Fwd: Choice

[Edwards, Jonathan]

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: 17 June 2017 at 19:29:42 GMT-5
To: "Edwards, Jonathan" <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Choice

Dear Whit,

I am travelling on iPad so this may come out with glitches.

Our intuitive conception of causality is clearly problematic, and a theory of indivisibles like the Monadology or quantum theory brings that to light. Leibniz denies that anything causes anything, although people may overinterpret that - he says that everything just progresses in harmony. I suspect qm is the same. However, Leibniz also has a concept of monadic souls having choice - on this you are closer to him than l.

In 1676 Spinoza and Leibniz met. For Spinoza there were no individuals, just one Nature, and 'freedom of choice' was an illusion. Leibniz was sure there must be individuals, to explain points of view. They had to free because the Bible said so. However, as Russell complained, in Leibniz's schema each soul can only ever have one choice, to be that soul at creation; if Socrates, to have decided from the outset to take the hemlock. Multiple choices would mean multiple souls. In a sense my schema is to bite that bullet.

This problem is the subject of a paper I presented at the International Leibniz Conference last year. It is on my website (google UCL and Jonathan Edwards ). What Leibniz correctly identifies is that indivisible units must be end-entailing or show telicity . They might be regarded as having a 'purpose', although this raises questions. However, there does not seem to be any way that souls could choose in the intuitive sense of 'consciously choosing ' because the choice must occur when the soul is created. This might sound like getting into abstruse theology, but it is actually hard logic and, if that ends up theology, so be it.

The only way I can make sense of individual telicity is to say that each soul, or quantised action is god's choice. The purpose is the god's purpose, which we are working out. I use god with a small g to mean the totality of sufficient reasons, something that physics cannot do without. The really interesting thing is that Leibniz shows that this totality must have 'an end in mind' for entirely logical reasons.

What I think this means for qm is that the 'choice of measurement' is not separate from the choice of an actual action occurring. It is one indivisible event. Yet it seems to involve something extraneous in the form of an observer. I think this was an error by Bohr. I think what we see is the totality of reasons choosing to arrange within the universe a whole action, complete with 'catcher' as well as 'pitcher'. That is where things get close to retrocausality. In the vast majority of qm experiments the observer never chose the mode of measurement anyway - it was probably written in the grant application by her boss.

Best wishes

Jo

[DIVINE COMMERCE]

Thank you for the insights Jo,

What if "big G" God created all timelines and possibilities when this Multiverse was birthed into existence, and we are "little g" creators that surf these possibilities depending on where we are putting our mental focus?

This is where free will can get complicated, as we (in 3D) are surfing waves that are affected by the thoughts and choices of billions of other beings.  This is where the collective conscious takes on a life of its own.  We can even battle the free will of other versions of ourselves in the multiverse which is why I clone my positive intentions across all space, time, and dimension.  You can also merge energies with past and future versions of yourself in this timeline.  Send some love back in time to the child version of yourself, become the future version of yourself that has already solved the problem when you're feeling stuck. 

It's fun, give it a whirl if you desire...  Some direct experience & application to replace theory.  If you'd like I can give you some safety tips for astral projection starting with a solid year of meditation before attempting these journeys.

The holographic and infinite universe sees a wish for a billion dollars and a wish for one dollar as the same thing.  As I believe it is so, as above so below.

Happy father's Day with a little F.

Cheers,

Lisa M. Van Es

Co Founder, E-Mergence Technologies 

World's first commercially available helical magnetic vortex device

www.AlignYourBiofield.com 

+1 208 919 2331

Sent from my iPad

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CBB21504-19ED-48D2-BAB1-A430A8672C93%40ucl.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Joseph McCard]

Lisa, Jonathan, Whit

Lisa wrote: What if "big G" God created all timelines and possibilities when this Multiverse was birthed into existence, and we are "little g" creators that surf these possibilities depending on where we are putting our mental focus

For Leibniz, if I remember correctly, matter is made of atoms, monads are not material. And, each monad is independent of all the other monads, with no actual interaction. Atoms and monads are also separate. It is no surprise that Leibniz's thinking about the nature of the world was deeply influenced by political, social, and most critically, religious divisions, between the Protestants and Catholics. So, you we read, "They had to free because the Bible said so." A division, which I am thinking he attempted to reconcile. But, divineness of things still infected his thinking. Understandable, we are all influenced by the culture and society we are embedded in. So, I think the hard logic just softened a bit to mold with the times. 

It was not possible for him to conceive of the idea that man and God are one (Spinoza's one Nature), but men  (and women of course) are also many and diverse. Little g is big G wanting to manifest Himself/Herself/Itself physically. Hence, when I say I have no free will because God made me the way I am, you have to do a double take, and recognize, now wait, I am God, a little piece of God stuff. I am doing what I want to do, but, I am God. So, I actually do have free will, just not directly aware of it.  I am God, camouflaged. Not how Spinoza saw things I'm guessing. (Not a whit how the Mormons do either, I think.) But, to each his own. 

"However, as Russell complained, in Leibniz's schema each soul can only ever have one choice, to be that soul at creation; if Socrates, to have decided from the outset to take the hemlock. Multiple choices would mean multiple souls."

Again, Leibniz's thinking id defined and limited by the context he lived in. Sure, all possible worlds, but he only believed in the one actual best possible world existing. Socrates could think he would take the Hemlock, but to actually take the hemlock would be something else. It could be that in our possible world, Socrates never took the hemlock, but that he actually escaped with the help of his friends, and Asclepius via the rooster. You know, just like everyone in this world believes it was Christ who was crucified, when it was really someone who thought he was Christ, the original Messiah Complex. 

"The only way I can make sense of individual telicity is to say that each soul, or quantised action is god's choice. "

So, even you are constrained to believe a certain way. Why can't it be both.

"The purpose is the god's purpose, which we are working out."

I think that is exactly right. We are God, experiencing. 

"This might sound like getting into abstruse theology, but it is actually hard logic and, if that ends up theology, so be it."

Logically laid out, for God to experience, it was necessary that He/She/It divide Himself/Herself/itself. The one thing that God knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. It reasoned that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself. And so, God divided Itself—becoming, in one moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither. Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist.

Now that's Theology.

Joseph

 

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 02:54:33PM -0700, Joseph McCard wrote:

> Lisa wrote: What if "big G" God created all timelines and possibilities when
> this Multiverse was birthed into existence, and we are "little g" creators that
> surf these possibilities depending on where we are putting our mental focus

Joseph,

Thanks for working through that scenario.

I'm trying to work out what it would look like coming back from the other
side, the side we're on. If the "is" of the situation fits the scenario of
an initially-single God split for the sake of companionship and embarked on
all these little lives, it seems to me that, despite philosopher's long
insistance on the "is/ought" distinction, we ought to, from our context, be
able to derive some oughts from this "is."

That's to say, when someone says, "We're all shards of God," there's usually
an implication there as to how we ought to proceed with life. When someone
says, "And our fate, our whole course, was chosen at the initial moment,"
there's further implication.

Without judging the truth of the claims, I'd like to question the usual
implications. One of them often is, if we accept as given our fates, that we
should just "go with the flow." Any effort otherwise is cast as a "struggle
against fate," and if the struggle's accompanied by an assertion of the
value of individual freedom, that assertion viewed as either unfortunate
delusion, or at best a comforting illusion.

Now, perhaps this is all an example of how trying to get an ought from an is
is a mistake. But it's difficult, in a human context, when an "is" is
proposed to not take "oughts" from it.

Compare this with perspectives in which human freedom is taken as real and
valuable, and fate as a comforting illusion if not an unfortunate delusion.
Such perspectives condemn fatalistic going with the flow, and urge that we
respect each other's freedom.

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if in the end we learn that both pictures
are partially right: that fate and freedom are both to a degree real, and
important factors whose "is" should affect the "oughts" we derive from them.

Maybe someone has a way of starting with the initially-single God picture
and working from that into a current reality in which freedom is real and
valuable, although limited to some degree by contingencies including a
degree of fate. That's a picture I'd like to see.

But those who cling to a single picture, a single narrative, in which, for
the sake of coherence, freedom must be denied as illusion, are making claims
for an "is" whose "ought" is socially and psychologically destructive. If
your physics or your God demands such sacrifice of the very concept and
reality of freedom, then your physics or your God is not good enough, even
splendid as they are.

Best,
Whit

[Ganesh L S]

Aren't a few different macro-models based on "big G" and "little g" arrangements conceivable? The details (nuts and bolts) of such models could actually exhibit infinite variety. Hopefully, at least one of the macro-models should be widely acceptable as being capable of providing syncretic explanations of "it all".

I would dare predict that such a model is most likely to fall beyond the ken of Science as we know and practice it, and give us grounds to redefine Science and make it expansive enough to include distributions of individual consciousness and qualia.

The four Mahaavaakyas of the Upanishads actually allude to the "big G" and "little g".

1. Prajñānam brahma - "Prajñāna[note 1] is Brahman"[note 2], or "Brahman is Prajñāna"[web 3] (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)

2. Ayam ātmā brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)

3. Thath thvam asi - "Thou art That" (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)

4. Aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman", or "I am Divine"[7] (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)

Best wishes,
LSG.
--------------------------------------------------------

________________________________________
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com <online_sa...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:36 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Choice

Joseph,

Best,
Whit

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017

Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)

Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports

Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer

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

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org

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

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

Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170626160648.GA4962%40black.transpect.com.

[Joseph McCard]

Whit,

>Maybe someone has a way of starting with the initially-single God picture 

and working from that into a current reality in which freedom is real and 

valuable, although limited to some degree by contingencies including a 

degree of fate. That's a picture I'd like to see. 

Free will IS real with a certain degree of structure, call that part fate.  As I see it, we give ourselves a basic framework to work with, ( a degree of fate if you like) time and place of birth, knowing what will probably be the general conditions of life, our bodies warts and all. But within that framework we make choices out of a field of basic unpredictability. We have free will to choose, but we never know fully what that choice will entail. Probability and outcome.

Imagine you are sitting in your room studying. A friend calls and asks you to go to the local pub. There are 2 (hypothetically) possible paths to follow. Well, really, more choices, but let's keep it simple. In your present reality, you might stay home and ace the test : ) But, there is another possible world in which you go to the pub, fail the course, drop out of school...and the fun part is, you can choose both paths. 

You are more complex than you likely believe. You have one soul, many minds, and many selves, all connected. 

modal realism: "It is uncontroversially true that things might be otherwise than they are." (David Lewis)

In the end, I think I see a picture you might like.

"Thanks for working through that scenario [that possible world]. I'm trying to work out what it would look like coming back from the other side, the side we're on.[a possible world]"

An example of you and I expressing our free will within all possible worlds. 

Joseph

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 07:16:23PM -0700, Joseph McCard wrote:

> But, there is another possible world in which you go to the pub, fail the
> course, drop out of school...and the fun part is, you can choose both
> paths. 
>
> You are more complex than you likely believe. You have one soul, many minds,
> and many selves, all connected. 

Joseph,

Thanks for the kind response.

In the midst of a conventional account -- one I agree with but am assured is
contradicted by the stringent demands of both many schools of physics and
many schools of theology -- you put in something which implies perhaps
you're equating modal philosophy with a many-worlds branching-time physics?

I'd tend to say I have one self ("soul" for those who prefer the term), many
minds (in the sense of "Had two minds to leave here, didn't have but one say
stay"), and but one retrospective course in the world "behind," but many
truly possible courses "ahead."

The problem for me with many-worlds physics, in contexts other than science
fiction, is that if in each instance I'm making all possible choices, I
might as well make none. It still renders choice a sort of illusion, and
more importantly the sort of creation of the new which goes beyond presented
choices.

Best,
Whit

[Joseph McCard]

Whit,

I have to laugh, as I look over your questions and concerns. They reflect your inner knowledge. I would compare it to something like Blindsight. 

