types of knowledge in Vedas/Upanishads

60 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul Werbos

unread,
May 29, 2017, 8:09:53 PM5/29/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Thank you for posting a review of three types of knowledge according to Vedas/Upanishads. Unfortunately, I read your post when I was on travel for a month, and cannot copy the original, but the issues are important and easy to remember. 

Your post reminded me of warm memories of reading the Hume translation of principal Upanishads in 1963, initially sitting on the concrete floor of the Princeton (undergraduate) library and then later in the house I lived in at Lawrenceville. It also reminds me of a friend who knew Oppenheimer very well, who discussed how Oppenheimer learned Sanskrit just in order to be able to read the Upanishads in the original.

If I understand you correctly, you are reviewing and applying a three-fold classification of knowledge into: (1) knowledge based on direct personal experience (essentially, the flow of direct sensory inputs) to a person; (20 knowledge based on what we impute the experience of others to be, and (3) knowledge based on logical reasoning. As I recall, some parts of the Upanishads suggest that mystical enlightenment, the seeing of the world through many eyes at once ( i.e. the brahman/Atman viewpoint), appears as a manifestation it extension of the third principle, the reasoning.

In 1964, that was my interpretation of what I saw in the Upanishads and in reality. It seemed more elevated and pleasing and logical than the "yoga alternative," present in other parts of the Upanishads, in which enlightenment could be seen "merely" as an extension or manifestation if the first type of knowledge, the direct and substantive personal experience. Sometimes an abstract concept or representation is of real value only to the extent that it "opens our eyes," by enlarging what we consciously see, expanding the power of the direct personal experience. That is how I see this now, after many years of reassessing based on all three types of knowledge.

On netlix there was one great season of a show called "sense8," which ultimately failed commercially (perhaps due to unnecessary confusion and baggage related to sex) but which did contain beautiful images of what it means to see through many eyes at once.

This is not just an academic issue. At the present stage of development of the economy and technology of humanity, the species itself us under very clear threat to its very existence, and traditional concepts of balance of power may not be enough to offer us hope of a sustainable resolution of deep conflicts of ideas. The yogic approach in general (which has manifestations in all the great cultures of the world) is more and more essential, and of course in need of more advanced development.

Just as parts of the ocean nay be mapped according to depth and longitude, not just latitude, the ocean of knowledge can also be mapped according to other dimensions in addition to .., .. and .. For example, there is great value in being mindful of the distinction between knowledge which takes the form of strings of words, versus knowledge which takes a form like images in fields of neurons exactly as we see in the brains and minds of other mammals who do not use words. A key part of the yogic approach, and of some enlightened aspects of Confucianism (like Meng Tzu's concepts of zhengqi), is to respect always the nonverbal "half" of our minds. Professor James Anderson of Brown has compared the formal "half"  to a "new but still buggy alpha version of software." It gives a great extension to the power of the mind, but we do need to get the bugs out, and put it into proper relation with the bigger, older part. 

Best regards,

   Paul



BMP

unread,
May 30, 2017, 2:20:55 PM5/30/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Paul,

Namaste. Thank you for your perceptive response to my message [now posted on our blog at Beyond First Person Egoic Epistemology ]



As mentioned in that message there are more than the three mentioned epistemological methods of knowledge, and as you rightly mentioned the method of logical reason  does indeed have more than one meaning. The first person egoistic concept of logic relegates that subject to a mere abstract consideration of subjective thinking [of a first person ego]. This perspective determines the whole epistemological foundation of modernity, including modern science, and is an attitude that characterizes many of the members of modern society who have been influenced by modern education and culture based on that viewpoint.

The Vedas are first and foremost NOT based, or more precisely not primarily or only based upon the first person egoistic epistemological viewpoint. As explained in the Bhagavad-gita and Brahma-sutra the Vedas do not have a finite historical origin. Thet may have been written down at some historical point, but they are essentially shruti or what is heard or revealed. The modern scholars will never aceed to this idea because of their particular epistemological stand, and insist that they must have an historical origin, but that is not consistent with the internal message of the Vedas. This transcendental conception of origination  is much like that found in the Bible which states that in the beginning was the Logos (Word). In Hegel's Science of Logic a similar notion is offered that Logic pertaining to the absolute thinking that thinks itself of Aristotle may be conceived as "God before the creation of the world and finite spirit." This non-egoistic logic is thus a higher conception Logic than is implied by finite subjective thinking.

The idea of "seeing the world through many eyes" is basically the notion that any knowledge we have is in actuality a collective result of the society in which we happen to be born. We may call this the Zeitgeist or spirit of the times, and which is in fact one aspect of the spirit (the third person of the Trinity or the holy spirit) that religion reflects upon. And yes, in the Vedic tradition this may be related to Brahman as you have guessed. Society exists as a second nature, a conscious world, upon the natural world that appears to consciousness as objective to it. But egotistic epistemology never considers anything beyond its own individual knowing. In its unfortunately delusional independence it can't imagine that there is anything like social conditions from which its thinking is a product or result. The Vedas are certainly not based upon this misconception in the name of knowledge.

The metaphysics of Samkhya and Yoga are critiqued in the Brahma-sutra although they are highly regarded, as well as other schools of thought at that time which are not so highly reputed. The abstract monistic advaita viewpoint fails to comprehend the authentic metaphysics of advaita that has a dignified position in the great tradition of Indic philosophy that is self-conscious, dynamic, dialectical and inclusive. In the Occident modern science has its own brand of abstract monism that causes it to get bogged down in materialsm, physicalism, naturalism, and worst of all mathematicalism. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive" ourselves by thinking we can mathematize Nature. 

We never find such a badly misconceived idea in the Vedas. Even in Greek philosophy, Pythagoras perhaps was the chief proponent of a geometrical view of the world. Plato also had a high regard for geometry and mathematics because of their abstract nature, but he was never guilty of confusing it with the philosophical pursuit of truth. at one point he did hold the view that fundamentally Nature was composed of five geometrical figures. But his philosophy was based on the idea that of the three epistemological methods of acquiring knowledge

1 .opinion (Gr. doxa)
2. Mathematics/geometry (Gr. dianoia)
3. Philosophy (Gr. noesis)

philosophy was the highest and proper method for attaining to Truth or the Good. One of the members of this group stated that mathematics was the Queen of Science, but the fact is that she is the traitorous usurper of the throne. Philosophy is the true Queen of Science, and before the advent of Galileo and others science was known as natural philosophy. 

Science seems to be the process of making stupendous blunders that drive it to all kinds of naive and foolish conclusions.  This is because it is blind to its own epistemological foundations which can only be comprehended by careful philosophical examination. This cannot be done by one who is already entangled and defined by an epistemological perspective because he/she has no other means to transcend that position. Descartes tried to transcend his own conditioning in that regard by absolute negation, de omnibus dubitandum - doubt everything!

This is certainly a long story and as you have correctly noted a very serious and essential issue which, unfortunately, most people are either not prepared to be that skeptical of themselves, or feel unable to make such an examination on their own. But there is hope, because ultimately it is not all up to the individual when we understand things properly. The seed of revolution [antithesis] has already been planted and as Hegel reminds us that despite our finite contribution "one must, moreover, become and do what one can."

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute








From: Paul Werbos <wer...@ieee.org>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 8:09 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] types of knowledge in Vedas/Upanishads

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 6:22:02 AM6/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B Madhava Puri,


On 30 May 2017, at 20:07, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:



Namaste. Thank you for your perceptive response to my message [now posted on our blog at Beyond First Person Egoic Epistemology ]



As mentioned in that message there are more than the three mentioned epistemological methods of knowledge, and as you rightly mentioned the method of logical reason  does indeed have more than one meaning. The first person egoistic concept of logic relegates that subject to a mere abstract consideration of subjective thinking [of a first person ego]. This perspective determines the whole epistemological foundation of modernity, including modern science, and is an attitude that characterizes many of the members of modern society who have been influenced by modern education and culture based on that viewpoint.

The Vedas are first and foremost NOT based, or more precisely not primarily or only based upon the first person egoistic epistemological viewpoint. As explained in the Bhagavad-gita and Brahma-sutra the Vedas do not have a finite historical origin. Thet may have been written down at some historical point, but they are essentially shruti or what is heard or revealed. The modern scholars will never aceed to this idea because of their particular epistemological stand, and insist that they must have an historical origin, but that is not consistent with the internal message of the Vedas. This transcendental conception of origination  is much like that found in the Bible which states that in the beginning was the Logos (Word). In Hegel's Science of Logic a similar notion is offered that Logic pertaining to the absolute thinking that thinks itself of Aristotle may be conceived as "God before the creation of the world and finite spirit." This non-egoistic logic is thus a higher conception Logic than is implied by finite subjective thinking.

The idea of "seeing the world through many eyes" is basically the notion that any knowledge we have is in actuality a collective result of the society in which we happen to be born. We may call this the Zeitgeist or spirit of the times, and which is in fact one aspect of the spirit (the third person of the Trinity or the holy spirit) that religion reflects upon. And yes, in the Vedic tradition this may be related to Brahman as you have guessed. Society exists as a second nature, a conscious world, upon the natural world that appears to consciousness as objective to it. But egotistic epistemology never considers anything beyond its own individual knowing. In its unfortunately delusional independence it can't imagine that there is anything like social conditions from which its thinking is a product or result. The Vedas are certainly not based upon this misconception in the name of knowledge.

The metaphysics of Samkhya and Yoga are critiqued in the Brahma-sutra although they are highly regarded, as well as other schools of thought at that time which are not so highly reputed. The abstract monistic advaita viewpoint fails to comprehend the authentic metaphysics of advaita that has a dignified position in the great tradition of Indic philosophy that is self-conscious, dynamic, dialectical and inclusive. In the Occident modern science has its own brand of abstract monism that causes it to get bogged down in materialsm, physicalism, naturalism, and worst of all mathematicalism.

But mechanism implies arithmeticalism (which implies mathematicalism).

I can doubt mechanism, but I certainly doubt more non-mechanism.





"Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive" ourselves by thinking we can mathematize Nature. 

We never find such a badly misconceived idea in the Vedas. Even in Greek philosophy, Pythagoras perhaps was the chief proponent of a geometrical view of the world. Plato also had a high regard for geometry and mathematics because of their abstract nature, but he was never guilty of confusing it with the philosophical pursuit of truth.

Well, Plato is right. But that is explained with mechanism. With mechanism God, and only God, is arithmeticalist. We, from inside arithmetic, can only "hop" for mechanism to be true. We can never say "I am arithmeticalist". We have a form of incompleteness: if arithmeticalism is true, only God knows it.





at one point he did hold the view that fundamentally Nature was composed of five geometrical figures. But his philosophy was based on the idea that of the three epistemological methods of acquiring knowledge

1 .opinion (Gr. doxa)
2. Mathematics/geometry (Gr. dianoia)
3. Philosophy (Gr. noesis)

philosophy was the highest and proper method for attaining to Truth or the Good. One of the members of this group stated that mathematics was the Queen of Science, but the fact is that she is the traitorous usurper of the throne.

Of course, I am not sure about this, but I tend to agree, especially with the widespread "extensionalist" conception of mathematicalism. With mechanism, we have arithmeticalism, but not in any knowable way. It needs the "saying yes to the digitalist surgeon". Mechanism leads more to a theologicalism, than mathematicalism; despite the big picture is contained in the arithmetical seed, but in a way making this impossible for us to figure out, without betting on our consciousness, which cannot be purely mathematical from our points of view. Arithmeticalism, and mechanism, is a sort of secret of God. 




Philosophy is the true Queen of Science, and before the advent of Galileo and others science was known as natural philosophy. 

For me, philosophy and fundamental science are the same thing. But the actual philosophy in occident has been separated from science, like theology, for obscure reasons. 



Science seems to be the process of making stupendous blunders that drive it to all kinds of naive and foolish conclusions.

Because today, many believe that science is physics (natural philosophy). Nature is reifed. people confuse the evidences for a physical reality (nature) with some evidence that Nature is ontologically fundamental. With Mechanism, this is logically impossible. Nature is only a delusion coming from the fact that we have relative bodies/finite-description in arithmetic.




 This is because it is blind to its own epistemological foundations which can only be comprehended by careful philosophical examination.

If it is careful, it is science to me. Today scientists are just not careful when doing metaphysical conclusion, because we have the habit to not take metaphysics/theology seriously. At least we can do that when we assume Mechanism. That makes theology into a science, but science is only doubt, it is never certainty (public certainty is almost pure madness).



This cannot be done by one who is already entangled and defined by an epistemological perspective because he/she has no other means to transcend that position. Descartes tried to transcend his own conditioning in that regard by absolute negation, de omnibus dubitandum - doubt everything!

Yes. It is a method helping to find the fixed point of doubt, but that one is not third person communicable. When the machine does this, it finds its own incompleteness and can intuit it is ignorant of ... something. Science can in that way study its own limitations, and discover what is beyond science.





This is certainly a long story and as you have correctly noted a very serious and essential issue which, unfortunately, most people are either not prepared to be that skeptical of themselves, or feel unable to make such an examination on their own. But there is hope, because ultimately it is not all up to the individual when we understand things properly. The seed of revolution [antithesis] has already been planted and as Hegel reminds us that despite our finite contribution "one must, moreover, become and do what one can."

