Fwd: ToM & ASD: The interconnection of Theory of Mind with the social-emotional, cognitive development of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The use of ICTs as an alternative form of intervention in ASD | Technium Social Sciences Journal

[Hal Cox]

Dear Joshua,

  

In respect to your kind efforts to produce presentations for us about decision theory, and in respect for John Von Neumann whom Paul has been teaching us about his important mathematical foundations on the topic, the human question for me persists, how does and how should modern decision theory organize and employ values as criteria for decision making?

Constraint computing is concise but general model for such studies as Terry Deacon taught me. It provides a language for describing alternative approaches to decision theory. I conceive of it as defining a challenge but not the path to solve a problem by a list of constraints.

Mathematically constraints can be

- fuzzy natural language expressions

- precisiated natural language expressions

- linear or nonlinear inequalities with scalars

- total positivity and other constraints with tensors

- Lagrangian equations describing a priori physics that needs to also be satisfied with a list of more constraints including boundary conditions in spacetime.

- etc,etc

Also, a table of constraints defines also what we can call an ontology if it includes principled axioms with prescribed primitives and memes in the abstract.

So likewise, an ontology is just a table of constraints.

In regards to the subject of this note I am writing to mention an author of the subject paper, Athansios Drigas:

https://techniumscience.com/index.php/socialsciences/article/view/6845

He uses the term ICT for information and communication technology; he uses ICTs for kindergarten applications ! which I find dubious - plus ICTs in training applications such as above. 

  Also since men have inferior emotional intelligence the applications are not only legion but also woke, but woke is only one of many applications for his layered theory of emotional intelligence - such as ASD above. 

  Advocates for teaching everybody to code robots with block programming languages.

  He’s sort of like an educational engineer. He’s both a professional educational theorist and practitioner.

Here are his recent publications:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=r2w21SUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

Now I am interested in his recent theories about emotional intelligence. In older work he defined emotional intelligence with an hierarchical typology. 

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/8/5/45 

“A New Layered Model on Emotional Intelligence”

For each layer, I am curious to know what are the specific ‘values’ used to define constraints in human decision making for that layer, that is especially ‘values’ that should be taught and cultivated?

  The article first summarizes practical theories of intelligence, emotion, and emotional intelligence, as used by educational theorists and experimentalists. 

 Then it proposes a pyramid picture of 9 layers with interesting details for each layer.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/8/5/45/htm

The hierarchies of Mike Pitman seem potentially more general and useful than this fascinating pyramid of Drigas and colleagues. 

  Geometrically it is the parallel transit of such pyramids that amounts to the modern emotional expression.

  

Steve just gave a new lesson thanks to a question from Amit about the neurofunctional role of emotion in agility. This looks the key to adapatability, part of the secret sauce. 

   Something about the interaction between emotion & logic,

    Hal

[Paul Werbos]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 11:43 AM Hal Cox <hkco...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Joshua,

  

In respect to your kind efforts to produce presentations for us about decision theory, and in respect for John Von Neumann whom Paul has been teaching us about his important mathematical foundations on the topic, the human question for me persists, how does and how should modern decision theory organize and employ values as criteria for decision making?

This is an extremely  broad and important question, Hal! It reminds me of how I often fail to communicate because I ASSUME people fully understand some basic points I spent many years learning and updating. The nature and relevance of modern decision theory, and the work of JohnVon Neumann in general, is part of that. 

I generally view decision theory as a field to be the product of Howard Raiffa, one of my teachers at Harvard decades ago, who certainly gave full credit toVon  Neumann for the concepts of cardinal utility and subjective probability which were the foundation of his foundation. They in turn were the foundation of my own formulation/creation of RLADP, described in the WCCI2022 talk I sent you the abstract for, half of what IEEE gave me the Frank Rosenblatt award for. 

BUT: for actual policy and investment, how should modern users handle values?

Raiffa's books are all about HIS answers to that question. In a way, he asserts that values are a matter of CHOICE. We as decision makers

ARTICULATE our values in mathematics. His methods are almost like... well, they ARE part of psychology, methods for interrogating humans about what they REALLY  care about.

Lately, I often jump to a short cut... assuming that humans are sane enough to care whether we all (body, families and soul included) care about 

survival. (That is what my six challenges are about.) THAT works well enough as a value, as a long-term  cardinal utility function, at least for SOME organized activities we need. 

But in fact... when Raiffa tries to understand what humans really care about, ultimately, it touches on ethics, and on deep human psychology and 

psychiatry. That is why I often cite Pribram's book, Brain  and Values, and my chapter (attached) in that book. I go on to cite

Quantum Measurement, Consciousness, and the Soul: a New, Alternative Position , where I define "sanity" essentially as accuracy by the verbal/mathematical part of our mind in articulating the deeper levels. Raiffa plus, if you will.

For PRACTICAL decision values... when focused organizations are involved, like NASA or NSF or the new UN office I hope they will create,

there is a balance needed between core mission utility and "broader benefits", as in a policy position paper a few years ago join authored by me and a former lead engineer from Boeing and AIAA. FOCUS is crucial in such organizations, as it is in basal ganglia. Effective organization would be more possible if those  developing the organization knew more about "the nerves of government"

 (https://archive.org/details/nervesofgovernme0000deut ), and the need for some organizations to have effective mission focus, like the basal ganglia, and others like  neocortex and limbic system. In fact, we even need something like a more rational, intelligent immune system to prevent crazy excesses of fake news and such. 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2Bex%3Diav-hE%3Du_VwxF3sKd0FnJM6T8fhzm7tQo43sU%3DcxWDdhA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chris King]

Rationality can be so overrated – often restricted to favoured abstractions and egocentric.

Dear Grant, Steve, Paul and All

That’s the most perceptive and apt comment I have seen this week!

We evolved from generation upon generation of organisms surviving existential threats in the wild, which were always solved by lightning fast hunch and intuition, and never by rational thought alone, except recently and all too briefly in our cultural epoch.

The great existential crises have always been about surviving environmental threats which are not only computationally intractable due to exponentiating degrees of freedom, but computationally insoluble because they involve the interaction of live volitional agents, each consciously violating the rules of the game.

Conscious volition evolved to enable subjective living agents to make hunch-like predictions of their own survival in contexts where no algorithmic or deterministic process, including the nascent parallelism of the cortex, limbic system and basal ganglia that Steve Grossberg has drawn attention to, could suffice, other than to define boundary conditions on conscious choices of volitional action. Conscious intentional will, given these constraints, remained the critical factor best predicting survival of a living organism in the quantum universe, which is why we still possess it.

Since then, Homo sapiens has been locked in a state of competitive survival against its own individuals, via Machiavellian intelligence, but broadly speaking, rationality just brings us closer to the machine learning of robots, than conscious volition.

I think Steve’s representation of these mechanical aspects in the basal ganglia in Grossberg (2015) gives an excellent representation of how living neurosystems adaptively evolve to make the mechanical aspect of the neural correlate of conscious volition possible, but it says little about how we actually survive the tiger’s pounce, let alone the ultimate subtleties of human political intrigue.

Likewise decision theory or prospect theory, as noted in Wikipedia, tells us only a relatively obvious asymmetric sigmoidal function of how risk aversion helps us survive, essentially because being eaten rates more decisively in the cost stakes than a single square meal as a benefit.

Because proving physical causal closure of brain dynamics is impossible to practically achieve in the quantum universe, physical materialism is itself not a scientific concept, so all attempts to model and understand conscious volition remain open and will continue to do so. The hard problem of consciousness is not a division between science and philosophy as Steve suggests in his (2021) book, but our very oracle of cosmological existence.

CK

On 13/11/2022, at 12:38 PM, Grant Gillett <grant....@otago.ac.nz> wrote:

Rationality can be so overrated – often restricted to favoured abstractions and egocentric.

 

From: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Grossberg, Stephen
Sent: Sunday, 13 November 2022 9:38 am
To: Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu>
Subject: Re: [SBoC] Explaining how irrational decisions can arise from adaptive brain designs

 

Dear Yeshua and Hal,

 

Below you raise the question: "how does and how should modern decision theory organize and employ values as criteria for decision making?" 

 

You may know about the Nobel prize-winning work of Kahneman and Tversky about decision making under risk, which addresses this question.

 

They developed Prospect Theory, a set of formal axioms, to explain how humans may make irrational decisions in various value-laden situations.

 

The whole question about irrational decisions raises an issue about evolution:

 

If evolution designs us for behavioral success, then why are humans capable of so many irrational, self-defeating, and even self-punitive decisions?

 

My colleague Bill Gutowski and I showed how adaptive cognitive-emotional processes, which had not be derived from, or used to explain, decision-making data, could quantitatively simulate all their data, and to explain data that they could not:

 

Grossberg, S. and Gutowski, W.E. (1987). Neural dynamics of decision making under risk: Affective balance and cognitive-emotional interactions. Psychological Review, 94, 300-318. 

https://sites.bu.edu/steveg/files/2016/06/GroGutowski1987PsychRev.pdf

 

Best,

 

Steve

---

From: 'Yeshua Ben David' via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 4:21 PM
To: Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SBoC] Fwd: ToM & ASD: The interconnection of Theory of Mind with the social-emotional, cognitive development of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The use of ICTs as an alternative form of intervention in ASD | Technium Social Sciences Jour

 

Hal, the question that you raised "how does and how should modern decision theory organize and employ values as criteria for decision making?"  is a great topic for our Zoom Learning Circles and perhaps in the near future You, Paul and I could explore that more deeply together with others in a set of conversations.

 

Some topics we ought to explore would be:

 

• BV: Behavioral Values (reward and fear conditioning, brain-environment, cultural, planetary human behavior).
• SV: Spiritual Values (Revelatory, Inspirational, Universal, Cosmic, Foundational, Divine)
• SV~BV and SV^BV: The Integrative interplay and complementary relation of both (Life, General Well-being,  Individual Inner Peace, Social Harmony)
• VBD: Value Based Utility (where values include BV and SV), Personal and Collective.
• M~V: The Integrative interplay and complementary relation of Meaning and Values

It seems to me that this subject ought to be a priority in the times we are living.

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toBiological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/2160160c-2ef6-46ef-92e3-2e5c016f3eafn%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toBiological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/PH0PR03MB6576F586B61AA35518AFF1CBC6039%40PH0PR03MB6576.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/SY6PR01MB812367E03C9633595B792296B5039%40SY6PR01MB8123.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com.

[Grossberg, Stephen]

Dear Chris,

I just noticed your comment that "The hard problem of consciousness is not a division between science and philosophy as Steve suggests in his (2021) book..."

I don't know why you think that my Magnum Opus suggests that. Pages 43-45 of the book, among others, summarize what various philosophers, such as David Chalmers, have written about this problem.

I then go on to write on p. 44:

"This book will argue that Adaptive Resonance Theory proposes answers, however incomplete, that respond to various of these philosophical concerns by showing how ART scientifically clarifies various of the distinctions that philosophers have discussed."

In other words, I view my work as a continuation and extension of what philosophers have written, in keeping with my life-long interest in studying philosophical literature.

Best,

Steve

---

From: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2022 7:35 PM
To: cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>; 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SBoC] Explaining how irrational decisions can arise from adaptive brain designs – Steve, Paul Grant.

 

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/86B0742B-E6D4-4112-80FC-3B9BD1865A14%40gmail.com.

[Chris King]

Chris King said:

"The hard problem of consciousness is not a division between science and philosophy as Steve suggests in his (2021) book…”

Steve replied:

I don't know why you think that my Magnum Opus suggests that. 

Dear Steve,

My comment comes from your quotes:

"Given such detailed correspondences with experienced qualia and multiple types of data, it can be argued that these dynamical resonant states are not just “neural correlates of consciousness” that various authors have also discussed, notably David Chalmers and Christof Koch and their colleagues. Rather, they are mechanistic representations of the qualia that embody individual conscious experiences on the psychological level. If such a correspondence between detailed brain representations and detailed properties of conscious qualia occurs for a sufficiently large body of psychological data, then it would provide strong evidence that these brain representations create and support these conscious experiences. A theory of this kind would have provided a linking hypothesis between brain dynamics and the conscious mind. Such a linking hypothesis between brain and mind must be demonstrated before one can claim to have a “theory of consciousness”."

"If, despite such a linking hypothesis, a philosopher or scientist claims that, unless one can “see red” or “feel fear” in a theory of the Hard Problem, then it does not contribute to solving that problem, then no scientific theory can ever hope to solve the Hard Problem. This is true because science as we know it cannot do more than to provide a mechanistic theoretical description of the dynamical events that occur when individual conscious qualia are experienced." 

But your next statement opens this field up toward cosmology, which I like:

"However, as such a principled, albeit incrementally developing, theory of consciousness becomes available, including increasingly detailed psychological, neurobiological, and even biochemical processes in its explanations, it can dramatically shift the focus of discussions about consciousness, just as relativity theory transformed discussions of space and time, and quantum theory of how matter works. As in quantum theory, there are measurement limitations in understanding our brains.”

I take this as an opening to a new phase of consciousness research as cosmology. 

Symbiotic Existential Cosmology basically agrees with adaptive resonance at the physical level –  with some other features like fractal edge-of-chaos dynamics, self-organised criticality, stochastic resonance and tuned phase coupling between action potentials and graded (EEG) voltages, but it submerges brain dynamics more deeply into the quantum realm than you do where you set the quantum limits on sensory acuity: 

"In fact, the human brain can detect even small numbers of the photons that give rise to percepts of light, and is tuned just above the noise level of phonons that give rise to percepts of sound.”

Now I disagree with this limitation. I see all brain processes as quantum in nature because each quantum measurement in the brain changes the context, so there are no IID (identical independently distributed) processes that converge to the Born interpretation of classical reality in the way an interference experiment does. This means ALL brain processes are quantum, not classical in nature as they stand due to the fractal nature of the dynamics, from molecule to global brain. They don't need dedicated Hameroff-Penrose ideas to penetrate the quantum realm..

Here is a short summary of Gallego & Dakić (2021) that demonstrates the non convergence:

In Born’s (1920) correspondence principle, systems described by quantum mechanics are believed to reproduce classical physics in the limit of large quantum numbers – if measurements performed on macroscopic systems have limited resolution and cannot resolve individual microscopic particles, then the results behave classically – the coarse-graining principle (Kofler & Brukner 2007).  Subsequently Navascués & Wunderlich (2010) proved that in situations covered by IID (independent and identically distributed measurements) in which each run of an experiment must be repeated under exactly the same conditions and independently of other runs, we arrive at macroscopic locality. Similarly, temporal quantum correlations reduce to classical correlations and quantum contextuality reduces to macroscopic non-contextuality (Henson & Sainz 2015).

 

However Gallego & Dakić (2021) have shown that, surprisingly, quantum correlations survive in the macroscopic limit if correlations are not IID distributed at the level of microscopic constituents and that the entire mathematical structure of quantum theory, including the superposition principle is preserved in the limit. This macroscopic quantum behaviour allows them to show that Bell nonlocality is visible in the macroscopic limit.

 

“The IID assumption is not natural when dealing with a large number of microscopic systems. Small quantum particles interact strongly and quantum correlations and entanglement are distributed everywhere. Given such a scenario, we revised existing calculations and were able to find complete quantum behavior at the macroscopic scale. This is completely against the correspondence principle, and the transition to classicality does not take place” (Borivoje Dakić).

 

“It is amazing to have quantum rules at the macroscopic scale. We just have to measure fluctuations, deviations from expected values, and we will see quantum phenomena in macroscopic systems. I believe this opens the door to new experiments and applications” (Miguel Gallego).

 

Their approach is described as follows:

 

In this respect, one important consequence of the correspondence principle is the concept of macroscopic locality (ML): Coarse-grained quantum correlations become local (in the sense of Bell) in the  macroscopic limit. ML has been challenged in different circumstances, both theoretically and experimentally. However, as far as we know, nonlocality fades away under coarse graining when the number of particles N in the system goes to infinity.  In a bipartite Bell-type experiment where the parties measure intensities with a resolution of the order of N^1/2 or, equivalently, O(N^1/2)  coarse graining. Then, under the premise that particles are entangled only by independent and identically distributed pairs, Navascués & Wunderlich (2010) prove ML for quantum theory.

 

Fig 24d: Macroscopic Bell-Type experiment.

 

We generalize the concept of ML to any level of coarse graining α ∈ [0, 1], meaning that the intensities are measured with a resolution of the order of N^α. We drop the IID assumption, and we investigate the existence of a boundary between quantum (nonlocal) and classical (local) physics, identified by the minimum level of coarse graining α required to restore locality. To do this, we introduce the concept of macroscopic quantum behavior (MQB), demanding that the Hilbert space structure, such as the superposition principle, is preserved in the thermodynamic limit.

 

Conclusion: We have introduced a generalized concept of macroscopic locality at any level of coarse graining α ∈ [0, 1]. We have investigated the existence of a critical value that marks the quantum-to-classical transition. We have introduced the concept of MQB at level α of coarse graining, which implies that the Hilbert space structure of quantum mechanics is preserved in the thermodynamic limit. This facilitates the study of macroscopic quantum correlations. By means of a particular MQB at α = 1/2, , we show that α_c ≥ 1/2, as opposed to the IID case, for which α_IID ≤ 1/2. An upper bound on α_c is, however, lacking in the general case. The possibility that no such transition exists remains open, and perhaps there exist systems for which ML is violated at α = 1.

 

This means for example, that in (a) neural system processing, where the quantum unstable context is continually evolving as a result of edge-of-chaos processing, and so repeated IID measurements are not made and (b) biological evolution, where a sequence of unique mutations become sequentially fixed by natural and sexual selection, which is also consciously mediated in eucaryote organisms, both inherit implicit quantum non-locality in their evolution.

CK

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/PH0PR03MB6576D95A7F45DA0DE0344E89C6029%40PH0PR03MB6576.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Grossberg, Stephen]

Dear Chris,

I reply below in red.

---

From: Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:15 PM
To: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>; Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu>
Subject: Re: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve and Chris KIng

 

Chris King said:

"The hard problem of consciousness is not a division between science and philosophy as Steve suggests in his (2021) book…”

Steve replied:

I don't know why you think that my Magnum Opus suggests that. 

Dear Steve,

My comment comes from your quotes:

"Given such detailed correspondences with experienced qualia and multiple types of data, it can be argued that these dynamical resonant states are not just “neural correlates of consciousness” that various authors have also discussed, notably David Chalmers and Christof Koch and their colleagues. Rather, they are mechanistic representations of the qualia that embody individual conscious experiences on the psychological level. If such a correspondence between detailed brain representations and detailed properties of conscious qualia occurs for a sufficiently large body of psychological data, then it would provide strong evidence that these brain representations create and support these conscious experiences. A theory of this kind would have provided a linking hypothesis between brain dynamics and the conscious mind. Such a linking hypothesis between brain and mind must be demonstrated before one can claim to have a “theory of consciousness”."

"If, despite such a linking hypothesis, a philosopher or scientist claims that, unless one can “see red” or “feel fear” in a theory of the Hard Problem, then it does not contribute to solving that problem, then no scientific theory can ever hope to solve the Hard Problem. This is true because science as we know it cannot do more than to provide a mechanistic theoretical description of the dynamical events that occur when individual conscious qualia are experienced." 

All the above says is that there is no RED in equations, and theoretical science, in the final analysis, is embodied in its equations.

I am personally quite content with the kinds of understanding that my work has provided to me, with the caveat, of course, that we are never finished...thank goodness!

But your next statement opens this field up toward cosmology, which I like:

"However, as such a principled, albeit incrementally developing, theory of consciousness becomes available, including increasingly detailed psychological, neurobiological, and even biochemical processes in its explanations, it can dramatically shift the focus of discussions about consciousness, just as relativity theory transformed discussions of space and time, and quantum theory of how matter works. As in quantum theory, there are measurement limitations in understanding our brains.”

I take this as an opening to a new phase of consciousness research as cosmology. 

Symbiotic Existential Cosmology basically agrees with adaptive resonance at the physical level –  with some other features like fractal edge-of-chaos dynamics, self-organised criticality, stochastic resonance and tuned phase coupling between action potentials and graded (EEG) voltages, but it submerges brain dynamics more deeply into the quantum realm than you do where you set the quantum limits on sensory acuity: 

"In fact, the human brain can detect even small numbers of the photons that give rise to percepts of light, and is tuned just above the noise level of phonons that give rise to percepts of sound.”

Now I disagree with this limitation. I see all brain processes as quantum in nature because each quantum measurement in the brain changes the context, so there are no IID (identical independently distributed) processes that converge to the Born interpretation of classical reality in the way an interference experiment does. This means ALL brain processes are quantum, not classical in nature as they stand due to the fractal nature of the dynamics, from molecule to global brain. They don't need dedicated Hameroff-Penrose ideas to penetrate the quantum realm..

I don't think that the data support the proposal that "all brain processes as quantum in nature" except in the trivial sense that all of matter obeys quantum laws.

The ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLES and NEURAL MECHANISMS that our brains obey are, however, not quantum, but macroscopic.

A huge amount of neurobiological data supports this hypothesis.

Said in another way: I have worked hard for 65 years with over 100 gifted collaborators to make discoveries about essentially all the important brain processes. I have never confronted data that could not be fully explained using macroscopic neural networks, except for the kinds of effects that you quoted me as discussing at the sensor receptor level.

What brain or behavioral data, other than these, do you believe cannot be explained without quantum effects?

All this being said, as I note in Chapter 17 of my Magnum Opus, brains embody organizational principles like uncertainty, complementarity, and resonance.

So too does the external physical world.

I have speculated that this is because our brains have evolved over the millennia to adapt to the laws of the physical world.

That does not, however, imply that our brains' embodiment of these principles is quantum, although I believe that a lot more work should be done to explicit this connection.

[Chris King]

Dear Steve,

On 14/11/2022, at 12:01 PM, Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu> wrote:

I don't think that the data support the proposal that "all brain processes as quantum in nature" except in the trivial sense that all of matter obeys quantum laws.

You didn't even respond to the fully articulated account I provided below of Gallego & Dakić.  There is no data whatever from neurosystems or neuroscience that bears on this question.

The ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLES and NEURAL MECHANISMS that our brains obey are, however, not quantum, but macroscopic. A huge amount of neurobiological data supports this hypothesis.

That is a circular statement. The organisational principles are constructed on a classical basis. There is nothing about them that says yes or no to whether they are causally closed classical processes, so you can't validly claim the neuroscience supports your position. All you are saying is that when you intentionally use classical model designs they do predict mechanical aspects of neural system design successfully. Yes we expect the adaptive resonance model to be an order of magnitude better as a mechanisitc system but that doesn’t eliminate quantum effects, which you know take place in every protein catalyst.

Said in another way: I have worked hard for 65 years with over 100 gifted collaborators to make discoveries about essentially all the important brain processes. I have never confronted data that could not be fully explained using macroscopic neural networks, except for the kinds of effects that you quoted me as discussing at the sensor receptor level.

This is a bald claim which you can't validate. You discuss the hard problem in your 2021 work (magnum opus) in a way which specifically leaves the problem open. You then attempt to claim it goes futher than the neural correlate of consciousness to make the claim that it is actually a “true description of how the brain makes consciousness (in Stan's terminology). This claim is invalid.

What brain or behavioral data, other than these, do you believe cannot be explained without quantum effects?

You are cooking the stats. You stipulate only brain and behavioural data, neither of which by definition have any subjective experiential aspect on their own. You then issue a challenge to find something that cannot be explained.

The key evidence is right in front of your eyes experientially over 100% of your life.  You have engaged with me by responding intentionally, consciously and volitionally having clear behaviorual consequences. You have experienced intentionally responding to me in the way you have by the same types of veridical perception of your volitional intent being fulfilled that our visual perception has of the world around us. Yet, if what you say is true, your measured experience of your own intent carried out in your response is just a mechanistic physical process, albeit assisted by adapted resonance, implying that your experience of intentionality is actually a deception, because your brain's adaptive resonance circuits made you do it.

This is the pathetic fallacy of neurosystens accounts that accept epiphenomenal descriptions of consciousness as a integrated model of reality generated by the physical brain but reject outright the parallel experiences of volitional intent we all witness to be effective organisms in the evolving biosphere.

You justify evolutionary arguments why adaptive resonance has been selected by evolution because it provided a survival advantage, but utterly neglect the survival advantage subjective conscious volition itself must have to remain central in the two billion years since the eucaryote endo-symbiosis or be taken over by purely mechanistic computational processes. Yet it is many of these brain processes I cited such as edge-of-chaos dynamics which provide the cubic centimetre of chance through physical instability to make such conscious volition possible.

Chris Koch puts your dilemma more emphatically and clearly:  “The fact is, I don’t even know that you’re conscious. The only thing I know beyond any doubt—and this is one of the central insights of Western philosophy—is Cogito ergo sum.  What Descartes meant is the only thing I’m absolutely sure of is my own consciousness”. 

He does this before going on to admit the overweaning prejuice of his materialist assumption: "I accept the reality of these intensely felt experiences. They are as authentic as any other subjective feeling or perception. As a scientist, however, I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain rather than of any supernatural ones. That premise has served science and its handmaiden, technology, extremely well over the past few centuries. Unless there is extraordinary, compelling, objective evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to abandon this assumption”.

He is being honest that he is cooking the books. You try to finesse by saying: 

Given such detailed correspondences with experienced qualia and multiple types of data, it can be argued that these dynamical resonant states are not just “neural correlates of consciousness” that various authors have also discussed, notably David Chalmers and Christof Koch and their colleagues. Rather, they are mechanistic representations of the qualia that embody individual conscious experiences on the psychological level. If such a correspondence between detailed brain representations and detailed properties of conscious qualia occurs for a sufficiently large body of psychological data, then it would provide strong evidence that these brain representations create and support these conscious experiences. A theory of this kind would have provided a linking hypothesis between brain dynamics and the conscious mind.

You then defer: Such a linking hypothesis between brain and mind must be demonstrated before one can claim to have a “theory of consciousness”. 

But you simply don't have it based on brain or behavioral data alone.

CK

[Grossberg, Stephen]

Dear Chris,

I reply below to one of your comments in green. The reply relates to them all.

---

From: Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 8:16 PM
To: Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu>
Cc: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>; cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve and Chris KIng

Dear Steve,

On 14/11/2022, at 12:01 PM, Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu> wrote:

I don't think that the data support the proposal that "all brain processes as quantum in nature" except in the trivial sense that all of matter obeys quantum laws.

You didn't even respond to the fully articulated account I provided below of Gallego & Dakić.  There is no data whatever from neurosystems or neuroscience that bears on this question.

The ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLES and NEURAL MECHANISMS that our brains obey are, however, not quantum, but macroscopic. A huge amount of neurobiological data supports this hypothesis.

That is a circular statement. The organisational principles are constructed on a classical basis. There is nothing about them that says yes or no to whether they are causally closed classical processes, so you can't validly claim the neuroscience supports your position. All you are saying is that when you intentionally use classical model designs they do predict mechanical aspects of neural system design successfully. Yes we expect the adaptive resonance model to be an order of magnitude better as a mechanisitc system but that doesn’t eliminate quantum effects, which you know take place in every protein catalyst.

What I said was that the DATA from hundreds of experiments that we have quantitatively explained and simulated, which have measured psychological, anatomical, neurophysiological, biophysical, and even biochemical processes, did not require quantum processes.

If you want to explain and simulate other data that do require them, please do.

[Grossberg, Stephen]

Chris,

These are not "my" data. 

We have explained and simulated the experimental data from hundreds of labs, each with their own measurement capabilities.

And Yes, I and everyone else would agree, quantum dynamics underly all matter.

But brain organization is several steps removed from individual quantum events, in the same way that a lot can be explained about the development of a human child without using quantum effects.

Steve

 

---

From: Sungchul Ji <sji.co...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 8:48 AM
To: Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>; Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu>

Subject: Re: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve and Chris KIng

 

Hi ChrisK, Stephen, et al.,

" I don't think that the data support the proposal that "all brain processes as                           (11/14/2022/1)

quantum in nature" except in the trivial sense that all of matter obeys quantum laws.

"

This is probably because the method you used to generate the data is not able to "see" and hence "blind to" the molecular processes responsible for generating your data, just as the light microscope can see cells but blind to protein molecules.  

From a theoretical point of view, it is clear that, underlying all brain processes, there must be quantum mechanical processes because 

     (i) brain processes are thermodynamically endergonic (i.e., energy-dissipating) processes and hence must be driven by exergonic 

(i.e., energy generating) processes in order not to violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, and  

     (ii) the energy required to drive brain processes can be obtained only through chemical reactions catalyzed by enzymes at the molecular level. 

                                                                                   

Because of (i) and (ii) the mind must be coupled to molecular/chemical changes and hence to quantum mechanics.  I referred to this observation as the First Principle of Mind-Molecule Coupling (FPMMC) in 2012 [1, p. 557].  FPMMC leads to the following corollaries:

                         "No enzymes, no brains nor the mind."                                             (11/14/2022/2)    

                        "No quantum mechanics, no brains nor the mind."                       (11/14/2022/3)    

Statement (11/14/2022/2) is represented by the dotted lines, Steps 3 and 4,  in Figure 15-17 below. The dotted lines indicate the bottom-up causality, while the solid arrows indicate the top-down causality.  The origin of the mind is not indicated in the figure but most likely resides in the 'systome' [2], i.e., the combination of the system (i.e., brain) and its environment.   

Figure 15-16 below provides further details of the phenomenon of the mind-molecule coupling.

Figure 15-16  Conformons, IDSs (Intracellular Dissipative Structures) (Section 3.1.2), and synergies as microscopic, mesoscopic, and macroscopic manifestations of gnergons *(Section 2.3.2) or dissipatons (Section 3.1.2).  The gnergon-based model of human behavior is here referred to as the 'BocaRatonator' ** to acknowledge the seminal contributions made by Kelso and his colleagues at the Florida Atlantic University at Boca Raton, Florida.  The term ‘RMWator’ derives from R  (Richland, to acknowledge Xie and his colleagues for their measurement of single-molecule enzymic activity of cholesterol oxidase while at The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, WA), M (Minneapolis, to acknowledge Rufus Lumry and his colleagues’ fundamental contributions to enzymology at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis), and  W (Waltham, to acknowledge the seminal work on enzyme catalysis carried out by William Jencks and his group at the Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass).  Reproduced from  [1, p. 555].  See [1, pp. 557-559] for a more detailed account of Figure 15-16. *gnergons = individual units of the universal entity called Gnergy defined as the complementary union of information (Gn-) and energy (-ergy). Gnergons are postulated to drive all goal-directed molecular motions in the living cell, including enzyme catalysis.   **Self-organizing units are named after the city where research was done followed by “-ator”.

Table 15-9 explains the relation between the coordination dynamics research carried out by Kelso and his coworkers and by me.   

Table 15-9   The similarities and differences between the biological theories developed                       by J. A. S. Kelso  and S. Ji. Reproduced from [1, 556].
	Kelso (1984, 2008)	Ji (1974a,b, 2000, 2004a)
1. System studied	Human Body	Molecular Machines
2. Methods	Cognitive Neuroscience Nonlinear Dynamics	Chemistry Molecular Mechanisms
3. Principles invoked	Synergies Biological Information Self-Organization  Complementarity	Gnergons* Biological Information Self-Organization Complementarity
4. Direction of generalization	Macro → Micro	Micro → Macro
5. Philosophical Generalization	Complementary Nature (Kelso & Engstrøm 2006)	Complementarism (Ji 1993, 1995)

*Gnergons are discrete units of gnergy, the complementary union of energy and information  (Section 2.3.2).  Gnergons are thought to be necessary and sufficient for all self-organizing, goal-directed motions in all physical systems including the cell and the human body.  Examples of gnergons include cnformons (Chapter 8) and IDSs (Chapter 9).

References:

        [1]  Ji, S. (2012).  Micro-Macro Coupling in the Human Body.  In:  Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York.  Pp. 554-571.  

http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Excerpts_Macro_Micro_coupling _2_3_4_5_6_8_9_10_15_16_17_20_21_03262012.pdf

      [2]   Ji, S. (2018).  System vs. Systome.  In: The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter.  World Scientific Publishing, New Jersey. Pp. 24-27.

      Ji, S. (1974a). Energy and Negentropy in Enzymic Catalysis,  Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 227, 419-437.

      Ji, S. (1974b). A General Theory of ATP Synthesis and Utilization, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 227, 211-226.

     Ji, S. (1993).  Complementarism: A New Dialogue between Science and Religion based on Modern Biology, in Proceedings of  the Fourth KSEA (Korean Scientists and Engineers Association in America) Northeast Regional Conference, Stevens  Institute of Technology, Hoboken, N.J.,  pp. 319-328.

     Ji, S. (1995).  Complementarism: A Biology-Based Philosophical Framework to Integrate Western Science

and Eastern Tao. In: Psychotherapy East and West: Integration of Psychotherapies, Korean Academy of Psychotherapists, 178-23 

Sungbuk-dong, Songbuk-ku, Seoul 136-020, Korea, pp. 517-548.

     Ji,S. (2000).  Free energy and Information Contents of Conformons in proteins and DNA, BioSystems 54, 107-130.

  Ji, S. (2004a). Molecular Information Theory: Solving the Mysteries of DNA, in Modeling in Molecular Biology, Natural 

Computing Series, G. Ciobanu and G. Rozenberg (eds.), Springer, Berlin, pp. 141-150.

  Kelso, J. A. S. (1984).  Phase transitions and critical behavior in human bimanual coordination.  Am. J. Physiology: 

Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative 15, R1000-R1004.

     Kelso, J. A. S. (1995).  Dynamic Patterns: Self-Organization in Brain Science and Behaviors.  The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

     Kelso, J. A. S. (2008). Synergies, Scholarpedia 3(10), 1611-1616.

     Kelso, J. A. S. and EngstrØm, D. A. (2006). The Complementary Nature.  The MIT Press, Cambrdige, MA.

With all the best.

Sung

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/9D8CF787-36F0-4683-BD40-661F1C2CAA4D%40gmail.com.

--

Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
609-240-4833

www.conformon.net

[Kineman-SBOC]

I’m still reading the book, but this question seems to remain so far with regard to mind vs brain. I haven’t yet seen an argument or theory as to what level mind would be established. Any thoughts?

John

<image.png>

Figure 15-16 below provides further details of the phenomenon of the mind-molecule coupling.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/PH0PR03MB65768FE603C4EBCED6830845C6059%40PH0PR03MB6576.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Chris King]

On 15/11/2022, at 4:18 AM, Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu> wrote:

What I said was that the DATA from hundreds of experiments that we have quantitatively explained and simulated, which have measured psychological, anatomical, neurophysiological, biophysical, and even biochemical processes, did not require quantum processes.

If you want to explain and simulate other data that do require them, please do.

Steve,

Your assumption is eliminativist in basis. You are assuming a global classical network partition model and then stipulating you will consider quantum effects only if the data you get "requires it". In the case of any real brain data, where there are no IID processes actually converging to the classical, all your data is actually showing a quantum adaptive resonance process is superior as a gross network decomposition – i.e. this demonstrates is that a putatively quantum biological process, when fitted to a large scale adaptive resonance model, is consistent with the model’s decomposition framework.

This assumption is pretty much the same as Chris Koch saying he will assume classical determinism based on its historical success in other areas and see no reason to abandon this assumption – "Unless there is extraordinary, compelling, objective evidence to the contrary”.

This defeats the parsimony principle of Occam's razor.

I’ve have reissued Gallego and Dakic's "Macroscopically Nonlocal Quantum Correlations” summary below so you can have another look. You have to know biology is permeated by quantum effects from enzymes to bird navigation.

The evidence is right before you! You are still flatly refusing to concede the obvious – that you know you intended to write the above passage in green, watched yourself executing it as intended, felt that you were committing an intentional act to irreversible physical form, observed yourself feeling this way, but your actual claim as stated is that your classical adaptive resonance brain made you do it, and while visual perception may be a veridical 3-D size normalised representation of the real world, your sensory awareness of your intentionality being performed in writing your email is a delusion created because your adaptive resonance circuits made your motivational brain centres feel you were consciously enacting volition when actually you/they weren’t.

This is simply the most idiotic contradiction you could hope to pretend to bring upon the world as a scientific assumption.

It is worse than claiming the sun revolves around a flat earth with beaten firmaments above and below, because it contradicts every aspect of every intentional action you have ever made, including your precious “Magnum Opus” which thus contradicts itself.

It is a completely defeating nihilist vision of a universe in tatters, as Bertrand Russel lamented, with no rhyme or reason and no conscious accountability.

Why is every court of law operating on the basis we are consciously accountable for our intentional actions and why have they always done so? Why is malice aforethought regarded as prima facie evidence of criminal intent?

You can't have it both ways!

CK

[Kineman-SBoC]

So, can we get back to our primary question about what scientific possibilities are there for basing an explanation of consciousness itself, accepting that such an explanation must relate mental and physical states despite their immiscible formalism? We can stipulate to and even applaud work modeling brain behavior, neural nets with global, local, or resonant processes, and work correlating that with reported mental states as experienced, but is there any framework for modeling how physical states logically inform (Im using the most general term for the relation) or are informed by mental states and if whatever agency that requires may be in some significant way a representation or reflection of Self or at least some kind if system identity?  And if this is the right question to ask?

John

On Nov 14, 2022, at 1:35 PM, Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/6C80E601-194F-4F41-AB34-28B107A23C29%40gmail.com.

[Chris King]

So, can we get back to our primary question about what scientific possibilities are there for basing an explanation of consciousness itself, accepting that such an explanation must relate mental and physical states despite their immiscible formalism? We can stipulate to and even applaud work modeling brain behavior, neural nets with global, local, or resonant processes, and work correlating that with reported mental states as experienced, but is there any framework for modeling how physical states logically inform (Im using the most general term for the relation) or are informed by mental states and if whatever agency that requires may be in some significant way a representation or reflection of Self or at least some kind if system identity?  And if this is the right question to ask?

Hi John,

Of course it’s the right question to ask! I think that the problem is cosmological in the widest sense – i.e. that subjective conscious volition is a cosmological complement to the physical universe in a deeper cosmos that has both subjective existence and physical manifestation exemplified by the quantum relativistic reality we currently understand as the physical universe.

But the problem strikes much deeper than consciousness because the crunch comes from the ability of subjective consciousness to actually cause a physical effect. We do this all the time in our decision-making and behaviour but physical science is playing a deceitful finesse by conceding we may have conscious experiences which reflect physical brain states but we sure as hell don't have the subjective capacity to consciously cause a physical effect.  So the crunch comes with subjective volition changing the physical universe.

I agree with Cathy Reason that consciousness doesn't have to depend on quantum phenomena to transcend supervenience on the physical universe, but from the physical point of view, the crunch point comes with a subjective cause actually having a physical effect. This can't happen in a classical causally-closed universe, or a classical causally-closed brain, so it HAS to emerge physically from unstable physical systems like edge-of-chaos dynamics where uncertainty gets amplified and a measurement or many occur. This causes a counter-intuitive situation because it makes people feel they are being asked to accept that their free-will is actually throwing a dice on the universe.

This is actually necessary for anything to happen and could form a foundational basis for quantum prediction, which is even more counter-intuitive than using uncertainty, because it opens up the idea that subjective consciousness can tap into the universal entanglement connecting past, present and future. This is absolutely necessary because subjective conscious volition has to have a selective survival advantage over any classical physical process, such as ART,  for subjective conscious volition to be retained all the way from the eucaryote endo-symbiosis to the human brain over and above intrinsically physicalist notions like ART.

In turn this means that plausible physical models like Steve's ART can give good empirical results but don't in any way answer the key question about the ultimate subjective basis which becomes whether we like it or not, the idea that in some way subjective consciousness maps causally into physical brain states irreversibly altering their outcomes, as well as the gross partitioning of neural network design on a classical footing also having an effect.

This all ties in with the physical circumstances defining organismic boundary conditions rather than causally impelling conscious volition, in which conscious intentional will then tips the balance of intentionality on the basis of the neural net design as strategic boundary constraints.

This is not ruling out that consciousness might also evoke the physical universe which is a separate question.

CK

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/ADC8A0E0-B141-412B-A656-804390B9C6DB%40nexial.org.

[Grossberg, Stephen]

John,

Could you rephrase your following comment, please?     

"I haven’t yet seen an argument or theory as to what level mind would be established. Any thoughts?"

What does the phrase "what level mind" mean?

Thanks in advance!

Steve

---

From: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Kineman-SBOC <sb...@nexial.org>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 12:13 PM
To: Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/5F980B55-384E-44E0-AC7D-11004889B1D1%40nexial.org.

[Grossberg, Stephen]

Chris,

I always start by reading and thinking about large psychological and neurobiological databases.

Even deciding what experiments belong in a database requires experimental intuition.

Intuition grows slowly by living with the data until you can begin to understand how seeming different data may reflect the same underlying design principles and mechanisms.

After 65 years of intense work, and thinking about the data of thousands of experiments, I still need just a few equations, and a somewhat larger number of microcircuits that use these equations, to construct MODAL neural architectures that unify the explanations of these many experiments. 

The architectures are MODAL in the sense that they are general-purpose architectures for explaining interdisciplinary data about a particular modality of intelligence, such as vision, audition, cognition, emotion, planning, navigation, action, etc.

I never have a pre-conceived idea of what equations and models may emerge.

The entire enterprise is data-driven.

I welcome everyone to discover and develop models that can explain and predict more data than I could, including you.

That will inevitably happen. 

But this is not a question about philosophy.

If you are interested in the kinds of data that I and my colleagues have explained, but cannot provide a better explanation, then the scientific method recommends that you study our work as a basis for doing better.

Best,

Steve

---

From: Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:34 PM

To: Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu>
Cc: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>; cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve, Chris and the Law of the Land

 

[Paul Werbos]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:05 PM Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu> wrote:

I welcome everyone to discover and develop models that can explain and predict more data than I could, including you.

If you are interested in the kinds of data that I and my colleagues have explained, but cannot provide a better explanation, then the scientific method recommends that you study our work as a basis for doing better.

There has been a vast increase in many of the data sources and data collection methods in recent years, essential to understanding brain function as well as we can understand the function of objects like chips. I attach my slides from a 2014 interagency conference on the best tools available THEN, but:

Do you have thoughts about the >=20khz >100 channel deep recordings now available (like what we used IN PROCESSED FORM

in the Werbos and Davis paper), or even the new high resolution MRI with 10-20 ms resolution? Some would question the sweeping conclusions in the Werbos and Davis paper, so we ask: what would be a plan to do better, either to give more resolution, or to update the conclusions?

Are you still working with real data?

Best of luck, Paul 

 

Best,

Steve

---

From: Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2022 3:34 PM
To: Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu>
Cc: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>; cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve, Chris and the Law of the Land

 

On 15/11/2022, at 4:18 AM, Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu> wrote:

What I said was that the DATA from hundreds of experiments that we have quantitatively explained and simulated, which have measured psychological, anatomical, neurophysiological, biophysical, and even biochemical processes, did not require quantum processes.

0, 1], meaning that the intensities are measured with a resolution of the order of N^α. We drop the IID assumption, and we investigate the existence of a boundary between quantum (nonlocal) and classical (local) physics, identified by the minimum level of coarse graining α required to restore locality. To do this, we introduce the concept of macroscopic quantum behavior (MQB), demanding that the Hilbert space structure, such as the superposition principle, is preserved in the thermodynamic limit.

 

Conclusion: We have introduced a generalized concept of macroscopic locality at any level of coarse graining α ∈ [0, 1]. We have investigated the existence of a critical value that marks the quantum-to-classical transition. We have introduced the concept of MQB at level α of coarse graining, which implies that the Hilbert space structure of quantum mechanics is preserved in the thermodynamic limit. This facilitates the study of macroscopic quantum correlations. By means of a particular MQB at α = 1/2, , we show that α_c ≥ 1/2, as opposed to the IID case, for which α_IID ≤ 1/2. An upper bound on α_c is, however, lacking in the general case. The possibility that no such transition exists remains open, and perhaps there exist systems for which ML is violated at α = 1.

 

This means for example, that in (a) neural system processing, where the quantum unstable context is continually evolving as a result of edge-of-chaos processing, and so repeated IID measurements are not made and (b) biological evolution, where a sequence of unique mutations become sequentially fixed by natural and sexual selection, which is also consciously mediated in eucaryote organisms, both inherit implicit quantum non-locality in their evolution.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/PH0PR03MB6576A831E1D23B3366274502C6049%40PH0PR03MB6576.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Grossberg, Stephen]

Dear Paul,

You ask below:

"Are you still working with real data?"

I always work with "real data"!

I also like to unify the explanation of data collected using multiple experimental methods (psychological, anatomical, neurophysiological, biophysical, functional imaging, biochemical) that all contribute to understanding the same underlying processes.

Each method provides a view of the Elephant. I try to explain the whole Elephant.

Below you seem to be asking us to carry out a scientific conversation about subtle issues. Email is not a good medium for doing this.

If you're around the Boston area sometime, let's have lunch together and/or chat at our home.

Best,

Steve

---

From: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 3:53 PM
To: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>; Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>; Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgeDJsjCx2-Q7%2Bf77az8Rg-Sd4J7ijB94o_dVP1r5USBjQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Chris King]

Dear Steve,

Please just answer my critique effectively forthwith. You specifically ask me to find something your models don’t “predict” and when I do – 100% of your conscious experience – and it’s volitional responses changing the physical universe in your e-mail, you completely refuse/fail to acknowledge anything at all. This means you are depending on a null mind-brain identity concept that simply identifies abstracted models of brain data with conscious experience per se with no explanation forthcoming.  

I welcome everyone to discover and develop models that can explain and predict more data than I could, including you. That will inevitably happen. But this is not a question about philosophy.

Experience is not just a bunch of data models. Steve I am a mathematician. I have and generate dynamical models but I don't confuse my conscious experience with my data models and I am capable of engaging a conversation about both with another live conscious human being. You don't seem to be able to do this, so it’s impossible to have a constructive conversation.

None of this is a question about philosophy, it’s about the scientific cosmology of the universe in which we consciously exist. You are defaulting on the question and trying to enclose it in your data models enshrined in 65 years of your “superlative” career.

If you are interested in the kinds of data that I and my colleagues have explained, but cannot provide a better explanation, then the scientific method recommends that you study our work as a basis for doing better.

The scientific method is not a living organism that can make “recommendations". Neither is it a social directive or doctrine. It’s a method of discovery of nature following sceptical principles and Occam’s razor. I am every bit as scientific as you are and trying to tell another creative scientist to meekly follow in your date-driven footsteps is condescending folly.

CK

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/PH0PR03MB6576A831E1D23B3366274502C6049%40PH0PR03MB6576.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.

[Grossberg, Stephen]

Dear Chris,

You write that you "don't confuse [your] conscious experience with [your] data models".

Do you also deny biological models about how your body's other organs work too?

You seem to be strongly committed to quantum models of mind; e.g.,

https://www.math.auckland.ac.nz/~king/Preprints/pdf/tuz6.pdf

Go for it! Explain and predict as much mind/brain data as you can with them!

I don't need them and never have.

Steve

---

From: Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 4:33 PM
To: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>; Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu>

[Chris King]

Dear 

[Chris King]

Dear Steve,

Either stop deflecting or stop using one of my old papers to argue a deficient case. 

Just download Symbiotic Existential Cosmology. I’m sure you will find it hard to handle but that’s the breaks.

Just answer the question about your conscious volition clearly and succinctly. I have answered yours!

You don't need to use 24 pt. I have 20-20 vision due to complete lens transplants.

The question is NOT whether classical “block" models require quantum processes as you full well know.

CK

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Tue, 11/15/22, 2022 at 01:45:48PM +1300, Chris King wrote:

> In turn this means that plausible physical models like Steve's ART can give
> good empirical results but don't in any way answer the key question about the
> ultimate subjective basis which becomes whether we like it or not, the idea
> that in some way subjective consciousness maps causally into physical brain
> states irreversibly altering their outcomes, as well as the gross partitioning
> of neural network design on a classical footing also having an effect.

Chris,

All this, and yet ... there is subjectively verifiable gating and resonance
within the mind, which may correlate well with the objectively verifiable
gating and resonance within the brain. (Okay, I just revealed the limb I'm
out on with the "subjectively verifiable" claim. I've far more to say on
that, perhaps soon.)

Might we look for adaptive resonance between different scientific (and
philosophic) approaches? In any cases, there are complex questions in
metapsychology often overlooked by those who simply want to say
"consciousness is quantum" -- which I suspect is a valid claim, but which
leaves aside the question of how the unconscious should also be quantum, and
then what determines the loops between conscious and unconscious, the
thresholds and gates by which the latter becomes the former?

It's often argued as if materialism explains what's unconscious in us. I
hardly find that coherent. The subjective unconscious is on a continuum with
what's subjectively conscious in us, and so necessarily instantiated on the
same physical or physical+ substrate, be that quantum or aether or....

Steve's model might work in an entirely classically physical universe. It
might also work in our universe, which is almost certainly beyond that.

Whit

[Whit Blauvelt]

On Tue, 11/15/22, 2022 at 09:04:01PM +0000, Grossberg, Stephen wrote:

> I also like to unify the explanation of data collected using multiple
> experimental methods (psychological, anatomical, neurophysiological,
> biophysical, functional imaging, biochemical) that all contribute to
> understanding the same underlying processes.

An adaptive resonance between lines of exploration?

Whit

[Chris King]

Whit said:

Steve's model might work in an entirely classically physical universe. It might also work in our universe, which is almost certainly beyond that.

Might we look for adaptive resonance between different scientific (and philosophic) approaches? 

Dear Whit, Kashyap and Steve,

I completely agree Whit! 

I accept classical neuroscience as a good approximation to how brain processes take place, including conscious intent. I’m sure Steve’s research is valuable in understanding the global network interactions e.g. between the cortex and basal ganglia in moderating conscious volitional behaviour and have clearly said so. But this doesn't mean it has explained away the need for subjective conscious volition to affect the universe as we witness in real life. As a network model, adaptive resonance is a plausible partial explanation for a classical neural net architecture that might equally be natural neurosystem or an artificial neural net design, so has a predictive pointer to how the classical details of gross network partitioning need to take place. However scientists need to refrain from casting science as definitive beyond mere philosophy as you say and recognise that subjective conscious volition over the universe is a cosmological issue, not just one to be conquered through technological progress.

In my view, the real trouble comes when a researcher practising a classical approach, declines to engage any real dialogue with the wider picture, dismisses other people who question these limitations and do provide direct evidence, failing to address the need for adaptive resonance between different scientific approaches you propose. This makes it impossible to have an informative discovery process taking place. When one does reply and provides evidence how subjective conscious volition may have an adaptive evolutionary role independent of and complementary to classical network partitioning design, the researcher then refuses to discuss any ot the points they challenged one to provide and fails to acknowledge there is anything beyond this self-fulfilling classical neurocircuit prediction cycle, eliminating any need to look further.

I also accept Kashyap’s point that both SBoC and Biophysics&Meaning could benefit form having more neuroscience expertise on board. However more expertise should not come at the expense of elitist reputational prejudices and self-anointing claims from some members who pride themselves as potential Nobel material and class anything less as having little or no authoritative value. Several members of both groups cast themselves as definitive experts on anything from quantum field theory to machine learning, treating other members as having little or no research work or creative ideas of real value, unless they have a Nobel aura, 1000 research citations and a large Wikipedia page. This reduces the pursuit of knowledge to the mere pursuit of fame and self-aggrandisement.

I consider Symbiotic Existential Cosmology to be “the corner stone the builders neglected”, not just some oddball visionary account fudging mind and universe together, but the definitive Rosetta stone for our ongoing survival in the universe in which we consciously exist, where the buck stops and the crunch comes from a human-induced Fermi self-extinction. Until people grasp the cosmological significance of biospheric symbiosis as the foundational principle of ongoing life in the universe in an epoch of technological dominance by one intelligent species, we are, as the Huichol say – perdido – lost.

Alongside this unrelenting personal responsibility, fame, elite status and peer acceptance would be mere pretences.

CK

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/Y3Uzh2m7Gty9%2BzIm%40black.

[Edwards, Jonathan]

A small point, Whit, is that an entirely classically physical universe is likely an oxymoron.

Leibniz devised a monadic, or quantum, theory precisely because he could see, like a number of those in Athens, that a purely ‘classical’ account of our world is incoherent at mathematical limits.

 

Treating the mind ‘purely classically’ is absurd, because it is an individual, and classical physics cannot handle individuals. As soon as controlled observation of individuals came on the scene in physics (around 1910) classical theory was busted.

 

I went to a debate at the Royal Institute of Philosophy last night, with Anil Seth, Philiip Goff, Louise Antony and Maja Sevesa(?) giving views on the intractability of understanding consciousness. It made me realise just how low a level popular consciousness science operates at. Goff made a plug for panpsychism but completely failed to make practical use of the idea. Nobody even touched on what it might be in the brain that signals the presence of redness outside or on what in the brain might benefit from that signal and feel the glow. It is almost as if the six men around the elephant are deliberately wearing blindfolds. A parlour debate between Locke, Anne Conway, Hobbes, Arnauld and Leibniz would have made them look pathetic. Why has intellectual life become so impoverished?

 

From: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 16 November 2022 at 23:48
To: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>, cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve, Chris and the Law of the Land

⚠ Caution: External sender

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/02D795D5-BC58-4DE6-93B0-92221A86E5F5%40gmail.com.

[Grossberg, Stephen]

Dear Chris,

I'm delighted that you are enjoying reading my Magnum Opus so far.

I should note, though, that many of my most important contributions that are reviewed there are recent, including my 2017 article about the hard problem of consciousness.

The work provides a self-contained and non-technical overview of a steady stream of discoveries from my first articles in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science from 1967 to 1971 to the present, as illustrated by the 560 articles downloadable from my web page sites.bu.edu/steveg .

Steve

 

---

From: cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 10:02 AM
To: Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>; ''Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness' <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve, Chris and the Law of the Land

 

Dear all

 

Like Whit, am slowly progressing through Steve’s book. Altogether admirable and impressive. There’s a ‘but’ though. Most of its content was conceived and written up several decades ago and is therefore implicitly reliant on the ‘neuron doctrine’ dating back to Ramon y Cajal and Charles Sherrington.

 

We now know that glia have major roles in organising ‘mind’, which very likely correlates most closely with organised patterns of ionic waves and their associated e-m fields. There are hierarchies of organisational subdivision with astrocytic synaptic ‘domains’ being among the most fundamental. Computations in a system like this inevitably become more analogue than digital as one moves up the domain scale.

 

In a way this is a big plus for ART as ‘resonance’ and harmony between waves is built into the system, which is presumably more like an aeolian harp on small scales or an orchestra on larger ones than the boxed recursive flow charts popular in neuropsychology texts a couple of decades ago.

 

ChrisN

 

From: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chris King
Sent: 16 November 2022 23:49
To: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>; cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve, Chris and the Law of the Land

 

Whit said:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/02D795D5-BC58-4DE6-93B0-92221A86E5F5%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/013b01d8fa95%248ef128b0%24acd37a10%24%40btinternet.com.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear ChrisN, ChrisK, Steve and others,

Civil debate between knowledgeable people is essential for advancement of science. My knowledge of neuroscience is practically zero! So I cannot express opinion on Steve’s ART model. I understand whether human brain is classical or quantum is still a matter of debate. That is fine with me. So I am glad that Steve is now a member of these groups. As long as the debate is polite and civil there is no problem. Debates  happen in scientific meetings and articles all the time. So I hope all the participants will lower the temperature and continue the debate whenever they have time. Hopefully experimental data in neuroscience will favor one or the other of the models. It has always happened in science, in contrast with religious theories which go on for thousands of years unchecked!!

Best

kashyap

 

From: cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 10:02 AM

To: Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com; ''Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness' <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [External] RE: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve, Chris and the Law of the Land

 

This message was sent from a non-IU address. Please exercise caution when clicking links or opening attachments from external sources.

 

Dear all

 

Like Whit, am slowly progressing through Steve’s book. Altogether admirable and impressive. There’s a ‘but’ though. Most of its content was conceived and written up several decades ago and is therefore implicitly reliant on the ‘neuron doctrine’ dating back to Ramon y Cajal and Charles Sherrington.

 

We now know that glia have major roles in organising ‘mind’, which very likely correlates most closely with organised patterns of ionic waves and their associated e-m fields. There are hierarchies of organisational subdivision with astrocytic synaptic ‘domains’ being among the most fundamental. Computations in a system like this inevitably become more analogue than digital as one moves up the domain scale.

 

In a way this is a big plus for ART as ‘resonance’ and harmony between waves is built into the system, which is presumably more like an aeolian harp on small scales or an orchestra on larger ones than the boxed recursive flow charts popular in neuropsychology texts a couple of decades ago.

 

ChrisN

 

From: biological-phys...@googlegroups.com <biological-phys...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Chris King
Sent: 16 November 2022 23:49
To: 'Robert Boyer' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>; cmhnunn via Biological Physics and Meaning <Biological-Phys...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SBoC] Hard Problem of Consciousness: a comment – Steve, Chris and the Law of the Land

 

Whit said:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/02D795D5-BC58-4DE6-93B0-92221A86E5F5%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/013b01d8fa95%248ef128b0%24acd37a10%24%40btinternet.com.

[Chris King]

Dear Kashyap, Steve and Chris N, and Whit,

Thanks for your constructive response Kashyap and Chris N – glad to know you enjoy Steve’s book. Steve, I did also at the outset acknowledge your treatment of the hard problem.

Here is a response to further the scientific debate on this question, which is central to both lists and needs to be continued. This is NOT a question of scientific rigour versus philosophy, religion or “spooky action at a distance". Scientific Basis of Consciousness is centrally dedicated to understanding the role of subjective consciousness in the universe on a scientific basis, with a strong Vedantic slant, not just neuroscience or quantum physics. Biological Physics and Meaning is dedicated to the wider role of consciousness in the meaning of living existence. 

Therefore this debate needs to be pursued without attempts to claim the asserted predictive power of a given network model renders all other aspects of biological neurodynamics superfluous. 

There are many dynamical systems discoveries that have become pivotal in understanding neurodynamics. One is Steve's adaptive resonance, but there are several others complementing this, including transitions in and out of chaos (Freeman), leading to optimal edge of chaos instabilities demonstrated under psychedelics (Toker), self-organised criticality, and phase tuning measurement (Pribram) recently discovered to be bidirectionally coupled between action potentials and continuous potential phase gradients of surrounding tissue, as in the EEG (Qassim) potentially critical to differentiating conscious vs sub-conscious processing. 

Each of these factors, in so far as they are adaptive, can prove to be predictive e.g. on the basis that models using these ideas have positive correlations between real and modelled future states. There is no sense in which one model having claimed predictive value can be used to assert all other contributory factors are not and therefore do not need to be considered. This is a classic trap of all brain-driven causal models.

When we come to the enigma of subjective conscious anticipation and volition under survival threats, these are clearly, at the physiological level, the most ancient and most strongly conserved. Although the brains of vertebrates, arthropods and cephalopods show vast network differences, the underlying processes generating consciousness remain strongly conserved to the extent that baby spiders display clear REM features during sleep despite having no obvious neural net correspondence. While graded membrane excitation is universal to all eucaryotes and shared by human phagocytes and amoeba, including the genes for the poisons used to kill bacteria, the action potential appears to have evolved only in flagellate eucaryotes, as part of the flagellar escape response to existential threat, later exemplified by the group flagellation of our choano-flagellate ancestor colonies.

All brains are thus intimate societies of dynamically-coupled excitable cells (neurons and glia) communicating through these same molecular social signalling pathways that social single celled eucaryotes use. Both strategic intelligence and conscious volition as edge-of-chaos membrane excitation in global feedback thus arose long before brains and network designs emerged.

Just as circuit design models can have predictive value, so does subjective conscious volition of the excitable eucaryote cell have clear survival value in evolution and hence predictive power of survival under existential threat, both in terms of arbitrary sensitivity to external stimuli at the quantum level and neurotransmitter generated social decision-making of the collective organism. Thus the basis of what we conceive of as subjective conscious volition is much more ancient and longer and more strongly conserved than any individual network model of the vertebrate brain and underlies all attempts to form realistic network models.

Therefore there is no valid basis to make a claim that adaptive resonance is an exclusively predictive model that dispenses with other processes of survival and therefore that any involvement for example of subjective conscious volition itself or of quantum processes is an unnecessary quirk of unscientific speculation. Conscious volition remains central and essential to all network models that evolved from it and cannot be dismissed on the claim that a given network model “has predictive power”. 

CK

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/BY3PR08MB7028D49787F514090524C887C7069%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/BY3PR08MB7028D49787F514090524C887C7069%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.

[BVK Sastry (G-S-Pop)]

Namaste  CK, Kashyap, Whit

 

BVK Sastry (1) :   I look forward for a time when Kashyap ji will stop the allegation : < Hopefully experimental data in neuroscience will favor one or the other of the models. It has always happened in science, in contrast with religious theories which go on for thousands of years unchecked!!> .  Where in ‘religious theories’ is pointing to Gita –yoga –science traditions.

 

Simply Kashyap ji is not fully aware of the advancements and validations in historic time period and practicing community of traditions since the time of Gita to Buddha - Mahavir to Guru-Nanak/ Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa / MMY  in teaching – practice customizations and changes in the narrative language.  And much less on the ‘ Embedded Yoga in Other scriptures of world Religions’. A passing reference was  made on this topic in one of the recent Learning circles.

 

While Science teams want all the resource support to explore yoga-science traditions  to advance,  the expectation is that ‘ Yoga-Science teams should lay bare and free the entirety of tradition’ for a free for all examination and experimentation.  

 

It is like ‘desire to explore Ocean depths wearing a scuba suite and no desire to get ‘wet with ocean water’ as ‘ Oceanic life and phenomenon studies’ ??!! 

 

           The myopic view of Scientists in understanding the PRAKRUTI (Chit-Padartha /Conscious Matter)  Model by eight list of Gita (7-4)/ Nine list of NV YS cannot become the basis for the generalized allegation and sweeping remark as above !  

 

The given reality is :  Investigation of Root issue - ‘Consciousness- Matter- Relations’ in the Unified Model of ‘PRAKRUTI’ in Gita  yields ‘CHITTA’ technicality of ‘Conscious Matter -Mind Brain system’ of Patanjali.

Patanjali provides layered framework and roadmap in Yogaanga (2-29), (2-1) and (1-2) yoga-sutras for practical exploration.

 

Current zone of ‘Yoga-Meditation related’ by neuroscience is not covering even 15%  of Patanjali starting guidance in (2-29); Yet, uses the talk of technicalities related to (4-34 and 1-51).

 

The scientist sets  standard for validating ‘Yoga-Science’ axioms and applications from yoga-engineering application-practices in Patanjali Yoga-Sutras  (3-1 to 4-1).  This appears to me as a logic of starting with ‘cell-phone’ as the ‘ base of study  to ‘pass judgement on ‘How silicon behaves in a transistor’ ??!!          

 

This is what I understand is the essence of Bob’s post reading ( marked Red), which Bob may please clarify  :

 

< In my view, the real trouble comes when a researcher practising a classical approach, declines to engage any real dialogue with the wider picture, dismisses other people who question these limitations and do provide direct evidence, failing to address the need for adaptive resonance between different scientific approaches you propose. This makes it impossible to have an informative discovery process taking place. When one does reply and provides evidence how subjective conscious volition may have an adaptive evolutionary role independent of and complementary to classical network partitioning design, the researcher then refuses to discuss any of the points they challenged one to provide and fails to acknowledge there is anything beyond this self-fulfilling classical neurocircuit prediction cycle, eliminating any need to look further. >.

 

BVK Sastry (2) :   If Kashyap ji’s intention is to understand –experiment- validate – deliver benefits of Health, wellness, Public health through   

                  neuroscience studies of  Yoga-Science technicality, which has been put to practice for millennia through several disciplines of Ayurveda

                    – Jyotish- Vastu – Yoga Meditation systems,  the simple straight forward pre-requisites are the following:

 

                       2A:  DEFINITIONAL – PEDAGOGIC- MODEL MENSURA Clarity of neuroscientist on (subjective )Consciousness – (brain) Matter –

                               (causal – functional )Relations , which will set the firm ground to elevate the discussion above Plato’s cavemen model.

 

                       2B:  REVISIT and REVIEW the Yoga-Science studies carrying inherent hermeneutic and pedagogic defects by inappropriate

                               translations,  models and quoting social media – historic lag of yoga-science / Religion institutions in catching up with advances

                               in modern science / language of modern science. 

                                ‘English is not strong enough to bring out the Samskruth Language technicality’ needed for this studies.

                    

                       2C:  COME TO PRESENT TIME WORK rather than ‘back looking’ for  revelling in linguistic heritage pride / prejudice  on historic

                              practices and sacred texts !   

                              Yoga-Science tenets, start with the classical Brahma sutra (1-1 to 1-4). Then and Therefore … (atha –ato ) condition.

 

                               To critique the model of  PRAKRUTI- CHITTA , the starting point is axiom: ‘chit-padartha’.

                                             [Brahma is another technical term for this concept. So is the term Purusha, Virat, mahat….].

 

                               This does not need any initial leaning on ‘Vedanta Philosophy, Religion flavors and guru teachings’.

                               Yoga-Science fully concurs that this study needs to start with ‘DEHA’ (Body) and progress to ‘ SHAREERA ( Psyche / soul/

                                individual)  and then to ‘ DEVATAA (God) and then to ‘TRANSCENDENTAL ROOT OF DEVATAA, postulated as ‘BRAHMA –

                                PRAKRUTI’. RELIGION studies stop at ‘DEVATAA’ level of exploration and make a U-turn to Society.

                                Yoga-Science takes ‘RELIGION’ to the NEXT –ADVANCEMENT PHASE , called ‘ VEDANTA’.

                                If Modern Science has not crossed the RELIGION – LINE, then they are not  pre-qualified to engage with YOGA for VEDNATA.

 

                                All currently known and given understanding of Veda –Yoga – religion masquerading as VEDNATA traditions’ can be safely

                               placed in a ‘ Bigbasket’- marked  for ‘later date studies’.

 

                               This is Vedic Model used in GITA – YOGA :: By Sri Krishna and Patanjali  with honesty and scientific rigour. [This is Gita 8-4

                               teaching expanded in Gita (13- 1 and 2)  as progressing from ‘ PRAKRUTI Exploration to Next level of ‘PURUSHA/KSHETRAJNA.  

 

                               Sri Krishna will not be angry  or put  anyone to hell for challenging Gita teachings! It is NOT heresy or atheist agnosticism !

 

                               Yoga-Science, on the same count, does not hold a fig-leaf cover for In house yoga teams for lacking to ‘catch up – update

 efforts /  OR  Condone the inappropriate speaking adoption of language of Modern science  to represent Yoga-Science axioms,

  by incorrect mapping. 

 

   This is where  in house Yoga- teams errors of talking  ‘Electron –quark level of matter’ to explain PRAKRUTI – CHITTA ::

  Conscious Matter  ( with Carbon-consciousness ) seem to be failing to connect to the talk of subtle levels of ‘ Pancha-

  Mahabhoota – Prakruti’.

 

If ‘aakaasha’ definition of yoga-science by Gita (7-4 / 9-6) is wrongly modelled in current science studies, for whatever reasons,  

how will  PRAKRUTI model be understood ? How will Chakra talk in Patanjali (3-26), relevant for Kundalini yoga  be ever  mapped

 to the human physiology or neural structure ?

 

The root error is in NOT ADDRESSING THE BASIC AXIOM : CONSCIOUSNESS- MATTER – RELATIONS / PRAKRUTI MODEL by GITA.

 The required study focus is : CONSCIOUS MATTER CONSTITUTION –CHEMSITRY OF BODY –STRUCTURE [ = Chit-Padartha Prakruti

 – Chitta Prakruti of DEHA].

The clarity on DEHA –SHAREERA technicality gets resolved in  Chit-Padartha : Deha –Prakruti / Chitta –Prakruti modelling studies.

 

BVK Sastry (3) :   Yoga-Science has no conflict with any model - explanations of ‘Brain Matter’.

                              ART is certainly a good model, which is recognizing ‘CONSCIOUS MIND’; Acknowledges ‘Yoga’.

                              I agree with  CK’s observation :

< Therefore there is no valid basis to make a claim that adaptive resonance is an exclusively predictive model that dispenses with other processes of survival and therefore that any involvement for example of subjective conscious volition itself or of quantum processes is an unnecessary quirk of unscientific speculation. Conscious volition remains central and essential to all network models that evolved from it and cannot be dismissed on the claim that a given network model “has predictive power”. >.

 

I am open for corrections in my stand from the more learned team members. I still look for ‘ TEAM -Action beyond post based critiquing’s’.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Namaste Sastryji,

Did you read my e-mail to Yeshua and ChrisK on Nov. 7? In case you did not, I will copy it here. In every e-mail obviously one cannot repeat everything.

KV: “I think, no scientist would have problem in accepting that some people have spiritual experiences. Also,  it is good for mankind to believe in spirituality, love thy neighbor, mercy etc.  If religions stopped at this,  then there would be no issues. But often they cross red lines and talk about violating laws of nature confirmed by science. Control of consciousness over matter is such an area. For that scientists would need rigorous proof under tight control by skeptic scientists. In India sadhus are known to show producing ashes from thin air and ability to appear at many different places at the same time. In west, stories of Jesus walking on water, converting water into wine and Moses parting sea into walkway are well-known. On the other forum SBoC, I have been debating for more than 3 years with  Vinod, BVK Sastry and Bob about demonstrating power of consciousness over matter! Vinod is an extreme case. He says anything which comes to human mind such as 100 ft tall monster must exist somewhere!! Also he wants scientists to believe in astral world just from descriptions of experiences by a few yogis. Scientists would want more proof of that than hearsay stories. Vinod says that to know this world, you have to be yogi. Scientists do not say that to use or understand science you have to be a scientist!! This is the red line which scientists want religious people not to cross, since everyone including the three I mentioned use science 24/7 !! “

These are the points of disagreement. I never attacked preachings of BG or Upanishads. Every week I listen to lectures on them and agree with most of them. My feelings towards Bible are similar.

It is funny you are complaining about resources available to religious studies. You know people in India donate lot of money to temples. Temples like Tirupati are sitting on huge amount of gold, more than in possession of Govt. of India. In fact I have heard that in Tirupati temple, there are lines depending on what you pay, hundred, thousand Rs. etc.!! I do not know what they do with all the money they have. I doubt if they spend this money on religious research or helping poor people. In fact I would say academic  scientists contribute lot more to the society compared to what society gives them. You keep on complaining about huge amount of money going to pharma companies. Well as I said they have proved their worth in the case of Covid as compared with contribution of Ayurveda. Similarly, there is enough money in U.S. in TM organizations and Christian churches. So there are enough resources to study religion!!

Best

kashyap

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/022101d8fb09%24cc9a4790%2465ced6b0%24%40gmail.com.

[Robert Boyer]

Sastry,

Did your email below attribute a statement to me? If yes, then please note that it was not something I wrote.  Here's the statement:

"This is what I understand is the essence of Bob’s post reading ( marked Red), which Bob may please clarify :

 

< In my view, the real trouble comes when a researcher practising a classical approach, declines to engage any real dialogue with the wider picture, dismisses other people who question these limitations and do provide direct evidence, failing to address the need for adaptive resonance between different scientific approaches you propose. This makes it impossible to have an informative discovery process taking place. When one does reply and provides evidence how subjective conscious volition may have an adaptive evolutionary role independent of and complementary to classical network partitioning design, the researcher then refuses to discuss any of the points they challenged one to provide and fails to acknowledge there is anything beyond this self-fulfilling classical neurocircuit prediction cycle, eliminating any need to look further. >."

I do try to follow your comments on this forum, but often find them confusing.

Also, I have understood that you are a TM practitioner; have you also been trained as a TM teacher?

Thanks for answering these questions, and best wishes to you, sir.

Bob

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/022101d8fb09%24cc9a4790%2465ced6b0%24%40gmail.com.

[Chris King]

On 11/18/22, Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu> wrote:

Grossberg, S. (1968). Some physiological and biochemical consequences of
psychological postulates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
60, 758-765.
https://sites.bu.edu/steveg/files/2016/06/Gro1968PNAS60.pdf

On 19/11/2022, at 5:28 AM, Cathy Reason <cmrn...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wish I could say something nice about this paper, but unfortunately
it exempifies all the problems I have been talking about in the SBoC
group. 

Hi Cathy,

I don't think it proves the “predictive" powers of the model explain away visual sentience any more than Steve's 2015 basal ganglia paper he emailed explained away subjective conscious volition.

Grossberg S (2015) Neural Dynamics of the Basal Ganglia during Perceptual, Cognitive, and Motor Learning and Gating in Soghomonian J (ed) The Basal Ganglia: Novel Perspectives on Motor and Cognitive Functions Springer, Berlin.

I cited his MOTIVATOR model in Symbiotic Existential Cosmology because it frankly claims to be portraying subjective conscious volition in all its completeness:

The basal ganglia control the gating of all phasic movements, including both eye movements and arm movements. Arm movements, unlike eye movements, can be made at variable speeds that are under volitional basal ganglia control. Arm movements realize the Three S’s of Movement Control; namely, Synergy, Synchrony, and Speed. … Many other brain processes can also be gated by the basal ganglia, whether automatically or through conscious volition. Several of these gating processes seem to regulate whether a top- down process subliminally primes or fully activates its target cells. As noted in Section 5.1, the ART Matching Rule enables the brain to dynamically stabilize learned memories using top-down attentional matching. … Such a volitionally-mediated shift enables top-down expectations, even in the absence of supportive bottom-up inputs, to cause conscious experiences of imagery and inner speech, and thereby to enable visual imagery, thinking, and planning activities to occur. Thus, the ability of volitional signals to convert the modulatory top-down priming signals into suprathreshold activations provides a great evolutionary advantage to those who possess it.

That’s fine as a gross network model connecting brain regions and is entirely consistent with both quantum and classical approaches and in no way eliminates subjective conscious volition from having an autonomous role. All it implies is that conscious volition arises from an evolved basis in these circuit relationships in mammals. But Steve retorts by saying he has already predicted everything in ART and these other notions (real conscious volition and quantum dynamics) are superfluous. This simply doesn't follow.

The equations in the ionic paper are quite detailed and it was written in 1968 the year of the cool aid acid tests, but it raises a question. If you combine variables into an equation representing ionic flows in the membrane does this predict or does this just empirically represent the flows more accurately as they exist.

For prediction, I think you need to establish a consequence that is radically new and unthought of. Einstein did this with general relativity and with E = hv in quantum theory and the counter intuitive consequences, which differed from Newtonian gravity, were confirmed.

I can't see the kind of argument in this paper or those of volition in the basal ganglia as gate keepers for action predicting unexpected new future states of human volition. All one gets is a network model of the gatekeeping role between the basal ganglia and the cortex.

Steve seems to consider these are “predictions” that mean quantum effects are superfluous twaddle and that he doesn't need to even consider the paradox of effectively claiming his own human conscious volition is just a mindless consequence of neural net gatekeeping design.

I just wish Steve would engage on a level plying field where scientific debate becomes possible.

CK

On 11/18/22, Grossberg, Stephen <st...@bu.edu> wrote:

Grossberg, S. (1968). Some physiological and biochemical consequences of
psychological postulates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
60, 758-765.
https://sites.bu.edu/steveg/files/2016/06/Gro1968PNAS60.pdf

I wish I could say something nice about this paper, but unfortunately
it exempifies all the problems I have been talking about in the SBoC
group.  I find the rationale of this paper almost incomprehensible.
Does the logic here make sense to anyone else?


Cathy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CAGPzamXQ9qpYy5gyU5Z1%3DHrO%3Dp0Cb%3Dm%3DdCpp_OzcaOwAU0%2BhhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste Bob

1. Yes, I am trained TM teacher - from a way back - Indian students batch of 1974-75 ;  a batch that was trained by Respected Peter Warburton. I did serve TM organization as a Teacher. for a duration. 
    I am a continuing practitioner and researcher  from inside of tradition, the same tradition from where MMY has come.

2. I was quoting your post in response to the statement from Kashyap ji - where in there is a clear allegation that 'religion theories are unchecked by Science for thousands of years !
   Kashyap ji's post using  the  pointed term  ‘religious theories’ is a catch all phrase  for all Yoga- Traditions having roots in  Gita –yoga –sciences.
   MMY's teaching,,  by default, is included in this broad umbrella term and charge.  And placed along with ' Other  ' Yogis gone bad with hype claims' excerpts !  from social media.
   Kashyap ji's  charge is based on (a) unsubstantatied facts (b) inappropriate understanding of traditions and (c) unscientific unreasonable demand -claim from Science teams for Yoga-Science investigation. !  

This complexity is further aggravated by seelct- invoking of Vinod ji's responses and  Yoga-Science explanation used as   bed time story models ! like  of '100 feet monsters, flying and talking  snakes, Magic miracle Thought - Materialization...'  The approach is hermeneutic error by bringing in ' Fables and Stories  of ' Religion' (?)  in to a Science - focus study of consciousness' ?! 

These deep errors of multiple  levels and modeling  in Kashyap ji's post needed a longer -clarificatory response.

3. The follow up question would be : Why then Religion Teams  ( of India in particular) invoke Miracle Siddhi - Phenomenon related Yoga- Meditation practices ? Why Trust -Practice - Support health guidance from Religion ? How can Science teams / How should Science teams engage to understand the ' Yoga-Science' using the ' Religion - achromatized viewing lens' ? For what benefit ?  What is the 'business -proposition and benefit to NAtion-communities' ?  

This is not adequately answered  by Inhouse Yoga-Science teams to the satisfaction of Science Researchers . The error infested science research on 'What is perceived as Yoga-Science is unaudited and carries a tall loud talk The TEAM dialogue is needed to set right this confusing scenario.

  
    The exploratory study by scientists  can  not start by 'data -collection- documentation mode of anthropologist, the academician writing a  university paper as hageography, chronicles  news  reported'  taken from  ' society'.carrying a biased seelction of reports on  ' yogis-gone bad- in-practice'. Not even soical media videos from WEB.  .  The Scientists  analysis using such resources for Yoga-Science analysis  needs to  be reviewed. 

      If the real interest of Science teams is to understand 'How 'Yoga-Science' axioms help to understand the 'Consciousness- Matter - Relations' / Mind Brain system /  and develop 'chit-padartha/ Prakruti - Technologies to delvier Health, Wellness, Public health deliverable cost effective solutions for professions and  benefits', then  the study has to  re-start as a 'Design board work  to understand  the basics of Yoga-Science'.

If my given understanding is right, MMY - world Peace Plan by  ' Meditator count increase, Siddhi program'  was  a grand design to address this issue using a Menusra model of ' Social Crime Rate reduction'. See : 
The report from research authors :  Hatchard GD; Deans AJ; Cavanaugh KL; and Orme-Johnson DW, Psychology, Crime, and Law 1995. Also presented by invitation to the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society on Criminal and Legal Psychology, 1-3 March, 1993, Harrogate, England. -  Liverpool crime study shows 13.4% reduction in crime due to TM (worldpeacegroup.org)

The effect of TM on 'DEHA' (Body / Mind Body conclave ) measures were by Stress relase  measurement studies  These were physiological parameters measurable by instruments - like Skin resistance, Oxygen level ...... EEG /ECG waves.... . Later on this has evolved to the point of brain matter chemistry and ' Molecules of Emotion' kind of studies 

At some historic point - time line and research context, the  TM - researchers held on to 'Gallans Anatomy and Hippocrates Greek Physicans Model coupled to Religion Theology' .  The core model of 'BODY CONSTITUTION -CHEMISTRY by PRAKRUTI MODEL OF  GITA YOGA-SCIENCE never surfaced properly, beyond a scaled down inappropriate translation; where ' Vedic theories of CONSCIOUSNESS' were mounted on ' inappropriate transaltion of Pancha- Maha-bhootas (Gita 7-4).  Simply 'the translation of Pancha mahabhootas as earth -water- fire -air- aaksh' has serious limitations; vitiates the study of Yoga-Sciences across all traditions of Orient and India. 

 
Introducing Correction to this mapping -modeling error was  not MMY forte  or main focus! .  This is clearly Researchers oversight  in preferntial modeling of Yoga-Science axioms  forcefitted in to medical studies  and use of inappropriate modeling. The missing of 'Ayurveda Framework to understand the Chit-Padartha framework : Prakruti Model at the root of TM practice benefit'. 

Even to this day,  'AYURVEDA' - uses Yoga-Science Prakruti Model based Health care framework . The Three Humors (popular term) Vata-Pitta- Kapha' .are not mapped in to ' Pharma - Neuro Models of Modern Science'  and  Medicine systems  (  Not in Education - Diagnostics- Professional Practice).

Modern Medicine Deign framework by ' Hippocrates - Gallan'  HAS NO EQUIVALENT ANALYTICAL MODEL to Explain t 'Charaka -Sushruta- Vagbhata - Patanjali  Fundamental Triad of VEDIC HEALTH -ANALYTICS  using ' PRAKRUTI /Chit-Padartha - eight list of Gita 7-4.

The Understanding of the very basics of AYURVEDA  :  the  DOSHA -TRAID, derived from  'Conscious Matter Axiom / Pancha-Mahabhoota diagnostics and treatment'. is thrown out by Scientists - Researchers exploring Yoga-Science Research, 

 Prakruti Model  is far beyond the ' Pharma - Medicine Model' and Bigger than ' Greek frame work provided by Hippocrates for analysis of health. [ Greek Medicine: Hippocrates  Greek Medicine: Hippocrates. Outcome of this is  Ayurveda becomes 'Green Medicne' delivered  as ' Pills, Oils, supplements and Capsules', for a business gain,  

So, where does the course correction start ?   When in doubt, get back to design board -Basics. that basic issue is 'Consciousness -Matter - Relations'.

TM is a practical yoga intervention tool which works on mind-brain interface. 

Yoga-Science studies uses 'chit-padartha' axiom -mode- menusra for research. to explain TM benefits.

Modern Science studies use ' Matter model menusra' to research 'consciousness part of TM practice'.

What is needed is TM research using ' PRAKRUTI (Gita 7-4) model Science Research. Do we have resoruces -people  - intent to undertake  this work ??  Deliverable is Health - Wellness - Public health. World Peace is a natural consequent outcome of this. 

I hope this helps.


Dr. BVK Sastry
Yoga-Samskrutham University

Dr. BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/961432500.2092898.1668788446435%40mail.yahoo.com.

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste Kashyap ji

1. Yes, I have read carefully your posts and replies. to Yeshua and CK. 

Please reread your own post by 

         substituting ' religions'   to 'science-researchers'. 

         substituting  'Yoga-Scientists' in the place of ' scientists' .

You will see my difficulty in understanding your post. 

2. What people -institutions do with their resources is not the deciding factor  for the proposed study. If the stated purpose fits their agenda, they may get willingnes to invest in this proposal.  People are free to spend their money on golf course or private jet trips  or drug-highs as they choose. 

. 

   I  believe what we are discussing here is getting at a clarity on ' Consciousness - Matter - Relations' with an experimental proof and goal of delivering 'Health, Wellness, Public Health' benefits through a profession.

   I also believe that the Scientists with loudest and powerful voices who have resoruces and who have messed up with the Yoga-Science studies have a primary responsibility to clean up this mess  with their resoruces. 

  

When 'Yoga-Science'  needing 'Conscious-matter -axiom' / TM studies as Yoga intervention in mind-brain/body interface impacting the 'consciousness experience' is studied only with ' matter model -mensura'; and the outcome is used to pronounce  verdict on yoga-science traditions, it seems unfair and un-scientific . 

So the need is to restart the TM research ( just for specificity) in its Native 'PRAKRUTI ' Conscious Matter framework provided by Gita (7-4);  VEDIC Framework  connect it to AYURVEDA by Charaka -sushruta- Vagbhata practicing professions.

What is happening broadly is : TM phenomenon, world wide available is constricted for research in  'Hippocrates - Gallen model'  and end up as a ' Hand maid of Main stream Pharma Health care'.

Am I clear enough in articulatng  why 'CONSCIOUSNESS - MATTER - RELATIONS'  is a fundamental  issue and focused answer needed for the question: Is Carbon Conscious ? 

Am I clear enough to articulate why rest of ' fMRI brain imaging of long time meditators, Thought Materializaiton of a drive way car, Remote viewing , PK, ESI, PSI.....'  come in the thrid circle beyond the core of ' CONSCIOUS-MATTER -RELATIONS' ? 

Am I clear enough to say why there is no necessity to fight sacred texts and scriptures and find fault with any Yoga-Teacher / Yoga- Guru in this study please.

Simple Science question on ' Modeling Consciousness - Matter - Relations'  is to be addressed and answered pl.

World Peace is a consequent of People- Leadership with Healthy Body- Healthy Mind -Healthy Spirit. 

How to enusre Heathy Mind and Spirit in 'Leadership with access to finger on Red button' is a question to be responded by all Peace seekers.  

Regards

BVK Sastry     

Dr. BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/BY3PR08MB70286C978B475869E6405D06C7099%40BY3PR08MB7028.namprd08.prod.outlook.com.

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Many, many thanks Cathy for that link:

http://vision.cse.psu.edu/research/humanSymmetryDetection/index.shtml

It brought many wonderful memories of the good old days. 

Stan

On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:36 AM Cathy Reason <cmrn...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/18/22, Chris King <dhus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think it proves the “predictive" powers of the model explain away
> visual sentience any more than Steve's 2015 basal ganglia paper he emailed
> explained away subjective conscious volition.

Here is an alternative, and to my mind conceptually far more powerful
way of applying mathematical analysis to visual perception:

http://vision.cse.psu.edu/research/humanSymmetryDetection/index.shtml

Cathy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CAGPzamV_x5b8G4fAcptcFL%2BXN%3Dz3oNPzOUYtCxfHuodbNTc3LQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Boyer]

BVK,

Thanks much for this explanation, for your profound respect for Maharishi, Vedic science, and your noble work as a TM teacher.

To briefly give a corresponding summary of my TM background, I started TM practice in 1969, began volunteering at the TM National Center in 1970, became a TM teacher in Mallorca, Spain in 1971,

and eventually Admissions Director of  the Teacher Training course office, then National President of the Students International Meditation Society and National Vice-President - US and trustee

of the World Plan Executive Council - US -- honored to be working with Maharishi in an administrative capacity. Maharishi recommended I continue academic studies, write psychological critiques

(undergraduate major was psychology), and complete a doctorate in psychology (finished in 1984). I then began teaching at MIU in psychology and neuroscience depts. I also completed postdoc internships and practiced at mental health venues and private practice as a licensed health service provider (while serving as adjunct faculty, and teaching some at other academic institutions). I began writing books and scholarly papers in consciousness studies and in communication skills training -- publishing the first two books in 2008.

I appreciate many of the points in your email (below), but wanted to bring up one issue that has to do with the importance of making conceptual bridges between modern science and Vedic science.

Maharishi strongly emphasized this by spending extensive time speaking and writing about it, as well as meeting with well-known scientists to examine the connections very deeply (especially physics, his undergraduate major and strong interest).

If you read any of my books (e.g., Pointless: The Reality behind Quantum Theory, which as I recall you indicated you would do when time available), it would be clear that going deeper into both modern and Vedic science to build rational connections between them is exactly what I've been working on for many years, including pointing out the incompleteness of many key modern models/theories (in a sense, rational 'psycholooical critiques' about what's not being addressed in much scientific thinking), which fortunately is now clearly coming to the forefront in modern science.

In my pursuit of this work, you made a particularly harsh statement and in my view, misplaced criticism, in your email to me.  To quote you:

"Simply 'the translation of Pancha mahabhootas as earth -water- fire -air- aaksh' has serious limitations; vitiates the study of Yoga-Sciences across all traditions of Orient and India." 

I hope you can reconsider this. If modern science is going to openly consider ancient Vedic science, areas that apply to both need to be identified as a basis for understanding

how Vedic knowledge can be seen to relate to and be useful for modern science. One obvious point is gross physical creation, which both modern and Vedic science address extensively.

If both address this same level of nature, then there must be some way that the different angles describing this level can be mapped onto each other. The potential correspondence, on a deeper

level of understanding, between the mahabhutas and the known fundamental quantum fields seems like a key area to examine. I'd appreciate you looking at the points associated with this issue

in my writings to understand the obvious relevance here. This work clearly reflects deep respect for both Vedic science and modern science -- in line with what Maharishi emphasized.

By the way, If you have not yet read Sanskrit scholar Vernon Katz' two volumes, Conversations with Maharishi, I think you would find it completely wonderful, and also exemplifying the overall issue I've brought up here.

Thanks and very best wishes,

Bob

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAE9EnEEg72GyfPE_vCwH_YckhoMTcJ25Qy%2BcWwWNHi4-%3D_vi-A%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste 

1. I have no intention of hurting or making harsh criticism. I am sorry if my post has caused some stress in you. 

Sometimes, the language, unintentionally  becomes rough in making a forceful point.

Vedic/ yogascience addresses a far deeper level of  Consciouness -Matter -relations. In the large design, the current science work is positionable as 'pebble on the sea shore' (- if i may draw on Issac Newton).

Pl. Give me pointer to the resource-  Sanskrit scholar Vernon Katz' two volumes,  Conversations with Maharishi - which could help me understand  and anchor the < ground - zero > of tectonic < technical - language and model shift > in TM ( Yoga Science Pratyahara -Yogaanga - in Prakruti - Yoga -Vijnana: conscious matter framework)-  to <  construct a scientific basis on root foundation of short scaled Greek Science and   Theology -  Kants views on Matter - meditation-philosophy -spirituality as study of mystic yogas of orient > ?

I do understand this is a complex confusing jungle-jumble of language-semantic. So lets get to plain terms.

The basic issue to - seek ' model- mensura -methods' for exploring consciouness -matter-relations now is in Two baskets / binary alternatives : 

Data: TM and Yoga Meditation related Scientific studies in the past 50 years.

Design -Analytic base available and used for research-.

The models applied for analytics : going by

 (A) Native  Gita-prakruti model at the root of TM design and functional benefits; serving as basis of Ayurveda, Jyotish, Vastu - practicing professions and disciplines 

Versus

(B) Non-Native  religion- theology - atheistic - models -mix  of views from :: Dalton - Gallen -Freud- Jung- Plank :  providing a basis for  consciouness-matter relation; where  primary and plurality definitions are used moving freely osmotically!? 

This issue needs a re-starting, if MMY wish needs to be pursued to its logical conclusion.

So action point is already noted in my earlier mail.

Stepping down to pancha-mahabhoota versus periodic table of matter, i have raised the question : is carbon atom in DNA  conscious-  by all - any  technicalities and definition-model-mensura of modern science.

Why carbon?  Carbon is one of common elements in matter schema- a part of ' Bhoomi'- the first of pancha mahabhootas. The translation of bhoomi ( prakruti model) as ' carbon' ( science ) would be absurd; it will be even more absurd to say ' bhoomi' is a conglomerate of all elements listed in periodic table  or fundamental particles by MSP listing!  If periodic table element based chemistry is to be the base of conscious life- mind -thought, then role of carbon across all conscious phenomenon, including TM needs to be explained. Any other model does not go beyond Platos cavemen design -analytic framework; irrespective of subtle quanta level matter talk, duality, standing wave - model...  The experience does not match with the explanation. 

Why atom ? Sets the referential point of subtlety.

Why DNA -pitch for carbon ? This sets the relation interface point between min-matter -brain/ life ... 

Why consciousness? Clarity on what is to be observed by experiment -model-mensura .

You have captured the essence of drive and essential action to get back on track. Your words are clear enough:
( your post)-  "...  importance of making conceptual bridges between modern science and Vedic science.-"...to examine the connections very deeply (especially physics, his undergraduate major and strong interest).... The Reality behind Quantum Theory, ...going deeper into both modern and Vedic science to build rational connections between them ... pointing out the incompleteness of many key modern models/theories

....about what's not being addressed in much scientific thinking), which fortunately is now clearly coming to the forefront in modern science.

...  If modern science is going to openly consider ancient Vedic science, areas that apply to both need to be identified as a basis for understanding  how Vedic knowledge can be seen to relate to and be useful for modern science.

One obvious point is gross physical creation, which both modern and Vedic science address extensively.

If both address this same level of nature, then there must be some way that the different angles describing this level can be mapped onto each other. The potential correspondence, on a deeper

level of understanding, between the mahabhutas and the known fundamental quantum fields seems like a key area to examine.

It is in this context a small note on my background could be helpful on why i am pushing this debate so hard.

MMY -is one of my Iconic model and Ideal in  exploring/ seeking a science-language / validation- delivery mechanism framework for connecting  yoga science-spirituality  to Health, wellness and public health.

For your information i belong to the  complement connected south Indian root- lineage of  MMY  tradition;  MMY - is connected to   north indian-lineage - tradition of Sri Shankara Acharya. This may be one of the benefit/ advantage i have in a specific mode understanding of what is Gita -Yoga-Science and how it connects to MMY- Gita-Yoga-Vedanta talk - popular in the largessee of Hinduism world religion talk and academia speaking six-systems of Hindu / indian philosophies ( obvious enough - using Biblical Theological model - which  prevailed in India as a historic fact for over three hundred years).  This historicity , some how seems to have corrupted the true understanding of Gita -Yoga-Science and Techologies. And ' Indian English -Indian model of understanding the framework of 20th century Scientific studies- diagnostics of yoga-Science. Classic example : inappropriate modelling  and Translation  and progressive  research to undetstand the  nature of Pancha-maha-bhootas ( conscious matter)- Prakruti model of Vedic/ Gita science : using  ' (matter-consciousness )  model as basus for ' science if yoga-vedanta spirituality.

The ' TM' practicality coming out from Gita\ Patanjali yoga-Sutra ( 2-27) as Ashtanga Yogaanga \ pratyahara -to -yogaanga-samadhi :   forming the basis for  ' yogaanga-samadhi -foundation for Siddhi ( TM - Advanced)  got distracted . The TM research which should have proceeded for further build on Prakruti model - Gita7-4) jumped lane to  yoga-vedanta: \ Analyzed vedic science as ' science of  mind-matter - miracle performance'- for ' Stress -release-goal'  ( but the talk was Samadhi language).

This deep tectonic shifts in modelling- design and goals kind of went on a speed track .

[  ] I recall a personal discussion with Brahmarshi Daivarat ( from Gokarna, South India) whom MMY held in great respect. It was my personal blessing and privelege to have lived with Him and learnt some basics at his feet. The time line was : Rishikesh and Bangalore world conference: ( the big- golden book of TM - Science reports -all  new trenfing research during that time) . When  -i , (the young insolent brat  at that time,  posing big and asking questions with a big mouth ) sought clarifications, they took great compassion on me and put me on a journey - functiong like a mentor and coach. It is more than 40 years and i can not confidently say i have completed the goal that was set for journey.

But during these many years, the mentors continue to serve from their ' aakashic bodies' and keep me in check and ensure that i am not switching lanes or slowing down. It is their blessings and mercy.

Brahmarshi Daivarat was a 'visionary of manyras: a vedic seer of our time's -walked talked lived around us.  He himself was neither an Engineer or Science language expert! Yet he was a yoga-scientist. His language was the language of -Mantra-Yoga-Samskrutham.

( my entry in to this is through the narrow lane of -Samskrutham: science and spirituality of language used in Mantra and Yoga::  our family lineage!  Call it the ' logos'-kind of relation to ' Word' in OT.  )  our core teams had no interest beyond ' serving local society in a culture-context -specific way for social livelihood  to support personal practice advancement. This team was at the farthest end of yoga- vedanta\ far above yoga-vijnana\  and kind of totally cut off (?- isolated! Insulated/ ignorant !  Callously indifferent!! ) of social dynamics of religions-languages- politics - professions-...!  Simply they had dedicated their lives to carry and preserve the heritage -like trusted couriers and guards - whi would carry and deliver the goods to the marked address!  Never botherung to undetstand content of package  or intent of their action. In this sense there was a deep inside gap between the genetation like me (- the insolent brat -questioning - why) and dedicated carriers and protectors of tradition who were in -' just do this way'- ( no questions allowed or asked / Total Trust ) command mode.

This is where  Brahmarshi Daivarat guided me on greatness of MMY, who delivered a socially relevant- scientifically validated - techniwue that take the practitioner to the end gial of Highest Spirituality in the exploration of consciousness. The talk in local language using Samskruth technicslities is difficult to translate and present.

The net outcome: For me  directive is to continue what MMY  started. Which you have captured accuratelty .

How may i be of service in furthering MMY' s work by native Yoga- Science framework pl?  Which is TM review - science research by native yoga science model of conscious- matter ?  Starting with pancha-maha-bhoota ? Underwhich carbon- is a matter at subtle level ? And coevolving to display consciousness ?  Is it chemistry, physics, biology , psychology ?? 

Regards

BVK Sastry 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/894794900.912740.1677345902293%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Namaste 

Q: is carbon atom in DNA  conscious-  by all - any  technicalities and definition-model-mensura of modern science?

In my view, carbon atom in (or out of) DNA  is protoconciousMatter because it is not fully conscious.

Regards 

Ram

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAE9EnEGv9na7AaijTP0uY5ncH%2B%2BEN7UJBmxMDqx2WwufMgXZaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry]

Namaste 

On < carbon atom in (or out of) DNA  is protoconciousMatter> 

Carbon is Consciousness - is primary position statement.

Proto is -a qualifier - descriptor- meaning fixer by  a perspective.

Even proto-consciousness needs primary proofs on 

A) consciousness relation to matter

B) time line dynamics of coevolution of consciousness as conscious-matter.

Regards

BVK Sastry 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/BCCC2A50-05F4-48DC-BCB7-C5A75665A330%40gmail.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Namaste,

It is a logical necessity for all non-conscious entities to have their own type of PC (protoconsciousness). Full consciousness arises only in conscious states in living systems if all necessary conditions of consciousness are satisfied. For example, there are 7 necessary conditions of the self,[i] and 15 necessary conditions for the subjective experiences (SEs, qualia) of objects. ^[ii]  

 

The assumption that Purusha is fully conscious and omnipresent has no evidence. What yogis experience at samadhi states is simply a subjective experience (SE) similar to any other SE; each of them has its own NPB (neural-physical basis). If there is no brain or brain-like information processor, there is no consciousness. 

---

[i] The 7 necessary conditions of the self

There are over 54 facets of self (experiencer, cognizer, and performer of actions: a sub-aspect of consciousness), which can be grouped into two categories: (a) James’ “I,” self-as-subject or metaphysical self, and (b) James’ “Me” or self-as-object such as active dynamic self (ADS) that is composed of proto-self, core-self, and autobiographical self, and other facets (Vimal, 2021a). The necessary conditions for self-as-subject are:

(1) Formation of neural network (NN) such as cortical and sub-cortical midline structures (CSMS),

(2) Wakefulness,

(3) Reentrant interactions among neural populations,

(4) Long-term memory that retains information for conscious self before deep sleep,

(5) Information integration in ‘complex’ of NN, such as thalamocortical complexes and CSMS-NN with critical spatiotemporal ‘grain-size’ (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012),

 

One could further argue for other necessary conditions, such as (6) neural synchrony, (7) intrinsic activity (Northoff, 2014b), and so on. Some NN or brain complex (such as thalamocortical ‘complex’) comparatively has very high integrated information (F). Therefore, it is a privileged brain-area for consciousness. Further research is needed to address if the above necessary conditions of consciousness are also sufficient.

 

 

[ii] The following is adapted from (Vimal, 2016d). The necessary conditions for consciousness are those conditions that must be satisfied in order to have consciousness, i.e., if any of them is missing then the entity is not conscious. The sufficient conditions for consciousness are conditions, if satisfied, guarantee that the entity is conscious. The criterion for "the selection of necessary conditions of consciousness" is that if any of them is missing, we will not have consciousness (that includes self and subjective experience (SEs) or qualia of objects), i.e., the necessary conditions are those conditions that must be satisfied in order to have consciousness. The sufficient conditions for consciousness are conditions, if satisfied, guarantee that the entity is conscious. Consciousness can be either access (reportable) or phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness (Block, 2005; Lamme, 2003). For access consciousness, the interactions are between feed-forward stimulus-dependent signals and frontoparietal feedback attentional signals. The necessary conditions for access (reportable) consciousness are:

(1) Formation of neural-networks,

(2) Wakefulness,

(3) Reentrant interactions among neural populations,

(4) Fronto-parietal and thalamic-reticular-nucleus attentional signals that modulate consciousness,

(5) Working memory that retains information for consciousness,

(6) Integrated information (F) at or above threshold level in the ‘complex’ of neural-network, such as thalamocortical complexes with critical spatiotemporal ‘grain-size’ (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012),

(7) Stimulus contrast at or above the threshold level, and

(8) Neural-network potential proto-experiences (PEs) that are the precursors (or potentialities) of subjective experiences (SEs) embedded in a neural network.

 

There are over 40 facets of self as necessary conditions that can be grouped into two categories, namely, (9) James’ “I”, self-as-subject, or metaphysical self, and (10) James’ “Me” or self-as-object such as active dynamic self (ADS) that is composed of proto-self, core-self, and autobiographical self, and other facets.

 

One could further argue for other necessary conditions, such as (11) higher-order thoughts, (12) executive functions, (13) neural synchrony, (14) intrinsic activity (Northoff, 2014b), (15) feature and binding, (16) E=h/t  for Orch OR; and so on.

 

Certain neural-network or brain complex (such as thalamocortical ‘complex’) comparatively has very high integrated information (F). Therefore, it is a privileged area for consciousness. Attention and the ability to report are not necessary for phenomenal consciousness. Therefore, the necessary conditions for the phenomenal consciousness are the same as that for the access consciousness except the 4^th condition related to attention. Further research is needed to address if the above necessary conditions of consciousness are also sufficient.

 

Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research) and President

Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; Vision Research Institute, Inc; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAE9EnEH4WpErsyTpygVSpWGjSuQVY1dFLq%2ByHqbTtRm34SWrcQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Robert Boyer]

BVK,

Thank you for this explanation. I much respect the experience you have with the Vedic tradition of knowledge, much appreciate the close connection to Brahmars Daivarat (what a deep honor and blessing), and your life-long study of Maharishi's profound and much needed revival of Vedic knowledge. Maharishi emphasized repeatedly that the understanding and direct experience of Vedic science and technology had been practically  lost over the millennia, so much so that his simple, comprehensive reclarification was a challenge to many scholars, even in India. And scholars around the world did not have sufficient understanding  and experience to connect modern science to Vedic science. Fotunately, Maharishi established the core connections, and they are being made (though fundamentally still incomplete, the prospects for human society are immense).

It would be a pleasure to discuss these things in detail and work with you on them. One approach would be to go through, say, the book Pointless and sort out any issues not sufficiently clear that would give us common teminology -- both the Vedic and modern scientific terminology Maharishi frequently used, so the bridging concepts linking them could be consistent between us to start with, and thus perhaps more available to both modern scientists and scholars of ancient Vedic knowledge in India -- based on your question about this with respect to chemistry, physics, biology, and psychology. Each of these fields can make their contribution but need to be understood in the context of the Vedic model of levels of nature, that at this point in modern science is not understood. It is a profoundly clarifying and unifying contribution in Vedic knowledge, e.g., in Sankhya and Ayurveda, and in Maharishi's profound clarification of 7 states of consciousness along with his point that "knowledge is different in different states of consciousness." Just a thought to consider about how we could proceed.

Very best wishes,

Bob

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CAE9EnEGv9na7AaijTP0uY5ncH%2B%2BEN7UJBmxMDqx2WwufMgXZaQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL]

Dear Ram and others, 

My comments in blue fonts

On Wed, 1 Mar, 2023, 12:54 am Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, <rlpv...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

It is a logical necessity for all non-conscious entities to have their own type of PC (protoconsciousness).

No, there is no logical necessary in having  inert entities any PC. In fact, it is illogical to assume you that inert  entities have any Proto Consciousness. Why? Since presence of any PC  means absence of awareness, free will which practically amounts to inert matter. So when awareness and free will shall arise in such a PC without awareness and free will on fulfillment of any conditions, that shall be akin to building awarenes  and free will in inert matter- materiailism. 

 So there can nothing be like PC. Either there should be consciousness with awareness  and free will Or inert matter without any consciousness

Full consciousness arises only in conscious states in living systems if all necessary conditions of consciousness are satisfied. What is meant by fully consciousness vs PC and how do you distinguish between the ? If you assume that fully consciousness is with awareness, free will and PC is without awareness, free will, then PC shall cease to remain consciousness. Why? Since then no difference shall remain between inert matter and PC.  Ram! If you insist upon the concept of PC, please clarify and explain the difference in

PC and Consciousness 

          AND

PC and inert matter. 

Without the above, concept of PC is only an illogical assumption and it can't be accepted. 

There is another logical problems in assuming PC viz if there is PC in entities, there should also be inseparable Proto Physical aspects in the entities. But the presence of different proto physical aspects as inseparable with different PEs ( Proto Experiences) of PC in entities can't be explained. 

Hence the whole concept of PC is beset with a lot of unexplained  explanatory gap problems

For example, there are 7 necessary conditions of the self,[i] and 15 necessary conditions for the subjective experiences (SEs, qualia) of objects. ^[ii]  

 

The assumption that Purusha is fully conscious and omnipresent has no evidence.

There is evidence from the Samaadhi state and these are  of reproducible  nature from yogis as cut across diverse spiritual schools/ lineage  and hence carry powers of corroborative evidence. 

What yogis experience at samadhi states is simply a subjective experience (SE) similar to any other SE;

No, these are not similar to normal wakeful state SEs since normal wakeful state SEs are thru brain ( when consciousness remains connected and operative in the brain) but Samaadhi state SEs occur when consciousness becomes disconnected/ non operative in the brain ( not completely but largely) 

sst

each of them has its own NPB (neural-physical basis).

There are two limitations in the above assumed statement

1) First neuroscience has never tested the presence of any NN/ NPBs in the really advanced level Samaadhi state. It is  only an assumption. 

2) Secondly, even if any NNs/ NPBs are found during testing of Samaadhi state, that shall not prove that such experiences are produced by brain only and exist/ operate at the brain level only. Why? Since experiences could be originating and existing/ operating  at  subtler astral mind level ( and that what is revealed during Samaadhi state also and this happens during the normal wakeful state experiences also) and the these experiences leaving their imprints in the brain as neurophysical effects ( NPBs) 

If there is no brain or brain-likiie information processor, there is no consciousness. There is no logic and substance in the above assumption since  consciousness is not produced by the brain but is a mediator of  the consciousness. 

Vinod Sehgal

.

On Tuesday, 28 February, 2023 at 02:35:21 am GMT-5, BVK Sastry <yogasam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste 

On < carbon atom in (or out of) DNA  is protoconciousMatter> 

Carbon is Consciousness - is primary position statement.

Proto is -a qualifier - descriptor- meaning fixer by  a perspective.

Even proto-consciousness needs primary proofs on 

A) consciousness relation to matter

B) time line dynamics of coevolution of consciousness as conscious-matter.

Regards

BVK Sastry 

On Tue, 28 Feb 2023, 9:48 am Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, <rlpv...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste 

Q: is carbon atom in DNA  conscious-  by all - any  technicalities and definition-model-mensura of modern science?

In my view, carbon atom in (or out of) DNA  is protoconciousMatter because it is not fully conscious.

Regards 

Ram

Sent from my iPhone

[Venkatakrishna]

Namaste  Robert Boyer

 

On

<  .. to discuss these things in detail and work with you on them. ..the book Pointless and sort out any issues not sufficiently clear that would give us common terminology -- both the Vedic and modern scientific terminology ….. bridging concepts linking them could be consistent between us to start with, -- based on …question about this with respect to chemistry, physics, biology, and psychology. ..context of the Vedic model of levels of nature, that at this point in modern science is not understood. .. to consider about how we could proceed.  > :

 

The ‘Prakruti’ Model of Gita (7-4)- Eight List/ ‘ Padartha\ Dravya Model of NV YS- 9 list  can be a starting point to arrive at an understanding of ‘Conscious-Matter’ framework.

  

 

This requires joint effort from Science teams as well as Traditional Teams. Let us work off line before getting to the group on this.

 

Regards

 

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/1871314569.2450276.1677623721493%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Robert Boyer]

BVK,

Thanks for this reply. However, I would request that in order to establish basic agreement between us, there is the need for a starting point in which we can agree on key points about Prakruti and levels of nature in Vedic science. To me, the need is for reviewing what your understanding is with respect to my overviews of Maharishi Vedic Science -- and that suggests you reading some of what I've written about it (which you said in the past you would do). Key papers for this would be "Ignorance and Enliightenment: What's the Difference?" -- because it is a good starting point to reconcile concepts and terminology on consciousness, states of consciousness, and Darshana; then Evidence of Vedic Renaissance or "What's the Full Range of Nature," because these are a good starting points to reconcile concepts and terminology on levels of nature and levels of mind (especially as laid out in Sankhya and Ayurveda). I can send these to you again if you want.

Even concepts and terminology in the little excerpt on Prakruti you added below seems to have concerns with respect to my understanding of Maharishi Vedic Science and may not well-serve as a starting point (though including more extensive material from where you took this excerpt may help). For example, the statement of "5-Pancha-Mahabhuta's as base of Physical and Bio=Physical Matter is generally fine. But calling Mind (Manas)-Buddhi (intellect) Psychic Matter, and relating Ahamkara to Core Conscious Matter in the background of Conscious-Energy ...and Conscious Time (Maha-Kaala) don't seem consistent with Maharishi Vedic Science. These statements seem to need more clarity of use with respect to Maharishi Vedic Science. Am I explaining myself clearly here? Please let me know because I'n wondering how to proceed effectively if we don't use the same concepts and terminology (at lease the same or quite similar to what Maharishi has used).

Also, some months ago you seemed to agree on the meaning of the phase "chit-padartha,' but in some of your more recent posts you may be using it in a different way -- which is extremely important.

Thanks and best wishes,

Bob

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/000001d94d16%2472612a50%2457237ef0%24%40gmail.com.

[BVK Sastry(YSAM)]

Namaste Robert Boyer

 

On

< Maharshi Vedic Science ….   For example, the statement of "5-Pancha-Mahabhuta's as base of Physical and Bio=Physical Matter is generally fine. But calling Mind (Manas)-Buddhi (intellect) Psychic Matter, and relating Ahamkara to Core Conscious Matter in the background of Conscious-Energy ...and Conscious Time (Maha-Kaala) don't seem consistent with Maharishi Vedic Science. These statements seem to need more clarity of use with respect to Maharishi Vedic Science. Am I explaining myself clearly here? Please let me know because I'n wondering how to proceed effectively if we don't use the same concepts and terminology (at lease the same or quite similar to what Maharishi has used). >

 

1.  It would be considered imprudent on my part to make any observation on ‘What was in MMY mind’ in presenting ‘Tradition in a certain way for Modern science exploration’.

 

2. From my given understanding of MMY – framework:

 

2.1: MMY seems to have provided Patanjali Practical Yogaanga-Technique; renamed for convenience of presentation as ‘Attendriya -Dhyana’ = Technique of ‘Meditation (Dhyana)’ which facilitates progressive transcending through the layers of chit-padartha / Prakruti. As in Patanjali , yogganga –dhyana ends in ‘Yogaanga – Samadhi’; becoming base for further advancement of ‘ yoga-samadhi’ and then to ‘ Kevalin’ ; and then to ‘Advaita – Sannyasa -sthiti’.

 

Manas is one of the eight list Prakruti items; and functions as ‘indriya’ – Gate of Consciousness experience and process in ‘deha’.

 

Goal : Freedom / Reduction from ‘Stress’ (= udvega)::    Benefit:  Health. Stress free Body – Mind.

 

Source of MMY Design for TM (as I  understand):   The technique connects ‘Patanjali –Yogaanga (2-27) to  first part of instruction in the large schema  at Gita : 3-41: ‘tasmat tvam indriyani adau niyamya’ to explore ‘Prakruti ( Gita -7-4) and progress to final ‘Transcendence (Moksha/ Advaita Sthiti). The intermediary phases are in Gita reference and need very advanced yoga-intervention-instructions; NOT needed for this Forum discussion or Outbound Science – Technology Applications. This would be transforming a ‘Scientist’ to become a ‘Sannyasi’  through ‘ Yoga- practice’!  Scientists thinking of ‘Thought-Materialization Proof’ to walk at Stockholm to receive Prizes would not like this suggestion.

 

I am sure that many may scientists may not like the final goal for their ‘scientific exploration  or personal aspiration !  But part of Journey can be common.  So the talk needs to be other way: How would Gita Yoga-Science help to advance Modern Science, if at all it can !  No future promises and conditions !! 

This is where my pointed question comes:  Is Carbon in DNA conscious ?  If scientists get to a technology of intervening with the ‘Conscious-Carbon’ what would they do to deploy it as a ‘Product- service’ ?? Ethics issue comes after the ‘Potential is tapped  and economics of it is worked out’ by ‘ Political Military strategists’. This is Moving  yoga-science debate from ‘Liberation / Moksha’ goal to Applied Yoga – Conscious matter Technologies  to tap the Power of PRAKRUTI.

 

The TM (Basic) and TM (Advanced for siddhi)  technique is a part of ‘Yoga-Vedanta: Advanced Practical  – Vision- Philosophy- schema of transcending from ‘Conscious-Matter (Prakruti/  Maayaa / Naama- roopa- Aakruti)’ to ‘Avyakta – Para brahma’. Technical Name : Advaita Vedanta which transcends all forms of ‘Duality’/ ends  in Universal Unity Cosmic Consciousness.

 

2.2 :   MMY uses ‘Yoga-Science’ –  of Pancha-Maha-bhoota : nested structure model of  ‘Deha / Shareera’ - ‘PRAKRUTI: linking ‘ TM – PRACTICAL benefits and PRACTICE - advancement  to  ‘Ayur-Veda’. To explain a theoretical framework of this,  MMY draws upon GITA : Yoga-VEDNATA by Acharya Shanakara school and backdrop of “ Layers of consciousness / Unity consciousness …as ‘STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS’.  The language is clear in ‘Hindi’; and loses its original source touch in Translation and Science – Research mapping !

 

The model- mensura of ‘ Pancha-Maha-bhoota’ theory in Ayurveda DOES NOT MATCH – DOES NOT MATCH to ‘ PERIODIC TABLE MATTER structure and chemistry of Modern Science in Biology and Medical Sciences / Health Care Practices advocated and controlled by Corporate Pharma /  Corporate conglomerate controlling ‘ Technology of HEALTHY - BRAIN – MEMORY- ACCESS’ .  OR Science of ‘PSYCHE’   looking for  tools like  RV and the  like  involving  (MIND/ Spirit / Energy / Atma/ anattaa / Shiva –Shakti/ ahamkara / Prana …..  a  host of  technical terms messed up in model and mensura by inappropriate translation). 

 

MMY seems to have been either constrained by limitation of ‘Historic Science Vocabulary – Translation to English’  Or  ‘ might have consciously set a long road map with only check pointers mentioned to verify as and when research progresses’. 

 

In any case , MMY was not seeking ‘ Science Validation of Vedanta’. Not seeking to provide Technology for  ‘Mind controlled Weapons and Medicine –Healing’ to corporate.   If my understanding is right, MMY focus was ‘Delivering good of Yoga-Science’ to Nations:: A  mission of His life  :: TM for PEACE- PROSPERITY- HEALTHY TOGETHERNESS. Measure was ‘Crime rate reduction, Stress freedom,  …..’.

 

3.  In view of this,  I have resisted further detailing. While I see MMY clever weaving of ‘Gita : Yoga-Science of Samkhya- Yoga- Vedanta’ for Theory;  MMY focused on Yogaanga-Science Practical of Patanjali (2-27) : DHYANA as prior step to SAMADHI talk.  The Pratyahara part of Patanjali was customised to ‘Sound’ – the  Nature and Natural property that connects ‘ Aakasha( Pancha-maha-bhoota- Prakruti) and ‘Manas’ – Prakruti.

 

4. Therefore, to take the best advantage of MMY guidance, in my opinion the starting step would be clean up of ‘Herculean stables of ‘Consciousness – Matter- Relations’  created by Modern Science by placing ‘Gita-Yoga-Science: Prakruti Model’  under ‘ Periodic Table/ MSP of Matter’ – and exploring using ‘ inappropriate translations and ‘religion tag-models’.

 

Pancha-maha-bhootas seems to be a good starting point for this  study with NV YS – 9 list. There is no need to  get in to controversies with  any scripture or god/ guru limitations.  

 

The available data of TM research and the like needs a review – refit in to the new paradigm of ‘Conscious Matter (Prakruti) which breaks the barrier of

- matter isolation as ‘unconscious Physical Material (Pancha maha-bhoota : Carbon atom)

- biological matter ( Sapta-Dhatu from Ayurveda chemical structures from matter: Carbon in DNA)

-Psychic Matter ( Manas - Carbon in Neurons, glial, brain matter and functions) ; 

- Core conscious matter (Spirit/ Life energy as Prana/ atma / ahamkara)

All Working in the backdrop of ‘TIME – SPACE DIRECTIONS VECTORIALLY ‘ (Kaala – Dik).

 

6.  Thus ‘ TM / Yoga- Mediation: Scientific  basis  Research : building up on current data and practices review; using Yoga-Science Native Model of ‘PRAKRUTI’ (Gita 7-4) / NV YS -9 list  for ‘DEHA-PRAKRUTI- BENEFITS’ (BODY MIND INTERFACE by AYURVEDA)- seems to be an emerging draft title line - thinking.  This is ‘ HUMAN HANDS AND DOING  FOR HUMAN HEALTH AND WELLNESS , USING SCRIPTURE GUIDANCE’.

 

I hope this helps. This would benefit both modern science and Yoga-Science teams; and deliver global benefits for society.

7.  Who then needs to bring resources and lead ? As investors and Beneficiaries?? NATION- RELIIGON- SCIENCE COMMUNITY.  Consortium Model ? Multi- Disciplinary ??

 

Would/ Should this go under corporate control ?? Probably Not !!

Would/Should this be funded by Nations Tax dollars as ‘National Science Research Project ?? Yes, If National Health- Technologies  policy thinkers that Public  Health is a constitutional promise to citizens of nation.

Would /Should be locked exclusive to any ‘Religion – Institutional Head’ –brand ?? Probably NO and should NOT !

 

MMY seems to have established that Yoga-Science is a common heritage and beneficial Gift of Nature/ God to ALL. So it needs to be Unified collective pool-effort that should aim to reduce ‘Religion –Terrorism/ Aggression’ using ‘technology’ with ‘Yoga-Science Interventions’.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/1021950404.1262695.1677787865239%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Amit]

Hi All,

From the following which defination is the best for Conscious Organisaiton ?

Defination 1

The constant pursuit of bottom-line growth is precisely why we are facing these extreme dangers. A conscious organisation  is a company that commits to growing the Triple Bottom Line: People, Planet and Profit.

A conscious organisation accepts that there are limits to profit and that it should not be the priority. If profit cannot be achieved within the limited resources of the planet and without addressing inequality, then it cannot be achieved.

Defination 2

The  term “conscious organization” is the quality of  management which could be possible if the properties of consciousness seen to be in the universe couldbe  fully   enlivened in   human  organizations.


Defination 3

The Conscious Organization is not an end state where every worker is “certified” self-actualized, transcended or enlightened, where each and every element of the company, division, bureau, agency or institution is spotlessly cleaned of any residual dysfunction. The Conscious Organization is one that is continually examining itself, committed to becoming as self-aware and responsible as it can at any given time in its life. It purposely creates a very low tolerance for dysfunction. It possesses the collective will to be vigilant about unresolved issues that might fester under the surface of awareness or otherwise go unnoticed like they do in so many organizations today.

Defination 4

When an organization has a deeper sense of connected-ness, that is what we call organizational consciousness. People need self- reflection to become more aware and conscious and so do organizations.

Regards,

Amit

[Paul Werbos]

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 6:20 AM Amit <am...@requisiteagility.org> wrote:

Hi All,

From the following which defination is the best for Conscious Organisaiton ?

Thanks much, Amit, for the kind of question which really does raise our level, and points to important substantive issues.

BUT ... your sentence above is broader than the 3 choices you gave us, and I do not have time now to 

connect them.

The English word "conscious" already has many definitions, as we have discussed. My favorite is "consciousness qua mind or intelligence," consciousness quad being an intelligent system, a system possessing general intelligence a property we have already discussed at length. As in many of my papers at arxiv, neural network mathematics tells us a lot about the major types or levels of intelligent system.

Your question points directly to an important book we should never forget, the nerves of government by k arl deutsch. Can an organization like a government or human society actually attain intelligence?

None do, but it is a practical useful paradigm in trying to get there. I wish I had time now to elaborate. Knowing about how beeaib s do it gives really importahht clyyes essential to getting these systemns to gave sone hope of working. 

More later.

Best regards, Paul

[Paul Werbos]

More --

How can organizations satisfy the definition of consciou sense qua intelligence, grounded in neural network mathematics?

That builds on key issues in my chapter for Come carpenter's new book for the India Foundation.

One key requirement: a mission concept providing the U, the bottom line goal. I should send you a paper on examples from nasa and nsf and how they play out.

>50% of human brain is for neocortex, "the university of the brain" , providing system id/prediction/state_estimation (see Werbos and Davis) and options (mapping the space of possibilities).Lack 

of the capabilities posible here is the number one reason for gross failure in many organizations, like climate poluuicy systems.

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 6:20 AM Amit <am...@requisiteagility.org> wrote:

[Venkatakrishna Sastry]

Namaste

My understanding of Conscious Organization is placed below as a Visual ( which compresses the verbiage to explain the same).

Regards

 

Dr. B V Venkatakrishna Sastry
(G-Mail)

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgcMYyx5rqbCDv7ffwk207PdPVOxJPsXHp5oVJFMO3ZfCg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

A little more yet...

A key lesson from serious modeling of intelligence in mammal brains is that the system has major components governed by different learning rules, performing different global universal functions. I remember learning this in 1964. It is one of the MANY key basic things I gave learned which i simply take for granted now, which really requires spelling out for those who did not have the same learning experience.

One simplified image of huge practical importance in organizations...

The old broca region view of diverse functions in the brain is far too narrow to give a good picture of the

general intelligence. Those of you who invoke the name of Walter Freeman (a name easily attached to things he doubted or hated, when he is not here to object) should at least check scholar.google.comm which lIsts hIs paper on mass action in the brain as his top cited work. 

Yeshua has posted our review of Freenan, Lashley and Pribram on mass action. (I also give links to links at werbos.com). 

Donald Hebb, one of the two great inspirations who created the neural network field, proposed a view of brain intelligence which would give great encouragement to the purest advocates of equality in human societies and organizations. In 1962 to 1964 I was inspired by his views and the search for the general neuron model, a learning rule which could be applied equally to all neurons.

It did not work.

Long story.. but we ned at least a limbic system, a neocorrex and basal gangia and final motor system. 

Different learning rules in different types of cells.

But also a kind of immune adaptation system.. boundaries..conflict of interest rules essential to avoid chaiis. Not tge florud and ciirruot rukkes we get when lawyers try to do the whole job, but not unrestrained chaos. A middkke way, not a fuzzy muudlke, but .. mkre lat er. 

[Stanley A. KLEIN]

Hi Paul,  

I just now saw your posting with the names of Freeman and Pribram close to  each other. 

I once took a sabbatical at Pribram's lab at Stanford and Freeman's lab very close to mine at UC Berkeley. 

Many thanks for those fond memories. 

Stan

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgdh8d3bTnRC_o%3DD6Z4cksttuA8r-uxcsRrqVhJ%3D92q33g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Kineman-SBOC]

I think #2 is approachable. The others are too over-defined by preconceptions.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Scientific Basis of Consciousness" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-co...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CACLqmgcMYyx5rqbCDv7ffwk207PdPVOxJPsXHp5oVJFMO3ZfCg%40mail.gmail.com.
<Consciousness_v3_Bangalore(1).pdf>

[Paul Werbos]

Those few of us who practice first order sanity or zhenqi,

 as defined in a paper i often give you the link to, are always looking at life through "two eyes" at once, the eye of our full direct experience of life and the "eye" of hard core objective reality. These are the two "aspects" Ramanuja was really pointing us to, in my view, in his original focused version of "Dual Aspect Monism". 

Truly merging what we see through the two eyes, without just vacillating or fuzzifying what we seem is not easy.

In a way, that has been half my life's work, fully unified only in the last year or two, as I assimilated important findings from the hardest core real empirical and mathematical physics.

1. Review of essential foundations on physics side

1a. The basics

ONE such adjustment I had to make: even though I see that Hard Core Einsteinian Realism HCER as I define it fits with 

"everthing on heaven or earth" (all credible evidence as i see it from laboratories or from PSI),  I understand how a slight but important tweaking or clarification of the mainstream theory of  Everett, Wheeler and Deutsch EWD is such a powerful approximation that most of us need to understand and use what it really tells us, even if we have a few threads of thought looking further.

EWD tells us that the cosmos we live in -- i.e. all that exists so far as we can know or get any real evidence for- is 

a complex function psi(t,X), where t is a real coordinate we call time and X is a point in mainstream 3D Fock space. (Yes, we can do better, but this is an approximate theory, just as Newton's theory of gravity is an approximation).

1b. Important refinements

EWD is often appended to the Heisenberg/Duerr theory of what we see when we connect a system obeying quantum field theory QFT with macroscopic objects which we use in measurement, like counters and polarizer and lasers. Some of us now believe that that theory was absurd, especially in florid fantasies we have seen about "finding God in a pair of polarized sunglasses". Better models are being tested.

Many of us doubted the prediction of "macroscopic Schrodinger cats", which states that cats and people can be put into quantum superposition. But massive empirical results, from QED technology used over thousands of kilometers to organisms like tardigrades (so far), has proven that this is a fact of life.

But: popular and philosopher accounts of the multiverse, of the parallel states of people neglects a term in the modern "Schrodinger equation" psi dot = i  H psi which sounds small but is not. If psi0(X) is an eigenstate (" one oif the real universes existing in parallel") of H, the eigenvalue is a complex number lambda. If re( lambda)=0, it is predicted to be just a poaralel reality, as people usually think. But the math allows a small negative real part, which makes the state a "virtual state". For example, I believe that Trump really was inaugurated President in 2021, in a powerful real but virtual state.

Technology demands I not that psi is not a representation of our knowledge. Most schools hurt technology by screwing that up. But this email is for..

2. THE OTHER EYE

Most humans today live in a subjective fantasy world, not yet  facing up to the reality of macroscopic Schrodinger cats, which is what we are. True PSI is not so limited.

Will our noosphere, our culture, start to catch up with thus first elementary reality?

I have seen two movies this year which begin to bridge tge gap, and maybe help ys slowly open up our other eyes more fully.

Months ago, on an airplane, with nothing else to do, I saw Doctor Strange, the Multiverse of Madness. That has important aspects.. I would discus more if I did not just hear that I am now close to Toba, Japan.

Last night on ship I saw "Everywhere everything all at once". 

Whatever the details... I highly recommend others swing  it.  Uf I had time, I woukd discuss many pros, cons, agreement, diusagreementrs. But ur uus still very important, filing a real hole.

One hole .. It depicts a woman becoming dead but  living ion, (Schridinger..). 

That hits me today, when it us mjy last full day as a passenger on thus ship, but also.. maybe more.

Tomorrow when we are scheduled visit Japan's cutyniif the dead, in the far north, with the mist snow on earth and vast fields of ash... and bad random factors intrude..

On Mon, Mar 6, 2023, 6:20 AM Amit <am...@requisiteagility.org> wrote:

[Paul Werbos]

Very slight clarification of the first person aspect...

I did NOT mean to sound as if PSI supports or opposed the idea that today might be my last day as a passenger on earth, let alone the ship.

But it is amusing that plans for tomorrow would take me and my wife to the far north of Honshu, to a place where they work to commune with the dead. We have links to the web page of that famous place. Plans to travel, eat and sleep all make sense, but unexpected shifts on the ship and in Japan do introduce uncertainty.

Re technology... It is absolutely crucial to the technology to represent uncertain knowledge about the state of the universe via a density operator rho, not a wave equation. EWD predicts that. The entire us gov effort in QuIST, quantum information s&t, grew out of efforts to exploit dynamics of rho. Philosophers who convinced people to assume other beliefs based on wave functions convinced them to write proposals routinely rejected because of incompetence and ignorance of how these systems work, empirically. Miseducation is still a major problem for QuIDT.

[Amit Arora]

Dear Paul,

I also wish I was there with you but I am very  hopeful that you will be in India for the next week long Apportunity Conference 😊

It's going to be great fun

AMIT

[Paul Werbos]

On Thu, Mar 9, 2023, 7:53 AM Uziel Awret <awr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Paul, wish I was there with you. 

I wished that too in the great onsen of Kyushu.

Today...

https://photos.app.goo.gl/8L5mq8kgn4xTYbfU9

It was another packed day, learning a lot.

When we learn things, will it be understood, passed on, used or lost? That was and is one of the two main challenges facing Kukai, the most important soul especially available here in Shikoku. (The other, the core of his efforts, was his attempt to better accelerate human inner growth, directly challenge 4, but important to 1 and 7 as well. We all have more to learn kn how to do tgat, but with deep sincere focus and more c onnection we might have hope.)

Did a tardigrade produced interferenc7e fringe in a double slit experiment?

They are huge and funny looking.

Buried in emails I sent to BPM was a link to the paper. If I have time I will try to do a search here, using the keyword macroscopic Schrodinger cat.

Tardigrades are interesting, "water bears." But just now Luda is describing another tight schedule...

Best, Uzi.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CACLqmgcRDeWTMPJc_r9qtmr3j7bO-2jrtYLti23%2ByX5KtLkHUg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biological Physics and Meaning" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Biological-Physics-an...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Biological-Physics-and-Meaning/CAE7%2Bc3hESn3YSF4La%2BnQu0c%2B0RD5d97%3D3uX_WQMSfikaB9Yhrg%40mail.gmail.com.