaningfully use the word "thirst" and other words
such as "love", "empathy" etc in our discourses.

The properties associated with elementary particles is also
not within the ken of our experience. However, they could be used
in meaningful ways to deduce the properties displayed by these
particles in carefully designed experiments. Do we really define and
identify "mass", "field", "charge" or "charm"? Yet, they are routinely
used in discourses.

Therefore, even if something cannot be identified, it appears to
me that the referencing term could be used meaningfully.

> 3. People have nothing to gain by sitting around pretending to engage in
> reasoned discourse about that which cannot be defined, identified, or
> referenced.

Progress of human understanding has come about by idle discourse
on everything under the sun, those that can be identified and described
and those that cannot be identified or put in ordinary language.

This comment is not meant to convey that I am with or against the
concepts such as existence of God or afterlife. It is not a statement of
my convictions. My only intention is to support discourse of all sorts.

Kind regards,

Murthy
>> B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
>> To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@
>> Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga
>> Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <
>> Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear George,
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> *1.* Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The conscious cosmic mind is the pattern of PQM EPR "tensor/spinor
>> networks" on our future dark energy de Sitter event 2D horizon "hologram
>> screen" that used Yakir Aharonov's "Destiny Wave" to construct us as 3D
>> hologram images. This is consistent with ER = EPR, but for traversable ER
>> wormholes beyond where Susskind's head is at (no-cloning and all that) see
>> papers below by Roderick Sutherland on the new PQM action-reaction
>> Lagrangian at the deeper non-statistical locally retrocausal level of
>> physical reality where God loads the dice in the Cosmic Casino.
>>
>>
>> - Home <http://discovermagazine.com/>
>> - »
>> - April <http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr>
>> - »
>> - Back From the Future
>>
>> FROM THE APRIL 2010 ISSUE <http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr>
>> Back From the FutureA series of quantum experiments shows that
>> measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that
>> mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably
>> toward our prewritten fate?
>> By Zeeya Merali <http://discovermagazine.com/authors/zeeya-merali>|Thursday,
>> August 26, 2010
>> http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future
>> /article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
>> https://ricochet.com/archives/saturday-night-science-flying-
>> saucers-explained/
>> http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4982779
>> https://vimeo.com/171013596
>> Dispelling the Quantum Spooks--a Clue that Einstein Missed?
>> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7744>
>> https://arxiv.org › physics
>> by H Price - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 13
>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=6168384682634443457>
>> -
>> ‎Related articles
>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:wfpi9i-BmlUX2M:scholar.google.com/>
>> Jul 29, 2013 - Submission history. From: Huw Price [view email] [v1] Mon,
>> 29 Jul 2013 21:25:09 GMT (28kb,D). Which authors of this paper are
>> endorsers?
>> A Live Alternative to Quantum Spooks <https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.06712>
>> https://arxiv.org › quant-ph
>> by H Price - ‎2015 - ‎Cited by 4
>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=15312780679515801276>
>> -
>> ‎Related articles
>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:vAYBvuXsgdTYgM:scholar.google.com/>
>> Oct 22, 2015 - Authors: Huw Price, Ken Wharton ... (even conclusive) news
>> for spooky action-at- a-distance, and bad news for ... From: Huw Price [view
>> email]
>> Can retrocausality solve the puzzle of action-at-a-distance? | Aeon ...
>> <https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance>
>> https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-
>> of-action-at-a-distance
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Huw+Price+Ken+Wharton+spook&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#>
>>
>> 1.
>> <https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UjI471ATMFIJ:https://aeon.co/essays/can-retrocausality-solve-the-puzzle-of-action-at-a-distance+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari>
>>
>> Sep 14, 2016 - FollowHuw. Ken Wharton ... FollowKen .... confirmed that
>> the “spooky action-at-a- distance” that [Einstein] famously hated… is an
>> inherent part of ... Huw Price was a young philosopher in Sydney at the
>> time, and plucked up the ..
>> Tensor Networks and Entanglement | Quanta Magazine
>> <https://www.quantamagazine.org/tensor-networks-and-entanglement-20150428/>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/tensor-networks-and-entanglement-20150428/
>>
>> <https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=entanglement+tensor+network&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#>
>>
>> 1.
>> <https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:32sjuD6MtgkJ:https://www.quantamagazine.org/tensor-networks-and-entanglement-20150428/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari>
>>
>> Apr 28, 2015 - “Entanglement is the fabric of space-time,” said Swingle,
>> who is now a researcher at ... A tensor network has a geometry, just like
>> space-time.
>> Entanglement and tensor network states <https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3318>
>> https://arxiv.org › quant-ph
>> by J Eisert - ‎2013 - ‎Cited by 35
>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=5765242303682300031>
>> -
>> ‎Related articles
>> <https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:f8gJY1RBAlAhuM:scholar.google.com/>
>> Aug 15, 2013 - ... methods of entanglement theory applied to the study of
>> quantum many-body systems, as well as of tensor network states capturing
>> quantum …
>>
>> 1. arXiv:1706.02290 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02290> [pdf
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02290>]
>> How Retrocausality Helps
>> Roderick Sutherland
>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>> Comments: AIP Conference Proceedings 2016
>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>> 2. arXiv:1509.07380 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.07380> [pdf
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.07380>]
>> Interpretation of the Klein-Gordon Probability Density
>> Roderick Sutherland
>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>> Comments: 6 pages
>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>> 3. arXiv:1509.02442 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02442> [pdf
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.02442>]
>> Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics
>> -- Entangled Many-Particle Case
>> Roderick Sutherland
>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>> Comments: 34 pages
>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>> 4. arXiv:1509.00001 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.00001> [pdf
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.00001>]
>> Energy-momentum tensor for a field and particle in interaction
>> Roderick Sutherland
>> <https://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>> Comments: 9 pages
>> Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph)
>> 5. arXiv:1502.02058 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.02058> [pdf
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02058>]
>> Naive Quantum Gravity
>> Roderick I. Sutherland
>> <https://arxiv.org/find/gr-qc/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>> Subjects: General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Quantum
>> Physics (quant-ph)
>> 6. arXiv:1411.3762 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.3762> [pdf
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3762>]
>> Lagrangian Formulation for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics:
>> Single-Particle Case
>> Roderick I. Sutherland
>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>> Comments: 12 pages
>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>> 7. arXiv:quant-ph/0601095 <https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0601095> [pdf
>> <https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0601095>]
>> Causally Symmetric Bohm Model
>> Rod Sutherland
>> <https://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Sutherland_R/0/1/0/all/0/1>
>> Comments: 35 pages, 5 figures, new sections 12 and 13 added
>> Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph)
>>
>> I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function,
>> thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3
>> minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and
>> what
>> do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined
>> except whatever we have common; for example, color experiences of a
>> trichromat and an achromat cannot be combined; we need to keep both
>> experiences in this group (such as redness of ripe tomato experienced by
>> the trichromat and grayness by the achromat). However, where is this group
>> mind located and what are the mechanisms of storage and recall? You may
>> like to look at (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010) on the emergence of group
>> cognition <http://www.indiana.edu/~scotus/files/EmergGrpCognition.pdf>.
>> The term ‘whole’ also needs unpacking.
>>
>> *2*. There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term consciousness
>> <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Meanings-LVCR-2-10.pdf>,
>> which have been grouped in two functions and experiences as elaborated in
>> (Vimal, 2009e). What meaning do you assign? Perhaps, you mean experiences
>> and experiencer: is this correct?
>>
>> *3*. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism, which
>> you have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson,
>> 2017). How can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe tomato
>> into ripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How do
>> we select one of them?
>>
>> *4*. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAM framework
>> because it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormal
>> phenomena. The survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and the
>> experiencer) after physical death is an easy interpretation of these data;
>> it does not appear an empirical datum.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Rām
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> *Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.*
>> *Amarāvati-Hīrāma**ṇ**i Professor (Research)*
>> *Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness
>> Research Dept.*
>> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
>> Ph: +1 978 954 7522 <(978)%20954-7522>; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
>> <(440)%20388-7907>
>> * <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>rlpv...@yahoo.co.in
>> <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
>> <http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home>*
>> *https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal
>> <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal> *
>> 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/ms
>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/7ED3BEE5-759E-4D38-A922-0C1FE60ADBFD%40aol.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/7ED3BEE5-759E-4D38-A922-0C1FE60ADBFD%40aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> 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.al
>> s.20160601.03
>>
>> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942
>> 0889.2015.1085138
>>
>> Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
>>
>> Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
>>
>> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
>>
>> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
>>
>> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
>>
>> Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D."
>> group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to Online_Sadhu_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/ms
>> gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHut5vNh_XhAG2a5Ow%3DXWH8UjJdLGRXnBW
>> -fCXutMm09PiOH%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAHut5vNh_XhAG2a5Ow%3DXWH8UjJdLGRXnBW-fCXutMm09PiOH%3Dg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>>
>>
>> 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/CAL%3DOAbUV9CYGw-s-ZGcuuPX%3DEU9e2b1ZN0MnD5%
>> 3DNDVJb9HFBMg%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAL%3DOAbUV9CYGw-s-ZGcuuPX%3DEU9e2b1ZN0MnD5%3DNDVJb9HFBMg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> 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/BE9725F6-6318-4505-AC97-42E2718627CF%40aol.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/BE9725F6-6318-4505-AC97-42E2718627CF%40aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> 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/15c9f215ea8-61b8-963d%40webprd-a70.mail.aol.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15c9f215ea8-61b8-963d%40webprd-a70.mail.aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> 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/E72F61E8-00FB-4E0D-BED0-82E20D0E9CA6%40aol.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/E72F61E8-00FB-4E0D-BED0-82E20D0E9CA6%40aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>> 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/8290C78C-F253-40C4-A022-B98A21CF126D%40aol.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/8290C78C-F253-40C4-A022-B98A21CF126D%40aol.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
> 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/CAL%3DOAbVWaC4oc9f8nmcNGbigq%3Da1g9Cb7YtnX41Un8Wj0O6JNw%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


Prof. M.R.N. Murthy
Molecular Biophysics Unit
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012
INDIA

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:50 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Living matter and back-action

In certain dark corners of the internet, can find speculation of the following nature:

  • Propose the wave function/pilot wave is intrinsically ‘mental’ and capable of qualia.

  • Equate the pilot wave with the mental aspect of the universe, generally: the

    particles are ‘matter’, and ‘mind’ the pilot wave. OK, who cares, except..

  • ‘Mental’ aspect of universe upgradeable to life/consciousness by self-organization. Happens when a physical system uses its own nonlocality in its organization.

  • In this case a feedback loop is created, as follows: system configures itself so as to set up its own pilot wave, which in turn directly affects its physical configuration, which then affects its non-local pilot wave, which affects the configuration etc..

  • Normally in QM this ‘back-action’ is not taken into account. The wave guides the particles but back-action of particle onto wave not systematically calculated. Of course, the back-action is physically real since particle movement determines initial conditions for next round of calculation. But there is no systematic way to characterize such feedback. One reason this works in practice is that for systems that are not self-organizing the back-action may not exert any systematic effect.

    Well, it’s not obviously wrong..!

[see p.346, Bohm and Hiley’s Undivided Universe).] 




Jack Sarfatti has been exploring a generalisation of David Bohm’s[4] ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics, extended so a particle is not just guided by the quantum potential, but, in turn, through backactivity, modifies the quantum potential field. Backactivity introduces nonlinearity into the evolution of the wave function, much like the bidirectional nonlinear interaction of spacetime and matter-energy in general relativity.

The effects of backactivity are negligible in interactions at the atomic scale; divergences from the predictions of conventional quantum mechanics would be manifest only in systems where quantum coherence occurs at the mesoscopic and macroscopic scale. Sarfatti suggests that this post-quantum backactivity may be involved in various phenomena as follows:

Postulates

1. Life in general, and consciousness in particular, depends upon a backactivity-mediated feedback loop operating on macroscopic quantum structures in the cell. Roger Penrose[15] and Stuart Hameroff have suggested the microtubule as the site of this quantum system, but it may be elsewhere.

Life, through homeostasis, maintains the far-from-equilibrium quantum machinery necessary for its own existence. Rocks aren’t alive because they have no structures which prevent thermal decoherence of the wave function.

There is, then, an élan vital, and it consists of backactivity operating in macromolecular quantum systems assembled within the cell.

2. Backactivity is the missing puzzle-piece needed to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Linear quantum mechanics operating in a background spacetime cannot possibly describe the effects of spacetime curvature due to mass-energy or curvature acting on itself. Macroscopic quantum systems employing backactivity may produce strong spacetime curvature or interactions with the zero-point vacuum energy not predicted by orthodox quantum mechanics or general relativity. Per item (1) above, a “macroscopic quantum system employing backactivity” is, necessarily, alive.

3. Development of a comprehensive and consistent post-quantum theory incorporating backactivity may, then, permit development of technologies impossible without such effects, for example:

  • Communication across spacelike-separated intervals.
  • Faster-than-light travel with an Alcubierre-like “warp drive”[1] without the need for exotic, negative energy, matter.
  • Access to the zero-point energy of the vacuum.

If Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff’s suggestion[11] that interaction with the zero-point energy is the source of inertia (as opposed to the Mach/Einstein view that it is caused by the dragging of inertial frames by distant galaxies), then technologies employing backactivity might be able to modify inertia.

I don’t know whether these suggestions are correct—nobody does at present, but there’s nothing in any of them which seems inaccessible to experiment in the relatively near future. Let’s assume calculations are done, predictions are made, experiments are performed, and the experimenters win the Nobel prize, shafting the theorists once again—that backactivity is shown to exist and indeed both accounts for life and permits the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity.




JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:50 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Everything most of you think you know about the true nature of universe and our consciousness is not even wrong.
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4982779


> On Jun 13, 2017, at 6:21 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:31 PM, 'George Weissmann' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Jack,
>>
>> I respect your intellect and your understanding
>> Of physics. We go back a long way, till the Fundamental
>> Fysiks Group.
>>
>> But this point, namely that
>> consciousness/experience
>> is not just an issue of the
>> structure of experience
>> expressible in concepts,
>> but that it is of the ineffable
>> essence of awareness,
>> an intrinsically 1. Person
>> Quality, has not penetrated
>> and informed your paradigm,
>> And perhaps it never will.
>
>
> Why? You are asking the wrong question here.
>
> Your assumption "intrinsically one person" is false.
>
> See e.g.
>
> Nick Herbert's book "Elemental Mind"
>
> http://www.dreammanifesto.com/elemental-mind-human-consciousness-the-new-physics.html
>
> in fact my PQM points the way to a technology to actually achieve Nick's wildest dreams.
>
> I have identified precisely what physical phenomenon corresponds to qualia.
>
> Qualia are patterns in macro-quantum coherent Bohm pilot waves directly induced by back-reaction of their beables.
>
> Qualia are post-quantum analogs of spacetime curvature induced directly induced by back reaction of the matter stress-energy tensor.
>
> Such back reaction is not possible in quantum mechanics just like real gravity is not possible in the special relativity limit of general relativity.
>
> Rod Sutherland has a precise toy model of this for a simple set of "beables" ( centers of mass of possibly extended classical structures like little Wheeler wormholes in sense of ER = EPR).

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:51 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Chris Langan's remarks on my Post-Quantum Mechanics remind me of Lenard's remarks on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.



Search Results

Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia

Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years ..... Lenard also argued that with his relativistic theory of gravity Einstein had tacitly reintroduced the aether under the name "space". While this charge ...
You visited this page on 6/6/1

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:51 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:31 PM, 'George Weissmann' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jack,
>
> I respect your intellect and your understanding
> Of physics. We go back a long way, till the Fundamental
> Fysiks Group.
>
> But this point, namely that
> consciousness/experience
> is not just an issue of the
> structure of experience
> expressible in concepts,
> but that it is of the ineffable
> essence of awareness,
> an intrinsically 1. Person
> Quality, has not penetrated
> and informed your paradigm,
> And perhaps it never will.


Why? You are asking the wrong question here.

Your assumption "intrinsically one person" is false.

See e.g.

Nick Herbert's book "Elemental Mind"

http://www.dreammanifesto.com/elemental-mind-human-consciousness-the-new-physics.html

in fact my PQM points the way to a technology to actually achieve Nick's wildest dreams.

I have identified precisely what physical phenomenon corresponds to qualia.

Qualia are patterns in macro-quantum coherent Bohm pilot waves directly induced by back-reaction of their beables.

Qualia are post-quantum analogs of spacetime curvature induced directly induced by back reaction of the matter stress-energy tensor.

Such back reaction is not possible in quantum mechanics just like real gravity is not possible in the special relativity limit of general relativity.

Rod Sutherland has a precise toy model of this for a simple set of "beables" ( centers of mass of possibly extended classical structures like little Wheeler wormholes in sense of ER = EPR).



Tusar Nath Mohapatra

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:51 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

1) Knowledge acquisition presupposes curiosity, humility, and methodological integrity.

2) Position and prestige shouldn't stand in the way of clear thinking and perceiving.

3) Science and Mathematics need not elbow out alternative means of understanding life and the world.

4) Geographical divide of knowledge systems need to be bridged and integrated through increased dialogue.

5) Ignoring robust contributions of the past debilitates present discourse and hence suggestions should be examined with alacrity.

6) Narcissism, oneupmanship, or arrogance have no place in the realm of quest for truth and even long titles can be a hindrance.

7) Avoiding verbosity, hijacking of discussion, and displaying pedantry is essential for focussed examination of issues for finding solution.