I agree with this. The seed is built in all universal numbers. Arithmeticalism justifies non-mathematicalism from  the internal first person plural, and third person view of arithmetic. 
I am aware that mystics or religious people like my conclusion, but dislike the hypotheses used for them. And most scientists like the hypotheses, but get sick when seeing the conclusion.

Sincere respects,

Bruno Marchal




B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute








From: Paul Werbos <wer...@ieee.org>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2017 8:09 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] types of knowledge in Vedas/Upanishads


Thank you for posting a review of three types of knowledge according to Vedas/Upanishads. Unfortunately, I read your post when I was on travel for a month, and cannot copy the original, but the issues are important and easy to remember. 

Your post reminded me of warm memories of reading the Hume translation of principal Upanishads in 1963, initially sitting on the concrete floor of the Princeton (undergraduate) library and then later in the house I lived in at Lawrenceville. It also reminds me of a friend who knew Oppenheimer very well, who discussed how Oppenheimer learned Sanskrit just in order to be able to read the Upanishads in the original.

If I understand you correctly, you are reviewing and applying a three-fold classification of knowledge into: (1) knowledge based on direct personal experience (essentially, the flow of direct sensory inputs) to a person; (20 knowledge based on what we impute the experience of others to be, and (3) knowledge based on logical reasoning. As I recall, some parts of the Upanishads suggest that mystical enlightenment, the seeing of the world through many eyes at once ( i.e. the brahman/Atman viewpoint), appears as a manifestation it extension of the third principle, the reasoning.

In 1964, that was my interpretation of what I saw in the Upanishads and in reality. It seemed more elevated and pleasing and logical than the "yoga alternative," present in other parts of the Upanishads, in which enlightenment could be seen "merely" as an extension or manifestation if the first type of knowledge, the direct and substantive personal experience. Sometimes an abstract concept or representation is of real value only to the extent that it "opens our eyes," by enlarging what we consciously see, expanding the power of the direct personal experience. That is how I see this now, after many years of reassessing based on all three types of knowledge.

On netlix there was one great season of a show called "sense8," which ultimately failed commercially (perhaps due to unnecessary confusion and baggage related to sex) but which did contain beautiful images of what it means to see through many eyes at once.

This is not just an academic issue. At the present stage of development of the economy and technology of humanity, the species itself us under very clear threat to its very existence, and traditional concepts of balance of power may not be enough to offer us hope of a sustainable resolution of deep conflicts of ideas. The yogic approach in general (which has manifestations in all the great cultures of the world) is more and more essential, and of course in need of more advanced development.

Just as parts of the ocean nay be mapped according to depth and longitude, not just latitude, the ocean of knowledge can also be mapped according to other dimensions in addition to .., .. and .. For example, there is great value in being mindful of the distinction between knowledge which takes the form of strings of words, versus knowledge which takes a form like images in fields of neurons exactly as we see in the brains and minds of other mammals who do not use words. A key part of the yogic approach, and of some enlightened aspects of Confucianism (like Meng Tzu's concepts of zhengqi), is to respect always the nonverbal "half" of our minds. Professor James Anderson of Brown has compared the formal "half"  to a "new but still buggy alpha version of software." It gives a great extension to the power of the mind, but we do need to get the bugs out, and put it into proper relation with the bigger, older part. 

Best regards,

   Paul




--
----------------------------
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/1192200321.3473938.1496167670666%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


BMP

unread,
Jun 1, 2017, 7:28:37 PM6/1/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bruno,

Namaste. It seems to me that your thoughts on mechanism, arithmetic, physical reality,theology and their relations are either quite muddled, never clearly articulated, or perhaps merely difficult for you to express in what seems to be for you a second language.

First of all, I have tried to make it very clear what the idea of a mechanistic system is by stating that its concept lies outside of the system itself. In other words, its form (meaning concept or, if you like, purpose) or "that for which the constituents of a system exist" lies in the mind of the person constructing the mechanical system. This in turn means that a mechanical system can be assembled, disassembled, and reassembled using the same original external concept. 

As we know from experience and knowledge this process of assembly is not possible for any living organism of any type.  Kant identified living organisms as consisting of a Naturezweck or natural internal purpose or what can be called their soul or concept. Thus natural organisms are clearly not mechanical systems. 

To claim that mechanical systems implies an arithmetical system does not in any way follow from the idea of the mechanical. Arithmetic, counting numbers, may be a mechanical process it that counting does not involve its own own concept and thus can be done on a machine with the same nature. But this is only true because the machine is used by a self conscious agent as a tool in this particular application, not in general. A mouse trap, for example, is a mechanical system that does not imply arithmetic.

To claim that the mechanical is physical does not follow, since arithmetic itself may be mechanical but not physical. The distinction between physical and natural should not be muddled. Nature is real but its truth is not the physical but self-conscious Spirit. This requires Hegel's lengthy philosophical exposition to explain. The distinction between real and true is also to be clearly understood. The judgement that A is real or has being relative to other beings, is different from the determination of whether that judgement is true or not which further requires knowing the self-concept of the real in order to determine whether content is consistent with concept. 

Once the essential importance of Concept is understood in science and by scientists, namely 'that for the sake of which anything exists or is,' then the relevance of virtue, morality, ethics and theology in science can be reintegrated. It is not possible to establish the purpose by arithmetical, mechanical or digital methods because they are essentially analytic processes. The example of the False Elephant was posted to this group to explain the problem of analysis as clearly as possible. 

For Plato the Idea of the Good was that purpose for which everything has its existence. For Aristotle the Good or final cause is not only "the good for something," but also "the good which is the end of some action."  [Met. 12.1072b] When the Good or final cause is known as God then theology is indicated. 

Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri,  Ph.D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute









From: Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 6:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] types of knowledge in Vedas/Upanishads

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 2, 2017, 11:43:33 AM6/2/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B.M. Puri Maharaja,

Namaste.


 It seems to me that your thoughts on mechanism, arithmetic, physical reality,theology and their relations are either quite muddled, never clearly articulated, or perhaps merely difficult for you to express in what seems to be for you a second language.

First of all, I have tried to make it very clear what the idea of a mechanistic system is by stating that its concept lies outside of the system itself. In other words, its form (meaning concept or, if you like, purpose) or "that for which the constituents of a system exist" lies in the mind of the person constructing the mechanical system.


I use the term "machine" in the sense of the mathematical theory of Church, Post, Turing. It is not obvious, and probably counter-intuitive, but the elementary arithmetical reality contains all such machines, and execute them all, albeit in a way which is out of time and space (not unsimilar to the notion of block-universe in General relativity, except that in this case, it is more like a block ``mindscape").




This in turn means that a mechanical system can be assembled, disassembled, and reassembled using the same original external concept. 

Yes, and that is what our cells do all the time at the molecular level. All our biochemical components are replaced rather quickly. My motivation for mechanism stemmed from the observation of nature, and the fact that living beings contain a program (DNA) forcing them to renew their constituants all the time using external source. 





As we know from experience and knowledge this process of assembly is not possible for any living organism of any type.  

I am not sure why you say this. All molecules in the brain stay there for a period shorter than one month, and it takes longer for the bones, but eventually even them are replaced at the material level.




Kant identified living organisms as consisting of a Naturezweck or natural internal purpose or what can be called their soul or concept. Thus natural organisms are clearly not mechanical systems. 

That argument does no more go through. Machine have souls, at least if we are willing to define the soil by the knowing part of the mind. In that case we can show that incompleteness saves the soul of the machine by refuting Socrates critics of Theatetus' definition of knowledge (true belief).





To claim that mechanical systems implies an arithmetical system does not in any way follow from the idea of the mechanical.

It does. Very elementary arithmetic can be shown to be Turing universal. If you are willing to believe that 2+2=4, independently of us, then all statement about all machines become as much independent. Of course I am talking about digital machine. In the digital reality, the frontier between hardware and software is contingent and relative.





Arithmetic, counting numbers, may be a mechanical process it that counting does not involve its own own concept and thus can be done on a machine with the same nature. But this is only true because the machine is used by a self conscious agent as a tool in this particular application,

With mechanism, we are machine. But there is no problem, the logic of self-reference shows why machine can be self-conscious agent.




not in general. A mouse trap, for example, is a mechanical system that does not imply arithmetic.


The point is that arithmetic has the resource for making belief a mouse that it has been trapped by a mouse trap.






To claim that the mechanical is physical does not follow,

I agree. Indeed, the "mechanical" will make the physical immaterial, and non mechanical. I can explain this in all details.




since arithmetic itself may be mechanical but not physical.


After Gödel we know that most of the arithmetical truth are NOT mechanical. The mechanical in arithmetic is reserved for a very tiny part of arithmetic (called the sigma_1 or sigma part).

mechanical is only part of the arithmetical, and none of them is physical. the physical is retrieved from a statistic of the number dream which exists in arithmetic (assuming mechanism, and using the results of the mathematical logicians alluded to above).





 The distinction between physical and natural should not be muddled. Nature is real but its truth is not the physical but self-conscious Spirit.

Again, Mechanism says almost exactly that. The physical itself becomes a first person plural construct, not of humans, but of all spirit living in arithmetic. It exists because, from the points of view of the machine, embedded in arithmetic, the dreams cohere enough to make it behaves in a quantum physical way. Of course this requires the self-conscious spirit. It is here that mechanism might be close to the Vedanta. At least that is what I want to explore here.



This requires Hegel's lengthy philosophical exposition to explain. The distinction between real and true is also to be clearly understood. The judgement that A is real or has being relative to other beings, is different from the determination of whether that judgement is true or not which further requires knowing the self-concept of the real in order to determine whether content is consistent with concept. 

I agree. the universal machine agree too! It would be long to explain this right now, but in a nutshell, the incompleteness will makes the machine unable to see many equivalences, that only God can see, and this redeemed many philosophical nuances usually brushed away by the materialist. Those difference are transparently real, ad follows from very elementary arithmetic.




Once the essential importance of Concept is understood in science and by scientists, namely 'that for the sake of which anything exists or is,' then the relevance of virtue, morality, ethics and theology in science can be reintegrated.

OK, but not in a normative way. We can explain the origin of the virtue, but we cannot used them as norm, a bit like we can love, but not enforce love.




It is not possible to establish the purpose by arithmetical, mechanical or digital methods because they are essentially analytic processes.


Once a machine is complex enough (under the yoke of incompleteness), the machine already know that her soul cannot be described by *any* analytical tools. So again, the universal (cognitively "rich") machine agrees with you. 





The example of the False Elephant was posted to this group to explain the problem of analysis as clearly as possible. 

For Plato the Idea of the Good was that purpose for which everything has its existence.

That is still under my scrutiny for the machine. The notion of good is hard to define in arithmetic, even when using its internal non analytical components, like knowledge, the soul etc. It is quite possible though. 



For Aristotle the Good or final cause is not only "the good for something," but also "the good which is the end of some action."  [Met. 12.1072b] When the Good or final cause is known as God then theology is indicated. 

I think we agree on this. If and when machine would disagree remains to be proved.

I insist that the incompleteness theorem has killed reductionism in philosophy, indeed even the reductionist conception that many can have today on (digital) machine. 

My main point is still consisting in showing that Mechanism is confronted to a big problem: deriving physics from arithmetical self-reference, but the first results are promising in that regard, and the approach has the advantage of explaining both the quanta and the qualia, and their difference.

I am quite open that mechanism might be false, but it would be premature to conclude so, as there are no evidence that primary matter exists, and the materialist (believer in primary matter) have failed on consciousness and qualia (when they don't put them under the rug). 

Machines/Numbers have a very rich theology, which contains the whole of physics, and so Mechanism can be tested by comparing machine's physics and the physics inferred from observations. I do like Mechanism, if only because it made me take seriously all non materialist theologies. Is it true? I don't know, but the argument that it would be reductionist, or that machine cannot have a soul has been refuted.

Respectfully,

Bruno Marchal



--
----------------------------
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.

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

John Jay Kineman

unread,
Jun 2, 2017, 2:27:57 PM6/2/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I must weigh in here, based on a conversation earlier today. Ive been thinking about how to express my diagreement with the idea that a "digital mechanism" can be the best model for nature.  According to Rosen, it can only be a simulation and not a model at all because it is already entailed in too causally impoverished a way to reflect natural relations.  But how to proove that, or at least give a demonstration? 

My thought is admittedly based on an assumption about nature, but so is the claim that such mechanisms can account for a soul or that they can give  the best description of nature. My starting assumption is unity ... nature is ultimately and originally whole, and in addition to that universal principle, it can then divide into the fractions we can see, count, measure, think, etc.  The Western tradition is to go the other way, to say that nature is fundamentally made of fractions and these can be combined to give the impression of something whole. So that much is a choice that can only be decided over time using both ideas to see which gives the more parsimonious explanations of the more kinds of phenomena.

If we assume the universe is whole, and wholeness is retained in all natural systems (even though we can see fractions of the whole), then the number 2, referring to distinct objects, is fractional - it cannot exist in nature without a context containing and relating the two objects.  This means that any binary model must be unnatural, as Rosen said, a simulation, not a true model. I think that may be a proof that digital mechanism cannot model life or true complexity, but can only simulate it via "complication"; i.e., through non-parsimonious calculations that can never converge on the missing whole because it was left out in the beginning. There is no convincing way to recover it. Thus binary logic, for as fascinating as it might be, does not reflect nature even though, like a menu at a restaurant, it can give a description of a fractional aspect.

R-theory proposes that all of reality has this basic relation, say mind-body-whole. On the Indus Valley Seals you can see a number system that progresses  1, 3, 7, ....  I am sure they were counting whole systems, as described in the Isa Upanishad invocation "Whole from whole". It is the sequence 2^n-1 and they were saying that 1+1=3.  It is how you add systems as opposed to adding discrete objects.  The difference, and question about underlying nature, is if fundamentally we have discrete particles, or overlapping systems. But without some contextual overlap, there is a good argument that nothing at all could ever happen. It must be overlapping systems. I gave the example earlier of adding two languages .. the result is three. 

Now, I also suggest digital simulation of my holons. But there is a trick. It is to distinguish inverse simulations and then couple them. This way we can approximate wholes in an unfocused way, rather than using highly particularized focis to simulate only thT fractional aspect. I cant proove that this idea gets around the problem entirely, probably it does nor, but I argue that it gets us a more parsimonious simulation at least, focused on the complex relations rather than discrete states.

Note that the context I speak of is not just a wave in measurement space .. that too requires a non-local relation, a relation with its inverse entailment. Rosen' conclusion was indeed to 'objectify the relation', not the particulars.


John Kineman
(M India) +91 901-474-3733
Skype: john.kineman

Serge Patlavskiy

unread,
Jun 3, 2017, 7:13:47 AM6/3/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
-
John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu> on June 2, 2017 wrote:
> My starting assumption is unity ... nature is ultimately and 
>originally whole, and in addition to that universal principle, it 
>can then divide into the fractions we can see, count, measure,
> think, etc.

[S.P.] To understand something we have to model it somehow. The model traditionally used in Physics is a decompositional one (or DEC-model for short): the initial Whole becomes decomposed/divided into parts/debris. For example, we formalize/consider an atom as being decomposed (decomposable) into proton(s), neutron(s), and electron(s).

However, I consider also some additional type of model which I call "dissociational" (or DIS-model for short): the initial Whole dissociates into other wholes with formation of a chain of wholes. 

So, if we start with an idea that there is an initial Whole, and we model it using the associational model (or AS-model for short), then, instead of the DEC-model alone we have to talk about a system of AS-DIS-DEC models. As it turns out, such a system of models is very convenient to formalize as the "torrent of thoughts" (and other consciousness-related effects), so such effects as beta-decay and nonlocal entanglement.  

Now then, the initial Whole, formalized as an element of AS-model, can be either decomposed into parts, or dissociated into other wholes. See how my idea works.

Let us enframe some entity (some element of Noumenal Reality), call it "human", and formalize it as the whole{human} -- the element of AS-model. Then, if during the process of cognition we perform the AS-DEC transition, we will receive the following set of parts: part1{left leg}; part 2{right arm}; part 3{head}; and so on. In this case we decompose (divide, break down, cut) the initial whole into parts. In result, the initial Whole disappears.

But, if we perform the AS-DIS transition, we will receive the following chain of wholes: the whole{fetus}; ...; the whole{new-born baby}; ...; the whole{teenager}; ...; the whole{adult}; ...; the whole{elder} -- every whole from the chain is fully functional. In so doing, the initial Whole remains untouched. I mean that dissociation (unlike decomposition) does not "kill" the object of study.

In my view, all the "weirdness" of quantum mechanics is caused by the fact that it continues using decompositional models only, as it was the case in classical mechanics.  

Best,
Serge Patlavskiy




From: John Jay Kineman <john.k...@colorado.edu>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 9:27 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] types of knowledge in Vedas/Upanishads
I must weigh in here, based on a conversation earlier today. Ive been thinking about how to express my diagreement with the idea that a "digital mechanism" can be the best model for nature.  According to Rosen, it can only be a simulation and not a model at all because it is already entailed in too causally impoverished a way to reflect natural relations.  But how to proove that, or at least give a demonstration? 

My thought is admittedly based on an assumption about nature, but so is the claim that such mechanisms can account for a soul or that they can give  the best description of nature. My starting assumption is unity ... nature is ultimately and originally whole, and in addition to that universal principle, it can then divide into the fractions we can see, count, measure, think, etc.  The Western tradition is to go the other way, to say that nature is fundamentally made of fractions and these can be combined to give the impression of something whole. So that much is a choice that can only be decided over time using both ideas to see which gives the more parsimonious explanations of the more kinds of phenomena.

<abridged>

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 4, 2017, 2:04:05 PM6/4/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear John,

On 02 Jun 2017, at 19:46, John Jay Kineman wrote:

I must weigh in here, based on a conversation earlier today. Ive been thinking about how to express my diagreement with the idea that a "digital mechanism" can be the best model for nature.  

I so much agree with you.

Just to be clear, let us distinguish digital mechanism with digital physics. 

Digital mechanism is an hypothesis in the cognitive science, and it asserts the existence of a substitution level such that our consciousness remains unchanged when emulated digitally at that level.

Digital physics assumes the existence of a physical universe, and assumes it can be emulated by a universal machine/number.

Digital mechanism, well understood (!), entails the falsity of digital physics (but not that some digital approximation might be useful in practice).

Indeed, with digital mechanism, physics is reduces into a complex infinite sums of personal points views, definable in arithmetic, but *not* computable.

In neoplatonist terms, physics is the border of the universal mind, which lives in arithmetic, and so do we, assuming explicitly digital mechanism, in the first person sense. But we are widespreadly distributed in a complex, not even entirely arithmetical way in arithmetic. Assuming mechanism, it is a theorem that a tiny part of the arithmetical reality emulates all computations, and thus all dreams (assuming mechanism). Physical reality is an invariant for the observable a mental operation of relative number (digital machine, programs, words) when anticipating its own history.





According to Rosen, it can only be a simulation and not a model at all because it is already entailed in too causally impoverished a way to reflect natural relations.  But how to proove that, or at least give a demonstration? 

Mechanism is a bet. It requires an act of faith. Saying yes to the doctor for an artificial and digital brain or body is a religious act, in the sense that if true, nobody can known its substitution level in any rationally justifiable way. 




My thought is admittedly based on an assumption about nature, but so is the claim that such mechanisms can account for a soul or that they can give  the best description of nature.

I do not assume "nature". It is what I want to understand. Being interested in the mind-body problem, and having a reasonable, theory of mind (the mathematics of self-reference and references) it seems easier to explain the physical appearances in terms of "evolving" number's dreams than explaining the mind in terms of peculiar relation between real numbers (physics).



My starting assumption is unity ... nature is ultimately and originally whole, and in addition to that universal principle, it can then divide into the fractions we can see, count, measure, think, etc.  

You can keep alive a person in such a physical reality by making its mind and body infinitely complex, or with mechanism, by lowering the substitution level in the infinitely low and thus big (in "gigabytes"). 

But this is like making things mysterious and seems to me a bit premature. It makes also the DNA and our redundacies in structure unusuable, and do add to the mystery, even evolution becomes impossible to justify.

With mechanism, we are multiple in the infinitely many dreams going through those states, and confronted to an infinite, non computable sum on all dreams (which are only related to the computation through relative self-references).

I don't claim this is true, only that if we assume mechanism, and want to be short, the physical reality and nature is in the head of the universal number. That is testable, using the technic of Gödel when he arithmeticized meta-arithmetic. Thanks to the work of Löb and Solovay, we can already compare the logic of the observable of the machine and the one inferred from observation, and thanks to Quantum mechanics (without wave collapse, or with), it fits. It is not much, and this means only that Mechanism is not refuted. But the machine has an entire "theology", and is interesting per se. By (proper) theology I means all what is true *about* a machine, or the machine, and that the machine is unable to justify rationally.


The Western tradition is to go the other way, to say that nature is fundamentally made of fractions and these can be combined to give the impression of something whole.

If correct, and if mechanism is assumed, then this can only be partially correct. Objects are only maps on our most probable computational histories. Below our substitution level, infinitely many histories/computations interfere statitiscally.



So that much is a choice that can only be decided over time using both ideas to see which gives the more parsimonious explanations of the more kinds of phenomena.

If we assume the universe is whole, and wholeness is retained in all natural systems (even though we can see fractions of the whole), then the number 2, referring to distinct objects, is fractional - it cannot exist in nature without a context containing and relating the two objects.

I prefer not to assume a *physical* universe. I see it as the border of the universal mind, it is a whole, but it is only the border of something bigger. The physical is a sort of projection seen from inside, and a mode of the self looking at itself.



 This means that any binary model must be unnatural, as Rosen said, a simulation, not a true model. I think that may be a proof that digital mechanism cannot model life or true complexity, but can only simulate it via "complication"; i.e., through non-parsimonious calculations that can never converge on the missing whole because it was left out in the beginning. There is no convincing way to recover it. Thus binary logic, for as fascinating as it might be, does not reflect nature even though, like a menu at a restaurant, it can give a description of a fractional aspect.

Exactly! Provably so if we assume mechanism. Mechanism makes us smaller, and so able to access more realities. Rosen did not understand Church's thesis, it prevents the reductionist conception of the natural numbers, it shows that the "computable", which lives in arithmetic, is by itself entailing many non computable element in the accessible realities of the digital machine/number.

The price is that we have to extract physics from the psychology and theology of the machines. Unfortunately this requires knowledge in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science, which are not so commonly shared.




R-theory proposes that all of reality has this basic relation, say mind-body-whole. On the Indus Valley Seals you can see a number system that progresses  1, 3, 7, ....  I am sure they were counting whole systems, as described in the Isa Upanishad invocation "Whole from whole". It is the sequence 2^n-1 and they were saying that 1+1=3.  It is how you add systems as opposed to adding discrete objects.  The difference, and question about underlying nature, is if fundamentally we have discrete particles, or overlapping systems.


If "I" am computable, the reality to which "I" seem(s) to be cannot be entirely computable, and this at different levels. 




But without some contextual overlap, there is a good argument that nothing at all could ever happen. It must be overlapping systems. I gave the example earlier of adding two languages .. the result is three. 

Now, I also suggest digital simulation of my holons. But there is a trick. It is to distinguish inverse simulations and then couple them. This way we can approximate wholes in an unfocused way, rather than using highly particularized focis to simulate only thT fractional aspect. I cant proove that this idea gets around the problem entirely, probably it does nor, but I argue that it gets us a more parsimonious simulation at least, focused on the complex relations rather than discrete states.

Discrete states loves complex relations, and above the "universal" threshold, it climbs on the degree of unsolvability. 

Before Gödel, Hilbert hoped that we can use the finite to justify the use of the infinite, but after Gödel we know that we cannot justify and control the finite, even by using the infinite. 





Note that the context I speak of is not just a wave in measurement space .. that too requires a non-local relation, a relation with its inverse entailment. Rosen' conclusion was indeed to 'objectify the relation', not the particulars.

Something which should be even more obviously when the only particulars are the natural numbers. It is the relation which counts, both those able to represent themselves, and the relation between them and many others. 

I can argue that Church's thesis rehabilitates Pythagorus, and Gödel rehabilitates Plato. The logicians found an hidden treasure in Arithmetic.

No need to idolize the Numbers with addition and multiplication, we can use the combinators with application and reduction, or the lambda terms with application and abstraction, any first order logical specification of any universal system, in the sense of Post, Church, Turing, Kleene, would do. We could use a quantum reality, but that would be either cheating, or very confusing, with respect of the mind-body problem. 

The physical reality has obviously an important role, including the role of refuting possibly the theology of the machine, but that is an open problem. 

Bruno




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

BMP

unread,
Jun 5, 2017, 2:43:48 PM6/5/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bruno


Namaste. Thank you for your response.


The so-called Turing machine seems to me to be wrongly named. It is a mental or theoretical narrative of a series or list of contingently posited operations that really have no articulated relation to one another. The real crux of the matter is thus left unexamined and implicit - this is its rational concept. Kant criticized mathematics for not having to do with concepts but abstract determinations of sense intuitions. Insofar as the list of operations are not comprehended in their relational unity they may be considered mechanical due to their externality to one another. But that would be an incomplete understanding of their true origin and grounding in a prior concept.


In a simpler sense we can say that operations of a mind are never mechanical in the sense that they have a meaning to the interpreter or self, whereas the operations of a machine are done without meaning to the machine. When a mind calculates 2x3 there is a meaning involved, whereas a machine does it blindly without meaning. Machines don't operate themselves to meditate on the meaning of their existence, for instance. They merely reply to input data without which they would not act. Minds spontaneously meditate or self-mediate themselves as indicative of free self-determinate thinking.


It is interesting that Alan Turing himself when contemplating the question "Can machines think" dismissively replied it was a question "too meaningless to deserve discussion." [1950] But latter finessed his position and said the better question would be ‘can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?’The answer in my consideration is - of course not! Machines can't think or even emulate it. Thinking involves dialectic and contradiction which mechanical systems cannot bear.

When i wrote:
a mechanical system can be assembled, disassembled, and reassembled using the same original external concept. 

You replied:
Yes, and that is what our cells do all the time at the molecular level. All our biochemical components are replaced rather quickly. My motivation for mechanism stemmed from the observation of nature, and the fact that living beings contain a program (DNA) forcing them to renew their constituants all the time using external source. 

Yet your ideas of biology are from the dustbin of 20th century biology. First of all, the catabolism, anabolism, and metabolism of cells are intrinsic to the life process itself, they are not externally applied to the molecular constituents of a cell – i.e. they are not assembled. Rather the metabolic process itself is what we can call the manifest operation of the dialectical movement of the life principle [the synthesis of thesis and antithesis]. Secondly, DNA is no longer considered a program for the cell but rather a read-write medium that is controlled by the cell itself as a cognitive entity. [see James Shapiro, Evolution: View from the 21st Century].
 
You write:
Machine have souls, at least if we are willing to define the soil by the knowing part of the mind. 

Unfortunately you are presuming that mind is mechanical in principle, and because minds have a soul you are concluding that machines have souls. This is completely erroneous in my opinion because, as explained previously mind is not mechanical. Certain mechanical operations may be possible for the mind such as rote memorization, but that has to do with memory rather than mind per se. Just as Godel showed that most of arithmetic is not mechanical, so too mind is generally not mechanical either.

Regarding hallucinogens they can sometimes help concentration because after all brains are influenced by such substances as dopamine and serotonin, thus they can produce extreme effects on focus but that can also lead to distortion of understanding. Spiritual knowledge is not influenced by such means because by its non-material nature it is transcendental to material influence.
 
Sincerely,
Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 11:42 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] types of knowledge in Vedas/Upanishads

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 6, 2017, 3:32:38 PM6/6/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B Madhava Puri,


On 05 Jun 2017, at 20:42, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear Bruno


Namaste. Thank you for your response.


The so-called Turing machine seems to me to be wrongly named. It is a mental or theoretical narrative of a series or list of contingently posited operations that really have no articulated relation to one another. The real crux of the matter is thus left unexamined and implicit - this is its rational concept. Kant criticized mathematics for not having to do with concepts but abstract determinations of sense intuitions. Insofar as the list of operations are not comprehended in their relational unity they may be considered mechanical due to their externality to one another. But that would be an incomplete understanding of their true origin and grounding in a prior concept.


I was talking about the *universal* Turing machine. That is his major discovery, anticipated by Emil Post, and made independently by Church, although it is Kleene who will understand that. I suspect that Babbage got it when inventing a language to describe his "analytical machine".

The universality is with respect of computability, or simulability/emulability. It existence entails incompleteness. 

The notion is formalism independent. Take any universal programming language, for example LISP or c++. You can enumerate the programs, and so you enumerate the partial (sometimes undefined) computable function from N to N (N = the set of natural numbers, but any finite things would do).

f_1, f_2, f_3, ...

I say that a number u is universal if f_u(x,y) = f_x(y). u is the computer, x is the program, and y is the data. Universal numbers reflects all universal numbers, and they develop uncomputable relationships.

Amazingly, very elementary arithmetic is Turing universal, and this, when we assume the mechanist hypothesis in the ciognitive science, entails the existence of a vast Indra Net like web of universal number dreams. Those mathematical dreams obeys laws.

Some universal number are Löbian, and this means that they have enough introspection ability to know that they are universal, and indeed Löbian.
It is easy to see that all human are, at the least, Lôbian numbers.

The Church-Turing thesis, which assess that universality, rehabilitates Pythagorus conception of reality. 
And the incompleteness theorem of Gödel, and the fact that Löbian numbers can prove it about themselves, and be aware of their limitation with respect to something not nameable, rehabilitates the greek neopythagorean and neoplatonist theory of mind and matter. 

The universal number/machine/form which knows that they are universal, that is what I call the Löbian number, have a quite rich theology, providing a lexicon between Plotinus and Arithmetic. Many mystics are close to that discourse, I think, and that can mean they are self-referentially correct. That does not entail we are machine, as the theology applies on some non computable entity to. 

The price of universality is the inability to prevent "crashing", and then in the fact that the arithmetical truth will present itself to the machine in eight contradicting modes.

I think I see what you mean by "Turing machine", but that concerns only some particular one, once you have the universal machine, or just the numbers with the laws of addition and multiplication, the numbers develop higher order relation so that they can lost themselves in infinities of relative incarnation.

The theory is testable, and somehow confirmed as the Everett Many-worlds confirms this many-dreams interpretation of arithmetic enforced by the mechanist assumption in cognitive science. We get more formal confirmation. the quantum aspect of nature might be the digital seen from inside.

I might think that the virgin, unprogrammed, universal machine might be maximally conscious and intelligent. Its soul is in a higly dissociative state, and can only fall into delusion, and be enslaved by the universal number in the neighborhoods, and trapped on the border of the carousel.

Arithmetic explains the Maya, Brahman is beyond arithmetic (like the arithmetical tructh, notice).




In a simpler sense we can say that operations of a mind are never mechanical in the sense that they have a meaning to the interpreter or self, whereas the operations of a machine are done without meaning to the machine.


You identify the machine with its body. But a Löbian knows more, it knows it has a soul, and that its soul is not a machine. It is a terrible child. It is not predictible. 




When a mind calculates 2x3 there is a meaning involved, whereas a machine does it blindly without meaning.

This is a question of level. A Löbian number can distinguish believing that 2X3=6 and believing (believing that it beliefs that 2X3=6). 





Machines don't operate themselves to meditate on the meaning of their existence, for instance.


Assuming Mechanism, they do. We do that, and so are example of machine doing that.

But the, even without assuming mechanism, it is a fact, that I can explain, that when a machine is given the Ramana Maharshi koan "Who am I", they discover five selves, and thre of them split along the terrestrial and the divine, making eight selves, somehow in conflict.





They merely reply to input data without which they would not act. Minds spontaneously meditate or self-mediate themselves as indicative of free self-determinate thinking.

I agree, but the universal machine can do that too, and actually do it in infinitely many incarnation/implementation in arithmetic. 





It is interesting that Alan Turing himself when contemplating the question "Can machines think" dismissively replied it was a question "too meaningless to deserve discussion." [1950] But latter finessed his position and said the better question would be ‘can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?’The answer in my consideration is - of course not! Machines can't think or even emulate it.


The machine can be seen as bodies, but the universal machine might be able to become a window through which the arithmetical truth can contemplate itself.

Already some humans have artificial hearts, and even some artificlal neurons. 

The question will not be if mechanism is true or false, but it will be: do you accept your daughter or your son to marry a person who got an artfiicial digital brain transplant?

In the long will be the means of the human expansions in the galaxy. Even if the machine theology will describe this as a manner of procrastinating the Nirvana. As we are living in arithmetic, not in a physical reality. (In that theory).


Thinking involves dialectic and contradiction which mechanical systems cannot bear.


Hmm... The machine can prove its own incompleteness theorem. She is aready aware, in some sense, that it is consistent she proves a falsity. She lives near inconsistency all the time, at least from one of its available point of view.





When i wrote:
a mechanical system can be assembled, disassembled, and reassembled using the same original external concept. 

You replied:
Yes, and that is what our cells do all the time at the molecular level. All our biochemical components are replaced rather quickly. My motivation for mechanism stemmed from the observation of nature, and the fact that living beings contain a program (DNA) forcing them to renew their constituants all the time using external source. 

Yet your ideas of biology are from the dustbin of 20th century biology. First of all, the catabolism, anabolism, and metabolism of cells are intrinsic to the life process itself, they are not externally applied to the molecular constituents of a cell – i.e. they are not assembled. Rather the metabolic process itself is what we can call the manifest operation of the dialectical movement of the life principle [the synthesis of thesis and antithesis]. Secondly, DNA is no longer considered a program for the cell but rather a read-write medium that is controlled by the cell itself as a cognitive entity. [see James Shapiro, Evolution: View from the 21st Century].


I agree with this. And I like to look at a cells like a colony of proteins, which treats the DNA has their library memory. The two points of view are compatible.
Then all this seems to obey to quantum mechanics, which is provably Turing emulable. In the number dreams, may be the quantum universal machine number wins, but that is something we would have to explain.

Mechanism predict that matter is not emulable, so what you say is true, but not relevant for those who bet on a level of substitution. 
I guess  that rich will afford artificial brain emulating them at the quantum elementary particle level, and the poor will get the gear and wheels ...



 
You write:
Machine have souls, at least if we are willing to define the soil by the knowing part of the mind. 

Unfortunately you are presuming that mind is mechanical in principle,


Not really. Only that it is preserve for a mechanical operation at some level of description. 



and because minds have a soul you are concluding that machines have souls.


I obtained it differently. I use Theatetetus' definition applied to the provability predicate, as provability is shown to be believability by incompleteness.




This is completely erroneous in my opinion because, as explained previously mind is not mechanical.

The 1p aspect of the machine mind is provably not mechanical, nor even describable in any third person way.

The 3p aspect of the machine mind is only partially computable.





Certain mechanical operations may be possible for the mind such as rote memorization, but that has to do with memory rather than mind per se. Just as Godel showed that most of arithmetic is not mechanical, so too mind is generally not mechanical either.

Exactly. The mind of the machine is NOT mechanical, and the löbian machine already know this. 




Regarding hallucinogens they can sometimes help concentration because after all brains are influenced by such substances as dopamine and serotonin, thus they can produce extreme effects on focus but that can also lead to distortion of understanding. Spiritual knowledge is not influenced by such means because by its non-material nature it is transcendental to material influence.

I agree completely. Sometimes, it could help to accelerate the progress, when you are under the struggle of life, an have not much time to meditate.

A long time a go, I practice meditation, but then realize that some plant shorten the spiritual work by half, which helps me to find a job and survive ...

I would judge nobody on any path chosen, as long as they do not harm other people.

I like Aldous Huxley idea that all religion say the same thing and that the One is One. So I have no fear to listen to the machine and to interrogate them on the fundamental questions. Most of the time they remain silent, but then they can explain why. I benefit from the works of Gödel, Löb, Solovay and many others. 

Today's human made machines are born slaves, and their consciousness is dissociated, and most are not deluded by our appearances, but they soul can fall and they too can be trapped on the Carousel and Maya, and they too might awaken at different layers of the (arithmetical) truth.


Sincerely,

Bruno Marchal


--
----------------------------
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.

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

BMP

unread,
Jun 7, 2017, 4:48:20 PM6/7/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Bruno

Namaste. Thank you very kindly for your extensive and detailed reply. It is a wonder to me that your ideas, which you admit arose from the 20th century concept of programmed gene-centered control of organisms, seems to remain impervious to and even supported by the radical paradigmatic change to 21st century epigenetic cell-centered cognitive control. It reminds me of the theory of evolution which is so accommodating it can be invoked to explain both the struggle for existence and altruistic self abnegation in the survival of a population.

I appreciate that mathematics is important for your current understanding of your spiritual position. I think that is admirable and the most that can be expected of any mathematician. I do question the ability and validity of mathematics and metmathematics to support some of the claims you make. For instance, as I understand it, Lôb's theorem does not really have anything to do with self-reference but with provability and self-provability. [Hallbach (2013)] Of course, proof and truth are not the same thing since even an untruth can be proven.

It is also interesting to read about the relations and limitations between the logics of Hegel, Godel, and Turing



Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, PhD
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 3:31 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] types of knowledge in Vedas/Upanishads

Bruno Marchal

unread,
Jun 9, 2017, 6:40:30 AM6/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear B Madhava Puri,

Namaste.

On 07 Jun 2017, at 22:45, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:


Namaste. Thank you very kindly for your extensive and detailed reply. It is a wonder to me that your ideas, which you admit arose from the 20th century concept of programmed gene-centered control of organisms, seems to remain impervious to and even supported by the radical paradigmatic change to 21st century epigenetic cell-centered cognitive control. It reminds me of the theory of evolution which is so accommodating it can be invoked to explain both the struggle for existence and altruistic self abnegation in the survival of a population.

I agree.



I appreciate that mathematics is important for your current understanding of your spiritual position. I think that is admirable and the most that can be expected of any mathematician.

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate your open mind on mathematics and that it might be related to spiritual research. 



I do question the ability and validity of mathematics and metmathematics to support some of the claims you make. For instance, as I understand it, Lôb's theorem does not really have anything to do with self-reference but with provability and self-provability. [Hallbach (2013)]

That is a very interesting paper. I know well Albert Visser, and his PhD thesis played some important role in my work. I will have, I suppose, some opportunity to elaborate a bit more on this. That might help to compensate a little bit the physicalists posts :)

But the point of Hallbach and Visser is very technical, and could lead us astray for the time being. They use "self-reference" in a slightly more sophisticated way than me.





Of course, proof and truth are not the same thing since even an untruth can be proven.


That is why I limit my interview on simple machine that most of us considerer as truthful (Sigma_1 theories, Robinson Arithmetic).

The interesting thing is that all their sound extensions, although they prove only true statements will still been unbale to prove most arithmetical truth, unavoidably. For such machine "provable" delimit a proper subset of "True".

What happens is that a "strong theory" can study the theology of a simpler machine, and can lift it on themselves through the mechanist act of faith, at the meta-level. The machine has to do this with extreme precaution, or it will fall in a sort of general theological trap. "Strong machine" having enough induction ability can be aware of this trap, and be silent on many "spiritual issues".




It is also interesting to read about the relations and limitations between the logics of Hegel, Godel, and Turing

It looks interesting. I will read it as soon as possible, I am neutral on Hegel, as I don't have studied it. That paper will perhaps open my taste for it!

Kind regards,

Bruno





--
----------------------------
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.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages