[Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta,    In your response to Soren you said: 

Penrose and Hameroff’s work is also trying to get past the mechanical atomistic worldview. 

A wonderful aspect of Penrose and Hameroff's work is that it is fully within regular science in that it makes concrete hypotheses that can be tested. An important aspect of their hypotheses is that it makes a prediction regarding Schrodinger's Cat that differs from that of mainstream physics (Standard Model plus general relativity).Have a look at http://www.jillneimark.com/cat.php  for details. 

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote:

Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta

 

It is well-known that the dominant form of science in the world today is established  in Europe and later in the US and therefore based on the tradition from the Greek philosophers, which are famous for starting their

Deliberation on the Cosmos first and the divine later. This was  developed further with the birth of the empirical science from the renaissance and on with Galilei and in the Enlightenment science released itself from the philosophical influence and political power of the Catholic  church. Modernity is characterized by a spilt between religion, science, art, money and politics. Thus we no longer have a center in our democratic society based on a divine Pharaoh, Kaiser, sultan, king og Rajah that has the religious, political, economic, juridical  and  violence power concentrated in one person as the center of like the Dalai Lama before he denounced his political power and encouraged democracy.  Niklas Luhmann truth, love, power, money for symbolic generalized media of communication that are autopoietic self-organized and therefore closed to each other but compete about who should have most influence on the cultural and social idea of rationality.

 

Democracy is not a part of the Vedic teaching at all. It is interesting to see how Dalai Lama and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi dealt with this. Both of them let the social organization to the political and economic forces in democracy and established the spiritual dimension in its own autocratic organization. They also let science develop in its own system. Even the catholic church has recognized evolution (and ecology)as the scientific view of the living world as well as the big bang cosmogony. Now we know that theories of science do not represent the only form of knowledge in society and certainly not the final and absolute truth, which  you seem to claim for your philosophical-religious system. The spiritual truth you speak about is something else than what true science seek. The deep problem is how we deal with these different types of knowledge because your idea of truth is not the scientific one.

 

Anyway the Vedic view of these things has to prove itself and the nation India built upon this philosophical-theological culture and being the biggest democracy on earth still needs to prove itself as having a superior knowledge that can produce a superior culture. But maybe you thing this is only possible by going back to the pre-democratic structure of culture? We see movement like that in Russia with the orthodox church with Putin as a king of new Czar and in Islamic State establishing the old sultan reign. The two attempt  appear very violent and not very productive and beneficial for the common man. So can we encompass spirituality, democracy and science in one culture, do you think?

 

Warmest

 

               Søren Brier

 

 

Fra: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com] På vegne af Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
Sendt: 29. januar 2016 19:54
Til: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology'

 

Dear Prof. Søren Brier (SB)

 

Thank you for your reply. Please find our response below.

 

 

SB: YES I AGREE Science journals also follow the same trend and do not allow any honest expression of truth (which is against materialism) that scientists realize from their own research works. HAVE BEEN TRUE IN MOST OF MY TIME AS SCIENTIST-PHILOSOPHER, BUT IT IS CHANGING THESE DAYS.

BNS: Till date the top science journals pre-decide ‘what results and conclusions they will publish’ and ‘what they will not’. The evidence in favor of theistic concept of reality is intentionally omitted in the scientific literature. Therefore, majority of scientific literature is deceptive in nature. We cannot make any significant progress in scientific understanding of reality in an environment where the truth is intentionally suppressed and tampered.

 

 

SB: Unfortunately, majority of scientific community do not even realize that they are mere puppets in the hands of their perceived masters (politicians and businessmen controlling funding for scientific projects). TOO MUCH I AM AFRAID, STILL.

BNS: All scientists must realize that they are mere puppets and they are monotonously repeating those assertions that please their perceived masters (politicians and businessmen controlling funding for scientific projects). It seems very difficult to change this unfortunate trend, because scientists are dependent on their masters to get their bread (salary), promotion, recognition and so on. Therefore, a pure scientific spirit to search for the truth is completely missing in modern scientific community.

 

 

SB: However, fortunately there is an encouraging trend that we find is prevailing in the 21st century, where there are some scientists who have taken up a brave attitude to carry out a ‘scientific critique of science’ to dismantle this unnecessary control of ignorance that is overpowering the true scientific progress.      TRUE, BUT BREAKTHROUGHS ARE HAPPENING LIKE THIS SPECIAL ISSUE OF Progress in biophysics and MOLECULAR BIOLOGY THAT ATTEMPTS TO INTEGRATE PHENOMENOLOGY IN BIOSCIENCE

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

, which is presently free for all to download.

BNS: An unbiased appreciation of truth is almost absent in scientific community and publications. We know from the history how even great scientists like Nobel Prize winner Barbara McClintock and others have faced non-welcoming attitude when they honestly tried to express the truth from their own experimental research works. McClintock said “They thought I was crazy, absolutely mad”.

 

 

SB: Penrose and Hameroff’s work is also trying to get past the mechanical atomistic worldview. So is the work of Basarab Nicolescu http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php

BNS: The Quantum Mechanics (QM) approaches (like Penrose and Hameroff’s model) to consciousness simply presume the existence of consciousness and utilize it in the elucidation of quantum processes. One mystery (consciousness) cannot be solved by another (QM). These speculative suggestions possibly will explain the physical role that consciousness may play but most importantly all of these approaches are also suffering from the same limitation (why should these processes give rise to experience) that outmoded the old approaches (Crick and Koch’s neurobiological view for storage and binding of information, Jackendoff’s ‘intermediate level’ theory – computational approach and so on) for studying consciousness.

 

Philosophers have always understood these problems, which science is now being forced to acknowledge in different ways. The life principle cannot be understood properly without overcoming the subject-object duality. There cannot be any content-part (object of consciousness) without a subject-part (conscious self) and vice versa. We should not deny the conscious phenomenon (our mental lives) just because it is not possible to externally verify it. Subjective experiences cannot be observed directly by some experiments, but all of us experience them. Consciousness has to be taken as fundamental and it cannot be explained in terms of anything simpler. To accommodate the non-material aspect of conscious realm we have to include “soul hypothesis” within the scientific studies.

 

 

SB: Science means practical knowledge WELL ORIGINALLY IT WAS THE GREEK EPISTEME.

BNS: Perhaps you are not well aware of Vedic literature. Since antiquity Vedic literature has elaborately revealed three different levels of knowledge experiences: (1) jñāna (theoretical knowledge), (2) vijñāna (scientific or practical knowledge) and (3) prajñāna (prema miśra jñāna – realized knowledge of pure love of Godhead). In Vedic literature knowledge has also been classified under five headings (1) pratyakṣa (What we have experienced through our senses.), (2) parokṣa (Knowledge we have not experienced with our own senses, but have gathered from the experience of others. For example a common men get some knowledge from scientific invention and discoveries), (3) aparokṣa (A sort of hazy experience, which is indistinct, where the subject and material object come together, and the material object vanishes in the subject. Monists, proponent of impersonalism or followers of Sripad Adi Shankaracharya’s Kevala-Advaita/Māyāvādā-philosophy discuss the gradation of consciousness up to this point.), (4) adhokṣaja (Sripad Rāmānuja Āchārya and other Vaiṣṇava Āchāryas discussed about a fourth stage. The experience in this stage is beyond the reach of our gross or subtle sensual capabilities. This experience comes to our gross plane of understanding only by the sweet will of Absolute. This superior knowledge can force down all our knowledge of the experience of this mundane world.) and (5) aprākṛta (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam talks about this highest stage. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his followers discussed this stage of experience, which is very similar to this mundane world, yet is not mundane. Vedic literature explains that the mundane world or ‘illusory world’ is a perverted reflection of the world of absolute.)

 

 

SB: Anyone can practice it and attain the same result. Vedic knowledge is scientific because anyone can practice it in one’s own life and attain the same results that many have attained in past HOW CAN WE KNOW? following the same process.

BNS: If someone wants to experience the taste of Indian sweet “rasgulla” then he/she has to taste it by putting “rasgulla” inside the mouth. There is no other way! Similarly, one must properly follow in his/her life the scientific process that Vedic literature elaborates and thus he/she can also attain the goals of those practices.

 

 

SB: WELL THERE ARE MANY SYSTEMS THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION OR FUNTION SO SLOW THAT IT TAKES A MAN A WHOLE LIFE IN RECLUSION. THERE ARE NOT MANYU HOUSHOLDER TECHNIQUES PRESENT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO LEAD A SOMEWHAT NORMAL LIFE WHILE PRACTISING.  

BNS: Due to a lack of proper knowledge about Vedic system, many have developed a misconception that to follow Vedic system one has to give up everything (tyāga – renunciation) and has to go to forest. One must first study carefully Śrīmad Bhagavad-gīta to get an introduction into the Vedic system. We know that Arjuna (who was a householder) also wanted to follow the path of renunciation (tyāga – he wanted to leave everything and wanted to go to forest) when he was in extremely distressed condition during the great Mahābhārata war. Bhagavān Sri Krishna in Śrīmad Bhagavad-gīta informs us through Arjuna that there is much higher level of consciousness – dedicating consciousness (bhakti) and to attain bhakti one does not have to renounce but one has to learn under an expert guide to use his/her everything (mind, intelligence, body, family members, possessions, knowledge (like modern scientific knowledge that we have gained) and everything) in the loving services of Supreme Absolute. We do not obtain a Ph.D. degree immediately after joining a kindergarten school. We followed a long process to obtain our Ph.D. degree. Similarly, attaining highest consciousness – pure bhakti, we should not concoct a shortcut method or a cheap mechanical process. One has to patiently follow the prescribed process properly under an expert Spiritual Guide to carefully cultivate the heart (by removing all unwanted polluted consciousness from heart: exploitation – bhoga and renunciation – tyāga) to develop a consciousness of pure love for Supreme Absolute.

 

 

SB: Even scientists try to think deeply (some type of apparent meditation) about certain problem that they want to solve. At certain point of time they get some sort of knowledge to solve that problem. What is the source from which we are getting this knowledge? Till date scientists could not find answer for this question. TRUE. PEIRCE AND POPPER WERE THE ONES REALIZING THAT THIS IS THE BIGGEST MYSTERY  However, in Vedic science it is well known that all forms of knowledge (correct or incorrect depending on our attitude) comes from Paramātma (super soul). A chick coming from a hatching machine does not do a scientific research to know that it should eat food grains and not sand grains. If Paramātma (super soul) does not provide this knowledge and sustenance then life cannot survive by its own. THAT IS WHY EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.  

BNS: People may use words like “evolutionary epistemology” to deceive gullible public but any sensible person can easily know the imprudence of all such propositions. In evolutionary epistemology scientists speculate an irrational view that knowledge itself evolves by natural selection. All such thoughtless speculators should first understand that even a simple bacterium cell follows an extremely complex process and bacterium itself does not have knowledge about that process. Yet, those complex cellular processes are going on. What is guiding such complex processes?

 

 

SB: Therefore, all life forms including human beings and demigods are dependent beings and Supreme Absolute is supremely independent being – reality is by itself and for itself. PERSONALLY I AGREE ON THIS. BUT HOW DO WE FIND OUT WHO HAS ACCES TO THE ABSOLUTE AND CAN BE TRUSTED? THERE ARE SO MANY CALLING THEMSELVES MASTERS ??  

BNS: Those who claim themselves as masters are actually mere imitators and what to talk about saving others, they even cannot save themselves from the illusory plane – māyā. We have also no power to find out by our own ability (as we are witnessing the limits of our knowing abilities within modern science) the confidential devotee of the Supreme Absolute. It is explained in Vedic literature that one, who is sincere, such a soul will never be cheated. On the other hand, who is not sincere he/she will always be cheated. This world is full of cheaters and cheated because we have no systematic means in modern educational system that can help an individual to cultivate good qualities like sincerity. According to our inclinations we get the rewards from Paramātma (super soul). Paramātma is also known as caitya-guru (spiritual master guiding within the heart of the living entities) and when one sincerely shows the eagerness to get the guidance to progress in the path of one’s real constitutional position the same caitya-guru (Paramātma) comes to that sincere soul as mahānta-guru (external manifestation of Sri Guru or ācārya – who teaches by his own example). We have to always remember that we are not the masters. Therefore, we should not think that whatever we want (even we may desire to become a pure devotee of Supreme Absolute) that will be accomplished. Our desire is not all in all. We have to get the higher sanction to get our desires fulfilled. We can only try to develop the sincere hankering (prayerful mood) for higher guidance and should patiently wait for higher mercy to descend to us.

 

 

SB: IF WE LOOK AT INDIA FROM EUROPE AND US WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT AND HARMONY IN THE CONTRY. LOTS OF BRIBERY, LACK OF MUTUAL RESPECT BETWEEN RELIGIONS, NOT TO SPEAK OF THE LACK OF RESPECT FOR WOMEN AS EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS.  

BNS: You are superficially seeing the image that is being created by Britishers (who practiced a divide and rule policy), who ruled Indian for approximately 200 years. Modern educational system and different adapted polices are a mere outcome of attempts to superficially imitate western culture. Women are highly respected in Vedic tradition. In recent time most of the people in India are not well versed with Vedic literature and the present problems that are witnessed in India are due to a superficial imitation of western culture. Many prominent western thinkers (for example, Schrödinger) have a complete opposite view than what you have mentioned because they have spent some quality time to understand deeply certain aspect of real wealth of east – Vedāntic wisdom.

 

 

SB: One has to accept the authority of Veda Vyas to know what the highest stage of spiritual advancement is. BUT EVEN THOSE WHO DOES, IS NOT ALWAYS ABLE TO THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION AND TO GIVE THE RIGHT TECHNIQUES – LIKE THE HARE KRISHNA MOVEMENT I THINK BUT HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING. I HAVE FOLLOWED THE BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATIONS TEACHER TRAINING OF ORDINARY PEOPLE IN ORDER TO MASS PRODUCE MEDITATORS AND THE DISCUSSION OF THE SIMPLIFICATION MADE OF THE CRITERIA USED for ASSIGNING MANTRAS (MANILY GENDER AND AGE) ALSO TO BE ABLE TO MASS PRODUCE TEACHERS. BUT I LACK TOLLS AND METHODS TO GIVE A PRODUCTIVE CRITICAL JUDGEMENT. Forman, R.K.C. (2011). Enlightenment Ain't What It's Cracked Up To Be  CERTAINLY GAVE ME A NEW UNDERSTANDING of what enlightenment means. BUT IS IT CORRECT? AND IF YOU SAY NO. ARE YOU THEN CORRECT?  

BNS: We must not follow anyone and everyone to advance in Vedic wisdom. In Śrīmad Bhagavad-gīta it is explained “evaṁ paramparā-prāptam imaṁ rājarṣayo viduḥ sa kāleneha mahatā yogo naṣṭaḥ paran-tapa – This supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.” In the Padma Purāṇa also it is said, “sampradāya-vihīnā ye mantrās te niṣphalā matāḥ: If one does not follow the recognized disciplic successions (in the age of Kali there are four authentic sampradāya: Śrī sampradāya, Brahma sampradāya, Rudra sampradāya and Kumāra sampradāya), his mantra or path is useless.”

 

 

SB: If we simply ignore our subjective activities and merely give emphasis on our objective knowledge gaining habit then we cannot do any real good to our true inner self and thus cannot help others in any true sense. I HAVE EXPERIENCED A LOT OF MOOD MAKING AROUND THESE THINGS.IT IS DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES AND TO KNOW HOW TO CLASSIFY THEM. IT IS LIKE TELLING A CHILD ABOUT FALLING IN LOVE.WHEN IT HAPPENS THE FIRST TIME AS TEENAGER THEY ARE NOT SURE IF ITS LOVE OR A STOMACH ACKE.  

BNS: Instead of asking others “what they are experiencing” we have to inquire “what we want to experience” and thus should try to find out the proper means to attain that.

 

 

SB: AMONG RESEARCHE IN THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF RELIGION THERE IS A GREAT DISCUSSION GOING ON IF THERE IS SUCH A PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY OF PURE SPIRITUALITY OR PURE MYSTICISM. I THINK SO PERSONALLY– AND I KNOW IT IS ESSENSIAL TO THE VEDANTIC VIEW BE IT ADVAITA OR BHAKTI – BUT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ON THIS UNIVERSALLY.

BNS: Variety is the spice of life and according to Vedic system there are 400,000 human species. This classification is based on consciousness. The monistic outlook in physical sciences and the generalized laws of materialism do not bother about individuality in the inanimate world, but, such a consideration is a must in the biological realm. We cannot expect all human species should have the same level of understanding. Therefore, there are different processes/practices (authentic religious systems) that guide different individuals from one lower stage of consciousness to another higher stage of consciousness.

 

 

SB: Unless we come out of close walls that we have created in modern science how can we test and experience something higher and more substantial? I DO AGREE -  AND WE ARE MANY IN SEARCH OF A NEW FOUNDATION, HENCE MY REFERENCES TO MODERN BIOSEMIOTICS AND CYBERSEMIOTICS BASED ON PEIRCE’S SHELLING INSPIRED PRAGMATICIST VIEW OF EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. HOW DO WE BALLANCE AND INTEGRATE SCIENTIFIC AND SPIRITUAL KNOWING? IT IS A UNIVERSAL AS WELL AS A PERSONAL QUESTION FOR ME. SEE cybersemiotics.com .

BNS: First we have to acknowledge that we have completely ignored the study of “self” (science does not study scientist), because such a study is beyond the limited approach of modern scientific analysis. If we want to end the endless trial and errors process (where continually one opinion is replaced by another), then we have to scientifically realize that we cannot know anything concrete and substantial by our own limited abilities. We have to take up a very different approach (as prescribed in revealed scriptures) to advance in the field of “science of the soul” and “science of God”.

 

 

SB: I DO AGREE THAT THE FEW EXPEIENCES I HAVE HAD OF HIGHER STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS – IF THAT WERE WHAT THEY WERE? – IS WHAT DRIVES ME (IN COMBINATION WITH MY SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL TRAINING) TO SEARCH FOR TRUE KNOWLEDGE. BUT IT ALSO PLACES ME IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF MANY TRADITIONS (THAT DO NOT RESPECT EACH OTHER)  AND WHERE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OVERLAP

BNS: Until we overcome our false ego (ahańkāra: the identification of the self with the body and the bodily identities like nation, cast, color, creed and so on), we cannot properly respect each other and harmonize things. Only when one comes to the plane of absolute by overcoming all relative perspective then only he/she can realize the real harmony and thus respects all living entities (because he/she realizes that all souls are constitutionally servants of the same Supreme Absolute).

 

 

SB: There is a Super Subject and everything else (including us) is the object for His enjoyment. However, the living entities who are ignorant about their true constitutional position (eternal servants of Supreme Absolute), I –FOR ONE – AM NOT SURE IT IS A SUBJECT, WHICH IN MY VOCABULARY IS A LIMITING CONCEPT FOR A SUPREME BEING NOT LIMITED BY TIME, ENERGY AND SPACE

BNS: Modern science wants to know everything under an impersonal view of reality. In Vedāntic view we know that conditioned living entities (living entities with material consciousness/conception) try to understand and dominate matter by sensual means – pañca-tanmâtra. Here the word mâtra (matter) is coming from the same root word māyā (the limiting (within the limits of time, energy and space) or measuring potency). We should not be under a false imagination that Supreme Absolute is also under such limitations that we are experiencing under the influence of mahā-māyā (the external potency of Supreme Absolute).

 

 

SB: I DO BELIEVE THAT WE ALL NEED TO STRIVE FOR FULLFILLMENT SPIRITUALLY. THE PROBLEM IS HOW? NOT IN A FUNDAMENTALISTIC AND UNCRITICAL WAY. THAT LEADS TO WAR. I HAVE DONE A LOT MEDITATION IN MY LIFE SO FAR AND DO NOT FEEL ESPECIALLY ENLIGHTENED. WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO BE ENLIGHTENED? DO WE HAVE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA? TO PERFORM THE YOGA SUSTRAS - OF WHICH LEVITATION IS ONE - FOR INSTANCE? TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION TRIES, BUT HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED - OR ARE CERTAIN BRAIN WAVE PATTERNS SUFFICIENT ? OR IS THE FEELING OF HAPPINESS AND ENLIGHTENMENT ENOUGH? OR IS THERE A CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL WELL FUNCTIONING LIKE COLLECTIVE HAPPINESS. THERE IS A LOT OF WORK ON HAPPINESS MEASUREMENT THESE DAYS.

 

THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON MEDITATION AND PRAYER THESE DAYS AND WE HAVE A NEW POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY MOVEMENT.

 

I align myself with Rumi ’s view not pretending to be anything near what he was

 

Not Christian or Jew or

Muslim, not Hindu,

Buddhist, Sufi, or Zen.

Not any religion

or cultural system. I am

not from the east

or the west, ….

BNS: According to Vedāntic philosophy pain (dukha) and pleasure (sukha) are transient nature of dual plane that we experience in the material conception of life. The transient nature of ‘hedonic’ perspective of subjective well-being is also well recognized in modern psychology. Thus, Vedānta explains that in material conception of life we cannot attain lasting happiness and fulfillment. Our true self (real ego) or the soul proper (ātman) is much beyond the mundane mind (manasā) and intelligence (buddhi). According to Vedānta, the soul (ātman) possesses the qualities of sat, cit and ānanda. According to Vedānta, we obtain our individual conscious substance (or being) from Ultimate Reality Bhagavān Sri Krishna, Who is the personification of these three feature existence (sat), knowledge (cit) and fulfillment (ānanda – ecstasy). The first verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam elaborates the commentary of the second aphorism of Vedānta-sūtra (janmādy yato ńvayād itarataś cārthesv abhijñah svarāt). “Janmādy asya yatah” – the origin of everything is “abhijñah svarāt” – the unitary Supreme Cognizant Being. The verse 5.1 in Sri Brahma Samhita also explains:

 

īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ sach-chid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ

anādir ādir govindaḥ sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam

 

Translation: The personification of spiritual existence, consciousness and ecstasy, Sri Krishna, who is known as Govinda, is the Supreme Lord of all Lords. He has no origin, He is the origin of all and He is the cause of all causes.

 

In the healthy body of a multicellular organism, every individual cell, despite having its own individuality, is meant to work for the welfare of the whole body. Similarly, Vedānta advocates that we are living in an ‘Organic Whole’ and every individual unit of this whole is meant to dedicate itself for the satisfaction of the Center – the ādi-puruṣa or primeval personal Absolute. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta Madhya-līlā 20.108-109) also gave the same teaching:

 

jīvera ‘svarūpa’ haya — kṛṣṇera ‘nitya-dāsa’

kṛṣṇera ‘taṭasthā-śakti’ ‘bhedābheda-prakāśa’

sūryāṁśa-kiraṇa, yaiche agni-jvālā-caya

svābhāvika kṛṣṇera tina-prakāra ‘śakti’ haya

 

Translation: It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krishna because he is the marginal energy of Krishna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krishna has three varieties of energy.

 

Therefore, we can attain real fulfillment only when we can establish ourselves in our true constitutional position as eternal servants of primeval personal Absolute. However, the living entities who are ignorant about their true constitutional position, exercise their freedom to choose a position against their real nature. Ignoring their true position as eternal servants of Sri Krishna these living entities can develop the moods of either active (exploitation) or passive (renunciation) hostilities towards the Supreme Absolute Sri Krishna and proceed along the paths of karma or jñāna/yoga respectively. In that mood of hostility towards Supreme Absolute these living entities even cannot attain peace and obviously fulfillment is much beyond their reach. Therefore, both salvationists (those who call themselves vaidāntika and aspire for liberation, mukti or mokṣa) and elevationists (those who aspire to improve religion (dharma or duty), economic development (artha) and sense gratification (kāma)) are considered exploiters. Elevationists try to exploit in a gross plane and salvationists do the same on a subtle plane. Therefore, karmīs, jñānīs and yogīs cannot provide us highest good. We can only learn and attain our real good by receiving the pure message of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam from pure devotees (Vaiṣṇavas). This was also instructed by Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to Srila Rupa Gosvami (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta Madhya-līlā 19.149):

 

kṛṣṇa-bhakta — niṣkāma, ataeva ‘śānta’

bhukti-mukti-siddhi-kāmī — sakali ‘aśānta’

 

Translation: Because a devotee of Lord Krishna is desire less, he is peaceful. Fruitive workers (karmis) desire material enjoyment, jñānīs desire liberation, and yogīs desire material opulence; therefore they are all lusty and cannot be peaceful.            

       

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

 

 

On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 12:33 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote:

 

Dear Bhakti Niskama Shanta

 

Thank you for your answers and deliberations. I answer in the text with capitals:

 

Fra: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com] På vegne af Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
Sendt: 25. januar 2016 17:38
Til: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology'

 

Dear Prof. Søren Brier

 

Not only your good self but also any reasonable and honest person unaffected by politics and dictum of funding policies of corporate arms will certainly conclude that the method that we have adopted in modern science is imperfect. Under a wrong influence (politics and funding agencies) majority of scientific community take for granted that the real goal of science is to defend/establish materialism and thus the entire scientific research is centered around wrong presumptions like abiogenesis, insentient view about lower species (like animals, plants, bacteria and so on), bodily evolution theories (macroevolution), genetic determinism, AI (sentient robots, creativity of mechanical systems like computers and so on) and so on.  YES I AGREE Science journals also follow the same trend and do not allow any honest expression of truth (which is against materialism) that scientists realize from their own research works. HAVE BEEN TRUE IN MOST OF MY TIME AS SCIENTIST-PHILOSOPHER, BUT IT IS CHANGING THESE DAYS.  Unfortunately, majority of scientific community do not even realize that they are mere puppets in the hands of their perceived masters (politicians and businessmen controlling funding for scientific projects). TOO MUCH I AM AFRAID, STILL.  In such a circumstance the scientific research works are forced to highlight the tampered version of the truth. This monotonous obeying of wrong source at the expense of truth and true scientific spirit is the cause of degradation of the real image of true science. Also such type of control is the root cause of the major problems that our civilization is facing in the form of dangerous global environmental problems, increasingly distressed life style, highly degraded food quality, and so on. However, fortunately there is an encouraging trend that we find is prevailing in the 21st century, where there are some scientists who have taken up a brave attitude to carry out a ‘scientific critique of science’ to dismantle this unnecessary control of ignorance that is overpowering the true scientific progress.      TRUE, BUT BREAKTHROUGHS ARE HAPPENING LIKE THIS SPECIAL ISSUE OF Progress in biophysics and MOLECULAR BIOLOGY THAT ATTEMPTS TO INTEGRATE PHENOMENOLOGY IN BIOSCIENCE

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

, which is presently free for all to download. Penrose and Hameroff’s work is also trying to get past the mechanical atomistic worldview. So is the work of Basarab Nicolescu http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index_en.php .

 

Science means practical knowledge WELL ORIGINALLY IT WAS THE GREEK EPISTEME. Anyone can practice it and attain the same result. Vedic knowledge is scientific because anyone can practice it in one’s own life and attain the same results that many have attained in past HOW CAN WE KNOW? following the same process. By one’s own ability (using the puppy brain) it is impossible to grasp the infinite reality. WELL THERE ARE MANY SYSTEMS THAT DOES NOT FUNCTION OR FUNTION SO SLOW THAT IT TAKES A MAN A WHOLE LIFE IN RECLUSION. THERE ARE NOT MANYU HOUSHOLDER TECHNIQUES PRESENT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO LEAD A SOMEWHAT NORMAL LIFE WHILE PRACTISING. Practicing an arrogant attitude we may claim that we can know the truth by our own but that wrong attitude will only lead to a process where endlessly one opinion is replaced by another. To know the truth we have to depend on higher authorized source (like to know our date of birth we depend on those who have witnessed our birth). TRUE, BUT MOTHER ALONE IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH, SO WE ASK THE MIDWIFE AND NURSES TO AGREE ON A TIME.

 

You have told “How do we know the meditative techniques works?” Even to have some knowledge from sensory plane we need some attention from mind. If we are not mindful of the sense objects, then even though something is moving in front of our eyes we cannot see it. Even scientists try to think deeply (some type of apparent meditation) about certain problem that they want to solve. At certain point of time they get some sort of knowledge to solve that problem. What is the source from which we are getting this knowledge? Till date scientists could not find answer for this question. TRUE. PEIRCE AND POPPER WERE THE ONES REALIZING THAT THIS IS THE BIGGEST MYSTERY  However, in Vedic science it is well known that all forms of knowledge (correct or incorrect depending on our attitude) comes from Paramātma (super soul). A chick coming from a hatching machine does not do a scientific research to know that it should eat food grains and not sand grains. If Paramātma (super soul) does not provide this knowledge and sustenance then life cannot survive by its own. THAT IS WHY EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. Therefore, all life forms including human beings and demigods are dependent beings and Supreme Absolute is supremely independent being – reality is by itself and for itself. PERSONALLY I AGREE ON THIS. BUT HOW DO WE FIND OUT WHO HAS ACCES TO THE ABSOLUTE AND CAN BE TRUSTED? THERE ARE SO MANY CALLING THEMSELVES MASTERS ?? To attain the prefect knowledge beyond the illusory plane and to attain the real goal of life we have to cultivate proper attitude (submissiveness to the absolute plane) under a proper spiritual guide and thus can find the real objective on which we should be doing our meditation. IF WE LOOK AT INDIA FROM EUROPE AND US WE ARE NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT AND HARMONY IN THE CONTRY. LOTS OF BRIBERY, LACK OF MUTUAL RESPECT BETWEEN RELIGIONS, NOT TO SPEAK OF THE LACK OF RESPECT FOR WOMEN AS EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS.

 

You have also told “There are thousands of religious and mystics-meditative associations based on the Vedas and they do not agree on interpretation or on meditation techniques or if there is a personal God to worship or several demigods, which demands sacrifices of different sorts. How are we to know who is right, who holds the basic truth ?” In Vedic tradition Krishna Daipayan Veda Vyas is accepted as an authority by all because Veda Vyas is the literary incarnation of Supreme Absolute, who gave all the Vedic literature in the literal form. Different Vedic literature is meant for elevating different individuals from certain lower stage of consciousness to higher stage of consciousness. One has to accept the authority of Veda Vyas to know what the highest stage of spiritual advancement is. BUT EVEN THOSE WHO DOES, IS NOT ALWAYS ABLE TO THE RIGHT INTERPRETATION AND TO GIVE THE RIGHT TECHNIQUES – LIKE THE HARE KRISHNA MOVEMENT I THINK BUT HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING. I HAVE FOLLOWED THE BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATIONS TEACHER TRAINING OF ORDINARY PEOPLE IN ORDER TO MASS PRODUCE MEDITATORS AND THE DISCUSSION OF THE SIMPLIFICATION MADE OF THE CRITERIA USED for ASSIGNING MANTRAS (MANILY GENDER AND AGE) ALSO TO BE ABLE TO MASS PRODUCE TEACHERS. BUT I LACK TOLLS AND METHODS TO GIVE A PRODUCTIVE CRITICAL JUDGEMENT. Forman, R.K.C. (2011). Enlightenment Ain't What It's Cracked Up To Be  CERTAINLY GAVE ME A NEW UNDERSTANDING of what enlightenment means. BUT IS IT CORRECT? AND IF YOU SAY NO. ARE YOU THEN CORRECT?

 

You have mentioned “The all claim deep experiential knowledge, but it is a knowledge other people cannot access. There is no fruitful discussion advancing knowledge towards a common synthesis.” In modern objective science we do not have a science of fulfillment because, being private to one’s own self scientists completely ignore the scientific analysis of the subjective activities: thinking, feeling and willing. However, like sensual experiences, anyone can objectively experience his/her own thinking, feeling and willing. Therefore, anyone can do a scientific study of this inner non-sensuous nature by self analysis or introspection. If we simply ignore our subjective activities and merely give emphasis on our objective knowledge gaining habit then we cannot do any real good to our true inner self and thus cannot help others in any true sense. I HAVE EXPERIENCED A LOT OF MOOD MAKING AROUND THESE THINGS.IT IS DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES AND TO KNOW HOW TO CLASSIFY THEM. IT IS LIKE TELLING A CHILD ABOUT FALLING IN LOVE.WHEN IT HAPPENS THE FIRST TIME AS TEENAGER THEY ARE NOT SURE IF ITS LOVE OR A STOMACH ACKE.

 

You have told “The world view is foreign to most other cultures, still it claims to be a universal one.” Vedic view is universal because it presents a detailed analysis of different relative aspects of reality and thus includes all the different practices as of an organic whole different gradational development of consciousness towards the higher and higher realization of the absolute plane – ‘subjective evolution of consciousness.’ AMONG RESEARCHE IN THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF RELIGION THERE IS A GREAT DISCUSSION GOING ON IF THERE IS SUCH A PERENNIAL PHILOSOPHY OF PURE SPIRITUALITY OR PURE MYSTICISM. I THINK SO PERSONALLY– AND I KNOW IT IS ESSENSIAL TO THE VEDANTIC VIEW BE IT ADVAITA OR BHAKTI – BUT THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ON THIS UNIVERSALLY.

 

You have also rightly told “I agree that science is a very imperfect tool for the search of knowledge and it most often lacks a spiritual aspect, though many of us attempts to break its almost scientistic boarder. But as far as I know we have not found anything better. At least it is based on public experiences that  most people can check.” Modern education and scientific research are under complete dictum of the oldest philosophical tradition in Western civilization – “materialism”, which began by pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and it attained its conventional shape in the atomism of Democritus and Epicurus. Thus all scientific enterprise is based on the ideology that ultimate reality consists of undividable purposelessly moving matter. Quantum Mechanics and many research works in biology show the clear limits of this naive approach that is dominant in modern science. Unless we come out of close walls that we have created in modern science how can we test and experience something higher and more substantial? I DO AGREE -  AND WE ARE MANY IN SEARCH OF A NEW FOUNDATION, HENCE MY REFERENCES TO MODERN BIOSEMIOTICS AND CYBERSEMIOTICS BASED ON PEIRCE’S SHELLING INSPIRED PRAGMATICIST VIEW OF EMPIRICAL SCIENCE. HOW DO WE BALLANCE AND INTEGRATE SCIENTIFIC AND SPIRITUAL KNOWING? IT IS A UNIVERSAL AS WELL AS A PERSONAL QUESTION FOR ME. SEE Cybersemiotics.com .

 

Finally you have mentioned “We have a lot of discussion with the science between different groups and it could be more constructive, but they are trying to find common views, that seem not to be the case in the religious world and not even in the spiritual. How are we going to solve this in a fruitful way?  We do not seem to be making any substantial progress in these discussions.” Reality cannot be grasped by some common agreements. We have to realize our insignificant position and meager ability to know things by our own (including a collective intellectual ability of many brilliant scholars). We have to realize that we are finite beings. By adding our finite abilities we cannot grasp the real infinite – the supreme absolute. Until we overcome the misconception that we are the subjects and reality is our object of dominance we cannot make any substantial progress towards our real goal of life. I DO AGREE THAT THE FEW EXPEIENCES I HAVE HAD OF HIGHER STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS – IF THAT WERE WHAT THEY WERE? – IS WHAT DRIVES ME (IN COMBINATION WITH MY SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL TRAINING) TO SEARCH FOR TRUE KNOWLEDGE. BUT IT ALSO PLACES ME IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF MANY TRADITIONS (THAT DO NOT RESPECT EACH OTHER)  AND WHERE THEIR KNOWLEDGE OVERLAP -  here is a Super Subject and everything else (including us) is the object for His enjoyment. However, the living entities who are ignorant about their true constitutional position (eternal servants of Supreme Absolute), I –FOR ONE – AM NOT SURE IT IS A SUBJECT, WHICH IN MY VOCABULARY IS A LIMITING CONCEPT FOR A SUPREME BEING NOT LIMITED BY TIME, ENERGY AND SPACE   exercise their freedom to choose a position against their real nature. Ignoring their true position as eternal servants of Supreme Absolute these living entities can develop the moods of either active (exploitation) or passive (renunciation) hostilities towards the Supreme Absolute and proceed along the paths of karma or jñāna/yoga respectively. In that mood of hostility towards Supreme Absolute these living entities even cannot attain peace and obviously real inner fulfillment of life is much beyond their reach.     I DO BELIEVE THAT WE ALL NEED TO STRIVE FOR FULLFILLMENT SPIRITUALLY. THE PROBLEM IS HOW? NOT IN A FUNDAMENTALISTIC AND UNCRITICAL WAY. THAT LEADS TO WAR. I HAVE DONE A LOT MEDITATION IN MY LIFE SO FAR AND DO NOT FEEL ESPECIALLY ENLIGHTENED. WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO CLAIM TO BE ENLIGHTENED? DO WE HAVE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA? TO PERFORM THE YOGA SUSTRAS - OF WHICH LEVITATION IS ONE - FOR INSTANCE? TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION TRIES, BUT HAVE NOT SUCCEEDED - OR ARE CERTAIN BRAIN WAVE PATTERNS SUFFICIENT ? OR IS THE FEELING OF HAPPINESS AND ENLIGHTENMENT ENOUGH? OR IS THERE A CRITERIA FOR SOCIAL WELL FUNCTIONING LIKE COLLECTIVE HAPPINESS. THERE IS A LOT OF WORK ON HAPPINESS MEASUREMENT THESE DAYS.

 

THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON MEDITATION AND PRAYER THESE DAYS AND WE HAVE A NEW POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY MOVEMENT.

 

I align myself with Rumi ’s view not pretending to be anything near what he was

 

Not Christian or Jew or
Muslim, not Hindu,
Buddhist, Sufi, or Zen.
Not any religion

or cultural system. I am
not from the east
or the west, ….

 

Sincerely,

 

                Søren Brier  

 

Ed. in chief of Cybernetic & Human Knowing  http://www.imprint.co.uk/product/cybernetics-human-knowing/   http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/chk

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
+91-(9748906907)	Donate  www.scsiscs.org
#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

 

 

On Monday, 18 January 2016 2:04 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote:

 

 

Dear Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta,

 

You have again and again doubted scientific knowledge as imperfect – and in many ways it is. But you then refer to a basis in Vedic knowledge – sometimes even calling it Vedic science. How can we know that it is true knowledge? How do we know the meditative techniques works? There are thousands  of  religious and mystics-meditative associations based on the Vedas and they do not agree on interpretation or on meditation techniques or if there is a personal God to worship or several demigods, which demands sacrifices of different sorts. How are we to know who is right, who holds the basic truth ? The all claim deep experiential knowledge, but it is a knowledge other people cannot access. There is no fruitful discussion advancing knowledge towards a common synthesis. The world view is foreign to most other cultures, still it claims to be a universal one.

 

I agree that science is a very imperfect tool for the search of knowledge and it most often lacks a spiritual aspect, though many of us attempts to break its almost scientistic boarder. But as far as I know we have not found anything better. At least it is based on public experiences that  most people can check. We have a lot of discussion with the science between different groups and it could be more constructive, but they are trying to find common views, that seem not to be the case in the religious world and not even in the spiritual. How are we going to solve this in a fruitful way?  We do not seem to be making any substantial progress in these discussions.

 

  Sincerely

 

                             Søren Brier

 

 

--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
 
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Download Newsletter
The 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
 
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
 
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
----------------------------
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
 
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Download Newsletter
The 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
 
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
 
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
----------------------------
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
 
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Download Newsletter
The 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
 
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
 
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
----------------------------
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
 
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Download Newsletter
The 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
 
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
 
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
----------------------------
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
 
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Download Newsletter
The 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
 
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
 
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
----------------------------
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta]

Dear Prof. Stanley A. Klein

Some how you have taken Prof. Søren Brier's statement "Penrose and Hameroff’s work is also trying to get past the mechanical atomistic worldview." as our statement. Following is our comment to Prof. Søren Brier's statement: 

The Quantum Mechanics (QM) approaches (like Penrose and Hameroff’s model) to consciousness simply presume the existence of consciousness and utilize it in the elucidation of quantum processes. One mystery (consciousness) cannot be solved by another (QM). These speculative suggestions possibly will explain the physical role that consciousness may play but most importantly all of these approaches are also suffering from the same limitation (why should these processes give rise to experience) that outmoded the old approaches (Crick and Koch’s neurobiological view for storage and binding of information, Jackendoff’s ‘intermediate level’ theory – computational approach and so on) for studying consciousness.

Philosophers have always understood these problems, which science is now being forced to acknowledge in different ways. The life principle cannot be understood properly without overcoming the subject-object duality. There cannot be any content-part (object of consciousness) without a subject-part (conscious self) and vice versa. We should not deny the conscious phenomenon (our mental lives) just because it is not possible to externally verify it. Subjective experiences cannot be observed directly by some experiments, but all of us experience them. Consciousness has to be taken as fundamental and it cannot be explained in terms of anything simpler. To accommodate the non-material aspect of conscious realm we have to include “soul hypothesis” within the scientific studies.

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.                     Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute

+91-(9748906907)

Donate  www.scsiscs.org

#8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

[Bernardo Kastrup]

An old thread, but I thought this might be relevant for it:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/

Cheers, Bernardo.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

How about space time energy matter being emergent experiences in consciousness modulating itself as qualia ? 

Perhaps Bernardo and Menas would like to comment . 

Added them to chain 

Deepak Chopra

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

 

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

 

On Jan 31, 2016, at 3:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Jo, I fully agree with you that multiple points of view are super important for understanding our universe. It is for precisely that reason that I've been driving around with the DUALITY license plate since 1976 (40 years).  I find that most people are stuck with just one point of view. But the multiple threads need to be compatible. 

At this point Jo and I have too many separate threads so I'd like to combine this thread with the other one on emergence. 

Scientists use emergence language probably at least as much as philosophers. For example I strongly suggest googling "Sperry emergence of consciousness".  The course I took from Nobelist Roger Sperry many, many years ago may have contributed to my switch from physics to neuroscience. 

Chalmers is indeed open to the possibility that qualia come in at the bottom but he is equally comfortable at this point that qualia are strongly emergent from the Standard Model.  We have a big problem of definitions. Chalmers is quite clear that at this point only qualia are strongly emergent.   The following is a really good source  http://consc.net/papers/emergence.pdf  for definitions. 

I think that what some are calling strong emergence is what Chalmers has been calling "intermediate emergence".

​Jo, let me get back to your posting about multiple points of view. That is an important thing to remember, especially since in many of our postings each posting is typically from one point ​of view. I'm guilty of that as well as most others. So maybe we should ask whether there are people on this list who would like to argue for a position that there may be just one point of view regarding reality that is the proper point of view. We could then explore the validity of that single viewpoint claim.   

It may be helpful to take a quick peek at the wiki site on multiple points of view of QM.. That is always a reminder that entirely difference ontologies may all be correct since they all (other than the Penrose/GRW row of the table) supposedly give identical predictions for all possible future experiments. That may be a nifty demonstration of the compatibility of the four understandings of qualia I posted earlier.

1) Before big bang

2) With big bang

3) emergent after big bang

4) Not needed

Stan. 

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

I sympathise with Stan's cautions about getting terminology clear but I also think we should not be hidebound to the limits of metaphysical perspective that a lot of physicists suffer from.

I agree that reality is one. However, all experience of it is from a point of view and points of view are many. I have a thought that life is in fact a way of benefiting from more than one point of view. It thereby rises from the brute perception of a monadic unit (particle, mode of excitation, whatever) floating randomly in a primordial soup to states of knowledge that are still very finite and constrained but goes some tiny way towards a total omniscience. Life benefits from several points of view by using a complex ordered structure to 'capture' information from those several points of view and collate it for presentation to certain specialised points of view that thereby have 'knowledge'. 

In most life forms the contributing points of view are in sense organs. Thus, visual and tactile information can be collated. However, higher animals also start to infer points of view for other individuals. And now, with the use of tools, science allows us to infer the points of view of monadic units quite separate from our bodies even down to individual quarks. What gets glossed over in all of this is that even a point of view with rich knowledge only ever experiences qualia from its point of view. When we infer points of view in other people we tend to ascribe to them qualia using ours vicariously, but when we infer points of view for quarks we do not think of ascribing qualia because our knowledge comes in highly abstracted mathematical accounts in purely operational rather than experiential terms. But we are still expanding our knowledge by inferring 'how the universe is from other points of view'. That has the great advantage that we can build laptops and such - knowing how each part will be from the point of view of the other parts. 

What we are stuck with is the problem of laying side by side the qualia account and the operational account. With due respect to Deepak, I think it may be confusing to say quarks are qualia. When we think about quarks the qualia we get are generated, presumably, by relations between monadic modes with points of view in our brains and the fields of potentials they operate in. Even the CERN physicist looking at the photo of the quark track gets her qualia from relations inside. The same for the astronomer whose retina responds to a single photon from a star. All the qualia will be generated in fields of potentials in cortex.

There is also a problem lurking that physicists are very coy about. Even within our heads qualia may be determined by movements of ions, maybe calcium ions, but the qualia are not the ions. An ion is a complex monadic history that includes all the relations to all the places it ever diffused through. What determines a quale must be a contour in a continuous field of potentials - the real universal field of potentials that, as Deepak says, is one. From any one monadic point of view there are no 'other individuals'. There is just that same old whole universe from that point of view. The physicists are cheating on the metaphysics by suggesting there are separate 'things'. There are only different points of view. When monad A views the world it does not view monad quark B as quale B. It views only the contribution that B makes to the whole from A's point of view.

An important practical consideration here is that in brain physics nothing will 'sense calcium ions' because calcium ions influence the field of EM potentials the same way as sodium ions or ruthenium ions. All that can be sensed is the shift in potential. So we are not going to be looking for correspondences between particular chemicals and quale but rather field patterns. Even our taste receptors that pick up molecules pay no attention to the chemistry of the flavour - they just respond to the shift in potentials - at least if they work like other receptors on cells.

Sorry for going on rather long. But I rather like the thought that life is all about making use of multiple points of view - begged borrowed or stolen, to achieve knowledge.

Regards

Jo

On 31 Jan 2016, at 05:42, Stanley A. KLEIN wrote:

Thanks Deepak,

As often happens many confusions are simply because of different definitions of words. The physicists think of quarks and other elementary particles as being independent of experience. If we are to build communication bridges between science and metaphysics we should probably not tamper with definitions. The words invented by physicists should probably be left with their original definition or else communications will be quite difficult. A good place to go for reasonable definitions of the particles (like quarks) is a site like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle

One can see at that site that quarks are characterized by just a few numbers like mass, spin and charge. Charge is a bit tricky since that word means the strength which which it interacts with some of the bosons. That is, the particles of the Standard model (that's what that wiki site is about) have very, very simple properties and thus are quite different from qualia (subjective states) that have complex properties. 

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:18 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Stan -qualia is any quality of experience

Quark is a name bestowed by physicists to a particular quality of experience in human awareness. 

There can be no experience outside of consciousness

The mind body and universe are fluctuating qualia in consciousness

Positing an objective world outside of awareness/ consciousness is a metaphysical assumption

It is also based on an artificial subject/ object split 

Reality is one 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 10:52 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Ram, yes your view: "

We implicitly assume that subjective experiences (SEs) potentially pre-exist in Nature"

is one of the four main approaches to SEs.  I'll call SE as effect of monads (or psychons)

1) monad (qualia) pre-exist before quarks. 

2)  monads (qualia) come with quarks (standard model)

3)  qualia are emergent from standard model

4)  qualia are meaningless concept (Dennett's position I believe).

Ram, you say it is an assumption. So are you open to the three alternative assumptions being possible? 

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Stan,

 

I think that Dr. Shanta has correctly understood.

 

We implicitly assume that

subjective experiences (SEs) potentially pre-exist in Nature.

 

H-P assumes that SEs potentially reside in space-time geometry. A specific SE is realized via OR-Orch using quantum collapse as in Copenhagen interpretation of QM. 

(Stuart, please correct me if I have misunderstood).

 

In the eDAM, I assume that potential (all possible) SEs are superposed in the mental aspect of a state of an entity; I call them proto-experiences (PEs) that are pre-cursors of real SEs. A specific SE is realized by the matching and selection mechanisms of eDAM as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010c). I have included H-P OR Orch as one of the 5 mechanisms for realizing a specific SE as in(Vimal, 2010c) and mentioned in one of my previous emails .

 

Self is SE of subject, so this SE also potentially pre-exist in Nature.

 

Since we do not have scientific evidence of the existence of soul after death, the eDAM (Dvi-paksa Advaita Vedanta) has atheist/scientific version. Here, during death, the realized and embedded SEs in neural-networks (as memory traces during development) also die. This can be considered as these SEs return back to their potential form (PEs) and we merged in God/Brahman right there (place) and that moment (time) we die. Here, we assume that we skipped all rebirth cycles because there is no scientific authentic evidence for rebirth hypothesis and none of our dead relatives directly or indirectly visited us (at least not my dead relatives).

 

The atheist/scientific version of the eDAM may not be acceptable to Dr. Shanta’s group because of genetic/environmentally acquired disposition as a brute fact (because that is the way their brains are wired). However, this makes sense to scientists/atheists because their brains are wired different way. Thus, evolutionists and creationists may not agree with each other. In other words, theist/atheist phenomenon is based on genetics/acquired traits. This is detailed in Section 5.2 of (Vimal, 2012c): “Here, it is assumed that the theist-atheist phenomenon is a subject-specific because scientists seem to have speculated about the existence of ‘God gene’, which when expressed entails subjects to be theist (it may also be acquired); otherwise subject is atheist.” Furthermore, “a possible neural mechanism may be that inhibiting circuits perhaps in frontal-temporal-parietal system get damaged and there is nothing to inhibit, and hence entailing being a theist (normal default seems to be for atheists)”.^[i]

 

Theist version of the eDAM is similar to Vedantic view specifically Visista advaita Vedanta; here a state of soul after death has high degree of manifestation of mental aspect and its physical aspect is latent.

 

All the best.

 

Regards,

Ram

1/30/16

---

[i] Theism vs. atheism is interesting topic. Materialistic philosopher Dennett in an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgr3B0PxYbc&feature=related) addresses some of this issue. One could argue that the theist-atheist phenomenon is because of the genetic disposition and/or acquired attributes as some scientist found ‘God gene’, which when expressed in some people entails him/her being a theist. It can be acquired as well, such as due to accidents, near death experience, space travel, and so on. A testable hypothesis: a possible neural mechanism may be that inhibiting circuits perhaps in frontal-temporal-parietal system get damaged and there is nothing to inhibit, and hence entailing being a theist (normal default seems to be for atheists); see also (McNamara, 2006b). However, further research is needed to test this hypothesis. In any case, the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is for both theists (who can consider Brahman as God) and atheists (who can consider Brahman as a dual-aspect entity) because theist-atheist phenomenon appears subject specific.

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene, “The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards spiritual or mystic experiences. […] The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2 [vesicular monoamine transporter 2] [(Hamer, 2005)]; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection. […] According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e. it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the ‘God gene’ moniker). […] VMAT2 codes for a vesicular monoamine transporter that plays a key role in regulating the levels of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. These monoamine transmitters are in turn postulated to play an important role in regulating the brain activities associated with mystic beliefs. […] Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children. […] Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain.”

          

 

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, M.S., Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--

http://www.bernardokastrup.com

http://www.facebook.com/BernardoKastrup

https://twitter.com/BernardoKastrup

http://www.youtube.com/user/bernardokastrup
http://www.amazon.com/author/bernardokastrup

[William Bushell]

Nice, and see Maureen Seaberg's Struck By Genius account of an average guy who became mathematically inclined and gifted, and possibly capable of seeing fractal and holographic properties in nature and the world around him after a closed head injury (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-seaberg/struck-by-genius-the-jaso_b_5186969.html); and my essay from FOM 2016, in which I discuss how certain forms of advanced Indo-Tibetan observational meditation practices appear to deliberately induce temporary autistic savant-like states in order to provide the practitioner with access to autistic savant-like perceptual properties of highly detailed, veridical perception on at times a microscopic scale (https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/571; file:///C:/Users/W/Downloads/571-2467-1-PB.pdf;)....  

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Deepak Chopra]

Nirvikalpa Samadhi could be likened to zero point - Akashic field 

Of course they are all metaphors 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:38 AM, le <leis...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Please take me off this conversation.  I do not know how I became included in this as I never signed for this.  At the very least, have an unsubscribe

link. Thank you.

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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

[Deepak Chopra]

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

Simulation suggests 68 percent of the universe may not actually exist

 Michael Irving  March 30, 2017

<image001.jpg>

New computer simulations have questioned the existence of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force that is said to be driving the expansion of the universe (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

 

According to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model, which is the current accepted standard for how the universe began and evolved, the ordinary matter we encounter every day only makes up around five percent of the universe's density, with dark matter comprising 27 percent, and the remaining 68 percent made up of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force driving the expansion of the universe. But a new study has questioned whether dark energy exists at all, citing computer simulations that found that by accounting for the changing structure of the cosmos, the gap in the theory, which dark energy was proposed to fill, vanishes.

Published in 1915, Einstein's general theory of relativity forms the basis for the accepted origin story of the universe, which says that the Big Bang kicked off the expansion of the universe about 13.8 billion years ago. The problem is, the equations at work are incredibly complicated, so physicists tend to simplify parts of them so they're a bit more practical to work with. When models are then built up from these simplified versions, small holes can snowball into huge discrepancies.

"Einstein's equations of general relativity that describe the expansion of the universe are so complex mathematically, that for a hundred years no solutions accounting for the effect of cosmic structures have been found," says Dr László Dobos, co-author of the new paper. "We know from very precise supernova observations that the universe is accelerating, but at the same time we rely on coarse approximations to Einstein's equations which may introduce serious side effects, such as the need for dark energy, in the models designed to fit the observational data."

Dark energy has never been directly observed, and can only be studied through its effects on other objects. Its properties and existence are still purely theoretical, making it a placeholder plug for holes in current models.

The mysterious force was first put forward as a driver of the universe's accelerated expansion in the 1990s, based on the observation of Type Ia supernovae. Sometimes called "standard candles," these bright spots are known to shine at a consistent peak brightness, and by measuring the brightness of that light by the time it reaches Earth, astronomers are able to figure out just how far away the object is.

This research was instrumental in spreading acceptance of the idea that dark energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe, and it earned the scientists involved the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011. But other studies have questioned the validity of that conclusion, and some researchers are trying to develop a more accurate picture of the cosmos with software that can better handle all the wrinkles of the general theory of relativity.

<image002.jpg>

 

A comparison of three models of universal expansion: top left, in red, is the Lambda-CDM model, including dark energy; middle, in blue, is the new Avera model, which accounts for the structure and doesn't require dark energy; and right, in green, is the original Einstein-de Sitter model, which also doesn't include dark energy (Credit: István Csabai et al)

 

According to the new study from Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary and the University of Hawaii, the discrepancy that dark energy was "invented" to fill might have arisen from the parts of the theory that were glossed over for the sake of simplicity. The researchers set up a computer simulation of how the universe formed, based on its large-scale structure. That structure apparently takes the form of "foam," where galaxies are found on the thin walls of each bubble, but large pockets in the middle are mostly devoid of both normal and dark matter.

The team simulated how gravity would affect matter in this structure and found that, rather than the universe expanding in a smooth, uniform manner, different parts of it would expand at different rates. Importantly, though, the overall average rate of expansion is still consistent with observations, and points to accelerated expansion. The end result is what the team calls the Avera model.

"The theory of general relativity is fundamental in understanding the way the universe evolves," says Dobos. "We do not question its validity; we question the validity of the approximate solutions. Our findings rely on a mathematical conjecture which permits the differential expansion of space, consistent with general relativity, and they show how the formation of complex structures of matter affects the expansion. These issues were previously swept under the rug but taking them into account can explain the acceleration without the need for dark energy."

If the research stands up to scrutiny, it could change the direction of the study of physics away from chasing the ghost of dark energy.

The research was published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and an animation below compares the different models.

Source: Royal Astronomical Society 

http://newatlas.com/dark-energy-existence-questioned/48708/

 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Thanks Bernardo for restarting this thread from January 2016. There are folks who we haven't heard from in quite a while. One question I have is whether anyone will be going to the TSC (Tucson) consciousness meeting in Shanghai (of course other than Deepak who will be speaking on June 8) or the ASSC meeting the following week in Beijing. I'll definitely be going to the latter one and maybe for a day or two to the TSC one to see friends. 

My response to this thread is that I think the really tricky part about qualia (subjectivity) is how does it hook up with the NCC (the neural correlates of the qualia)  The NCC seems to be more and more wonderfully connected with neuroscience and biology and all the QED equations regarding atoms. So what are the equations that connect all that NCC stuff to the qualia aspect. Is anyone on this list interested in that aspect. 

One of the really nifty possible ways to make that NCC/qualia connection is to make use of psychic phenomena (a topic on which I'm somewhat skeptical, but if it works it would be fantasic). Later this week I'll send out a posting on that topic. If anyone is especially interested you can contact me privately since the Sadhu Sanga list reaches an uncountable number of people and I sure don't want to clog up the airways with stuff of minimal interest to most folks.

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Yes 

V relevant 

I tweeted the article 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

Absolute zero? This is very specific physics concepts. Has nothing to do with turya state or any samadhi.

Nevertheless it is all qualia.

With respect,

Menas

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 1, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra

If we are able to describe scientifically the Unmuni State, Sunya Samadhi we will be able to resolve space, time, matter and energy controversy.  The CREATOR was in the beginning in the State of Unmuni and Sunya Samadhi.  Can this state be compare with Absolute Zero? Can we also achieve the State of Absolute Zero during meditation?

Warm regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

[Anirudh Satsangi]

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra

If we are able to describe scientifically the Unmuni State, Sunya Samadhi we will be able to resolve space, time, matter and energy controversy.  The CREATOR was in the beginning in the State of Unmuni and Sunya Samadhi.  Can this state be compare with Absolute Zero? Can we also achieve the State of Absolute Zero during meditation?

Warm regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Bernardo Kastrup <bern...@bernardokastrup.com> wrote:

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Thanks Bernardo for restarting this thread from January 2016. There are folks who we haven't heard from in quite a while. One question I have is whether anyone will be going to the TSC (Tucson) consciousness meeting in Shanghai (of course other than Deepak who will be speaking on June 8) or the ASSC meeting the following week in Beijing. I'll definitely be going to the latter one and maybe for a day or two to the TSC one to see friends. 

My response to this thread is that I think the really tricky part about qualia (subjectivity) is how does it hook up with the NCC (the neural correlates of the qualia)  The NCC seems to be more and more wonderfully connected with neuroscience and biology and all the QED equations regarding atoms. So what are the equations that connect all that NCC stuff to the qualia aspect. Is anyone on this list interested in that aspect. 

One of the really nifty possible ways to make that NCC/qualia connection is to make use of psychic phenomena (a topic on which I'm somewhat skeptical, but if it works it would be fantasic). Later this week I'll send out a posting on that topic. If anyone is especially interested you can contact me privately since the Sadhu Sanga list reaches an uncountable number of people and I sure don't want to clog up the airways with stuff of minimal interest to most folks.

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Yes 

V relevant 

I tweeted the article 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

Absolute zero? This is very specific physics concepts. Has nothing to do with turya state or any samadhi.

Nevertheless it is all qualia.

With respect,

Menas

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 1, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

[Deepak Chopra]

Dear Satsanghi ji 

I agree ! 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Menas Kafatos]

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Chalmers is indeed open to the possibility that qualia come in at the bottom but he is equally comfortable at this point that qualia are strongly emergent from the Standard Model.  We have a big problem of definitions. Chalmers is quite clear that at this point only qualia are strongly emergent.   The following is a really good source  http://consc.net/papers/emerg ence.pdf  for definitions. 

Jo

Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra

---

[i] Theism vs. atheism is interesting topic. Materialistic philosopher Dennett in an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=zgr3B0PxYbc&feature=related) addresses some of this issue. One could argue that the theist-atheist phenomenon is because of the genetic disposition and/or acquired attributes as some scientist found ‘God gene’, which when expressed in some people entails him/her being a theist. It can be acquired as well, such as due to accidents, near death experience, space travel, and so on. A testable hypothesis: a possible neural mechanism may be that inhibiting circuits perhaps in frontal-temporal-parietal system get damaged and there is nothing to inhibit, and hence entailing being a theist (normal default seems to be for atheists); see also (McNamara, 2006b). However, further research is needed to test this hypothesis. In any case, the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is for both theists (who can consider Brahman as God) and atheists (who can consider Brahman as a dual-aspect entity) because theist-atheist phenomenon appears subject specific.

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G od_gene, “The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards spiritual or mystic experiences. […] The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2 [vesicular monoamine transporter 2] [(Hamer, 2005)]; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection. […] According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e. it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the ‘God gene’ moniker). […] VMAT2 codes for a vesicular monoamine transporter that plays a key role in regulating the levels of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. These monoamine transmitters are in turn postulated to play an important role in regulating the brain activities associated with mystic beliefs. […] Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children. […] Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain.”

          

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.

[Menas Kafatos]

Clearly you mean zero point energy, not absolute zero. We don't mean -273 degrees Celsius.

---

From: Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra

If we are able to describe scientifically the Unmuni State, Sunya Samadhi we will be able to resolve space, time, matter and energy controversy.  The CREATOR was in the beginning in the State of Unmuni and Sunya Samadhi.  Can this state be compare with Absolute Zero? Can we also achieve the State of Absolute Zero during meditation?

Warm regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Bernardo Kastrup <bern...@bernardokastrup.com> wrote:

An old thread, but I thought this might be relevant for it:

https://blogs. scientificamerican.com/guest- blog/transcending-the-brain/

Cheers, Bernardo.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

How about space time energy matter being emergent experiences in consciousness modulating itself as qualia ? 

Perhaps Bernardo and Menas would like to comment . 

Added them to chain 

Deepak Chopra

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

 

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

 

On Jan 31, 2016, at 3:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Jo, I fully agree with you that multiple points of view are super important for understanding our universe. It is for precisely that reason that I've been driving around with the DUALITY license plate since 1976 (40 years).  I find that most people are stuck with just one point of view. But the multiple threads need to be compatible. 

At this point Jo and I have too many separate threads so I'd like to combine this thread with the other one on emergence. 

Scientists use emergence language probably at least as much as philosophers. For example I strongly suggest googling "Sperry emergence of consciousness".  The course I took from Nobelist Roger Sperry many, many years ago may have contributed to my switch from physics to neuroscience. 

Chalmers is indeed open to the possibility that qualia come in at the bottom but he is equally comfortable at this point that qualia are strongly emergent from the Standard Model.  We have a big problem of definitions. Chalmers is quite clear that at this point only qualia are strongly emergent.   The following is a really good source  http://consc.net/papers/emerg ence.pdf  for definitions. 

Jo

Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra

---

[i] Theism vs. atheism is interesting topic. Materialistic philosopher Dennett in an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=zgr3B0PxYbc&feature=related) addresses some of this issue. One could argue that the theist-atheist phenomenon is because of the genetic disposition and/or acquired attributes as some scientist found ‘God gene’, which when expressed in some people entails him/her being a theist. It can be acquired as well, such as due to accidents, near death experience, space travel, and so on. A testable hypothesis: a possible neural mechanism may be that inhibiting circuits perhaps in frontal-temporal-parietal system get damaged and there is nothing to inhibit, and hence entailing being a theist (normal default seems to be for atheists); see also (McNamara, 2006b). However, further research is needed to test this hypothesis. In any case, the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is for both theists (who can consider Brahman as God) and atheists (who can consider Brahman as a dual-aspect entity) because theist-atheist phenomenon appears subject specific.

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G od_gene, “The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards spiritual or mystic experiences. […] The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2 [vesicular monoamine transporter 2] [(Hamer, 2005)]; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection. […] According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e. it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the ‘God gene’ moniker). […] VMAT2 codes for a vesicular monoamine transporter that plays a key role in regulating the levels of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. These monoamine transmitters are in turn postulated to play an important role in regulating the brain activities associated with mystic beliefs. […] Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children. […] Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain.”

          

 

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, M.S., Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/r lpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/p rofile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--

http://www.bernardokastrup.com

http://www.facebook.com/ BernardoKastrup

https://twitter.com/ BernardoKastrup

http://www.youtube.com/user/ bernardokastrup
http://www.amazon.com/author/ bernardokastrup

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.

[BMP]

Dear Dr Menas,

Namaste. It is good to hear this interpretation of your position which is more aligned with philosophy's rational idea of consciousness. There is indeed an entire spectrum of interpretations of Vedanta stretching from abstract monism to radical dualism. If these differences are not viewed from a religious perspective [as we typically find in India] but from a purely philosophical/logical framework the whole gamut of ideas that have historically occupied philosophers over the centuries both East and West can be found.

Abstract monism or kevaladvaitavad, represents reductionism in any of its historical forms from the Greek Parmenides (all is Being) and the Eleatics (One only) to the modern day materialistic reductionsits, or eliminativists. Your counterpart [Dr Chopra], if i understand him correctly, makes the case for an absolute consciousness existing abstractly without any object to oppose it. All apparent ["metaphorical"] objects, perceptions, thoughts, ideas, universes or whatever are contents of consciousness, which is like a pot that ultimately absorbs all content into itself, so that in the end all you are left with is the pot - consciousness. 

This denial of the world is also akin to the viewpoint of the ancient skeptics. They found that everything in the world is contradictory, [for example, Zeno's paradoxes of movement], and therefore being illogical could not possibly exist. They never considered the possibility that the logic of reality was actually contradictory by nature [as we have accepted today in the phenomena of quantum physics]. That everything was contradictory was also found in the ancient Greek philosopher Heraklites. His idea that everything was dynamic Becoming was postulated in opposition to Parmenides idea that everything real was reified Being, 

This dynamic idea of reality as actuality [i.e.act] was taken up in full by Hegel's science of philosophy in which the dialectical movement [thesis-antithesis] was the pulse beat of the Absolute that was its very life. This was the same principle found in the Vedantic concept of achintya beda beda tattva of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. 

Berkeley's idealism tried to make the case for a pure perceptualism without an actual world, but Kant argued  successfully that a merely phenomenal or apparent world [world of appearance only] could not justify the possibility of experience and knowledge, which necessitated a noumenal sphere as well. 

It is worthwhile to study the history of Western philosophy and compare it with the history of Indian philosophy to find the many similarities and developments that have occurred in both hemispheres sometimes with amazing synchronicity, although they both seem to have been isolated from each other as far as direct influence is concerned.

Pauli and Jung conjointly studied the phenomenon of synchronicity, what we might call today entanglement, as possibly contributing to a new foundation for reality. The idea of a Coniunctionis or Oppositorium as the essence of Reality has long been held as a  real consideration in the mystery schools for ages. Reality does not exist in space and time but in an Oppositorium. Yet, isn't that exactly what we mean when we speak of a universe, .i.e. uni-verse, or unity in diversity. The same is true of Divinity, i.e. a div-inity, or diversity in unity

But science, operating on the logic of the excluded middle, or the understanding of contradiction as being incapable of being real has led us to the dualism or one-sided abstract thinking that has characterized modern reductionistic science and certain philosophical systems since antiquity.

This is a long story, and the relation to the historical development of the the concept of consciousness as it is understood today, especially in light of the recent interest of science in that concept, is very important for bringing about a true scientific understanding of what that concept involves. One of the few scientists who, in my opinion, has touched upon an important aspect of consciousness that the others seem to completely miss is Giulio Tononi with his Integrated Information Theory of consciousness. 

The idea of the integration or unity of consciousness is essential if one wants to comprehend what the true idea of consciousness represents. This can be traced from the modern inception of the mopdern idea of consciousness with Descartes' cogito [I, Ego]  and its division into res cogitans [consciousness] and res extensa [objective content] to Kant's unity of apperception [or Ego] that was necessary to posit a unified object of sense perception [thing]. In other words it is necessary in order to explain how the perceptions from the five senses all converge in one thing.

In regard to the missing brain parts and consciousness, Christof Koch gives an interesting explanation of Integrated Information Theory on a Youtube video, in which at one point he mentions that even the whole cortex of the brain may not be involved in consciousness.

This post can be downloaded here:

Click here to Download

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Deepak, I'm in agreement with you but just using different words for what may be the identical thing. You said: 

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas  

Feynman, could mean the same thing but he would say:

The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles. 

So it could just be the different words that one uses for the same idea. The equations would be the same. You would say ideas make atoms and Feynman would say particles make atoms. Does that make sense? When we want to talk about our inner world your language is better and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better. 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Mathematical imagination is an activity in consciousness alone

Leonard Susskind "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.'

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:43:48 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: BMP; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Anirudh Satsangi; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

I do agree with Deepak that reality can not be known without experience. But we shouldn't forget Wigner's point about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. So in a deep sense Deepak and Menas are correct. But isn't it reasonable that the multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct?   I've added Brian Josephson to this list because his support of Karen Barad whose book "Meeting the Universe Halfway" opens up a feminist approach to how it all works. So in my mind there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality. Would others on this list agree? 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

All systems of thought - philosophy , science, theology, religion derive from thought alone . 

Reality cannot be known unless the source of thought is experienced . The source of thought is also the source of perception . 

While Vedanta etc may posit this only the practice of yoga as in Dharna , Dhyana and Samadhi can give the experience that that all is consciousness and it's modulations 

All love 

https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154481179910665/

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

[Deepak Chopra]

All systems of thought - philosophy , science, theology, religion derive from thought alone . 

Reality cannot be known unless the source of thought is experienced . The source of thought is also the source of perception . 

While Vedanta etc may posit this only the practice of yoga as in Dharna , Dhyana and Samadhi can give the experience that that all is consciousness and it's modulations 

All love 

https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154481179910665/

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 3:28 PM, BMP <microm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<image001.png>

 

 

<image001.png>

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Thanks Bernardo for restarting this thread from January 2016. There are folks who we haven't heard from in quite a while. One question I have is whether anyone will be going to the TSC (Tucson) consciousness meeting in Shanghai (of course other than Deepak who will be speaking on June 8) or the ASSC meeting the following week in Beijing. I'll definitely be going to the latter one and maybe for a day or two to the TSC one to see friends. 

My response to this thread is that I think the really tricky part about qualia (subjectivity) is how does it hook up with the NCC (the neural correlates of the qualia)  The NCC seems to be more and more wonderfully connected with neuroscience and biology and all the QED equations regarding atoms. So what are the equations that connect all that NCC stuff to the qualia aspect. Is anyone on this list interested in that aspect. 

One of the really nifty possible ways to make that NCC/qualia connection is to make use of psychic phenomena (a topic on which I'm somewhat skeptical, but if it works it would be fantasic). Later this week I'll send out a posting on that topic. If anyone is especially interested you can contact me privately since the Sadhu Sanga list reaches an uncountable number of people and I sure don't want to clog up the airways with stuff of minimal interest to most folks.

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Yes 

V relevant 

I tweeted the article 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

<image001.png>

<image001.png>

[Deepak Chopra]

Stan 

Agree 

" Gods language is silence . Everything else is poor translation ." 

Rumi 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Deepak, I'm in agreement with you but just using different words for what may be the identical thing. You said: 

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas  

Feynman, could mean the same thing but he would say:

The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles. 

So it could just be the different words that one uses for the same idea. The equations would be the same. You would say ideas make atoms and Feynman would say particles make atoms. Does that make sense? When we want to talk about our inner world your language is better and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better. 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Mathematical imagination is an activity in consciousness alone

Leonard Susskind "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.'

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

<OutlookEmoji-1483997936424_email-signature-plain.jpg.jpg>

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

I do agree with Deepak that reality can not be known without experience. But we shouldn't forget Wigner's point about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. So in a deep sense Deepak and Menas are correct. But isn't it reasonable that the multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct?   I've added Brian Josephson to this list because his support of Karen Barad whose book "Meeting the Universe Halfway" opens up a feminist approach to how it all works. So in my mind there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality. Would others on this list agree? 

Stan

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

[Deepak Chopra]

Mathematical imagination is an activity in consciousness alone

Leonard Susskind "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.'

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:43:48 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: BMP; Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Anirudh Satsangi; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson

[BMP]

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:40 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

All systems of thought - philosophy , science, theology, religion derive from thought alone . 

Reality cannot be known unless the source of thought is experienced . The source of thought is also the source of perception . 

While Vedanta etc may posit this only the practice of yoga as in Dharna , Dhyana and Samadhi can give the experience that that all is consciousness and it's modulations 

All love 

Deepak Chopra MD

REPLY from BMP

Dear Dr Deepakji

Namaste. Consciousness is also a thought or more properly a concept. What you seem to ignore is that it is YOU who are stating what consciousness is or is not, i.e. expressing your thoughts about it. This means that you unwittingly place yourself [as thinking or thinker] above consciousness and as the absolute determiner of it. In fact, the self (atma) is always and necessarily above consciousness, as what philosophers call self-consciousness, and Kant called the unity of apperception. But that is another story.

The conclusion is that thought originates the thought of consciousness, as it originates all other thoughts, including thought of itself. Thought comes from thought. Aristotle knew this when he derived the pure form of thought as the absolute nosesis noesios noesis, thought thinking thought. He also identified this absolute as theos, or God.  It is from this absolute conception of pure thought that the principle of identity in difference is derived, since thought spontaneously differentiates itself from itself in producing a series of distinct thoughts that we call the activity of thinking. Each distinct thought is also a thought yet distinct from the others. Thus we have the identity in difference of thought.

Perception is a thought, but a sensuous thought, not pure thought. Thus perception does not belong to the logic of pure thought or Idea, it is part of the logic or Idea of phenomenal spirit. The abstract monists do not make such fine distinctions because of the tendency to merge everything into amorphous identity. More nuanced philosophical thought, however, does not maintain such nondiscrimination. The Logic of pure thought, the Logic of Nature or implicit thought, and the Logic of Spirit or free thought are distinct spheres that are coexistent  and related but identical only in that they are all aspects of the Idea in its various syllogistic [three-fold] forms.

As regards your brief comments on yoga, you have not mentioned as to which yoga system you are referring. As you may know there are many. In Patanjali's yoga-sutra the goal of samadhi is fixation of the mind on Ishvara, a theistic conception that is not found in many of the other systems. This is not a conception of consciousness but of the Supreme Self, or Supreme Self-consciousness. When self-thinking thought is conceived of as a thinker, the theos of Aristotle and the Ishvara of Patanjali may be considered to be the same originator of thought. 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

[BMP]

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:40 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Stan 

Agree 

" Gods language is silence . Everything else is poor translation ." 

Rumi 

Deepak Chopra MD

REPLY from BMP

Silence can only be heard - yes heard - only if sound ceases. If silence were the only existence then it would never be noticed. We speak of silence only because it is the cessation of sound. [If everyone in the world were blind we could not say 'blind.'We only say 'blind' because someone can see.] In other words, silence is the gap between sounds. Therefore it is what gives meaning to sound. 

If continuous sound were the only existent then it would never be noticed. We speak of sound only because of the existence of silence. What Rumi is saying is that if we only notice the sounds without understanding the importance of its opposite - what we don't say - what we don't know, we have missed a lot, i.e. God's or Ishvara's role in providing the meaning, purpose and context for all thoughts and words (sounds). 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

[C. S. Morrison]

Hi Stanley,

You said that you think "the really tricky part about qualia (subjectivity) is how does it hook up with the NCC.... So what are the equations that connect all that NCC stuff to the qualia aspect. Is anyone on this list interested in that aspect?"

I agree with you on this and it interests me deeply. My theory Position Selecting Interactionism suggests that the NCCs are not the direct cause of the qualia but merely the outputs of calculations that determine how the qualia need to be varied across the subjective space in which they arise.  That space is identified as a 'real' physical space in the brain where a single particle is confined. The brain is using measurements of the position of that particle to introduce a non-detrimental level of randomness into its attention-shifting process. To ensure it is non-detrimental the brain has evolved to manipulate the wave function of that particle. It increases the probability of measurement outcomes that shift attention to sources of data that tend to be more urgent etc.

In my book The Blind Mindmaker (available on Amazon for $9.99 - see link below) I have shown how this view can account for the all the main aspects of the way our qualia are organised.  But getting back to your question.  It suggests that distinct qualia can only represent (be) distinct ways in which other quantum particles can interact with the particle we constitute. The brain has evolved for the reasons given in my book to encode the outputs we call NCCs in the variations of probability produced by distinct potentials in such a way that these NCCs give rise to a spatial distribution of probability variations astonishingly similar to the spatial patterns of sensory stimuli that gave rise to them.

The qualia are thus the position probability variations caused by the potential for particular types of interaction. And the latter are determined by the NCCs.

I would love to know what you or anyone on this list think of this hypothesis.

Kind regards,
Colin Morrison
(C.  S.  Morrison,  author of The Blind Mindmaker: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation)

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

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: 01 April 2017 19:32
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: Menas Kafatos; Anirudh Satsangi; Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

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

[Oliver Manuel]

Nanaste,

This paper, "The Univere Is In Good Hands,"'

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERX.pdf

was accepted for publication on 1 April 2017, the Centennial of Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda's birth on 1 April 1917.  

The conclusion is the same as that in this song,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?google_comment_id=z135ybkxktv4y3wuj23kdbxo0l3wfvkbe04&v=h5D3LEjGF8A

With kind regards,

Oliver

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Bhakti Madhava Puri wrote:

>The conclusion is that thought originates the thought of consciousness,

>as it originates all other thoughts, including thought of itself. Thought

>comes from thought.

 

[S.P.] This pertains to the case when we apply the first-person approach to studying consciousness: the researcher uses his consciousness simultaneously as an object of study and as an instrument of study. Hence the effect of placing oneself above own consciousnes.

 

In general, both physical events and consciousness-related events belong to Noumenal Reality (the one which is postulated to exist objectively and independently of the process of cognition). However, the model of some physical event (or, a thought about this event) and the model of some consciousness-related event like a thought (or a thought about a thought) belong to the given researcher's version of Phenomenal Reality (which is a totality of knowledge the given person has about the outer world, or Noumenal Reality).

 

Therefore, by its nature and origin, a thought about, say, Brownian motion does not differ from a thought about a thought.

 

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>
Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 2:06 PM

[john.kineman]

Hi Deepak and all,

Of the main, perhaps over-simplified, positions in the debate about the nature of reality, limits of modern and post-modern science, Eastern Advaita worldview vs. dualism, etc. it seems to me that the issue is actually quite easy to grasp from a causal point of view.

Deepak says the foundation of reality -- the basic "building blocks" as we used to think, is not material but formed out of the play of conscious experience. Even Hammeroff/Penrose model, which I like a lot, is based in material constructs for imagining quantum phenomena. We have not yet adopted scientific terms for the non-material causes.

Indeed direct experience through ceasing thought, desire, images, etc. -- perhaps what the Shamanistic tradition also seeks by entering into the Beingness of another object or creature -- or what incessant chanting produces by setting the mind in a loop --  is away of skipping symbols in order to know directly. At least that's the idea. But that is very hard to nail down, because even talking about it means translating it into symbols; and aside from that, isn't our own bodily experience in a sense a symbol?

What has to be done, in my opinion, is to form a mathematical object as a foundational unit on which both conscious and material concepts can be constructed. That mathematical object should be made of causality alone -- it is a symbol of what the universe does in every instance of its existence. In the Rig Veda it is referred to at Rta, or Rtam. Usually translated as "cosmic order". Such a unit of causality is then the least possible reduction to primary symbols possible before going beyond all separate concepts to Brahman, the ultimate unity of all.

Throughout Vedanta the nature of Rta has been described, in some cases very clearly. It is a four-cause whole as represented in the Svastika, with implicit 5th order wholeness. Each of the quadrants are of the same composition, and each of their quadrants, etc. so all the way up and all the way down it is this "holon". Aristotle thought about these four causes, making a lot of mistakes. But the basic labels were quite the same as the ancient texts. They are Final, Formal, Efficient, and Material "ations" (in the Greek).  Way before the Greeks, however, these were seen as an endless cycle of causation - the wheel of existence. Aristotle and those after split it into a top-bottom hierarchy and thus established dualistic science. But in nature it is only causal loops. It symbolizes Brahman (expressed), Atman, life, consciousness -- all have this same pattern when known. This, I believe, is the fundamental particle.

We also know this holon in modern academia. It is a Participatory Action Cycle in social science, Peter Senge's 5th discipline, DPSI/R cycle in environmental assessment protocols adopted by the European Union. The mathematical structure relates ontology and epistemology. Ontologically it relates a measurable reality with a non-local reality (which can be thought of simply as systemic context). Epistemologically it relates structure and function. It defines identity (the cycle itself) and allows for interaction with other holons - so as Arthur Koestler said it is both part and whole at the same time. It has infinite scale. It implies a cosmology that is a scale-expanding universe. The very nature of that cosmology is expansion, so no force or dark energy is needed to explain it. The expansion explains mass and gravity, not the other way around. Consciousness naturally expands. Love expands. If you try to confine it, you get disease and depression. Matter condenses from it as sub-systems of the same nature. It implies an infinite universe that is self-similar, like a fractal.

We have not explored this idea in science because final and formal causes are not understood. They cannot be understood from the perspective of a hierarchy. We have to abandon the idea of absolute hierarchy and recover the ancient Vedic idea of cyclical causation. The universe self-generates as an expression of consciousness and more basic than that, love. I think this is scientific reality, once we decide to use all four causalities in science. There is nothing mystical about it, nothing non-mathematical. But you have to go to category theory. Quantitative theory is secondary and emerges from it.

Yours,

John

Jo

Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_S...@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Cc: Online_S...@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra

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_S...@googlegroup s.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
Sponsorship and D

...

[Murty Hari]

Dear Prof. Klein,

I agree with you in that you are all expressing more or less identical things in different words. When Deepak says "The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas" it is a generalization of  Leonard Susskind's statement that "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.' So the two statements are consistent.

I agree with you that Feynmann's statement "The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles" means the same thing because what are quantum particles made of in quantum theory? - they are packets of de Broglie's phase waves, each of which is supposed to have speed greater than that of light; the phase wave IS a mathematical abstraction, it cannot be observed by means of senses.  Therefore, I certainly agree with you in that "When we want to talk about our inner world the philosopher's language is better; and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better ".  I also agree that " multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct".

Not only there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality, which is not accessible to senses and thought and which are modulations of that deep reality called consciousness/awareness as  Menas, Deepak, and others say, there may be lots of correct approaches to understanding the modulations, namely, matter and thought  such as science and psychology respectively.

I am included in the Sadhu-Sanga group. So , I hope it is OK if I express my agreement with you.

Syamala Hari

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

To: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Cc: BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>

Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:40 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Deepak, I'm in agreement with you but just using different words for what may be the identical thing. You said: 

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas  

Feynman, could mean the same thing but he would say:

The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles. 

So it could just be the different words that one uses for the same idea. The equations would be the same. You would say ideas make atoms and Feynman would say particles make atoms. Does that make sense? When we want to talk about our inner world your language is better and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better. 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Mathematical imagination is an activity in consciousness alone

Leonard Susskind "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.'

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

              discoveringyourcosmicself. com

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:43:48 PM
To: Deepak Chopra

Cc: BMP; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Anirudh Satsangi; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

[Anirudh Satsangi]

Dear Dr. Chopra Sahab

"God's language is silence...'  Excellent view sir.  Is this silence is a state of sunya samadhi?  Before the Big Bang God was in a state of Unmuni a state being in Sunya Samadhi.  God was absorbed in Himself and everything else was also merge in Him.  Can this state be not called as Absolute Zero?  If Quantum Theory can be introduced in the study of consciousness and in the study of science of spirituality then why we are making a distance from the study of State of Absolute Zero?  How quantum theory explains absolute zero should also the matter of concern of scientists particularly those who are involved in the study of science of consciousness.

Regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Sastangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh, Agra, India   

[BMP]

From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga 
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 11:45 AM
-

Bhakti Madhava Puri wrote:

>The conclusion is that thought originates the thought of consciousness,

>as it originates all other thoughts, including thought of itself. Thought

>comes from thought.

 

[S.P.] This pertains to the case when we apply the first-person approach to studying consciousness: the researcher uses his consciousness simultaneously as an object of study and as an instrument of study. Hence the effect of placing oneself above own consciousnes.

 

In general, both physical events and consciousness-related events belong to Noumenal Reality (the one which is postulated to exist objectively and independently of the process of cognition). However, the model of some physical event (or, a thought about this event) and the model of some consciousness-related event like a thought (or a thought about a thought) belong to the given researcher's version of Phenomenal Reality (which is a totality of knowledge the given person has about the outer world, or Noumenal Reality).

 

Therefore, by its nature and origin, a thought about, say, Brownian motion does not differ from a thought about a thought.

 

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

REPLY from BMP

Dear Serge,

Namaste. Perhaps I did not present clearly enough the central point of my message.Although there is a 'first person' account of an empirical self identified with a phenomenal body when making statements about consciousness, there is also a transcendental unity or transcendental self (as described by Kant) that is constitutionally essential for the possibility of consciousness to have knowledge of an object. This epistemological architecture or structure of transcendental unity or self/ consciousness/ object as essential for finite self, when transposed to an absolute consciousness must also exhibit the same epistemological structure, i.e. it must include a higher unifying  transcendental absolute self/ absolute consciousness/ objects, perceptions, and so on. 

In this sense we can speak of a noumenal finite self, noumenal absolute Self, and noumenal world. But when the empirical finite self posits an absolute consciousness while failing to recognize the difference between itself and its true identity as the transcendental self of consciousness, as well as the universal absolute transcendental Self of universal absolute consciousness, it falls into epistemological and ontological error.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebbook

[Joy Roy Choudhury]

Experience never errs. Only your judgement errs by promising itself results which your experiments didn't produce. - Leonardo da Vinci

-Love and peace

Joy

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

...

[Diego Lucio Rapoport]

Dear Dr Oliver Manuel, Namaste

Thank you for forwarding your contribution. 

Allow me to suggest a title with an additional qualification, say your "The Universe is in Good Hands" to become "The Universe is in the Good Hand of Music Playing" following your quite unique -but much neglected,despite reviews claiming its historical significance,  mentioning of  Kotov et al's works at the Crimea Observatory" showing that the Sun is a pulsar, followed by his discoveries of many other pulsars with this same frequency. 

Kotov further discovered the 2:1 fundamental harmonics in the rotational velocity of the outer and inner strata of the Sun, characteristic of the Moebius strip and Klein Bottle. After all, the visible coronal ejections are clearly non-orientable, as these surfaces are.

Unfortunately, or purposedly perhaps, the satellite that was placed in orbit to study the Sun following ths discovery seemed to have been designed to unable it to pick up these signals.

Best wishes

Diego Rapoport

2017-04-02 9:43 GMT-03:00 Oliver Manuel <omat...@gmail.com>:

Nanaste,

This paper, "The Univere Is In Good Hands,"'

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERX.pdf

was accepted for publication on 1 April 2017, the Centennial of Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda's birth on 1 April 1917.  

The conclusion is the same as that in this song,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?google_comment_id=z135ybkxktv4y3wuj23kdbxo0l3wfvkbe04&v=h5D3LEjGF8A

With kind regards,

Oliver

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.

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear People,

On 01 Apr 2017, at 17:40, Anirudh Satsangi wrote:

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra

If we are able to describe scientifically the Unmuni State, Sunya Samadhi we will be able to resolve space, time, matter and energy controversy.  The CREATOR was in the beginning in the State of Unmuni and Sunya Samadhi. 

I agree strongly with this.

Can this state be compare with Absolute Zero? Can we also achieve the State of Absolute Zero during meditation?

That might be a poetical analogy or a metaphor, like Deepak said once. If not, I would say that the answer is most plausibly "no", or (weak) materialism is true, and mechanism is false.

I am Bruno Marchal, a mathematician working on what machine can prove and hope about themselves. I have been invited to this list, and read the comments since some times. I can agree with some spiritual conclusion, but I am annoyed when their are based on too easy use of physics. Tibetan called that spiritual materialism, and they mean it rather pejoratively.

In fact I have lost my faith in Aristotelian (Materialist) philosophy/theology. As a scientists, I have been able to prove a few things:

  - that IF we are machine THEN weak materialism is wrong (that means that if our body or brain works locally without actual infinities, nor action at a distance) then physics is simply not the fundamental science, and the material reality is only an appearance of the numbers dream. The physical appearances must be entirely explained by a statistics on number's dream, and when the math is done, we find indeed a formalism very close to the quantum formalism (yet: without the wave packet reduction, and so closer to the Everett formulation of quantum mechanics than the usual from Copenhagen). This is counter-intuitive. This annoyed also the strong atheists, as they are usually materialists using mechanism to put the mind-body problem under the rug, and those results shows the flaw of that strategy.

- that machine, and notably what we can call the Gödel-Löbian machine, which are universal (in the sense of Church and Turing) and knows that they are universal, have a rich, complex theology (with the notion of Truth playing the role of God), and which is fundamental in the sense that physics (but not geography and history) can be derived from it. The propositional part of physics has been derived from it, and gives the quantum logic referred above. That machine's theology admits many sub-parts, and most of them are divided into the communicable truth and the non-communicable truth. Some statement are true as long as they are not asserted in some rational discourse. We can take the risk to assert them in a poetical way, but it is risky. people are gullible and very often, especially in that field, want to take their desire for reality. History shows that the sacred texts are often misunderstood by people taking them literally, and quickly going in the opposite direction than the one intended originally. That's perhaps why Lao-tseu said that the wise remain silent. 

So the real creative bomb of the 20th century is the discovery of the Universal Number/machine made by Turing, Post, Church and others. It has been shown to be an arithmetical concept, you can define it in elementary arithmetic.

If you are interested here are my last papers, but in my URL you can find the long texts of the thesis (in french, alas):

Marchal B. The computationalist reformulation of the mind-body problem. Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2013 Sep;113(1):127-40

Marchal B. The Universal Numbers. From Biology to Physics, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 2015, Vol. 119, Issue 3, 368-381.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html (sane04)

B. Marchal. A Purely Arithmetical, yet Empirically Falsifiable, Interpretation of Plotinus’ Theory of Matter. In Barry Cooper S. L¨owe B., Kent T. F. and Sorbi A.,  editors, Computation and Logic in the Real World, Third Conference on Computability in Europe June 18-23, pages 263–273. Universita degli studi di Sienna, Dipartimento di 

Roberto Magari, 2007. (Accessible on my front webpage, url below)

My URL is:

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

A lot of things discussed here resonated quite well with the machine's theology, but is sometimes weakened by analogy with physical theories, without enough justification given. The theology of the machine is close to the yoga-vasistha, the doubt about the physical universe that we can have after some very strange dream. Some people here seems to put too much faith in a substancial physical universe, which in this theory can only be an emerging pattern from a statistics on number dreams. If a theology needs a "metaphysically real" physical universe,  we can be pretty sure now that such a theology must be based on a non-computationalist theory of mind. Materialism and Mechanism are just logically incompatible. 

Warm and kind respectful regards to all,

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

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

[Prashant Das]

Is it possible to count all the veins of the smallest tree on earth, correctly.

Jai Jagannath 🙏

On Apr 2, 2017 9:15 PM, "'Murty Hari' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear Prof. Klein,

I agree with you in that you are all expressing more or less identical things in different words. When Deepak says "The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas" it is a generalization of  Leonard Susskind's statement that "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.' So the two statements are consistent.

I agree with you that Feynmann's statement "The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles" means the same thing because what are quantum particles made of in quantum theory? - they are packets of de Broglie's phase waves, each of which is supposed to have speed greater than that of light; the phase wave IS a mathematical abstraction, it cannot be observed by means of senses.  Therefore, I certainly agree with you in that "When we want to talk about our inner world the philosopher's language is better; and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better ".  I also agree that " multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct".

Not only there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality, which is not accessible to senses and thought and which are modulations of that deep reality called consciousness/awareness as  Menas, Deepak, and others say, there may be lots of correct approaches to understanding the modulations, namely, matter and thought  such as science and psychology respectively.

I am included in the Sadhu-Sanga group. So , I hope it is OK if I express my agreement with you.

Syamala Hari

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
To: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>

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.

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Deepak Chopra]

I don't think any theory can explain consciousness 

All theories including quantum theory are conceived in consciousness . 

Consciousness does not need an explanation 

It does all the explanations 

Maybe my post from today may be pertinent 

 https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154483113020665/

[BMP]

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 12:07 PM

I don't think any theory can explain consciousness 

All theories including quantum theory are conceived in consciousness . 

Consciousness does not need an explanation 

It does all the explanations 

Deepak Chopra MD

 

 

REPLY from BMP

As soon as you say, "I don't think" - whatever follows is YOUR thinking. It is you who posit that the absolute is consciousness, and you who then determine what that consciousness is or does. It is NOT consciousness - absolute or otherwise that is doing all that.

As I explained, or tried to explain to Serge in my previous email, the logical or epistemological structure or architecture of consciousness requires a unifying Self in order to make consciousness an intelligible concept. Reason does not have to be abandoned when it comes to the Absolute. The Absolute is itself the conclusion of reason, otherwise why would we even talk about it. The Absolute is not an object of experience, but a necessary conclusion of reason. 

[Dr. Mike Sosteric]

>>Consciousness does not need an explanation, it does all the explanations 

Ya well, if that's true than Consciousness should be able to provide an explanation of Consciousness.

Deepak, what do you base your understanding of Consciousness on. Is it philosophy, theology, or actual mystical experience?

Dr. Mike Sosteric

Sociologist, Athabasca University

https://athabascau.academia.edu/DrS

---Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” ― Carl Sagan

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Sent: 02 April 2017 10:06:56
To: Anirudh Satsangi
Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN; BMP; Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

--

This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.

---

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Deepak Chopra wrote:

> I don't think any theory can explain consciousness

Indeed, no effective theory of consciousness can be constructed within the limits of a dominating meta-theory called the Modern Physical (Materialistic) Picture of the World. 

So, I started from constructing a special meta-theory, which, unlike the dominating one, is making room for the activity of informational factor in general and consciousness in particular. In result, withing the limits of this new meta-theory, I managed to construct my version of the applied theory of consciousness which can explain why we have such "stuff" as subjective experience, or what are the mechanisms of transformation of the physical (sensory) signals into the elements of subjective experience.

So, I will readily discuss the question of constructing as the meta-theories, so the theories of consciousness with all those who believe that consciousness and consciousness-related phenomena need explanation and can have scientifically sound explanation.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

To: Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>
Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 11:34 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

[Oliver Manuel]

Dear Diego Lucio Rapoport, 

Namaste.

Thank you for your comments.  

The paper was accepted for publication as "The Universe Is In Good Hands" aka "There Is A God."  https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERY.pdf

It references both 

• Peter Toth's 1977 report on the Sun's 40 minute pulse  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html
  
• Kotov's 1996 confirmation the 160 minute pulse is the fourth, regular 40 minute pulse. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02120961
  

 

This is, indeed, the "music of the one of the spheres" - the one that hold every atom, life and star in the solar system in continuous vibration.  http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMJJYUL05F_index_0.html 

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel    

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Asingh2384]

Hi Deepak and All:

Completely agree with your statements below but there is more to be said as described below:

“…… dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .”

AS: All mathematical or human constructs are built upon the foundations of the eternal and omnipresent Laws of conservation of fundamental existence represented by the unimanifested  or implicate Zero Point State (ZPS) of the universe. The Laws represent the fundamental reality of the cosmic consciousness or awareness within which the relative or lower level realities of human beings, human consciousness, human constructs, science, theories, equations, thoughts, qualias, experiences, quarks, gluons, space/time, atoms, stars, galaxies etc reside. Human consciousness is a sub-reality underneath and the cosmic consciousness (alive universe) or the universal Law and Order.

Deepak: “I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition.”

AS:  The eternity and omnipresence of the Universal Laws representing Cosmic Awareness is the evidence to an Alive universe. Just like a dead mother cannot bear a live fetus, a dead universe cannot support live human beings, human consciousness and its all the above constructs. The mainstream science has paralyzed itself via mistaking the universe as dead and consequently missing 96% of the universe beyond the dead matter alone. It can be and has been shown (attached papers) that via integrating the physics of consciousness or free will into scientific theories predicts the observed universe without the constructs of quarks, gluons, dark energy, dark matter, antimatter, quantum gravity, inflation, time/evolution etc.

Cosmic awareness (Laws) is the most fundamental (mother) awareness within which the (fetuses of) human and biological consciousness/awareness take birth and thrive.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Sat, Apr 1, 2017 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

Simulation suggests 68 percent of the universe may not actually exist

 Michael Irving  March 30, 2017

<image001.jpg>

New computer simulations have questioned the existence of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force that is said to be driving the expansion of the universe (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

 

According to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model, which is the current accepted standard for how the universe began and evolved, the ordinary matter we encounter every day only makes up around five percent of the universe's density, with dark matter comprising 27 percent, and the remaining 68 percent made up of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force driving the expansion of the universe. But a new study has questioned whether dark energy exists at all, citing computer simulations that found that by accounting for the changing structure of the cosmos, the gap in the theory, which dark energy was proposed to fill, vanishes.

Published in 1915, Einstein's general theory of relativity forms the basis for the accepted origin story of the universe, which says that the Big Bang kicked off the expansion of the universe about 13.8 billion years ago. The problem is, the equations at work are incredibly complicated, so physicists tend to simplify parts of them so they're a bit more practical to work with. When models are then built up from these simplified versions, small holes can snowball into huge discrepancies.

"Einstein's equations of general relativity that describe the expansion of the universe are so complex mathematically, that for a hundred years no solutions accounting for the effect of cosmic structures have been found," says Dr László Dobos, co-author of the new paper. "We know from very precise supernova observations that the universe is accelerating, but at the same time we rely on coarse approximations to Einstein's equations which may introduce serious side effects, such as the need for dark energy, in the models designed to fit the observational data."

Dark energy has never been directly observed, and can only be studied through its effects on other objects. Its properties and existence are still purely theoretical, making it a placeholder plug for holes in current models.

The mysterious force was first put forward as a driver of the universe's accelerated expansion in the 1990s, based on the observation of Type Ia supernovae. Sometimes called "standard candles," these bright spots are known to shine at a consistent peak brightness, and by measuring the brightness of that light by the time it reaches Earth, astronomers are able to figure out just how far away the object is.

This research was instrumental in spreading acceptance of the idea that dark energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe, and it earned the scientists involved the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011. But other studies have questioned the validity of that conclusion, and some researchers are trying to develop a more accurate picture of the cosmos with software that can better handle all the wrinkles of the general theory of relativity.

<image002.jpg>

 

A comparison of three models of universal expansion: top left, in red, is the Lambda-CDM model, including dark energy; middle, in blue, is the new Avera model, which accounts for the structure and doesn't require dark energy; and right, in green, is the original Einstein-de Sitter model, which also doesn't include dark energy (Credit: István Csabai et al)

 

According to the new study from Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary and the University of Hawaii, the discrepancy that dark energy was "invented" to fill might have arisen from the parts of the theory that were glossed over for the sake of simplicity. The researchers set up a computer simulation of how the universe formed, based on its large-scale structure. That structure apparently takes the form of "foam," where galaxies are found on the thin walls of each bubble, but large pockets in the middle are mostly devoid of both normal and dark matter.

The team simulated how gravity would affect matter in this structure and found that, rather than the universe expanding in a smooth, uniform manner, different parts of it would expand at different rates. Importantly, though, the overall average rate of expansion is still consistent with observations, and points to accelerated expansion. The end result is what the team calls the Avera model.

"The theory of general relativity is fundamental in understanding the way the universe evolves," says Dobos. "We do not question its validity; we question the validity of the approximate solutions. Our findings rely on a mathematical conjecture which permits the differential expansion of space, consistent with general relativity, and they show how the formation of complex structures of matter affects the expansion. These issues were previously swept under the rug but taking them into account can explain the acceleration without the need for dark energy."

If the research stands up to scrutiny, it could change the direction of the study of physics away from chasing the ghost of dark energy.

The research was published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and an animation below compares the different models.

Source: Royal Astronomical Society 

http://newatlas.com/dark-energy-existence-questioned/48708/

 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Thanks Bernardo for restarting this thread from January 2016. There are folks who we haven't heard from in quite a while. One question I have is whether anyone will be going to the TSC (Tucson) consciousness meeting in Shanghai (of course other than Deepak who will be speaking on June 8) or the ASSC meeting the following week in Beijing. I'll definitely be going to the latter one and maybe for a day or two to the TSC one to see friends. 

My response to this thread is that I think the really tricky part about qualia (subjectivity) is how does it hook up with the NCC (the neural correlates of the qualia)  The NCC seems to be more and more wonderfully connected with neuroscience and biology and all the QED equations regarding atoms. So what are the equations that connect all that NCC stuff to the qualia aspect. Is anyone on this list interested in that aspect. 

One of the really nifty possible ways to make that NCC/qualia connection is to make use of psychic phenomena (a topic on which I'm somewhat skeptical, but if it works it would be fantasic). Later this week I'll send out a posting on that topic. If anyone is especially interested you can contact me privately since the Sadhu Sanga list reaches an uncountable number of people and I sure don't want to clog up the airways with stuff of minimal interest to most folks.

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Yes 

V relevant 

I tweeted the article 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

Absolute zero? This is very specific physics concepts. Has nothing to do with turya state or any samadhi.

Nevertheless it is all qualia.

With respect,

Menas

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 1, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra

If we are able to describe scientifically the Unmuni State, Sunya Samadhi we will be able to resolve space, time, matter and energy controversy.  The CREATOR was in the beginning in the State of Unmuni and Sunya Samadhi.  Can this state be compare with Absolute Zero? Can we also achieve the State of Absolute Zero during meditation?

Warm regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Bernardo Kastrup <bern...@bernardokastrup.com> wrote:

An old thread, but I thought this might be relevant for it:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/

Cheers, Bernardo.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

How about space time energy matter being emergent experiences in consciousness modulating itself as qualia ? 

Perhaps Bernardo and Menas would like to comment . 

Added them to chain 

Deepak Chopra

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Jo

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 10:52 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Asingh2384]

Source of thought is hidden underneath the thought just like the blue skies hidden behind the clouds. Clouds of thoughts must be dissolved or transcended to realize the source. Thoughts cannot comprehend the source just as the darkness cannot comprehend the light - they are relative; one must dissolve to transform to the other.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Sun, Apr 2, 2017 1:40 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

All systems of thought - philosophy , science, theology, religion derive from thought alone . 

Reality cannot be known unless the source of thought is experienced . The source of thought is also the source of perception . 

While Vedanta etc may posit this only the practice of yoga as in Dharna , Dhyana and Samadhi can give the experience that that all is consciousness and it's modulations 

All love 

https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154481179910665/

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 3:28 PM, BMP <microm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Menas,

Namaste. It is good to hear this interpretation of your position which is more aligned with philosophy's rational idea of consciousness. There is indeed an entire spectrum of interpretations of Vedanta stretching from abstract monism to radical dualism. If these differences are not viewed from a religious perspective [as we typically find in India] but from a purely philosophical/logical framework the whole gamut of ideas that have historically occupied philosophers over the centuries both East and West can be found.

Abstract monism or kevaladvaitavad, represents reductionism in any of its historical forms from the Greek Parmenides (all is Being) and the Eleatics (One only) to the modern day materialistic reductionsits, or eliminativists. Your counterpart [Dr Chopra], if i understand him correctly, makes the case for an absolute consciousness existing abstractly without any object to oppose it. All apparent ["metaphorical"] objects, perceptions, thoughts, ideas, universes or whatever are contents of consciousness, which is like a pot that ultimately absorbs all content into itself, so that in the end all you are left with is the pot - consciousness. 

This denial of the world is also akin to the viewpoint of the ancient skeptics. They found that everything in the world is contradictory, [for example, Zeno's paradoxes of movement], and therefore being illogical could not possibly exist. They never considered the possibility that the logic of reality was actually contradictory by nature [as we have accepted today in the phenomena of quantum physics]. That everything was contradictory was also found in the ancient Greek philosopher Heraklites. His idea that everything was dynamic Becoming was postulated in opposition to Parmenides idea that everything real was reified Being, 

This dynamic idea of reality as actuality [i.e.act] was taken up in full by Hegel's science of philosophy in which the dialectical movement [thesis-antithesis] was the pulse beat of the Absolute that was its very life. This was the same principle found in the Vedantic concept of achintya beda beda tattva of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. 

Berkeley's idealism tried to make the case for a pure perceptualism without an actual world, but Kant argued  successfully that a merely phenomenal or apparent world [world of appearance only] could not justify the possibility of experience and knowledge, which necessitated a noumenal sphere as well. 

It is worthwhile to study the history of Western philosophy and compare it with the history of Indian philosophy to find the many similarities and developments that have occurred in both hemispheres sometimes with amazing synchronicity, although they both seem to have been isolated from each other as far as direct influence is concerned.

Pauli and Jung conjointly studied the phenomenon of synchronicity, what we might call today entanglement, as possibly contributing to a new foundation for reality. The idea of a Coniunctionis or Oppositorium as the essence of Reality has long been held as a  real consideration in the mystery schools for ages. Reality does not exist in space and time but in an Oppositorium. Yet, isn't that exactly what we mean when we speak of a universe, .i.e. uni-verse, or unity in diversity. The same is true of Divinity, i.e. a div-inity, or diversity in unity

But science, operating on the logic of the excluded middle, or the understanding of contradiction as being incapable of being real has led us to the dualism or one-sided abstract thinking that has characterized modern reductionistic science and certain philosophical systems since antiquity.

This is a long story, and the relation to the historical development of the the concept of consciousness as it is understood today, especially in light of the recent interest of science in that concept, is very important for bringing about a true scientific understanding of what that concept involves. One of the few scientists who, in my opinion, has touched upon an important aspect of consciousness that the others seem to completely miss is Giulio Tononi with his Integrated Information Theory of consciousness. 

The idea of the integration or unity of consciousness is essential if one wants to comprehend what the true idea of consciousness represents. This can be traced from the modern inception of the mopdern idea of consciousness with Descartes' cogito [I, Ego]  and its division into res cogitans [consciousness] and res extensa [objective content] to Kant's unity of apperception [or Ego] that was necessary to posit a unified object of sense perception [thing]. In other words it is necessary in order to explain how the perceptions from the five senses all converge in one thing.

In regard to the missing brain parts and consciousness, Christof Koch gives an interesting explanation of Integrated Information Theory on a Youtube video, in which at one point he mentions that even the whole cortex of the brain may not be involved in consciousness.

This post can be downloaded here:

Click here to Download

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>

To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

<image001.png>

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Thanks Bernardo for restarting this thread from January 2016. There are folks who we haven't heard from in quite a while. One question I have is whether anyone will be going to the TSC (Tucson) consciousness meeting in Shanghai (of course other than Deepak who will be speaking on June 8) or the ASSC meeting the following week in Beijing. I'll definitely be going to the latter one and maybe for a day or two to the TSC one to see friends. 

My response to this thread is that I think the really tricky part about qualia (subjectivity) is how does it hook up with the NCC (the neural correlates of the qualia)  The NCC seems to be more and more wonderfully connected with neuroscience and biology and all the QED equations regarding atoms. So what are the equations that connect all that NCC stuff to the qualia aspect. Is anyone on this list interested in that aspect. 

One of the really nifty possible ways to make that NCC/qualia connection is to make use of psychic phenomena (a topic on which I'm somewhat skeptical, but if it works it would be fantasic). Later this week I'll send out a posting on that topic. If anyone is especially interested you can contact me privately since the Sadhu Sanga list reaches an uncountable number of people and I sure don't want to clog up the airways with stuff of minimal interest to most folks.

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Yes 

V relevant 

I tweeted the article 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

Chalmers is indeed open to the possibility that qualia come in at the bottom but he is equally comfortable at this point that qualia are strongly emergent from the Standard Model.  We have a big problem of definitions. Chalmers is quite clear that at this point only qualia are strongly emergent.   The following is a really good source  http://consc.net/papers/emerg ence.pdf  for definitions. 

Jo

Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra

---

[i] Theism vs. atheism is interesting topic. Materialistic philosopher Dennett in an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=zgr3B0PxYbc&feature=related) addresses some of this issue. One could argue that the theist-atheist phenomenon is because of the genetic disposition and/or acquired attributes as some scientist found ‘God gene’, which when expressed in some people entails him/her being a theist. It can be acquired as well, such as due to accidents, near death experience, space travel, and so on. A testable hypothesis: a possible neural mechanism may be that inhibiting circuits perhaps in frontal-temporal-parietal system get damaged and there is nothing to inhibit, and hence entailing being a theist (normal default seems to be for atheists); see also (McNamara, 2006b). However, further research is needed to test this hypothesis. In any case, the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is for both theists (who can consider Brahman as God) and atheists (who can consider Brahman as a dual-aspect entity) because theist-atheist phenomenon appears subject specific.

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G od_gene, “The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards spiritual or mystic experiences. […] The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2 [vesicular monoamine transporter 2] [(Hamer, 2005)]; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection. […] According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e. it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the ‘God gene’ moniker). […] VMAT2 codes for a vesicular monoamine transporter that plays a key role in regulating the levels of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. These monoamine transmitters are in turn postulated to play an important role in regulating the brain activities associated with mystic beliefs. […] Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children. […] Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain.”

          

 

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, M.S., Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/r lpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/p rofile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--

http://www.bernardokastrup.com

http://www.facebook.com/Bernar doKastrup

https://twitter.com/BernardoKa strup

http://www.youtube.com/user/be rnardokastrup
http://www.amazon.com/author/b ernardokastrup

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2016
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 

<image001.png>

<image001.png>

[Asingh2384]

Hi Menas:
Completely agree. Thanks for reinforcing.

However, the correct Zero Point State (fully dilated mass/energy/space/time) can be predicted via a (consciousness-integrated) free-willed spontaneous decay universe expansion model (see attached paper) that predicts the observed universe and galactic behaviors, offers falsifiable/testable predictions of the observed mature galaxies much beyond 14 billion lightyears - the current age of the universe predicted by the Standard Model (Big Bang Model), resolves paradoxes/singularities of the BBM, and explains the inner workings of QM.

I would look forward to your comments on this paper.

Best Regards
Avtar      

-----Original Message-----
From: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>
To: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; nonlocal101 <nonlo...@chopra.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; microme_2000 <microm...@yahoo.com>; Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta <b...@scsiscs.org>; Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff) (hameroff) <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

We go through this point in great detail in You Are the Universe , the 122 order of magnitude. Zero point energy in quantum field theory should not be confused with Sunya. Just because both terms refer to emptiness, it does not mean they are the same. Quantum field theory says nothings about the states of awareness of a human being, states of samadhi, etc. 

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com> wrote:

The vacuum energy predicted by QM is 120 orders of magnitude larger than the observed via the accelerated universe expansion (Cosmological Constant). This is one of the major deficiency in QM theory for it to be used for spiritual correlations of Shunya or Samadhi. Hence, as far as QM is concerned, it is far from predicting the Shunya or Zero Point State.

Best Regards

 

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>
To: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 1:28 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Dear Dr. Chopra Sahab

"God's language is silence...'  Excellent view sir.  Is this silence is a state of sunya samadhi?  Before the Big Bang God was in a state of Unmuni a state being in Sunya Samadhi.  God was absorbed in Himself and everything else was also merge in Him.  Can this state be not called as Absolute Zero?  If Quantum Theory can be introduced in the study of consciousness and in the study of science of spirituality then why we are making a distance from the study of State of Absolute Zero?  How quantum theory explains absolute zero should also the matter of concern of scientists particularly those who are involved in the study of science of consciousness.

Regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Sastangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh, Agra, India   

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Stan 

Agree 

" Gods language is silence . Everything else is poor translation ." 

Rumi 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Deepak, I'm in agreement with you but just using different words for what may be the identical thing. You said: 

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas  

Feynman, could mean the same thing but he would say:

The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles. 

So it could just be the different words that one uses for the same idea. The equations would be the same. You would say ideas make atoms and Feynman would say particles make atoms. Does that make sense? When we want to talk about our inner world your language is better and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better. 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Mathematical imagination is an activity in consciousness alone

Leonard Susskind "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.'

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

<OutlookEmoji-1483997936424_email-signature-plain.jpg.jpg>

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:43:48 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: BMP; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Anirudh Satsangi; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

I do agree with Deepak that reality can not be known without experience. But we shouldn't forget Wigner's point about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. So in a deep sense Deepak and Menas are correct. But isn't it reasonable that the multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct?   I've added Brian Josephson to this list because his support of Karen Barad whose book "Meeting the Universe Halfway" opens up a feminist approach to how it all works. So in my mind there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality. Would others on this list agree? 

Stan

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Robert Wallace]

Hello everyone,

For those who may not be familiar, I want to draw attention to the 2012 book by Thomas Nagel, emeritus professor of philosophy at NYU and one of the best-known American philosophers since (at least) his The View From Nowhere (Oxford U. Press, 1986). 

Before NYU, Nagel taught at Princeton. He has no evident “spiritual” agenda. But he has always been critical of reductive materialism, and his Mind and Cosmos (Oxford, 2012), with the provocative subtitle quoted in the subject line above, stirred up a hornet’s nest of criticism, which was surveyed by Andrew Ferguson under the title “Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him?” http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-heretic/article/707692

Nagel says “Almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science” (p. 7). He expresses respect for the “intelligent design” critics of neo-Darwinism (Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer) without endorsing their alternative to it. His own alternative is, he acknowledges, undeveloped, but he says he thinks “one cannot really understand the scientific world unless one assumes that the intelligibility of the world … is itself part of the deepest explanation of why things are as they are.” This makes him, he says, “in a broad sense, an idealist … an objective idealist in the tradition of Plato and perhaps also of certain post-Kantians, such as Schelling and Hegel” (p. 17). Whereas by contrast, “Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends”(28). 

“Rational creatures can step back from [innate dispositions and conditioning] and try to make up their own minds. … This kind of freedom …does seems to be something that cannot be given a purely physical analysis and therefore … cannot be given a purely physical explanation either” (84). 

“…there is life because life is a necessary condition of value…. a cosmic predisposition to the formation of life, consciousness, and the value that is inseparable from them” (123). 

I omit the details of his fascinating critique of materialist efforts to avoid this kind of Platonic conclusion. I recommend the book highly. 

I would suggest that anyone who’s in a position to engage in dialogue with Nagel about these issues would have a hard time finding a better-informed and more thoughtful interlocutor. Perhaps he could be interested in participating in some of our “Science and the Scientist” discussions.

Best, Bob Wallace

Robert Wallace

email: b...@robertmwallace.com

phone: 414-617-3914

#lovethyneighbor

[Asingh2384]

Whatever is manifested in a form in finite non-zero space/time is subject to human experience, thought, and qualia and hence potentially a biased human construct or interpretation. However, the unmanifested implicate cosmic order inherent in the Zero Point State of the Laws representing Eternal and Omnipresent Cosmic Awareness or Consciousness is beyond human thought and construction.

Cosmic Law and Order are not thoughts or imaginations of the biological sensory qualia of human consciousness which is only a subsidiary (construct) to the fundamental cosmic consciousness. Manifested forms (constructs) are governed by these laws and not the vice-versa.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; anirudh.jenna <anirud...@gmail.com>; nonlocal101 <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Cc: sklein <skl...@berkeley.edu>; microme_2000 <microm...@yahoo.com>; mkafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; jo.edwards <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; rlpvimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; alfredo.pereira <alfredo...@gmail.com>; lspector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; hstapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; ccochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; bdj10 <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 10:30 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Hi Deepak:

 

Completely agree with your statements but more to be said as below:

 

Deepak: “I don't think any theory can explain consciousness; All theories including quantum theory are conceived in consciousness; Consciousness does not need an explanation; It does all the explanations…….”

 

No theory can explain consciousness but no theory is complete or universal without the inclusion of consciousness. The current mainstream theories are incomplete and miss 96% of the universal reality because of the ignorance of consciousness. The integration of consciousness into relativity not only resolves the current paradoxes, inconsistencies, singularities of GR, and weirdness of QM but also resolves the hard problem of consciousness via integrating various world views presented in this forum into relative or sub-realities within the fundamental Zero Point State of the Cosmic Consciousness or awareness. (Please refer to the papers attached to a previous post). It resolves the fundamental puzzles of the ultimate reality being discussed in this forum.

 

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>

Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 1:28 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

I don't think any theory can explain consciousness 

All theories including quantum theory are conceived in consciousness . 

Consciousness does not need an explanation 

It does all the explanations 

Maybe my post from today may be pertinent 

 https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154483113020665/

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.

[Eric Reyes]

Dear Serge,

The Thinker is the source of thought, and since there are unlimited thoughts coming from unlimited and nonlinear directions there are therefore unlimited thinkers or personalities. This refutes the concept from Deepak and others that consciousness is "One", that we are all one consciousness. 

Regards,  Eric Reyes

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

[Asingh2384]

The vacuum energy predicted by QM is 120 orders of magnitude larger than the observed via the accelerated universe expansion (Cosmological Constant). This is one of the major deficiency in QM theory for it to be used for spiritual correlations of Shunya or Samadhi. Hence, as far as QM is concerned, it is far from predicting the Shunya or Zero Point State.

Best Regards

 

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>
To: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 1:28 am

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

I do agree with Deepak that reality can not be known without experience. But we shouldn't forget Wigner's point about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. So in a deep sense Deepak and Menas are correct. But isn't it reasonable that the multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct?   I've added Brian Josephson to this list because his support of Karen Barad whose book "Meeting the Universe Halfway" opens up a feminist approach to how it all works. So in my mind there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality. Would others on this list agree? 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

All systems of thought - philosophy , science, theology, religion derive from thought alone . 

Reality cannot be known unless the source of thought is experienced . The source of thought is also the source of perception . 

While Vedanta etc may posit this only the practice of yoga as in Dharna , Dhyana and Samadhi can give the experience that that all is consciousness and it's modulations 

All love 

https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154481179910665/

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 3:28 PM, BMP <microm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Dr Menas,

Namaste. It is good to hear this interpretation of your position which is more aligned with philosophy's rational idea of consciousness. There is indeed an entire spectrum of interpretations of Vedanta stretching from abstract monism to radical dualism. If these differences are not viewed from a religious perspective [as we typically find in India] but from a purely philosophical/logical framework the whole gamut of ideas that have historically occupied philosophers over the centuries both East and West can be found.

Abstract monism or kevaladvaitavad, represents reductionism in any of its historical forms from the Greek Parmenides (all is Being) and the Eleatics (One only) to the modern day materialistic reductionsits, or eliminativists. Your counterpart [Dr Chopra], if i understand him correctly, makes the case for an absolute consciousness existing abstractly without any object to oppose it. All apparent ["metaphorical"] objects, perceptions, thoughts, ideas, universes or whatever are contents of consciousness, which is like a pot that ultimately absorbs all content into itself, so that in the end all you are left with is the pot - consciousness. 

This denial of the world is also akin to the viewpoint of the ancient skeptics. They found that everything in the world is contradictory, [for example, Zeno's paradoxes of movement], and therefore being illogical could not possibly exist. They never considered the possibility that the logic of reality was actually contradictory by nature [as we have accepted today in the phenomena of quantum physics]. That everything was contradictory was also found in the ancient Greek philosopher Heraklites. His idea that everything was dynamic Becoming was postulated in opposition to Parmenides idea that everything real was reified Being, 

This dynamic idea of reality as actuality [i.e.act] was taken up in full by Hegel's science of philosophy in which the dialectical movement [thesis-antithesis] was the pulse beat of the Absolute that was its very life. This was the same principle found in the Vedantic concept of achintya beda beda tattva of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. 

Berkeley's idealism tried to make the case for a pure perceptualism without an actual world, but Kant argued  successfully that a merely phenomenal or apparent world [world of appearance only] could not justify the possibility of experience and knowledge, which necessitated a noumenal sphere as well. 

It is worthwhile to study the history of Western philosophy and compare it with the history of Indian philosophy to find the many similarities and developments that have occurred in both hemispheres sometimes with amazing synchronicity, although they both seem to have been isolated from each other as far as direct influence is concerned.

Pauli and Jung conjointly studied the phenomenon of synchronicity, what we might call today entanglement, as possibly contributing to a new foundation for reality. The idea of a Coniunctionis or Oppositorium as the essence of Reality has long been held as a  real consideration in the mystery schools for ages. Reality does not exist in space and time but in an Oppositorium. Yet, isn't that exactly what we mean when we speak of a universe, .i.e. uni-verse, or unity in diversity. The same is true of Divinity, i.e. a div-inity, or diversity in unity

But science, operating on the logic of the excluded middle, or the understanding of contradiction as being incapable of being real has led us to the dualism or one-sided abstract thinking that has characterized modern reductionistic science and certain philosophical systems since antiquity.

This is a long story, and the relation to the historical development of the the concept of consciousness as it is understood today, especially in light of the recent interest of science in that concept, is very important for bringing about a true scientific understanding of what that concept involves. One of the few scientists who, in my opinion, has touched upon an important aspect of consciousness that the others seem to completely miss is Giulio Tononi with his Integrated Information Theory of consciousness. 

The idea of the integration or unity of consciousness is essential if one wants to comprehend what the true idea of consciousness represents. This can be traced from the modern inception of the mopdern idea of consciousness with Descartes' cogito [I, Ego]  and its division into res cogitans [consciousness] and res extensa [objective content] to Kant's unity of apperception [or Ego] that was necessary to posit a unified object of sense perception [thing]. In other words it is necessary in order to explain how the perceptions from the five senses all converge in one thing.

In regard to the missing brain parts and consciousness, Christof Koch gives an interesting explanation of Integrated Information Theory on a Youtube video, in which at one point he mentions that even the whole cortex of the brain may not be involved in consciousness.

This post can be downloaded here:

Click here to Download

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

[Asingh2384]

Hi Deepak:

 

Completely agree with your statements but more to be said as below:

 

Deepak: “I don't think any theory can explain consciousness; All theories including quantum theory are conceived in consciousness; Consciousness does not need an explanation; It does all the explanations…….”

 

No theory can explain consciousness but no theory is complete or universal without the inclusion of consciousness. The current mainstream theories are incomplete and miss 96% of the universal reality because of the ignorance of consciousness. The integration of consciousness into relativity not only resolves the current paradoxes, inconsistencies, singularities of GR, and weirdness of QM but also resolves the hard problem of consciousness via integrating various world views presented in this forum into relative or sub-realities within the fundamental Zero Point State of the Cosmic Consciousness or awareness. (Please refer to the papers attached to a previous post). It resolves the fundamental puzzles of the ultimate reality being discussed in this forum.

 

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

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

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>

Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Mon, Apr 3, 2017 1:28 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

I don't think any theory can explain consciousness 

All theories including quantum theory are conceived in consciousness . 

Consciousness does not need an explanation 

It does all the explanations 

Maybe my post from today may be pertinent 

 https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154483113020665/

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 2, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

[BMP]

From: "'Eric Reyes' 
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Dear Serge,

The Thinker is the source of thought, and since there are unlimited thoughts coming from unlimited and nonlinear directions there are therefore unlimited thinkers or personalities. This refutes the concept from Deepak and others that consciousness is "One", that we are all one consciousness. 

Regards,  Eric Reyes

REPLY from BMP

According to Descartes, the experience of thinking precedes the idea of a self or I who is doing the thinking. First we experience that thinking exists, therefore it is possible to conceive that an "I" as a thinker who is doing the thinking exists. [Thee is a hidden assumption here.]

But since pure thinking exists independently on its own, according to Aristotle, as the Absolute theos, it is only the finite ego's claim that it is his/her own thinking. In other words, if a finite ego believes itself to be the originator of thought, can you explain how exactly you do it, i.e. produce thought? Of course no one can do that. Therefore we have no rational justification for claiming to be an originator of thought. It becomes merely an unjustified assumption, i.e. a conditional belief. 

Thus it is explained that the thinking of theos or God in its determinate moments is represented in and as each finite individual. Each individual marks the good, the bad, the indifferent, the empty void, the contradictory - all the variety of thought we in the history of Man represent the various moments of God's thinking. How these various moments fit into a whole or Idea is known to God alone, and those who can discern that unity-in-difference of the various moments that belong to that Idea can know the Mind of God, a realization or thinking which also comes from God.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

[BMP]

From: Robert Wallace <B...@robertmwallace.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 4:01 AM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)

Before NYU, Nagel taught at Princeton. He has no evident “spiritual” agenda. But he has always been critical of reductive materialism, and his Mind and Cosmos (Oxford, 2012), with the provocative subtitle quoted in the subject line above, stirred up a hornet’s nest of criticism, which was surveyed by Andrew Ferguson under the title “Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him?” http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-heretic/article/707692

REPLY from BMP

Dear Bob,

Namaste Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This is a wonderful article from Andrew Ferguson which I had read a few years ago. It is at the same time hilarious and horrendous, or we may say hilariously horrendous the way ideas become so fixated in certain minds individually and especially in community that thoughts outside a particular circle face such scorn, derision, and exclusion. 

As you know, Hegel was one who recognized that the history of philosophy involves the positing of even contradictory notions/philosophies as part of the organic development of an absolute self-conscious Idea. This is a much more felicitous way of looking at the plethora of very intelligent and creative notions that flood the marketplace of ideas today, in what I would characterize as a laissez faire environment reflective of the modern free enterprise model of the economic system that is known as capitalism. At the same time Hegel recognizes that it is only by participating in a social community that individuals pursuing their own passions contribute to making the general whole what it is.

To look for the rational thread or spirit that mediates this melee is made more difficult by the fact that the impulse for free expression is so impertinently dominant that an appeal to the order or system of thought that would set all these instances of intellect into a rational Idea would be met with the same horrendous scorn, derision and exclusion with which Nagel was greeted. At the same time, many of the individual endeavors we find are trying to come up with a theory of everything that represents such an Idea.  This is indeed an interesting situation!

I have asked Sripad Shanta Maharaja to invite Nagel to our next Science and Scientists conference as you suggested, and he may try to contact you about that.

[Edwards, Jonathan]

Dear Robert,

Clearly there are lots of things one can agree with angel on but in the end I think he gets everything in a muddle because he is starting from the wrong premise.

You quote: “Almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science”.

But as a practicing biomedical scientist I do not recognise the dramatis personae here. It is not scientists like me who have ‘browbeaten’ an intuitively more liberal populous into believing in reductive materialism. I am not even quite sure what reductive materialism means in science. Reduction is a pejorative weasel word that has little to do with the business I am familiar with. No, I think reductive materialism is actually an ill-frormed conception of the world held by the man in the street and a lot of philosophers unfamiliar with practical science. And it is the position of the man in the street not because of some browbeating by secularists but because the human brain is built with this preconception hard-wired into its basic circuits - the preconception that ‘everything out there is stuff’. Science has systematically unpicked that notion. The problem with contemporary neuroscience is that most practitioners are not systematic enough about their unpicking of the man in the street’s view, not the other way around.

I admit that things are not helped by the new breed of television scientists, who mostly seem to have gone in to television because they do not understand science and do well there because they confirm the man in the street’s stuffism. 

On a more positive note I agree with Nagel that the meaning and value associated with experience must somehow be central to the goings on of the world. But is it not hubris to think that we humans have some monopoly on this? Maybe the height of understanding came with the Neanderthals, who unfortunately they got killed off or outbred by these dreadful Homo sapiens oiks who believe in stuff. Maybe crows and hummingbirds understand the value of things better than us. Maybe true understanding of value is to be found in radio waves. Maybe what distinguishes human subjects from others is that they have a more complicated misunderstanding of their own nature.

Best wishes

Jo E

[Asingh2384]

Dear Stan, Syamala,
Just as there may be many paths to One destination, there could be many approaches to the ONE Universal Reality of Cosmic Awareness or Consciousness. However, there may be several paths that do not reach to the ONE absolute reality but prematurely or wrongly lead to a "Relative Reality" or "Human Construct" as Deepak calls it. The biggest challenge for mankind is how to know which is a genuine path. There are hundreds of religions, meditations, ideologies, rituals, yogas - how to know which path (s) works?

I think that is where one could try a complete wholesome genuine science to lead the way.

Best Regards
Avtar

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Murty Hari' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Cc: BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Sent: Sun, Apr 2, 2017 8:45 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Dear Prof. Klein,

I agree with you in that you are all expressing more or less identical things in different words. When Deepak says "The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas" it is a generalization of  Leonard Susskind's statement that "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.' So the two statements are consistent.

I agree with you that Feynmann's statement "The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles" means the same thing because what are quantum particles made of in quantum theory? - they are packets of de Broglie's phase waves, each of which is supposed to have speed greater than that of light; the phase wave IS a mathematical abstraction, it cannot be observed by means of senses.  Therefore, I certainly agree with you in that "When we want to talk about our inner world the philosopher's language is better; and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better ".  I also agree that " multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct".

Not only there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality, which is not accessible to senses and thought and which are modulations of that deep reality called consciousness/awareness as  Menas, Deepak, and others say, there may be lots of correct approaches to understanding the modulations, namely, matter and thought  such as science and psychology respectively.

I am included in the Sadhu-Sanga group. So , I hope it is OK if I express my agreement with you.

Syamala Hari

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

To: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Cc: BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:40 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Deepak, I'm in agreement with you but just using different words for what may be the identical thing. You said: 

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas  

Feynman, could mean the same thing but he would say:

The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles. 

So it could just be the different words that one uses for the same idea. The equations would be the same. You would say ideas make atoms and Feynman would say particles make atoms. Does that make sense? When we want to talk about our inner world your language is better and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better. 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Mathematical imagination is an activity in consciousness alone

Leonard Susskind "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.'

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

              discoveringyourcosmicself. com

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:43:48 PM
To: Deepak Chopra

Cc: BMP; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Anirudh Satsangi; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

[Shafiq Khan]

Dear All,

             There cannot be a better way to refute Darwinism on rational basis than following passage of Wildon Carr  ‘If intellect is a product of evolution the whole mechanistic concept of the nature and origin of life is absurd, and the principle which science has adopted must clearly be revised. We have only to state it to see the self-contradiction. How can the intellect, a mode of apprehending reality, be itself an evolution of something which only exists as an abstraction of that mode of apprehending, which is the intellect? If intellect is an evolution of life, then the concept of the life which can evolve intellect as a particular mode of apprehending reality must be the concept of a more concrete activity than that of any abstract mechanical movement which the intellect can present to itself by analyzing its apprehended content. And yet further, if the intellect be a product of the evolution of life, it is not absolute but relative to the activity of the life which has evolved it; how then, in such case, can science exclude the subjective aspect of the knowing and build on the objective presentation as an absolute? Clearly the biological sciences necessitate a reconsideration of the scientific principle'.

With Best Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

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.

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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 BVK Sastry]

Namaste

 

Interesting thread of discussions, opening up several fronts that become unclear when read together ( to my limitation of understanding).  Here is the notes and help request.

 

1. ‘ God’s Language is Silence :    Is it necessary to postulate ‘ God of any Kind and Description, make a choice out of some 33 million kinds ( as Indian tradition would imagine ; OR invoke’ Logos link to God of Abrahamic traditions’ ?  ’  How would ‘Consciousness of God be different in kind and Temperature, , Structure, electron and equation Temperament from the humans ? sentient?  

 

2. ‘ Everything else is poor translation’ : How would one use words to describe or narrate silence ?

 

3.  ideas make atoms ….. particles make atoms … inner world experiments :  What would be the relational interaction between ‘ atoms’  which are physical reality ( even if conceptualized)  and ‘ ideas’  ?  Is it Mind – Matter Interface / Inner face  - Integration  and Interaction ? Do I read an earlier note: < Reality can not be known without experience’> So what are the consciousness Transformations involved here ?

 

4.  Conscious Universe .. We Experience …is …sum Total of our experience :: …. Not necessarily constrained to human universe ……where everything is held together by the glue of awareness…And we don’t want to start religious arguments. ::  Why then deliberate on ‘ Maya’, Saivism, Vedantins, Advaita … ?  Each one has an outer cover of Philosophy deeply wrapping the inner mystic and sandwichwrapper of ‘  Theology- Religion’ which can not be separated.

 

Look forward to get a clarity on understanding the posts better.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Anirudh Satsangi
Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 10:50 AM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN; BMP; Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Dear Dr. Chopra Sahab

 

"God's language is silence...'  Excellent view sir.  Is this silence is a state of sunya samadhi?  Before the Big Bang God was in a state of Unmuni a state being in Sunya Samadhi.  God was absorbed in Himself and everything else was also merge in Him.  Can this state be not called as Absolute Zero?  If Quantum Theory can be introduced in the study of consciousness and in the study of science of spirituality then why we are making a distance from the study of State of Absolute Zero?  How quantum theory explains absolute zero should also the matter of concern of scientists particularly those who are involved in the study of science of consciousness.

 

Regards and best wishes

 

Anirudh Kumar Sastangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh, Agra, India   

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Stan 

Agree 

" Gods language is silence . Everything else is poor translation ." 

Rumi 

 

 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

On Apr 1, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Deepak, I'm in agreement with you but just using different words for what may be the identical thing. You said: 

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas  

 

Feynman, could mean the same thing but he would say:

The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles. 

 

So it could just be the different words that one uses for the same idea. The equations would be the same. You would say ideas make atoms and Feynman would say particles make atoms. Does that make sense? When we want to talk about our inner world your language is better and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better. 

Stan

 

 

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Mathematical imagination is an activity in consciousness alone

Leonard Susskind "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.'

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas 

 

 

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:43:48 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: BMP; Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Anirudh Satsangi; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

I do agree with Deepak that reality can not be known without experience. But we shouldn't forget Wigner's point about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. So in a deep sense Deepak and Menas are correct. But isn't it reasonable that the multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct?   I've added Brian Josephson to this list because his support of Karen Barad whose book "Meeting the Universe Halfway" opens up a feminist approach to how it all works. So in my mind there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality. Would others on this list agree? 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

All systems of thought - philosophy , science, theology, religion derive from thought alone . 

Reality cannot be known unless the source of thought is experienced . The source of thought is also the source of perception . 

While Vedanta etc may posit this only the practice of yoga as in Dharna , Dhyana and Samadhi can give the experience that that all is consciousness and it's modulations 

All love 

https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154481179910665/

 

 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 On Apr 1, 2017, at 3:28 PM, BMP <microm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

 

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

 

 

 .

[Eric Reyes]

But then again Avtar darkness doesn't exist without light, and vice versa, one cannot distinguish the light without the existence of 

apparent absence of light or darkness. One doesn't eliminate the other, one defines the other ultimately, as both are existing simultaneously.

 

Regards, Eric Reyes

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

[Bv Avadhoot]

God Is Silence? Go is sound. 'Shabdah khe' , " I am the sound in ether.' 

Whatever we hear is certainly within the ether. Then that is God. 

Avadoot Swami  

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Chopra Sahab

"God's language is silence...'  Excellent view sir.  Is this silence is a state of sunya samadhi?  Before the Big Bang God was in a state of Unmuni a state being in Sunya Samadhi.  God was absorbed in Himself and everything else was also merge in Him.  Can this state be not called as Absolute Zero?  If Quantum Theory can be introduced in the study of consciousness and in the study of science of spirituality then why we are making a distance from the study of State of Absolute Zero?  How quantum theory explains absolute zero should also the matter of concern of scientists particularly those who are involved in the study of science of consciousness.

Regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Sastangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh, Agra, India   

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Stan 

Agree 

" Gods language is silence . Everything else is poor translation ." 

Rumi 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Deepak, I'm in agreement with you but just using different words for what may be the identical thing. You said: 

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas  

Feynman, could mean the same thing but he would say:

The basic building blocks of the universe may be particles. 

So it could just be the different words that one uses for the same idea. The equations would be the same. You would say ideas make atoms and Feynman would say particles make atoms. Does that make sense? When we want to talk about our inner world your language is better and for doing certain experiments Feynman's language for the same stuff could be better. 

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Mathematical imagination is an activity in consciousness alone

Leonard Susskind "Electrons are best thought of as mathematical abstractions.'

The basic building blocks of the universe may be ideas 

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

<OutlookEmoji-1483997936424_email-signature-plain.jpg.jpg>

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

---

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 8:43:48 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: BMP; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; Menas Kafatos; Anirudh Satsangi; Edwards, Jonathan; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran; Brian Josephson

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

I do agree with Deepak that reality can not be known without experience. But we shouldn't forget Wigner's point about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. So in a deep sense Deepak and Menas are correct. But isn't it reasonable that the multiple versions of quantum mechanics that involve the human observer are also correct?   I've added Brian Josephson to this list because his support of Karen Barad whose book "Meeting the Universe Halfway" opens up a feminist approach to how it all works. So in my mind there are lots of correct approaches to deep reality. Would others on this list agree? 

Stan

To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Diego Lucio Rapoport]

Dear Oliver Manuel,

Thank you for your further comments. The fact that resonances are the case of the Universe, the music of the spheres, which at least in the case of the Sun are produced by the 2:1 fundamental harmonics due to the differential rotation of the outer and inner cores which are manifest by the Mobius strip coronal ejections.

This point out to a non-dual logophysics in which Outside and Inside rather than being separated they are integrated, as is the case of the Klein Bottle which as an embodiment of self-reference  self-penetrates instauring the 2:1 harmonics.

All the matter in the Solar System, the tree infront of my working desk, the desk itself with the cat ontop of it, we, appear to have been produced from the matter of a supernova explosion, whose dense iron core literally turned Inside-out, as is the observed case of the supernova explosion of Casiopea A.

In mathematical terms the eversion of a sphere. It is called the Smale Paradox, by which the sphere turns inside-out outside-in through non-orientable surfaces which are one-sided, as is the case of the above mentioned surfaces of Moebius and Klein. This was, in my regard, the most important theorem of geometry and topology of the XXth century. It put an end to the dualistic divide between Inside and Outside.

In biology, immortal Hydra turns Inside-out and Outside-In cyclically. Also, the invagination of the embryo is another case of this logophysics of nature which is also that of thought, yet the former being a manifestation of the latter. I coincide with other participants of this forum on this regard.

As respected B Madhava Puri put it, ontologically, this surmounts the restrictions of dual logic. Furthermore, the latter is but a projection of the non-dual logic (operated by the Klein bottle logic), rather than primeval nor independent of it.

Finally, another word on music. Rather than free thought being the case of music composition, all chords appear to be discrete paths on specific twisted surfaces. Two chords compositions lie on a Mobius strip,for example.

 https://www.simonsfoundation.org/multimedia/mathematical-impressions-making-music-with-a-mobius-strip/

So, in the case of music, free thought appears to be topologically patterned (as is the case of the experience of music, say, the Tritone paradox) ! Remarkable, indeed.

To resume. Returning to the logics of pure thought, free thought and nature, a topic raised by B. Madhava Puri, they all share non-dual ontologies and specific topological patterns.

We may start considering the Music of the Universe in this regard.

Cordially

Diego Lucio Rapoport

2017-04-03 8:56 GMT-03:00 Oliver Manuel <omat...@gmail.com>:

Dear Diego Lucio Rapoport, 

Namaste.

Thank you for your comments.  

The paper was accepted for publication as "The Universe Is In Good Hands" aka "There Is A God."  https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERY.pdf

It references both 

• Peter Toth's 1977 report on the Sun's 40 minute pulse  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v270/n5633/abs/270159a0.html
  
• Kotov's 1996 confirmation the 160 minute pulse is the fourth, regular 40 minute pulse. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02120961
  

 

This is, indeed, the "music of the one of the spheres" - the one that hold every atom, life and star in the solar system in continuous vibration.  http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMJJYUL05F_index_0.html 

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel

 

)

Dear Dr Oliver Manuel, Namaste

Thank you for forwarding your contribution. 

Allow me to suggest a title with an additional qualification, say your "The Universe is in Good Hands" to become "The Universe is in the Good Hand of Music Playing" following your quite unique -but much neglected,despite reviews claiming its historical significance,  mentioning of  Kotov et al's works at the Crimea Observatory" showing that the Sun is a pulsar, followed by his discoveries of many other pulsars with this same frequency. 

Kotov further discovered the 2:1 fundamental harmonics in the rotational velocity of the outer and inner strata of the Sun, characteristic of the Moebius strip and Klein Bottle. After all, the visible coronal ejections are clearly non-orientable, as these surfaces are.

Unfortunately, or purposedly perhaps, the satellite that was placed in orbit to study the Sun following ths discovery seemed to have been designed to unable it to pick up these signals.

Best wishes

Diego Rapoport

2017-04-02 9:43 GMT-03:00 Oliver Manuel <omat...@gmail.com>:

Nanaste,

This paper, "The Univere Is In Good Hands,"'

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERX.pdf

was accepted for publication on 1 April 2017, the Centennial of Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda's birth on 1 April 1917.  

The conclusion is the same as that in this song,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?google_comment_id=z135ybkxktv4y3wuj23kdbxo0l3wfvkbe04&v=h5D3LEjGF8A

With kind regards,

Oliver

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 5:59 AM 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 4:40 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

All systems of thought - philosophy , science, theology, religion derive from thought alone . 

Reality cannot be known unless the source of thought is experienced . The source of thought is also the source of perception . 

While Vedanta etc may posit this only the practice of yoga as in Dharna , Dhyana and Samadhi can give the experience that that all is consciousness and it's modulations 

All love 

Deepak Chopra MD

REPLY from BMP

Dear Dr Deepakji

Namaste. Consciousness is also a thought or more properly a concept. What you seem to ignore is that it is YOU who are stating what consciousness is or is not, i.e. expressing your thoughts about it. This means that you unwittingly place yourself [as thinking or thinker] above consciousness and as the absolute determiner of it. In fact, the self (atma) is always and necessarily above consciousness, as what philosophers call self-consciousness, and Kant called the unity of apperception. But that is another story.

The conclusion is that thought originates the thought of consciousness, as it originates all other thoughts, including thought of itself. Thought comes from thought. Aristotle knew this when he derived the pure form of thought as the absolute nosesis noesios noesis, thought thinking thought. He also identified this absolute as theos, or God.  It is from this absolute conception of pure thought that the principle of identity in difference is derived, since thought spontaneously differentiates itself from itself in producing a series of distinct thoughts that we call the activity of thinking. Each distinct thought is also a thought yet distinct from the others. Thus we have the identity in difference of thought.

Perception is a thought, but a sensuous thought, not pure thought. Thus perception does not belong to the logic of pure thought or Idea, it is part of the logic or Idea of phenomenal spirit. The abstract monists do not make such fine distinctions because of the tendency to merge everything into amorphous identity. More nuanced philosophical thought, however, does not maintain such nondiscrimination. The Logic of pure thought, the Logic of Nature or implicit thought, and the Logic of Spirit or free thought are distinct spheres that are coexistent  and related but identical only in that they are all aspects of the Idea in its various syllogistic [three-fold] forms.

As regards your brief comments on yoga, you have not mentioned as to which yoga system you are referring. As you may know there are many. In Patanjali's yoga-sutra the goal of samadhi is fixation of the mind on Ishvara, a theistic conception that is not found in many of the other systems. This is not a conception of consciousness but of the Supreme Self, or Supreme Self-consciousness. When self-thinking thought is conceived of as a thinker, the theos of Aristotle and the Ishvara of Patanjali may be considered to be the same originator of thought. 

Sincerely,

Bhakti Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Zona de los archivos adjuntos

Vista previa del vídeo Morning Has Broken (with lyrics) de YouTube

Haz clic aquí para Responder o para Reenviar 12,42 GB (82%) ocupados de 15 GB Administrar Condiciones - Privacidad Última actividad de la cuenta: hace 24 minutos Información detallada

online_sadhu_sanga

 

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

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

I had a wonderful visit with Nagel at NYU a few years ago and have the highest regard for him. I have the crazy notion that anyone deeply familiar with quantum mechanics should be open to strange aspects of deep nature. But I differ from some skeptics of materialism when it comes to psychic phenomena. That is because to my knowledge all previous experiments on psi haven't been carried out as carefully as experiments that violate quantum mechanics should be carried out. 

However, on the topic of evolution much of the time I'm on Nagel's side of being cautious. Another way of saying it is that we may be alone, at least in our galaxy. That is, we Earthlings may have been lucky. The good news is that in probably less than 100 years we'll know enough about evolution to know the answer of whether intelligent life is easily made or whether we were super lucky or maybe had some extraterrestrial helpers like God or Cosmic Mind or simply extraterrestrials. 

Stan

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Deepak Chopra]

Agree here Shafiq 

A mechanism conceived in the intellect cannot be the source of the intellect. 

Similarly an object observed in consciousness ( brain )cannot be the source of consciousness.

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

---

From: Shafiq Khan <shaf...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 6:20:50 AM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: anirud...@gmail.com; Deepak Chopra; skl...@berkeley.edu; microm...@yahoo.com; mkaf...@gmail.com; jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk; rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; b...@scsiscs.org; hame...@email.arizona.edu; alfredo...@gmail.com; lspe...@hampshire.edu; hst...@mindspring.com; ccoc...@ucsc.edu; bd...@cam.ac.uk

[Whit Blauvelt]

Good people,

If we're going to discuss what is thought and who is the thinker, let me ask
a question about our assumptions about thought. Many Western "thinkers"
assume that thought is simply the words that come into conscious awareness.
But many words come into consciousness, for many reasons, including
especially our anticipations of what people -- including ourselves -- might
say. The only words we have to "own" are those we speak to others. All the
often-contrary and contradictory statements we entertain in consciousness can
be a sign of our thorough consideration of perspectives, without our needing
to either own or identify with any one of them.

So, when you each write of "thought," do you interpret Descartes to have
essentially meant "I speak to myself, therefore I know I am?" That's not my
reading of him. But its certainly an available one. The way "thought" is
mentioned here -- as if we all clearly recognize it is -- makes me wonder
just what this "thought" is that people claim to recognize. I find it much
more mysterious and problematic, and only imperfectly reflected in our
language, and in our arts.

Best,
Whit

> --
> ----------------------------
> BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
> http://bviscs.org/reports
>
> Science and Scientist - 2016
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
>
> 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

[Deepak Chopra]

Nagel has decided not to engage in dialogue or travel. I asked. Agree if science is based on rationality it must assume an intelligible not random universe

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Robert Wallace <B...@robertmwallace.com>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 5:21:34 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)

[Deepak Chopra]

Perceptions and minds are innumerable 

Awareness is the common ground of all of them 

Hence awareness is one 

You cannot multiply or divide awareness

It differentiates into all knowers, all modes of knowing and all objects known-all sentient beings --in the same way a zygote differentiates into all the different cells and organs of a body

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

---

From: 'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 4:41:07 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

[Eric Reyes]

Respected BMP,

    Thanks for correcting me, that's a clear logical and revolutionary conception, beautiful!

Regards, Eric Reyes

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Stan,

The hypothesis of 6^th sense addresses paranormal data, psychic data, rebirth related data, NDEs/OBEs, and Samadhi state data in a more realistic manner. What is your opinion on this crazy possibility? 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

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.

[BMP]

From: "'Eric Reyes'
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 11:13 PM

Respected BMP,

    Thanks for correcting me, that's a clear logical and revolutionary conception, beautiful!

Regards, Eric Reyes

REPLY from BMP

Dear Eric,

Namaste. Thank you for your appreciation.

Descartes is considered a revolutionary thinker because he introduced what is called the philosophy of modernity in its clearest form. Before Descartes Aristotle's philosophy of the absolute nature of thought was the standard. With the advent of Descartes the domain of thought was brought down from the absolute to the finite individual, which is the chief characteristic of modernity: everyone can think for themselves. This is also the principle of Protestantism introduced by Martin Luther in the period called the Reformation as opposed to the Catholic Church doctrines.  

It marks an important development in thinking spirit when subjectivity became an essential moment of thought and brought down to the subjective individual from the heaven of the absolute. The Truth which is the universal absolute, however, is not to be abandoned, but the moment of subjective certainty of that Truth must also be acknowledged otherwise Truth becomes an abstract identity, somewhat like the abstract monists of today believe. Absolute Truth which is universal must be confirmed in one's own individual reasoning in order to become concrete Reality. Reality and individuality is not eliminated but confirmed and actualized in the complete absolute truth properly conceived.In other words, neither the absolute nor the individual are to be comprehended abstractly or in isolation from one another. There is an indivisible relation in what is otherwise distinguished. The very meaning of relationship requires distinctions that are united without loosing their distinctions.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

Security Check Required

[BMP]

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 5:00 PM

Perceptions and minds are innumerable 

Awareness is the common ground of all of them 

Hence awareness is one 

You cannot multiply or divide awareness

It differentiates into all knowers, all modes of knowing and all objects known-all sentient beings --in the same way a zygote differentiates into all the different cells and organs of a body

REPLY by BMP

Awareness or consciousness is not merely what is common to all perceptions and minds, it is what is universal essence for them. The difference between commonality and universal essence is a vitally important distinction.

The color white may be common to picket fences, clouds, and snowflakes, but it is not essential to those things. IN other words fences can be any color, clouds can be gray as well as white, and snowflakes don't really depend on their being white as far as their essence as water is concerned.  

On the other hand, universal essence such a the fact that each and every cow cannot be what it is if we take away its 'cowness' which is shared by every cow. This kind of universality is essential to the innumerable different specimens under its species. 

The fact that the universal is one does not mean that the many individuals under it are eliminated. That does not follow as a rational conclusion from the fact that many individual specimens exists quite happily within a single species. 

To claim that awareness is one is also not justified by the evidence that the offspring of conscious living entities each have their own awareness quite different from one another. Experience tells us that when the mother feels hungry, for example, her offspring do not necessarily feel the same thing. So awareness is not the same for all.

Another example can be given. The flame of a candle can be used to light many other candles without loosing its own luminescence. Thus many independent flames can be produced from one. IF this is true for fire, then how can an absolute of ultimate consciousness be restricted from producing many independent conscious entities from itself? How can the Absolute be restricted in this way?

The Sri Isopanishad explains that the Complete Whole can produce complete wholes from itself without loosing its completeness. Even Shankaracharya recognizes this in his commentary on the Isopanisad, "The whole (Hiranyagarbha) was horn out of the whole (Brahman)." Thus the Absolute has no restriction as to how many wholes it can produce out of itself. The only restriction comes from the finite awareness and thinking of a finite intellect that tries to determine what the Absolute can or cannot do. The Absolute must always be the result of pure reason based on logic and evidence of an unbiased nature that is not influenced by one-sided beliefs and prejudices. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Serge and Colleagues,

On 03 Apr 2017, at 13:39, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

-

Deepak Chopra wrote:

> I don't think any theory can explain consciousness

Indeed, no effective theory of consciousness can be constructed within the limits of a dominating meta-theory called the Modern Physical (Materialistic) Picture of the World. 

There is no *effective* theory of number consciousness indeed, but there is still a theory. Just that is not effective. That is provably the case for the numbers or the digital engrams.

So, I started from constructing a special meta-theory, which, unlike the dominating one, is making room for the activity of informational factor in general and consciousness in particular. In result, withing the limits of this new meta-theory, I managed to construct my version of the applied theory of consciousness which can explain why we have such "stuff" as subjective experience, or what are the mechanisms of transformation of the physical (sensory) signals into the elements of subjective experience.

So, I will readily discuss the question of constructing as the meta-theories, so the theories of consciousness with all those who believe that consciousness and consciousness-related phenomena need explanation and can have scientifically sound explanation.

That is the case when we assume digital mechanism. When a machine introspect itself relatively to some universal number it discovers that much more is true than what is justifiable. Notions like consciousness and meaning can be defined indirectly by reference to some notion of truth (limited to arithmetic), and this makes possible to understand that about consciousness there is an unmovable and undefinable fixed point resisting all theories. The soul of the machine knows she is not a machine. (again I insist that I assume Mechanism).

Mechanism is at the antipode of Materialism. Matter is a sort of first person emergent limit on all 'number dreams' (first person view on infinitely many computations).

Don't hesitate to put a link on your theory. May be you did and I missed it. If it needs some primary matter for consciousnes it can't be Mechanist, you will be forced to make the brain into a special analog machine. May be it is what you do. I think this is a bit speculative, and sad if is just to avoid machine's consciousness, that is to keep a reductionist view on machine, which is hardly believable after Gödel's incompleteness theorem. But it is conceivable. What is logically impossible is to keep both materialism and Mechanism.

Best,

Bruno

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>

Cc: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; BMP <microm...@yahoo.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; Brian Josephson <bd...@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 11:34 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

I don't think any theory can explain consciousness 

All theories including quantum theory are conceived in consciousness . 

Consciousness does not need an explanation 

It does all the explanations 

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

Hello Deepak,

On 04 Apr 2017, at 15:53, Deepak Chopra wrote:

Perceptions and minds are innumerable 

Awareness is the common ground of all of them 

Hence awareness is one 

You cannot multiply or divide awareness

It differentiates into all knowers, all modes of knowing and all objects known-all sentient beings --in the same way a zygote differentiates into all the different cells and organs of a body

I can't agree more. I can prove that the self-referentially correct universal machine's soul can't agree more.

Bruno

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

<OutlookEmoji-1483997936424_email-signature-plain.jpg.jpg>

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

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

[Shafiq Khan]

Hello Everybody,

                           Truth is so simple but also so complicated. Evolution & Einstein's perspective makes it crystal clear that everything in the universe exists within the materialistic confines and there cannot be anything other than physical material (this includes energy which is transmutable with matter as per Einstein's perspective); hence science presumes that some day we will explain intellect (of livingness in living organisms), consciousness and thought process in animal species, including humans, materialistically though till date there is absolutely no explanation of these phenomena of life both in physical & biological sciences. If everything could be explained materialistically then there is absolutely no possibility of existence of God or Creator.

Now if Einstein's materialistic perspective is treated as correct, as main-stream physicists do, then humanity should forget about any God/Creator and close the chapter of religious hypocrisy all over the world. Now having shown that the very Einstein's materialistic perspective is baseless the door of theology opens up if not scientifically but philosophically. It has been shown that the physical universe is simply the electromagnetic phenomena due to charge whereas humans cannot know anything objectively including the charge per se for details you may refer https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post.

However the human thought process, which in no case could be only the physical activity, contains the key to everything. Since human thought process is not only the physical activity as such it just cannot be scientifically investigated and the only means of knowing the content of thought process is philosophy. Thus humans could understand the powers, intention & nature of God only through philosophy by thorough & rational analysis of human thought process. Religion of God per se has to be rationality whereas religion of humans as per God has to be simple. It has to be simple so that it could be understood by all people irrespective of their intelligence, educational qualifications, social & financial status etc. and as such no new prophets & preachers are required. The corruptions by so-called religious scholars, personal bias of philosophers & science has kept us away from realization of the true religion of God.

Realization of self is the greatest spiritual experience and once we realize the self all the mysteries open up which includes purpose of human life and purpose of creation of the universe etc.

Realization of self by realization of the content of rational thought process absolves us of the frustration of apparent purposelessness of life. Thorough rational analysis leads to the fact that humans are not only physical bodies but besides physical bodies humans have soul, substance responsible for life phenomenon ( the interaction of this substance with the physical body gives rise to consciousness, natural instincts within a species/humans ), substance wherein the actions done by them are stored. Soul within the humans could be perceived by existence of the Ego ( Self the "I" within every human being ), innate knowledge of the Creator ( Descartes ) and most importantly a very well defined book of innate moral law ( Thomas Aquinas & Kant ) and the latter is with only humans as the species. The only task of all prophets was to convey the eternity of the soul and to warn humans that their afterlife will depend upon whether they adopted the book of innate moral law, which has been authored & inscribed by the Creator in their souls, or not. Once the book of innate moral law is opened ( this could be done by only original, genuine & philanthropist philosophers ) the basic & fundamental principle of this book is that humans should live peacefully & justice should prevail in all human societies. Humans are living like everything other than humans because they do not know the purpose of life as religions have been corrupted and this basic message was not conveyed.

With Best Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 8:14 PM, William Bushell <william...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nice, and see Maureen Seaberg's Struck By Genius account of an average guy who became mathematically inclined and gifted, and possibly capable of seeing fractal and holographic properties in nature and the world around him after a closed head injury (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maureen-seaberg/struck-by-genius-the-jaso_b_5186969.html); and my essay from FOM 2016, in which I discuss how certain forms of advanced Indo-Tibetan observational meditation practices appear to deliberately induce temporary autistic savant-like states in order to provide the practitioner with access to autistic savant-like perceptual properties of highly detailed, veridical perception on at times a microscopic scale (https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/571; file:///C:/Users/W/Downloads/571-2467-1-PB.pdf;)....  

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Bernardo Kastrup <bern...@bernardokastrup.com> wrote:

An old thread, but I thought this might be relevant for it:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/

Cheers, Bernardo.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

How about space time energy matter being emergent experiences in consciousness modulating itself as qualia ? 

Perhaps Bernardo and Menas would like to comment . 

Added them to chain 

Deepak Chopra

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

 

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

 

On Jan 31, 2016, at 3:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Jo, I fully agree with you that multiple points of view are super important for understanding our universe. It is for precisely that reason that I've been driving around with the DUALITY license plate since 1976 (40 years).  I find that most people are stuck with just one point of view. But the multiple threads need to be compatible. 

At this point Jo and I have too many separate threads so I'd like to combine this thread with the other one on emergence. 

Scientists use emergence language probably at least as much as philosophers. For example I strongly suggest googling "Sperry emergence of consciousness".  The course I took from Nobelist Roger Sperry many, many years ago may have contributed to my switch from physics to neuroscience. 

Chalmers is indeed open to the possibility that qualia come in at the bottom but he is equally comfortable at this point that qualia are strongly emergent from the Standard Model.  We have a big problem of definitions. Chalmers is quite clear that at this point only qualia are strongly emergent.   The following is a really good source  http://consc.net/papers/emergence.pdf  for definitions. 

Jo

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 10:52 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Cc: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

---

[i] Theism vs. atheism is interesting topic. Materialistic philosopher Dennett in an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgr3B0PxYbc&feature=related) addresses some of this issue. One could argue that the theist-atheist phenomenon is because of the genetic disposition and/or acquired attributes as some scientist found ‘God gene’, which when expressed in some people entails him/her being a theist. It can be acquired as well, such as due to accidents, near death experience, space travel, and so on. A testable hypothesis: a possible neural mechanism may be that inhibiting circuits perhaps in frontal-temporal-parietal system get damaged and there is nothing to inhibit, and hence entailing being a theist (normal default seems to be for atheists); see also (McNamara, 2006b). However, further research is needed to test this hypothesis. In any case, the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is for both theists (who can consider Brahman as God) and atheists (who can consider Brahman as a dual-aspect entity) because theist-atheist phenomenon appears subject specific.

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene, “The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards spiritual or mystic experiences. […] The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2 [vesicular monoamine transporter 2] [(Hamer, 2005)]; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection. […] According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e. it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the ‘God gene’ moniker). […] VMAT2 codes for a vesicular monoamine transporter that plays a key role in regulating the levels of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. These monoamine transmitters are in turn postulated to play an important role in regulating the brain activities associated with mystic beliefs. […] Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children. […] Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain.”

          

 

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, M.S., Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--

http://www.bernardokastrup.com

http://www.facebook.com/BernardoKastrup

https://twitter.com/BernardoKastrup

http://www.youtube.com/user/bernardokastrup
http://www.amazon.com/author/bernardokastrup

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[john.kineman]

Dear Dr. Puri,

Thank you for this excellent overview of the topic and its history. Indeed, with all the historical positions I get the feeling of very little progress, except for mapping out the many possible misunderstandings. I wonder if we can even define progress in this regard - can we say that thought is converging on a better understanding, or is it only diversifying for each person's ownership?

The idea of a collective exploration of, if it is all an illusion, perhaps a "better illusion" (Ashly Brilliant) is actually appealing to me. We seem to be arriving at the understanding that any concept of reality is model, or more deeply in its assumptions, a meta-model. Can there be some incontrovertible assumptions? Maybe not.

I begin with some basic reasoning, as many before have tried to do. Descartes' was good - If I can ask the question there must be a reality (one interpretation of "Cogito ergo sum").

So, we accept reality. No more talk about concepts we find useful but then claim are not real. Real is what is meaningful. Unreal has no meaning.

Another basic thought, I would expect, is that the source of reality must be reality. We cannot posit an unreal source of the real without being lost in confusion. I think the Upanishads also clarify this.

Another is that thought itself must be symbolic, as it is by nature not the object of thought. So, reality contains the ability to perceive itself. This also agrees with the most fundamental Vedic principles.

I'll stop with a fourth idea, that what is perceived has been "objectified", i.e., made into an object. What is an object?  It is a concept that is given location in some contextual system of coordinates. Today we call it "local" existence vs. "non-local" existence. This agrees with the previous idea of reality able to perceive itself, thus necessarily having local and non-local domains.

That is enough for a meta-model of relational existence involving all four causalities described in the Vedas and Upanishads, and also reiterated (incorrectly) by Aristotle. Two of those causes are in local reality - efficient and material. They involve coordinates of space and time (also scale, but that is a new theory of space-time). The other two are in non-local reality - final and formal. All four form a cycle of causation - the wheel of existence; and a 5th level unity which establishes a system identity -- that is consistent with Atman/Brahman (transcending scale).

 All of reductionist science is included in this meta-model without rejection. It can benefit from some modifications as we consider formative contextual relations (relativity was one result, QM another). The formal context of existence is not singular, as assumed in classical science, but also part of the self-defining cycle of causes. Final cause is not "at the top" because it is not a top-down hierarchy but a cycle. Final cause is a 'prior' existence in the cycle - an exemplar. That accounts for karmic laws. Classical reality is real in this view (the first premise above), but real within a generally entangled context of many interactions establishing the "local" space coordinates. The shape of the coordinate system we can calculate from events is established collectively by those events, and changes with them. Local space-time emerges, it is not the foundation. Relation between local and non-local is the foundation in this view.

That also seems to me a good starting point for comprehending consciousness -- as a relation between local and non-local existences. So, indeed we can have a meta-model for consciousness even if it is the foundation of everything, but being a product of the conscious mind it can only describe its apparent effect - this relation. It cannot say where it all started -- being self-reflexive its origin must be experienced as infinite. But that is not a problem for science.  It does suggest a better basis for scientific laws, if they were rewritten from a relational basis rather than attempting to describe everything from the local side.

Science is supposed to be about such improvements -- Kuhn's revolutions toward more parsimonious (i.e., elegantly more explanatory) views. But there is a lot of power and money invested in the current, extremely non-parsimonious view that generates the need for very complicated explanation and increasingly more elements of explanation, just like Ptolemy's circles. The basis of that approach is now mainly job security, because a lot of people know better. But the unfortunate thing is that in preserving such a one-sided approach, we cannot comprehend wholeness scientifically; which we could very easily from the relational view. This is leading to destruction of life on a global scale. So it is very urgent and important to re-orient science to the relational view.

cheers,

John

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:32:58 PM UTC-6, BMP wrote:

Dear Dr Menas,

Namaste. It is good to hear this interpretation of your position which is more aligned with philosophy's rational idea of consciousness. There is indeed an entire spectrum of interpretations of Vedanta stretching from abstract monism to radical dualism. If these differences are not viewed from a religious perspective [as we typically find in India] but from a purely philosophical/logical framework the whole gamut of ideas that have historically occupied philosophers over the centuries both East and West can be found.

Abstract monism or kevaladvaitavad, represents reductionism in any of its historical forms from the Greek Parmenides (all is Being) and the Eleatics (One only) to the modern day materialistic reductionsits, or eliminativists. Your counterpart [Dr Chopra], if i understand him correctly, makes the case for an absolute consciousness existing abstractly without any object to oppose it. All apparent ["metaphorical"] objects, perceptions, thoughts, ideas, universes or whatever are contents of consciousness, which is like a pot that ultimately absorbs all content into itself, so that in the end all you are left with is the pot - consciousness. 

This denial of the world is also akin to the viewpoint of the ancient skeptics. They found that everything in the world is contradictory, [for example, Zeno's paradoxes of movement], and therefore being illogical could not possibly exist. They never considered the possibility that the logic of reality was actually contradictory by nature [as we have accepted today in the phenomena of quantum physics]. That everything was contradictory was also found in the ancient Greek philosopher Heraklites. His idea that everything was dynamic Becoming was postulated in opposition to Parmenides idea that everything real was reified Being, 

This dynamic idea of reality as actuality [i.e.act] was taken up in full by Hegel's science of philosophy in which the dialectical movement [thesis-antithesis] was the pulse beat of the Absolute that was its very life. This was the same principle found in the Vedantic concept of achintya beda beda tattva of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. 

Berkeley's idealism tried to make the case for a pure perceptualism without an actual world, but Kant argued  successfully that a merely phenomenal or apparent world [world of appearance only] could not justify the possibility of experience and knowledge, which necessitated a noumenal sphere as well. 

It is worthwhile to study the history of Western philosophy and compare it with the history of Indian philosophy to find the many similarities and developments that have occurred in both hemispheres sometimes with amazing synchronicity, although they both seem to have been isolated from each other as far as direct influence is concerned.

Pauli and Jung conjointly studied the phenomenon of synchronicity, what we might call today entanglement, as possibly contributing to a new foundation for reality. The idea of a Coniunctionis or Oppositorium as the essence of Reality has long been held as a  real consideration in the mystery schools for ages. Reality does not exist in space and time but in an Oppositorium. Yet, isn't that exactly what we mean when we speak of a universe, .i.e. uni-verse, or unity in diversity. The same is true of Divinity, i.e. a div-inity, or diversity in unity

But science, operating on the logic of the excluded middle, or the understanding of contradiction as being incapable of being real has led us to the dualism or one-sided abstract thinking that has characterized modern reductionistic science and certain philosophical systems since antiquity.

This is a long story, and the relation to the historical development of the the concept of consciousness as it is understood today, especially in light of the recent interest of science in that concept, is very important for bringing about a true scientific understanding of what that concept involves. One of the few scientists who, in my opinion, has touched upon an important aspect of consciousness that the others seem to completely miss is Giulio Tononi with his Integrated Information Theory of consciousness. 

The idea of the integration or unity of consciousness is essential if one wants to comprehend what the true idea of consciousness represents. This can be traced from the modern inception of the mopdern idea of consciousness with Descartes' cogito [I, Ego]  and its division into res cogitans [consciousness] and res extensa [objective content] to Kant's unity of apperception [or Ego] that was necessary to posit a unified object of sense perception [thing]. In other words it is necessary in order to explain how the perceptions from the five senses all converge in one thing.

In regard to the missing brain parts and consciousness, Christof Koch gives an interesting explanation of Integrated Information Theory on a Youtube video, in which at one point he mentions that even the whole cortex of the brain may not be involved in consciousness.

This post can be downloaded here:

Click here to Download

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>

To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

Simulation suggests 68 percent of the universe may not actually exist

 Michael Irving  March 30, 2017

<image001.jpg>

New computer simulations have questioned the existence of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force that is said to be driving the expansion of the universe (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

 

According to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model, which is the current accepted standard for how the universe began and evolved, the ordinary matter we encounter every day only makes up around five percent of the universe's density, with dark matter comprising 27 percent, and the remaining 68 percent made up of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force driving the expansion of the universe. But a new study has questioned whether dark energy exists at all, citing computer simulations that found that by accounting for the changing structure of the cosmos, the gap in the theory, which dark energy was proposed to fill, vanishes.

Published in 1915, Einstein's general theory of relativity forms the basis for the accepted origin story of the universe, which says that the Big Bang kicked off the expansion of the universe about 13.8 billion years ago. The problem is, the equations at work are incredibly complicated, so physicists tend to simplify parts of them so they're a bit more practical to work with. When models are then built up from these simplified versions, small holes can snowball into huge discrepancies.

"Einstein's equations of general relativity that describe the expansion of the universe are so complex mathematically, that for a hundred years no solutions accounting for the effect of cosmic structures have been found," says Dr László Dobos, co-author of the new paper. "We know from very precise supernova observations that the universe is accelerating, but at the same time we rely on coarse approximations to Einstein's equations which may introduce serious side effects, such as the need for dark energy, in the models designed to fit the observational data."

Dark energy has never been directly observed, and can only be studied through its effects on other objects. Its properties and existence are still purely theoretical, making it a placeholder plug for holes in current models.

The mysterious force was first put forward as a driver of the universe's accelerated expansion in the 1990s, based on the observation of Type Ia supernovae. Sometimes called "standard candles," these bright spots are known to shine at a consistent peak brightness, and by measuring the brightness of that light by the time it reaches Earth, astronomers are able to figure out just how far away the object is.

This research was instrumental in spreading acceptance of the idea that dark energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe, and it earned the scientists involved the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011. But other studies have questioned the validity of that conclusion, and some researchers are trying to develop a more accurate picture of the cosmos with software that can better handle all the wrinkles of the general theory of relativity.

<image002.jpg>

 

A comparison of three models of universal expansion: top left, in red, is the Lambda-CDM model, including dark energy; middle, in blue, is the new Avera model, which accounts for the structure and doesn't require dark energy; and right, in green, is the original Einstein-de Sitter model, which also doesn't include dark energy (Credit: István Csabai et al)

 

According to the new study from Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary and the University of Hawaii, the discrepancy that dark energy was "invented" to fill might have arisen from the parts of the theory that were glossed over for the sake of simplicity. The researchers set up a computer simulation of how the universe formed, based on its large-scale structure. That structure apparently takes the form of "foam," where galaxies are found on the thin walls of each bubble, but large pockets in the middle are mostly devoid of both normal and dark matter.

The team simulated how gravity would affect matter in this structure and found that, rather than the universe expanding in a smooth, uniform manner, different parts of it would expand at different rates. Importantly, though, the overall average rate of expansion is still consistent with observations, and points to accelerated expansion. The end result is what the team calls the Avera model.

"The theory of general relativity is fundamental in understanding the way the universe evolves," says Dobos. "We do not question its validity; we question the validity of the approximate solutions. Our findings rely on a mathematical conjecture which permits the differential expansion of space, consistent with general relativity, and they show how the formation of complex structures of matter affects the expansion. These issues were previously swept under the rug but taking them into account can explain the acceleration without the need for dark energy."

If the research stands up to scrutiny, it could change the direction of the study of physics away from chasing the ghost of dark energy.

The research was published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and an animation below compares the different models.

Source: Royal Astronomical Society 

http://newatlas.com/dark-energy-existence-questioned/48708/

 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Thanks Bernardo for restarting this thread from January 2016. There are folks who we haven't heard from in quite a while. One question I have is whether anyone will be going to the TSC (Tucson) consciousness meeting in Shanghai (of course other than Deepak who will be speaking on June 8) or the ASSC meeting the following week in Beijing. I'll definitely be going to the latter one and maybe for a day or two to the TSC one to see friends. 

My response to this thread is that I think the really tricky part about qualia (subjectivity) is how does it hook up with the NCC (the neural correlates of the qualia)  The NCC seems to be more and more wonderfully connected with neuroscience and biology and all the QED equations regarding atoms. So what are the equations that connect all that NCC stuff to the qualia aspect. Is anyone on this list interested in that aspect. 

One of the really nifty possible ways to make that NCC/qualia connection is to make use of psychic phenomena (a topic on which I'm somewhat skeptical, but if it works it would be fantasic). Later this week I'll send out a posting on that topic. If anyone is especially interested you can contact me privately since the Sadhu Sanga list reaches an uncountable number of people and I sure don't want to clog up the airways with stuff of minimal interest to most folks.

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Yes 

V relevant 

I tweeted the article 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

Absolute zero? This is very specific physics concepts. Has nothing to do with turya state or any samadhi.

Nevertheless it is all qualia.

With respect,

Menas

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 1, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra

If we are able to describe scientifically the Unmuni State, Sunya Samadhi we will be able to resolve space, time, matter and energy controversy.  The CREATOR was in the beginning in the State of Unmuni and Sunya Samadhi.  Can this state be compare with Absolute Zero? Can we also achieve the State of Absolute Zero during meditation?

Warm regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Bernardo Kastrup <bern...@bernardokastrup.com> wrote:

An old thread, but I thought this might be relevant for it:

https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/guest-blog/ transcending-the-brain/

Cheers, Bernardo.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

How about space time energy matter being emergent experiences in consciousness modulating itself as qualia ? 

Perhaps Bernardo and Menas would like to comment . 

Added them to chain 

Deepak Chopra

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

 

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

 

On Jan 31, 2016, at 3:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Jo, I fully agree with you that multiple points of view are super important for understanding our universe. It is for precisely that reason that I've been driving around with the DUALITY license plate since 1976 (40 years).  I find that most people are stuck with just one point of view. But the multiple threads need to be compatible. 

At this point Jo and I have too many separate threads so I'd like to combine this thread with the other one on emergence. 

Scientists use emergence language probably at least as much as philosophers. For example I strongly suggest googling "Sperry emergence of consciousness".  The course I took from Nobelist Roger Sperry many, many years ago may have contributed to my switch from physics to neuroscience. 

Chalmers is indeed open to the possibility that qualia come in at the bottom but he is equally comfortable at this point that qualia are strongly emergent from the Standard Model.  We have a big problem of definitions. Chalmers is quite clear that at this point only qualia are strongly emergent.   The following is a really good source  http://consc.net/papers/emerg ence.pdf  for definitions. 

Jo

Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_S...@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

Cc: Online_Sa...@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra

---

[i] Theism vs. atheism is interesting topic. Materialistic philosopher Dennett in an interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=zgr3B0PxYbc&feature=related) addresses some of this issue. One could argue that the theist-atheist phenomenon is because of the genetic disposition and/or acquired attributes as some scientist found ‘God gene’, which when expressed in some people entails him/her being a theist. It can be acquired as well, such as due to accidents, near death experience, space travel, and so on. A testable hypothesis: a possible neural mechanism may be that inhibiting circuits perhaps in frontal-temporal-parietal system get damaged and there is nothing to inhibit, and hence entailing being a theist (normal default seems to be for atheists); see also (McNamara, 2006b). However, further research is needed to test this hypothesis. In any case, the eDAM framework (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) is for both theists (who can consider Brahman as God) and atheists (who can consider Brahman as a dual-aspect entity) because theist-atheist phenomenon appears subject specific.

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G od_gene, “The God gene hypothesis proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predisposes them towards spiritual or mystic experiences. […] The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the theory are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2 [vesicular monoamine transporter 2] [(Hamer, 2005)]; (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spirituality arises in a population because spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection. […] According to this hypothesis, the God gene (VMAT2) is a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with mystic experiences, including the presence of God or others, or more specifically spirituality as a state of mind (i.e. it does not encode or cause belief in God itself in spite of the ‘God gene’ moniker). […] VMAT2 codes for a vesicular monoamine transporter that plays a key role in regulating the levels of the brain chemicals serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. These monoamine transmitters are in turn postulated to play an important role in regulating the brain activities associated with mystic beliefs. […] Hamer has hypothesized that self-transcendence makes people more optimistic, which makes them healthier and likely to have more children. […] Although it is always difficult to determine the many interacting functions of a gene, VMAT2 appears to be involved in the transport of monoamine neurotransmitters across the synapses of the brain.”

          

 

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, M.S., Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/r lpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/p rofile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--

http://www.bernardokastrup.com

http://www.facebook.com/Bernar doKastrup

https://twitter.com/BernardoKa strup

http://www.youtube.com/user/be rnardokastrup
http://www.amazon.com/author/b ernardokastrup

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2016
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 

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_S...@googlegroup s.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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:

...

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Eric Colleagues,

On 03 Apr 2017, at 22:41, 'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Serge,

The Thinker is the source of thought, and since there are unlimited thoughts coming from unlimited and nonlinear directions

That is a strong statement. Are not all descendants of an amoeba or proto-bacteria? Different thought does not entail different person. 

there are therefore unlimited thinkers or personalities.

Which might still belong to the same universal person. That is the case with Mechanism.

This refutes the concept from Deepak and others that consciousness is "One", that we are all one consciousness. 

So Mechanism saves Deepak and others. Consciousness is "One" as the consciousness of the universal (in the sense of Church and Turing) machine.

I guess you are not open to the idea that machines have souls, but the math do justify a soul, accepting Plato's analysis and definition (Theatetus) of that notion.

Best,

Bruno Marchal

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

[Bruno Marchal]

On 04 Apr 2017, at 15:58, Deepak Chopra wrote:

Agree here Shafiq 

A mechanism conceived in the intellect cannot be the source of the intellect. 

Similarly an object observed in consciousness ( brain )cannot be the source of consciousness.

It cannot be the source, we agree, but it can be a local relative support. 

A brain/body makes only possible for a consciousness to manifest itself relatively to another brain/body on the "terrestrial plane".

Eventually the brain itself "is in our head".

Where you might perhaps disagree with the universal machine is that eventually what we have is:

NUMBERS ==> CONSCIOUSNESS ==> PHYSICAL REALITY.

That is close also to Plotinus, Moderatus of Gades and other neopythagorean and neoplatonists, along with Nagasena (from the question of King Milinda). 

Consummer of Salvia divinorum(*) sometimes intuit this too, which raises the question: can we go to "Heaven" and come back. The answer will eventually depend to who or what we are willing to identify ourself.

Respectfully yours

Bruno Marchal

(*) An extraordinary plant cultivated by the Mexican Mazatec Shamans.

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

<OutlookEmoji-1483997936424_email-signature-plain.jpg.jpg>

              discoveringyourcosmicself.com

---

 https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154483113020665/

<image001.png>

 

 

On Apr 2, 2017, at 7:49 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Chopra Sahab

"God's language is silence...'  Excellent view sir.  Is this silence is a state of sunya samadhi?  Before the Big Bang God was in a state of Unmuni a state being in Sunya Samadhi.  God was absorbed in Himself and everything else was also merge in Him.  Can this state be not called as Absolute Zero?  If Quantum Theory can be introduced in the study of consciousness and in the study of science of spirituality then why we are making a distance from the study of State of Absolute Zero?  How quantum theory explains absolute zero should also the matter of concern of scientists particularly those who are involved in the study of science of consciousness.

Regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Sastangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh, Agra, India   

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Stan 

Agree 

" Gods language is silence . Everything else is poor translation ." 

Rumi 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

<image001.png>

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/DeepakChopra/videos/10154481179910665/

<image001.png>

 

 

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.

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

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Ram, Unfortunately the only entities available to quantum field theory for doing the communications are photons and electrons and their coupling strength is far too low to do the job. The human skull would stop the transmission. 

Stan

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:59 PM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind <matters-of-mind@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear Stan,

Thanks.

You have indeed raised an interesting issue. Information is certainly present in all cases (paranormal, psychic, rebirth, NDEs/OBEs, and SS/NS states) and the physical information must travel at speed less than or equal to the speed of light. Therefore, if 6^th sense exists, then it must honor this constraint. It also seems true that 6^th sense would be an unusual sense and would be activated at very special and unusual conditions. It is also true that the related experiences must have the respective neural basis. Stapp’s Global mind framework (in analogy to ‘mind without brain’ in astral, causal, and ‘manifested consciousness’ worlds as dualistic Sāṅkhya and monistic ‘nondual Advaita/Vedānta’/idealism proposed) seems more challenging than the 6^th sense hypothesis (whatever it may be or whatever it means). Let us investigate further.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 6:13 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Ram, thanks for that clear questions, 

The senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell are all mediated by photons and electric charges in ways that QM and QED easily deals with. But the QED doesn't have properties for the 6th sense. 

Stan

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/matters-of-mind/ 1053532221.3506790. 1491341037595%40mail.yahoo.com .

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/CAEKJmQ2%3Dspzy0nVPKZ44PZvPLHzyTdAvv06bfQmTHKp4jkpd%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/348134469.3510117.1491350391761%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Tusar Nath Mohapatra]

How about this book? https://t.co/5yXaDslCmB
Thanks.

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Jonathan

I loved your comment about the television scientists doing well because they confirm the stuffy intuitions of the man in the street.  I recently saw a documentary on colour where the colours were everywhere but deep inside your brain. I was wondering, though, how much of this is nature and how much nurture. Is the average person so stuffy in other cultures? Were people in the past (e.g. before television) generally materialists?  I also wonder whether the belief that there is stuff out there is really that wrong.  After all,  the feelings of hardness and softness that give us our sense of stuff are aspects of our consciousness in which data about our body's contact with external things is being encoded. It is true that those feelings are nothing to do with the things they represent.  But it could equally be true that those external things are made of interacting consciousnesses (as Arthur Eddington,  for example, argued). Their interactions might frequently involve experiencing and responding to feelings of hardness and softness. So there might genuinely be stuff out there after all (at least as the man in the street understands it). Perhaps lots of it! Maybe it is the physicists conception of the world that is fundamentally wrong - a mere mathematical procedure that happens to churn out the correct numbers. Perhaps fundamental physics is really describing and interplay of feelings and responses - what the man in the street would generally describe as stuff.

As Eddington rightly pointed out

'It is difficult for the matter-of-fact physicist to accept the view that the substratum of everything is of mental character. But no one can deny that mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience, and all else is remote inference'

Best wishes,
Colin

(C.  S.  Morrison,  author of The Blind Mindmaker: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation)

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

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

Send from Huawei Y360

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[NYIKOS, PETER]

Stanley, there is more than biological evolution involved in the arising of intelligent life; there is also pre-biotic evolution requiring a completely different kind of scenario. I believe the difficulties preceding the first bacteria are far greater than the ones that follow it, and so it is little short of astounding that the preceding part took only about one-tenth of the time the part after. And so really does seem to be a fluke that we are here at all.

Recently there has been some careful thinking by scientists about what kind of planet is optimal for life. In one cover article in Scientific American  it is concluded that our earth can be considerably improved on, both as to its "parent sun" and to its size. An optimal K star would last at least five times as long as our sun and still produce enough light for a suitably placed planet to produce life of the right sort.  And "suitably placed" includes being far enough away  to not be affected by solar flares too adversely, and to be able to turn normally on its axis.

The optimal planet would be larger, what Poul Anderson called a "superterrestrial." For one thing, this would allow the planet to trap the internal heat, so important for plate tectonics and recycling of resources, more efficiently and for a much longer time. Secondly, it would allow for a deeper atmosphere and thus provide additional protection from radiation and from "mini-asteroids". One the other hand, there would still be enough asteroids to produce the mass extinctions that were so important for evolution to keep from stagnating.

And so, our own universe is probably too young to have produced more than a handful of creatures that are as intelligent as ourselves; and most of them would be around somewhat less massive stars than our sun, on planets about twice as old as ours.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics       
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS It is indeed a shame that Professor Nagel has declined to discuss such issues with us. Perhaps if he had been approached by you, Stanley, we might have had a more favorable response.

---

From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [online_sa...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Stanley A. KLEIN [skl...@berkeley.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 6:32 AM
To: Online Sadhu Sanga
Subject: [MaybeSpam]Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)

I had a wonderful visit with Nagel at NYU a few years ago and have the highest regard for him. I have the crazy notion that anyone deeply familiar with quantum mechanics should be open to strange aspects of deep nature. But I differ from some skeptics of materialism when it comes to psychic phenomena. That is because to my knowledge all previous experiments on psi haven't been carried out as carefully as experiments that violate quantum mechanics should be carried out. 

However, on the topic of evolution much of the time I'm on Nagel's side of being cautious. Another way of saying it is that we may be alone, at least in our galaxy. That is, we Earthlings may have been lucky. The good news is that in probably less than 100 years we'll know enough about evolution to know the answer of whether intelligent life is easily made or whether we were super lucky or maybe had some extraterrestrial helpers like God or Cosmic Mind or simply extraterrestrials. 

Stan

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.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Stan,

Thanks.

You have indeed raised an interesting issue. Information is certainly present in all cases (paranormal, psychic, rebirth, NDEs/OBEs, and SS/NS states) and the physical information must travel at speed less than or equal to the speed of light. Therefore, if 6^th sense exists, then it must honor this constraint. It also seems true that 6^th sense would be an unusual sense and would be activated at very special and unusual conditions. It is also true that the related experiences must have the respective neural basis. Stapp’s Global mind framework (in analogy to ‘mind without brain’ in astral, causal, and ‘manifested consciousness’ worlds as dualistic Sāṅkhya and monistic ‘nondual Advaita/Vedānta’/idealism proposed) seems more challenging than the 6^th sense hypothesis (whatever it may be or whatever it means). Let us investigate further.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 6:13 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Ram, thanks for that clear questions, 

The senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell are all mediated by photons and electric charges in ways that QM and QED easily deals with. But the QED doesn't have properties for the 6th sense. 

Stan

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:23 PM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear Stan,

The hypothesis of 6^th sense addresses paranormal data, psychic data, rebirth related data, NDEs/OBEs, and Samadhi state data in a more realistic manner. What is your opinion on this crazy possibility? 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters-of-mind@googlegroups. com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ msgid/matters-of-mind/ 1053532221.3506790. 1491341037595%40mail.yahoo.com .

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/CAEKJmQ2%3Dspzy0nVPKZ44PZvPLHzyTdAvv06bfQmTHKp4jkpd%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Edwards, Jonathan]

Thanks for the comment, Colin,

I have wondered about whether stuffs is genetic or cultural too. But I think there is good reason to think it is genetic. 

I do not think we can blame science for stuffs. Many, although not all, of the builders of physics clearly understood that stuff is merely an appearance. That would include Galileo, Descartes, Leibniz, Eddington, Feynman, I guess. Newton may be a closet stuffiest and Einstein seems to have been an outed stuffiest at least in some ways. But if stuffs creeps in to science I think the default assumption is that it comes in with the apprentice off the street. 

There are also strong arguments based on the way we sense things. Berkeley understood that we use quite different qualia to calibrate each other - notably those of vision and touch. We end up with a sense of stuff but the signs the brain uses to give that sense actually imply quite complex inferences about dynamic dispositional properties, not 'states of things’. A child  is quite sure that those yellow daffodils are made of yellow stuff. In reality its brain is telling the subjects within that some dynamic dispositions are instantiated of a sort that can be used to predict various results of the child’s actions. It gets extremely complicated if one goes into it in detail and I think we can be pretty sure that the complex analysis needed to understand what our senses are really telling us is not what the man in the street or the man on the veldt has worked with for millennia. He thinks there are things out there. His hippocampus is designed to cut the world at thing joints and to treat the things as stuff.

I am all in favour of thinking of the world as consisting of dynamic relations that are both experiences and actions. That is all we need, so stuff is redundant. But what we have no consensus on yet is what experience/actions are the individuals that constitute points of view. What I think is pretty clear is that our familiar concepts of stuffiest objects, including human bodies, are not the individual actions we are looking for. Individual actions may go with objects in a reassuringly familiar way at times - spinning is an individual action that goes with a top for instance. Chairs and tables can spin too if you want but piles of pebbles cannot. So post 1980 field theory provides some reason to think that the usefulness of our concepts of things may be based in real individual modes of action but there are many pitfalls in taking that too simply.

I don’t think the physicists conception of the world is pure maths though. Newton realised that his optical maths was ultimately a way to predict which phantasms of colours would be created in the mind. Physics is the study of mathematical relations that are reified by the fact that if you put a human observer in the right place at the right time you can predict what they will experience.

One can debate this at great length I guess but my main point would be that it is fine to mock naive materialism but I do not think science is in any way to blame for naive materialism. Very few top class scientists I have met are naive materialists or anything near. Philosophers are much more likely to be materialists; even those who decry materialism tend to talk of objects and stuff as if it were at least part of the world. I think Leibniz had by far the simplest and most cogent way of looking at it - everything that exists is both an action and a perception and there are discrete indivisible instances of that, each of which relates to the whole universe from a point of view.

Best wishes

Jo

[Asingh2384]

Dear Eric/Serge:

There are many relative realities within One absolute universal reality just like there are many worlds within a universe. Each thinker and thought represent one of many possible sub-realities in space/time within an eternal absolute reality of cosmic consciousness or awareness which entails zero, one, many, as well as infinity merged together.

Cheers

Avtar 

-----Original Message-----
From: 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Apr 4, 2017 5:44 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

From: "'Eric Reyes' 
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 3:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Dear Serge,

The Thinker is the source of thought, and since there are unlimited thoughts coming from unlimited and nonlinear directions there are therefore unlimited thinkers or personalities. This refutes the concept from Deepak and others that consciousness is "One", that we are all one consciousness. 

Regards,  Eric Reyes

REPLY from BMP

According to Descartes, the experience of thinking precedes the idea of a self or I who is doing the thinking. First we experience that thinking exists, therefore it is possible to conceive that an "I" as a thinker who is doing the thinking exists. [Thee is a hidden assumption here.]

But since pure thinking exists independently on its own, according to Aristotle, as the Absolute theos, it is only the finite ego's claim that it is his/her own thinking. In other words, if a finite ego believes itself to be the originator of thought, can you explain how exactly you do it, i.e. produce thought? Of course no one can do that. Therefore we have no rational justification for claiming to be an originator of thought. It becomes merely an unjustified assumption, i.e. a conditional belief. 

Thus it is explained that the thinking of theos or God in its determinate moments is represented in and as each finite individual. Each individual marks the good, the bad, the indifferent, the empty void, the contradictory - all the variety of thought we in the history of Man represent the various moments of God's thinking. How these various moments fit into a whole or Idea is known to God alone, and those who can discern that unity-in-difference of the various moments that belong to that Idea can know the Mind of God, a realization or thinking which also comes from God.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Asingh2384]

Dear John:

 

Agree with your statement: "...That also seems to me a good starting point for comprehending consciousness -- as a relation between local and non-local existences. So, indeed we can have a meta-model for consciousness even if it is the foundation of everything, but being a product of the conscious mind it can only describe its apparent effect - this relation."

 

The attached paper vindicates your statement describing an integrated relativistic model of matter, mind, and consciousness that not only predicts the observed empirical universe but also represents the non-local eternal cosmic consciousness as the unmanifested Zero Point State (fully dilated mass/energy/space/time). I would appreciate your comments on the paper.

 

Best Regards

 

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

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

-----Original Message-----
From: john.kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu>
To: Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: sklein <skl...@berkeley.edu>; nonlocal101 <nonlo...@chopra.com>; mkafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; anirudh.jenna <anirud...@gmail.com>; jo.edwards <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; rlpvimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; bns <b...@scsiscs.org>; hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; alfredo.pereira <alfredo...@gmail.com>; lspector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; hstapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; ccochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>; microme_2000 <microm...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wed, Apr 5, 2017 5:39 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Dear Dr. Puri,

Thank you for this excellent overview of the topic and its history. Indeed, with all the historical positions I get the feeling of very little progress, except for mapping out the many possible misunderstandings. I wonder if we can even define progress in this regard - can we say that thought is converging on a better understanding, or is it only diversifying for each person's ownership?

The idea of a collective exploration of, if it is all an illusion, perhaps a "better illusion" (Ashly Brilliant) is actually appealing to me. We seem to be arriving at the understanding that any concept of reality is model, or more deeply in its assumptions, a meta-model. Can there be some incontrovertible assumptions? Maybe not.

I begin with some basic reasoning, as many before have tried to do. Descartes' was good - If I can ask the question there must be a reality (one interpretation of "Cogito ergo sum").

So, we accept reality. No more talk about concepts we find useful but then claim are not real. Real is what is meaningful. Unreal has no meaning.

Another basic thought, I would expect, is that the source of reality must be reality. We cannot posit an unreal source of the real without being lost in confusion. I think the Upanishads also clarify this.

Another is that thought itself must be symbolic, as it is by nature not the object of thought. So, reality contains the ability to perceive itself. This also agrees with the most fundamental Vedic principles.

I'll stop with a fourth idea, that what is perceived has been "objectified", i.e., made into an object. What is an object?  It is a concept that is given location in some contextual system of coordinates. Today we call it "local" existence vs. "non-local" existence. This agrees with the previous idea of reality able to perceive itself, thus necessarily having local and non-local domains.

That is enough for a meta-model of relational existence involving all four causalities described in the Vedas and Upanishads, and also reiterated (incorrectly) by Aristotle. Two of those causes are in local reality - efficient and material. They involve coordinates of space and time (also scale, but that is a new theory of space-time). The other two are in non-local reality - final and formal. All four form a cycle of causation - the wheel of existence; and a 5th level unity which establishes a system identity -- that is consistent with Atman/Brahman (transcending scale).

 All of reductionist science is included in this meta-model without rejection. It can benefit from some modifications as we consider formative contextual relations (relativity was one result, QM another). The formal context of existence is not singular, as assumed in classical science, but also part of the self-defining cycle of causes. Final cause is not "at the top" because it is not a top-down hierarchy but a cycle. Final cause is a 'prior' existence in the cycle - an exemplar. That accounts for karmic laws. Classical reality is real in this view (the first premise above), but real within a generally entangled context of many interactions establishing the "local" space coordinates. The shape of the coordinate system we can calculate from events is established collectively by those events, and changes with them. Local space-time emerges, it is not the foundation. Relation between local and non-local is the foundation in this view.

That also seems to me a good starting point for comprehending consciousness -- as a relation between local and non-local existences. So, indeed we can have a meta-model for consciousness even if it is the foundation of everything, but being a product of the conscious mind it can only describe its apparent effect - this relation. It cannot say where it all started -- being self-reflexive its origin must be experienced as infinite. But that is not a problem for science.  It does suggest a better basis for scientific laws, if they were rewritten from a relational basis rather than attempting to describe everything from the local side.

Science is supposed to be about such improvements -- Kuhn's revolutions toward more parsimonious (i.e., elegantly more explanatory) views. But there is a lot of power and money invested in the current, extremely non-parsimonious view that generates the need for very complicated explanation and increasingly more elements of explanation, just like Ptolemy's circles. The basis of that approach is now mainly job security, because a lot of people know better. But the unfortunate thing is that in preserving such a one-sided approach, we cannot comprehend wholeness scientifically; which we could very easily from the relational view. This is leading to destruction of life on a global scale. So it is very urgent and important to re-orient science to the relational view.

cheers,

John

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 4:32:58 PM UTC-6, BMP wrote:

Dear Dr Menas,

Namaste. It is good to hear this interpretation of your position which is more aligned with philosophy's rational idea of consciousness. There is indeed an entire spectrum of interpretations of Vedanta stretching from abstract monism to radical dualism. If these differences are not viewed from a religious perspective [as we typically find in India] but from a purely philosophical/logical framework the whole gamut of ideas that have historically occupied philosophers over the centuries both East and West can be found.

Abstract monism or kevaladvaitavad, represents reductionism in any of its historical forms from the Greek Parmenides (all is Being) and the Eleatics (One only) to the modern day materialistic reductionsits, or eliminativists. Your counterpart [Dr Chopra], if i understand him correctly, makes the case for an absolute consciousness existing abstractly without any object to oppose it. All apparent ["metaphorical"] objects, perceptions, thoughts, ideas, universes or whatever are contents of consciousness, which is like a pot that ultimately absorbs all content into itself, so that in the end all you are left with is the pot - consciousness. 

This denial of the world is also akin to the viewpoint of the ancient skeptics. They found that everything in the world is contradictory, [for example, Zeno's paradoxes of movement], and therefore being illogical could not possibly exist. They never considered the possibility that the logic of reality was actually contradictory by nature [as we have accepted today in the phenomena of quantum physics]. That everything was contradictory was also found in the ancient Greek philosopher Heraklites. His idea that everything was dynamic Becoming was postulated in opposition to Parmenides idea that everything real was reified Being, 

This dynamic idea of reality as actuality [i.e.act] was taken up in full by Hegel's science of philosophy in which the dialectical movement [thesis-antithesis] was the pulse beat of the Absolute that was its very life. This was the same principle found in the Vedantic concept of achintya beda beda tattva of the Gaudiya Vaisnavas. 

Berkeley's idealism tried to make the case for a pure perceptualism without an actual world, but Kant argued  successfully that a merely phenomenal or apparent world [world of appearance only] could not justify the possibility of experience and knowledge, which necessitated a noumenal sphere as well. 

It is worthwhile to study the history of Western philosophy and compare it with the history of Indian philosophy to find the many similarities and developments that have occurred in both hemispheres sometimes with amazing synchronicity, although they both seem to have been isolated from each other as far as direct influence is concerned.

Pauli and Jung conjointly studied the phenomenon of synchronicity, what we might call today entanglement, as possibly contributing to a new foundation for reality. The idea of a Coniunctionis or Oppositorium as the essence of Reality has long been held as a  real consideration in the mystery schools for ages. Reality does not exist in space and time but in an Oppositorium. Yet, isn't that exactly what we mean when we speak of a universe, .i.e. uni-verse, or unity in diversity. The same is true of Divinity, i.e. a div-inity, or diversity in unity

But science, operating on the logic of the excluded middle, or the understanding of contradiction as being incapable of being real has led us to the dualism or one-sided abstract thinking that has characterized modern reductionistic science and certain philosophical systems since antiquity.

This is a long story, and the relation to the historical development of the the concept of consciousness as it is understood today, especially in light of the recent interest of science in that concept, is very important for bringing about a true scientific understanding of what that concept involves. One of the few scientists who, in my opinion, has touched upon an important aspect of consciousness that the others seem to completely miss is Giulio Tononi with his Integrated Information Theory of consciousness. 

The idea of the integration or unity of consciousness is essential if one wants to comprehend what the true idea of consciousness represents. This can be traced from the modern inception of the mopdern idea of consciousness with Descartes' cogito [I, Ego]  and its division into res cogitans [consciousness] and res extensa [objective content] to Kant's unity of apperception [or Ego] that was necessary to posit a unified object of sense perception [thing]. In other words it is necessary in order to explain how the perceptions from the five senses all converge in one thing.

In regard to the missing brain parts and consciousness, Christof Koch gives an interesting explanation of Integrated Information Theory on a Youtube video, in which at one point he mentions that even the whole cortex of the brain may not be involved in consciousness.

This post can be downloaded here:

Click here to Download

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: Menas Kafatos <me...@kafatos.com>

To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>; Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 3:58 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Some thoughts: The Conscious Universe idea is the same as You Are the Universe. The Universe exists because Awareness exists. The universe we experience is of course the sum total of our experiences. Yet, there is a shared reality. Not just between humans. Also between all species, all organisms. We don't want to revert to either soliptism or anthropocentrism. We want to revert to universality, where we came from.

 

To say that the universe is a human universe only gets us up to the point of the mystery of Existence, beyond attributes, to the door of universality. Surely there are myriads of beings, in myriads of worlds with infinite numbers of experiences. Preceeding and following Homo Sapens Sapiens. What holds everything together is the glue of Awareness. The phenomenon of man as Theilard would say, leads to the future evolution of humanity, or as Sri Aurobindo would say, to the next stage of evolution in conscious Awareness. You Are That. Which is the same as You Are the Universe. Unity in diversity, complementarity driving the creative process. To deny the universe is to deny the creative Power of Sakti.

 

There is no inert Being without the active aspect. They are inexorably tied to each other. 

 

This is how to bring science and spirituality together. Otherwise we have a bird with one wing. It cannot go anywhere.

 

Of course there are differences in non-dualist perspectives. Vedantists have differences, Saivites have differences among themselves. And we don't want to start religious arguments.

 

The role of (ununderstood) Maya is crucial. She is the creatix of the universe. The most un-understood power of Siva. Maya creates the (false) separation. But this does not mean that there is no separation. The point is to go BEYOND the separation.

 

Saivites don't deny the universe. Vedantists don't either in my humble opinion.

Best,

Menas

 

---

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>
To: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Cc: Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com>; Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com>; "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>; Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in>; "b...@scsiscs.org" <b...@scsiscs.org>; Stuart Hameroff <hame...@email.arizona.edu>; BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com>; Lee Spector <lspe...@hampshire.edu>; Henry Stapp <hst...@mindspring.com>; Christopher Cochran <ccoc...@ucsc.edu>

Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2017 12:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

My take presently is as follows 

I have started saying that dark energy and dark matter are mathematical constructs and placeholders to satisfy the equations of the standard model . The equations exist in mathematical imagination , an activity in human consciousness .

I have also veered away from the idea of a conscious universe . I don't think it's accurate. I'm currently saying that the universe we experience is a human construct . It does not exist as such . It's the interpretation of experiences in awareness. Awareness is the source of perception thought and volition . 

Mind Body and Universe are human concepts to explain modes of knowing and experience in awareness. The modes of knowing and experience are modificationsi of awareness . 

There is only awareness/ consciousness . 

This would be the only satisfactory NonDual view - I think. 

I'm expanding on this in my daily videos on Facebook and YouTube which are then posted on the YATU site   
Anything that can be named or described from gluons quarks bosons space time gravity galaxies stars body or mind is a human construct for a mode of knowing and experience in human consciousness 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:28 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

As I have been saying! Move away in your talks from this dark energy stuff. Or at least temper the % of matter. Never observed directly or indirectly. And of course what they say is correct. Most of space is voids.

Now the next, dark matter. Also rests on (less shaky) assumptions. 

Do you want we write a SF Chronicle article? It actually strengthens YATU. 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

Simulation suggests 68 percent of the universe may not actually exist

 Michael Irving  March 30, 2017

<image001.jpg>

New computer simulations have questioned the existence of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force that is said to be driving the expansion of the universe (Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech)

 

According to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (Lambda-CDM) model, which is the current accepted standard for how the universe began and evolved, the ordinary matter we encounter every day only makes up around five percent of the universe's density, with dark matter comprising 27 percent, and the remaining 68 percent made up of dark energy, a so-far theoretical force driving the expansion of the universe. But a new study has questioned whether dark energy exists at all, citing computer simulations that found that by accounting for the changing structure of the cosmos, the gap in the theory, which dark energy was proposed to fill, vanishes.

Published in 1915, Einstein's general theory of relativity forms the basis for the accepted origin story of the universe, which says that the Big Bang kicked off the expansion of the universe about 13.8 billion years ago. The problem is, the equations at work are incredibly complicated, so physicists tend to simplify parts of them so they're a bit more practical to work with. When models are then built up from these simplified versions, small holes can snowball into huge discrepancies.

"Einstein's equations of general relativity that describe the expansion of the universe are so complex mathematically, that for a hundred years no solutions accounting for the effect of cosmic structures have been found," says Dr László Dobos, co-author of the new paper. "We know from very precise supernova observations that the universe is accelerating, but at the same time we rely on coarse approximations to Einstein's equations which may introduce serious side effects, such as the need for dark energy, in the models designed to fit the observational data."

Dark energy has never been directly observed, and can only be studied through its effects on other objects. Its properties and existence are still purely theoretical, making it a placeholder plug for holes in current models.

The mysterious force was first put forward as a driver of the universe's accelerated expansion in the 1990s, based on the observation of Type Ia supernovae. Sometimes called "standard candles," these bright spots are known to shine at a consistent peak brightness, and by measuring the brightness of that light by the time it reaches Earth, astronomers are able to figure out just how far away the object is.

This research was instrumental in spreading acceptance of the idea that dark energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe, and it earned the scientists involved the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011. But other studies have questioned the validity of that conclusion, and some researchers are trying to develop a more accurate picture of the cosmos with software that can better handle all the wrinkles of the general theory of relativity.

<image002.jpg>

 

A comparison of three models of universal expansion: top left, in red, is the Lambda-CDM model, including dark energy; middle, in blue, is the new Avera model, which accounts for the structure and doesn't require dark energy; and right, in green, is the original Einstein-de Sitter model, which also doesn't include dark energy (Credit: István Csabai et al)

 

According to the new study from Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary and the University of Hawaii, the discrepancy that dark energy was "invented" to fill might have arisen from the parts of the theory that were glossed over for the sake of simplicity. The researchers set up a computer simulation of how the universe formed, based on its large-scale structure. That structure apparently takes the form of "foam," where galaxies are found on the thin walls of each bubble, but large pockets in the middle are mostly devoid of both normal and dark matter.

The team simulated how gravity would affect matter in this structure and found that, rather than the universe expanding in a smooth, uniform manner, different parts of it would expand at different rates. Importantly, though, the overall average rate of expansion is still consistent with observations, and points to accelerated expansion. The end result is what the team calls the Avera model.

"The theory of general relativity is fundamental in understanding the way the universe evolves," says Dobos. "We do not question its validity; we question the validity of the approximate solutions. Our findings rely on a mathematical conjecture which permits the differential expansion of space, consistent with general relativity, and they show how the formation of complex structures of matter affects the expansion. These issues were previously swept under the rug but taking them into account can explain the acceleration without the need for dark energy."

If the research stands up to scrutiny, it could change the direction of the study of physics away from chasing the ghost of dark energy.

The research was published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, and an animation below compares the different models.

Source: Royal Astronomical Society 

http://newatlas.com/dark-energy-existence-questioned/48708/

 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Thanks Bernardo for restarting this thread from January 2016. There are folks who we haven't heard from in quite a while. One question I have is whether anyone will be going to the TSC (Tucson) consciousness meeting in Shanghai (of course other than Deepak who will be speaking on June 8) or the ASSC meeting the following week in Beijing. I'll definitely be going to the latter one and maybe for a day or two to the TSC one to see friends. 

My response to this thread is that I think the really tricky part about qualia (subjectivity) is how does it hook up with the NCC (the neural correlates of the qualia)  The NCC seems to be more and more wonderfully connected with neuroscience and biology and all the QED equations regarding atoms. So what are the equations that connect all that NCC stuff to the qualia aspect. Is anyone on this list interested in that aspect. 

One of the really nifty possible ways to make that NCC/qualia connection is to make use of psychic phenomena (a topic on which I'm somewhat skeptical, but if it works it would be fantasic). Later this week I'll send out a posting on that topic. If anyone is especially interested you can contact me privately since the Sadhu Sanga list reaches an uncountable number of people and I sure don't want to clog up the airways with stuff of minimal interest to most folks.

Stan

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Yes 

V relevant 

I tweeted the article 

Deepak Chopra MD

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Chopra Foundation

Jiyo

Chopra Center for Wellbeing

 

 

 

On Apr 1, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Menas Kafatos <mkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:

Absolute zero? This is very specific physics concepts. Has nothing to do with turya state or any samadhi.

Nevertheless it is all qualia.

With respect,

Menas

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 1, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Anirudh Satsangi <anirud...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Deepak Chopra

If we are able to describe scientifically the Unmuni State, Sunya Samadhi we will be able to resolve space, time, matter and energy controversy.  The CREATOR was in the beginning in the State of Unmuni and Sunya Samadhi.  Can this state be compare with Absolute Zero? Can we also achieve the State of Absolute Zero during meditation?

Warm regards and best wishes

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

6, Dayalkunj, Dayalbagh

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Bernardo Kastrup <bern...@bernardokastrup.com> wrote:

An old thread, but I thought this might be relevant for it:

https://blogs.scientificameric an.com/guest-blog/ transcending-the-brain/

Cheers, Bernardo.

On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

How about space time energy matter being emergent experiences in consciousness modulating itself as qualia ? 

Perhaps Bernardo and Menas would like to comment . 

Added them to chain 

Deepak Chopra

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

Jo

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>

Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 10:52 PM
To: Deepak Chopra
Cc: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal; Online_S...@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Henry Stapp; Christopher Cochran

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

 

Deepak, so you are going with the 2nd of the four options for qualia (qualia come with the quarks, not before or after). I had actually thought that your view was that mind (that I associate with the origin of qualia) came before quarks. One problem with these discussions is that we aren't being concrete about what we're talking about. Like how does one validate that qualia come with quarks. I'd like to suggest a specific type of qualia to try to pin down the issues. .

Let's consider how does one account for the distinct colors of a spinning Benham top that only has black stripes on a white background. And the colors are reversed when one spins the top in the opposite direction. I'll try to remember to bring a Benham top to the Tucson consciousness meeting since a number of you will be there. One nifty thing about Benham's top is that Feynman found it sufficiently interesting that he included it in his Freshman lectures. In searching for those lectures on the web I discovered that ALL the Feynman lectures are now available for free on the internet. I hadn't known that. So Deepak or Stuart or others: how does one explain that for my 3-ring version of the top I see red, yellow, blue in the inner, middle and outer ring and when I spin it in the opposite direction the colors reverse. How do quarks account for that sort of qualia?

 My guess is that within the next 50 years color vision neuroscientists will come up with an elegant answer of the neural circuits that do the job of explaining things like why the color qualia flip when spinning in the opposite direction.  Do others have different explanations for the origin of the color qualia?

Stan

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com> wrote:

Quarks are qualia--any cognitive or perceptual experience is !

2013 Costa Del Mar Road

Carlsbad, CA 92009

The Chopra Foundation

Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing

From: Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:17 PM
To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
Cc: Online_Sa...@googlegroup s.com; b...@scsiscs.org; Stuart Hameroff; BT APJ; Jonathan Edwards; Lee Spector; Deepak Chopra

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, M.S., Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/r lpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/p rofile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--

http://www.bernardokastrup.com

http://www.facebook.com/Bernar doKastrup

https://twitter.com/BernardoKa strup

http://www.youtube.com/user/be rnardokastrup
http://www.amazon.com/author/b ernardokastrup

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2016
 
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
 
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2016.1160191
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 

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_S...@googlegroup s.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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:

...

[Asingh2384]

Hi Deepak:

Well said.

The apparent many perceptions and minds are nothing but lower level relativistic states of the fundamental eternal Cosmic Awareness representing the Universal Law and Order.

Best Regards

Avtar

-----Original Message-----
From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Peter, I totally agree with almost everything you said. The "almost" is that I disagree with your comment about me being more effective in inviting Nagel. 

Stan

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:48 AM, NYIKOS, PETER <nyi...@math.sc.edu> wrote:

Stanley, there is more than biological evolution involved in the arising of intelligent life; there is also pre-biotic evolution requiring a completely different kind of scenario. I believe the difficulties preceding the first bacteria are far greater than the ones that follow it, and so it is little short of astounding that the preceding part took only about one-tenth of the time the part after. And so really does seem to be a fluke that we are here at all.

Recently there has been some careful thinking by scientists about what kind of planet is optimal for life. In one cover article in Scientific American  it is concluded that our earth can be considerably improved on, both as to its "parent sun" and to its size. An optimal K star would last at least five times as long as our sun and still produce enough light for a suitably placed planet to produce life of the right sort.  And "suitably placed" includes being far enough away  to not be affected by solar flares too adversely, and to be able to turn normally on its axis.

The optimal planet would be larger, what Poul Anderson called a "superterrestrial." For one thing, this would allow the planet to trap the internal heat, so important for plate tectonics and recycling of resources, more efficiently and for a much longer time. Secondly, it would allow for a deeper atmosphere and thus provide additional protection from radiation and from "mini-asteroids". One the other hand, there would still be enough asteroids to produce the mass extinctions that were so important for evolution to keep from stagnating.

And so, our own universe is probably too young to have produced more than a handful of creatures that are as intelligent as ourselves; and most of them would be around somewhat less massive stars than our sun, on planets about twice as old as ours.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics       
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

PS It is indeed a shame that Professor Nagel has declined to discuss such issues with us. Perhaps if he had been approached by you, Stanley, we might have had a more favorable response.

---

From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com [online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Stanley A. KLEIN [skl...@berkeley.edu]

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

[BMP]

Dear Dr. KIneman,

You asked, "I wonder if we can even define progress "

The historical procession of ideas does conceal within itself an implicit spiritual development that progresses, sometimes with reversals,  toward freedom or liberation from illusion.This is the Hegelian conception of the quest of spirit in reaching its own truth. It is also the Vedic conception, and the conception of most religions that the materialized conception of life covers free spirit which thus seeks moksha, liberation, freedom or its truth in itself as spirit. 

I think this idea is borne out in history in that humanity has always been engaged in a struggle for freedom that seems to have made more progress with the rise of modern democracies, institutions and deeper religious understanding than ever. Science has learned that it cannot ignore the role of the conscious scientist in its exploration of reality, although it is still in a very primitive stage as might be expected for any beginner.

But as we know it is always a struggle, since the forces that would restrict or diminish freedom are ever present. Spirit, however, has the intellectual and rational abilities and will to engage in that battle - which is preeminently portrayed in the Bhagavad-gita. The stages of attainment of the Zeitgeist (Spirit of the times) are represented by the progression of historical concepts that do converge toward the truth of Spirit for those who have recognized that this is the underlying motif that stimulates the pursuit of freedom, knowledge, and fulfillment. 

There is a Reality that is Spirit, and spirit can know itself as spirit. That is the essential nature of Spirit that distinguishes it from matter which cannot know itself without the help of spirit. The truth of Spirit is freedom, just as the truth of matter is gravity.

Aristotle, [I don't think he got the four features of explanation wrong, although a fifth may seem to have been omitted] understood matter to be that which Falls toward a center outside itself, which we understand today to be the center of mass. His idea of matter was therefore a  dynamic one, a concept of motion. He called matter dunamis in Greek, which we can see is also rooted in the same word as 'dynamic.' Thus matter was not characterized as a 'stuff' so much as a dynamic movement that was going somewhere: it was possessed of a telos. Furthermore, matter or dunamis was conceived as a potentiality that had not yet reached its full potential or actuality [Gr. energia], which we can understand as Reality - something that could actually influence or change {again movement implied] other realities. What we call energy is not actually a 'stuff' so much as implying a potentiality or power for moving or changing things. 

Aristotle as a student of Plato, inherited the concept of Form as the absolute feature of thought which he interpreted as eidos or Idea. By Idea [eidos] he understood it to be the whole process [activity, entelechia] of matter [dunamis] actualizing itself [energia] as a purposeful process [telos]. Thus Idea for Aristotle was hardly an abstract thought, it was fully active and concrete [differentiated unity] and involved reality as essential to it.

There is a great deal more to say on this topic, but lest this post get too long I will stop here and hope it has provided some impetus for continued interest. I will try to continue in another post on some of the other points in your message and some additional ideas. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

 

---

From: john.kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 8:38 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

[BMP]

Dear Whit,

Namaste. It is not so much 'words' that come into conscious awareness as 'concepts.' When we inquire into the nature of concepts we find that they are what is inherited through a long line of succession from generations of human civilization past, so that what we think are really in terms of what past traditions have handed down to us. Thought is thus really a social conditioned phenomenon, quite different from the notion we have of it as a singular or personal one. Thus Veda and other scriptural traditions knowing this to be the case have carefully preserved ideas or concepts to teach us of their initial origins and meanings. 

Modern scientific ideas such as quantum, electron, and so on are also based on ancient concepts presented in different contexts, but the essential communal nature of thought is not lost even there. Thought is of the nature of universality, not really singularity such as in sensuous nature. Subjectivity in which thought occurs is also conceived in the element of universality unlike objects that we conceived as particular individuals. There is a relation between universality and community. This is an area that most historical philosophy in the West has not usually broached. However, Hegel did make the mutuality of individual conscious persons an essential foundation for the concept of Spirit and Reason. This is a pioneering field in Western philosophy that only the most recent philosophers have taken up. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: Whit Blauvelt  
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 5:00 PM

[Eric Reyes]

Dear Bruno,

    We all have our own individual thoughts and actions etc. We may share a similar thought and a similar action, but we never lose our individuality, that was my meaning. As Bhakti Madhava Puri correct​ed me later those thoughts may originate in the Supreme Consciousness, but that still doesn't refute or dissolve our individuality, otherwise we would all know what everyone else was going through, and thinking, all the time right? There would be zero drama, variety, love. Love requires individuality, dynamic interaction at all times. Love as we know does exist, drama exists, variegatedness exists. Therefore this proves our individuality. It also proves that if there is a Supreme Conscious that he is also an individual, and that he is capable of love and drama.

Regards,   Eric Reyes

from Yahoo Mail on Android

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for your detailed and informative response. I have always found your writing on consciousness inspiring.  Your book 'How many people... '. Was a major inspiration for me in the development of my theory, which like yours would pretty much require the direct physical correlate of my experience to be located within a single cell.

I am very much intrigued by your Leibnizian position and was wondering if you would clarify a couple of points. You said:

I think Leibniz had by far the simplest and most cogent way of looking at it - everything that exists is both an action and a perception and there are discrete indivisible instances of that, each of which relates to the whole universe from a point of view.

Do you mean a perception as in something merely being represented in other minds? Or do you mean that it is the very essence of a perception in a mind of its own (or spread across a multiplicity of such minds, or in a cosmic mind)? If you mean the latter then the claim is perfectly consistent with my own theory. I presume that what you mean by 'action' amounts to a change in the perception/experience of other minds (as there is no stuff to be affected).

In my book I seek to identify what we can claim to be the most scientifically justifiable explanation of consciousness.  I point out that intuitions did not evolve to help us solve such problems (and I better add that we don't need to be a Darwinian to see this - just look at the philosophical literature - though I do think natural selection currently offers the most justifiable explanation for our intuitions). Hence, I reject intuitions outright and avoid them.  I insist that my explanation of consciousness be as similar as possible to the scientific explanation for the most-similar successfully-explained phenomenon as I believe that procedure has proved to be far more successful in recent times (and is in any case logically defensible).

To cut a long story short,  this procedure leads me to the view that we are each the essence of a single, probably composite, particle (unfortunately I can't yet say which). Our brain is using measurements of that particle's position to introduce randomness into our focus of attention. It has evolved by natural selection (oops!) to manipulate the form of that particle's wave function to increase this randomness in a way that ensures it never becomes detrimental. The position-representation of that particle's wave function essentially describes our experience (or at least the effect of our experience on free choices of subjective location that determine where our particle will be when the next measurement takes place). In this view, different qualia can only be the contribution to our position probability distribution of distinct types of interaction. My book explains how those perceptions affect our action in a way that would cause them to be gradually adapted to their current functions. It explains the complete information-content of our experiences, and why they have come to encode that information in sensory-image-like patterns. And it suggests how we evolved to sense what those images mean.

Since this theory requires that we are each a single particle, I suspect the indivisible elementary particles of which all matter is composed are also individual consciousnesses (what you are presumably calling points of view). And as their wave functions are theoretically unbounded,  their view is essentially the whole universe (though in my theory only the parts of it that they can potentially interact with are experienced by them, and locations of relatively low probability are not experienced in any salient way. In fact,  that is why their probability is so low! So to avoid circularity I should say that locations where those potential interactions and their previous history does not favour them being located are not experienced in any salient way).  For those rightly skeptical of the power of natural selection to achieve all this in the time available let me also point out that this position does seem to imply the existence of a God who could have increased the rate of beneficial mutations. However,  my procedure does not permit me in our current state of knowledge to invoke any such process in my explanation of consciousness.  Hence my title is The Blind Mindmaker.

I would be delighted to send you a copy for review in the JCS.  Please let me know the address to send it to.

Best wishes,

Colin

(C.  S.  Morrison,  author of The Blind Mindmaker: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation)

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

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

Send from Huawei Y360

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Stan and Alfredo, 

Thanks for your comments. 

The first two paragraphs below are the repetition of my initial previous, so you can ignore them. The followings are partly adapted from Section 2.3.3 of (Vimal, 2009d).

A working hypothesis for explaining the very difficult but reproducible Savikalpa Samādhi (SS)-state empirical data, we can hypothesize that our mind-brain system has a sixth sense. If it exists, it needs empirical verification (such as thru high-resolution fMRI/EEG). This 6^th sense should able to receive information from any place outside of the brain. If a yogi at SS-state focuses at a distant place (say 10,000 miles), s/he should be able to receive information from that place whatever people are doing or thinking. If this is really true as some yogis claim, s/he should have out-of-body experiences (OBEs) and able to ‘see’ what those people are doing and should be able to ‘know’ what they are thinking, i.e., it is a sort of feeling omnipresent or nonlocal in space-time. This phenomenon may have misled yogis to claim astral, causal and ‘manifested consciousness’ worlds, souls, and God independent of mind-brain systems because they were not neuroscientists.

 

A neuroscientist could argue that the ‘self’ is within the realm of her/his mind-brain system because all subjective experiences including near-death experiences (NDEs) and OBEs have their respective neural basis. In other words, at the SS-state, the 6^th sense might exist in our mind-brain system, which might be activated. If this is true, then we can measure OBEs/NDEs’ respective neural correlates using high-resolution fMRI/EEG and or more sensitive techniques. Thus, we can investigate what this 6^th sense is, where it is located in the brain, and how it works.

The hypothesis of 6^th sense addresses paranormal data, psychic data, rebirth related data, NDEs/OBEs, and Samādhi state data in a more realistic manner than thru the Sāṅkhya’s hypothetical 3 worlds. 

 

The information received by the 6^th sense might be transmitted to other 5 sensory areas to experience accordingly thru our usual neural process because cortical areas are interconnected. For example, if information is transmitted to the visual system, then yogi can see (visually experience) what is going on at a far distance; if sent to the auditory area then s/he can hear and so on.  If true, then it would be an interesting project.

 

I have experienced very low-intensity OBEs (a feeling of out of body but very close to body) 2-3 times during my intense Soham Meditation (3 hours or more) with fewer thoughts. A stronger OBE may be like a feeling of being in a next room. Please join me if you are interested in. If we are able to minimize our thoughts to attain a stronger OBE, we may be able to measure its neural basis.

 

Dualistic Sāṅkhya metaphysics argues for mental worlds (such as astral, causal, and ‘manifested consciousness’ worlds) out of our mind-brain system, in analogy to Stapp’s Global Mind, in addition to our real physical world. The 6^th sense hypothesis proposes that the 3 mental worlds are within our mind-brain system. It is unclear how information is received and transmitted to far distance from our mind-brain system. In Samadhi related OBE, the feeling is that the ‘self’ appears to project out of the body; as thoughts decrease, the feeling is that the 'self' goes further from the body. In other words, the distance from body increases as thoughts decrease. When thoughts are very low, the self can travel very far from the body. At any rate, yogis claim that they can see and hear whatever goes on far places and they can also influence the events over there. In other words, information flow appears to be bidirectional. This is what I mean by 6^th sense. My colleague Vinod Sehgal uses dualistic Sāṅkhya to explain the data and I am trying to use the monastic extended dual-aspect monism to explain them.

Cheers!

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Wednesday, 5 April 2017 10:34 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Alfredo, It seem you have a very different version of QM than anyone else. 

The closest to yours that I know of would have been Henry Stapp's where there is a special role for sentience. But that role has to do the collapse. You have a scheme where two sentient creatures can maintain the photon superposition even though photons are very weak, with no collapse. 

I apologize if I've asked this of you before and have forgotten your answer.

Is your goal in all of this to explain:

    1)  measurable psychic phenomena,

or 2)  qualia,

or 3) :some NCC

Once I get the answer I'd know better how to respond.

Stan

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:21 PM, BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Stan, 

I am not joking. If i understand the issue, in the ionic antenna proposal there is no need of gigahertz transmission.

The explanation would be like the following: there is a previously established quantum field between two

brains. The changes in the field inside one brain "transmits" quantum information to the other brain.

This is the Abstract of the paper I cited (below). Please think of a VERY large number of ions composing a brain wave:

"More than 100 years ago, Hertz succeeded in transmitting signals over a few metres to a receiving antenna using an electromagnetic oscillator, thus proving the electromagnetic theory¹developed by Maxwell. Since this seminal work, technology has developed, and various oscillators are now available at the quantum mechanical level. For quantized electromagnetic oscillations, atoms in cavities can be used to couple electric fields^2, 3. However, a quantum mechanical link between two mechanical oscillators (such as cantilevers^4, 5 or the vibrational modes of trapped atoms⁶ or ions^7, 8) has been rarely demonstrated and has been achieved only indirectly. Examples include the mechanical transport of atoms carrying quantum information⁹ or the use of spontaneously emitted photons¹⁰. Here we achieve direct coupling between the motional dipoles of separately trapped ions over a distance of 54 micrometres, using the dipole–dipole interaction as a quantum mechanical transmission line¹¹. This interaction is small between single trapped ions, but the coupling is amplified by using additional trapped ions as antennae. With three ions in each well, the interaction is increased by a factor of seven compared to the single-ion case. This enhancement facilitates bridging of larger distances and relaxes the constraints on the miniaturization of trap electrodes. The system provides a building block for quantum computers and opportunities for coupling different types of quantum systems."

See also this comment: https://www.scienceda ily.com/releases/2011/02/ 110223133444.htm

Best,

Alfredo

2017-04-05 19:16 GMT-03:00 Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>:

Alfredo, 

Surely you're joking!  Such a thing is possible?  I can't imagine how it could be done. GigaHz seems way too fast to make sense of . 

But I'll have to admit it is pretty audacious!

I do agree with you about your critique of microtubules. 

The important thing is that brains seem to be able to do everything other than qualia. And qualia could simply be the way our universe's way of doing things. That is, maybe stones have a bit of qualia, even without microtubules or Alfredo mechanisms. Why don't we put our energy into figuring out the "easy" stuff like NCC that we know close to nothing about at this point. And the NCC don't require exotic mechanisms. 

Stan

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:06 PM, BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Neil:

In one of the version of Hameroff's model (in the paper published in Jnl. of Biological Physics, on the "Conscious Pilot") he refers to a paper I published with Armando Rocha in 2001. He presented a good idea: having calcium ions as the messengers from the synapses to the microtubules. I appreciated that connection, because I have always wondered how the microtubules receive information. However, in most of his papers (as far as I know) he assumes that tubulin, actin and/or other proteins are the neural correlates of consciousness. I cannot agree with this kind of model, because proteins do not have the required degrees of freedom to instantiate the diversity of qualia that we experience. There is also a parsimony issue: if the ionic populations themselves embody the experienced patterns, and if ions can perform quantum-like operations themselves, why to keep the microtubules as the neural corrrelates of qualia?

Best,

Alfredo

2017-04-05 18:58 GMT-03:00 Neil Theise <neilt...@gmail.com>:

Have to ask: is there a reason it has to be either/or, Alfredo?   I ask the same of Stu all the time without a satisfying reply.  

Why can't both of you be describing components that supplemental to or synergistic with each other?   

Neil

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 5, 2017, at 5:54 PM, BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Stan,

The mechanism could be ionic antennas, as proposed in: Harlander M, Lechner R, Brownnutt M, Blatt R, Hansel W.
Trapped-ion antennae for the transmission of quantum information. Nature. 2011;471:200–3.

The brain correlates of qualia would be my hydro-ionic waves, not Hameroff's microtubules.

Best,

Alfredo

2017-04-05 18:48 GMT-03:00 Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>:

The problem I have with using photons in the near gigaHz range is that how does one connect them to the neural correlates of consciousness? Do you  have a method to localize those waves. The NCC would need to have sub mm localizability for reception and transmission. But it's a cute idea. I suspect Hameroff would like it a lot. 

Stan

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 2:12 PM, BT APJ <alfredo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Stan, I was thinking of ordinary weak EM waves as those used by our mobiles. They can be emitted and received by ionic currents in brain tissue. QED should allow this kind of process!

Best,

Alfredo

2017-04-05 16:25 GMT-03:00 Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu>:

Alfredo,

Were you referring to my comment where I said:  "Ram, Unfortunately the only entities available to quantum field theory for doing the communications are photons and electrons and their coupling strength is far too low to do the job. The human skull would stop the transmission. "

If so,  I wasn't thinking of the firing of single neurons. I was thinking of the currents flowing due to millions of neurons firing. One of my main research areas is EEG and that involves the firing of many millions of neurons. I study vision and a powerful tool for localizing brain activity is to place stimuli on one or the other side of a cortical fold. The cortex has lots of visual areas near each other (V1, V2, V3...) and by cleverly placing stimuli on the known (from MRI and fMRI) folds one can figure out where in the brain different neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) are taking place. The EEG and MEG are measured with incredibly sensitive sensors place right on or very close to the skull. 

The action is all about electrical currents that involves electrons and photons. So for any sort of psychic communications I presume it would be done by what QED has available, that is mainly photons. Outside of the head the electrical stuff is way too weak to be used for psi. Alfredo, what did you have in mind for the QED type mechanisms. 

Or were you thinking of something outside of physics? 

Stan

​

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/matters-of-mind/CAEKJmQ3-S RoyDq4jUayvg7C_6-HmxTGarHT3bgZ peS0srG3ifg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/matters-of-mind/CA%2BcKjwN Q76iNs_vWi%3DFS6ExsBMKpTQR9qyM 6tvndLwj59fiS4g%40mail.gmail.c om.

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/matters-of-mind/CAEKJmQ20U e97B6aiW9TVxNwgcv1yB54mbX_4nqh 1fnSoP-p1Zg%40mail.gmail.com.

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/matters-of-mind/CA%2BcKjwO Mq2yKgy4MY_vmA5QvvtZv23c2qS5zv eMHPJPWBh-v3Q%40mail.gmail.com .

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/matters-of-mind/F9780986-9 1E0-41F6-88AB-B7FC5570A70F%40g mail.com.

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/matters-of-mind/CA%2BcKjwN gFaVS_vmwe_TjUFhk%3D6HyedXs3sZ 965UutBYOw6HZ8Q%40mail.gmail.c om.

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/matters-of-mind/CAEKJmQ08N pL7suShscBR%3D_xHZXONCgq6tQif% 3Dp4zuH7%2Bq_qsGA%40mail.gmail .com.

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/matters-of-mind/CA%2BcKjwN aTBVyLkT5nufsgaROFA3w9UWGZqM9h XGTQzhUFEqKCA%40mail.gmail.com .

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/CAEKJmQ0WbGN4sAJ8rLQRLGrypeq%3Dd8eph62o_mjt726H4CgB4A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Ram, the very nifty thing about some of your abilities is that if you and do them with some oversight by a skeptic like me I would think that the two of us could get the Nobel Prize for extending quantum mechanisms to new realms. So you should think about ways to exhibit your powers in a manner that is objectively testable. 

Nifty.

Stan

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

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/CAEKJmQ0WbGN4sAJ8rLQRLGrypeq%3Dd8eph62o_mjt726H4CgB4A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/870899275.185927.1491450182722%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Escobar, Alexander]

You assume that the communication is occurring through space and time. Special relativity clearly shows that photons at light speed (EM radiation) exist in a timeless (delta t = 0) spaceless state. The big question to consider is whether there can be multiple timeless, spaceless states or can there be only one. Hard to convey the depth and breadth of this idea in one paragraph but if you would like to discuss this further let me know.

Alex Escobar, PhD

Biology Department

Emory University

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.

---

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

[Edwards, Jonathan]

Dear Colin,
Leibniz claims that the world has no parts, in the sense of bits of stuff, but instead is constituted by an infinite number of points of view on the whole. The whole is then the totality of points of view but these do not sum like parts - for obvious reasons, since each one already entails the whole. The way the whole impinges on the point of view is the perception that is from that point of view. I use the term impinges as the least ‘mechanical’ I can think of. Leibniz denies there is any mechanical causation, at the real metaphysical level, but rather that every point of view progresses harmoniously with the whole it perceives. This is pretty much what modern physics says so there is nothing ‘non-physical’ about his denial of the naive concept of causation. The way the point of view contributes to the whole as perceived by others will be seen as its action and the relations we call perception and action are one and the same - just the other way around. It may be hard to think of something acting that is not a thing or particle but merely a point of view. However, this disappearance of any concept of ‘stuff’ from the pure dynamic approach is exactly what quantum field theory does. Leibniz’s monad is the same as Planck’s quantum of action. There is no ‘particle’ any more, just a step in a network of causal connections that are cashed out as contributions to perceptions from points of view.

I agree on rejecting intuitions; we have not evolved through the advantages of being able to do metaphysics properly. Rather some extra talent for abstraction that probably helped the sharing of information about food sources has proved to be usable as a way to sort the metaphysics out. And I agree that we want to stick to mainstream physics.

Where we may diverge is on identity. You suggest that each of ‘us’ is the essence of a single particle. If ‘us’ is the plural of an I that is a subject of experience that is agreed, but I think neurology tells us that there will be huge numbers of such subjects in each brain. The mistake common to Descartes, Leibniz, James, Kant, Heidegger, Husserl, and also more or less all contemporary neurobiologists is that there is only one subject per brain. We have no need of that premise and it screws everything up. It is another intuition to jettison.

In field theory ‘particle’ becomes a pretty unhelpful term. Mode of excitation (or action) is the new jargon and it makes more metaphysical sense. It cannot be composite, because by definition a mode of action is indivisible. However, indivisible modes of action commonly accompany composite ordered material structures so we now have a way of understanding Leibniz’s idea of the monad of action being tied to a material body and perceiving mostly via its relation to that body rather than its (still real but trivial and indistinct) relation to everything. I think that fits with much of what you say later.

My own feeling is that the clunky language used by Bohr about ‘measuring devices’ and the hare of ‘wave function collapse’ are recipes for confusion when trying to find a language for fundamental relations. What I think Leibniz tells us is that the distinction between a quantum description and a classical one is nothing mysterious; it is simply the distinction between a description of a single dynamic entity and a description of an aggregate. Measuring a position actually requires a laboratory and an experimental set up and all sorts of things that do not exist inside brains. I would forget it. What is detected is not ‘a position’ but a perturbation of field potentials, from which a clever physicist with a lab can infer a position. Inside a brain all that we need to posit is that each mode of excitation contributes to the pattern of field potentials ‘perceived’ by other modes of excitation. The brain uses the patterns to compute ‘positions’ of external world objects but not modes within itself. And if we are considering modes of action associated with biological scale structures like cells the analysis can be done with traditional Maxwell type electromagnetic theory (as used by Hodgkin and Huxley). Since waves are in essence individual modes of action quantum theory of a sort has actually been there all along, particularly in the analysis of light, for which there is no other level. All the stuff that Roger Penrose and co have got caught up in is I think irrelevant.

I do not personally have trouble with natural selection getting to us by now. The number of opportunities for new advantageous DNA sequences is so vast that it seems to me quite unsurprising. But like Leibniz I do have a sort of concept of a relic God, if a rather rarified one.

Thanks for sending the book. I will get looking for a reviewer. My address is :

46, Park Drive,
London NW11 7SP

Best wishes

Jo

[Shafiq Khan]

Dear Jonathan Edwards,

                                       Kindly do read this link https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/adopted-paradigm-physics-incorrect-shafiq-khan?trk=prof-post which answers all your queries.

Regards

Mohammad Shafiq Khan

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[Vinod Sehgal]

Dear Joe E,

As per the known species in the universe, best understanding  thru experience still dawns upon human beings when manifestation of consciousness is at the highest  degree. The possibility of the best experience not translating into understanding can not be ruled out. Nevertheless, experiences are not contingent  upon understanding but reverse  of this not true. However. Experiences still remain central  to the best of the understanding. In view of this, understanding  as earned thru  experiences  should be given higher priority  than as earned  Thu other sources  however    logical  such  understanding  may  appear.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

---

From: Edwards, Jonathan
Sent: ‎04-‎04-‎2017 20:45
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {SPAM?} [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the MaterialistNeo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)

Dear Robert,

Clearly there are lots of things one can agree with angel on but in the end I think he gets everything in a muddle because he is starting from the wrong premise.

You quote: “Almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science”.

But as a practicing biomedical scientist I do not recognise the dramatis personae here. It is not scientists like me who have ‘browbeaten’ an intuitively more liberal populous into believing in reductive materialism. I am not even quite sure what reductive materialism means in science. Reduction is a pejorative weasel word that has little to do with the business I am familiar with. No, I think reductive materialism is actually an ill-frormed conception of the world held by the man in the street and a lot of philosophers unfamiliar with practical science. And it is the position of the man in the street not because of some browbeating by secularists but because the human brain is built with this preconception hard-wired into its basic circuits - the preconception that ‘everything out there is stuff’. Science has systematically unpicked that notion. The problem with contemporary neuroscience is that most practitioners are not systematic enough about their unpicking of the man in the street’s view, not the other way around.

I admit that things are not helped by the new breed of television scientists, who mostly seem to have gone in to television because they do not understand science and do well there because they confirm the man in the street’s stuffism. 

On a more positive note I agree with Nagel that the meaning and value associated with experience must somehow be central to the goings on of the world. But is it not hubris to think that we humans have some monopoly on this? Maybe the height of understanding came with the Neanderthals, who unfortunately they got killed off or outbred by these dreadful Homo sapiens oiks who believe in stuff. Maybe crows and hummingbirds understand the value of things better than us. Maybe true understanding of value is to be found in radio waves. Maybe what distinguishes human subjects from others is that they have a more complicated misunderstanding of their own nature.

Best wishes

Jo E

On 3 Apr 2017, at 22:21, Robert Wallace <B...@robertmwallace.com> wrote:

Hello everyone,

For those who may not be familiar, I want to draw attention to the 2012 book by Thomas Nagel, emeritus professor of philosophy at NYU and one of the best-known American philosophers since (at least) his The View From Nowhere (Oxford U. Press, 1986). 

Before NYU, Nagel taught at Princeton. He has no evident “spiritual” agenda. But he has always been critical of reductive materialism, and his Mind and Cosmos (Oxford, 2012), with the provocative subtitle quoted in the subject line above, stirred up a hornet’s nest of criticism, which was surveyed by Andrew Ferguson under the title “Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him?” http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-heretic/article/707692

Nagel says “Almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science” (p. 7). He expresses respect for the “intelligent design” critics of neo-Darwinism (Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer) without endorsing their alternative to it. His own alternative is, he acknowledges, undeveloped, but he says he thinks “one cannot really understand the scientific world unless one assumes that the intelligibility of the world … is itself part of the deepest explanation of why things are as they are.” This makes him, he says, “in a broad sense, an idealist … an objective idealist in the tradition of Plato and perhaps also of certain post-Kantians, such as Schelling and Hegel” (p. 17). Whereas by contrast, “Evolutionary naturalism implies that we shouldn’t take any of our convictions seriously, including the scientific world picture on which evolutionary naturalism itself depends”(28). 

“Rational creatures can step back from [innate dispositions and conditioning] and try to make up their own minds. … This kind of freedom …does seems to be something that cannot be given a purely physical analysis and therefore … cannot be given a purely physical explanation either” (84). 

“…there is life because life is a necessary condition of value…. a cosmic predisposition to the formation of life, consciousness, and the value that is inseparable from them” (123). 

I omit the details of his fascinating critique of materialist efforts to avoid this kind of Platonic conclusion. I recommend the book highly. 

I would suggest that anyone who’s in a position to engage in dialogue with Nagel about these issues would have a hard time finding a better-informed and more thoughtful interlocutor. Perhaps he could be interested in participating in some of our “Science and the Scientist” discussions.

Best, Bob Wallace

Robert Wallace

email: b...@robertmwallace.com

phone: 414-617-3914

#lovethyneighbor

 

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

[John Jay Kineman]

Thank you Avtar Singh,

I will be in the office from travel tomorrow and can start looking at papers (I have quite a few to review at present). I will definitely see the paper and comment. Our theoretical work may be similar if it starts from this premise, because the implications follow from the assumptions. Indeed it works to give a new space-time model and different view of the cosmos that is infinite with finite appearance of an origin (big bang). Many other hard predictions that have been coming true, and major test with the new deep space telescope coming soon. You may want to look also at some of Johan Masreliez' worl on what he called the scale expanding cosmos. Most of the anomalies in the Standard Cosmological Model are explainable in a much more parsimonious way by scale expansion of four-space.

cheers,

John

PS  Since this thread is really about Darwinism and quantum cats, Ill add that it also gives a somewhat radical, but increasingly likely, solution to the measurement problem, I believe. It is the the present 'now' writes history, not the other way around.

John Kineman

(M India) +91 901-474-3733

Skype: john.kineman

<Manus_Final_ FQXi_From Laws to Aims & Intentions_SinghA.pdf>

[Oliver Manuel]

Dear friends,

Here are the corrected galley proofs for "The Universe Is In Good
hands," aka "There Is A God."

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERZ.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver



On 4/5/17, 'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of
Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
wrote:

> Ph.D.<Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote: -Bhakti Madhava Puri

> wrote:>The conclusion is that thought originates the thought of
> consciousness, >as it originates all other thoughts, including thought of
> itself. Thought >comes from thought. [S.P.] This pertains to the case when
> we apply the first-person approach to studying consciousness: the researcher
> uses his consciousness simultaneously as an object of study and as an
> instrument of study. Hence the effect of placing oneself above own
> consciousnes. In general, both physical events and consciousness-related
> events belong to Noumenal Reality (the one which is postulated to exist
> objectively and independently of the process of cognition). However, the
> model of some physical event (or, a thought about this event) and the model
> of some consciousness-related event like a thought (or a thought about a
> thought) belong to the given researcher's version of Phenomenal Reality
> (which is a totality of knowledge the given person has about the outer
> world, or Noumenal Reality). Therefore, by its nature and origin, a thought
> about, say, Brownian motion does not differ from a thought about a thought.
> Best, Serge Patlavskiy
>
>

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear Eric,

On 06 Apr 2017, at 00:28, 'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Bruno,

    We all have our own individual thoughts and actions etc. We may share a similar thought and a similar action, but we never lose our individuality, that was my meaning. As Bhakti Madhava Puri correct​ed me later those thoughts may originate in the Supreme Consciousness, but that still doesn't refute or dissolve our individuality, otherwise we would all know what everyone else was going through, and thinking, all the time right? There would be zero drama, variety, love. Love requires individuality, dynamic interaction at all times. Love as we know does exist, drama exists, variegatedness exists. Therefore this proves our individuality. It also proves that if there is a Supreme Conscious that he is also an individual, and that he is capable of love and drama.

I agree. No problem. I was more talking about personal identity than of individuality. My "individuality" of today is probably less different than yours than my individuality 20 years ago. But my personal identity is the same as 20 years ago. Then,  assuming mechanism we might all be the same universal person differentiated along many individuals. What I said does not make individuality disappear, but it is open to making personal identity disappearing or unique.

Best regards,

Bruno

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

[Eric Reyes]

Dear Avtar,

    That sounds right Avtar as long as we accept that within ultimate reality these "sub realities" or individuals have real existence. To attempt to reduce ultimate reality from variegated, complex, unlimited and infinite, down to singular, finite, simple and one dimensional is not rationally thought out. We ourselves may be limited as a small part of ultimate reality but ultimate reality has no limits, or else it could not be ultimate reality by definition.

Regards, Eric Reyes

Yahoo Mail on Android

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Colin Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> on April 6, 2017 wrote:

> I presume that what you mean by 'action' amounts to a change in 

>the perception/experience of other minds (as there is no stuff to 

>be affected).

.

[S.P.] What do you mean by "perception"? (Please, do not refer to Wikipedia entries). For me, there are three different processes:

1) the sense organs transform the physical signals (e-m waves, air vibrations, etc.) into physical sensory signals -- the electrical impulses propagating along neuronal channels to the brain;

2) our consciousness can process the physical (sensory) signals and transform them into new elements of our experience, or (which is the same) new knowledge, or (which is the same) new information, etc. for us;

3) our consciousness can process the formerly memorized elements of experience and transform them into new elements of our experience, or (which is the same) new knowledge, or (which is the same) new information, etc. for us.

.

So, a single word "perception" cannot stand simultaneously for three different processes. Moreover, there are cases when we are looking at something (our sense organs function good) but seeing nothing. This is because our consciousness, for such or other reason, does not process the available physical (sensory) signals and does not create new information for us. Sometimes, we may be looking at nothing (there are no physical sensory signals -- the sense organs do not function) but seeing something. In this case, new information that consciousness creates for us may be called "illusion".

.

Therefore, when considering the mechanisms of consciousness, the word "perception" is misleading and redundant.

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

> I insist that my explanation of consciousness be as similar as 

>possible to the scientific explanation for the most-similar 

>successfully-explained phenomenon...

.

[S.P.] To have an "explanation of consciousness", or, better say, to have a personal version of the applied theory of consciousness, means to have the framework which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power. If we say we have a theory of consciousness, then this theory must be able to explain how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. If it cannot explain this, then it is not a theory of consciousness yet. A woman can be either pregnant or not pregnant -- here, no intermediate states are possible. :-)

.

[Colin Morrison] wrote:

> Since this theory requires that we are each a single particle, I suspect 

>the indivisible elementary particles of which all matter is composed 

>are also individual consciousnesses (what you are presumably calling 

>points of view).

.

[S.P.] As I see, yours is some version/modification of panpsychism.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
To: "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>
Cc: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2017 12:57 PM
Subject: Re [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Eric Reyes on April 4, 2017 wrote:

>The Thinker is the source of thought, and since there are unlimited

> thoughts coming from unlimited and nonlinear directions there are 

>therefore unlimited thinkers or personalities. This refutes the concept 

>from Deepak and others that consciousness is "One", that we are all 

>one consciousness.

.

[S.P.] Instead of "thinker" I would prefer to talk about a subject of cognitive activity. To be a subject of cognitive activity means to use own consciousness to create a model of the outer world. For me, any living organism is a subject of cognitive activity, since even a prokaryote must possess an adequate model of the outer world to stay alive (to be able to distinguish between food and its kin, and so on).

Second. I have no idea what you mean when talking about "unlimited thoughts coming from unlimited and nonlinear directions". Every person, due to activity of own consciousness, possesses a limited totality of unique knowledge about the outer world. 

Third. You talk about unlimited (number of) thinkers. Question: how many living organisms (or the subjects of cognitive activity) live on the planet Earth at every given moment? A correct answer is: the number is/can be very big but necessarily limited. Next question: how many subjects of cognitive activity are there in the Universe? A correct answer should also be: the number is very big but necessarily limited. In general, when we consider the whole complex systems (either living organisms, atoms, or stars) which constitute a chain, their number is always big-but-limited.

Taken the above into consideration, I have formulated, what I call, the Law of Conservation of Consciousness. From this law follows, for example, that when some organism dies (some subject of cognitive activity disappears) at any location of the Universe, the other organism (a new subject of cognitive activity) must appear in this same or another location of the Universe.

Yes, the mentioned above law is a postulate -- the element of my specially constructed epistemological framework (or meta-theory). But, within the limits of this framework I may construct, for example, the applied theory of reincarnation which is able to account for numerous correspondent consciousness-related events.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

PS. The word "thinker" may be used instead of PhD when we are in a poorly elaborated research field. So, in the field of consciousness studies we all are just pupils here, not even students yet. Therefore, for us, instead of "Mr. Brown, PhD" it would be better to say "Mr. Brown, a thinker". :-)

---

From: "'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 10:33 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Refuting Darwinism and Schrodinger's Cat

Dear Serge,

The Thinker is the source of thought, and since there are unlimited thoughts coming from unlimited and nonlinear directions there are therefore unlimited thinkers or personalities. This refutes the concept from Deepak and others that consciousness is "One", that we are all one consciousness. 

Regards,  Eric Reyes

[Edwards, Jonathan]

Dear Colin,

I think we have a good deal of agreement although maybe some differences on the precise dynamic relations and how many there are that experience being a ‘me’.

One thing I am unclear about is in what sense our experience of the world can be said to have a form that resembles a retinal image. I don;t actually think there are any images in the retina. And it may well be that insects construct a fairly similar experience of the world from a completely different optical set up. Clearly the sort of decision making options provided by an experience are well suited to making predictions about dynamic dispositions in the world like the redness of a tomato but I don’t think that entails any resemblance.

I look forward to looking at your full analysis and getting it out to review.

Jo

On 6 Apr 2017, at 16:07, C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for that brilliant explanation.  You have really inspired me to read Leibniz again. His view really does mesh with the sort of position to which my theory leads.

Thanks also for your observations about modern physics.  However,  I prefer to think in terms of practical experiments.  There are an infinite number of theories that will yield the same maths (or at least the same predictions) as the different interpretations of QM clearly show.  When I say the brain is measuring the position of a quantum particle,  I think about the slowed-down double-slit experiment where individual electrons are passing through the slits one at a time. Each appears to randomly choose where it will strike the screen of detectors. Their wavelike nature is only revealed over time when one sees that the frequency of strikes at different locations takes the expected form of an interference pattern. As I have already said,  my theory leads me to believe that their wavelike nature is the experience of a single consciousness and their position a location within that experience which that consciousness freely selects. Aspects of its experience such as its intensity make it more likely to select some locations rather than others to an extent that is exactly predicted by the form of the wave function.  Since the form of the wave function is determined by external factors such as the presence of the slits and whatever electromagnetic fields may be acting on the electron, I suspect that the qualia experienced are the effects of the other particles making up the structures responsible for these effects.  And likewise when the consciousness of the electron chooses a particular subjective location it is positioning a suitable change in experience into the consciousnesses of those other particles.

Anyway,  my grounds for this view are not based on physics but on biology.  Like you,  I am a committed Darwinist (despite my worries about the time needed). Our consciousness is an extremely highly-organised  part or product of a biological organism, and as such its organisation ought to be accounted for as a product of natural selection. It absolutely should not be assumed to be the result of functionalism or any other strange principles for which there is no precedent at all in established science. To explain why my colour experience takes a form that is closely related to the intensity patterns of particular types of photon being detected by my retinas, my procedure forces me to show how whatever I consider to be the direct physical correlate of my colour experience evolved to have such a form.  For reasons my book makes clear,  I can only do that if my colour experience is an effect upon the wave function of a single particle that happens to be favouring that particle being found at particular positions in the neural structures that confine it. These neural structures have also evolved to register the position of that particle every so often, just as the screen registers the position of an electron passing through the double slits, and detectors at different positions shift attention to different sources of data.  I do not accept your argument that such a thing can only be done in a laboratory. Nature has her own laboratories inside living cells, and to quote a certain 90s blockbuster 'life always finds a way'.

I take your point about there being many consciousnesses inside a brain. But in my theory only particles trapped in the highly evolved neural structures I have hinted at can ever have an experience that feels like a human organism. The others may well be subjects of experience but do not have anything like the humanlike experience we each enjoy.  Whilst nature is not necessarily against a bit of redundancy, only one such structure is really needed.  So if it were protected well enough to last beyond the reproductive stages of an organism's life, one would expect any duplicate structures that may have arisen to have been adapted for other purposes by now - purposes that would not require the wave function of a quantum particle to have a form that feels like the human body.

This view may sound implausible, but I think that is just our intuitions again.  If you can show me why whatever you consider to be the direct physical correlate of my colour experience would evolve by natural selection to take a form similar to the retinal image, then I will happily forget Position Selecting Interactionism. If not then I suspect it may be our interpretation of quantum physics that needs to change.  You say a position is just a perturbation of field potentials.  But remember,  the field potentials in my theory are the effects of quantum particles (consciousnesses) upon the experience of other quantum particles. Choosing a position amounts to positioning a change in the experience of those other particles which statistically affects where they position their effects. In other words, it is just a perturbation in field potentials.

Anyway, I'm mailing you a copy. 
Thanks again for your detailed and thought-provoking responses.

[Alex Hankey]

Dear Ram, 

What you call the "6th Sense" is, I think the same as Rupert Sheldrake's "7th Sense", for which he has produced a great deal of evidence. 

That is completely independent of the other phenomenon that you mention. NDEs and OOBEs are supported by large amounts of data and many books. To give them a theory only requires showing that the mind's cognitive states can exist independently of the body. 

As regards Samadhi, that is very different again, and the Yoga literature, e.g. Yoga Sutras classifies 8 different kinds. The fourth, Nirvichara Samadhi is easily accessible by anyone learning Transcendental Meditation, and should be recognizable within six months of being instructed and practising regularly. The main experimental observations are of maximum EEG coherence between all lobes of the brain, with occasional eriods of breath stoppage. 

Good wishes, 

Alex Hankey

On 5 April 2017 at 00:59, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear Stan,

Thanks.

You have indeed raised an interesting issue. Information is certainly present in all cases (paranormal, psychic, rebirth, NDEs/OBEs, and SS/NS states) and the physical information must travel at speed less than or equal to the speed of light. Therefore, if 6^th sense exists, then it must honor this constraint. It also seems true that 6^th sense would be an unusual sense and would be activated at very special and unusual conditions. It is also true that the related experiences must have the respective neural basis. Stapp’s Global mind framework (in analogy to ‘mind without brain’ in astral, causal, and ‘manifested consciousness’ worlds as dualistic Sāṅkhya and monistic ‘nondual Advaita/Vedānta’/idealism proposed) seems more challenging than the 6^th sense hypothesis (whatever it may be or whatever it means). Let us investigate further.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Tuesday, 4 April 2017 6:13 PM, Stanley A. KLEIN <skl...@berkeley.edu> wrote:

Ram, thanks for that clear questions, 

The senses of sight, sound, touch, taste, smell are all mediated by photons and electric charges in ways that QM and QED easily deals with. But the QED doesn't have properties for the 6th sense. 

Stan

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/matters-of-mind/CAEKJmQ2%3Dspzy0nVPKZ44PZvPLHzyTdAvv06bfQmTHKp4jkpd%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

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

--
----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.

--

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

Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789

____________________________________________________________

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

[Oliver Manuel]

Dear Diego Lucia Rapoport, Namaste

Thank you for your comments.  

The paper was accepted for publication as "The Universe Is In Good Hands" aka "There Is A God."

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERZ.pdf

It references Peter Toth's 1977 report on the pulsar Sun, and Kotov's 1996 confirmation that the 160 minute pulse is the fourth of its regular 40 minute pulses. 

Yes, indeed, this is the music of the sphere that hold every atom, life and star in the solar system in continuous harmonic vibration.

With kind regards,

Oliver K. Manuel    

Thank you for forwarding your contribution. 

Allow me to suggest a title with an additional qualification, say your "The Universe is in Good Hands" to become "The Universe is in the Good Hand of Music Playing" following your quite unique -but much neglected,despite reviews claiming its historical significance,  mentioning of  Kotov et al's works at the Crimea Observatory" showing that the Sun is a pulsar, followed by his discoveries of many other pulsars with this same frequency. 

Kotov further discovered the 2:1 fundamental harmonics in the rotational velocity of the outer and inner strata of the Sun, characteristic of the Moebius strip and Klein Bottle. After all, the visible coronal ejections are clearly non-orientable, as these surfaces are.

Unfortunately, or purposedly perhaps, the satellite that was placed in orbit to study the Sun following ths discovery seemed to have been designed to unable it to pick up these signals.

Best wishes

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 4:04 AM 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:

From: Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>

Sent: Sunday, April 2, 2017 12:07 PM

I don't think any theory can explain consciousness 

All theories including quantum theory are conceived in consciousness . 

Consciousness does not need an explanation 

It does all the explanations 

Deepak Chopra MD

 

 

REPLY from BMP

As soon as you say, "I don't think" - whatever follows is YOUR thinking. It is you who posit that the absolute is consciousness, and you who then determine what that consciousness is or does. It is NOT consciousness - absolute or otherwise that is doing all that.

As I explained, or tried to explain to Serge in my previous email, the logical or epistemological structure or architecture of consciousness requires a unifying Self in order to make consciousness an intelligible concept. Reason does not have to be abandoned when it comes to the Absolute. The Absolute is itself the conclusion of reason, otherwise why would we even talk about it. The Absolute is not an object of experience, but a necessary conclusion of reason. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

  

[C. S. Morrison]

Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for that brilliant explanation.  You have really inspired me to read Leibniz again. His view really does mesh with the sort of position to which my theory leads.

Thanks also for your observations about modern physics.  However,  I prefer to think in terms of practical experiments.  There are an infinite number of theories that will yield the same maths (or at least the same predictions) as the different interpretations of QM clearly show.  When I say the brain is measuring the position of a quantum particle,  I think about the slowed-down double-slit experiment where individual electrons are passing through the slits one at a time. Each appears to randomly choose where it will strike the screen of detectors. Their wavelike nature is only revealed over time when one sees that the frequency of strikes at different locations takes the expected form of an interference pattern. As I have already said,  my theory leads me to believe that their wavelike nature is the experience of a single consciousness and their position a location within that experience which that consciousness freely selects. Aspects of its experience such as its intensity make it more likely to select some locations rather than others to an extent that is exactly predicted by the form of the wave function.  Since the form of the wave function is determined by external factors such as the presence of the slits and whatever electromagnetic fields may be acting on the electron, I suspect that the qualia experienced are the effects of the other particles making up the structures responsible for these effects.  And likewise when the consciousness of the electron chooses a particular subjective location it is positioning a suitable change in experience into the consciousnesses of those other particles.

Anyway,  my grounds for this view are not based on physics but on biology.  Like you,  I am a committed Darwinist (despite my worries about the time needed). Our consciousness is an extremely highly-organised  part or product of a biological organism, and as such its organisation ought to be accounted for as a product of natural selection. It absolutely should not be assumed to be the result of functionalism or any other strange principles for which there is no precedent at all in established science. To explain why my colour experience takes a form that is closely related to the intensity patterns of particular types of photon being detected by my retinas, my procedure forces me to show how whatever I consider to be the direct physical correlate of my colour experience evolved to have such a form.  For reasons my book makes clear,  I can only do that if my colour experience is an effect upon the wave function of a single particle that happens to be favouring that particle being found at particular positions in the neural structures that confine it. These neural structures have also evolved to register the position of that particle every so often, just as the screen registers the position of an electron passing through the double slits, and detectors at different positions shift attention to different sources of data.  I do not accept your argument that such a thing can only be done in a laboratory. Nature has her own laboratories inside living cells, and to quote a certain 90s blockbuster 'life always finds a way'.

I take your point about there being many consciousnesses inside a brain. But in my theory only particles trapped in the highly evolved neural structures I have hinted at can ever have an experience that feels like a human organism. The others may well be subjects of experience but do not have anything like the humanlike experience we each enjoy.  Whilst nature is not necessarily against a bit of redundancy, only one such structure is really needed.  So if it were protected well enough to last beyond the reproductive stages of an organism's life, one would expect any duplicate structures that may have arisen to have been adapted for other purposes by now - purposes that would not require the wave function of a quantum particle to have a form that feels like the human body.

This view may sound implausible, but I think that is just our intuitions again.  If you can show me why whatever you consider to be the direct physical correlate of my colour experience would evolve by natural selection to take a form similar to the retinal image, then I will happily forget Position Selecting Interactionism. If not then I suspect it may be our interpretation of quantum physics that needs to change.  You say a position is just a perturbation of field potentials.  But remember,  the field potentials in my theory are the effects of quantum particles (consciousnesses) upon the experience of other quantum particles. Choosing a position amounts to positioning a change in the experience of those other particles which statistically affects where they position their effects. In other words, it is just a perturbation in field potentials.

Anyway, I'm mailing you a copy.
Thanks again for your detailed and thought-provoking responses.

Best wishes,
Colin

(C.  S.  Morrison,  author of The Blind Mindmaker: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation)

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

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

Send from Huawei Y360

[Whit Blauvelt]

Dear Dr. Puri,

Thank you for your illuminating perspective. What you describe is one way of
interpreting what Kant meant in his description of a "common sense" in The
Critique of Judgment:

Under the sensus communis we must include the idea of a sense common to
all, i.e. of a faculty of judgment, which in its reflection takes account
(a priori) of the mode of representation of all other men in thought; in
order as it were to compare its judgment with the collective reason of
humanity and thus to escape the illusion arising from the private
conditions that could be so easily taken for objective, which would
injuriously affect the judgment.

Kant took the term "common sense" from the Scottish philsophers, although in
their use it was more concerned with the area of mind in which the senses
(your "sensuous nature") come together to produce a higher unity of
consciousness, while Kant here is applying it more socially. The common use
today, of "common sense" as even what the most common people will agree to,
is far different from either.

In any case, Kant can be read as being in strong agreement with you, and
Hegel as continuing from him in this regard.

As for the fit of language to concepts, my own experience is that the fit is
often poor. Much of Taoist and Buddhist writing shares that perception of
it. What does your tradition say of the hope of tailoring language to a
precise fit? At what point should we instead embrace silence? Are concepts
inevitably distorted in linguistic expression, or can language be so well
honed as to become perfectly true?

Best,
Whit

> ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

> --
> ----------------------------
> BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
> http://bviscs.org/reports
>
> Science and Scientist - 2016
> http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
>
> 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.

[Vinod Sehgal]

Dear Alex,

SR might be showing that photons of light fo exist in spaceless and timeless state  but logically and intuitively  can any ontological  entity have its existence  without  space and time? How photons  be in timeless state when they are moving with limited speed? Then what  is the meaning  of photons at speed of light being  spineless? In which space such photons will move at  the speed  of light?

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

---

From: Escobar, Alexander
Sent: ‎06-‎04-‎2017 19:21
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MoM] Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Thomas Nagel, "Why the MaterialistNeo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" (2012)

[The entire original message is not included.]

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Alex, indeed the speed of light is the upper limit for sending signals. It is well understood that if I travel for a year at 0.99 times speed of light, and then come back at that speed I will have aged two years but the earthlings will have aged something like 100 years. That is well understood. The problem with mental communications using our brains is that the darn photons can't get through the skull unless they use very fast waves like the radio frequencies. People are working on figuring out how neurons can do that in a coherent manner, but I haven't been convinced they have succeeded yet. It is an interesting approach. 

Stan

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.

---

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).

--

----------------------------
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Science and Scientist - 2016
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016
 
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.