RE: Consciousness
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Vasavada, Kashyap V
Jun 23, 2017, 10:49:06 AM6/23/17
to Alex Hankey, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Alex,
Thanks. May be my statement “progress practically zero” was too harsh. I am a retired physics professor in Indianapolis, U.S. (Indiana-Purdue Univ. Indianapolis) I am interested in knowing about scientific understanding of consciousness and Vedanta. But I have not done any research on this subject. My remark was based on talking to some neuroscientist friends and reading about lot of controversial theories such as presented on this website.
I will try to understand your paper and perhaps ask some questions in future. It is interesting that you mention that your approach is consistent with Advaita philosophy. Amit Goswami’s approach is interesting. But I do not like top down approach at this point. I might change my mind! Were you at the New Delhi conference in Dec. 2016? In that case we may have met for a short time.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: Alex Hankey [mailto:alexh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 9:42 AM
To: Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Subject: RE: Consciousness
RE: Your Statement:
But progress in understanding consciousness has been practically zero.
ME: Please read the attached paper(s), and then see if you still think that is so.
They are based on the approach used by Jonathan Shear and David Chalmers.
There are now approaching ten papers in this series, the latest dealing with cognition of language.
They put Amit Goswami's approach to rest.
And They agree with Advaita Vedanta perfectly.
Which University are you at?
Would you like to collaborate?
Alex Hankey in Bangalore
--
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
____________________________________________________________
graham smetham
Jun 24, 2017, 10:12:02 AM6/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
You might be interested in quantumbuddhism.uk. A melding of recent discoveries in quantum physics and Buddhist psycho-metaphyscs completely clears up all these supposed problems. The worl of the Russian physicist is particularly useful -> http://www.lulu.com/shop/graham-smetham/quantum-path-to-enlightenment/paperback/product-23150576.html
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/e11cee316be8467f83ad0742c10dc625%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Srinivasa Rao Kankipati
Jun 24, 2017, 11:22:00 AM6/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
My feeling is that a dead man is not conscious, as you and I are. Of course, it is open for anyone to say that the atoms in the molecules of his dead cells are still endowed with consciousness. They have to say so because of the assumption of "universal consciousness" and a dead man's ultimate components cannot be devoid of that. But is it the same consciousness that the dead man had before he died? When we are talking about consciousness, which consciousness are we speaking of?
Then there are Realm Consciousness, Beyond-spacetime Consciousness, etc.
Scientists must first settle on the definition of consciousness and then explain it in simple terms to non-scientists." All simple things are described by small words, like life and love. When you dont know what you are talking, use big words: they fool small people" said someone.
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (
Sungchul Ji
Jun 24, 2017, 3:18:03 PM6/24/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Kankipadi ji et al.,
If we can apply the definition of a sign (which the word "consciousness" is) given by Peirce (1839-1914), we can construct the following irreducibly triadic definition of "consciousness". In other words, there may be three irreducible aspects to "consciousness":
f g
1-Person Consciousness ------> 2-Person Consciousness ------> 3-Person Consciousness
(Firstness) (Secondness) (Thirdness)
{Object} {Sign} {Interpretant}
[Pre-reflective Consciousness (?)] [Reflective Consciousness (?)] [Cognitive Consciousness (?)]
[Pre-reflective Consciousness (?)] [Reflective Consciousness (?)] [Cognitive Consciousness (?)]
| ^
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|____________________________________________________|
h
Figure 1. An irreducibly triadic definition of the word "consciousness" according to the Peircean semiotics and Merleau-Pontyan Flesh ontology [1].
f = sign production or 'semiogenesis' (?); g = a consciousness theory, or theorized consciousness; h = information flow / grounding / embodiment. The three mappings are thought to satisfy the commutative condition of category theory, i.e., f x g = h, which reads "f followed by g leads to the same result as h".
There are at least two possibilities --
(i) 1-person is limited to Homo sapiens, and
(ii) 1-person can be elementary particles as long as they exhibit irreducibly triadic relations (ITR) defined in the Peircean semiotics and category theory.
Most neurobiologists would accept (i) but not (ii), although there may be exceptions, while most spiritual scientists would accept (ii) and not (i). I think Peirce himself would have accepted (ii), which agrees with my current thinking.
All the best.
Sung
Reference:
[1] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Matter and Mind. World Scientific, New Jersey (in press), Chapter 11.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAKx2H5U0Dg%2BmN6VeSP1GDTbQkKNEqECPFKrZN8%3D-Oo_Kk59K1Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833
www.conformon.net
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833
www.conformon.net
Joseph McCard
Jun 25, 2017, 11:15:00 AM6/25/17
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D., alexh...@gmail.com
"My feeling is that a dead man is not conscious, as you and I are."
That makes sense. So, what does that tell you about consciousness?
"Of course, it is open for anyone to say that the atoms in the molecules of his dead cells are still endowed with consciousness."
Yes. The man is no longer focused in physical reality, but the atoms that composed him are. What does THAT imply about the nature of consciousness?
"They have to say so because of the assumption of "universal consciousness" and a dead man's ultimate components cannot be devoid of that.
Yes, an assumption that makes sense in a certain context.
"But is it the same consciousness that the dead man had before he died?"
What do you mean "the same consciousness"? "Consciousness" can be understood in many ways. Do you mean, for example, the same spirit or soul?
"When we are talking about consciousness, which consciousness are we speaking of?"
Which "consciousness" are YOU asking about?, Realm Consciousness, Beyond-spacetime Consciousness, etc."?
"Scientists must first settle on the definition of consciousness and then explain it in simple terms to non-scientists."
As I see it, that is impossible to define consciousness, which is pure subjectivity, in objective scientific terms. Aren't those like me, more an artist and non-scientist, the ones that should explain it to the scientists? The best we can do, I think, is naturalize phenomenology. In the realm of the manifest, there is no difference between consciousness and Shakti.
..." If we can apply the definition of a sign (which the word "consciousness" is) given by Peirce (1839-1914), we can construct the following irreducibly triadic definition of "consciousness". In other words, there may be three irreducible aspects to "consciousness":
1-Person Consciousness ------> 2-Person Consciousness ------> 3-Person Consciousness
(Firstness) (Secondness) (Thirdness)
{Object} {Sign} {Interpretant}
[Pre-reflective Consciousness (?)] [Reflective Consciousness (?)] [Cognitive Consciousness (?)]
Yes we can apply it to the Self. This expresses human consciousness. But do you think consciousness is limited to humans?
joseph
Sungchul Ji
Jun 25, 2017, 4:15:35 PM6/25/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Joseph,
In response to my post in which I said:
" If we can apply the definition of a sign (which the word "consciousness" is) given by Peirce (1839-1914), we can construct the following irreducibly triadic definition of "consciousness". In other words, there may be three irreducible aspects to "consciousness":
1-Person Consciousness ------> 2-Person Consciousness ------> 3-Person Consciousness
(Firstness) (Secondness) (Thirdness)
{Object} {Sign} {Interpretant}
[Pre-reflective Consciousness (?)] [Reflective Consciousness (?)] [Cognitive Consciousness (?)]
you asked the importatn question:
"Yes we can apply it to the Self. This expresses human consciousness. But do you think consciousness is limited to humans?"
My answer to your question would be that there may be three kinds of consciousnesses that form irreduicible triads or commutative triangles, one example of which is shown above. Another example is given in Figure 10.35 below. One of these three kinds is limitted to the human body (cortical consciousness) and the other two are beyond the human body (supracortical and cosmological consciousnesses) as indicated in Figure 10.35. The cosmological consciousness, cortical consciousness, and supracortical consciousness, I belive, obey ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation), as I proposed in my book in press entitled "The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Matter and Mind", World Scientirfic. This division was stimulated by the supracortical consciousness theory proposed by A. K. Mukhopadhyay (see the attached excerpt). Such a triadic division of consciousness seems to be compatible with the semiotics and metaphysics of Peirce (1839-1914) and may also agree with the Flesh ontology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961).
f g
1. Cosmological Conscious. -----> Cortical Conscious. -----> Supracortical Conscious.
2. {Real Consciousness} {Lived Consciousness} {Theorized Consciousness}
3. (Cosmese)
(Cellese)
(Humanese)
4. <Object>
<Sign>
<Interpretant>
5. [Firstness] [Secondness] [Thirdness]
6. <| Physics |> <| Biology
|> <|
Philosophy |>
| ^
|
|
| |
|
|
|___________________________________________________|
h
Figure 10.35. Another ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) aspect of Consciousness.
f = Origin of life; g = origin of culture; h = grounding/embodiment/enlightenment. The commutative condition is thought to be satisfied, i.e., f x g = h, which reads “f followed by g leads to the same result as h”. According to the cell language theory, both cellese and humanese are the complementary aspects of cosmese [see Figure 4.3 in this book, and Table 2.13 in [25]. 1 & 2 = Consciousness studies [762]; 3 = cell language theory [22, 23, 25, this book]; 4 = Peircean semiotics [281-6], ; 5 = Peircean metaphysics [285]; 6 = Traditional disciplines, before the semiotics/ITR-induced paradigm shift in human knowledge/knowing (see Figure 11.1).
All the best.
Sung
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/852447b0-397c-4890-b910-14684ada7309%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Joseph McCard
Jun 25, 2017, 5:03:52 PM6/25/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sung,
It is exciting to see such work as your being done in the consciousness studies field. Its encouraging to see consciousness placed within a rational framework. Where can I purchase your book? I have recently been hearing more about naturalizing phenomenology, and also having recently read references to "Flesh", and Merleau-Ponty. For example:
Thank-you, Joseph
Sungchul Ji
Jun 25, 2017, 9:16:42 PM6/25/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Joseph,
Thank you for your encouraging comments. My book will be out most likely this year by World Scientific, New Jersey. I just completed proofing the manuscript.
In the meantime, you may be interested in taking a look at "Two Philosophers of the Flesh" available at http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/two-philosophers-flesh-merleau-ponty-and-sungchul-ji-phd. This paper was written by my son, Douglas Sayer Ji, in 1996, as a senior research project submitted to Bruce Wishire at Rutgers Department of Philosophy. In the paper (which will appear as Appendix I in [1]), Sayer demonstrated convincingly, in my opinion, the complementary relation between Merleau-Ponty's Felsh onotolgy and my philosophical framework known as as complementarism [2]. In other words, Sayer seems to have discovered the complementarity between the complementarities of Merleau-Ponty and Sungchul Ji (see the attached).
If you have any questions or comments, please let me know.
With all the best.
Sung
References:
[1] Ji, S. (2017). The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter. World Sceintific, New Jersey. In press.
[2] Ji, S. (1995). Complementarism: A Biology-Based Philosophical Framework to Integrate Western Science and Eastern Tao, in Psychotherapy East and West: Integration of Psychotherapies, Korean Academy of Psychotherapists, 178-23 Sungbuk-dong, Songbuk-ku, Seoul 136-020, Korea, pp. 517-548. PDF at http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Complementarism_1995_Proceedings2.pdf.
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BDviUGLbvK4PE3zQbFDrb3Y0X9tZ3imYMLyWewG9Ya3msPK6w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Sugavanam Krishnan
Jun 26, 2017, 8:29:43 AM6/26/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear All
I have been following the discussions on Consciousness, and I thought I shall share with you some of the paradigms of Advaita Vedānta in this regard.
1. What IS, is consciousness. What exists, is only consciousness.
2. Consciousness has to be differentiated from conscious, which is an expression of it. Anything that reacts to an external stimuli can be understood as conscious, for example.
3. Though consciousness is existence, not everything that exists needs to conscious. An iron ball when heated, absorbs and displays both properties of fire which is heat and light, but water is capable of absorbing and displaying only heat principle of fire and not light. This explains the existence of both conscious and inert objects in the world, despite consciousness being their common substratum.
4. Like even light is taken for granted when a questioned as to what are the objects seen in a given room, and light is always perceived only when it reflects on an object and illumines it, but never on its own (which is why space appears dark despite light being there), so also with consciousness.
5. Everything in this universe, every object, is name, form or a state superimposed upon consciousness. Name, form, or state do not enjoy an independent reality. This explains plurality despite a homogeneous substratum.
6. Advaita epistemology holds that it is because of the fact that every object is a superimposition upon consciousness, that an object is available for knowing. In other words, un-consciousness cannot be known.
Now, if consciousness is existence, there can be no question of when did consciousness come into existence; such a question presumes existence to be independent and prior to consciousness. On what basis has this assumption been made?
7. Advaita holds that every pramāṇa is intrinsically valid, and unless proven wrong, what it reveals is true. The falsity of knowledge is extrinsic to the pramāṇa which reported it.
8. Advaita holds that every pramāṇa, means of knowledge, has a field and scope of operation. It reports true knowledge only within this field and scope. I suppose this is same as in Science.
9. Advaita holds that if a given knowledge turns out to be false, it does not invalidate the pramāṇa which revealed it. All it means is that the right conditions that were required for the pramāṇa to operate were not existent at the time the pramāṇa reported wrong knowledge. This is similar to Science, which also holds perception, seeing, for example, to always be valid - even if it reports false optical illusions - Science explains the perception of optical illusions, but never invalidates "sight" as a means of knowledge.
10. Advaita holds that a knowledge of an object is pramāṇa-tantram, depends upon valid means of knowledge for it to be known; it is independent of the will of the knower, which is why one sees what one doesn't like to see.
11. Advaita does not hold hypothesis as a valid pramāṇa. Advaita also holds that hypothesis cannot give knowledge of a anything, be it reality, consciousness or even a pot, since it can never be conclusive, as this very discussion vouchsafes. No two conclusions are the same despite equally brilliant minds arriving at it, and there is no guarantee that a conclusion based on hypothesis will never be challenged in future, based on new data.
10. Advaita holds that Vedas are only pramāṇa, means of knowledge, that holds knowledge about reality within its field and scope. All reasoning and hypothesis are employed subservient to Vedas to explain, assimilate, understand what the Vedas revealed and not to challenge it, like even Science uses reasoning to explain an optical illusion and not to invalidate "sight" as a pramāṇa.
Hope this helps.
Namaste
Śuka
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/852447b0-397c-4890-b910-14684ada7309%40googlegroups.com.
with best regards,
K Sugavanam
98410 59110
Alex Hankey
Jun 26, 2017, 9:24:00 AM6/26/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Sugavanam Krishnan
Dear Dr Krishnan,
That is very helpful. I think that you will find that my approach satisfies all your statements,
but I shall go through them with one of my students and confirm for you later.
All best wishes,
Namaskara &
Pranams,
Dr Alex
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAPUPWd6C6w%2BpSsRhhAFMAGcfaM32dTic1sfr1U%2BcFRppnT%3DYbw%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages