from psi to reincarnation

[Paul Werbos‏]

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:14 AM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Andris Heks <a.h...@hotmail.com> on Jan 18, 2018 wrote:

>Would you kindly say whether in your assessment there is sufficient 

>scientific evidence to prove the reality of reincarnation?

.

[S.P.] We were discussing this question on this forum last year. So, in my reply to Stephen Jarosek on August 22, 2017 in the thread "Re: Logistics of reincarnation" I have mentioned a special postulate that my explanatory framework contains. It is called the Law of Conservation of Consciousness (for details, see my post below). My conclusion was that reincarnation is possible in principle because the total number of the exemplars (or, instances) of consciousness must conserve.

.========

Serge's comment reminds me that once again I failed to mention Buddha when I should have. Sorry.

The story I heard is that Buddha was asked about reincarnation, and replied, roughly: "You are like a drop of water. Water evaporates in the sun, but water is conserved, and it returns to the rain and to the ocean."

Most people interpret this as a simple endorsement of the classic view of reincarnation, where Joe Smith reappears as Betty Chen so many years after his death, but I see Buddha's statement as properly NOT taking a definite position, when all of us have limited knowledge. The water returns to the ocean, but the drop itself and its individual identity is totally lost. Even Castenada talks at times about us dissolving altogether at death, with our thoughts merging into the larger ocean and our individual identity lost.

In my view, the evidence for my noosphere species theory is reasonably convincing, but the model (and the experience I have seen) does not predict how often any degree of individual identity persists after death. Gurdjieff (again, see the books by Bennett or Ouspensky) suggests that most people dissolve away, like a hot drop of water in a hot ocean, but that some may develop a kind of internal integration which holds it together more, to some degree. If the noosphere is like a brain AND IF our personal "souls" are like cells in that brain, persistence is more likely, but if they are more like small lobes or ganglia in the brain, it would be like water into the ocean. There are vast opinions on that subject, and I respect Joel Whitten's efforts, but in the end I have to say I do not know. It is possible enough that I do see some patterns in my life which fit the reincarnation idea, which I remain aware of, but  sometimes it seems important not to assume too much of that model. Even if cells are conserved at times in the noosphere (not really returning to earth), they can still interface enough with cells still here to LOOK like reincarnation at times, when there is mutual consent or connection between the cells. 

According to my concept of sanity (www.werbos.com/Mind_in_Time.pdf), we should not be TOO obsessed by the issue of personal survival after death. Whatever nature truly offers us... if we are true to our inner nature, we are true to ourselves, and that should be enough. But still, as Gurdjieff suggests, there are times when it is worth some effort to put critical information up on the hard drive or the cloud, so that it will not be lost. 

Best of luck,

    Paul 

[Serge Patlavskiy‏]

-

Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> on Jan 19, 2018 wrote:

>Serge's comment reminds me that once again I failed to mention Buddha

> when I should have.

<skip>

>...Buddha..., ... Castenada [maybe, Carlos Castaneda -- S.P.] ..., 

>... Gurdjieff ..., ... Bennett ..., ... Ouspensky ...

.

[S.P.] The main purpose of my post was to demonstrate a difference (a chasm) between the approaches of an experimentalist (here, Dean Radin) and a theorist (here, me). The question formulated by Andris Heks was used just as a probe. So, the experimentalist's reaction consists of three phrases, namely: "Prove? No. Scientific evidence? No. Very intriguing case studies? Yes.", whereas the theorist's reaction is much more complex.

.

So, the phenomenon of reincarnation is a typical consciousness-related phenomenon which cannot be explained in a bottom-up manner, namely, when we start from examining the cases of reincarnation. I mean that whatever number of the cases of reincarnation we would examine, we will never come to the theory which would account for this phenomenon. For the applied theory of reincarnation to be constructed we have to apply the top-down approach and to construct a special meta-theory in the first place. And the postulate about conservation of consciousness is an element of such a meta-theory.

.

Second. If somebody prefers to give talk on what Buddha, Castaneda, Gurdjieff, Bennett, Ouspensky and others were thinking about the phenomenon of reincarnation -- no problem. Just let me get out of auditorium because I feel myself as a superfluous third on this lecture. I prefer to take part in discussions, or in exchange of original private ideas between the authors of these ideas.

.

With respect,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 8:26 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] from psi to reincarnation

___________________________________________

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

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

Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 6:29 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Psi

-

Andris Heks <a.h...@hotmail.com> on Jan 18, 2018 wrote:

>Would you kindly say whether in your assessment there is sufficient 

>scientific evidence to prove the reality of reincarnation?

.

[S.P.] We were discussing this question on this forum last year. So, in my reply to Stephen Jarosek on August 22, 2017 in the thread "Re: Logistics of reincarnation" I have mentioned a special postulate that my explanatory framework contains. It is called the Law of Conservation of Consciousness (for details, see my post below). My conclusion was that reincarnation is possible in principle because the total number of the exemplars (or, instances) of consciousness must conserve.

.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

_______________________________________________

From: Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org>

To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com 

Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 1:49 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Psi

Prove? No. 

Scientific evidence? No.

Very intriguing case studies? Yes.

best wishes,

Dean

[Paul Werbos‏]

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 4:37 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> on Jan 19, 2018 wrote:

>Serge's comment reminds me that once again I failed to mention Buddha

.

[S.P.] The main purpose of my post was to demonstrate a difference (a chasm) between the approaches of an experimentalist (here, Dean Radin) and a theorist (here, me). The question formulated by Andris Heks was used just as a probe.

In my view, the topic of reincarnation is important enough, and specific enough to this list, that it justified a separate thread on that topic. There are enough threads here already on various types of general theory. But by changing the subject, I hoped to make it easy for folks to just ignore it if they are not interested in the topic. 

.

So, the phenomenon of reincarnation is a typical consciousness-related phenomenon which cannot be explained in a bottom-up manner, namely, when we start from examining the cases of reincarnation.I mean that whatever number of the cases of reincarnation we would examine, we will never come to the theory which would account for this phenomenon. For the applied theory of reincarnation to be constructed we have to apply the top-down approach

Form a theory without agreeing on what data the theory is expected to reflect/fit/predict? Without bothering with analyzing what we do and do not know from the data?

 

and to construct a special meta-theory

Not a theory but a metatheory? Is that like a theory of quantum optics which consists solely of metastatements like "photons are smart little critters?" Or like "maybe we could use Turing machines to predict photons?"

 

in the first place. And the postulate about conservation of consciousness is an element of such a meta-theory.

.

Yes, it sounds very meta to me, and very much a postulation.

 

Second. If somebody prefers to give talk on what Buddha, Castaneda, Gurdjieff, Bennett, Ouspensky and others were thinking about the phenomenon of reincarnation -- no problem. Just let me get out of auditorium because I feel myself as a superfluous third on this lecture.

If you don't have any interest in anyone else's views of reincarnation, or the first person explorations they are based on, or on the original question, it would indeed make sense to start a separate thread, "perhaps with a subject like like "metatheories," and to skip this one. None of us is really justified in tracking EVERY one of the important threads under discussion here.

 

I prefer to take part in discussions, or in exchange of original private ideas between the authors of these ideas.

To be honest, I suspect there are more people on this list sincerely interested in the question of reincarnation or of afterlife in general than in digital abstract metatheories as such.  Which should then be restricted to be private and off the list? In my view, neither should be restricted; it simply calls for parallel threads.

Best of luck,

   Paul

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal‏]

If reincarnation is true then it can be explained thru sub-Planckian subtle level-2 astral entities that have sanskaras/karmas for rebirths in the eDAM framework.

Regards,
Ram

Sent from my iPhone

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/451887936.1003435.1516397837001%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kushal Shah‏]

Hi Paul,

What you have described is quite close to what Aurobindo says in this wonderful book "The Psychic Being", and something that I also think is the right picture. There are no demarcations at the level of consciousness. It is only access to memory that is divided, but that too with porous walls which tend to fall apart. What we call an individual is not a bundle of consciousness, but a bundle of memory. After death, the particular bundles of memory may get mixed together or may also split into more than one part and get reborn as separate individuals. Hence, the key to all these questions is to understand how memory exists outside the body-brain complex. Trying to develop theories for consciousness is not going to be very fruitful.

Best,

Kushal. 

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

--

----------------------------
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/CACLqmgdgCiBZhqHu%3DX%2BO6f8Cys%3Dk6cCCr3q4r3w3-v5h7J0NnA%40mail.gmail.com.

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

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals

[Dr.BVK Sastry(G-MAIL)‏]

Namaste

 

1.    The topic of ‘ Consciousness – Mind- Matter’ Research is touching several dimensions and disciplines : Quantum Physics to parapsychology ! to explore ‘ Logistics of reincarnation’.

 

2.    I am placing extracts from various posts which in some way gets connected with the one question that a young boy called ‘ Nachiketa’ asks the ‘ Time Keeper and Control  of Death’. ( Kathopanishad) way back before Buddha.  A story which has inspired theists and atheists to present their schools of thought in India !  The question in this story has been foundational issue which is explored in Yoga –Vedanta – Saamkhya studies  and documented in Language : Samskrutham. (  or  Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan.. depending upon the historic time and context). The essential question to explore from the story has remained the same.

 

 

3.   Story Part (simplified – to  present the  classical question leading to   the backdrop of  Yoga-Vedanta  Indian deliberations on antiquity of  question on re-incarnation/ post death life)  :   A young boy, annoyed at his father’s ritual activities  of  distributing  ‘ barren cows (Skt: jagdha trunaH dhenavah) ’ as ‘ gifts ( Skt:  danam) ’ at   sacrifice (Skt: yajna)  to get a ‘ stated benefit  (= yajna-phalam)’ asks the question: To whom do Thou gift  me, for giving a useful item will give more benefit. Father, in a fit of anger says – ‘You are given to the Time Keeper and Control  of Death’ ( Skt: mrtyu).  The young boy takes the order literally and moves in search of this ‘ mrutyu’, said to have been in the southern direction (?!).  After several days of journey and a three days wait, the ‘Time Keeper and Control  of Death’  appears before the young boy and asks  :What thou art seeking.  The third question asked by the boy reads: 

 

4.  Question from Story Contextualized:   Story  There is an eternal ongoing debate on what happens to the individual, after the end of life. Some postulate that ‘ the conscious being ( Skt: Jeeva) leaves the material body and after some time takes enters in to a new body-brain complex called ‘ Shareera’.   Some others postulate that ‘ the conscious being ( Skt: Jeeva) leaves the material body and  That’s it. There is no individual ,  no return, no   rebirth and the like . Death marks the end of it all.  I, as a young boy have not found any one who crossed this line bi-directionally and come back to explain what is on the ‘ other side’, a territory guarded by you for entry or exit.  Please let me know the Truth of what is there on the other side. There is no other person, except you, who has a knowledge of both sides and still transcending the ‘ transition of Death, which is your own very nature. You appear to the Agent of all transformations called ‘death’ and yet, you are the ONLY entity who remain ‘ Transformation less and eternal’.  Please help me to understand the Truth of  ‘ Body-Brain-Complex  ( Skt:  Shareera) ’ encaged  (Skt: antargata) ‘ individual ( Skt: Jeeva)  which seems to  be locked to the Body which changes  through  TIME –TRANSITIONS  and yet  remains the same for the given SPAN OF TIME (Skt: Ayush)  till   you, the ‘ Mrutyu’ , ‘ Time Keeper and Control  of Death’  takes over.

 

IF  and it is a BIG IF ,  we take axiomatic position that  yoga found some answers to this intricate intriguing question as documented in PYS 3.46 in Language: Samskruth , can Scientists  of today verify –examine – validate or reject or improve on the earlier  answers  ?  What is the design of the experiment , even if designed  ‘differently’?   Due respects to all earlier ‘ explanations’.  It is Time  to show the talk.

 

 

5.   Why this story of tradition  is relevant here  in this discussion ?    The trigger to narrate the story has been the following remarks:

 

a) Ram : < If reincarnation is true then it can be explained thru sub-Planckian subtle level-2 astral entities that have sanskaras/karmas for rebirths in the eDAM framework  >

b) Serge Patlavskiy :     : < So, the phenomenon of reincarnation is a typical consciousness-related phenomenon which cannot be explained in a bottom-up manner, namely, when we start from examining the cases of reincarnation. I mean that whatever number of the cases of reincarnation we would examine, we will never come to the theory which would account for this phenomenon. For the applied theory of reincarnation to be constructed we have to apply the top-down approach and to construct a special meta-theory in the first place. And the postulate about conservation of consciousness is an element of such a meta-theory.  …  I prefer to take part in discussions, or in exchange of original private ideas between the authors of these ideas. >  ….   < None of us is really justified in tracking EVERY one of the important threads under discussion here.>

 

c)  Andris Heks / S.P  <  It is called the Law of Conservation of Consciousness (for details, see my post below). My conclusion was that reincarnation is possible in principle because the total number of the exemplars (or, instances) of consciousness must conserve >   ….   <  Even Castenada talks at times about us dissolving altogether at death, with our thoughts merging into the larger ocean and our individual identity lost. > …. < In my view, the evidence for my noosphere species theory is reasonably convincing, but the model (and the experience I have seen) does not predict how often any degree of individual identity persists after death > … < . Even if cells are conserved at times in the noosphere (not really returning to earth), they can still interface enough with cells still here to LOOK like reincarnation at times, when there is mutual consent or connection between the cells.>  

 

 

d)  Dean: <  Prove? No.    Scientific evidence? No.       Very intriguing case studies? Yes.    >

 

e) Kushal : <  I personally think that the first possibility of "multiple modes from multiple assessors" is the reality, if there is any truth in the idea of reincarnation.>  …. <  What you have described is quite close to what Aurobindo says in this wonderful book "The Psychic Being", and something that I also think is the right picture. There are no demarcations at the level of consciousness. It is only access to memory that is divided, but that too with porous walls which tend to fall apart. What we call an individual is not a bundle of consciousness, but a bundle of memory. After death, the particular bundles of memory may get mixed together or may also split into more than one part and get reborn as separate individuals. Hence, the key to all these questions is to understand how memory exists outside the body-brain complex. Trying to develop theories for consciousness is not going to be very fruitful. >

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Alex Hankey‏]

RE: Andris Heks <a.h...@hotmail.com> on Jan 18, 2018 wrote:

>Would you kindly say whether in your assessment there is sufficient 

>scientific evidence to prove the reality of reincarnation?

ME: Many scientists, wrongly in my opinion, will not look at evidence unless there is a theory for it. Has anyone published a theory of human cognitive states that can decouple from the body? Where is the theory of OOBEs and NDEs etc. 

But the literature contains vast numbers of compelling stories in published books by competent scientists of past life memories - see Brian Weiss's 'Many lives, many masters' by him and others. And what of stories where a child identifies the person who murdered him / her in a previous life. 

One of my own favorite stories occurred when I took my student, Dr Ramesh Rao, whom I supervised for a PhD in Vedic Astrology, Jyotisha, to visit a well-known teacher of Natya, Indian Dance, here in Bangalore. Ramesh asked her for her birth date, time and place. A couple of minutes later, he looked up in astonishment. 

"But you were born enlightened", he exclaimed. 

The lady looked a little embarrassed, but then she relaxed and smiled. 

"Yes," she said, "it's true. When I was 2 1/2 years old, all the mudras* came back to me from my previous life, and I did not have to learn them anew."

* Mudras comprise a large number of complicated finger positions with symbolic meaning, which allow a performer of Natya to tell the story he or she is dancing, enabling the audience to keep up with the performance in more detail. 

Here is a phenomenon, ripe for a relevant theory to be published. 

Alex Hankey 

On 19 January 2018 at 23:05, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

--

--

Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India 
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 

Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789

____________________________________________________________

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy

[Andris Heks‏]

Many thanks Alex and Paul and others who commented on reincarnation.

Andris

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 20 January 2018 3:56 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] from psi to reincarnation

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/CAKGpHcj80SWz-BA_3TyFqNkzvjvrkm06mZYLYCrCuZNgA_paJw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy‏]

-

Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com> on Jan 20, 2018 wrote:

>Many scientists, wrongly in my opinion, will not look at evidence 

>unless there is a theory for it.

.

[S.P.] It is incorrect to conclude that the top-down approach ignores the evidence. The top-down approach means that I construct MY VERSION of the applied theory of consciousness being based on MY subjectively experienced/recorded consciousness-related data. 

.

So, I first construct a special meta-theory. To construct a meta-theory means to elaborate a special base of prime concepts, a special general method, a special system of models, a special system of proofs. Also, I formulate the general conservation laws and general principles which pertain to our Reality. 

.

Then, within the limits of this meta-theory I construct an applied theory -- I go top-down, or from the MT-level to the AT-level. What does it mean to construct an applied theory? It means that we use the explanatory tools elaborated on the meta-theoretical level and APPLY them when accounting for certain phenomena, evidences, or research data (which belong to the D-level, or the level of simple description and data collection). My version of the applied theory of consciousness appears in result of applying these explanatory tools in reference to MY privately experienced research data.

.

Then, only after my version of the applied theory of consciousness is already constructed, I may use it ALSO to account for the evidences and research data recorded by OTHER researchers. Also, being based on the already constructed version of the theory of consciousness I may plan more experiments to test such or other conclusion or prediction which follows from my theory of consciousness, thereby testing its explanatory and predictive power.

.

As I have explained in my reply to Paul Werbos on Jan 17, 2018 (see below), the bottom-up approach presumes going from the D-level, through the GS-level, and to the AT-level. This approach works fine in Physics, but when we try to construct a theory of consciousness, we cannot pass through the GS-level -- we are not able to generalize and systematize research data sufficiently well. This is because the consciousness-related data are privately experienced by every researcher, and when some phenomenon is described in words, a lot of important information which pertains to this phenomenon remains unuttered. That is why I give up a traditional bottom-up approach and make use of the top-down approach.

.

[Alex Hankey] wrote:

> Has anyone published a theory of human cognitive states that can decouple

> from the body? 

.

[S.P.] It is another misunderstanding. Try to understand the following idea. My solution is of the class "meta-theory + applied theory". So, I start NOT FROM constructing an applied theory -- I start from constructing a meta-theory. By its complexity of construction, a meta-theory differs from the ordinary theory as a spaceship differs from an applecart. So, the correspondent paper on the problems of constructing a meta-theory was published six years ago.

.

[Alex Hankey] wrote:

> Where is the theory of OOBEs and NDEs etc.

.

[S.P.] My version of the applied theory of consciousness assumes that consciousness can work in its sub-conscious regime, normal everyday regime, and ultra-conscious regime. The sub-conscious regime is mainly for keeping under control all the physiological processes in the organism; the normal everyday regime is mainly for producing thoughts based on logic and common sense; the ultra-conscious regime is mainly for the activity which pertains to intuition, telepathy, premonition, clairvoyance, telekinesis, OBE, NDE, and so on. 

.

Therefore, there is no need in a separate theory which would account for the OBE and NDE effects.

.

With respect,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 12:52 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] from psi to reincarnation

RE: Andris Heks <a.h...@hotmail.com> on Jan 18, 2018 wrote:

>Would you kindly say whether in your assessment there is sufficient 

>scientific evidence to prove the reality of reincarnation?

ME: Many scientists, wrongly in my opinion, will not look at evidence unless there is a theory for it. Has anyone published a theory of human cognitive states that can decouple from the body? Where is the theory of OOBEs and NDEs etc. 

But the literature contains vast numbers of compelling stories in published books by competent scientists of past life memories - see Brian Weiss's 'Many lives, many masters' by him and others. And what of stories where a child identifies the person who murdered him / her in a previous life. 

One of my own favorite stories occurred when I took my student, Dr Ramesh Rao, whom I supervised for a PhD in Vedic Astrology, Jyotisha, to visit a well-known teacher of Natya, Indian Dance, here in Bangalore. Ramesh asked her for her birth date, time and place. A couple of minutes later, he looked up in astonishment. 

"But you were born enlightened", he exclaimed. 

The lady looked a little embarrassed, but then she relaxed and smiled. 

"Yes," she said, "it's true. When I was 2 1/2 years old, all the mudras* came back to me from my previous life, and I did not have to learn them anew."

* Mudras comprise a large number of complicated finger positions with symbolic meaning, which allow a performer of Natya to tell the story he or she is dancing, enabling the audience to keep up with the performance in more detail. 

Here is a phenomenon, ripe for a relevant theory to be published. 

Alex Hankey 

___________________________________

From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' 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: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 10:20 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Psi

-

Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> on Jan 2018, 2018 wrote:

>I am sorry that Serge and Dean were briefly like two ships in the night, 

>addressing different issues, both important: (1) demonstrating that psi is 

>real (where I basically just agree with Dean; (2) understanding how and 

>why it works, SO THAT we have a basis for expanding and developing 

>it further.

.

[S.P.] People, try to understand my arguments. What is called "bottom-up" approach, it is effective in Physics when the third-person approach is used and the physicists basically agree on the existence of such or other phenomenon (like piezoelectricity or Brownian motion). Here, we start from simple observations and collecting experimental data, then we generalize and systematize data and formulate the hypotheses, and only then we try to construct a theory which must be able to account for these data.

.

But, this approach does not work while we deal with consciousness-related phenomena. A researcher who studies own consciousness collects the data based on own experience. For example, I may record the case of premonition or time anomaly, but it is my privately experienced data and it can hardly be experienced by other persons in the way I did. 

.

Even in case somebody states that he/she has experienced similar phenomenon, this is of small help for me because, while describing the phenomenon in words, a lot of important details remain unuttered. In result, the stage of generalization and systematization becomes not passable. This means that, while applying a first-person approach, we cannot go from amassing data to a theory which explains these data.

.

Therefore, I have suggested a SOLUTION -- a kind of "top-down" approach. The key idea is that we have first to construct a meta-theory, and only then, within its limits, to try to construct a theory of consciousness. And only then, the ALREADY constructed version of the theory of consciousness can be used to account for the available consciousness-related phenomena and for planning more experiments.

.

I hold that the experiments in the field of consciousness studies have sense ONLY when their aim is to prove or disprove the ALREADY constructed version of the theory of consciousness. If we will aim just to collect data, then we will have no chance to explain them because of the extreme complexity of the object of study. Moreover, no amount of data (whatever good) could ever convince the skepticts.

.

To the point, a theory of consciousness is itself a product of certain thinker's consciousness. So, it must obey what I call the criteria of formal correctness. I mean that we can conclude whether the given version of the theory of consciousness is formally correct and, hence, whether it is worthy of our consideration YET before we will test its explanatory and predictive power (or against actual data).

.

And, finally. I hold that the psi-phenomena should not be treated as cases of mind-matter interaction. If being treated like this, no explanation can be ever found. Instead, I suggest to consider (formalize, understand, etc.) the psi-phenomena as cases of inter-system interaction. If being treated like this, the psi-phenomena will have a chance to be explained. 

.

The case is that, while on a meta-theoretical level, I have elaborated a special methods and system of models able to formalize the interaction between the whole complex systems like the system{organism} and the system{spoon} (or the system{another organism}, or the system{distant site}, etc.). The mentioned system of models (namely, the system of AS-DIS-DEC models) is based on the idea of integrated information system (or IIS for short) which makes the explanatory tools very complex.

.

With respect,

Serge Patlavskiy

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com