Digest for April 13, 2017

[BMP]

		Dear List Members Due to the large volume of messages received we are sending out this Digest for April 13, 2017 to reduce the number of INBOX emails. Thank you for your understanding and participation.  Thank you.
		Serge Patlavskiy Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Beyond the modern monolithic consciousness hype  Apr 12, 2017 - Madhava Puri on April 12, 2017 wrote: > The First proposition is that thinking can think itself, without  >need of a finite spirit. After all, we do not know how we think.  >What bodily part in the brain or otherwise produces thought?   [S.P.] OK, you do not know how you think. But, unlike you, I have my own version of the applied theory of consciousness constructed, so I cannot say I do not know how I think.   [Madhava Puri] wrote: > Does the sunset produce thought of the sunset?   [S.P.] The sunset produces physical signals -- e-m radiation of certain frequency. Our sense organs (the eyes) transform these physical signals into physical sensory signals -- electric impulses running along neuronal channels to the brain. Then, if our consciousness processes these physical (sensory) signals and transforms them into the new elements of our experience, we may state we have an experience of sunset.   However, our consciousness may ignore these physical (sensory) signals, and we will be looking at something, but seeing nothing.   And, a third possibility. Our consciousness is able to re-process the formerly memorized elements of experience, so that we may be looking at nothing (there are no physical sensory signals), but seeing something (like sunset), and it will be an illusion.   Constructing the applied theory of consciousness is not solving some philosophic or poetic problem. For me, it is a purely technical problem -- the problem of elaboration of the appropriate method of study, elaboration of the appropriate system of models, system of proofs, and so on.   [Madhava Puri] wrote: > So ontologically, according to this scheme, thinking produces consciousness   [S.P.] Well, well. And a cart pulls the horse, and Baron Munchausen pulls himself out of a mire by his own hair. :-) OK. I now see that you indeed do not know how consciousness works yet. If someday you will have your own solution then we could compare our results.   With respect, Serge Patlavskiy   Reply to From: "'BMP'   Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2017 Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Beyond the modern monolithic consciousness hype   Dear Serge,   Namaste. As I have tried to explain, thinking does not necessarily imply a first person perspective. This is the presumptive perspective that Descartes and and others bring to philosophy. It has led to the view of modernism including science that thinking is a purely subjective phenomenon of the finite spirit. However, there is no ontological necessity connecting thinking with the finite subject as Descartes merely presumed. He did not prove that.   [Clipped rest of message]   ==============================================================
			Banerjeebd Fw: [Sadhu Sanga] Fifth International Conference "SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST — 2017"  April 13 2017.   Nice to Know, it is a good idea. Look forward for invitation and attend as senior faculty or chair the session regards Dr.B.D.Banerjee Professor & Lab Incharge Honorary Visiting Professor, CHST, IIEST, Shibpur, India Full Member SOT (US), Member ISSX (US) and EACR (UK), Life Member IIS, SOT (India), ISC, IACR and SAR Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory Department of Biochemistry, Lab No. 237/ 2nd Floor University College of Medical Sciences & GTB Hospital, University of Delhi,Dilshad Garden,Delhi-110095, INDIA Staff Advisor (Physical Education), UCMS Chairman, Research Project Advisory Committee, UCMS Lead Assessor, NABL, Quality Management system & Former Head Deptt. of Medical Biochemistry Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi  Delhi-110007, INDIA  Mobile: 09868835502 Off: 011-22135362 Res: M-32, Ground Floor, C.R. Park New Delhi-110019 Ph: 011-41038094

====================================================================

Bruno Marchal

Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why theMaterialistNeo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False"(2012) April 13, 2017

 

Hi Ram,

 

 

On 12 Apr 2017, at 23:31, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal wrote:

 

 

We all use the term ‘emergence’ (weak, medium, or strong) to hide our ignorance.

 

 

But in the mechanist situation, the ignorance is reduced to a precise statistics on a precise domain, making the statement testable (and confirmed by quanum mechanics without collapse of the wave).

 

 

Therefore, I have tried to unpack it in terms of matching and selection mechanisms used in the extended dual-aspect monism in (Vimal, 2013). You may like to look at it.

 

It needs to invoke a physical reality, or a god. I do believe in those things, but we can't invoke them in the explanations. It is what we have to explain, at least when we assume Mechanism (which I think you do not, so we are OK, just in different theories.

 

 

As per Piccinini (as of 12 April, 2017), “Computationalism is the view that cognitive capacities have a computational explanation or, somewhat more strongly, that cognition is (a kind of) computation. […]  Computationalism is controversial but resilient to criticism.”

 

As per Wikipedia (as of 12 April, 2017), “In philosophy, a computational theory of mind names a view that the human mind or the human brain (or both) is an information processing system and that thinking is a form of computing. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1961, and developed by the MIT philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor (who was Putnam's PhD student) in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.^[1][2] Despite being vigorously disputed in analytic philosophy in the 1990s (due to work by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others), the view is common in modern cognitive psychology and is presumed by many theorists of evolutionary psychology; in the 2000s and 2010s the view has resurfaced in analytic philosophy (Scheutz 2003, Edelman 2008). […]Roger Penrose has proposed the idea that the human mind does not use a knowably sound calculation procedure to understand and discover mathematical intricacies.” Searle and Putnam have refuted it using a thought experiment such as Chinese room. The metaphysics underlying computationalism seems to be materialism, which has serious problem of explanatory gap: how can experiences arise from non-experiential matter (such as brain)?

 

 

 

Wikipedia can be very good on some topics, but very bad on many others. Many people have told me that they did not succeed to explain my contribution, and I guess it is politics. To be sure, after 1500 years of aristotelian materialist brainwashing in Occident, it is normal that people will take some time to abandon the "myth of a *primary* physical universe. Searle chinese room argument has been refuted by Hofstadter and Dennett a long time ago (in their book Mind'I). Penrose based his argument on a miscomprehension of Gödel's work. he admitted the error, and wrote a second book, where he still does not catch the consequences of Gödel's work for physics. Tthe last sentence in the quote above is just weird, as computationalist refutes materialism. Only strong atheists use computationalism to eliminate consciousness and person, but when you dig on this, computationalism eliminates primary (aristotelian) matter only, and physicalism. It is the notion of primary matter which introduces the explanatory gap, which is a bit sad, because nobody has ever shown its existence, nor even shown how to devise a protocol to verify its existence. Note also that science has begun with Plato by doubting materialism (which is easy to extrapolate from our imperative of eating or being eaten). the original theological question was about the existence of fundamental, primary, physical universe, but since the closure of Plato academy, this is hidden in a sort of fake debate about the existence of God (which was only a nickname for truth among the (neo)platonists and (neo)pythagoreans.

 

Best,

 

Bruno

 

====================================================================

Bruno Marchal

 

Re: {SPAM?} Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)  April 13, 2017

On 12 Apr 2017, at 15:02, integr8ted wrote: 

> Dear Friends, 
> Namaste. I've been a blind receiver of this discourse for years, and   
> have 
> found the discussion most interesting. I hope you all don't mind,   
> but I feel 
> compelled to offer a comment here. 
> As you know Deepak, and I believe this is what your recent writing   
> is about, 
> consciousness IS the fundamental level of reality. It is   
> consciousness that 
> generates cause due to desire. Consciousness means person, 


I am glad to hear that. Some people disagree with this, but I think   
they confused personal identity, which is plausibly an illusion, and   
individuality, which we experience in the mundane state of   
consciousness all the time, and should not dismiss as it has some role   
on the terrestrial plane. That is also why it is difficult for   
enlighten person to come back in the village (the last state of   
illumination in zen). 

Now, I don't think we need to postulate that consciousness is the   
fundamental level of reality, although it is more fundamental than the   
physical appearances. With the mechanist theory things go in that   
(logical) direction: 

NUMBERS LAWS ===> CONSCIOUSNESS/DREAMS ===> MATTER APPEARANCES 


> and person means 
> desires. When the conscious living being has desire it sets into   
> motion the 
> actions of the material energy, or gunas, which is the reaction.   
> This is the 
> power of the spiritual energy over the material energy that simply by 
> thought, or desire, the reaction is automatically generated. This is   
> also 
> called karma. 

This materializes consciousness, making it even more incomprehensible,   
imo. With mechanism it is far easier to dematerialize matter, and   
explain it through mathematical appearances. 

Sincere respect, 

Bruno Marchal 

 

====================================================================

vinodsehgal1955

RE: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why theMaterialistNeo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False"(2012)  April 13, 2017

 

SP agreed and wrote that there is no meaning of anything  --time, space, matter and energy without subject and subject is always conscious one. This amounts to an inference  that conscious subject( or consciousness) is priori for anything to exist  and give some meaning. This will make consciousness  the most fundamental  existence of the universe. Do you agree? If not why?

(SP) further wrote that for him the word conscious  is misleading and that he treats  conscious as synonymous  with feeling and experience. However  he also  adds that all the cognitive possessing organisms are conscious  by default.

Above inference of SP does not agree with observations. Consciousness  can and does persist even  without any feelings/experiences resulting from perception  and cognition. In the deep state of Samaadhi (meditation), Yogis are conscious  of themselves, which is the state of consciousness  being conscious of consciousness  itself, without any perceptual and cognitive  experience. As such, consciousness  can exist without perceptual and cognitive  feelings but converse of this is not true  since no perceptual and cognitive feelings can take birth without consciousness. Further, if there shall be no consciousness, who will perceive or feel the feelings? Thus in the case of perceptual and cognitive  feelings also, consciousness  becomes a priori.

SP's assertion as mentioned elsewhere that our consciousness  transforms physical sensual signals  into new elements of experience also contradicts his contention that consciousness  and feelings are synonymous. What are the new products  taking birth by the transformation  of the physical  signals? These are the feelings/experiences as arising out from the perceptual  and cognitive  process. And due to which agency, physical  signals undergo transformation to feelings and experience? As pet SP's version, this agency  is consciousness. Therefore, how feelings can be synonymous  with consciousness  when such feelings are produced by consciousness  itself?

A simple logic negates the synonymy  of feelings and consciousness.


(SP) further wrote -- our consciousness  creates  a concept of time by comparing two or more than two continuous or periodic evolving process.

Any evolving physical  process whether continues  or periodic one in the physical world is contingent upon two elements viz matter and its motion. Further,  the presence of the space  in which matter shall move is also mandatory  for the matter to exist  and motion to take place.
This rises two inquisitive issues  i) Is there no existence of time in the absence of matter   with motion? Further, prior to the existence of matter and start of motion in matter, there should be the existence of space in which matter should  exist  and motion of matter should take place. This will make space  as priori to matter  and its movement. Thus space should be more  fundamental  than matter and motion.  ii) Secondly, as SP stated that with an evolving  process, our consciousness  creates  a concept  of time. It is OK but whenever any concept is created, the concept can't pertain to nothingness. Any concept should pertain to "something". Otherwise also between the ends of a periodic process, we (our consciousness)  feels that something has elapsed between the ends of the periodic process. That something which has elapsed in the evolution  of the periodic process is what we call Time. Even in the absence of the evolving process of the  motion of the matter, we feel the passage of something  when engrossed in some internal cognitive  thought  process. Again  we identify passage of that something  with Time.

What is that "something" which actually elapses in our consciousness  and which we identify as Time?

Regards

Vinod Sehgal 

 

====================================================================

misra.bijoy
Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Beyond the modern monolithic consciousness hype April 13, 2017

 

What came first 

Consciousness or Science and Philosophy ? 

The Nasadiyasukta in the RgVeda contains the speculative cosmology of India.

I created a poetic translation of it for the public television to help celebrate the

Poetry in America month (April).  I am attaching.  Like modern cosmology,

the poet does enunciate "perturbation" as the origin.  Feel free to analyze.  

The original; Sanskrit is in Rgveda Xth mandala sukta 129.

Thank you.

Bijoy Misra  

 

====================================================================

Bruno Marchal

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: on your Sadhu Sanga post April 13, 2017

 

On 13 Apr 2017, at 04:06, 'Serge Patlavskiy' wrote:

 

-

Bruno Marchal<mar...@ulb.ac.be> on April 12, 2017 wrote:

>> [S.P.] So, what we postulate to exist objectively out there (the 

>>outer world) -- it is Noumenal Reality.

> 

>That is logically impossible, IF we assume computationalism.

 

[S.P.] "Computationalism is the view that cognitive capacities have a computational explanation or, somewhat more strongly, that cognition is (a kind of) computation." (www.umsl.edu/~piccininig/Computationalism.pdf).

 

I assume that consciousness can work as in sub-conscious regime, normal everyday regime, so in ultra-conscious regime. Yes, while functioning in its normal everyday regime, our consciousness performs computations akin a computer machine -- we come to new ideas being based on formal logic and cause-effect relations. But, performing machine-like computations is not all (is far from being all) that there is to the activity of consciousness. 

 

Computationalism-based solution to AI problem is unrealizable in principle because computationalism does not take into consideration the mentioned above sub-conscious and ultra-conscious regimes of the activity of consciousness. 

 

I don't believe in computationalist based AI either. In fact I can prove to you that IF we are a machine THEN we cannot know which machine we are, and worst (for some people), we do have a soul, and that soul is a machine only in the eyes of some Outer-God (as opposed to the Inner God).

 

We must distinguish the idea of using some mechanism as a metaphor to explain the brain, or the heart, and computaionalism which assumes that there is no part in our body which is not Turing emulable at *some* relevant  description level.

 

 

There can be no "artificial intelligence". Intelligence can be either natural or none.

 

I agree. Of course by "natural" is no more a primitive notion when we assume comp (and study my reasoning).

 

 

We can only talk about (and look for) artificially realized conditions which are required for natural intelligence to appear in the given complex system. Natural intelligence presumes that all the regimes of the activity of consciousness are taken into consideration, not only the ability to compute while functioning in its normal everyday regime.

 

At all level of description? That reintroduces an artificial God in the machine.

 

 

[Bruno Marchal] wrote:

> I guess you assume materialism

 

[S.P.] Better say, I do not reject materialism. My meta-theory takes into account the activity of informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor when modeling some existent entity. But, it presumes that in case we may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (like when studying Brownian motion) we may use the laws of Physics. 

 

What is the material factor? and how can it selects computations among the infinities of computations going through my current state?

 

Best,

 

Bruno

 

 

====================================================================

Bruno Marchal

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: on your Sadhu Sanga post April 13, 2017

 

On 13 Apr 2017, at 02:23, Deepak Chopra wrote:

 

What came before ? 

Consciousness or mathematics ?

 

Good question. I don't know.

 

What I do believe is that IF we bet on Descartes Mechanism (modernized through the discovery of the universal numbers) THEN it is simpler to explain the rise of consciousness and matter appearances from arithmetic, than to explain matter and mathematics from consciousness alone.

 

What certainly cannot work is the idea that matter is primitive.

 

Consciousness might still be primitive, but to posit it is a bit like answering the question before trying a theory. Mechanism explains why Consciousness has a fundamental rôle and looks primary when looking inward. 

 

Consciousness is the first person experience of the (universal) machine's soul, which can be associated to the knower (in a way similar to Plato), which is at the intersection of truth and proof. Incompleteness explains why consciousness, like truth, is not definable, and why consciousness is both undoubtable (like Descartes fixed point) and non provable. 

 

The "only" price: the physical universe is a temporary illusion, even if it can be quite persistent.

 

But of course I don't know the truth,

 

Sincere respect,

 

Bruno

 

====================================================================

Avtar Singh

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Beyond the modern monolithic consciousness hype April 13, 2017

 

Dear Deepak and Puri Ji:

 

The question “What came first?” does not apply to the eternal cosmic consciousness since it is beyond time (without any clock). All various clocks corresponding to the temporal relative realities are within the eternal consciousness and manifested (constructs) according to the level of awareness of the observer.

 

Science, philosophy, and biological mind (often misrepresented as consciousness) are relative and concurrent temporal realities within cosmic consciousness; hence they evolve continuously with their own clocks.

 

There is no one unique clock or time in the universe and hence the question - "what came first?" does not apply to concurrent relative realities. Such a question would always remain paradoxical without an answer.

 

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

 

====================================================================

Serge Patlavskiy

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Beyond the modern monolithic consciousness hype (show original)11:34 AM (1 hour ago)

-

Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> on April 13, 2017 wrote:

>What came first 

>Consciousness or Science and Philosophy ?

>Consciousness or mathematics ?

 

[S.P.] Consciousness makes it possible for any organism to gain knowledge about the outer world. 

 

To gain knowledge, we fix what is known for us, then we produce some influence upon outer reality (or, just passively observe what is going on in nature, like ice melting on the surface of a river), then, after some time, we record the result and compare it with the remembered initial state of affairs, and then we may come to conclusion that what we know now is new knowledge compared with what we knew before.

 

The above scheme of gaining knowledge is at heart of any experiment. Imagine a group of ancient people who find a fungus and they want to know whether it is eatable. So, the fungus is given to somebody to eat, and if this person dies, then the others gain new knowledge that this kind of fungi are not eatable. So, the group of people has just conducted an experiment. 

 

Science and Philosophy are based on this same mechanism of gaining knowledge.

 

If the experiment is conducted in a special place (like laboratory), and by obeying certain strict criteria, we call it "scientific experiment". As to Science, it is a special field of human's activity where people receive money for conducting scientific experiments. As to Philosophy, I think that there are philosophers even among octopuses and other animals. If an organism loves to eat, he, sometimes, has to love wisdom in the first place. :-)

 

So, it is standing to reason that consciousness came first.

 

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Menas Kafatos]

I think in my humble opinion also

keep only people who want to

be part of the list and the discussions.

Too many people are complaining 

that they got into the list without 

their consent. And once this happens, 

despite the protestations, one 

rarely can get off.

An e-mail can go out to the group

asking IF one is interested to remain

on the list to reply. If one does not reply,

one is taken off the list.

Menas

Sent from my iPhone

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 17—18, 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
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

[Deepak Chopra]

Agree with Menas 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

[BMP]

Dear List Members

Thank you Dr Kaftos and Dr Chopra for your suggestions.

It is not due to lack of interest in the topic of this group. Everyone is keenly interested

in the discussion of this most important topic of our times. Those who want to opt

out can easily do so by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer that accompanies 

every message that goes out to the group.

The problem is that even those who are keenly interested in this group are receiving

a large volume of emails on their phones or other devices that each have to be

handled manually. It is much easier to receive a cumulative digest of many emails

than to manually deal with them individually. This is what we are aiming for.

The proper dealings of the participants on this list with one another even in

the face of strong disagreement is greatly appreciated. The principles of humility,

tolerance, and respect for others are cultivated in such an atmosphere. Great

strides in learning can be achieved by challenging what we think we know by

considering perspectives outside that circle. Thus benefits accrue to both the individual 

and the community by such exchange.

Today marks a special event in the history of civilization. Both believers and non-believers

may know the meaning of this day as commemorating the divine immortal and eternal God

embracing the temporality and death of Man within Godself, thereby not lowering God but raising 

Man into an integral participant within the the play of the divine.

It is by embracing within oneself what is different, even to the extreme opposite of oneself, 

that the noblest qualities of Man become manifest transcending all the warring elements

of this world. 

In that spirit we wish all a blessed season at this time of year.

B. Madhava Puri

---

From: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 7:49 PM

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Madhava Puri on April 14, 2017 wrote:

>It is much easier to receive a cumulative digest of many emails 

>than to manually deal with them individually.

[S.P.] The idea to send the digests instead of individual emails "kills" live discussion. For example, in your today's digest you reply to my post, but the readers have no idea which my post (and which my arguments) you are replying to -- the part containing the previous posts pertaining to this discussion is truncated.

To the point, Google Groups provides a possibility for a reader to opt for receiving individual emails or for daily digests. Just go to

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/

Then, click "My settings" (at the upper right corner), then, it the dropbox, click "Membership and email settings", and then click "Email delivery preference", and choose between daily summaries or individual emails.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'BMP' 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, April 14, 2017 1:09 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for LIst Members

-- 

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Serge Patlavskiy has already explained the steps for receiving individual emails or for daily digests, however, Serge missed to mention one important point: "The members with a non-gmail account in a group cannot access the setting in the google group."

Step 1:

The google group members with non-gmail account can access the setting in the group by linking their non-gmail account with a gmail account (if non-existing then they have to create a new gmail account for themselves). To Sign in to your Google Account with non-gmail account the following link will be useful: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/176347?hl=en  

Step 2:

After signing into google account please visit https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/online_sadhu_sanga 

and click 

My setting (at the upper right corner)

In the drop box click 

Membership and email setting

Then you can choose the option suitable for you. 

Email delivery preference:

All Email: send each message as it arrives

Don't send email updates

Send daily summaries

Send combined updates (25 messages per email)

Notify me for every new message (about 8 per day)

Thanking you.

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017

August 18—19, 2017

[Jenny L Nielsen]

I want to remain on list! Been busy but do enjoy list

Sent from my iPhone

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com> on April 13, 2017 wrote:

> SP agreed and wrote that there is no meaning of anything  

>--time, space, matter and energy without subject and subject 

>is always conscious one.

[S.P.] May I know where I wrote this? I wrote that any knowledge I have about the postulated Noumenal Reality (or outer world) is due to activity of my consciousness. I wrote that "the trivial fact is that the subject of cognitive activity must be consciousness-possessing by default." Is my English so poor that even the simplest ideas I am expressing in English are not understandable?

[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:

> (SP) further wrote that for him the word conscious  is misleading 

>and that he treats  conscious as synonymous  with feeling and 

>experience. However  he also  adds that all the cognitive possessing 

>organisms are conscious  by default.

[S.P.] Why not to provide a verbatim citation from my correspondent post instead of inventing so inaccurate interpretations? The direct citation is: "I mean that, for me, the word "conscious" is misleading, and is synonymous to the word "feeling". Yes, the trivial fact is that the subject of cognitive activity must be consciousness-possessing by default.".

So, one can see that I consider the word "conscious" as synonymous with the word "feeling". I mean the phrases like: "be conscious of cold" = "to feel cold". In so doing, I say nothing about "experience". Moreover, I say about consciousness-possessing organisms, but NOT about "cognitive possessing organisms". However, I talk about "cognitive abilities", and about "subject of cognitive activity".

[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:

>Above inference of SP does not agree with observations. 

>Consciousness  can and does persist even  without any 

>feelings/experiences resulting from perception  and cognition. 

>In the deep state of Samaadhi (meditation), ...

[S.P.] Indeed, your interpretation of my ideas "does not agree with observations". :-) What I say is that we can have new knowledge to the total absence of new physical (sensory) signals. 

I never said on this forum before that consciousness could not exist (as one of the living organism's natural abilities) without producing new knowledge. I say this now: consciousness is like a flywheel -- once started to rotate (at the moment of organism's conception) it never stops rotating and doing its job up to the organism's demise. The old medical term "to lose/regain consciousness" is misleading and is rather a metaphor. 

So, while an organism is alive, its consciousness necessarily produces new products (new knowledge, experience, feelings, models, etc.). I mean that the situation like "without any feelings/experiences resulting from perception and cognition" is not possible in principle.

As to the "deep state of Samaadhi", it must be one of the altered states of consciousness. But, the irony is that we can only rely on knowledge which we obtain while our consciousness functions in its everyday normal thought-producing regime.

[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:

>SP's assertion as mentioned elsewhere that our consciousness  

>transforms physical sensual signals  into new elements of experience 

>also contradicts his contention that consciousness  and feelings are

> synonymous.

[S.P.] Fatal misunderstanding. Where I said that "consciousness and feelings are synonyms"? I say that knowledge, experience, information, concept, feeling, dream, premonition, imagination, model, etc. are synonyms in a sense of being the products of consciousness.

[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:

>And due to which agency, physical  signals undergo transformation 

>to feelings and experience? As pet SP's version, this agency  is 

>consciousness.

[S.P.] The explanation of the mechanisms of transformation of the physical (sensory) signals into the elements of experience is a subject matter of my applied theory of consciousness. Unfortunately, the explanation is too complex to be presented here.

[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:

>Therefore, how feelings can be synonymous  with consciousness  

>when such feelings are produced by consciousness  itself?

[S.P.] Indeed, your demonstrated inability to interpret my ideas leads to strange conclusions. :-)

[Vinod Sehgal] wrote:

>It is OK but whenever any concept is created, the concept can't 

>pertain to nothingness. Any concept should pertain to "something".

[S.P.] There is a saying: "No result is also a result". Another saying: "No news is good news". Any illusion is a concept created by consciousness in the lack (or the total absence) of the physical sensory signals, or in the lack of correspondent element of Noumenal Reality. 

Thanks for your attempts to make sense of my approach,

Serge Patlavskiy

[Pramod Sinha]

Good Morning,

Great idea Menas. I will like to stay in the group. It is a blessing.

Pramod

संभूतिं च विनाशं च यस्तद्वेदोभयं सह । 
विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वा संभूत्यामृतमश्नुते ॥ १४ ॥
(Those who worship the unmanifested Prakriti (Nature) and Hiranyagarbha (Destruction) together, get over death through the worship of Hiranyagarbha and attain immortality through the worship of Prakriti.)

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 17—18, 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
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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 17—18, 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
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

[integr8ted]

Please keep me on the list as blind receiver. Thank you.

> strongly, that cognition is (a kind of) computation. [.] Computationalism

> is controversial but resilient to criticism.”
> >
> > As per Wikipedia (as of 12 April, 2017), “In philosophy, a computational
> theory of mind names a view that the human mind or the human brain (or
> both) is an information processing system and that thinking is a form of
> computing. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in
> 1961, and developed by the MIT philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry
> Fodor (who was Putnam's PhD student) in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.[1][2]
> Despite being vigorously disputed in analytic philosophy in the 1990s (due
> to work by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others), the view is common in
> modern cognitive psychology and is presumed by many theorists of
> evolutionary psychology; in the 2000s and 2010s the view has resurfaced in

> analytic philosophy (Scheutz 2003, Edelman 2008). [.]Roger Penrose has

> > Life and consciousness – The Ved€ntic view:

> Life and consciousness – The Ved€ntic view:

[con...@howgravityworks.org]

I must confess that all these messages go into my spam folder. I can simply purge my spam folder.

 

I have always maintained an interest in the subject as I think it is important and dismissed by the vast

majority of humanity. Most being of humanity is of an overwhelmingly superficial nature.

I must apologize for my simple answer to Deepak's simple question. (Consciousness or Science and Philosophy)

I am not a troll. It's just, I don't read  most of these emails as they are too long winded.

I am always working on the consciousness problem in the background of my mind and find some of these emails

as important input to the final product that I may actually write up at some point.

(That will be deleted from everybody else in their spam folders as I do. - LOL)

 

Thank you for your time.

 

P.S. Also, I had made the observation that there was no way to determine individual email addresses from the

googlegroups and thanx to BNS for the tip. I forwarded that message to my gmail and will attempt to

open the googlegroups content.

 

I think in my humble opinion also

keep only people who want to

be part of the list and the discussions.

Too many people are complaining 

that they got into the list without 

their consent. And once this happens, 

despite the protestations, one 

rarely can get off.

An e-mail can go out to the group

asking IF one is interested to remain

on the list to reply. If one does not reply,

one is taken off the list.

Menas

Sent from my iPhone

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 17—18, 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

[Gur Pyari Jandial]

Dear Prof. Menas 

I would like to stay in the group. It is a pleasure to be even a silent reader. In a troubled world like ours a pure intellectual activity like this is a boon. 

Warm regards

Gur Pyari 

I

...

[Venkataramanaiah Chekuru]

I want to remain on the list and want each email into my mailbox.

Thanks&regards

C.Venkataramanaiah

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 17—18, 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
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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
 
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
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

[Graeme Morrison]

Hello I would like to be kept on the list 

I do not always agree with what is said but enjoy reading all the thoughts posited

Graeme uk

> 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

> 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

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

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

Contact: 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.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Subject lines and content of the email play a significant role in the filters that control the emails delivery to inbox/S-P-A-M folders (using the word S-P-A-M to avoid the email filters). Therefore, it is important to note that “Email subject lines” are one important part of the email delivery equation used by the filters. In order to avoid sent emails ending up in the S-P-A-M folder one should avoid  S-P-A-M Trigger Words. The subject lines of some of the emails on Sadhu Sanga list contain the word “S-P-A-M” (automatically added by certain email service providers) and most of the time the emails with such subject line will end up in the S-P-A-M folders of the receivers. To avoid this one need to remove the word “S-P-A-M” from the subject line of the email before sending the email to the list.

 

We are also receiving many messages (following a suggestion from Menas) in the list where the members of Sadhu Sanga group are showing their concern about being removed from the list. Members of Sadhu Sanga group should not worry about being removed from the list and we assure that the member list will remain unchanged.

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta

August 18—19, 2017

[Pradheep Chhalliyil]

Hi

I like to be on the list too.

Thanks

Pradheep

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Gur Pyari Jandial <gpj...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 10:41 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest for April 13, 2017

 

--

----------------------------
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
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

[Balraj Arunasalam]

It is a pleasure to be in this group to keep reading things otherwise I will not read. 

Thank you for expanding my knowledge on human behavior in many ways. 

With Warm Regards

Balraj Arunasalam DTM 

President Elect 2016-2017 

Toastmasters International 

“Where Leaders are Made”

www.toastmasters.org 

From: <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Gur Pyari Jandial <gpj...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 9:11 AM
To: <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017

August 18—19, 2017

Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
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
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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.

[Jesse Bettinger]

Given the sheer volume of people comprising this group, wouldn't it be more sensible to request people to opt out rather than signal they would like to remain opted in?? Surely only a minority raised issue in the first place, if at all...

Jesse

Get Outlook for iOS

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of integr8ted <integ...@pamho.net>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 6:31:00 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Digest for April 13, 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

[Email Admin]

dear friends , i need  and love these mails on regular basis

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of con...@howgravityworks.org <con...@howgravityworks.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:57 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for LIst Members

 

August 18—19, 2017

[BMP]

Dear List Members

Dr. Shanta has explained that this list is not going to change in any way. All members will remain on this list. 

If anyone wants to change their options for receiving emails it is your personal choice and may be done by following the instructions below. At the bottom of every email you receive from this group there is a link for unsubscribing whenever you wish to do so. The choice is entirely in your hands. 

Rest assured we will continue sending individual emails to your inbox from this group.

Your expressions of gratitude for participating in this group are sincerely appreciated. We all want to discuss how best to achieve a scientific understanding of consciousness. While everyone has their own ideas to present, and they each have their own value, it may also be a good idea for those who are willing to work together to determine a clear idea of what the subject of investigation [consciousness] actually is. Perhaps that clear idea will gradually come out of these discussions as what is the most satisfying concept for all.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

---

From: Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

[Chungmin Lee]

---Thanks for the openness.

   

    What would be the solution of the "hard problem" by David Chalmers, to whom the target is 

"the first person data." Actually, I know my own sensation and feeling at the time of speech but

not others'. In Korean, "I am dizzy" is all right but not "She is dizzy" (hardly acceptable) at the 

present time of speech unlike in other languages. In other words, Korean is faithful to Davidson's

"Firs person authority." 

    

   What would be your comments? I'd appreciate your response.

   Best,

   Chungmin

  .

   

Chungmin Lee

http://hosting03.snu.ac.kr/~clee
Professor emeritus
Dept of Linguistics (and Cognitive Science Program)
Seoul Nat'l University
Seoul 151-742, KOREA
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cognitive Science http://j-cs.org
Editor, Springer book series [Language, Cognition and Mind] (LCAM)

http://www.springer.com/series/13376
(Member, NAS, Republic of Korea) 

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:24 AM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear List Members

Dr. Shanta has explained that this list is not going to change in any way. All members will remain on this list. 

If anyone wants to change their options for receiving emails it is your personal choice and may be done by following the instructions below. At the bottom of every email you receive from this group there is a link for unsubscribing whenever you wish to do so. The choice is entirely in your hands. 

Rest assured we will continue sending individual emails to your inbox from this group.

Your expressions of gratitude for participating in this group are sincerely appreciated. We all want to discuss how best to achieve a scientific understanding of consciousness. While everyone has their own ideas to present, and they each have their own value, it may also be a good idea for those who are willing to work together to determine a clear idea of what the subject of investigation [consciousness] actually is. Perhaps that clear idea will gradually come out of these discussions as what is the most satisfying concept for all.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

---

From: Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org>

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

Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

Serge Patlavskiy has already explained the steps for receiving individual emails or for daily digests, however, Serge missed to mention one important point: "The members with a non-gmail account in a group cannot access the setting in the google group."

Step 1:

The google group members with non-gmail account can access the setting in the group by linking their non-gmail account with a gmail account (if non-existing then they have to create a new gmail account for themselves). To Sign in to your Google Account with non-gmail account the following link will be useful: https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/176347?hl=en  

Step 2:

After signing into google account please visit https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/online_sadhu_sanga 

and click 

My setting (at the upper right corner)

In the drop box click 

Membership and email setting

Then you can choose the option suitable for you. 

Email delivery preference:

All Email: send each message as it arrives

Don't send email updates

Send daily summaries

Send combined updates (25 messages per email)

Notify me for every new message (about 8 per day)

Thanking you.

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta

--
----------------------------
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
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact: 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/559058555.1066774.1492302267181%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Chungmin Lee <cl...@snu.ac.kr> on April 16, 2017 wrote:

> What would be the solution of the "hard problem" by David Chalmers, 

>to whom the target is "the first person data."

[S.P.] The key point here is not the name of David Chalmers. :-) For example, I formulate the problem more generally, namely, what are the mechanisms of transformation of the physical (sensory) signals into the elements of subjective experience. Or, yet simpler: how my consciousness creates a model of Noumenal Reality?

So, I have my own solution (albeit not an easy one, because I start from constructing a special meta-theory), and for the last 20+ years I am looking for other thinker(s) who would also have his/her own original solution (who would be experienced in constructing meta-theories and applied theories) to compare our results. 

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Chungmin Lee <cl...@snu.ac.kr>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 12:43 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

[BMP]

Dear Chungmin,

Namaste. The hard problem involves understanding the original identity in difference of thought and being of the Absolute, which in its original difference is the division of consciousness and the world, and in the return from [negation of] that difference to its simultaneous identity is Spirit. This is one way of making a simple statement of the whole system of Hegel but, of course, it is not the same as understanding that system in its completeness, just as the word "zoo" is a simple way to refer to "all the animals" but hardly begins to explain or describe them.

In a previous article posted to this group Beyond the Modern Monolith of Consciousness, the idea of a first person consciousness [self-consciousness] is explained as a product of reason, recognized only through a process of it's rational development from social interaction. However, consciousness is perceptual and thus its propositions or judgments arise from understanding and not reason. thus it cannot comprehend its determinations as implicating itself in what it judges as other than itself. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

---

From: Chungmin Lee <cl...@snu.ac.kr>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 5:43 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

[NYIKOS, PETER]

The main Western philosophical drive in the past century started with the revolt in psychology against the introspection of Wundt, towards the behaviorism of Watson and Skinner. This affected philosophy to where the dominant force in the Philosophy of Mind was what I call "third person realism," with a cynical connotation to "realism". The underlying fiction is that words have no meaning unless they are somehow about publicly available information. The epitome of this was an essay about dreams which denied any meaning to the word "dream" above and beyond the report of someone of something he called his dream.

Psychology is overcoming this Orwellian use of language, and philosophy seems to be following suit, but I'm afraid Western philosophy will have a hard time coming around all the way to the insight embodied in the Korean language.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
University of South Carolina

---

From: chungm...@gmail.com [chungm...@gmail.com] on behalf of Chungmin Lee [cl...@snu.ac.kr]
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 9:23 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CANyf1Z05LuxEaBSasGQkUan%2B1%3Dg59kQwVO5K2ogJfVysgun%3DpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[C. S. Morrison]

Please keep me on the list. Very much enjoying the discussions.

Thanks,  Colin

Send from Huawei Y360

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Apr 2017, at 03:23, Chungmin Lee wrote:

---Thanks for the openness.

   

    What would be the solution of the "hard problem" by David Chalmers,

It is a materialist reconsideration of the antic mind-body problem. With computer science it reduces to an hard problem of matter, which reduces to a statistics on computations as seen from "inside" (technically long to explain here).

to whom the target is 

"the first person data." Actually, I know my own sensation and feeling at the time of speech but

not others'. In Korean, "I am dizzy" is all right but not "She is dizzy" (hardly acceptable) at the 

present time of speech unlike in other languages. In other words, Korean is faithful to Davidson's

"Firs person authority." 

    

   What would be your comments? I'd appreciate your response.

Once you get the difference between truth and proof, the definition of knowledge given by Theaetetus works very well. It explains why machine looking inward can discover that they have a soul which is not a machine, nor even anything describable in the third person way. Theaetetus defines knowledge by "true belief", and Socrates refuted that definition, but that refutation is itself refuted by the incompleteness phenomenon in computer science. the machine have a rich "theology" very similar to Narjuna, Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, ... (mainly those people who does not oppose science and the mystical insight).

See my publications for more. I sum up 30 years of hard work so I can understand it might seems weird. The creative bomb of the 20th century is the discovery (in arithmetic) of the universal number/machine. 

Best,

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.

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/CANyf1Z05LuxEaBSasGQkUan%2B1%3Dg59kQwVO5K2ogJfVysgun%3DpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

[priyedarshi jetli]

The solution is that there is no "hard problem" and the statement of it in Chalmers and others makes it a pseudo problem as it is only the decree of it as a "hard problem" that makes it a hard problem. I doubt that physicists pay much attention to it as they are dealing with numerous problems every day in their work, all of which are difficult to solve but they work their hardest at solving them.

   Best,

   Chungmin

  .

   

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CANyf1Z05LuxEaBSasGQkUan%2B1%3Dg59kQwVO5K2ogJfVysgun%3DpQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/AEB57649-0BB9-4BB6-9F0A-46ADDD4B513D%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Priyedarshi,

On 17 Apr 2017, at 15:01, priyedarshi jetli wrote:

The solution is that there is no "hard problem" and the statement of it in Chalmers and others makes it a pseudo problem as it is only the decree of it as a "hard problem" that makes it a hard problem.

I think that it is call "hard" by opposition to what is considered simple: to make a machine *behaving* like if it was conscious. The hard problem is how to relate or associate a subjective knowledge of, say, color, with gray cells only playing with numbers. With computationalism, we can explain that by using the self-reference logics, but then we have to associate a mind/soul to an infinity of computations realized in arithmetic, and we get a "matter appearance" problem, which is simpler, but still rather difficult (without mentioning the psychological difficulty in renouncing to an ontological material universe after 1500 years of quasi-brainwashing on that metaphysics).

I doubt that physicists pay much attention to it as they are dealing with numerous problems every day in their work, all of which are difficult to solve but they work their hardest at solving them.

Indeed.

I don't think physicists work on the mind-body problem at all (except Mario Bunge, the only exception I know). They encounter the problem though, through the conceptual problem related to interpreting the quantum principle. But it is not the physicists who aboard the mind-body problem, it is the mind-body problem which imposes itself to the physicists.  Physics is just not the right science to study for that. It is usually based on a mind-brain identity link which is incoherent with mechanism, and apparently with quantum physics. Physics is a wonderful science, but becomes very bad metaphysics when used as such.

It is just that the science Theology should come back at the academy of science, where it was born. But in occident, after the Plato Academy in Athene has been closed (by emperor Justinien, +523) theology has become a pseudo political means of control of people, and a technic to steal money, and eventually the materialist theology of Aristotle has been enforced by terror and violence. Occident has not yet completed the Enlightenment Period. Reason is still forbidden in theology, the Middle-Age is not yet terminated, humans are still inhuman with themselves, as we can see everyday.

I like to sum up this by saying that, in Occident, science is born in -500 with Pythagorus, and has stopped in +500 with Damascius, and has not yet reborn.

The Enlightenment Period was only half-enlightenment. In orient it is more difficult, and I am still trying to understand, but all in all, it seems that the religious also fall regularly in the trap of the argument per authority.

Kind regards,

Bruno

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/CAG9qgfBPryGyN03Mcoh5Q%3DEF%3D5dffDVVv03-PxjEi1h_eeFehg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

[Asingh2384]

Dear Bruno:

I disagree with your unfounded and speculative statement - "I don't think physicists work on the mind-body problem at all (except Mario Bunge, the only exception I know). They encounter the problem though, through the conceptual problem related to interpreting the quantum principle. But it is not the physicists who aboard the mind-body problem, it is the mind-body problem which imposes itself to the physicists.  Physics is just not the right science to study for that. It is usually based on a mind-brain identity link which is incoherent with mechanism, and apparently with quantum physics. Physics is a wonderful science, but becomes very bad metaphysics when used as such."

The basis of my disagreement is the enclosed paper describing physics-based model of matter, mind, and consciousness that predicts the empirical observations of the universe expansion and resolves paradoxes and uncertainties of the mainstream theories including the hard problem of consciousness. This is purely Relativistic physics and not metaphysics as you state.

However, I agree with you that quantum physics is incomplete and improper to study consciousness as evidenced by its many deficiencies and weirdness especially its predictions of vacuum energy are 120 orders of magnitude higher than the observed values.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/B76AAB7D-B4E5-4905-9DA4-EC901CCF8330%40ulb.ac.be.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Avtar,

I disagree with your unfounded and speculative statement - "I don't think physicists work on the mind-body problem at all (except Mario Bunge, the only exception I know). They encounter the problem though, through the conceptual problem related to interpreting the quantum principle. But it is not the physicists who aboard the mind-body problem, it is the mind-body problem which imposes itself to the physicists.  Physics is just not the right science to study for that. It is usually based on a mind-brain identity link which is incoherent with mechanism, and apparently with quantum physics. Physics is a wonderful science, but becomes very bad metaphysics when used as such."

My fault. I should have made clear that I say this in the context of the mechanist theory of mind (my field). I have shown that if we assume mechanism, even in a very weak logic form, physics *has to* retrieved from arithmetic, through the theology of the universal number.

But if you follow Penrose in his non-mechanist hypothesis (which *I* find rather speculative) then your approach is coherent. It does not satisfy me because I don't see a convincing explanation of the qualia, or intentions, nor how to relate it to the report of mystical insight, nor which part of physics is supposed to be non-Turing emulable (it could be the wave packet reduction, but I see no evidence for it).

The basis of my disagreement is the enclosed paper describing physics-based model of matter, mind, and consciousness that predicts the empirical observations of the universe expansion and resolves paradoxes and uncertainties of the mainstream theories including the hard problem of consciousness. This is purely Relativistic physics and not metaphysics as you state.

But that is the problem. It is physics, not theology. In my opinion, consciousness and its relation with some reality belongs to theology of machine or of non-machine.

However, I agree with you that quantum physics is incomplete and improper to study consciousness as evidenced by its many deficiencies and weirdness especially its predictions of vacuum energy are 120 orders of magnitude higher than the observed values.

That might be more a problem of quantum field theory. The quantum problem is that to eliminate the non local weirdness, we have to abandon the wave collapse and use the mechanist theory of consciousness (computer science, in the mathematical sense of computer), but then we have a measure problem on the set of all computations. It has been solved at the propositional level, and we know that all machine looking inward is able to find the quantum logical principle, without observing nature at all.

Best,

Bruno

<Manus_Final_ FQXi_From Laws to Aims & Intentions_SinghA.pdf>

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

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Priyedarshi Jetli <pje...@gmail.com> on April 19, 2017 wrote:

>Consciousness studies is not a field of study for physics perhaps 

>for a good reason. Because it deals with a lot of pseudo problems.

[S.P.] My explanation is that to study any object scientifically, the methods (and models) we use must correspond to the nature of the object of study. The methods/models used by Physics are not good for studying consciousness-related phenomenal. These methods/models do not take into consideration the activity of informational factor, and cannot deal with a whole complex system reducing its overall entropic state. A living organism is an example of such a complex system.

[Priyedarshi Jetli] wrote:

>After reading what you have written I remain precarious about 

>the hard problem. It accepts a division of subjective experience 

>from objective experience I presuppose. Or 'subjective' is 

>redundant here as experience is just experience of a subject.

[S.P.] Yes, any experience is subjective and the word "subjective" is redundant. As to "objective experience", it is not possible in principle, because every person gets a model of the outer world (or the model of Noumenal Reality) due to activity of own personal consciousness. We -- the group of people -- may only talk about "comprehensive experience" we may receive after solving the problem of intersubjectivity.

[Priyedarshi Jetli] wrote:

>Why not partition experiences of vision from hearing and so on?

[S.P.] It is ill advised to part the physical (sensory) signals receiving from different sense organs because consciousness always deals with cumulative sensory input. In so doing, in case one sense organ deteriorates, the other sense organ(s) exacerbates. The rest of lacking sensory data our consciousness compensates itself by processing the formerly memorized elements of experience (or the elements of knowledge). So, we may be looking at the bare foots behind the curtain in the bathroom, and "seeing" a girl having a shower. However, it may, in fact, be a barefooted plumber repairing a water tap. :-)

[Priyedarshi Jetli] wrote:

>These would also not make sense because experiences are 

>multi-modal sensory inputs leading to certain outputs.

[S.P.] No, the very presence of sensory input does not lead to the new elements of experience. The new element of experience (or new knowledge, etc.) is a result of the activity of consciousness. Sometimes, we may be looking at something but seeing nothing. I mean that the physical (sensory) signals sent by sense organs to the brain are available, but our consciousness refuses to process them and transform them into new elements of experience.

However, sometimes, when there are no physical (sensory) signals sent to the brain (to wit, our sense organs do not function), our consciousness may process the formerly memorized elements of experience and create new element of experience, and we call it "illusion", or "imagination", etc.

[Priyedarshi Jetli] wrote:

>I just don't understand what are the elements of experience.

[S.P.] Experience/knowledge is not continuous -- it is always in a form of some whole distinct pattern. Therefore, when I say "the element of experience" or "the element of knowledge", I mean one fully accomplished act of creation of a new experience/knowledge. Using English, we cannot say "two knowledges", but we may say "two elements of knowledge".

Thanks for your reply,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:00 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

Serge,

Consciousness studies is not a field of study for physics perhaps for a good reason. Because it deals with a lot of pseudo problems. After reading what you have written I remain precarious about the hard problem. It accepts a division of subjective experience from objective experience I presuppose. Or 'subjective' is redundant here as experience is just experience of a subject. Partitioning experiences into subjective and non subjective seems arbitrary. Why not partition experiences of vision from hearing and so on? These would also not make sense because experiences are multi-modal sesory inputs leading to certain outputs. I just don't understand what are the elements of experience.

Priyedarshi

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

Dear Priyedarshi,

have you seen my own reply to this same post on April 16? If not, I attach it below.

By the way, consciousness studies is not a research field for physicists.

SP

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

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

People

Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com>  April 16 at 3:32 PM

To

Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Message body

-

Chungmin Lee <cl...@snu.ac.kr> on April 16, 2017 wrote:

> What would be the solution of the "hard problem" by David Chalmers, 

>to whom the target is "the first person data."

[S.P.] The key point here is not the name of David Chalmers. :-) For example, I formulate the problem more generally, namely, what are the mechanisms of transformation of the physical (sensory) signals into the elements of subjective experience. Or, yet simpler: how my consciousness creates a model of Noumenal Reality?

So, I have my own solution (albeit not an easy one, because I start from constructing a special meta-theory), and for the last 20+ years I am looking for other thinker(s) who would also have his/her own original solution (who would be experienced in constructing meta-theories and applied theories) to compare our results. 

---

From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:06 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Priyedarshi Jetli <pje...@gmail.com> on April 20, 2017 wrote:

> However, if you take consciousness studies to be a science of 

>the study of the subject matter of consciousness, then there must 

>be some consensus on what consciousness is or even before that

> whether there is anything which is normally understood by 

>consciousness.

[S.P.] Thanks for your very important question. Why Physics is a science? It is because the problem of intersubjectivity is basically solved. I mean that when one physicist talks about, say, the effect of piezoelectricity, all other physicists in the world understand him very well. The physicists apply the third-person approach (to wit, the researcher is here, while the object of study is there), and the experimental results may be replicated in different laboratories under strict agreed-upon conditions. 

Let me introduce one concept here. So, I call "cognitive environment" a sufficiently big group of like-educated, like-doing, and like-thinking people within which the problem of intersubjectivity is basically solved. So, the cognitive environment for Physics is formed, and this makes Physics a science.

Now, as to the Science of Consciousness. Indeed, the problem of intersubjectivity is not solved here, which means that what I mean by "consciousness" may not be the same as the other persons may mean by this same term. Moreover, when applying the first-person approach, every researcher gets a unique set of subjective research data, and this data cannot be easily (or at all) replicated by others. Therefore, the question is a valid one: how to solve the problem of intersubjectivity when playing on a purely subjective field? I suggest the following answer. 

Let us accept that every researcher constructs his/her own personalized or subjective version of the theory of consciousness being based on his/her unique data received due to studying own exemplar of consciousness, and he borrows no ideas from others. Now, suppose, we have got many such personal versions of the theory of consciousness constructed by different researchers. Then, if all such theories will obey the same criteria of formal correctness (formulated in my reply to Vinod Sehgal on April 20; see also Appendix below), then, as I predict, these theories will turn to be compatible with each other (despite of the different conceptual basis used by different authors), and we would be able to come to comprehensive version of the theory of consciousness.

So, in trying to erect a Science of Consciousness we should not start from looking for common definitions (as we wont to do in Physics and other third-person-based disciplines) -- we should start from looking for the researchers who have got their personal finished versions of the theory of consciousness. So, in principle, my prediction is falsifiable, and the all I need is to find another researcher(s) who would have his own version of the theory of consciousness. To be honest, for the last 25 years of active search I have found nobody yet, even with a help of a candle. :-) 

[Priyedarshi Jetli] wrote:

> I am afraid this is not the case with consciousness. Basically 

>you are begging the question as in the proofs for the existence 

>of God.

[S.P.] No begging the question on my part. To understand my approach you have first to understand a difference between a meta-theory and an applied theory. The former is a collection of postulates and general assertions about Reality, and it serves as an epistemological framework for applied theories (just like a computer operation system serves as a platform for running applications). As to applied theories, they are being constructed within the limits of such or other meta-theory, and they must possess such or other explanatory and predictive power. For example, Physics (being a discipline -- a collection of applied theories) is constructed within the limits of a meta-theory called the Modern Materialistic Picture of the World. In so doing, the very meta-theory requires NO proofs by definition. 

So, when constructing my own special meta-theory I postulate Noumenal Reality as existing objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness, and I call "Phenomenal Reality" the "model of Noumenal Reality" that every living organism possesses due to activity of own consciousness. Since it is a postulate, I have no need to prove the existence of consciousness, nor the existence of (consciousness-independent) outer world, nor the existence of living organisms. 

However, I use one objective criterion to assess the given meta-theory. So, I call a meta-theory "good" if the applied theories, constructed within its limits (or on its epistemological basis), possess sufficient explanatory and predictive power, and it is the more good the more there are such applied theories.

With respect,

Serge Patlavskiy

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

Appendix (the criteria of formal correctness)

Whatever meta-theory, applied theory, a hypothesis, or a simple description my (or anybody's) consciousness constructs, they all

(1) should not contain tautologies; 

(2) should not contain notion-metaphor transmutations (e.g., "power" – it is a concept in Physics, but being used in Psychology, say, as "power of imagination", it becomes a metaphor); 

(3) should not contain hypostatization (which occurs when something abstract is treated or represented as a concrete reality); 

(4) should not contain incorrect definitions (when the unknown  is defined through another unknown); 

(5) should not contain multiplication of hypotheses (which occurs when the new hypothesis is being based upon the previous one, instead of being the result of generalization and systematization of research data); 

(6) should not breach Okham's principle (the most evident and simplest explanation has to be preferred); 

(7) should possess inner consistency (or, be formally non-self-contradictory); 

(8) should be rational (when the aim and criteria of approach correspond to each other).

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

---

From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.pa...@rocketmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:01 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

Serge,

Thanks for you detailed comments. I am in agreement with most of them. But at the ground level when you say that each science has its subject matter that is obvious as the subject matter of physics is different from that of biology and from that of chemistry, and so on. However, if you take consciousness studies to be a science of the study of the subject matter of consciousness, then there must be some consensus on what consciousness is or even before that whether there is anything which is normally understood by consciousness. I take the word "consciousness" to mean what is meant in medical science. When the body is functioning in a minimal state it is conscious. When someone is knocked out and becomes faint or dies we say that the person is now unconscious. So "conscious" means the non functioning of the body. What people usually mean by "consciousness" in consciousness studies has to me the same status as soul or God or mind; something intangible and most probably non existent, so one can say anything about it. This is not science I am afraid. Water is a hard tangible thing that everyone can agree upon and then chemistry can have water as part of its subject matter and analyze it. I am afraid this is not the case with consciousness. Basically you are begging the question as in the proofs for the existence of God.

Priyedarshi

To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

Serge,

Consciousness studies is not a field of study for physics perhaps for a good reason. Because it deals with a lot of pseudo problems. After reading what you have written I remain precarious about the hard problem. It accepts a division of subjective experience from objective experience I presuppose. Or 'subjective' is redundant here as experience is just experience of a subject. Partitioning experiences into subjective and non subjective seems arbitrary. Why not partition experiences of vision from hearing and so on? These would also not make sense because experiences are multi-modal sesory inputs leading to certain outputs. I just don't understand what are the elements of experience.

Priyedarshi

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> wrote:

Dear Priyedarshi,

have you seen my own reply to this same post on April 16? If not, I attach it below.

By the way, consciousness studies is not a research field for physicists.

SP

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

Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

People

Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com>  April 16 at 3:32 PM

To

Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com

Message body

-

Chungmin Lee <cl...@snu.ac.kr> on April 16, 2017 wrote:

> What would be the solution of the "hard problem" by David Chalmers, 

>to whom the target is "the first person data."

[S.P.] The key point here is not the name of David Chalmers. :-) For example, I formulate the problem more generally, namely, what are the mechanisms of transformation of the physical (sensory) signals into the elements of subjective experience. Or, yet simpler: how my consciousness creates a model of Noumenal Reality?

So, I have my own solution (albeit not an easy one, because I start from constructing a special meta-theory), and for the last 20+ years I am looking for other thinker(s) who would also have his/her own original solution (who would be experienced in constructing meta-theories and applied theories) to compare our results. 

[priyedarshi jetli]

Serge,

Your explanation is elaborate but I am afraid it does not address my worry. If we go back in the history of science to the Presocratics or to the history of astronomy, there was a consensus among scientists that there is a physical world and there are the stars that need to be explored and explained. I really do not see what this has to do with intersubjectivity as even non scientists would agree with this. But this is not the case with consciousness. You ask a farmer what he sees at night, she/he will say the stars and the moon. You ask her/him what they are, he may not be able to give you a theory but will give some account. You ask him whether the stars are really there or they are in our imagination and she/he will think that you are cuckoo. Now, ask her/him about consciousness, she/he will just stare at you. I  personally think, that starting with the assumption that there is a consciosness which is then not defined as you refuse to do it as well is not simply begging the question, it is creating pseudo problems like the hard problem of consciousness. When there is no consciousness that is separate from the physical world there is not hard or soft problems of cosciousness. I have yet to encounter a perspective on consciousness which does not begin with dualism as a null hypothesis. How did dualism come to be the null hypothesis? It is arbitrary and therefore misdirected.

Priyedarshi

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:33 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

To: Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

Serge,

Thanks for you detailed comments. I am in agreement with most of them. But at the ground level when you say that each science has its subject matter that is obvious as the subject matter of physics is different from that of biology and from that of chemistry, and so on. However, if you take consciousness studies to be a science of the study of the subject matter of consciousness, then there must be some consensus on what consciousness is or even before that whether there is anything which is normally understood by consciousness. I take the word "consciousness" to mean what is meant in medical science. When the body is functioning in a minimal state it is conscious. When someone is knocked out and becomes faint or dies we say that the person is now unconscious. So "conscious" means the non functioning of the body. What people usually mean by "consciousness" in consciousness studies has to me the same status as soul or God or mind; something intangible and most probably non existent, so one can say anything about it. This is not science I am afraid. Water is a hard tangible thing that everyone can agree upon and then chemistry can have water as part of its subject matter and analyze it. I am afraid this is not the case with consciousness. Basically you are begging the question as in the proofs for the existence of God.

Priyedarshi

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/686600135.372991.1492776191639%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Vinod Sehgal]

Priyedarshi and Serge,

Consciousness  neither need  to be explained  nor defined  or theorized  like other objective entities or phenomena and truth is that it can't be theorized like physical phenomena like gravity or e.m forces. The simple fact that you exist  or I exist in itself is sufficient evidence for the existence of the consciousness. Consciousness  is fundamental due to the obvious fact that  but for the consciousness, none  of any objective theory  could have taken birth. Had there been no consciousness, there had bren no exchange  of  views thru the present thread..

A farmer may stare at any one who may ask him about consciousness. But both a farmer as well as a Nobel  Laureate  may stare with  greater  amusement at one who makes the query if they do exist. You may doubt of the existence of your or mine body and  mind but you are incapable to raise any doubt of your existence. Any doubt  about your
existence has also to arise by virtue of your (conscious) existence.

In view of  above, every  thing commences  with the pre- existence if consciousness. 

What Serge  is referring theory of consciousness as one   which transforms physical  signals  into  subjective experience  is actually the process of cognition and not consciousness. There is a big difference  between consciousness  and cognition. Consciousness  is not. Cognition  but consciousness  is that one which experiences  even cognition. Experienced
can't be equal to to experience.

Leave alone consciousness, there  can't be any theory of even cognition  on lines similar to physical  one like theory  of gravity etc. This being simply due to facts that though cognition  is not consciousness  but instrument of mind in which process of cognition  arise  is soaked in consciousness. Therefore, cognition  also  carry the requisite  elements of consciousness  viz free will. There can't be any theory having predictive power  for cognition  because prediction and free will are opposed  to each  other.

To sum up, no theory having explanatory  and predictive mechanism can be derived for consciousness. Explanatory  mechanism are applicable for systems which are emergent  one and consciousness  is not emergent one. Consciousness  having free will, therefore, no predictive mechanism can be linked to it.

I think there can be some chances of success for devising some explanatory  mechanism for cognition  but not within the domain of the known physicality  of the body/ brain. In future, if any explanatory mechanism for cognition  becomes  possible, that will come out of the subtle realm of nature as transcendental to brain/body. That subtle not to be confused  with consciousness  since  there is a deep rooted  misconception amongst  scientists and philosophers  alike  to equate cognition  with. Consciousness. Any such explanatory  mechanism shall be bereft of any predictive  powers due  to obvious reasons  as stated above.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

---

From: priyedarshi jetli
Sent: ‎22-‎04-‎2017 00:52
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

[The entire original message is not included.]

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com> on April 23, 2017 wrote:

>To sum up, no theory having explanatory  and predictive mechanism

> can be derived for consciousness. Explanatory  mechanism are 

>applicable for systems which are emergent  one and consciousness

>  is not emergent one. Consciousness  having free will, therefore, no 

>predictive mechanism can be linked to it.

[S.P.] Indeed, it is much easier to state that some problem cannot be solved instead of trying to solve that problem. So, be informed that such an explanatory framework is already constructed, whether you believe it is possible or not. However, my solution is extremely complex because I started not from constructing a theory of consciousness but from constructing a special meta-theory.

If one decides to start from constructing a theory of consciousness without constructing a special meta-theory in the first place (he/she constructs a theory of consciousness within the limits of the existing and dominating meta-theory known as the Modern Materialistic Picture of the World), then the resulting solution will indeed have no explanatory and predictive power.

Moreover, for the theory of consciousness to be a theory, it must be accompanied by other two applied theories, namely, by a theory of appearance of life and consciousness, and a theory of evolution of the complex self-organizing systems (for example, I consider evolution of species in the light of evolution of biocenosis as a complex system). 

So, the task, in fact, is thrice as complex as one could expect, and it is a small wonder that for most of scholars the problem of explaining consciousness seems to be intractable.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Serge Patlavskiy <serge.patlavskiy@rocketmail. com> wrote:

-

Priyedarshi Jetli <pje...@gmail.com> on April 19, 2017 wrote:

>Consciousness studies is not a field of study for physics perhaps 

>for a good reason. Because it deals with a lot of pseudo problems.

[S.P.] My explanation is that to study any object scientifically, the methods (and models) we use must correspond to the nature of the object of study. The methods/models used by Physics are not good for studying consciousness-related phenomenal. These methods/models do not take into consideration the activity of informational factor, and cannot deal with a whole complex system reducing its overall entropic state. A living organism is an example of such a complex system.

[Priyedarshi Jetli] wrote:

>After reading what you have written I remain precarious about 

[The entire original message is not included.]

-- 

[Vinod Sehgal]

Dear  Sergei,

It is OK that in your framework, you start  with some meta theory. I  understand that your meta theory starts with informational factors as the fundamental  which you had clarified are distinct from information. Similarly, in your meta theory, you have also hypothesized some  material and energy factors  which, I think are  also fundamental. I presume that like the difference  in information factors and information, you make a distinction between material factors and matter & energy factors and energy. Please confirm the sane.

If one can understand and is also convinced, at least at the conceptual  level, of the essential features of your meta theory, then likelihood of understanding and   acceptance of any appled theory say of consciousness  becomes high. This is quite natural.

In view if above, it is necessary  that you may please clarify  your conception of :

I) what are the different informational, energy and material factors and how such factors are different from information, energy and matter respectively.

Ii) , From where such factors  emerge out and how?

I agree that your meta theory is based upon some axioms, a set  of your belief system. But every one will examine that meta theory as per  one's  belief system. If the situation  would have been like this then there was  no problem at all. Every one could have his/her own meta theory. But in scientific discussions, any meta theory or basic belief system is also examined on logical scrutiny and empirical evidence. In subjective spiritual research also, methodology of Samaadhi serves as empirical experimentation which provides evidence though subjunctive one. In view of this, you may please provide  clarification  on the essential features of your meta theory. Let the people on the forum examine the same  on the basis of logical scrutiny, obvious observations, empirical evidence and their subjective experience. If one does not understands  and accept even your meta  theory, what will  be the likelihood of acceptance of any applied theory say of consciousness?

I had indicated  in my e-mail  that is not feasible  to devise  a theory  on cognition ( not the consciousness  as you say)  having any predictive  mechanism  as present in any theory on some  physical phenomenon say gravity or e.m. forces. This being primarily  due to fact  that unlike physical quantities, cognitive entities can,t be parameterized, measured, quantified  and controlled.  In fact, do far  it has not been possible to even identify and enlist all the cognitive  entities or quantities. So how it is feasible to devise any predictive theory for such a realm?.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

.

---

From: 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd.B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Sent: ‎23-‎04-‎2017 21:55

[priyedarshi jetli]

Vinod,

I just don't see how the existence of a consciousness or the existence of a non physical mind follows from my existence. It is not a hypothesis that everyone will accept. And as you say it cannot be established. So, it is a mere dogma. That is my point.

Priyedarshi

On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Priyedarshi and Serge,

Consciousness  neither need  to be explained  nor defined  or theorized  like other objective entities or phenomena and truth is that it can't be theorized like physical phenomena like gravity or e.m forces. The simple fact that you exist  or I exist in itself is sufficient evidence for the existence of the consciousness. Consciousness  is fundamental due to the obvious fact that  but for the consciousness, none  of any objective theory  could have taken birth. Had there been no consciousness, there had bren no exchange  of  views thru the present thread..

A farmer may stare at any one who may ask him about consciousness. But both a farmer as well as a Nobel  Laureate  may stare with  greater  amusement at one who makes the query if they do exist. You may doubt of the existence of your or mine body and  mind but you are incapable to raise any doubt of your existence. Any doubt  about your
existence has also to arise by virtue of your (conscious) existence.

In view of  above, every  thing commences  with the pre- existence if consciousness. 

What Serge  is referring theory of consciousness as one   which transforms physical  signals  into  subjective experience  is actually the process of cognition and not consciousness. There is a big difference  between consciousness  and cognition. Consciousness  is not. Cognition  but consciousness  is that one which experiences  even cognition. Experienced
can't be equal to to experience.

Leave alone consciousness, there  can't be any theory of even cognition  on lines similar to physical  one like theory  of gravity etc. This being simply due to facts that though cognition  is not consciousness  but instrument of mind in which process of cognition  arise  is soaked in consciousness. Therefore, cognition  also  carry the requisite  elements of consciousness  viz free will. There can't be any theory having predictive power  for cognition  because prediction and free will are opposed  to each  other.

To sum up, no theory having explanatory  and predictive mechanism can be derived for consciousness. Explanatory  mechanism are applicable for systems which are emergent  one and consciousness  is not emergent one. Consciousness  having free will, therefore, no predictive mechanism can be linked to it.

I think there can be some chances of success for devising some explanatory  mechanism for cognition  but not within the domain of the known physicality  of the body/ brain. In future, if any explanatory mechanism for cognition  becomes  possible, that will come out of the subtle realm of nature as transcendental to brain/body. That subtle not to be confused  with consciousness  since  there is a deep rooted  misconception amongst  scientists and philosophers  alike  to equate cognition  with. Consciousness. Any such explanatory  mechanism shall be bereft of any predictive  powers due  to obvious reasons  as stated above.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

---

From: priyedarshi jetli
Sent: ‎22-‎04-‎2017 00:52

To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Message for List Members

Serge,

Your explanation is elaborate but I am afraid it does not address my worry. If we go back in the history of science to the Presocratics or to the history of astronomy, there was a consensus among scientists that there is a physical world and there are the stars that need to be explored and explained. I really do not see what this has to do with intersubjectivity as even non scientists would agree with this. But this is not the case with consciousness. You ask a farmer what he sees at night, she/he will say the stars and the moon. You ask her/him what they are, he may not be able to give you a theory but will give some account. You ask him whether the stars are really there or they are in our imagination and she/he will think that you are cuckoo. Now, ask her/him about consciousness, she/he will just stare at you. I  personally think, that starting with the assumption that there is a consciosness which is then not defined as you refuse to do it as well is not simply begging the question, it is creating pseudo problems like the hard problem of consciousness. When there is no consciousness that is separate from the physical world there is not hard or soft problems of cosciousness. I have yet to encounter a perspective on consciousness which does not begin with dualism as a null hypothesis. How did dualism come to be the null hypothesis? It is arbitrary and therefore misdirected.

Priyedarshi

--

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/58fc53d5.4151620a.6a9f1.96a9%40mx.google.com.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Priyedarshi,

Since without consciousness, none is of your existence. Yours very "you" and mine  very "me" exist as long as consciousness remains manifested. Had we derived our existence out of physical body/matter, even in deep coma/sleep, ours "I" would have existed and we could   observe and describe environment and body in coma/deep sleep. But this this does not happens. Please ponder over for some time and things will be clear.

Vinod Sehgal

--

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfCd99eFY3vAA%3D5TUb_tvBqRANc3iLOXKWjSCpyTVPZ9sQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Vinod,

What you say establishes the exact opposite of what you want to claim. We do not experience the "I" in deep coma because our body has virtually stopped functioning. This shows that the "I" is nothing beyond the body. You start with the unestablished premise, which you repeat hundred times like a gospel that without consciousness there is no existence. I don't accept this premise and many don't. This actually has to be established not stated like I am right now typing on my laptop. That  is where you are begging the question. You are assuming as true what needs to be proved. All of this is based on your definition of "consciosness" as something beyond the body.

Priyedarshi

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAGQG8_z3oopAqJj9WwPUBMU5iVfEQsh0nv6YaUBkWD0s5O0S1g%40mail.gmail.com.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Priyedarshi,

But how do you know in a deep coma that your body/matter has any existence in a deep coma? What is evidence that matter or body really did exist when you were in a deep coma?

Vinod Sehgal

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 3:10 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Priyedarshi,

But how do you that, your body/matter has anyistence in a deep coma?  Have you any evidence to this effect?

Vinod Sehgal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAGQG8_z3oopAqJj9WwPUBMU5iVfEQsh0nv6YaUBkWD0s5O0S1g%40mail.gmail.com.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfBjaM64vgzy6yd%3Dba%3DKa1DokShx1HtK9md2id0%2Bx1s6bQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[priyedarshi jetli]

Vinod,

When you say "you" in "you are in deep coma" what does the "you" specify? The body. One can of course exist without knowing one exists. Many stars in the universe exist without anyone knowing that they exist. You do not have any argument afraid I am afraid. A stone exists, does it know that it exists. Knowing that one exists is neither the cause nor the explanation of one's existence. I assume the stage of coma is some minimal functioning of the body. When it stops completely then the person is dead and there is no more existence of that person. Though there may be continued existence of the dead matter which are still parts of the body but not of a live person with a functioning body.

On the other hand you believe in the existence of entities that cannot be known. Entities that are not known or cannot be known may well exist. I would say the former here is correct, unknown entities may exist, but those that cannot be known, that is not knowable in principle, do not exist. But by your definition of 'consciousness' is just that type of unknowable entity. Yet, without knowing you are able to say a lot about it without worrying about the paradox that if it is unknowable then all you say is completely unsupportable.

Priyedarshi

Priyedarshi

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/CAGQG8_zi6E11KcMZ03Y-RLUXNHXrwJao0uSou_TLXios1V_EBg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com> on April 25, 2017:

> in your meta theory, you have also hypothesized some  material 

>and energy factors  which, I think are  also fundamental

<skip>

> But in scientific discussions, any meta theory or basic belief system

> is also examined on logical scrutiny and empirical evidence.

[S.P.] As I see, your main problem is that you still do not understand what the difference between a meta-theory and an applied theory is. A meta-theory is just a set of postulates (I mean, arbitrary postulates). It does not require proofs or "empirical evidence". It is not examined "on logical scrutiny", as you hold.

There are two ways in which a meta-theory can be examined. First, it can be investigated for compatibility with other author's meta-theory, and, second, there is some objective criterion which I have already mentioned several times on this forum. Namely, a meta-theory is "good" if the applied theories constructed within its limits have sufficient explanatory and predictive power, and it will be the more good the more such applied theories will be constructed.

Also, when constructing a meta-theory we do not "hypothesize", but postulate. A hypothesis -- it is a result of generalization and systematization of research data. So, it is of a different level of intellectual products.

My applied theory of appearance, development, and compatibility of intellectual products (or, the applied ADC theory for short) considers any possible intellectual product (or, the product of consciousness) as its object of study (cf. Physics considers any physical effect and process as its object of study). The applied ADC theory holds that there can be four levels of intellectual products:

1) the level of description (the D-level); 

2) the level of generalization and systematization (the GS-level); 

3) the level of applied theory (the AT-level); and 

4) the level of meta-theory (or the MT-level).

Let me exemplify the above idea: 

1) the D-level assertion: if we rub the ebonite stick with wool, the stick starts to attract small pieces of paper; 

2) the GS-level assertion: all charged things attract or repulse each other; maybe, there is a universal quantitative description of this phenomenon (here, the word "maybe" means that some hypothesis is being formulated); 

3) the AT-level assertion: whichever two electrically charged material bodies we take, the force between them is proportional to the product of the charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of these bodies (here we have an explanation and prediction); 

4) the MT-level assertion: Reality is purely materialistic (which means that no "supernatural forces" are required to be involved to explain the observed phenomena).

To make my idea clearer let me consider one more example:

1) A child says: "This is a lamp. When I press the button, it starts shining." -- a child constructs a D-level intellectual product. Why? Because he just describes what he sees or does.

2) A teenager says: "My dad shoves plugs into wall outlets several times a day. Then, maybe, a metal nail can also fit the apertures and could be shoved into wall outlet as well?" -- this assertion is a GS-level intellectual product, because it is based on teenager's generalization and systematization of observational data. The word "maybe" above indicates that the teenager formulates a hypothesis.

3) A teenager's farther says: "Don't shove metal nails into the wall sockets, otherwise you will receive an electric shock which may even kill you!" -- this assertion is an AT-level intellectual product. Why? It is because the farther explains something and predicts something, and his assertion has sufficient explanatory and predictive power. 

4) A teenager's grandfather says: "Only God can give us true light in our lives!" -- this is the MT-level assertion because it is a postulate, or an element of grandfather's belief system.

So, the theory of photoeffect is an AT-level intellectual product. Why? Because it has a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. The quantum theory is an AT-level intellectual product as well. Why? Because it explains something and successfully predicts something. However, the so called "Darwinian theory of evolution" is just a GS-level intellectual product. Why? Because it does not have a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. It is just a hypothesis which is based on generalization and systematization of observational data.

==========

General remark: my applied ADC theory consists of about 40 assertions and is officially published. Second, as any scientifically correct applied theory it can be put under test and falsified. For example, the applied ADC theory predicts that whatever intellectual product you construct, it will necessarily be of one of the mentioned above four levels. Therefore, if you formulate some intellectual product which will not be of some of these four levels, then, thereby, you will prove my applied theory to be false.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Vinod Sehgal <vinodse...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 4:29 AM