Or, like trying to remember a name. Its on the tip of your tongue, right there hovering in the background, you just can't make the connection. 

With you, your inner knowledge is expressed as concerns. As we look back, your concerns help open you up to answers that your inner self is aware of, but your ego self does not see clearly. 

"The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things; there is no difficulty in her eliciting or as men say learning, out of a single recollection -all the rest, if a man is strenuous and does not faint; for all enquiry and all learning is but recollection..." (Meno)

 

Example: if in each instance I'm making all possible choices, I 

might as well make none. It still renders choice a sort of illusion, and 

more importantly the sort of creation of the new which goes beyond presented 

choices. 

Your conscious mind has "forgotten" a couple of critical thing. 

1) You have the free will to create what you want to create. You want to create all possible choices within one lifetime, you want to perfect your life, think "Groundhog Day with Bill Murray, then keep living it over and over until you are satisfied. Then, do something else, or do nothing.

"Recognize this?: Of course. "To be or not to be, that IS the question." You decide.

And a keen insight on your part, if you don't mind me saying so, all your "concerns" actually. The action of consciousness can never fully manifest itself. Materializing, as you seem to be saying, at once multiplies the possibilities of further materialization. 

Initially, the divine creator, God, the Tao, whatever we cannot express, what is beyond our understanding, chose to completely materialize Him/Her/It self. But, for the reason you seem to cite, that is impossible.

2) Consciousness never stops. And so, since consciousness is one way of Being, you have the free will to stop, and Be conscious, or not Be conscious, or Be in a different way. But, since your inner nature is composed of a basically unpredictable vitality, all things change, and you are the director of that change. If you want to stop Being, merge your identity with the One, attain enlightenment, loose your identity you can do that. But, it also is your nature to want to change, be creative. 

And so, you have, as you say, " many  truly [basically unpredictable] possible courses "ahead."

Joseph

   

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Jun 2017, at 15:45, Whit Blauvelt wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 07:16:23PM -0700, Joseph McCard wrote:
>
>> But, there is another possible world in which you go to the pub,
>> fail the
>> course, drop out of school...and the fun part is, you can choose both
>> paths.
>>
>> You are more complex than you likely believe. You have one soul,
>> many minds,
>> and many selves, all connected.
>
> Joseph,
>
> Thanks for the kind response.
>
> In the midst of a conventional account -- one I agree with but am
> assured is
> contradicted by the stringent demands of both many schools of
> physics and
> many schools of theology -- you put in something which implies perhaps
> you're equating modal philosophy with a many-worlds branching-time
> physics?

The problem of abstract modal realism is that there are as many multi-
worlds structures than modal logics, and there is at least 2^aleph_0
modal logics.

Of course, for a computationalist, a natural choice of modal logic is
the modal logic of number/machine self-reference and its many
intensional variants (truth, belief, knowledge, observable, sensible).
The modal logic of knowledge leads to an intuitionist logic/subject.
The logic of the observable leads to a quantum many-dreams/worlds/
histories, etc.

>
> I'd tend to say I have one self ("soul" for those who prefer the
> term), many
> minds (in the sense of "Had two minds to leave here, didn't have but
> one say
> stay"), and but one retrospective course in the world "behind," but
> many
> truly possible courses "ahead."
>
> The problem for me with many-worlds physics, in contexts other than
> science
> fiction, is that if in each instance I'm making all possible
> choices, I
> might as well make none.

I agree. Fortunately, both in the QM many-worlds, and in the
computationalist "many-dreams" (in case it works), we don't do all
possible choice except for negligible set of worlds. If I decide to
drink coffee, I will drink coffee in (almost) all worlds/histories.

> It still renders choice a sort of illusion, and
> more importantly the sort of creation of the new which goes beyond
> presented
> choices.

I agree, and that is why free-will need (enough) determinacy, and can
only be diminished by adding indeterminacy. Free-will is a sort of
self-determinacy in partial information contexts.

Best,

Bruno

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20170627134537.GA20997%40black.transpect.com
> .

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

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

[Joseph McCard]

Marchal,

"...we don't do all possible choice except for negligible set of worlds. If I decide to   

drink coffee, I will drink coffee in (almost) all worlds/histories."

A good example of you choosing, your act of free will. I don't think the consequences of free will is built into QM is it? 

" that is why free-will need (enough) determinacy, and can   

only be diminished by adding indeterminacy. Free-will is a sort of   

self-determinacy in partial information contexts."

Some structure (for ex., you choose the time and place of your birth), free will, and basic unpredictability (I like that, "partial information context"), as I see it.  

"The problem of abstract modal realism is that there are as many multi- 

worlds structures than modal logics, and there is at least 2^aleph_0   

modal logics."

I am not sure why you see that as a problem. I guess I do not understand what you said : ) 

Modal realism is an artificial construct, and like all of those, they have bugs, due to the inherent nature of scientific and mathematical rationality. 

Joseph 

 

[Bruno Marchal]

Hello Joseph,

On 28 Jun 2017, at 14:23, Joseph McCard wrote:

Marchal,

"...we don't do all possible choice except for negligible set of worlds. If I decide to   

drink coffee, I will drink coffee in (almost) all worlds/histories."

A good example of you choosing, your act of free will. I don't think the consequences of free will is built into QM is it? 

I don't think free-will is build into QM. I think that both free-will *and* QM can be derived from elementary arithmetic and the assumption of mechanism (in cognitive science, not in physics).

" that is why free-will need (enough) determinacy, and can   

only be diminished by adding indeterminacy. Free-will is a sort of   

self-determinacy in partial information contexts."

Some structure (for ex., you choose the time and place of your birth), free will, and basic unpredictability (I like that, "partial information context"), as I see it.  

"The problem of abstract modal realism is that there are as many multi- 

worlds structures than modal logics, and there is at least 2^aleph_0   

modal logics."

I am not sure why you see that as a problem. I guess I do not understand what you said : ) 

May be I am a monist. I believe, say, in one Simple Reality/God. With the mechanist assumption, elementary arithmetic is enough, because it emulates all the machines dreams, and the set of all dreams get a non trivial structure capable of explaining the rise of the lasting sharable (multi-users) dreams. The math of this leads to a quantum like structure, obeying formally to quanytum logic, with a natural multiverse structure.

Modal realism is an artificial construct, and like all of those, they have bugs, due to the inherent nature of scientific and mathematical rationality. 

bugs can be corrected, but having too much modal logics is harder to correct, it seems to me. But then, again, computer science (mathematical logic) shows that there is one special modal logic which explains and relates with many others. In fact incompleteness entails the existence of two main logics of self-reference, named G and G*. G axiomatize the provable part of that logic, and G* axiomatize the true part. For example, not-provable(false) belongs to G*, like not-provable(not-provable(false)), but the incompleteness theorem itself:

   not-provable(false) implies not-provable(not-provable(false)) 

belongs to G (the machine can prove its own incompleteness).

That entails also that G* will prove, for p computable,  the equivalence between

p

provable(p)

provable(p) & p

provable(p) & not-provable(not-p)

provable(p) & not-provable(not-p) & p

But the machine itself cannot prove any of those equivalence, so that the universal, and sound, machine will have 5, actually 8 (three modalities  inherit the G/G* splitting), extremely different views on the arithmetical reality, as seen "from inside".

The axioms of G is classical propositional logic + (where B is the modal box)

B(p -> q) -> (Bp -> Bq)

Bp -> BBp

B(Bp -> p) -> Bp  (Löb theorem: if PA proves provable(A) -> A, PA will prove A.

The whole machine's "theology" is given by eight modal logics-points of view (hypostases):

       V

G           G*

  S4Grz1

Z1        Z1*

X1       X1*

The physical laws must be derived from S4Grz1, and/or Z1* and X1*. They all gives already three  quantum logics. 

Bruno

Joseph 

 

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/6ca7b971-3743-460c-9f01-ab1a48a52bd9%40googlegroups.com.

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

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