8) Expressing lack of competence in areas under discussion should be a norm instead of offering impressionistic responses.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 4:54:53 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 12 Jun 2017, at 04:33, Oliver Manuel wrote:

The Creator's Mind is elegant simplicity, unlike the complicated and irrational creations of the human mind.      Only an elegantly simple mind could create an infinite , cyclic universe out of two forms of one fundamental particle, that is far superior to the little finite universe made in a single imaginary "Big Bang."


I agree. For the neoplatonist, the One is simple, and the first principles must be simple. With Mechanism, the One is the elementary arithmetical truth, which is conceptually simple indeed, even if it emulates all the universal mind, which will add unbounded complexity, both in the 1p and 3p internal views. 



Humility is required to experience the Creator's Mind. 

I agree. Note that the main formula of the logic of self-reference is a form of Modesty statement. 
The more you get close to the source, the more you become modest. The knowledge of the machine obey this rule: the more they know (in quantity) about arithmetic, the more they become ignorant (in quality, and proportion) about arithmetic. With mechanism, the exploration of the (immaterial) reality  makes it becomes literally bigger.



Atomic, nuclear and particle physicists made great contributions to science before becoming convinced that they were superior to others and therefore I unteachable.      

To believe we are superior, or inferior, is a serious handicap on the path. The problem with some physicists is also that they can confuse physics and metaphysics, which is reasonable if they put clearly the assumption of the primacy of the physical on the table. In that case, it can be shown that they need a non-mechanist hypothesis, which is also a form of non modesty statement, and a form of segregationism. In a metaphysical or theological science, despite the subject is "god", we can't invoke god in the reasoning, not even an impersonal one like the material reality. Of course, we are brainwashed since 1500 years, at least in the Western world, with the idea of taking the creation for granted. With Mechanism, it is doubtful that there is a creator and a creation.  It is more like an Indra Net, with an infinity of pearls reflecting each others, where even the gods can get lost and forget who they are.

Bruno Marchal



On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:48 PM 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear George,

Thanks.

1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”.



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.

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

Eric Reyes

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 7:59:31 AM6/14/17
to ch...@ctmu.org, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Chris Langan
1. That which cannot be defined cannot be identified.

2. That which cannot be identified cannot be meaningfully referenced in reasoned discourse. 

3. People have nothing to gain by sitting around pretending to engage in reasoned discourse about that which cannot be defined, identified, or referenced.
.......

The problem is easy to understand: those of us who were raised in the Asian philosophical traditions have had certain anti-intellectual platitudes drilled into our heads by sages, gurus, and bodhisattvas about what is not definable, expressible, or conceivable, and it's hard to get over thousands of years of conditioning. But then what is it that we think we're trying to define, express, or conceptualize here?


Hi Chris,

      Fortunately I never had the problem of "anti-intellectual platitudes drilled into my head" by my gurus, I was partly raised in the Asian philosophical tradition. I suppose there are many variations and levels of Asian philosophical traditions, maybe some so-called ones are actually anti-intellectual, thankfully not the ones I'm more familiar with. However there is an understanding in our tradition that the Supreme Absolute Truth or Reality is not "captured" or contained per se by one's intellect. But that that Supreme truth is super fundamental and subjective. But that's not being anti-intellectual, that's what I'd define as not using the intellect for speculative exploitation.

     That's not to say there is no definition, identity or conception of the Supreme Truth. The wise man sees that Truth in everything, while in contrast the ordinary person sees everything in separation from the whole. The sage sees everything in connection to the whole, as parts of the whole, and sees the true relation. That's the beginning of transcendental vision. This is the vision given by the Guru to one who is truly inquisitive to find the answer to your question; "What is it that we think we're trying to define, express or conceptualize here?" The topmost Vedic philosophy teaches us that we cannot force that ultimate reality into our intellect or brains. We are miniscule conscious sparks of that reality, and the definition, identity and conception of that Absolute will come to us through humility in following an actual Guru. This is not just Eastern, but "Western" religious teaching of Christianity also. Jesus Christ was the perfect Guru.

Regards, Eric Reyes







On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:31 PM, 'George Weissmann' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Jack, 

I respect your intellect and your understanding 
Of physics. We go back a long way, till the  Fundamental 
Fysiks Group. 

But this point, namely that 
consciousness/experience
is not just an issue of the
structure of experience
expressible in concepts,
but that it is of the ineffable 
essence of awareness, 
an intrinsically 1. Person 
Quality, has not penetrated 
and informed your paradigm,
And perhaps it never will. 
Until it does, you will continue 
To respond to statements like
mine here with incomprehension.

So be it. 

Respectfully yours
George
-------

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 13, 2017, at 09:22, 'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:46 PM, georgeweis via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> wrote:

Cosmic Mind is not strictly speaking a scientifically definable concept

Wrong, it is now.
, as it points to (but does not describe) a realm that underlies all phenomena, but is the fundamental ground out of which all phenomena, all seeming individual consciousness, Everything, arises. Contemplative wisdom traditions like Buddhism or Taoism have been very clear about that (:the Tao which can be said is not the real Tao" etc). It can be realized by Enlightened Mind, but not conceptualized. Something more fundamental cannot be defined in terms of something less fundamental, and therefore Cosmic Mind (One Mind, the Ground of Being, the Source, the Tao, Buddha Nature, Dharmakaya, rigpa or whatever other names have been given to it, cannot be defined at all; Our task is rather to see how all the ten thousand things (phenomena) arise from it, which is the program of the Quantum Paradigm.

Your definition Jack,  is not the definition of any mind or consciousness, much less of Cosmic Mind, as it in terms of mathematical entities which themselves have no reference to qualia/consciousness. experience. Your definition may, if it physically relevant, have implications for the structure of experience, but does not touch the essence of experience ("I am").

Wrong in my opinion. I have a precise falsifiable definition of conscious qualia in terms of a minimal extension of quantum mechanics applicable to living matter. 

best regards,

George

PS: what is your definition, Chris?

George
------------------------------ -------------

-----Original Message-----
From: 'JACK SARFATTI' 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: Mon, Jun 12, 2017 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is Hawking's Mind of God?

My definition of "cosmic mind" is in terms of Popper-falsifiable real physics using concepts of Einstein's classical general relativity, standard model of cosmology and quantum information theory as extended by Roderick Sutherland.

Yours is completely different and is not scientific i.e. not Popper falsifiable

On Jun 12, 2017, at 7:58 AM, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

Jack: "Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”."

It's not mysterious at all, Jack. I defined it decades ago, and to a remarkable degree of precision.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Oliver Manuel <omat...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Creator's Mind is elegant simplicity, unlike the complicated and irrational creations of the human mind.      Only an elegantly simple mind could create an infinite , cyclic universe out of two forms of one fundamental particle, that is far superior to the little finite universe made in a single imaginary "Big Bang."

Humility is required to experience the Creator's Mind.  Atomic, nuclear and particle physicists made great contributions to science before becoming convinced that they were superior to others and therefore I unteachable.      

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:48 PM 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com> wrote:

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 7:59:41 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Ram,

On 12 Jun 2017, at 15:27, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. This is the first time we apparently agree on something. 

My point was that if we cannot create a fully manifested group-experience/consciousness of just three of us then how can you, dualistic Sāṅkhya, monistic 6 sub-schools of Vedānta propose that the fully manifested Cosmic Consciousness/Mind or OOO-God (such as God Vishnu/Krishna or trideva Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh) exist in which all of us (our souls after Moksha/liberation) reside in the manifested consciousness worlds such as Vishnu loka, Brahma loka, Shiva loka etc. and experience what God experience?

I am still not convinced that individual consciousness (soul) survives after physical death. I am not aware of any authentic paranormal data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM within the realm of our mind-brain system because all kinds of experiences must have their respective neural basis. Therefore, I am not sure we can reject atheist eDAM framework. The theist eDAM is valid only if souls/ghosts/God exist beyond our mind-brain systems.

The soul of all individual machine, and the universal soul, and the root of that universal soul exist in arithmetic, beyond time and space. To make a soul disappear, you need an infinity of highly non trivial axioms. Our soul, in the Mechanist frame, is not a product of our brain. I am aware this is counter-intuitive, but it is the brain which is a construction of (infinitely) many souls. A brain is a tool for making possible to a soul to manifest itself relatively to another soul, with some reasonable probability. In that frame, the belief that we can die, in some absolute way, is a form of wishful thinking. But it seems that there are three fundamental realms, with their own laws of physics, although preliminary results seem to suggest they all obey to some quantum logic/physics. Those realms are not ontologically real, but they are phenomenologically real.

Regards,

Bruno




Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 12 June 2017 8:41 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dr. Ram wrote to George:

"I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common"

I agree with you that experiences of two individuals can't be combined to create a group or cosmic mind. Leave alone the experiences of two persons, even the experiences of one person at one moment will be different than his experience the next moment. So there is no question of their combination.

Our experiences are the conscious experiences as arising in our mind in the 1pp. Unlike the physical objects/particles, our experiences lack the distinctive characteristics, therefore, no mathematical numbers can be associated with the experiences. In view of this, there is no question of their combination by any mathematical or physical technique.

Every experience is a holistic whole in itself and it exists as such. It is irreducible into other parts. Experiences as "wholes" can't be combined with other experiences, either of the self or of others.

Reagrds.

Vinod Sehgal
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear George,

Thanks.

1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”. I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common; for example, color experiences of a trichromat and an achromat cannot be combined; we need to keep both experiences in this group (such as redness of ripe tomato experienced by the trichromat and grayness by the achromat). However, where is this group mind located and what are the mechanisms of storage and recall? You may like to look at (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010) on the emergence of group cognition. The term ‘whole’ also needs unpacking.

2. There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term consciousness, which have been grouped in two functions and experiences as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009e). What meaning do you assign? Perhaps, you mean experiences and experiencer: is this correct?

3. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism, which you have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson, 2017). How can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe tomato into ripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How do we select one of them?

4. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAM framework because it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormal phenomena. The survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and the experiencer) after physical death is an easy interpretation of these data; it does not appear an empirical datum.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 7:57 PM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:


You are discussing here (based on two different paradigms), the question whether conventional objects or particles have an inherent mental aspect, or whether mental aspects on emergent from and depend on complex and very specifically structured processes systems interact in very specified ways (for example those we call animal brains and nervous systems).

My take on the issue

, Don't you both agree that conventional entities like objects, particles etc, are, by their very nature as concepts, mental constructs and thus manifest in the domain of the mind, and hence in the domain of Mind (Cosmic Mind). As the conventional entities they are), they don't fundamentally "have" consciousness. You might object here that though the mental concept of "particle" doesn't have consciousness, the "noumenon", the objectively existing "thing in itself" that we are naming "particle" , can, and as you apparently believe, does have consciousness. But a self-consistent understanding of quantum theory has shown us that such particles (or any other reified entity, for that matter, does not objectively exist. The whole distinction between object and subject breaks down. So the conclusion stands: particles and other apparent objects do not objectively exist, and so they "have" no consciousness.


So then what about you and me? Couldn't the same conclusion (namely that we have no  consciousness) be reached about any living being, which would then apparently reduce the whole argument ad absurdum, since we "obviously have consciousness" (you might add tongue-in-cheek "maybe YOU have no consciousness, but I certainly know I do ":-)  )

Here we have to take into consideration the other insight reached by the above investigation of the foundations of quantum theory: namely that it is a theory of the statistical causal structure of EXPERIENCE, not of a (non-existent) objective state of affairs. The first answer (given by relational quantum theory and QB'ism), is that it is the experience of the specific observer whose observations are being correlated through Quantum Theory. This answer suffices to make quantum theory consistent (solving the measurement problem and Wigner's friend problem), But the price is that the description of reality is fragmented into individual INCOMMENSURABLE accounts. Every observer-participant is so to say living in his or her world. To  restore wholeness (an intersubjective "we" account of the world) requires giving up the idea of a single Universe, and demands a multiverse. At that level the concept of a "Cosmic Mind" replaces that of individual observer-participants. We individuals are all dissociated fragments of that Whole, although we don't perceive that, operating as we do in an individual-centered paradigm. And we are deeply conditioned to identify with that fragment we call I or the small self.
So from that perspective, consciousness is an inherent quality, you might even say, the essence, of that Cosmic Mind.  Our individual sense of identity; mind, and consciousness is derived from the secondary perspective that cosmic Mind has set up as "the individual". So now you can see that consciousness as the quality of fundamental awareness, the "I am", doesn't not belong to the small I, as much as the small I believes and experiences that it does. This insight and the paradigm which it defines is arrived at here from quantum theory and rational reasoning. But of course it is nothing new in itself: it is the essential insight of the perennial phiillosophy, of Vedic and Buddhist teachings and other contemplative wisdom traditions. These teachings not only state that this is the nature of reality, but they offer us a path of practice which can realize (actualize) this our true nature. and allow us to live us that (enlightenment.

The conditions necessary to lend the individual consciousness structures any degree of stability are the self-reproducing and -perpetuating quantum probability structures that we call our bodies, including our brains. 

So now we can try to answer the question you were discussing: no, particles, objects including human bodies and brains don't "have" consciousness; they actually don't even have an ontological status at all, since they are reified abstractions. But of course they are related to consciousness, insofar as the "locus" where they "exist"is the conceptual (Platonic) space, within thought. And whenever the conditions (probability structures arise and are sustained that we call functioning brains and nervous sytems and bodies, than the familiar structures of human and other animal consciousness arise (cognition, perception, memory, intention etc).  So we can say that the familiar appearance of individual consciousness airses whenever these strctures are operating,  which is Vinod's point;  except that it is inaccurate to say that these structures "have" consciousness, rather they are accompanied by the attributes of (individual) consciousness. And by the way,  these structures are not necessarily "material", they can be "subtle" as in  the case of the spirit domain etc


How does this make sense to you, Ram and Vinod?

Warm regards,

George

PS: if you want to learn more about this paraidgm,  you can look up the paper I wrote with Cynthia Larson: here attached
------------------------------ ---


Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 8 June 2017 11:35 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:


Hi George and Ram, 
I'm posting this to just MoM. 
My question to the two of you is do you claim psychic phenomena violate QM/QFT? By QFT I mean the 18 known particles: photons, quarks, higgs, graviton, etc. I suspect Ram will say that his eDAM is different from standard QM/QFT. George if you are saying standard QM/QFT can account for ESP, could you give us your thinking of how that works in brains of humans. 
thanks,
Stan

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you very much George: it will take time to deepen.
Best
Rita
In data 08 giugno 2017 07:13:45 AM georgeweis via Matters Of Mind <matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com> ha scritto:
Dear Rita,

as I already told Ram, I recommend David Fontana's book to start with. It contains a summary of the field of after life studies, and a rich research bibliography. A more recent book by Piero Calvi-Parisetti '21 days into the afterlife' also gives a good and very readable introduction into the various phenomena pertaining to survival research, and also a good bibliography. Once you have read one of these books, you can delve more deeply into any one of these avenues.

I think one needs to read one of these books (there are also others, but I think these two are good for a first reading) to appreciate the breadth and depth of the research, before going into one area or the other more deeply.

Best regards,

George





-----Original Message-----
From: Rita Pizzi <rita....@gmail.com>
To: Matters Of Mind <matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 6, 2017 11:54 pm
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] A critique of Vimal's idea of eDAM

Dear George, can you yield please some recent references of the literature you mention ? As I don't know it at all.
Thank you
Rita

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/matters-of-mind/ 8cda8c63-24bd-48e3-95ad- fb77d6fd992d%40googlegroups. com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ topic/matters-of-mind/ KH1fpbGCbss/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/matters-of-mind/ 15c86564c43-219f-3f40e% 40webprd-m27.mail.aol.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
 To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/matters-of-mind/ 15c86c403e0.2788. bc865524edb343ccb4e4ff871249da c3%40gmail.com.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/matters-of-mind/ CAEKJmQ1uyEqmbfqOFwz0byVU18Bkg ffVr_YpbZY%3DzHWqJV9omA% 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_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

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

NYIKOS, PETER

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 7:59:41 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Jack, you are dodging the issue that George laid out in stark simplicity. Explaining qualia may some day achieve the status of explaining quanta as the basis of 5% of the total stuff of our universe ("ordinary matter" as contrasted with dark matter and dark energy) but you are far from having done even that much.

More importantly, what we know about quanta is not enough to explain anything about what matter really is. Physicists can only tell us about interactions, not about the inner essence of quanta. For instance, quanta do not really settle the age-old debate as to whether light is like a wave or like a stream of corpuscles. Physicists can only make predictions as to when light will behave (crudely speaking) like water waves, and when it will behave like bullets from a shotgun. The real nature of light will probably forever be beyond human comprehension.

And so it is with the real nature of the Self, or as you put it, "intrinsically one person." Even you can see that a human being is intrinsically one biological organism. Why do you think that the conscious Self is anything less --
or anything more -- than one person?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/
________________________________________
From: 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. [Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 9:21 PM
To: online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is Hawking's Mind of God?

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 2:31 PM, 'George Weissmann' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Jack,
>
> I respect your intellect and your understanding
> Of physics. We go back a long way, till the Fundamental
> Fysiks Group.
>
> But this point, namely that
> consciousness/experience
> is not just an issue of the
> structure of experience
> expressible in concepts,
> but that it is of the ineffable
> essence of awareness,
> an intrinsically 1. Person
> Quality, has not penetrated
> and informed your paradigm,
> And perhaps it never will.

Why? You are asking the wrong question here.

Your assumption "intrinsically one person" is false.

See e.g.

Nick Herbert's book "Elemental Mind"

http://www.dreammanifesto.com/elemental-mind-human-consciousness-the-new-physics.html

in fact my PQM points the way to a technology to actually achieve Nick's wildest dreams.

I have identified precisely what physical phenomenon corresponds to qualia.

Qualia are patterns in macro-quantum coherent Bohm pilot waves directly induced by back-reaction of their beables.

Qualia are post-quantum analogs of spacetime curvature induced directly induced by back reaction of the matter stress-energy tensor.

Such back reaction is not possible in quantum mechanics just like real gravity is not possible in the special relativity limit of general relativity.

Rod Sutherland has a precise toy model of this for a simple set of "beables" ( centers of mass of possibly extended classical structures like little Wheeler wormholes in sense of ER = EPR).

> Until it does, you will continue


> To respond to statements like
> mine here with incomprehension.
>
> So be it.
>
> Respectfully yours
> George
> -------
>

--


----------------------------
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/090EABD8-7117-4576-B776-F82E9AC70826%40aol.com.

con...@howgravityworks.org

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 7:59:41 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Jack,
 
I agree 100% with your assessment. Yet, Consciousness and qualia seems to be a fact.
 
It is impressive how lengthy and detailed some of the discourse is here. I don't read most and look at the
long winded dissertations as a page of an incredibly large number of big words, (most of which I have to google) all strung together to fill up the page.
But what's the point of sinking into the poppy-stuffed satin pillow of Eastern mysticism while picking on Jack? For what worthwhile problem is this a method of solution?
From my perspective, I have to walk into a building full of people doing nothing because the electrical distribution
has tripped, or there's no heat, air conditioning or lighting, or the toilets are all plugged up.
 
It occurs to me that those of the poppy stuffed pillow generally don't have electricity, heating and air condition,
or even toilets to think about in their 3rd world environment leaving a lot of time to consider Qualia.
What else is there without infrastructure to worry about.
 
Best Regards,
Eric Sabo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is Hawking's Mind of God?
From: "'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of
Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, June 13, 2017 8:56 pm
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com"
<Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.[1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
  1. 1. 
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
  2.  


On Jun 13, 2017, at 4:32 PM, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

Perhaps we should try a little poll to see what's actually going on here.

Consider the following:

1. That which cannot be defined cannot be identified.

2. That which cannot be identified cannot be meaningfully referenced in reasoned discourse. 

3. People have nothing to gain by sitting around pretending to engage in reasoned discourse about that which cannot be defined, identified, or referenced.

Is there anyone here who doesn't understand any part of this? I'd be very surprised if a single participant here were willing to admit to such incomprehension.

The problem is easy to understand: those of us who were raised in the Asian philosophical traditions have had certain anti-intellectual platitudes drilled into our heads by sages, gurus, and bodhisattvas about what is not definable, expressible, or conceivable, and it's hard to get over thousands of years of conditioning. But then what is it that we think we're trying to define, express, or conceptualize here?

It's easy for those who prefer the touchy-feely side of spirituality to prevail when they choose Jack as their target. Jack is easy; he's merely asserting the existence of a universal Lagrangian symmetry that does nothing to explain the existence, composition, or purpose of reality.
 
But what's the point of sinking into the poppy-stuffed satin pillow of Eastern mysticism while picking on Jack? For what worthwhile problem is this a method of solution?

Think about it.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 4:31 PM, 'George Weissmann' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Jack, 

I respect your intellect and your understanding 
Of physics. We go back a long way, till the  Fundamental 
Fysiks Group. 

But this point, namely that 
consciousness/experience
is not just an issue of the
structure of experience
expressible in concepts,
but that it is of the ineffable 
essence of awareness, 
an intrinsically 1. Person 
Quality, has not penetrated 
and informed your paradigm,
And perhaps it never will. 
Until it does, you will continue 
To respond to statements like
mine here with incomprehension.

So be it. 

Respectfully yours
George
-------

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 13, 2017, at 09:22, 'Jack Sarfatti' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Sent from my iPad

On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:46 PM, georgeweis via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Cosmic Mind is not strictly speaking a scientifically definable concept

Wrong, it is now.
, as it points to (but does not describe) a realm that underlies all phenomena, but is the fundamental ground out of which all phenomena, all seeming individual consciousness, Everything, arises. Contemplative wisdom traditions like Buddhism or Taoism have been very clear about that (:the Tao which can be said is not the real Tao" etc). It can be realized by Enlightened Mind, but not conceptualized. Something more fundamental cannot be defined in terms of something less fundamental, and therefore Cosmic Mind (One Mind, the Ground of Being, the Source, the Tao, Buddha Nature, Dharmakaya, rigpa or whatever other names have been given to it, cannot be defined at all; Our task is rather to see how all the ten thousand things (phenomena) arise from it, which is the program of the Quantum Paradigm.

Your definition Jack,  is not the definition of any mind or consciousness, much less of Cosmic Mind, as it in terms of mathematical entities which themselves have no reference to qualia/consciousness.experience. Your definition may, if it physically relevant, have implications for the structure of experience, but does not touch the essence of experience ("I am").

Wrong in my opinion. I have a precise falsifiable definition of conscious qualia in terms of a minimal extension of quantum mechanics applicable to living matter. 

best regards,

George

PS: what is your definition, Chris?

George
-------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: 'JACK SARFATTI' 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: Mon, Jun 12, 2017 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is Hawking's Mind of God?

My definition of "cosmic mind" is in terms of Popper-falsifiable real physics using concepts of Einstein's classical general relativity, standard model of cosmology and quantum information theory as extended by Roderick Sutherland.

Yours is completely different and is not scientific i.e. not Popper falsifiable

On Jun 12, 2017, at 7:58 AM, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

Jack: "Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”."

It's not mysterious at all, Jack. I defined it decades ago, and to a remarkable degree of precision.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Oliver Manuel <omat...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Creator's Mind is elegant simplicity, unlike the complicated and irrational creations of the human mind.      Only an elegantly simple mind could create an infinite , cyclic universe out of two forms of one fundamental particle, that is far superior to the little finite universe made in a single imaginary "Big Bang."

Humility is required to experience the Creator's Mind.  Atomic, nuclear and particle physicists made great contributions to science before becoming convinced that they were superior to others and therefore I unteachable.      

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:48 PM 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear George,

Thanks.

1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”.






The conscious cosmic mind is the pattern of PQM EPR "tensor/spinor networks" on our future dark energy de Sitter event 2D horizon "hologram screen" that used Yakir Aharonov's "Destiny Wave" to construct us as 3D hologram images. This is consistent with ER = EPR,  but for traversable ER wormholes beyond where Susskind's head is at (no-cloning and all that) see papers below by Roderick Sutherland on the new PQM action-reaction Lagrangian at the deeper non-statistical locally retrocausal level of physical reality where God loads the dice in the Cosmic Casino.

Back From the Future

A series of quantum experiments shows that measurements performed in the future can influence the present. Does that mean the universe has a destiny—and the laws of physics pull us inexorably toward our prewritten fate?

By Zeeya Merali|Thursday, August 26, 2010
I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common; for example, color experiences of a trichromat and an achromat cannot be combined; we need to keep both experiences in this group (such as redness of ripe tomato experienced by the trichromat and grayness by the achromat). However, where is this group mind located and what are the mechanisms of storage and recall? You may like to look at (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010) on the emergence of group cognition. The term ‘whole’ also needs unpacking.

2. There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term consciousness, which have been grouped in two functions and experiences as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009e). What meaning do you assign? Perhaps, you mean experiences and experiencer: is this correct?

3. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism, which you have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson, 2017). How can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe tomato into ripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How do we select one of them?

4. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAM framework because it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormal phenomena. The survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and the experiencer) after physical death is an easy interpretation of these data; it does not appear an empirical datum.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Saturday, 10 June 2017 7:57 PM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:
You are discussing here (based on two different paradigms), the question whether conventional objects or particles have an inherent mental aspect, or whether mental aspects on emergent from and depend on complex and very specifically structured processes systems interact in very specified ways (for example those we call animal brains and nervous systems).

My take on the issue

Don't you both agree that conventional entities like objects, particles etc, are, by their very nature as concepts, mental constructs and thus manifest in the domain of the mind, and hence in the domain of Mind (Cosmic Mind). As the conventional entities they are), they don't fundamentally "have" consciousness. You might object here that though the mental concept of "particle" doesn't have consciousness, the "noumenon", the objectively existing "thing in itself" that we are naming "particle" , can, and as you apparently believe, does have consciousness. But a self-consistent understanding of quantum theory has shown us that such particles (or any other reified entity, for that matter, does not objectively exist. The whole distinction between object and subject breaks down. So the conclusion stands: particles and other apparent objects do not objectively exist, and so they "have" no consciousness.

So then what about you and me? Couldn't the same conclusion (namely that we have no  consciousness) be reached about any living being, which would then apparently reduce the whole argument ad absurdum, since we "obviously have consciousness" (you might add tongue-in-cheek "maybe YOU have no consciousness, but I certainly know I do ":-)  )

Here we have to take into consideration the other insight reached by the above investigation of the foundations of quantum theory: namely that it is a theory of the statistical causal structure of EXPERIENCE, not of a (non-existent) objective state of affairs. The first answer (given by relational quantum theory and QB'ism), is that it is the experience of the specific observer whose observations are being correlated through Quantum Theory. This answer suffices to make quantum theory consistent (solving the measurement problem and Wigner's friend problem), But the price is that the description of reality is fragmented into individual INCOMMENSURABLE accounts. Every observer-participant is so to say living in his or her world. To  restore wholeness (an intersubjective "we" account of the world) requires giving up the idea of a single Universe, and demands a multiverse. At that level the concept of a "Cosmic Mind" replaces that of individual observer-participants. We individuals are all dissociated fragments of that Whole, although we don't perceive that, operating as we do in an individual-centered paradigm. And we are deeply conditioned to identify with that fragment we call I or the small self.
So from that perspective, consciousness is an inherent quality, you might even say, the essence, of that Cosmic Mind.  Our individual sense of identity; mind, and consciousness is derived from the secondary perspective that cosmic Mind has set up as "the individual". So now you can see that consciousness as the quality of fundamental awareness, the "I am", doesn't not belong to the small I, as much as the small I believes and experiences that it does. This insight and the paradigm which it defines is arrived at here from quantum theory and rational reasoning. But of course it is nothing new in itself: it is the essential insight of the perennial phiillosophy, of Vedic and Buddhist teachings and other contemplative wisdom traditions. These teachings not only state that this is the nature of reality, but they offer us a path of practice which can realize (actualize) this our true nature. and allow us to live us that (enlightenment.

The conditions necessary to lend the individual consciousness structures any degree of stability are the self-reproducing and -perpetuating quantum probability structures that we call our bodies, including our brains. 

So now we can try to answer the question you were discussing: no, particles, objects including human bodies and brains don't "have" consciousness; they actually don't even have an ontological status at all, since they are reified abstractions. But of course they are related to consciousness, insofar as the "locus" where they "exist"is the conceptual (Platonic) space, within thought. And whenever the conditions (probability structures arise and are sustained that we call functioning brains and nervous sytems and bodies, than the familiar structures of human and other animal consciousness arise (cognition, perception, memory, intention etc).  So we can say that the familiar appearance of individual consciousness airses whenever these strctures are operating,  which is Vinod's point;  except that it is inaccurate to say that these structures "have" consciousness, rather they are accompanied by the attributes of (individual) consciousness. And by the way,  these structures are not necessarily "material", they can be "subtle" as in  the case of the spirit domain etc


How does this make sense to you, Ram and Vinod?

Warm regards,

George

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 11:35:09 AM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Matters Of Mind, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, rhardcas...@gmail.com, Rael Cahn
Dear Bruno,

Thanks.

I agree that soul/self is not a product of or caused by a brain; otherwise, it would be problematic materialism. Dualism and Idealism are also rejected because of their serious problems as elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). The only remaining metaphysics is the least problematic extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM), which has atheist and theist versions. If soul really truly survives after physical death then the theist eDAM will be applicable. However, so far, there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a soul after physical death. Kindly elaborate in detail how “the root of that universal soul exist in arithmetic, beyond time and space”. 

So far, my view is that the atheist eDAM can explain all paranormal phenomena because they are experiences, each of which must have a neural basis. This needs further research using say EEG/fMRI. To sum up, all these phenomena are within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. We do not need to invoke mysterious dualistic and/or idealistic frameworks. 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

georg...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 1:26:10 PM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
each of which "MUST" have neural correlate? Vimal, that presupposition might be the root of a lot of false conclusions. As mentioned, there IS plenty of evidence for consciousness without neural correlates. I have referred you to some of it. Have you looked at it?




Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 1:26:11 PM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
"Do we really define and identify "mass", "field", "charge" or "charm"? Yet, they are routinely used in discourses. Therefore, even if something cannot be identified, it appears to me that the referencing term could be used meaningfully."

The meaning of a term resides in a specification of its semantic(extensional or intensional) content, and the relationships of that content with the content of other terms. This specification amounts to definition, a linguistic form of identification. 

Terms like "mass", "field", "charge" or "charm" can indeed be defined. Even though the properties of individual particles can no more be directly sensed than the individual particles themselves, they can still be defined with respect to the inferred relationships of such particles to other objects and properties within the same theoretical framework, language, or relational structure. 

The problem with not defining a term to any level of specificity is that it is either meaningless (empty of semantic content) or interchangeable with other terms in the theory (indiscernible from them), in which case it is superfluous. If, heaven forfend, something is defined paradoxically, then it is declared neither true nor false, or both true and false, in which case truth itself is compromised and nothing is verifiable. In this case, the definition must be fortified with a resolution of the paradox, or everything turns to mush.

In order to infer the properties of reality, or God, or the Mind of God, a more or less specific, non-paradoxical working definition is required. One must at least begin with some datum or body of aggregated data, the properties of which are at least amenable to the formation of coherent hypotheses. Without an initial specification to be refined by exploration through reasoned discourse, there is nothing of which to find the properties.

Now, if one has some highly nebulous kind of spiritual insight regarding "the undefined" or "the undefinable", far be it from me to belittle it. If it makes you feel good, that's fine for subjective purposes. In fact, if you can make others feel good by waving your hands in no particular direction (you can't wave them in any specific direction without a degree of identification), then you may be commended for inspiring them to break their mental chains and execute transcendental leaps of consciousness. But objective discourse requires a little more than that.  

The reasoned discussion of Cosmic Mind is worthy of pursuit, but you can't call it undefinable, unidentifiable, inexpressible, or ineffable. For as Wittgenstein has so rightly observed,  

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."  

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

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

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

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

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

--
----------------------------
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/20170614032615.62043695fdfcd29cd3ec981135c49e25.222152cdd9.wbe%40email09.secureserver.net.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 2:55:30 PM6/14/17
to George Weissmann, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Matters Of Mind, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Rael Cahn, Rebecca Hardcastle Wright (via Google Sites)
Dear George,

Thanks for the comments.

Weissmann: Individual minds don't combine to "create" cosmic mind. Cosmic Mind is primary, in fact it is the only Being there is, and individual minds (and other minds on the hierarchy of minds) are secondary vantage points created by Cosmic Mind. Space and time are also secondary, relational to the individual perspective. That is the correct way of putting the "One Mind" paradigm (also Quantum Paradigm") into words.
 
Vimal: In that case, precisely how does ‘Cosmic Mind”/“One Mind” (or OOO-God) create experiences (such as redness/grayness of ripe tomato), matter-in-itself (such as ripe tomato-in-itself), experiencers (such as trichromat and achromats), and our physical universe?
 
What color ‘Cosmic/One Mind” experiences when He looks at ripe tomato: redness, grayness, both, or some other color experience?
 
It seems your approach is top-down, i.e., you seems to assume that consciousness/awareness, experiences, functions, and experiencers already eternally pre-exist in “Cosmic Mind” world which is beyond our physical universe and our mind-brain systems. This is similar to religions. Your must remember that QP rejects dualism, materialism, and idealism.

Weissmann: Although there is no proof of any such fundamental paradigm (fundamental paradigms by their nature not “correct" or "true", they work more or less well, in terms of their own definition of "working". But there is plenty of evidence, as already mentioned several times, and referenced by me, for non-local psi functioning, survival of 'individual" consciousness of physical death, synchronicity and other phenomena that falsify the idea that individual consciousness is ontologically primary, that it is the result of, or always concomitant with, physical neural processes. Each of which [experiences] "MUST" have neural correlate? Vimal, that presupposition might be the root of a lot of false conclusions. As mentioned, there IS plenty of evidence for consciousness without neural correlates. I have referred you to some of it. Have you looked at it?
 
Vimal: In my view, they are simply easy interpretations of the paranormal experiences. Each of the subjective experience must have a neural basis, which is NOT a pre-supposition because we can measure it using EEG/fMRI. This entails that all normal and paranormal experiential data are within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. Yes, I looked inside (Calvi-Parisetti, 2008) and emailed you my justifications.[i]

[i] 

3. Interpretation of paranormal data (experiences) by atheist eDAM

My interpretation is that the atheist eDAM can explain paranormal phenomena data because they (including our spirituality) are simply experiences, which have a respective neural basis within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. Therefore, there must be some specialized NNs doing that, which needs further investigation. Invoking dualism and idealism beyond our mind-brain systems, such as survival of individual consciousness (i.e., arguing for the existence of a soul after physical death), is a mystery to me. My dead relatives and friends never gave me any signal about their status; if even any such signal comes to any believer then it would still be simply an experience that has a neural basis. We really do not know if astral, causal, and God’s worlds exist beyond our mind-brain systems. Therefore, we should remain agnostic about it, and try our best to search for even an authentic single datum that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM. If we cannot explain then only we should argue for the theist eDAM cautiously with the understanding that our arguments may be just due to our ignorance.

As per (Calvi-Parisetti, 2008)(online).p5, “First: our mind is not entirely dependent on the physical brain. A part of the mind shows what physicists call nonlocal and nontemporal behaviour: it can be conscious of events happening at a different location and in the future. This part of the mind can also transmit thoughts at a distance and can influence inanimate matter.

Second: human personality survives physical death and is capable of interacting with the physical world it has left behind.”

This is indeed very interesting and well written and summarizes the essence of the whole book. Let us look at closely.
First: My understanding is that there are at least four justifications[i] against ‘real’ nonlocality and nontemporal behavior in QM; they are apparent (not real). However, let us suppose that they are true. However, the part of mind that “can be conscious of events happening at a different location and in the future” are simply experiences or thoughts of related subjects (call them A), which are subjective data and let us suppose they are highly reproducible at any place and at any time, similar to empirical data in ‘real’ science. These experiences/thoughts have respective neural basis within the realm of the subjects’ mind-brain systems and hence local within their brains. The claim “This part of the mind can also transmit thoughts at a distance and can influence inanimate matter” is an interpretation of the subjective data that consists of seeing/experiencing influences on inanimate matter at a long distance from the subjects by other observers (call them B), which also have respective neural basis, which is again local in observers’ brain. Thus, we have subject’s (A’s) NN and observer’s (B’s) NN, which are correlated thru entanglement between A and B (it can be measured by EEG/fMRI) and hence reflected as influencing the matter. One could argue that if physical information was indeed transferred from A to B, a measuring apparatus between A and B should show up, which could be decoded. A further research can be done by moving the measuring apparatus from A to B at many places to investigate what is really going on. One can cook up many such explanations, which are less mysterious than invoked by (Calvi-Parisetti, 2008).

Second: As per Wikipedia (as of 12 June 2017), “Personality is a set of individual differences that are affected by the development of an individual: values, attitudes, personal memories, social relationships, habits, and skills.[1][2]” The human personality does survive after death. For example, the personalities of Gandhi ji and Einstein have survived in their work and many books are published, which inspire all of us. There is no mystery in such explanations. Why should we invoke mysterious explanations such as existence of souls or the survival of consciousness (experiencers and experiences) after physical death? Similar arguments can be made for rebirth/reincarnation, karmas, and other paranormal phenomena. This is what I mean by proposing a working hypothesis that the less mysterious atheist eDAM might explain all paranormal phenomena; for this we need to take each phenomenon seriously and work on it. I have taken OBEs as my project and you may like to take whatever you like the best and try to explain in less mysterious frameworks.

[i] As per (Vimal, 2017).(Section 47.8.1.1), “The four justifications for quantum nonlocality being apparent (not real) are as follows.
 
1. As per (de la Peña, Cetto & Valdes-Hernandez, 2015), QM is an approximation of the phase space (p,x,t) to configuration space (x,t) or (p,t), which misleads to nonlocality. In other words, quantum nonlocality is an artifact of this approximation and hence it is unreal.
 
2. As elaborated before, Susskind argues that QM appears nonlocal because Bell’s inequality is based on classical-logic; QM is based on quantum logic; so with or without experiments, they will differ. In my view, if we assume CM (classical mechanics) is real (in MIR world out there) and local (v≤c) then QM has to appear as nonlocal (v>c) in our minds because of subjective probability, uncertainty, and superposition. Therefore, we need to derive Bell’s-like inequality based on quantum-logic. In other words, we should try to investigate nonlocality based on some other yardstick. We cannot take orange seeds and try to create apple out of it. Classical logic and quantum logic are of different kinds; it is a category mistake to use the former for investigating the latter. Do we have a violation of Bell’s inequality in CM?
 
3. There is a third way to deny nonlocality in QM, which is by introducing the third measurement called ‘comparision’ measurement of (Tipler, 2000) as elaborated in Section 2.7. He used this concept in the MWI, but this can be used in any interpretation of QM. As per (Tipler, 2000), “Quantum nonlocality may be an artifact of the assumption that observers obey the [commutative] laws of classical mechanics, while observed systems obey [non-commutative law of] quantum mechanics.”
 
4. The quantum nonlocality is an artifact of the peculiarity of consciousness (Mermin, 1998). When we open our eyes, we have phenomenal experience of the whole visual field in our mental space with a subjective feeling of almost instantaneously from the 1st person perspective (1pp). It takes less than 50 msec stimulus presentation (Sperling, 1960) for non-reportable phenomenal consciousness; it takes about 500 msec for reportable access consciousness.
 
Although we cannot see space-like separated A and B simultaneously but we can think of them in our minds. The ‘quantum nonlocality’ arises when we try to reconcile the actual measured results of specific experiments at site A with the hypothetical results of other (counterfactual) experiments at site B that might have been performed but in reality were not performed. The feeling of nonlocality is because of the peculiarity of consciousness (Mermin, 1998) (see also (Fuchs, Mermin & Schack, 2013)), i.e., in our thought processing, an illusory thought of nonlocality related to simultaneity arises to reconcile the anticorrelation and angular dependence of coincident detection of space-like separated particles A and B. In other words, apparent nonlocality is in our mental space in the eDAM-MDR-MTI framework.”

Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


Tusar Nath Mohapatra

unread,
Jun 14, 2017, 2:55:42 PM6/14/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Instead of Wittgenstein, here is an excerpt from an analysis of Whitehead, his contemporary:

[ One of Whitehead’s projects is the rehabilitation of all Forms, or “eternal objects” – both qualitative and quantitative. Whitehead envisions the eternal objects as functioning in the creative advance in two different ways. First, they exist as potentials, possibilities, lures for feeling, or ideals. In this mode, each eternal object is a potential form of definiteness that might, given the proper motivation and the proper circumstances, become an element in the character of a new occasion of experience. In their second mode of functioning, eternal objects do in fact characterize occasions that have become fully actual and are now in the settled past. Thus eternal objects are both shapes of possibility and shapes of settled fact. Part of the purpose of this particular chapter is to show how thoughts concerning both quality and quantity are amenable to systematic thought and also relevant to the structure of the world.

It is important, in this context, to understand how Whitehead envisions the relationship between potentiality and actuality. The situation, or world, out of which actual occasions arise never fully determines the character that those occasions will have. This is the truth of indeterminacy which quantum mechanics has so forcibly brought to the attention of modern thought. Every event, or actual occasion, grows out of a field of possibilities many of which are contraries, so that it is impossible to realize all of them at the same time and in the same place. In its coming to be, each event must choose among incompatible possibilities so that it grows towards a coherent, complete and fully definite “aesthetic synthesis of possibilities.”  This growth towards definiteness is governed by both logical and aesthetic criteria, and it strives towards the maximization of value in itself and in its relevant future.]

The whole paper can be read at:

http://ericweiss.com/a-commentary-on-chapter-ten-of-science-and-the-modern-world-by-alfred-north-whitehead


...

JACK SARFATTI

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 7:32:18 AM6/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli, who was known for his colorful objections to incorrect or sloppy thinking.[1][2] Rudolf Peierls documents an instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'."[3] This is also often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong," or "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" in Pauli's native German. Peierls remarks that quite a few apocryphal stories of this kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched for by him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau, "What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not."[3]
The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science and is considered derogatory.[4]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Jump up ^ Shermer M (2006). "Wronger Than Wrong". Scientific American.
  2. Jump up ^ Jung, C. G.; Pauli, Wolfgang; Meier, C. A.; Zabriskie, Beverley; Roscoe, David (2014-07-01). Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932–1958. Princeton University Press. p. xxxiii. ISBN 978-0-691-16147-1.
  3. ^ Jump up to: a b Peierls, R. (1960). "Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, 1900–1958". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. 5: 186. doi:10.1098/rsbm.1960.0014.
  4. Jump up ^ Oliver Burkeman (September 19, 2005). "Not even wrong". The Guardian.

External links[edit]

"
On Jun 13, 2017, at 11:33 AM, 'George Weissmann' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Contemplative Wisdom traditions 
DO provide a handle on cosmic mind
By showing a way that a committed 
practitioner can achieve a realization
Of who we are, already and always , 
although we usually lose sight of that
When we identify with our small 
self and our physical bodies. But this 
"handle" is not a 3. Person descriptive one
Because the "Tao that can be said is not the 
True Tao"; rather it makes contact with the 
Cosmic mind by being it.
That doesn't mean that cosmic mind 
Is not a useful concept, it just means that 
words can only point at it but not define it


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 13, 2017, at 06:41, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

At this late stage of the game, gentlemen, the idea is to get a structural handle on Cosmic Mind. Unfortunately, most Asian philosophy - and Western philosophy, for that matter - does nothing to provide such a handle. Philosophy yields tantalizing clues, of course, but nothing sufficiently precise and mathematical to be appreciated by most scientists. Jack is trying to get a structural handle on the concept. On the other hand, I've already done so, and it's quite clear that no one here is remotely capable making a coherent case to the contrary. 

(By the way, Joy, if Cosmic Mind were not to exist in any sense, then it would not exist even as a concept, and would not support coherent reference. In referring to it, you embrace its conceptual existence at the very least.) 
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Tusar Nath Mohapatra <tusarnm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Cosmic Mind is ordinarily understood as containing the secret of the whole Creation but in Sri Aurobindo's interpretation, it lies somewhere in between in the ladder of Consciousness representing the whole Existence. He redefines the ill-understood concept of Maya and fuses it with Myers' Subliminal and Vedic Hiranyagarbha to conceive an ever-emergent Supermind which is only an intermediary rung in the march of Evolution.

It's hoped that physicists here make some effort to know Sri Aurobindo's ontological formulations.

Thanks

Tusar (b.1955)
June 13, 2017
https://selforum.blogspot.in/2017/06/new-vistas-open-through-life-divine-and.html


On Jun 13, 2017 3:22 PM, "georgeweis via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Cosmic Mind is not strictly speaking a scientifically definable concept, as it points to (but does not describe) a realm that underlies all phenomena, but is the fundamental ground out of which all phenomena, all seeming individual consciousness, Everything, arises. Contemplative wisdom traditions like Buddhism or Taoism have been very clear about that (:the Tao which can be said is not the real Tao" etc). It can be realized by Enlightened Mind, but not conceptualized. Something more fundamental cannot be defined in terms of something less fundamental, and therefore Cosmic Mind (One Mind, the Ground of Being, the Source, the Tao, Buddha Nature, Dharmakaya, rigpa or whatever other names have been given to it, cannot be defined at all; Our task is rather to see how all the ten thousand things (phenomena) arise from it, which is the program of the Quantum Paradigm.


Your definition Jack,  is not the definition of any mind or consciousness, much less of Cosmic Mind, as it in terms of mathematical entities which themselves have no reference to qualia/consciousness.experience. Your definition may, if it physically relevant, have implications for the structure of experience, but does not touch the essence of experience ("I am").

best regards,

George

PS: what is your definition, Chris?

George
-------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: 'JACK SARFATTI' 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: Mon, Jun 12, 2017 1:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] What is Hawking's Mind of God?

My definition of "cosmic mind" is in terms of Popper-falsifiable real physics using concepts of Einstein's classical general relativity, standard model of cosmology and quantum information theory as extended by Roderick Sutherland.

Yours is completely different and is not scientific i.e. not Popper falsifiable

On Jun 12, 2017, at 7:58 AM, Chris Langan <ch...@ctmu.org> wrote:

Jack: "Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”."

It's not mysterious at all, Jack. I defined it decades ago, and to a remarkable degree of precision.
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Oliver Manuel <omat...@gmail.com> wrote:
The Creator's Mind is elegant simplicity, unlike the complicated and irrational creations of the human mind.      Only an elegantly simple mind could create an infinite , cyclic universe out of two forms of one fundamental particle, that is far superior to the little finite universe made in a single imaginary "Big Bang."

Humility is required to experience the Creator's Mind.  Atomic, nuclear and particle physicists made great contributions to science before becoming convinced that they were superior to others and therefore I unteachable.      
On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:48 PM 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Jun 11, 2017, at 8:44 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear George,

Thanks.

1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”.




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+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.

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+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.

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.

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.

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.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 7:32:18 AM6/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Rām,

On 14 Jun 2017, at 16:47, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Bruno,

Thanks.

I agree that soul/self is not a product of or caused by a brain; otherwise, it would be problematic materialism. Dualism and Idealism are also rejected because of their serious problems as elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). The only remaining metaphysics is the least problematic extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM), which has atheist and theist versions. If soul really truly survives after physical death then the theist eDAM will be applicable. However, so far, there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a soul after physical death. Kindly elaborate in detail how “the root of that universal soul exist in arithmetic, beyond time and space”. 

So far, my view is that the atheist eDAM can explain all paranormal phenomena because they are experiences, each of which must have a neural basis. This needs further research using say EEG/fMRI. To sum up, all these phenomena are within the realm of subject’s mind-brain system. We do not need to invoke mysterious dualistic and/or idealistic frameworks. 

As far as I understand it, theistic eDAM might be recovered though some arithmetical "hypostases", (p and Bp, or Bp and Bp & p), which are intensional variants of Gödel provability predicates (Bp) imposed by the incompleteness phenomenon.  I will add explanation when I am less busy (apology).

With mechanism, we need only to assume elementary arithmetic (axioms like x + 0 = x, x + (y + 1) = (x + y) + 1, etc.). We can prove the existence of the universal numbers and their dreams in arithmetic, and the physical reality is recovered from a statistic on all computations in arithmetic.The advantage is that it provides a theory of soul and matter very close to the theory of the rationalist mystics, like in the MilindaPanha, or the greeks neopythagorean or neoplatonist (and many others, to be sure).

With respect to physics, mechanism can be considered as idealist (the physical reality becomes a first person plural computational history selection), but it is monism and non idealist on the basic reality, which is mainly Pythagorean (only numbers, or anything Turing-Church equivalent).

We cannot die in the 1p views, as when we die, there are always, in arithmetic, an infinity of computations in which we survive, so I am not sure *atheist* eDAM is compatible with Mechanism (the idea that my body/brain is Turing emulable).

Best regards,

Bruno




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

Chris Langan

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 11:51:27 AM6/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
An apposite connection to Whitehead, Tusar. In fact, the central content of the essay you link, along with the quote from Wittgenstein, has been elegantly packed into one and the same system (the CTMU). All of the following can be naturally interpreted in the same formalism (along with much more):

*We, and all other actual occasions, can discriminate within each moment of our experience a multiplicity of constituent events.
*Each of these events has certain qualities, and is in certain relations with other entities. The qualities in terms of which we know events are abstractions from the events, and are here designated eternal objects. Much of this essay concerns the nature of eternal objects and of the relations that they form to each other and to actual occasions.
*Our perceptions, directly or indirectly, inform us as to the nature of these discriminated events.
*Our experience of the world can be diversified, which is to say that our experiences can be analyzed into events and the abstract factors (eternal objects) characterizing them.
*We can form an adequate description of the whole of our experience in terms of the events and eternal objects thus diversified.
*The eternal objects together constitute a ‘realm of possibility’, and all actualities arise, in one sense, out of this realm.

In fact, Whitehead was a metaphysician whose work adumbrated much of what would later become the CTMU.

Incidentally, don't mind Jack. "Not even wrong" is one of Jack's favorite phrases, and he never misses an opportunity to wear it out. (Interesting question: to whom did Pauli originally address this phrase? One thing's for sure - it wasn't Alfred North Whitehead or Ludwig Wittgenstein! Nor was Pauli's intention to provide Jack with a blanket refutation of anything with which Jack happens to disagree.)


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

--
----------------------------
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/D05EA9B4-5298-480A-9443-1E16E686AAFA%40aol.com.

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 11:51:28 AM6/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Chris,


On 14 Jun 2017, at 17:47, Chris Langan wrote:

"Do we really define and identify "mass", "field", "charge" or "charm"? Yet, they are routinely used in discourses. Therefore, even if something cannot be identified, it appears to me that the referencing term could be used meaningfully."

The meaning of a term resides in a specification of its semantic(extensional or intensional) content, and the relationships of that content with the content of other terms. This specification amounts to definition, a linguistic form of identification. 

Terms like "mass", "field", "charge" or "charm" can indeed be defined. Even though the properties of individual particles can no more be directly sensed than the individual particles themselves, they can still be defined with respect to the inferred relationships of such particles to other objects and properties within the same theoretical framework, language, or relational structure. 

The problem with not defining a term to any level of specificity is that it is either meaningless (empty of semantic content) or interchangeable with other terms in the theory (indiscernible from them), in which case it is superfluous. If, heaven forfend, something is defined paradoxically, then it is declared neither true nor false, or both true and false, in which case truth itself is compromised and nothing is verifiable. In this case, the definition must be fortified with a resolution of the paradox, or everything turns to mush.

In order to infer the properties of reality, or God, or the Mind of God, a more or less specific, non-paradoxical working definition is required. One must at least begin with some datum or body of aggregated data, the properties of which are at least amenable to the formation of coherent hypotheses. Without an initial specification to be refined by exploration through reasoned discourse, there is nothing of which to find the properties.

Now, if one has some highly nebulous kind of spiritual insight regarding "the undefined" or "the undefinable", far be it from me to belittle it. If it makes you feel good, that's fine for subjective purposes. In fact, if you can make others feel good by waving your hands in no particular direction (you can't wave them in any specific direction without a degree of identification), then you may be commended for inspiring them to break their mental chains and execute transcendental leaps of consciousness. But objective discourse requires a little more than that.  

The reasoned discussion of Cosmic Mind is worthy of pursuit, but you can't call it undefinable, unidentifiable, inexpressible, or ineffable. For as Wittgenstein has so rightly observed,  

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."  


But what was Wittgenstein talking about ?  (grin).

What people have to do, if they have a theory of the "Cosmic Mind", is to explain why the Cosmic Mind is undefinable, unidentifiable or ineffable, and explain what makes it possible to still talk about it.

This is were the logic of self-reference excels the most, by differentiating all the true notions that the machine is able to justify rationally (axiomatized by the modal logic G) and all the truth that the machine cannot justify rationally but can still either experience, or guess, or intuit, or derive from another hypothesis that they can only guess, intuit (amazingly axiomatized by the logic G*). The (Löbian) machine *can* prove, with B = prove, ~= not, f = "0=1":

 ~Bf -> ~B(~Bf), 

that is "if I am consistent then I will not justify rationally that I am consistent". Self-consistency is unprovable when we are consistent, but that very fact is already provable by the Löbian machine. They can also intuit that they cannot even define "truth", "knowledge" and "correctness", but they can define good approximation, and explain why they cannot do better than that.

When G* "talks" to the machine, from its 3p-self view, it looks like 

Thou are consistent (G* proves ~Bf)
Thou will not assert that thou are consistent(G* proves  ~B(~Bf))
Thou will assert (if I am consistent then I will not assert that I am consistent) (G proves  ~Bf -> ~B(~Bf)),
etc.

Bruno Marchal



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.

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

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 15, 2017, 3:51:18 PM6/15/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, georg...@aol.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind, Rael Cahn, Rebecca Hardcastle Wright (via Google Sites)
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: The biggest flaw in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. […]You have stated that as per eDAM, the mental aspects are functions. OK. But is there any evidence to this hypothesis? Nil. It is only a speculation without any basis. the mental aspects could also be some structure.
Your definition of the functions as one not having mass, charge, spin has a very peripheral and shallow view and a lot more needs to be done to unpack these terms. Before functions, let us try to unpack as to what is a structure? In my view, a structure of any entity in the universe is the "ontological stuff" due to which the structure has its very existence. Without the "ontological stuff", which is the structure, there is no existence of any entity. But a problem has been that a structure of an entity can't be comprehended and described directly as a structure. A structure is described by a set of attributes which are the functions. These functions have an intricate relationship with the structure and always do take birth from the structure itself. For example, mass, charge, and spin are the functions/attributes of the of elementary particles by which particle ( i.e its structure) is described. So, mass, charge, and spin are already Functions of the elementary particles. Therefore, any attempt to define Functions as one not having mass, charge, and spin is misleading and contradictory.
 
Then how to define Functions? I think Functions are
i) Some attributes of the structure by which structure is described.
ii) These attributes have genesis in the structure itself i.e functions take birth from the structure itself.
iii) In the majority of the cases, functions do manifest when the structure undertakes some internal and external dynamic structural change.
 
There is no meaning of any Function existing on its own (i.e not taking birth from the structure) as hypothesized in eDAM and then supported by Nagarjuna's Buddhist metaphysics of co-origination, co-development, and co-manifestation. Yes, structure and function can co-origin, co-develop and co-manifest but say that function has not originated (taken birth) from the structure but it existed on its own is an illogical assertion. If you think otherwise, please provide a single instance in the universe wherein any function might not be taking birth from the structure. I repeat even a single instance.
 
So first please have the clarity on the concept of the Function and Structure before inferring that the mental aspects are the Functions. Then you have stated that empirical evidence indicates that a structure has the functions and vice versa and they are inseparable. Yes, I agree to this. But you ignore the fact that empirical evidence also indicates that Functions do take birth from the Structure only. But eDAM rests upon its primary doctrine that Functions (mental aspects) don't take birth from the Structure (physical). But from where such functions emerge and in what form is the existence of the functions? No explanation from eDAM. Thus a great explanatory gap.
 
Vimal: I have addressed this query many times but you disagree because you look at from the ‘eyes’ of dualistic Sāṅkhya and monistic Cārvāka (materialism); so let agree that we disagree. Briefly, the empirical subjective and objective evidence for the eDAM are: all fMRI and EEG data related to conscious states are consistent with the eDAM’s inseparability and a structure has an inseparable function, which dependently co-arise from the eDAM’s perspective. For example, let us build a four-leg table (structure) to hold books as a function: when we build only two legs, then its function is only 50% accomplished; when all 4 legs are built, then its function is 100% accomplished, i.e., both aspects (structure and function) dependently co-arise. This is how the eDAM interprets it. Other metaphysics will interpret differently.
 
Sehgal: Actually, the binding and liberation of souls are misnomers. Soul was never bounded in the real sense. So where is the question of its liberation? Space in various vessels never gets bounded in real terms, so there is no question of its liberation. Bounding of the soul is an illusion due to ignorance in mind, the way binding of the space is an illusion. When the vessel of the ignorance is broken, the illusion of bounding vanishes and apparent binding of a soul is over.
 
When the apparent merging of the soul take place with God (cosmic consciousness), the identity of the soul also is over. So it is now the God which experiences and not the soul (due to is loose of its identity). In the aforesaid analogy when the vessel will break, the enclosed micro level space will loose its identity and it is now macro level/cosmological space which will take over. The same is applicable to soul and God. When the soul loses its identity, God takes over it in terms of the experience.
 
Your above problem is due to a number of misinterpretations viz.
 
i) First, as explained above, on liberation, the soul has no longer its identity. It is the cosmic consciousness which has the experiences. Even before the so-called liberation, God has the universal capacity to experience.
 
ii) Even before the apparent liberation, the experience of the color viz. trichromat or achromat is not the function of the souls or not even of the mind. Colour sensitiveness is due to the external bodily organ called eyes. So trichromat or achromat are due to organ eyes and not due to soul or mind.
 
iii) Cosmic consciousness or God is not dependent upon eyes for experiencing anything. It is the localized consciousness or soul which remains dependent upon eyes for seeing anything.
 
iv) When any experience shall be beyond eyes, the whole concept of the trichromat or achromat or of colors shall also be over. Otherwise, also you know that in reality at the noumenal level, there is nothing like any color. All is the e.m energy of the different wavelength. At the phenomenal level, we perceive this phenomenal reality in different colors.
 
v) What God or cosmic consciousness experiences anything, how you and I can know this? It is only God knows what He experiences. How an ant on the deserts of the Pacific oceans know as to what President Trump feels?

You have highly misinterpreted Sankhya's dualism in the matter of the thoughts production. Unless and until the mind is treated as a conscious element and the brain as a physical element, dualism continues to persist. But this is a wrong interpretation of Saankhya. The mind is also a physical derivative of Moola Prakriti in the Astral realm of nature like that of the brain in the physical realm, with a radical difference in the nature of their physicality. In view of this, the interaction between the mind and the brain is one to one same interaction i.e. physical to physical. Therefore, there is no dualism.
 
Vimal: No, eyes are just receiving organs, retina does not experience anything. It is visual cortical areas (such as V8-NN) that are responsible for color experiences. In the eDAM, a specific subjective experience is selected thru matching of feed forward signals with feedback signals as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010c), which is experienced by the ‘self’.
 
Yes, I will never know what you feel or God feels because experiences and thoughts are personal/private from 1pp; this is precisely my point that there is no group-experiencer (such as a group-soul or God), which has a significant implication that there is no way of experiencing/knowing what others experience/think even at Savikalpa and (thoughtless) Nirvikalpa Samādhi (SS/NS) states. Therefore, your claim that a soul withdraws from a body at SS/NS states and roams around the universe and can know/experience what others experience/think is untenable. The same is true in for paranormal experiences in the above sense.
 
Furthermore, if we lose our identity in God and cannot enjoy the experiences what God feels (such as bliss) and we cannot be God, then what is the advantage of making so much lifelong effort for liberation/Moksha? I am not sure this is Vedānta’s view. In Advaita, there is no difference between a soul and God/Brahman. In Islam, I guess, you get many beautiful girls and wine to enjoy in heaven if you do what Islam says you to do; this is how suicide bombers are brainwashed. In Buddhism, the feeling of suffering can be minimized thru Noble Eightfold Path on daily basis. In my view, these are the logical problems idealism and dualism (OOO-God theory) face. The eDAM does not have such problems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 15 June 2017 9:12 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,


Sehgal: Kindly don't go after the semantics. I follow that in eDAM, experiences from 1pp are not produced by the 3pp-physical aspect. However, it is also true that unless physical 3pp aspects NNs are built up, related 1pp experiences from the mental aspects don't manifest. In other words, the manifestation of the 1pp experiences  is contingent upon built up of 3pp NNs only. The biggest flaw in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. The functions of the structure of the inert entities is also a physical aspect and any mental aspect by any proportion  of logic. Further, there is also no evidence to the effect if non-conscious living beings have any mental aspects in the potential format in the inseparable  state with their physical  aspects.

Vimal: I disagree. In the eDAM, a function is a part of mental aspect because a function does not have mass, charge, spin, and volume, so it is not a physical entity; a structure and a function dependently co-arise. The empirical evidence is that a structure has a function and vice-versa and they are inseparable. The experiential sub-aspect of mental aspect of a state of an inert entity is latent. We have discussed this many times. You are looking from the eyes of Sāṅkhya; that is why you feel differently; this is a major problem in your thinking process. I cannot help you further on this.

Sehgal: You have not responded to the issue as indicated in green font text and as underlined above.

You have stated that as per eDAM, the mental aspects are functions. OK. But is there any evidence to this hypothesis? Nil. It is only a speculation without any basis. the mental aspects could also be some structure.

Your definition of the functions as one not having mass, charge, spin has a very peripheral and shallow view and a lot more needs to be done to unpack these terms. Before functions, let us try to unpack as to what is a structure? In my view, a structure of any entity in the universe is the "ontological stuff" due to which the structure has its very existence. Without the"ontological stuff", which is the structure, there is no existence of any entity. But a problem has been that a structure of an entity can't be comprehended and described directly as a structure. A structure is described by a set of attributes which are the functions. These functions have an intricate relationship with the structure and always do take birth from the structure itself. For example, mass, charge, and spin are the functions/attributes of the of elementary particles by which particle ( i.e its structure) is described. So, mass, charge, and spin are already Functions of the elementary particles. Therefore, any attempt to define Functions as one not having mass, charge, and spin is misleading and contradictory.

Then how to define Functions?

I think Functions are

i) Some attributes of the structure by which structure is described.

ii) These attributes have genesis in the structure itself i.e functions take birth from the structure itself.

iii) In the majority of the cases, functions do manifest when the structure undertakes some internal and external dynamic structural change.

There is no meaning of any Function existing on its own ( i.e not taking birth from the structure) as hypothesized in eDAM and then supported by Nagarjuna's Buddhist metaphysics of co-origination, co-development, and co-manifestation. Yes, structure and function can co-origin, co-develop and co-manifest but say that function has not originated (taken birth)  from the structure but it existed on its own is an illogical assertion. If you think otherwise, please provide a single instance in the universe wherein any function might not be taking birth from the structure. I repeat even a single instance.

 So first please have the clarity on the concept of the Function and Structure before inferring that the mental aspects are the Functions.

Then you have stated that empirical evidence indicates that a structure has the functions and vice versa and they are inseparable. Yes, I agree to this. But you ignore the fact that empirical evidence also indicates that Functions do take birth from the Structure only. But eDAM rests upon its primary doctrine that Functions ( mental aspects) don't take birth from the Structure ( physical). But from where such functions emerge and in what form is the existence of the functions? No explanation from eDAM. Thus a great explanatiry gap.


Sehgal: You have not followed that the existence of any group experience is not connected to the existence of manifested consciousness in different humans. Please read my previous message carefully again and try to understand  the difference  between cosmic consciousness, localized consciousness (soul), Mind as the subtle structure of nature in the Astral realm, Mind as the aggregate of thoughts. Mind as the aggregate of thoughts or experiences is unique to every person in his/her 1pp status. But manifested consciousness, localized consciousness (soul and Mind as subtle structure in the Astral realm is universally present in all humans irrespective of their unique individual experience. Please also try to understand the difference between Mind as a subtle structure of the physicality of nature in the Astral realm and Mind as an aggregate of thoughts/experiences. This approach has a subjective evidence by the repeated and reproducible experiences in the state of Samaadhi.

That there is no reservoir of common experiences in nature should not lead to an inference that humans can not have the same or similar type of the experiences. When circumstances of the experiences are same and instruments of experience viz. senses and mind are also same, a group of people will have the same or similar type of experiences. For example, sugar will be experienced as sweet and ice will be senses cold more or less in a similar manner to a group of people.

Vimal: Perhaps, I am not clear on my query. Let me try again. I am asking what happens after the liberation of souls.

Actually, the binding and liberation of souls are misnomers. Soul was never bounded in the real sense. So where is the question of its liberation? Space in various vessels never gets bounded in real terms, so there is no question of its liberation. Bounding of the soul is an illusion due to ignorance in mind, the way bounding of the space is an illusion. When the vessel of the ignorance is broken, illusion of bounding vanishes and apparent bounding of soul is over

 My understanding is that the liberated  is omerge with God (such as Vishnu Krishna) and experiences the same what God experiences.

When the apparent merging of the soul take place with God ( cosmic consciousness), the identity of the soul also is over. So it is now the God which experiences and not the soul ( due to is loose of its identity). In the aforesaid analogy when  the vessel will break, the enclosed micro level space will loose its identity and it is now macro level/cosmological space which will take over. The same is applicable to soul and God. When the soul looses its identity, God takes over it in terms of the experience.

 Therefore, God (the eternal manifested consciousness) might have a group-experience, which is not possible. For example, when the liberated souls of trichromats and achromats merge with God, then what is the group-experience related to color: is it aggregate of redness and grayness when God with merged souls of trichromats and achromats look at a ripe-tomato (thru divya-chaksu or celestial eyes), so that trichromats will experience redness and achromats will experience grayness? Then what God’s experience will be: redness, grayness, or in-between such as less saturated redness (redness + grayness)? 

Your above problem is due to a nos of misinterpretations viz.

i) First, as explained above, on liberation, the soul has no longer its identity. It is the cosmic consciousness which has the experiences. Even before the so-called liberation, God has the universal capacity to experience.

ii) Even before the apparent liberation, the experience of the color viz trichromat or achromat is not the function of the souls or not even of the mind. Colour sensitiveness is due to the external bodily organ called eyes. So trichromat or achromat are due to organ eyes and not due to soul or mind.

iii) Cosmic consciousness or God is not dependent upon eyes for experiencing anything. It is the localized consciousness or soul which remains dependent upon eyes for seeing anything.

iv) when any experience shall be beyond eyes, the whole concept of the trichromat or achromat or of colors shall also be over. Otherwise, also you know that in reality at the noumenal level, there is nothing like any colour. All is the e.m energy of the different wavelength. At the phenomenal level, we perceive this phenomenal reality in different colours.

iv) What God or cosmic consciousness experiences anything, how you and I can know this? It is only God knows what He experiences. How an ant on the deserts of the Pacific oceans know as to what President Trump feels?

I hope that you will see the problem. In addition, Sāṅkhya has 9 more problems. Therefore, it is not a tenable metaphysics. We are just wasting time on this dualistic philosophy. George and I (and many including Buddhists and Vedāntists) have already rejected it.

You have highly misinterpreted Sandhya's dualism in the matter of the thoughts production. Unless and until the mind is treated as a conscious element and the brain as a physical element, dualism continues to persist. But this is a wrong interpretation of Saankhya. The mind is also a physical derivative of Moola Prakriti in the Astral realm of nature like that of the brain in the physical realm, with a radical difference in the nature of their physicality. In view of this, the interaction between the mind and the brain is one to one same interaction i.e physical to physical. Therefore, there is no dualism.

Regards

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:28 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Kindly don't go after the semantics. I follow that in eDAM, experiences from 1pp are not produced by the 3pp-physical aspect. However, it is also true that unless physical 3pp aspects NNs are built up, related 1pp experiences from the mental aspects don't manifest. In other words, the manifestation of the 1pp experiences  is contingent upon built up of 3pp NNs only. The biggest flaw in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. The functions of the structure of the inert entities is also a physical aspect and any mental aspect by any proportion  of logic. Further, there is also no evidence to the effect if non-conscious living beings have any mental aspects in the potential format in the inseparable  state with their physical  aspects.

Vimal: I disagree. In the eDAM, a function is a part of mental aspect because a function does not have mass, charge, spin, and volume, so it is not a physical entity; a structure and a function dependently co-arise. The empirical evidence is that a structure has a function and vice-versa and they are inseparable. The experiential sub-aspect of mental aspect of a state of an inert entity is latent. We have discussed this many times. You are looking from the eyes of Sāṅkhya; that is why you feel differently; this is a major problem in your thinking process. I cannot help you further on this.

Sehgal: You have not responded to the issue as indicated in green font text and as underlined above.

You have stated that as per eDAM, the mental aspects are functions. OK. But is there any evidence to this hypothesis? Nil. It is only a speculation without any basis. the mental aspects could also be some structure.

Your definition of the functions as one not having mass, charge, spin has a very peripheral and shallow view and a lot more needs to be done to unpack these terms. Before functions, let us try to unpack as to what is a structure? In my view, a structure of any entity in the universe is the "ontological stuff" due to which the structure has its very existence. Without the"ontological stuff", which is the structure, there is no existence of any entity. But a problem has been that a structure of an entity can't be comprehended and described directly as a structure. A structure is described by a set of attributes which are the functions. These functions have an intricate relationship with the structure and always do take birth from the structure itself. For example, mass, charge, and spin are the functions/attributes of the of elementary particles by which particle ( i.e its structure) is described. So, mass, charge, and spin are already Functions of the elementary particles. Therefore, any attempt to define Functions as one not having mass, charge, and spin is misleading and contradictory.

Then how to define Functions?

I think Functions are

i) Some attributes of the structure by which structure is described.

ii) These attributes have genesis in the structure itself i.e functions take birth from the structure itself.

iii) In the majority of the cases, functions do manifest when the structure undertakes some internal and external dynamic structural change.

There is no meaning of any Function existing on its own ( i.e not taking birth from the structure) as hypothesized in eDAM and then supported by Nagarjuna's Buddhist metaphysics of co-origination, co-development, and co-manifestation. Yes, structure and function can co-origin, co-develop and co-manifest but say that function has not originated (taken birth)  from the structure but it existed on its own is an illogical assertion. If you think otherwise, please provide a single instance in the universe wherein any function might not be taking birth from the structure. I repeat even a single instance.

 So first please have the clarity on the concept of the Function and Structure before inferring that the mental aspects are the Functions.

Then you have stated that empirical evidence indicates that a structure has the functions and vice versa and they are inseparable. Yes, I agree to this. But you ignore the fact that empirical evidence also indicates that Functions do take birth from the Structure only. But eDAM rests upon its primary doctrine that Functions ( mental aspects) don't take birth from the Structure ( physical). But from where such functions emerge and in what form is the existence of the functions? No explanation from eDAM. Thus a great explanatiry gap.


Sehgal: You have not followed that the existence of any group experience is not connected to the existence of manifested consciousness in different humans. Please read my previous message carefully again and try to understand  the difference  between cosmic consciousness, localized consciousness (soul), Mind as the subtle structure of nature in the Astral realm, Mind as the aggregate of thoughts. Mind as the aggregate of thoughts or experiences is unique to every person in his/her 1pp status. But manifested consciousness, localized consciousness (soul and Mind as subtle structure in the Astral realm is universally present in all humans irrespective of their unique individual experience. Please also try to understand the difference between Mind as a subtle structure of the physicality of nature in the Astral realm and Mind as an aggregate of thoughts/experiences. This approach has a subjective evidence by the repeated and reproducible experiences in the state of Samaadhi.

That there is no reservoir of common experiences in nature should not lead to an inference that humans can not have the same or similar type of the experiences. When circumstances of the experiences are same and instruments of experience viz. senses and mind are also same, a group of people will have the same or similar type of experiences. For example, sugar will be experienced as sweet and ice will be senses cold more or less in a similar manner to a group of people.

Vimal: Perhaps, I am not clear on my query. Let me try again. I am asking what happens after the liberation of souls.

Actually, the binding and liberation of souls are misnomers. Soul was never bounded in the real sense. So where is the question of its liberation? Space in various vessels never gets bounded in real terms, so there is no question of its liberation. Bounding of the soul is an illusion due to ignorance in mind, the way bounding of the space is an illusion. When the vessel of the ignorance is broken, illusion of bounding vanishes and apparent bounding of soul is over

 My understanding is that the liberated  is omerge with God (such as Vishnu Krishna) and experiences the same what God experiences.

When the apparent merging of the soul take place with God ( cosmic consciousness), the identity of the soul also is over. So it is now the God which experiences and not the soul ( due to is loose of its identity). In the aforesaid analogy when  the vessel will break, the enclosed micro level space will loose its identity and it is now macro level/cosmological space which will take over. The same is applicable to soul and God. When the soul looses its identity, God takes over it in terms of the experience.

 Therefore, God (the eternal manifested consciousness) might have a group-experience, which is not possible. For example, when the liberated souls of trichromats and achromats merge with God, then what is the group-experience related to color: is it aggregate of redness and grayness when God with merged souls of trichromats and achromats look at a ripe-tomato (thru divya-chaksu or celestial eyes), so that trichromats will experience redness and achromats will experience grayness? Then what God’s experience will be: redness, grayness, or in-between such as less saturated redness (redness + grayness)? 

Your above problem is due to a nos of misinterpretations viz.

i) First, as explained above, on liberation, the soul has no longer its identity. It is the cosmic consciousness which has the experiences. Even before the so-called liberation, God has the universal capacity to experience.

ii) Even before the apparent liberation, the experience of the color viz trichromat or achromat is not the function of the souls or not even of the mind. Colour sensitiveness is due to the external bodily organ called eyes. So trichromat or achromat are due to organ eyes and not due to soul or mind.

iii) Cosmic consciousness or God is not dependent upon eyes for experiencing anything. It is the localized consciousness or soul which remains dependent upon eyes for seeing anything.

iv) when any experience shall be beyond eyes, the whole concept of the trichromat or achromat or of colors shall also be over. Otherwise, also you know that in reality at the noumenal level, there is nothing like any colour. All is the e.m energy of the different wavelength. At the phenomenal level, we perceive this phenomenal reality in different colours.

iv) What God or cosmic consciousness experiences anything, how you and I can know this? It is only God knows what He experiences. How an ant on the deserts of the Pacific oceans know as to what President Trump feels?

I hope that you will see the problem. In addition, Sāṅkhya has 9 more problems. Therefore, it is not a tenable metaphysics. We are just wasting time on this dualistic philosophy. George and I (and many including Buddhists and Vedāntists) have already rejected it.

You have highly misinterpreted Sandhya's dualism in the matter of the thoughts production. Unless and until the mind is treated as a conscious element and the brain as a physical element, dualism continues to persist. But this is a wrong interpretation of Saankhya. The mind is also a physical derivative of Moola Prakriti in the Astral realm of nature like that of the brain in the physical realm, with a radical difference in the nature of their physicality. In view of this, the interaction between the mind and the brain is one to one same interaction i.e physical to physical. Therefore, there is no dualism.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:40 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Sehgal: Kindly don't go after the semantics. I follow that in eDAM, experiences from 1pp are not produced by the 3pp-physical aspect. However, it is also true that unless physical 3pp aspects NNs are built up, related 1pp experiences from the mental aspects don't manifest. In other words, the manifestation of the 1pp experiences  is contingent upon built up of 3pp NNs only. The biggest flaw in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. The functions of the structure of the inert entities is also a physical aspect and any mental aspect by any proportion  of logic. Further, there is also no evidence to the effect if non-conscious living beings have any mental aspects in the potential format in the inseparable  state with their physical  aspects.

Vimal: I disagree. In the eDAM, a function is a part of mental aspect because a function does not have mass, charge, spin, and volume, so it is not a physical entity; a structure and a function dependently co-arise. The empirical evidence is that a structure has a function and vice-versa and they are inseparable. The experiential sub-aspect of mental aspect of a state of an inert entity is latent. We have discussed this many times. You are looking from the eyes of Sāṅkhya; that is why you feel differently; this is a major problem in your thinking process. I cannot help you further on this.

Sehgal: You have not followed that the existence of any group experience is not connected to the existence of manifested consciousness in different humans. Please read my previous message carefully again and try to understand  the difference  between cosmic consciousness, localized consciousness (soul), Mind as the subtle structure of nature in the Astral realm, Mind as the aggregate of thoughts. Mind as the aggregate of thoughts or experiences is unique to every person in his/her 1pp status. But manifested consciousness, localized consciousness (soul and Mind as subtle structure in the Astral realm is universally present in all humans irrespective of their unique individual experience. Please also try to understand the difference between Mind as a subtle structure of the physicality of nature in the Astral realm and Mind as an aggregate of thoughts/experiences. This approach has a subjective evidence by the repeated and reproducible experiences in the state of Samaadhi.

That there is no reservoir of common experiences in nature should not lead to an inference that humans can not have the same or similar type of the experiences. When circumstances of the experiences are same and instruments of experience viz. senses and mind are also same, a group of people will have the same or similar type of experiences. For example, sugar will be experienced as sweet and ice will be senses cold more or less in a similar manner to a group of people.

Vimal: Perhaps, I am not clear on my query. Let me try again. I am asking what happens after the liberation of souls. My understanding is that the liberated souls merge with God (such as Vishnu/Krishna) and experiences the same what God experiences. Therefore, God (the eternal manifested consciousness) might have a group-experience, which is not possible. For example, when the liberated souls of trichromats and achromats merge with God, then what is the group-experience related to color: is it aggregate of redness and grayness when God with merged souls of trichromats and achromats look at a ripe-tomato (thru divya-chaksu or celestial eyes), so that trichromats will experience redness and achromats will experience grayness? Then what God’s experience will be: redness, grayness, or in-between such as less saturated redness (redness + grayness)? I hope that you will see the problem. In addition, Sāṅkhya has 9 more problems. Therefore, it is not a tenable metaphysics. We are just wasting time on this dualistic philosophy. George and I (and many including Buddhists and Vedāntists) have already rejected it.

Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 4:03 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks,

Kindly don't go after the semantics. I follow that in eDAM, experiences in 1pp are not produced by the physical 3pp aspect. However, it is also true that unless physical 3pp aspects NNs are built up, related 1pp experiences from the mental aspects don't manifest. In other  words, manifestation of the 1pp experiences  is contingent upon built up og 3pp NNs only. The biggest flaw  in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. The functions of the structure  of the inert  entities is also a physical aspect and any mental aspect by any proportion  of logic. Further, there is also no evidence to the effect if non-conscious  living beings  have any mental aspects in the potential format in the inseparable  state with their physical  aspects.

You have not followed that the existence  of any group experience  is not connected to the existence of manifested consciousness  in different humans. Please read my previous message carefully again and try to understand  the difference  between cosmic consciousness, localized consciousness (soul), Mind as the subtle structure of nature in the Astral realm, Mind as the aggregate of thoughts. Mind as the aggregate of thoughts or experiences  is unique to every person in his/her 1pp status. But manifested consciousness, localized consciousness (soul and Mind as subtle structure in the Astral realm is universally present in all humans irrespective  of their unique individual experience. Please also try to understand  the difference  between  Mind as a subtle structure  of the physicality  of nature  in the Astral  realm and Mind as an aggregate  of thoughts/experiences. This approach has a subjective  evidence by the repeated and reproducible  experiences  in the state of Samaadhi.

That there is no reservoir of common experiences  in nature should not lead  to an inference that humans can not have the same or similar type of the experiences. When circumstances of the experiences  are same and instruments of experience viz senses and mind are also same, a group of people will have the same or similar type of experiences. For example, sugar will be experienced  as sweet and ice will be senses cold more or less in a similar manner to a group of people.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal





On Monday, June 12, 2017, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Dear Vinod ji,
> Thanks.
> Sehgal: Since you don't accept the ontological existence of the Astral body or Astral Mind [beyond a mind-brain system], as distinct from the Physical brain, that is why you are constrained to presume that all the experiences should be produced due to NNs.
> Vimal: In the eDAM, experiences are not produced by the NNs; otherwise, it would be materialism. A specific subjective experience is selected by the matching and selection mechanisms as elaborated in  (Vimal, 2010c). The primary subjective experiences are irreducible excitations of UPC as elaborated in (Vimal, 2016b) and (Kastrup, 2016). We have hypothesized that experiences (such as redness, greenness, blueness, and so on) are quantized as excitations of UPC (Hameroff, Email communication on 6 March 2016 and (Kastrup, 2016)), in analogy to elementary particles are quantized modes of excitations of the quantum field.
> You have not responded my main query: If we cannot create a fully manifested group-consciousness (experiences) of just two of us then how can you, dualistic Sāṅkhya, monistic 6 sub-schools of Vedānta propose that the fully manifested cosmic group consciousness (God) exist in which all of us (our souls after liberation) reside and experience what God experience? 

>  
> Kind regards,
> Rām
> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
> Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
> Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
> Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
> Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
> Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
>
> On Monday, 12 June 2017 10:51 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Respected Dr. Ram,
> Thanks.

> Thanks. This is the first time we apparently agree on something.
> Why will I not agree to something if it is logically correct? 

> My point was that if we cannot create a fully manifested group-experience/consciousness of just three of us then how can you, dualistic Sāṅkhya, monistic 6 sub-schools of Vedānta propose that the fully manifested Cosmic Consciousness/Mind or OOO-God (such as God Vishnu/Krishna or trideva Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh) exist in which all of us (our souls after Moksha/liberation) reside in the manifested consciousness worlds such as Vishnu loka, Brahma loka, Shiva loka etc. and experience what God experience?
> I have been trying to convey and highlight since a quite long time that Cosmic Consciousness/OOO God/soul are entirely different than our Mind/thoughts/experiences. Cosmic Consciousness or God, as an infinite holistic conscious most fundamental entity without any cause, exist at each and every point of the universe. In view of it being existing at all the points of the universe, it exists within us also.  Soul as the localized consciousness at our mind/body/biological level is the manifestation of the same cosmic consciousness. But in the process of the manifestation, actual power, potency and purity of the cosmic consciousness is considerably diminished at the biological consciousness level. Why? there is a different story for that. I am not going into that story at this juncture. No thought/experiences take place in the soul/biological localized consciousness. It is merely the experiencer/ultimate observer of thoughts/experiences. But it is also true that none of the thoughts/experiences can be produced without the presence of the soul/localized consciousness.
> All thoughts and experiences are produced in Mind which is entirely different than the brain and localized consciousness ( a manifestation of the cosmic consciousness). The mind is a westernized name for the aggregate of individual elements of Manas, Buddhi, Indriyyas,  Tanmaatras, Chitta and Ahmkaras in Saankhya's terminology. It is a structural transformation of the Moola Prakriti in some sequential order. Moola Prakriti is the reservoir of all the physicality of the Physical, Astral and causal worlds. All these structural ontological realities constitute what we call the Astral realm and Causal realm of nature. It is from these Astral elements that physical derivative of our physical world in form of elementary particles and 4 forces take birth.
> At the micro/human/organism level, brain constitutes the physical infrastructure and Mind constitutes the subtle Astral infrastructure on which thoughts/experiences are produced. In Saankhya's philosophy, Mind has to interpreted in two ways:
> i) As a subtle Astral Structure
>
> ii) As an aggregate of thoughts/experiences.
> The infrastructure of the subtle Astral Mind and physical brain are the derivatives of the same Moola Prakriti in some sequential order, so basically they both came from the same primordial source. In the wakeful conscious state, there is constant interaction between the Astral structure of Mind and Physical structure of the brain.There is no category mistake in this since both are the derivatives of the same Primordial physicality. Due to this interaction between the Astral structure of mind and Physical structure of the brain, thoughts as experiences are produced which are experienced by the soul/localized biological consciousness. Each person has hos own unique experiences at the 1pp level.
> Siva Loka, Brahma Loka, and Vishnu Loka refer to the inner realms of the transformative stages of Moola  Prakriti. As indicated above, the way cosmic consciousness can exist in each of the person irrespective of the differences of experiences, similarly, these Lokas can also exist in each person irrespective of the difference in thoughts/experiences

> I am still not convinced that individual consciousness (soul) survives after physical death.
> Individual soul or consciousness is the manifestation or identification of the cosmic consciousness with the Astral and Causal body. At the time of the death, Astral and Causal body leave our physical body and recycles to the next birth. The soul being identified with these bodies also recycles to the next birth.

>  I am not aware of any authentic paranormal data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM within the realm of our mind-brain system because all kinds of experiences must have their respective neural basis. 
>
> Since you don't accept the ontological existence of the Astral body or Astral Mind, as distinct from the Physical brain, that is why you are constrained to presume that all the experiences should be produced due to NNs. In the wakeful conscious state, I agree that all the experiences are from the built up of NNs in the brain but it is not only the NNs of the brain. It is due to the Astral Mind as distinct from the physical brain PLUS physical brain. In fact, all thoughts and experiences are first initiated from the Astral Mind level. In the state of Samaadhi, a delink take place between the Astral Mind and the Physical Brain, thoughts continue to be produced in the astral Mind but due to delink, no effect is reflected on the brain in form of NNs.

> Therefore, I am not sure we can reject atheist eDAM framework. The theist eDAM is valid only if souls/ghosts/God exist beyond our mind-brain systems.
>
>
> Regards
> Vinod sehgal

>
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> Dear Vinod ji,
> Thanks. This is the first time we apparently agree on something. 
> My point was that if we cannot create a fully manifested group-experience/consciousness of just three of us then how can you, dualistic Sāṅkhya, monistic 6 sub-schools of Vedānta propose that the fully manifested Cosmic Consciousness/Mind or OOO-God (such as God Vishnu/Krishna or trideva Brahma-Vishnu-Mahesh) exist in which all of us (our souls after Moksha/liberation) reside in the manifested consciousness worlds such as Vishnu loka, Brahma loka, Shiva loka etc. and experience what God experience?
> I am still not convinced that individual consciousness (soul) survives after physical death. I am not aware of any authentic paranormal data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM within the realm of our mind-brain system because all kinds of experiences must have their respective neural basis. Therefore, I am not sure we can reject atheist eDAM framework. The theist eDAM is valid only if souls/ghosts/God exist beyond our mind-brain systems.
>  
> Kind regards,
> Rām
> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
> Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
> Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
> Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
> Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
> rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
> https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 
> Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
>
> On Monday, 12 June 2017 8:41 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dr. Ram wrote to George:
> "I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common"
> I agree with you that experiences of two individuals can't be combined to create a group or cosmic mind. Leave alone the experiences of two persons, even the experiences of one person at one moment will be different than his experience the next moment. So there is no question of their combination.
> Our experiences are the conscious experiences as arising in our mind in the 1pp. Unlike the physical objects/particles, our experiences lack the distinctive characteristics, therefore, no mathematical numbers can be associated with the experiences. In view of this, there is no question of their combination by any mathematical or physical technique.
> Every experience is a holistic whole in itself and it exists as such. It is irreducible into other parts. Experiences as "wholes" can't be combined with other experiences, either of the self or of others.
> Reagrds.
> Vinod Sehgal
> On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
> Dear George,
> Thanks.
> 1. Kindly define the mysterious term, “Cosmic Mind”. I agree with you that an individual mind includes experiences, function, thoughts, concepts, and other mental construct. If we try to combine our 3 minds (your, mine, and Sehgal’s mind) as a ‘group mind’, then how and what do we can combine? Our subjective experiences perhaps cannot be combined except whatever we have common; for example, color experiences of a trichromat and an achromat cannot be combined; we need to keep both experiences in this group (such as redness of ripe tomato experienced by the trichromat and grayness by the achromat). However, where is this group mind located and what are the mechanisms of storage and recall? You may like to look at (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010) on the emergence of group cognition. The term ‘whole’ also needs unpacking.

> 2. There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term consciousness, which have been grouped in two functions and experiences as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009e). What meaning do you assign? Perhaps, you mean experiences and experiencer: is this correct?
> 3. It seems that you are implicitly using dualism and idealism, which you have already rejected in your QPI-QM article (Weissmann & Larson, 2017). How can we reify/congeal experiences, such as redness of ripe tomato into ripe-tomato-in-itself? There are about 45 interpretation of QM. How do we select one of them?
> 4. I am still unable to reject less mysterious atheist eDAM framework because it has a potentiality to explain all authentic paranormal phenomena. The survival of consciousness (i.e., experiences and the experiencer) after physical death is an easy interpretation of these data; it does not appear an empirical datum.
>  
> Kind regards,
> Rām
> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
> Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
> Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
> Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
> Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
> rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
> https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 
> Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
>
> On Saturday, 10 June 2017 7:57 PM, "georg...@aol.com" <georg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> You are discussing here (based on two different paradigms), the question whether conventional objects or particles have an inherent mental aspect, or whether mental aspects on emergent from and depend on complex and very specifically structured processes systems interact in very specified ways (for example those we call animal brains and nervous systems).
>
> My take on the issue
>
> , Don't you both agree that conventional entities like objects, particles etc, are, by their very nature as concepts, mental constructs and thus manifest in the domain of the mind, and hence in the domain of Mind (Cosmic Mind). As the conventional entities they are), they don't fundamentally "have" consciousness. You might object here that though the mental concept of "particle" doesn't have consciousness, the "noumenon", the objectively existing "thing in itself" that we are naming "particle" , can, and as you apparently believe, does have consciousness. But a self-consistent understanding of quantum theory has shown us that such particles (or any other reified entity, for that matter, does not objectively exist. The whole distinction between object and subject breaks down. So the conclusion stands: particles and other apparent objects do not objectively exist, and so they "have" no consciousness.

>
> So then what about you and me? Couldn't the same conclusion (namely that we have no  consciousness) be reached about any living being, which would then apparently reduce the whole argument ad absurdum, since we "obviously have consciousness" (you might add tongue-in-cheek "maybe YOU have no consciousness, but I certainly know I do ":-)  )
>
> Here we have to take into consideration the other insight reached by the above investigation of the foundations of quantum theory: namely that it is a theory of the statistical causal structure of EXPERIENCE, not of a (non-existent) objective state of affairs. The first answer (given by relational quantum theory and QB'ism), is that it is the experience of the specific observer whose observations are being correlated through Quantum Theory. This answer suffices to make quantum theory consistent (solving the measurement problem and Wigner's friend problem), But the price is that the description of reality is fragmented into individual INCOMMENSURABLE accounts. Every observer-participant is so to say living in his or her world. To  restore wholeness (an intersubjective "we" account of the world) requires giving up the idea of a single Universe, and demands a multiverse. At that level the concept of a "Cosmic Mind" replaces that of individual observer-participants. We individuals are all dissociated fragments of that Whole, although we don't perceive that, operating as we do in an individual-centered paradigm. And we are deeply conditioned to identify with that fragment we call I or the small self.
> So from that perspective, consciousness is an inherent quality, you might even say, the essence, of that Cosmic Mind.  Our individual sense of identity; mind, and consciousness is derived from the secondary perspective that cosmic Mind has set up as "the individual". So now you can see that consciousness as the quality of fundamental awareness, the "I am", doesn't not belong to the small I, as much as the small I believes and experiences that it does. This insight and the paradigm which it defines is arrived at here from quantum theory and rational reasoning. But of course it is nothing new in itself: it is the essential insight of the perennial phiillosophy, of Vedic and Buddhist teachings and other contemplative wisdom traditions. These teachings not only state that this is the nature of reality, but they offer us a path of practice which can realize (actualize) this our true nature. and allow us to live us that (enlightenment.
>
> The conditions necessary to lend the individual consciousness structures any degree of stability are the self-reproducing and -perpetuating quantum probability structures that we call our bodies, including our brains. 
>
> So now we can try to answer the question you were discussing: no, particles, objects including human bodies and brains don't "have" consciousness; they actually don't even have an ontological status at all, since they are reified abstractions. But of course they are related to consciousness, insofar as the "locus" where they "exist"is the conceptual (Platonic) space, within thought. And whenever the conditions (probability structures arise and are sustained that we call functioning brains and nervous sytems and bodies, than the familiar structures of human and other animal consciousness arise (cognition, perception, memory, intention etc).  So we can say that the familiar appearance of individual consciousness airses whenever these strctures are operating,  which is Vinod's point;  except that it is inaccurate to say that these structures "have" consciousness, rather they are accompanied by the attributes of (individual) consciousness. And by the way,  these structures are not necessarily "material", they can be "subtle" as in  the case of the spirit domain etc
>
>
> How does this make sense to you, Ram and Vinod?
>
> Warm regards,
>
> George
>
> PS: if you want to learn more about this paraidgm,  you can look up the paper I wrote with Cynthia Larson: here attached

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Jun 17, 2017, 10:07:38 AM6/17/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, georg...@aol.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind, Rael Cahn
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

I understand what you are claiming about SS/NS states based on dualistic Sāṅkhya’s fictitious/mysterious astral, causal, and manifested conscious bodies beyond our mind-brain system and beyond our physical universe; it cannot even explain the data of wakeful consciousness within our mind-brain system and within the realm of our physical universe because it has 9 serious problems. Then how can you claim that it will explain SS/NS state experiences, which are beyond our physical universe?  The dualism, idealism, and materialism are already rejected by us and many serious investigators long time back; so we cannot entertain them anymore. If individual consciousness indeed survives physical death, the theist eDAM is the best framework. However, in my view, all normal and paranormal data including SS/NS data can be explained by atheist eDAM. But for this, we first need to attain samādhi state because it is subjective/personal experience and we cannot depend on other yogis experiences. 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 17 June 2017 8:49 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

I am simply trying to defend atheist eDAM within the realm of the mind-brain system because theist eDAM involves realms beyond it and hence it is a mystery. It is unclear precisely how astral agents, souls, and God can ‘see’ everything what is going on in our physical universe without eyes and brain-mind system. Just saying they do is of no help to me and many other investigators.

I had hinted in my previous and some of my past messages that unless and until consciousness remains bound within our body/brain in the wakeful conscious state, it remains dependent upon the so-called mind-brain system for experiencing anything in the physical body/the world. Once it gets out of the clutches of the body/brain ( and that is the process to get to the state of Savikalpa Samaadhi) (SS), its potency and power gets multiplied and it can experience anything even without the brain system though it continues to remain dependent upon Senses  and Mind ( Manas) in the Astral body. Please remember that even in the normal wakeful conscious state, the experience is made thru Senses and Mind ( Manas) only.

In wakeful conscious state --- E the  thru Senses+ Mind in the
                                             Astral body PLUS brain 
                                             in the physical body

In the SS state                   __  Experience thru Senses+ Mind in the
                                             Astral body

One can get the above understanding and research further provided one may get rid of the mindset which states that the
 consciousness is produced due to the brain or the consciousness manifests from some mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects of the brain matter.

For achieving the understanding in the aforesaid framework, objective research is not of much help since neither the consciousness nor Senses and Mind of the Astral body get within the detection range of the physical instruments of the neuroscience. The only way is to have self-experience in the state of Samaadhi. But the same is not an easy task particularly if one's mind is loaded with skepticism at every step which is the key feature of a scientists' mindset. So the easy option available is that one may pursue the subjective accounts of such people who have had the type of experiences in the state of Samaadhi
 

 During OBEs, the temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) has abnormal activation; if TPJ is stimulated the subject has OBEs. Thus, OBEs during SS/NS state experiences might be due to abnormal activation of subject’s normal mind-brain system.

A few days ago also, you had indicated the role of TPJ in OBEs and NDEs. But the same is not compatible with the framework as indicated above which is supported by reproducible in the state of Samaadhi. I think stimulation of TPJ in patients or normal persons with average mind power creates a state of disintegration of the identity and sense-identification system in the brain due to which though consciousness stays within the brain but it does not get linked with the sense organs or identity of the body, therefore, a sense of partial or complete disembodiment. In view of this, I call such experiences as pseudo OBEs. Real OBEs manifest in the state of Samaadhi, in the aforesaid framework, when the consciousness starts withdrawing from the body/brain willingly, voluntarily, systematically.

 Therefore, I limit my research to ‘down-to-earth’ atheist eDAM to investigate if we can explain normal and) paranormal phenomena. Since other metaphysics (materialism, idealism, and dualism) have serious problems, so they are rejected and hence I limit to the least problematic eDAM, where a function and the related structure dependently co-arise. I understand that materialism and other metaphysics can also explain the structure-function relationship, but please note that they are already rejected because of their serious problems; therefore, piecewise explanations cannot be entertained. For problems, see Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). The problems you mentions are because of your misunderstanding of the eDAM, which can be cured if you read seriously (Vimal, 2008b), (Vimal, 2010c), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2015g), and (Vimal, 2016d)

I have always been welcome to any misunderstanding of any aspect of eDAM on my part provided you may point out in a specific manner where and how I have misunderstood. For this, I am willing to go into any sort of discussions. For example, on the issue of the existence of the mental aspects as Functions but yet not taking birth from the structure, I have submitted my elaborate and pointwise systematic comments in my messages dated June 15, 2017, and June 16, 2017. But you seem to be evasive to confront those comments. I think self -complacency in any area of studies is not a correct approach.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. 

I am simply trying to defend atheist eDAM within the realm of the mind-brain system because theist eDAM involves realms beyond it and hence it is a mystery. It is unclear precisely how astral agents, souls, and God can ‘see’ everything what is going on in our physical universe without eyes and brain-mind system. Just saying they do is of no help to me and many other investigators. During OBEs, the temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) has abnormal activation; if TPJ is stimulated the subject has OBEs. Thus, OBEs during SS/NS state experiences might be due to abnormal activation of subject’s normal mind-brain system. Therefore, I limit my research to ‘down-to-earth’ atheist eDAM to investigate if we can explain normal and) paranormal phenomena. Since other metaphysics (materialism, idealism, and dualism) have serious problems, so they are rejected and hence I limit to the least problematic eDAM, where a function and the related structure dependently co-arise. I understand that materialism and other metaphysics can also explain the structure-function relationship, but please note that they are already rejected because of their serious problems; therefore, piecewise explanations cannot be entertained. For problems, see Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). The problems you mentions are because of your misunderstanding of the eDAM, which can be cured if you read seriously (Vimal, 2008b), (Vimal, 2010c), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2015g), and (Vimal, 2016d).

All the best in your metaphysics!
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 16 June 2017 8:16 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal:  (1) The biggest flaw in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. […]

You have stated that as per eDAM, the mental aspects are functions. OK. 

( 2) But is there any evidence to this hypothesis? Nil. It is only a speculation without any basis. the mental aspects could also be some structure.
Your definition of the functions as one not having mass, charge, spin has a very peripheral and shallow view and a lot more needs to be done to unpack these terms. Before functions, let us try to unpack as to what is a structure? In my view, a structure of any entity in the universe is the "ontological stuff" due to which the structure has its very existence. Without the "ontological stuff", which is the structure, there is no existence of any entity. But a problem has been that a structure of an entity can't be comprehended and described directly as a structure. A structure is described by a set of attributes which are the functions. These functions have an intricate relationship with the structure and always do take birth from the structure itself. For example, mass, charge, and spin are the functions/attributes of the of elementary particles by which particle ( i.e its structure) is described.

(3) So, mass, charge, and spin are already Functions of the elementary particles. Therefore, any attempt to define Functions as one not having mass, charge, and spin is misleading and contradictory.
 
Then how to define Functions? I think Functions are
i) Some attributes of the structure by which structure is described.
ii) These attributes have genesis in the structure itself i.e functions take birth from the structure itself.
iii) In the majority of the cases, functions do manifest when the structure undertakes some internal and external dynamic structural change.
 
(4) There is no meaning of any Function existing on its own (i.e not taking birth from the structure) as hypothesized in eDAM and then supported by Nagarjuna's Buddhist metaphysics of co-origination, co-development, and co-manifestation. Yes, structure and function can co-origin, co-develop and co-manifest but say that function has not originated (taken birth) from the structure but it existed on its own is an illogical assertion.  (5) If you think otherwise, please provide a single instance in the universe wherein any function might not be taking birth from the structure. I repeat even a single instance.
 
So first please have the clarity on the concept of the Function and Structure before inferring that the mental aspects are the Functions. Then you have stated that empirical evidence indicates that a structure has the functions and vice versa and they are inseparable. Yes, I agree to this.  ( 6) But you ignore the fact that empirical evidence also indicates that Functions do take birth from the Structure only. But eDAM rests upon its primary doctrine that Functions (mental aspects) don't take birth from the Structure (physical). But from where such functions emerge and in what form is the existence of the functions? No explanation from eDAM. Thus a great explanatory gap.
 
Vimal: I have addressed this query many times but you disagree because you look at from the ‘eyes’ of dualistic Sāṅkhya and monistic Cārvāka (materialism) ; so let agree that we disagree. Briefly, the empirical subjective and objective evidence for the eDAM are:  (A) all fMRI and EEG data related to conscious states are consistent with the eDAM’s inseparability and a  (B) structure has an inseparable function, which dependently co-arise from the eDAM’s perspective. (c) For example, let us build a four-leg table (structure) to hold books as a function: when we build only two legs, then its function is only 50% accomplished; when all 4 legs are built, then its function is 100% accomplished, i.e., both aspects (structure and function) dependently co-arise. This is how the eDAM interprets it. Other metaphysics will interpret differently.

Sehgal: This is your misconception that I am looking from the Saankhya's or materialism's point of view. I was looking at purely from the perspective of rational logical deliberations, observations, and evidence - both subjective and objective. It is due to these reasons that I had raised 6 critical issues in my aforesaid comments for your address. I have now highlighted the 6 critical issues in red bold font text. But regretfully, you have addressed none of the 6 issues. Please have a bold stand and confront these 6 issues in a frontal and systematic manner. Skipping or ignoring any issue will not serve any purpose.

______________________________ ______________________________ ___

Instead of confronting the 6 issues, you have repeated the same old things in your comments above which you have already done many times. For example, your present comments (A) above, as highlighted in green font text. Yes, I also agree that fMRI and EEG data supports the inseparability of the physical and the mental aspects but please appreciate that this is the apparent inseparability and not the real inseparability. This type of the inseparability exist with all other 4 metaphysics and it does not supports eDAM in any manner. In fact, you well understand this issue but somehow silent on this.

Then issue (B) of your present comments. I also agree that structure and Functions are inseparable. Where I am denying this? But when you say that the functions dependently co-arise, you should have the answer as to from such functions co-arise and before arousal in what form such function existed? Please, don't blame me that I am looking from the Saankhya's or Materialism point of view. Let us forget all the metaphysics for the time being. I am raising a logical query from a neutral stand as to from where the functions co-arise with the co-arousal of the structure? You please confront this very valid issue instead of talking about different metaphysics.

Then your analogy as given at  (C) above in the present comments and highlighted in the green text. It is clearly evident that all the functions of the table are taking birth from the physical structure of the table and there is physical to the physical relationship between the Structure and Function. But eDAM does not agree to this obvious and logical observations viz  Functions do take birth from the structure and that the nature of the functions ( viz physical or mental) is same as that of the structure. In fact, the given analogy of the table and its functions itself contradicts the basic postulates of eDAM. So eDAM is ignoring an obvious and logical observation that the functions of the table are taking birth from the structure of the table and further there is a similarity of nature ( physical/mental) in the structure and functions. So there is no scope for any further interpretation of this clear observations wherein functions of the table are taking birth from the structure

An interesting fact has been that Materialism honestly and candidly admits the fact that the functions do take birth from the structure but eDAM states that functions don't take birth from the structure but follows the same mechanism as followed by the Materialism for the manifestation of the functions. If eDAM is so assertive that functions don't take birth from the structure, then it should propose some mechanism, alternative to that of Materialism, by which the functions manifest. I have raised this issue a no of times but you have always kept silent on this issue.

See Dr. Ram, how systematically, I have highlighted 6 issues as given in my previous comments, which you have not addressed, Similarly, how systematically I have highlighted problems in 3 issues (A), (B) and (C) in your present comments.

So please instead of making peripheral comments or repeating the old comments, please address all these issues in a frontal manner with fresh ideas to solve these issues.

 
Sehgal: Actually, the binding and liberation of souls are misnomers. Soul was never bounded in the real sense. So where is the question of its liberation? Space in various vessels never gets bounded in real terms, so there is no question of its liberation. Bounding of the soul is an illusion due to ignorance in mind, the way binding of the space is an illusion. When the vessel of the ignorance is broken, the illusion of bounding vanishes and apparent binding of a soul is over.
 
When the apparent merging of the soul take place with God (cosmic consciousness), the identity of the soul also is over. So it is now the God which experiences and not the soul (due to is loose of its identity). In the aforesaid analogy when the vessel will break, the enclosed micro level space will loose its identity and it is now macro level/cosmological space which will take over. The same is applicable to soul and God. When the soul loses its identity, God takes over it in terms of the experience.
 
Your above problem is due to a number of misinterpretations viz.
 
i) First, as explained above, on liberation, the soul has no longer its identity. It is the cosmic consciousness which has the experiences. Even before the so-called liberation, God has the universal capacity to experience.
 
ii) Even before the apparent liberation, the experience of the color viz. trichromat or achromat is not the function of the souls or not even of the mind. Colour sensitiveness is due to the external bodily organ called eyes. So trichromat or achromat are due to organ eyes and not due to soul or mind.
 
iii) Cosmic consciousness or God is not dependent upon eyes for experiencing anything. It is the localized consciousness or soul which remains dependent upon eyes for seeing anything.
 
iv) When any experience shall be beyond eyes, the whole concept of the trichromat or achromat or of colors shall also be over. Otherwise, also you know that in reality at the noumenal level, there is nothing like any color. All is the e.m energy of the different wavelength. At the phenomenal level, we perceive this phenomenal reality in different colors.
 
v) What God or cosmic consciousness experiences anything, how you and I can know this? It is only God knows what He experiences. How an ant on the deserts of the Pacific oceans know as to what President Trump feels?

You have highly misinterpreted Sankhya's dualism in the matter of the thoughts production. Unless and until the mind is treated as a conscious element and the brain as a physical element, dualism continues to persist. But this is a wrong interpretation of Saankhya. The mind is also a physical derivative of Moola Prakriti in the Astral realm of nature like that of the brain in the physical realm, with a radical difference in the nature of their physicality. In view of this, the interaction between the mind and the brain is one to one same interaction i.e. physical to physical. Therefore, there is no dualism.
 
Vimal: No, eyes are just receiving organs, retina does not experience anything. It is visual cortical areas (such as V8-NN) that are responsible for color experiences. In the eDAM, a specific subjective experience is selected thru matching of feed forward signals with feedback signals as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010c), which is experienced by the ‘self’.

Your above comments are OK in the context of eDAM and I follow your observations. But this was not the context under which I had raised the whole issue

I had raised the issue in the context of your two misinterpretations as indicated at (iii) and (iv) above. Whether it is the eyes or VC areas or any part of the body or Astral Mind, God ( cosmic consciousness) is not dependent upon any external agency of eyes/brain/VC areas/ Astral mind for having any experience. If like the localized consciousness ( soul), cosmic consciousness ( God) shall also remain dependent upon some external agents for any experience, what difference will remain between God ( cosmic consciousness) and localized consciousness?
 
Yes, I will never know what you feel or God feels because experiences and thoughts are personal/private from 1pp; this is precisely my point that there is no group-experiencer (such as a group-soul or God), which has a significant implication that there is no way of experiencing/knowing what others experience/think even at Savikalpa and (thoughtless) Nirvikalpa Samādhi (SS/NS) states. Therefore, your claim that a soul withdraws from a body at SS/NS states and roams around the universe and can know/experience what others in experience/think is untenable. The same is true in for paranormal experiences in the above sense.

In the above inference, you have a mistaken notion of the consciousness of a normal individual in the wakeful conscious state, the consciousness of a Yogi in the SS and NS states and the consciousness of God. For you, there is no difference in these 3 levels of the consciousness.

For a normal person in the wakeful conscious state, his consciousness is limited by the body/brain, therefore, it loses its potency and power. As such, it remains dependent upon the physical brain/body for any experience. It is due to these reasons that it is unable to feel the experiences of other people or of God.

But above situation does not prevail in SS or NS for a Yogi. As a Yogi enters the Savitraka  Samaadhi and enters the Astral realm of nature, his consciousness gets free from the clutches of the body/brain. As the consciousness gets free from the bondage of the body/brain, it latent potential of power and potency is released. Barriers of 1pp, as unique to each person, are dismantled. As such, a Yogi in the state can also feel the 1pp experiences of other people ( But not of God since God's consciousness is still higher). So in a way, this is the group experience for a Yogi since he can know the 1pp experiences of many people at one instant Please understand following two facts clearly:

i)  Consciousness is neither produced by the body/brain( Materialism) nor manifests from any latent aspect, as inseparable with the physical aspect, on the manifestation of the physical aspects in form of any NNs ( eDAM). Body and brain are not the causes for the production of the consciousness ( Materialism) or  for the manifestation of the consciousness from any potential/latent aspect ( eDAM). Body/brain only play an inhibiting role in the manifestation of the consciousness.

ii) 1pp aspect of the experiences is unique to each person due to the body/brain. Once consciousness is out of the body/brain, 1pp aspect unique to each individual is also over. A Yogi who has attained this state can know the experiences of others also, which they gain from their own 1pp. In a way, you can call thsi as group experiences, if you want to state.
 
Furthermore, if we lose our identity in God and cannot enjoy the experiences what God feels (such as bliss) and we cannot be God, then what is the advantage of making so much lifelong effort for liberation/Moksha?

The advantage is that identity of your localized consciousness will be replaced by the cosmic consciousness which itself has infinite bliss and power. Unless and until localized identity of the soul or localized consciousness remains alive, the realization of the cosmic consciousness is not feasible. A popular analogy is one wherein how a wave of water can know the ocean unless it does not dissolve its identity in the ocean? You please respond to this observation.

There is no difference in the consciousness of a fully realized Yogi/Saint and that of God.


 I am not sure this is Vedānta’s view. In Advaita, there is no difference between a soul and God/Brahman.

Yes, you are right in your above inference. That is why there are 4 MahaaVaakyas in Upnishadas viz Aham Brahma Asmi etc. 

Remember, above Mahaavaakyas have not been made as part of some theoretical model or propositions as in some theories of consciousness in Materialism or in eDAM, without any evidence. But these assertions are the result of repeated experiences in the state of Samaadhi in a quite reproducible manner and by a group of people spread over the period. 

 In Islam, I guess, you get many beautiful girls and wine to enjoy in heaven if you do what Islam says you to do; this is how suicide bombers are brainwashed.

Islam has never propagated in any of its sacred text that by becoming suicide bombers, one will get beautiful girls or wines. This is the propaganda of some conservatives Muslims who want to exploit religion for misguiding Muslim youth for the political ends.But it is true that in the Astral world, there is all sort of beings with Astral biologies having beautiful as well ugly bodies -- both with the male as well as female outlook or appearance. It is also true that in the Astral world, all type of food material including wines etc is available mere by will. But the access to such powers is not available to people who have done misdeed of suicide bombers in their past birth(s). This power is available to ASstral beings, who have done good deeds in their past births(s). But remember. These powers are a great temptation and hurdle for ascending the higher stages for a realized Yogi. In view of this, a true Yogi is never concerned with such powers of Bhogas of sex or consumption of liquor.

Then don't forget that even in this physical world, plenty of beautiful damsels and liquor has been available to rich and resourceful and just realize their physical and mental sufferings. A wise Yogi realized the sufferings -- both mental and physical and does even talk of such Bhoogas either in this physical world or in the Astral world.

 In Buddhism, the feeling of suffering can be minimized thru Noble Eightfold Path on daily basis.

Eightfold path in Buddhism is an ethical code for attaining the preliminary disciplinary stage of the mind and body for advancing to the higher stage Samaadhi on the similar pattern as Yama and Niyama are in Patanjali Yoga for attaining Samaadhi. If you will see minutely, there will many similarities in the eightfold path and Yama and Niyama.

In my view, these are the logical problems idealism and dualism (OOO-God theory) face.

As such, there is no logical problem but due to misinterpretation, problems, problems appear. You please indicate 2 specific problems, I shall try to address those problems in a frontal manner. For example, regarding the category mistake in Saankhya, I have provided the solution in my previous comments ( relevant comments highlighted in green font text above ) but you have kept silent on my solution.
 
 The eDAM does not have such problems.

There are many problems but you don't want to confront these problems. For example, the problem of an explanatory gap for the emergence of functions not out of the structure as elaborated in the foregoing paras.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: The biggest flaw in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. […]You have stated that as per eDAM, the mental aspects are functions. OK. But is there any evidence to this hypothesis? Nil. It is only a speculation without any basis. the mental aspects could also be some structure.
Your definition of the functions as one not having mass, charge, spin has a very peripheral and shallow view and a lot more needs to be done to unpack these terms. Before functions, let us try to unpack as to what is a structure? In my view, a structure of any entity in the universe is the "ontological stuff" due to which the structure has its very existence. Without the "ontological stuff", which is the structure, there is no existence of any entity. But a problem has been that a structure of an entity can't be comprehended and described directly as a structure. A structure is described by a set of attributes which are the functions. These functions have an intricate relationship with the structure and always do take birth from the structure itself. For example, mass, charge, and spin are the functions/attributes of the of elementary particles by which particle ( i.e its structure) is described. So, mass, charge, and spin are already Functions of the elementary particles. Therefore, any attempt to define Functions as one not having mass, charge, and spin is misleading and contradictory.
 
Then how to define Functions? I think Functions are
i) Some attributes of the structure by which structure is described.
ii) These attributes have genesis in the structure itself i.e functions take birth from the structure itself.
iii) In the majority of the cases, functions do manifest when the structure undertakes some internal and external dynamic structural change.
 
There is no meaning of any Function existing on its own (i.e not taking birth from the structure) as hypothesized in eDAM and then supported by Nagarjuna's Buddhist metaphysics of co-origination, co-development, and co-manifestation. Yes, structure and function can co-origin, co-develop and co-manifest but say that function has not originated (taken birth) from the structure but it existed on its own is an illogical assertion. If you think otherwise, please provide a single instance in the universe wherein any function might not be taking birth from the structure. I repeat even a single instance.
 
So first please have the clarity on the concept of the Function and Structure before inferring that the mental aspects are the Functions. Then you have stated that empirical evidence indicates that a structure has the functions and vice versa and they are inseparable. Yes, I agree to this. But you ignore the fact that empirical evidence also indicates that Functions do take birth from the Structure only. But eDAM rests upon its primary doctrine that Functions (mental aspects) don't take birth from the Structure (physical). But from where such functions emerge and in what form is the existence of the functions? No explanation from eDAM. Thus a great explanatory gap.
 
Vimal: I have addressed this query many times but you disagree because you look at from the ‘eyes’ of dualistic Sāṅkhya and monistic Cārvāka (materialism); so let agree that we disagree. Briefly, the empirical subjective and objective evidence for the eDAM are: all fMRI and EEG data related to conscious states are consistent with the eDAM’s inseparability and a structure has an inseparable function, which dependently co-arise from the eDAM’s perspective. For example, let us build a four-leg table (structure) to hold books as a function: when we build only two legs, then its function is only 50% accomplished; when all 4 legs are built, then its function is 100% accomplished, i.e., both aspects (structure and function) dependently co-arise. This is how the eDAM interprets it. Other metaphysics will interpret differently.
 
Sehgal: Actually, the binding and liberation of souls are misnomers. Soul was never bounded in the real sense. So where is the question of its liberation? Space in various vessels never gets bounded in real terms, so there is no question of its liberation. Bounding of the soul is an illusion due to ignorance in mind, the way binding of the space is an illusion. When the vessel of the ignorance is broken, the illusion of bounding vanishes and apparent binding of a soul is over.
 
When the apparent merging of the soul take place with God (cosmic consciousness), the identity of the soul also is over. So it is now the God which experiences and not the soul (due to is loose of its identity). In the aforesaid analogy when the vessel will break, the enclosed micro level space will loose its identity and it is now macro level/cosmological space which will take over. The same is applicable to soul and God. When the soul loses its identity, God takes over it in terms of the experience.
 
Your above problem is due to a number of misinterpretations viz.
 
i) First, as explained above, on liberation, the soul has no longer its identity. It is the cosmic consciousness which has the experiences. Even before the so-called liberation, God has the universal capacity to experience.
 
ii) Even before the apparent liberation, the experience of the color viz. trichromat or achromat is not the function of the souls or not even of the mind. Colour sensitiveness is due to the external bodily organ called eyes. So trichromat or achromat are due to organ eyes and not due to soul or mind.
 
iii) Cosmic consciousness or God is not dependent upon eyes for experiencing anything. It is the localized consciousness or soul which remains dependent upon eyes for seeing anything.
 
iv) When any experience shall be beyond eyes, the whole concept of the trichromat or achromat or of colors shall also be over. Otherwise, also you know that in reality at the noumenal level, there is nothing like any color. All is the e.m energy of the different wavelength. At the phenomenal level, we perceive this phenomenal reality in different colors.
 
v) What God or cosmic consciousness experiences anything, how you and I can know this? It is only God knows what He experiences. How an ant on the deserts of the Pacific oceans know as to what President Trump feels?

You have highly misinterpreted Sankhya's dualism in the matter of the thoughts production. Unless and until the mind is treated as a conscious element and the brain as a physical element, dualism continues to persist. But this is a wrong interpretation of Saankhya. The mind is also a physical derivative of Moola Prakriti in the Astral realm of nature like that of the brain in the physical realm, with a radical difference in the nature of their physicality. In view of this, the interaction between the mind and the brain is one to one same interaction i.e. physical to physical. Therefore, there is no dualism.
 
Vimal: No, eyes are just receiving organs, retina does not experience anything. It is visual cortical areas (such as V8-NN) that are responsible for color experiences. In the eDAM, a specific subjective experience is selected thru matching of feed forward signals with feedback signals as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010c), which is experienced by the ‘self’.
 
Yes, I will never know what you feel or God feels because experiences and thoughts are personal/private from 1pp; this is precisely my point that there is no group-experiencer (such as a group-soul or God), which has a significant implication that there is no way of experiencing/knowing what others experience/think even at Savikalpa and (thoughtless) Nirvikalpa Samādhi (SS/NS) states. Therefore, your claim that a soul withdraws from a body at SS/NS states and roams around the universe and can know/experience what others experience/think is untenable. The same is true in for paranormal experiences in the above sense.
 
Furthermore, if we lose our identity in God and cannot enjoy the experiences what God feels (such as bliss) and we cannot be God, then what is the advantage of making so much lifelong effort for liberation/Moksha? I am not sure this is Vedānta’s view. In Advaita, there is no difference between a soul and God/Brahman. In Islam, I guess, you get many beautiful girls and wine to enjoy in heaven if you do what Islam says you to do; this is how suicide bombers are brainwashed. In Buddhism, the feeling of suffering can be minimized thru Noble Eightfold Path on daily basis. In my view, these are the logical problems idealism and dualism (OOO-God theory) face. The eDAM does not have such problems.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
On Thursday, 15 June 2017 9:12 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,


Sehgal: Kindly don't go after the semantics. I follow that in eDAM, experiences from 1pp are not produced by the 3pp-physical aspect. However, it is also true that unless physical 3pp aspects NNs are built up, related 1pp experiences from the mental aspects don't manifest. In other words, the manifestation of the 1pp experiences  is contingent upon built up of 3pp NNs only. The biggest flaw in this approach has been that there is no subjective or objective evidence to the effect if the entities of the universe have really some mental aspect as inseparable with their physical aspects. The functions of the structure of the inert entities is also a physical aspect and any mental aspect by any proportion  of logic. Further, there is also no evidence to the effect if non-conscious living beings have any mental aspects in the potential format in the inseparable  state with their physical  aspects.

Vimal: I disagree. In the eDAM, a function is a part of mental aspect because a function does not have mass, charge, spin, and volume, so it is not a physical entity; a structure and a function dependently co-arise. The empirical evidence is that a structure has a function and vice-versa and they are inseparable. The experiential sub-aspect of mental aspect of a state of an inert entity is latent. We have discussed this many times. You are looking from the eyes of Sāṅkhya; that is why you feel differently; this is a major problem in your thinking process. I cannot help you further on this.

Sehgal: You have not responded to the issue as indicated in green font text and as underlined above.

You have stated that as per eDAM, the mental aspects are functions. OK. But is there any evidence to this hypothesis? Nil. It is only a speculation without any basis. the mental aspects could also be some structure.

Your definition of the functions as one not having mass, charge, spin has a very peripheral and shallow view and a lot more needs to be done to unpack these terms. Before functions, let us try to unpack as to what is a structure? In my view, a structure of any entity in the universe is the "ontological stuff" due to which the structure has its very existence. Without the"ontological stuff", which is the structure, there is no existence of any entity. But a problem has been that a structure of an entity can't be comprehended and described directly as a structure. A structure is described by a set of attributes which are the functions. These functions have an intricate relationship with the structure and always do take birth from the structure itself. For example, mass, charge, and spin are the functions/attributes of the of elementary particles by which particle ( i.e its structure) is described. So, mass, charge, and spin are already Functions of the elementary particles. Therefore, any attempt to define Functions as one not having mass, charge, and spin is misleading and contradictory.

Then how to define Functions?

I think Functions are

i) Some attributes of the structure by which structure is described.

<
...

[Message clipped]  



Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages