RE: Neo-naturalism and spatio-temporal surprises and entanglement

33 views
Skip to first unread message

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
May 17, 2019, 11:01:49 AM5/17/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com

Dear Alfredo, Chris, Cathy, Ram and others,

I have mentioned my understanding of entanglement before in scattered e-mails. But I will summarize it here again. Philosophers and others use physics words like energy, coherence, decoherence, entanglement etc. in a different sense. But physicists should not be concerned with that! If someone with a Ph.D. in physics and teaching at a college/university differs from what I am saying , I will be happy to discuss with him/her. Also consciousness is not yet part of traditional physics. So my sayings about consciousness should not carry as much weight as my sayings about traditional physics!!

As everyone knows, wave function or amplitude in QM is a complex quantity. To get a real number out you take absolute square. So phases between different parts play a very crucial role. In particular interference depends crucially on phases.

The new feature entanglement brings in is inseparability of two or many particle wave function e.g.

Psi (r(1). r(2)) cannot be written as a product of psi(r(1)) and psi (r(2)).For photons with polarizations h(horizontal) and v(vertical),

(h(1)+v(1))X (h(2) +v(2)) is  unentangled.  h(1)v(2) + v(1) h(2) is entangled. In general all of these are complex quantities as long as coherence can be maintained. If you measure polarization of one particle, you break inseparability including complex phases. Entanglement means the other particle will be found (and has been found) to be either v(2) or h(2), not both!

For a physicist this is decoherence. It may come from environmental disturbances as the two particles propagate or actual measurement. Experimental physicists have to spend months or years in preparing their systems to assure this. Even then measure of entanglement called fidelity may not be 100 percent.

Right now I do not have time to look at the book Alfredo suggests. But I doubt if information theorists can differ from basic ideas of QM.

Best.

Kashyap

From: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com [mailto:scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of BT APJ
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2019 2:43 AM
To: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Neo-naturalism and spatio-temporal surprises

 

Dear Vasavada: I am a philosopher and I use "entanglement" like physicists do.

What do you think of the Nielsen and Chuang book on Quantum Information and Computation?

When it appeared I thought it could solve the conceptual foundations and provide
a common formalism for quantum computing.
Best,

Alfredo

 

Em qui, 16 de mai de 2019 às 22:08, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> escreveu:

Cathy,

Coherence in QM means definite phase relationship between two quantum states. Entanglement needs definite phase relationship. Decoherence means its loss. The loss may be due to environmental effects or some other specific interaction introduced by the experimenter.  Philosophers may use decoherence in different ways. Physicists are not concerned with that!

Best.

Kashyap

 

From: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Cathy Reason
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2019 8:52 PM
To: Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Neo-naturalism and spatio-temporal surprises

 



 Kashyap V wrote

It is true that currently, entangled particles are created and at some point they may lose their entanglement due to decoherence or whatever.


Am I reading this right?  In what sense can decoherence cause loss of entanglement?

Cathy

--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/c26dc862-bcbc-4951-833a-667c7497f4fb%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/8c4b8f13c5944abfbe0008f57f464a59%40BL-CCI-D1S08.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/CA%2BcKjwOxj-DmQP%3DU0D5EhmKEhMrJMWWf4-EMy5678w05PydrcA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

BT APJ

unread,
May 17, 2019, 11:16:54 AM5/17/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the explanation, Kayshap!
Alfredo

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/98bcf32349e0411c845dc66a9e6574da%40BL-CCI-D1S08.ads.iu.edu.

Avtar

unread,
May 17, 2019, 1:03:56 PM5/17/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com
Hi All
Let us leave QM alone for what it is best for that is to use it for technology applications - computers cell phones communications etc.  

QM interpretations have too much baggage of unnecessary details that are counter productive for consciousness studies.  These details are like getting lost in the hair in the tail of the elephant that misinterpret the whole elephant.  

Consciousness should be studied at the energy and space level far above the particle wave or entanglement level wherein the debate would never end or converge. 

Best Regards 
Avtar 

Sent from my iPhone

Stanley A. KLEIN

unread,
May 17, 2019, 2:35:33 PM5/17/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness, Henry Stapp
Dear Kashyap,
I liked what you said about amplitudes with entanglement, decoherence, complex numbers, etc. But that gets to a very complicated way of discussing QM.  There is an approach using density matrices (DM) that simplifies things. I was never taught to think in terms of the DM when I took QM courses, but Henry Stapp convinced me that it is a really great way to visualize amplitudes when there is complicated (I was going to say "complex)  decoherence going on. Basically as I recall, the DM is a product of amplitudes times their complex conjugates, so that the DM diagonal are the probabilities  (real numbers) that summate to unity. 

It is my understanding that when decoherence comes about the off-diagonal elements of the DM go to zero and cluster very, very close to the diagonal. Then when a measurement is made one point on diagonal of the DM is actualized, and then the process starts over. There are also occasions where interactions take place before an observation and the DM spits up away from diagonal.   

I bring all this up as a really nice way to think about  amplitude, probabilities and actualities. 
Stan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/98bcf32349e0411c845dc66a9e6574da%40BL-CCI-D1S08.ads.iu.edu.

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
May 17, 2019, 2:51:49 PM5/17/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com

Dear Stan,

You have given a nice introduction to density matrices. I wanted to emphasize simple things about complex amplitudes and inseparability. So I did not mention density matrices. BTW I do not think density matrix concept is easier than wave functions or amplitudes concept!  After all when you define density matrices , you start with psi(i) X psi(j)*. So they come after many many chapters on wave functions and amplitudes in a QM class. On the other hand you are right, density matrices explain decoherence in a clear cut way. No doubt!

Best.

Kashyap

Cathy Reason

unread,
May 18, 2019, 10:09:26 AM5/18/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness

 Kashyap V wrote:

I have mentioned my understanding of entanglement before in scattered e-mails. But I will summarize it here again. Philosophers and others use physics words like energy, coherence, decoherence, entanglement etc. in a different sense. But physicists should not be concerned with that! If someone with a Ph.D. in physics and teaching at a college/university differs from what I am saying , I will be happy to discuss with him/her. Also consciousness is not yet part of traditional physics. So my sayings about consciousness should not carry as much weight as my sayings about traditional physics!!

As everyone knows, wave function or amplitude in QM is a complex quantity. To get a real number out you take absolute square. So phases between different parts play a very crucial role. In particular interference depends crucially on phases.

The new feature entanglement brings in is inseparability of two or many particle wave function e.g.

Psi (r(1). r(2)) cannot be written as a product of psi(r(1)) and psi (r(2)).For photons with polarizations h(horizontal) and v(vertical),

(h(1)+v(1))X (h(2) +v(2)) is  unentangled.  h(1)v(2) + v(1) h(2) is entangled. In general all of these are complex quantities as long as coherence can be maintained. If you measure polarization of one particle, you break inseparability including complex phases. Entanglement means the other particle will be found (and has been found) to be either v(2) or h(2), not both!


Ok, Kashyap has explained how he sees entanglement from a physicist's perspective.  So I will now say how I see entanglement from what Kashyap would probably call a philosophical or foundational perspective.

The first thing to say is that they are dentical up until the last two lines of the part of Kashyap's post which I have quoted above.  The differences start with the word "you" in Kashyap's sentence:


If you measure polarization of one particle, you break inseparability including complex phases.

The obvious question to ask is "Who or what is referred to by the pronoun you?"  Obviously to the experimenter -- in other words, to a classically defined observer.  But the QM formalism (that is, the Process 2 formalism in von Neumann's terminology) does not predict that, for any observer "the other particle will be found (and has been found) to be either v(2) or h(2), not both!". Actually it doesn't predict what the observer will find, because the concept of an "observer" is simply not well-defined within the QM formalism.  So to link the formalism to the observations we require a set of bridging assumptions, or what in the mathematics of formal languages is called an interpretation.

The simplest, and most widely used, set of assumptions is called the Copenhagen interpretation.  However Copenagen is an interpretation only in the mathematical sense, and not in a wider, metaphysical sense.  Indeed the principal advantage of the Copenhagen interpretation is arguably that it entails the minimum number of irreversible metaphysical commitments.  The Copenhagen interpretation should really come with a warning sign atached:"Beyond here lies a mare's nest".

So, the upshot:  to a philosopher of science, or anyone who has reason to be concerned with the foundations of physics, any entangled state never collapses, and never "loses" entanglement" (except as a result of the normal disentangling process I desribed in a previous email), until some interpretation is applied to the formalism to link the formalism to actual observations. Because nothing in the QM formalism is ever directly observable.

I hope this clarifies things somewhat.

Cathy

Kushal Shah

unread,
May 18, 2019, 12:10:44 PM5/18/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com
Very good point, Cathy! :)

--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/07cd145b-cfd8-44a6-b0d6-446a9caff497%40googlegroups.com.

Cathy Reason

unread,
May 19, 2019, 9:19:40 AM5/19/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness


Kushal Shah wrote:

Very good point, Cathy! :)

Thanks, Kushal.  I can express it more succinctly this way:  Kashyap and I agree on what entanglement is.  Any difficulties concern disentanglement.   As I see it there are two ways a system can become disentangled:

1 The system disentangles but remains coherent (as a product of states). 

2  The system loses coherence but remains entangled (until some sort of measurement postulate is applied).


Cathy

Kushal Shah

unread,
May 20, 2019, 1:03:57 AM5/20/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com
Cathy, that is precisely where the problem is! Measurement cannot be defined from within quantum mechanics. And in some sense, that is the goal of all discussions on this group, i.e. to see if there can be a scientific definition of measurement, since that is the only measurable effect of consciousness. 

Best,
Kushal.

--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.

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


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kushal Shah @ EECS Dept, IISER Bhopal
http://home.iiserb.ac.in/~kushals

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 20, 2019, 12:39:57 PM5/20/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness
I am not sure but if it is a destructive/demolition type of measurement, then entanglement is not preserved because there is nothing to entangle with. Perhaps, Kashyap can tell us better.

Regards,
Ram



On Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:03:57 AM UTC-4, Kushal Shah wrote:
Cathy, that is precisely where the problem is! Measurement cannot be defined from within quantum mechanics. And in some sense, that is the goal of all discussions on this group, i.e. to see if there can be a scientific definition of measurement, since that is the only measurable effect of consciousness. 

Best,
Kushal.

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 6:49 PM Cathy Reason <cmrn...@gmail.com> wrote:


Kushal Shah wrote:

Very good point, Cathy! :)

Thanks, Kushal.  I can express it more succinctly this way:  Kashyap and I agree on what entanglement is.  Any difficulties concern disentanglement.   As I see it there are two ways a system can become disentangled:

1 The system disentangles but remains coherent (as a product of states). 

2  The system loses coherence but remains entangled (until some sort of measurement postulate is applied).


Cathy

--
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-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Cathy Reason

unread,
May 20, 2019, 12:48:13 PM5/20/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness


Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal wrote:

I am not sure but if it is a destructive/demolition type of measurement, then entanglement is not preserved because there is nothing to entangle with. Perhaps, Kashyap can tell us better.

Superpositions persist indefinitely under unitary evolution.  To destroy the entanglement in this way, you have to destroy the superposition, and that requires some form of measurement postulate.


Cathy

Cathy Reason

unread,
May 20, 2019, 1:07:27 PM5/20/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness
I guess I should add that this is the theoretician's way of looking at it.  An experimentalist could quite reasonably say that the entanglement has collapsed because it is no longer detectable.

Cathy

Cathy

Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
May 20, 2019, 2:33:45 PM5/20/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com

Cathy and Ram,

The way I look at entanglement is that the two particle wave function is created under a specific Hamiltonian and will remain unchanged until the Hamiltonian changes. The Hamiltonian can change by a specific deliberate attempt of measurement at the detectors by the experimenter or the two particles encounter some other environmental Hamiltonian (like a swarm of electrons, atoms or impurities in the glass tubes etc.) before they reach the detectors. In the latter case entanglement fidelity will be broken say it can go down from 98% to 79% etc.

Also this has nothing to do with frames of reference. Every observer will see this decoherence.

Best.

Kashyap

 

From: scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com [mailto:scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Cathy Reason


Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:07 PM
To: Scientific Basis of Consciousness <scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com>

--

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.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 20, 2019, 4:33:48 PM5/20/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com

Thanks, Kashyap. It makes sense. My query is: is entanglement conserved in (i) demolition type measurements and (ii) nondemolition type measurements?

 

As per (Wikipedia, 20May2019), “Quantum nondemolition (QND) measurement is a special type of measurement of a quantum system in which the uncertainty of the measured observable does not increase from its measured value during the subsequent normal evolution of the system. This necessarily requires that the measurement process preserve the physical integrity of the measured system, and moreover places requirements on the relationship between the measured observable and the self-Hamiltonian of the system. In a sense, QND measurements are the "most classical" and least disturbing type of measurement in quantum mechanics.

 

Most devices capable of detecting a single particle and measuring its position strongly modify the particle's state in the measurement process, e.g. photons are destroyed when striking a screen. Less dramatically, the measurement may simply perturb the particle in an unpredictable way; a second measurement, no matter how quickly after the first, is then not guaranteed to find the particle in the same location. Even for ideal, "first-kind" projective measurements in which the particle is in the measured eigenstate immediately after the measurement, the subsequent free evolution of the particle will cause uncertainty in position to quickly grow.

 

In contrast, a momentum (rather than position) measurement of a free particle can be QND because the momentum distribution is preserved by the particle's self-Hamiltonian p2/2m.

 

Note that the term "nondemolition" does not imply that the wave function fails to collapse.

 

QND measurements are extremely difficult to carry out experimentally. Much of the investigation into QND measurements was motivated by the desire to avoid the standard quantum limit in the experimental detection of gravitational waves. The general theory of QND measurements was laid out by Braginsky, Vorontsov, and Thorne[1] following much theoretical work by Braginsky, Caves, Drever, Hollenhorts, Khalili, Sandberg, Thorne, Unruh, Vorontsov, and Zimmermann. […] It has been argued that the usage of the term QND does not add anything to the usual notion of a strong quantum measurement and can moreover be confusing because of the two different interpretations of demolition in a quantum system (losing the quantum state vs. losing the particle) (Monroe, 2011, on Demolishing Quantum Nondemolition). "

 

It is unclear if entanglement is conserved in (i) demolition type measurements and (ii) nondemolition type measurements.

 

 

BTW, “no soul”/“no God” Buddhism seems to differ from the Sankhya/Vedanta on the view related to death and rebirth and Karma. Please watch this video carefully Dependent Origination or interdependent co-arising by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, Dec 22, 2010 (~30min video). I felt that if we simply understand the “ignorance,” then it is like rebirth (even though we are still alive); otherwise, there is no rebirth after death, similar to atheist science: is this correct? Some propose rebirth to account for bad karma, but usual rebirth is not true; we die means we really die because the “Self” dies as science proposes. There seems to be no “self-certainty” after death. Thus, Cathy’s GT theorem does not seem to reject materialism and Buddhism based on “self-certainty” argument.



Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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; 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



Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
May 21, 2019, 8:11:18 AM5/21/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com

Hi Ram,

I have not read much about nondemolition type measurements . But I have heard some quite severe criticisms of these and so called “weak measurements” . They say that these are not really quantum measurements. They are perhaps closest to classical measurements. So I would think that if you want to look at inseparability , quantum entanglements are best. But I have not studied these. So I could be wrong.

Best.

Kashyap

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 21, 2019, 10:14:34 AM5/21/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com, Abridged Recipients, Yahoogroups
Thanks, Kashyap.


If we unpack the inseparability between physical (p) and nonphysical (np) aspects of a state of an entity in terms of entanglement, then we need to assume that p and np were initially separable before preparation/manifestation, and somehow they were brought closer and made them entangled. This is in essence dualism, which has 13 problems. Then the onus will be on us to address these unresolvable problems. Physicalism and idealism have their own problems. I was not able to resolve these problems; this is one of the reasons, the eDAM was developed. Thus, this route may not work unless you are successful in addressing these problems.

 

I think that we have to postulate that the primal entity is a dual-aspect substrate, from which entities interdependently co-arose/co-evolved/co-manifested with dual-aspect states, which entail four types of inseparability[i].


[i] There are four types of inseparability (1:1 bidirectional relationship) hypothesis within the respective critical spatiotemporal-spectral interval (CSTSI):

(1) The subject (Self)-related inseparability is between the non-physical aspect and the physical aspect of a Self (subject)-related beable ontic (conscious) state of the subject’s mind-brain system for the subjective experience (SE) of subject such as Self-certainty (Reason, 2019).

(2) The object-subject-related inseparability is between the non-physical aspect and the physical aspect of an object-related beable ontic (conscious) state of the subject’s mind-brain system for the subjective experience, cognition, function or pattern/form of the object.

(3) The subject-object-related inseparability is between the subject and an object during their engagement (within the related CSTSI) for the subjective experience of the object by the Self, i.e., when the subject attends the object. After completion, subject separates from this object and attends another object. In terms of neural-physical signals, the interaction is between the subject(self)- and object-related neural-physical signals (physical aspects) within the mind-brain system.

(4) The inert-object-related inseparability is between the non-physical aspect and the physical aspect of a state of an inert system for pattern/form or function.

 

The inseparability holds only within related critical spatiotemporal-spectral interval (CSTSI) in which the state of the entity remains invariant. If state changes then the new state have its own inseparable aspects.

 

 




Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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; 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

John Jay Kineman

unread,
May 22, 2019, 9:55:01 AM5/22/19
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, 'Scientific Basis of Consciousness
Ram,  I think this is a non-sequitur if viewed in a broader sense. If (p) and (np) are different logical types, one (p) allowing for localized definition of states and the other (np) allowing only for qualia and not localized measurement, then the whole concept of their separability goes away. There is no “separability” as such between a thing and its context, even though the two are distinguishable as very different kinds of natural existence. But if the proposal of inseparability is state-based on both sides, that is why it is problematic. Two states can be separated, but a local state and a non-local condition (call it a “state” metaphorically if you wish) cannot be separate in any physical sense, only in the logical sense of being of different categories. Now the relation between a localizable event and its formal context cannot be treated in the same way as efficient entailments (traditional causality) within a category of local events. Hence there is no category error in relating contents of these two types of category, if and only if we introduce a different operator than efficient cause - we have to introduce final and formal cause as operators, which are functors. Those are not unique relations but information relations in which information is never complete. That is quite different from efficient causes in which the causality is presumed to be complete (it is only approximately so, as we know from QM).

John

-- 
----------------------------
7th International Conference
Science and Scientist 2019: Understanding the Source and Nature of Consciousness and Life
June 15-16, 2019
Rutgers University Busch Student Center, NJ, USA
http://scienceandscientist.org/conference/2019
 
Tickets: http://scienceandscientist.org/conference/2019/tickets
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/930099713.3481023.1558448012588%40mail.yahoo.com.

John Kineman

unread,
May 22, 2019, 10:20:27 AM5/22/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness
I posted in response to this same comment on Sadhu Sanga and copied to this list. I think there is a solution in the relational view.

I agree with your fundamental conclusion, that the p-np entity must be whole - the basis of eDAM. However, I think it goes too far to postulate that both can be represented by similar logical categories of states. I'll try an example using one of your analogies, Redness. An apple, say, is red. An orange is likewise orange. The apple can be separated from the orange because these are in logical categories that have localized states - position. So their positions can be different. But the redness and the orangeness are not localized - they do not have positions that an be separated. They have qualities. The redness cannot be separated from the apple because they are related by context. Apples are in the contextual/formal domain of redness. Apples are localized instances of redness, which is a non-localized quality. In fact, an apple can turn brown without any separability between the apple and the different logical category in which color resides and is mutable.  If you add this mutability to eDAM then I think it solves both problems - it allows for evolution and shifting relations while also avoiding the duality. Context is what makes what otherwise would be "dual", actually be logically non-dual. I have been contemplating this a lot during our discussions and so far have seen no argument against it. The important thing is it solves the problem you are after without overly limiting causality (in the broader sense of formal and final causes).

John

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scientific-basis-of-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

--
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-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

--
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-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

--
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-consciousness+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 22, 2019, 10:51:12 AM5/22/19
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, John.


I have the following queries:

 

Q1. Why do you consider qualia (np) of red ball non-local and its NCC (p) local in space-time? To me, both are localized in space-time.

 

Q2. Do you mean the category error between np and p occurs only in the efficient cause because it implies interaction, not in other causes? My understanding is that for a relationship between A and B, both need to interact.

 

Q3. Your definition of “state” seems different from mine; so what is your definition of the word “state”? My definition is the same what QM has, i.e., for example, an electron can be in the ground state or excited state; wavefunction is a quantum state.




Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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; 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

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 22, 2019, 11:54:29 AM5/22/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness, Abridged Recipients
Thanks, John.

I have also replied in another email.

I hope that you agree on the redness of a local red-apple does not spill out of the boundary of the apple and this redness is inseparable with the red-apple. Therefore, the color subjective experience (SE) is localized within the boundary of the apple. I do not understand why you want to make redness non-local in spacetime (eternally everywhere in the universe). In other words, p and np aspects of a beable ontic (conscious) state of a subject’s mindbrain system, which is local within the mindbrain system but appears as the SE redness is projected on the localized apple wherever it is located in the world out there.

 

You wrote, “I think it goes too far to postulate that both [p and np] can be represented by similar logical categories of states”.

 

There is a single (not two) beable ontic conscious state of a mindbrain system. This single state has two inseparable aspects p and np. These aspects are NOT separate; hence they are inseparable. Can we separate redness (np) from the apple (p)? The answer is NO.

 

For you, p and np appear two different logical categories of states; for you, there are two different logical categories: p-state and np-state; p-state not equal to np-state.

 

For me, the p and np belong to the same beable ontic conscious state of the mindbrain system; there are no two different physical and/or nonphysical states. They appear different because the perspectives of “viewing” are different; from the subject’s 1pp, it (“effective” informative: EI) appears as np; and from the subject’s 3pp, the same EI appears as p. In this sense, p and np are identical and you can argue that the eDAM is close to dual-aspect identity theory.

 

Perhaps, for you, since the perspectives of “viewing” are different, there are two different logical states, namely, p-state and np-state. For you (and perhaps I tend to agree), logically, the p-state of a mindbrain system is different from the np-state of the same mindbrain system: is this correct? For you, since p and np states are logically different, you can postulate that np is nonlocal, but why and what is the use? For me, both p and np are within the boundary of apple so they are local.



Cheers!

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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; 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

On Wednesday, 22 May, 2019, 10:20:31 am GMT-4, John Kineman <kin...@colorado.edu> wrote:


I posted in response to this same comment on Sadhu Sanga and copied to this list. I think there is a solution in the relational view.

I agree with your fundamental conclusion, that the p-np entity must be whole - the basis of eDAM. However, I think it goes too far to postulate that both can be represented by similar logical categories of states. I'll try an example using one of your analogies, Redness. An apple, say, is red. An orange is likewise orange. The apple can be separated from the orange because these are in logical categories that have localized states - position. So their positions can be different. But the redness and the orangeness are not localized - they do not have positions that an be separated. They have qualities. The redness cannot be separated from the apple because they are related by context. Apples are in the contextual/formal domain of redness. Apples are localized instances of redness, which is a non-localized quality. In fact, an apple can turn brown without any separability between the apple and the different logical category in which color resides and is mutable.  If you add this mutability to eDAM then I think it solves both problems - it allows for evolution and shifting relations while also avoiding the duality. Context is what makes what otherwise would be "dual", actually be logically non-dual. I have been contemplating this a lot during our discussions and so far have seen no argument against it. The important thing is it solves the problem you are after without overly limiting causality (in the broader sense of formal and final causes).

John

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 8:14:34 AM UTC-6, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal wrote:
Thanks, Kashyap.


If we unpack the inseparability between physical (p) and nonphysical (np) aspects of a state of an entity in terms of entanglement, then we need to assume that p and np were initially separable before preparation/manifestation, and somehow they were brought closer and made them entangled. This is in essence dualism, which has 13 problems. Then the onus will be on us to address these unresolvable problems. Physicalism and idealism have their own problems. I was not able to resolve these problems; this is one of the reasons, the eDAM was developed. Thus, this route may not work unless you are successful in addressing these problems.

 

I think that we have to postulate that the primal entity is a dual-aspect substrate, from which entities interdependently co-arose/co-evolved/co- manifested with dual-aspect states, which entail four types of inseparability[i].

Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

 

 


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

--

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- consciousness+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/scientific-basis-of- consciousness.


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

--
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- consciousness+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/scientific-basis-of- consciousness.

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

--
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.

VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL

unread,
May 28, 2019, 7:41:37 AM5/28/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Group members,

Defining physical(p)  and non-physical (np) based on a fixed / non-fixed position or coordinates in space/time does not seem to be a logical and observation evidence-based method for defining p and np.  An e.m wave has no fixed coordinates in space/time but it is very much a physical entity like a billiard ball or an atom.  The real non-physicality lies in having consciousness without any linkage with fixed coordinates in space/time. And the test of consciousness lies in self-awareness, awareness of the environment and some degree of free will. An em wave has no self-awareness, awareness of the environment and any amount of free and hence not conscious one and therefore NOT non-physical.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/1238509645.3993385.1558535837186%40mail.yahoo.com.

John Jay Kineman

unread,
May 28, 2019, 3:17:27 PM5/28/19
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Scientific Basis of Consciousness
Hi Whit,

The first paragraph is mine, but I don’t know where the 2nd and 3rd paragraph come from. In any case, my response to both comments is that perhaps it is a stretched metaphor on my part, although Yogi’s claim to experience an altered self and Shamans identify with the self of animals, etc. — still that is not my point. My point is the concept of Self refers to identity of a system that has both physical and non-physical aspects, i.e., local and non-local aspects. It transcends both location and qualia and thus does not have its own coordinates in either category, because it is what connects the categories. That should have been my point.

This is speaking to the discussion between myself and Ram about 1:1 correspondence between elements of P and NP, which I claim cannot exist absolutely, only as a reduction of a complex information relation between P and NP categorical entailments. In this I am saying that P and NP are different logical categories and so any 1:1 correspondence must be conditional and perhaps ephemeral. It would be a category error to assert 1:1 correspondence between P and NP “states”. There can only be relations between efficient and final entailments of states in corresponding categories. In this category language we should also be clear that “interaction” refers by convention to efficient cause of material state transitions in P, whereas in NP the entailment is between final and formal causes, which we can associate with inference or the inverse of efficient causality. Because the logic of these two categories is inverse, they link in a cycle of causes, such that you can’t have, for example, final cause of a state without going through both categories of entailment. There is no 1:1 connection between the states in P and NP, except by involving the formal context in NP and efficient production of states in P. Thus, the dual aspect unity must be viewed as a modeling relation or cyclical causality for a general theory, although its reduced state as a correspondence principle, which defines it as a mechanism, may indeed be observed and may be persistent depending on conditions within that interval of correspondence that is mentioned in eDAM. My argument is that despite being able to treat it as a mechanical correspondence, which is up to the neurophysiologists to decide if that will be sufficient for what is being studied, it is not fundamentally mechanical and only occurs so as a result of governing conditions. I think Ram has also said it is conditional and restricted to an interval of existence, so aside from perhaps some ontological discussion, and details of modeling relations and category theory that may go beyond the intended theory, we should be in agreement.

Bottom line: I think the complex relation between P and NP is the best candidate for the seat of consciousness, as it is for conceptualizing the “self”, because that relation is what defines a mathematical “identity” transcending both categories, and yet existing in both categories at contextual/informational levels - perhaps a 3rd aspect. It is thus a good analogy to what we experience as identity. In that case self is what connects local and non-local, physical and non-physical.

John

> On May 28, 2019, at 7:34 AM, Whit Blauvelt <wh...@csmind.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 01:55:48PM +0000, NYIKOS, PETER wrote:
>> John, you write:
>>
>> The experiential self, I, knows the qualia but the self does not have a
>> measurable location. People may identify with a position behind the eyes, or
>> with the heart, or with a family or tribe.
>>
>> You are going too far afield with this remark. There is no way I would
>> identify my Self with my family; they are distinct Selves like I am, and it
>> would be madness to claim, except as a figure of speech, that my wife's Self is
>> my Self. The topic after all, is my Self as the subject of qualia, which are
>> perceived by me as objects, not subjects. I wish I could experience my wife
>> fully as the subject that she is, but we are separate Selves whose alienation
>> [in the technical existentialist sense of the term] cannot be totally overcome.
>>
>> While I usually think of my Self as being positioned behind my eyes, that is
>> partly because sight is the Queen of the Senses, so to speak. When I feel a
>> pain in my big toe, it seems to be located there. If the pain distracts me from
>> everything around me and every other sensation in my body, one might say that,
>> for that short time, I am located in my big toe.
>
> Is "self" for the purpose of current discussion the center or the periphery?
> Many meditators can move the central focus to anywhere within the body. I'd
> even suggest doing so changes the focus of mentation and feeling in other
> ways. There's a reason being gut-focused or heart-focused or head-focused or
> genital-focused are associated with different modes and personality types.
>
> Moving the center beyond the skin is less common; yet it's said the blind
> typically extend it to the end of their canes.
>
> There is a claim that East Asian societies have, on average, less "inner
> self" and more "group self." I'm not in a position to evaluate that one.
>
> Best,
> Whit
>
> --
> ----------------------------
> 7th International Conference
> Science and Scientist 2019: Understanding the Source and Nature of Consciousness and Life
> June 15-16, 2019
> Rutgers University Busch Student Center, NJ, USA
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1m8KXAf2DkzA86NBrctel0RNIO-HuoOsVJ2uEKXHcYBdjmA4JfPujieBRmwqXTWIzqynyVCcvz4onxM5CdUv3aVB5MeV2BE5ttoIGZ2xmTpesWeX48yt-1BEjKXJCdCI9Abeu4JTt7_mfTh2qbZJ6uJCi2LSuBZWEylGf_H7DmjdD7W48QQFtL75zWIECJPyC8cwM_NCPMX7-pqnv4JMiWBrbgIR03pk-yVzqbnK6igThCQ_AMAdmiQp74PysDiJ7U6JtOmOr0dwAzq24ha_c7C4TkwINdXtwweFOiGTYf64S9rKDOzj-3TL7KXTeZg_WCbyK5qUXkPzZLnkjTA38OnfxYrpH-j4hFeSKeWaZCwPwDO7jsovwjPP1xt7CFMq97BDVaXovYKQ4aNcv9M4z8utuU0xiWz7wwAtGxUfqbqSTdcptkovZZTIx2rGm6l50TXvnCsu3qh8dpw2g0H2Wqw/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fconference%2F2019
>
> Tickets: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1NOQomKm7FZH9g4WSGhgOA8kJQhP6pcG6JGJlJA15Zhy8wiyjYq5NSMSd6hs1aPqM5yll7j2I-cacEdEFJQREGD_XYiTcycik7vbvOvOmC9XXUwW78ZtOz-HBoeOfy5381KqiKYYaCRyVyLyYDZXUH42vY4KQatwzBVP90YaUjbzdti2RxZmExWlt5AN8LgcwkiKCNObCzf0fhtkJwOydM-egaEnzLQZIzxLomWsvBDpZ0KV85SVsSayVVZA2G5km36xZWcR9bJ4-rSAx_aFxtsD-gT-WrFa3O01i122SRdOv7pwkQEUiUPQQSC1_TC31p50vUP7idWiONdB2tuRbXsN66lKLaE2X-uOpeusduBKTlcT6M_LwuEuAHdlqvcZOwe8vS668BrtIQVUMfqeK8s_6vwOtPeCAy5u_1MHrBOsn-aYI6T2KHYfwR316MqzpkJpJmSC9Rdv8p1jV7E5o6Q/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fconference%2F2019%2Ftickets
>
> Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://secure-web.cisco.com/14LGZ1UBGjjAEhtek3yjRebw9tH-2t_C8ewkErXxjh-yOSv4f0gjN--dpZVSJK2T6KF_IDEPGCjOgbGDB_y9z3hC-Z8RQyzx6XH0YRiQ8d_xtFr8vlsqFNiQxFy0y0zetZ9_Kf1VVlSn_yfWy5wNaXHrAPWeIjBPmuP-pgERBpHtYfYdwsX9ZwPIIhWDvXE9NIZzjw5IS_vOOQQCxb7jdXh_Q8Wck4PCjY3g-xYSbk8ry_1xhMWLZpEjQfWQ-By5IwahuyP6z5EzC4-CaiJ-bMrQcUrlQNK7kyTed-ieFdurWpFdK0YUkt_KhkBAielmIj4eLdSVKdTeDSmHigpJZNO1hiJwTfGiEPMTJ1ju-BWj3Xj-8j5iH_6VCyc2BN0QQkpfP2cd9rZ-Noi6YbkJlNOh-e-lFcnF6AX_xBYc-JfDUdhhjR6904Jk9-FaSNLAL_2yJhIyC1E-2r4jkwyRt4w/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fdonate
>
> Report Archives: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zFUB972YKNn2Xqm97FVFang_DAHDkPO4MsAfBV_kuQ1a-xh0zvJZTha7492mhcwnhijzqzJIxzIl3N6yuQk-V4dtn-tjK4QRuM8JPNg_UUmMguJmxEyVj2c6_yZE5m5SDcoGgzEZI8oLh33DzUaXFfIjHf3VGPF8j-aRncFBQ3qET6DuOBjdPt39Eu_yC7o2h54_mkbUBfN6ldDT5NuWmmdHvN7cAqAP9wnbt5x3lt-JLjvNPn2BleGOgsp1VoqPKsfM2uWwuoGBW2-U5tE2RRu2lUQawgNqQTw4AhYGksXoejUyUcUu4Lhm0HO_1hvWvDKS824kaYClrV3fU8FFaNXjng2-cB81PGDItMlvCa-JCNw8Yps6nh4n5pqwkHG-AjpDzs8Qcvc6RPe6fQ5pg-0fZk4p7iz-PYCNjqU43lU8GUKdptazzaC1jgQVIvlR_zMQ7kXH8DKJD5ZXfGhVYQ/http%3A%2F%2Fbviscs.org%2Freports
>
> Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
>
> Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
>
> Harmonizer: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1jQfoKyXSWFqn5-T5ja4xQPxwogVMLF9W6Hz9qZF7b6DpcXY0GFT9OKkTbHalnT_DtbIg2s_Gw-E_fWTbX_XqfuvY1Bqa-K1TqFYvHMrMef0Ns0fNARfPn3puVxw0kh5UntrM9D9FEW3maHlT5rj_Lqn2ojIy-27hdzgq1JN9NxY3Iw9-jsZ3mGavNlq60tpKhSoHU3BzkulHR_X53DKad7EWuUt_V8ddWnxhi_peFnkJumwRmu0LN2yP4a8aIP-EvnmZEdlTGpxSWHKFMN1-b3XHB_549e03ENmLdhbtbHfCEFklJRChBWPQbymOoVLQtj265Jx8S9FRSm6S-IHXpADBQXjI-S8WpIHPesJnaFaORxc2DpT6rCL3DLUQNnmTyLV4eA6FETzPlGA9mfF-4-y7ypLIweTCmvCyLqpzz4EaoqTggh7WnVEBYJWPQlHDxCxqn9xSV-dLOiHg9OikqA/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2Fharmonizer
>
> Darwin Under Siege: http://secure-web.cisco.com/14MtYhd5WnAOqKwVh1ZPW12w0mszOW6ZWgs4-mYNigIilp6yTx-5FNt8GiZZMzCWMI9QcOAxvpyvdWok_j7CcyGlyIQCxMgMYLXqc2fL9Pzc3p0lbRKV8ERnHTA4TaQsU4G-rorC145R2OfPEKeJIakwl5OadzpEpUIt8OqmMVRPEeD5l_9Ywl-LyBNuGFT7Fa0vl9h55vcwdp2CE5QxcfQ4nlPAjWAlo7q4aEVMZtSuHpuVgzhhxzoW2eSu09NGudKAQ-8eJv4mvk_gRNfgsUvqo2bK-4FCoYwKEbB24Ejukv_tz-ButFnqHOHH99y_FcBn2L9EjMmgQmKEO0TuFyn3rv8XsByqXdVRHn7uELxgcQTFzLyRjKR7iKu8FmXjbRmwW6fbootQzRKvUoXMnH98rTGJEsvorVhTmYM4GdlbBryA-zEodAJbnkby2o-ytcBQbem5x4QWcakHRiUyleA/http%3A%2F%2Fscienceandscientist.org%2FDarwin
>
> Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1txtm9QxumoKZ8d4-aAqMOsclzyGBci6yv0CrWE-2Z9eC7g4WAYEPj2wNhor_PQoIa0iPKf8HPFyq0kSNJv1L0fEYUlrKW_AXX4lLEkf6iFkj677xDtdzeqPtNN-Lvw07HPoaLiEPZbyZB9chumQKCJp72cajbMPhIbYBNO3pjpGmAylVjXvU64LGngftk1o2M-29n7joOTTxfjbAxdQecFcmyxt5wU_s1cSODe38o5o03s_aLhss1s1Amn1dKsi8wuU4uAdmdz8k6K9RlUKSz8FykACY05TK9qxAm6PA6ryqZIXCvX7TtzXZaUuwlE_qezQgn-2583NDiu68tnEtN4IRQXcCQBuGjR-n50v_jBccLaqyaDzwjqM5T9VU6pLP-eSw3XsDjS-W0JW_7Pm-DOfoBYyGJN6Cah69rVAoHUBoE4ur2Ots4DDVvjryKi8Qz18RZB00YFnEQkAEt_iawg/http%3A%2F%2Fbviscs.org
>
> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1x6Wti4j_3cjAEeFTzBEkPc3Em4ErKQ7p3H4wtHgZOqzlwJJXb0SJX8F6o96v1jU_apkZ1GQPFKVXae1mht4_Bq8-tlvvI0ICQRWCYBLldxCCpMVX1MnYwkCc88vG7MKoAsESqxZbhVDSyhDAE1UGprKPveD7VgFS3LRtZA41i-Qo9ODSN4JRw-tONuNwYjfnj_ipq3FjVa4FotQA0nW8nUTrLMNliMuOMPvWz7ArzwlrGchvywBjoI16bXWih1GgOZOo68Mo3MlANY1fh8bvX33i4xG9cWlSWpv6HYefjDN0H9Ibd_0-B7KZOqptmx4Q71H5kpS3IGGnHEKArh4UZ03fiLC4p1DFfnRqY1NWoDHR6Tqvjmxl8xvcR-K-LZSQotb7_Im2pNI7V3OPf5h-ki8qa2AoRUcNcFCPRsiT3XtFsX7JRehDGDTgW9DAwsmSk7vkcYujjsz1XwHX1YrzSQ/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org
>
> Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1rARjHPnJqVsDk-VRHo46t3eHXaP-CCTnYQdLv9R0IUKFIZwGMpSF791vUdXRAKS0FQv0hvx_YwXJNDCGKcK0fEhj5VBqvpw7jO2yMIyycOOJCsRpYWT735Tr9w72hGke1i-cckjsA0LtZu33iMmHD6Kj4uMSd_OxeABetitGxCMrrS62zN_bmyCb-3ylVKchZlhFjHAdtSvG1AKuyYAa2dUB3DoAfLwlbsooX-9jEeFG-pwyyrkIstEa5hslGEdBDKBYjs3hGd-PmnTMmjee5gLvHaARlf1t9FXqzOKR5A9CNWabXwVPF-9NuB_NLT8uIgUdTwZIVXheJXrah-mxs1WHzevuge_EpqVQRNly2hdyyNsJx5L4BBGiFRE59sypJ9kvc2Zqrn78Ci0prXIG8UU6o0wn6BF38tezQUNmrWZuQrZstrI8i8oPH5jABOauvgDODtYEEl2QSTZzKYBmBA/http%3A%2F%2Fmahaprabhu.net%2Fsatsanga
>
> Contact Us: http://secure-web.cisco.com/1zcgbkDgGROEEc08VK6VvtYLCGWZpPMLhl3W2Q7HAJFgZrfl2nX3ZELpEDhPD88ZkO6hYXHU1p2XTdv04YPcKMgm-2QHbx5gH1D89BtaIrR-b132QwX3hAIVyil1un2BMrSkKAIS5QBSxwK1nYTMHvl47OFq6Yi2ztveLGv6EIZvJhp8FmK_KHRVMXT3-e24585QhTd7oEDlNk1pAsTfNlq1K5hs4sSA_ppJv8DEQ2fa1RJefdt581w9hJljpf0AsA5grmvv17F1iBEWprWojDL9ZnSPpWkd-MoZRRCpdvUMqM6aQRptAMQ8jddIWclaJPCVdrWxsZI_nKsvYjrBWLYuvLucuiLn1crMxXk_hLNqPsTGp3veOYYH68iwr3YdK9S6tk5OvuYrwtEpNxViwwRr_TCMTMB5fjwtXE6rTuPmkp9hIdT2X5EqkIzJ55UzqsLy7kMgZ9EfL002skzbJkQ/http%3A%2F%2Fscsiscs.org%2Fcontact
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/20190528133431.GC30922%40black.transpect.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 29, 2019, 11:27:40 PM5/29/19
to Scientific Basis of Consciousness

Hi John,

 

“It would be a category error to assert 1:1 correspondence between P and NP ‘states’.” In my view, category mistake is for dualism; it is not true for the eDAM as elaborated in one of my previous emails. Briefly, p and np are inseparable and local, which is like dual-aspect identity theory (DAIT). They appear different because the perspectives of viewing are different (1pp vs. 3pp).

 

I guess RHT is dualism if (a) p and np are separable and (b) np is non-local (everywhere in space).


Regards,

Ram 

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

VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL

unread,
May 30, 2019, 2:27:03 AM5/30/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com

Dear Group members,

An e.m wave is non-local in the sense that it is present at many points,  but not all the infinite points of space,  as restricted by the speed of light C. So it can be treated as an np entity but it is not a conscious entity since it is the nonlocal but  inert entity

So there can be local inert like a stone which can be nomenclature as physical p.

There can also be nonlocal inert like an e.m wave which one can name as nonphysical np.

In addition and excluding both the p and np above, which both are non-consciousness, there can be a category of consciousness which is a class in itself with the fundamental status. It is a gross
 error to treat consciousness and nonlocal inert np as synonymously.

Vinod Sehgal

Vinod Sehgal

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

--
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.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/scientific-basis-of-consciousness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/3e37e0ab-1595-4ead-b8ac-8bcf362a0089%40googlegroups.com.

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
May 30, 2019, 9:47:28 PM5/30/19
to scientific-basis...@googlegroups.com
I think if you watch Sadhguru’s videos in google and then contemplate as you did with SYP, you will understand better and your superstitions and blind belief will be minimized and you will have better logic. Please try this and we meet after 3 months.

Enjoy!

Regards 
Ram

Sent from my iPhone
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages