Groups keyboard shortcuts have been updated
Dismiss
See shortcuts

Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya and Interactive substance dualism

43 views
Skip to first unread message

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Aug 7, 2017, 7:42:07 AM8/7/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Joseph McCard, georg...@aol.com, BVKSastry(Gmail), BT APJ, G Srinivasan, Online Sadhu Sanga, Roy Sisir
Dear Vinod ji,
 
Thanks.

I am sorry, please ignore my 3 previous emails because they were not clear.

I would like to request you that please qualify your writing with some references. For example, you should write, “As per my understanding of khya Kārikā of Swarga Krishna,  Kapila’s khya, or (Swami Yogeshwaranand Paramahans Saraswati, 2014)’s interpretation of khya (or whatever you have read, give the reference of the book) seems to imply that the localized Purua (soul, experiencer) experiences physical objects (Prakti) without interacting with it.” Otherwise, your writing would be misleading, will not be taken authentic, and will lead to confusion. This is because you have not attained SS/NS state so you cannot say without such references. I have tried to write a sentence to this effect in blue text in your text below. In my writing, I follow this research ethics.

Sehgal (6 August 2017)
The following view is based on my understanding of (Swami Yogeshwaranand Paramahans Saraswati, 2014)’s interpretation of khya.

[1] The Field of Awareness, as arising out of the consciousness, is not compared with the one as that of an electric charge or the magnetic field. The electric and magnetic fields are the emergent/derived fields and they act on each point in the space. In other words, the electric field and magnetic field remain present in each point of space/time. However, the Field of Awareness had never emerged out of any other thing thru some mechanism. It always existed as such, whether before or after the creation or during the period universe remains in the manifested stage. Further, it is not that the field of the Awareness remains present in each point of space/time but it is the space and time which emerges out from the Field of Awareness and each and every point of space/time exist in that Field. So any comparison of the field of awareness with those of physical fields like that of electric or magnetic one is ill conceived and arguments as applicable to the physical electric/magnetic fields are not applicable to the Field of Awareness. I had used the term Field of Awareness to make it more understandable on the lines of the physical fields.

The closest comparison of the Field of Awareness, which comes to my mind, is that of the space. The primary function of the space is to provide a base, a medium for the existence and operation (motion) to the distinct physical objects. When space fulfills these two functions viz. providing base and medium for the motion, space do no interact with the physical objects since these functions are always self-evident in space. Similarly, awareness is always self-evident, self-manifested in the consciousness and it need not interact with the final signal of thought/experiences.

I think that you are extending the logic of the mechanism of the interaction between two physical entities to the consciousness and awareness but forgetting that awareness is the fundamental, innate and self-evident attribute/ nature of the consciousness on the same pattern providing the basis for existence and medium for motion is the fundamental, innate and self-evident attribute/nature of space.
 
[2] Again by comparing the field of awareness with the physical field like a quantum field, you are arriving at wrong inferences/conclusion. The Field of the Awareness, unlike some physical quantum field, is not a quantum field. The cosmic consciousness and Field of Awareness as fundamentally innate with it is an infinite, indivisible, a Holistic One and it is not located in space/time, but it is space/time, which emerges out such Field of Awareness. It is not that each and every point of the Field of Awareness (in fact, there are no points/parts in this field due to it being holistic infinite one) is located in each and every point of space/time BUT it is the each and every point of the space/time which is located in the infinite holistic Field of Awareness. Therefore, any attempt to understand the cosmic consciousness or Field of Awareness from the conventional logic as applicable to the mechanism as applicable to the physical entities is bound to lead to wrong inferences/conclusions.
 
[3]  It is separable from the ontological existential point of view, remain present in Prakriti and all its derivatives but for having awareness of the Prakriti, it need not interact with Prakriti due to awareness being its fundamental and innate nature, as elaborated in the foregoing Paragraphs. Again, the analogy of the space and physical objects will help you to understand this point of view. Space remains present in all the physical objects but it is separable from the physical objects and for its fundamental functions viz providing base for the existence of the physical objects and medium for their operation (motion), it need not interact with the physical objects. On the same pattern, consciousness( having fundamental awareness) always remain present in Prakriti and its derivatives and yet it is separate from Prakriti and for having awareness of Prakriti and its derivatives, it need not interact with the Prakriti and its derivatives ( due to awareness being a fundamental and innate nature/attribute of the consciousness). Actually, it is wrong to state that consciousness/awareness remain present in Prakriti or its derivatives. It is the Prakriti and its derivatives, which reside/exist in the consciousness or Field of Awareness. Please try to come out from the logic of physicality as applicable to the physical systems. Please try to understand from the analogy of space and physical objects as to how Prakriti and its entire derivatives can exist in Consciousness/Field of Awareness yet they can be separate and for the consciousness to be aware of the Prakriti, it need not interact with it. That is why I send copies of my messages to other people also (6 as indicated above) but no one has commented. I thought they will also provide their views but so far, none has done so. I request you to send our debate/conversation to other people also.
 
[4] I am not denying the physiological changes/process undergoing in the eyes/body/brain during darkness and sleep/dreams. What I had been emphasizing and somehow you are not directly responding that even though our consciousness can have the awareness of the darkness but no actual physical interaction takes place between darkness and our brain and mind, leave alone the consciousness. I had provided this analogy of the awareness of darkness in the absence of any actual interaction to highlight the point that consciousness/ awareness can have the awareness of the finally processed signal of thoughts/experiences without any interaction with these signals.

If you still subscribe to the view that interaction is necessary for the awareness of the consciousness, please address this very issue as to how the darkness is awarized by the consciousness and yet no interaction take place even between the darkness and brain/body. Here I am speaking of the direct interaction between the darkness and the brain/body and mind and NOT of any physiological changes/process in the brain. Those processes/changes occur otherwise also in the brain in the absence of the darkness.

Vimal
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? As per  Sten Odenwald, “No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.”
 
Darkness is a SE experienced by the self like any other SE and has neural correlate(s). It is because of an absence of light stimulus, which causes a chain of interactive signals from retina to cortex. This leads to SE of darkness thru the matching and selection mechanism of the eDAM using interaction between the endogenous (because there is no exogenous/external signal from an object in pitch dark) feed forward signals and cognitive feedback signal. The SE darkness is selected from the SEs stored in LTM by the selection mechanism and is experienced by the self. My colleagues agree on interaction between experiencer/self and objects for a SE. This is a testable hypothesis by an easy experiment by just reducing the intensity of light signal from high value to zero and recording neural activities using EEG/fMRI.
 
You do not need to give me any example. I fully understand your point of view. However, unfortunately it is 100% incorrect hypothesis that the interaction between an experiencer/self and object is not needed for experiencing it. 

 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Sunday, 6 August 2017 4:01 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

As per Wikipedia (as of 4 August 2017), “In physics, a field is a physical quantity, typically a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space nd time.[1][2][3] For example, […] an electric field can be thought of as a "condition in space"[4] emanating from an electric charge and extending throughout the whole of space. When a test electric charge is placed in this electric field, the particle accelerates due to a force.” This implies that when the “Field of Awareness” (like an electric field) “permeates” Chitta (like a test charge), Chitta/Prakti interacts with the “field of awareness”/Purua

The Field of Awareness, as arising out of the consciousness, is not compared with the one as that of an electric charge or the magnetic field. The electric and magnetic fields are the emergent/derived fields and they act on each and every point in the space.In other words, the electric field and magnetic field remain present in each and every point of space/time. But the Field of Awareness had never emerged out of any other thing thru some mechanism. It always existed as such, whether before or after the creation or during the period universe remains in the manifested stage. Further, it is not that the field of the Awareness remains present in each and every point of space/time but it is the space and time which emerges out from the Field of Awareness and each and every point of space/time exist in that Field. So any comparison of the field of awareness with those of physical fields like that of electric or magnetic one is ill conceived and arguments as applicable to the physical electric/magnetic fields are not applicable to the Field of Awareness. I had used the term Field of Awareness to make it more understandable on the lines of the physical fields.

The closest comparison of the Field of Awareness, which comes to my mind, is that of the space. The primary function of the space is  to provide a base, a medium for the existence and operation ( motion) to the distinct physical objects. When space fulfills these two functions viz providing base and medium for the motion, space needs to have any interaction with the physical objects since these functions are always self-evident in space. Similarly, awareness is always self-evident, self-manifested in the consciousness and it need not interact with the final signal of thought/experiences.

What mistake you are making in your thinking is that you are extending the logic of the mechanism of the interaction between two physical entities to the consciousness and awareness but forgetting that awareness is the fundamental, innate and self-evident attribute/ nature of the consciousness  on the same pattern providing the basis for existence and medium for motion is the fundamental, innate and self-evident attribute.nature of space.
 
As per Wikipedia (as of 4 August 2017), “Quantum field theory states that all fundamental fields, such as the electromagnetic field, must be quantized at each and every point in space. A field in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field is like the displacement of a ball from its rest position.” This implies that “Field of Awareness” can be quantized at each point in space and each awareness is an experience what Chitta related to an individual has.

Again by comparing the field of awareness with the physical field like a quantum field, you are arriving at wrong inferences/conclusion. The Field of the Awareness, unlike some physical quantum field, is not a quantum field. The cosmic consciousness and  Field of Awareness as fundamentally innate with it is an infinite, indivisible, a Holistic One and it is not located in space/time but it is space/time which emerges out such Field of Awareness. It is not that each and every point of the Field of Awareness  ( in fact, there are no points/parts in this field due to it being holistic infinite one) is located in each and every point of space/time BUT it is the each and every point of the space/time which is located in the infinite holistic Field of Awareness. Therefore, any attempt to understand the cosmic consciousness or Field of Awareness from the conventional logic as applicable to the mecahnism as applicable to the physical entities is bound to laed to wroong inferences/conclusions.
 
If “Purua always remains present in all the entities” or soul (localized Purua) is present in all the entities of a mind-brain system and does not interact with them then it has to be the inseparable aspect of the entities (Prakriti).

 It is separable from the ontological existential point of view, remain present in Prakriti and all its derivatives but for having awareness of the Prakriti, it need not interact with Prakriti due to awareness being its fundamental and innate nature, as elaborated in the foregoing paras. Again the analogy of the space and physical objects will help you to understand this point of view. Space remains present in all the physical objects but it is separable from the physical objects and for its fundamental functions viz providing base for the existence of the physical objects and medium for their operation ( motion), it need not interact with the physical objects. On the same pattern, consciousness( having fundamental awareness) always remain present in Prakriti and its derivatives and yet it is separate from Prakriti and for having awareness of Prakriti and its derivatives, it need not interact with the Prakriti and its derivatives ( due to awareness being a fundamental and innate nature/attribute of the consciousness).

Actually, it is wrong to state that consciousness/awareness remain present in Prakriti or its derivatives. It is the Prakriti and its derivatives which reside/exist in the consciousness or Field of Awareness. 

 If they are separable, then they must interact for the soul to experience the objects. Simple presence is not going to do anything, such as experiencing the objects. This is simply because they then are isolated systems, which by definition, there would be no communication between them. 

Please try to come out from the logic of physicality as applicable to the physical systems. Please try to understand from the analogy of space and physical objects as to how Prakriti and all its derivatives can exist in  Consciousness/Field of Awareness yet they can be separate and for the consciousness to be aware of the Prakriti, it need not interact with it.

If you like you can verify with any knowledgeable unbiased colleague. If you do not agree then let us agree that we have no agreement on this topic.

That is why I send copies of my messages to other people also ( 6  as indicated above) but no one has commented. I thought they will also provide their views but so far none has done so. I request you to please send our debate/conversation to other people also.
 
It is too complicated to discuss darkness physiology here; you need to understand whole physiology by reading a book including how retina, visual system, SCN, and ARAS works. In any case, there are lots of interaction in CNS when there is no light. If you want, you can verify my claim with any knowledgeable physiology professor.

I am not denying the physiological changes/process undergoing in the eyes/body/brain during darkness and sleep/dreams. What I had been emphasizing and somehow you are not directly responding that even though our consciousness can have the awareness of the darkness but no actual physical interaction takes place between darkness and our brain and mind, leave alone the consciousness. I had provided this analogy of the awareness of darkness in the absence of any actual interaction to highlight the point that consciousness/awareness can have the awareness of the finally processed signal of thoughts/experiences without any interaction with these signals.

If you still subscribe to the view that interaction is necessary for the awareness of the consciousness, please address this very issue as to how the darkness is awarized by the consciousness and yet no interaction take place even between the darkness and brain/body. Here I am speaking of the direct interaction between the darkness and the brain/body and mind and NOT of any physiological changes/process in the brain. That process/changes occur otherwise also in the brain in the absence of the darkness.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal
 

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 10:55 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

As per Wikipedia (as of 4 August 2017), “In physics, a field is a physical quantity, typically a number or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time.[1][2][3] For example, […] an electric field can be thought of as a "condition in space"[4] emanating from an electric charge and extending throughout the whole of space. When a test electric charge is placed in this electric field, the particle accelerates due to a force.” This implies that when the “Field of Awareness” (like an electric field) “permeates” Chitta (like a test charge), Chitta/Prakti interacts with the “field of awareness”/Purua.  
 
As per Wikipedia (as of 4 August 2017), “Quantum field theory states that all fundamental fields, such as the electromagnetic field, must be quantized at each and every point in space. A field in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field is like the displacement of a ball from its rest position.” This implies that “Field of Awareness” can be quantized at each point in space and each awareness is an experience what Chitta related to an individual has.
 
If “Purua always remains present in all the entities” or soul (localized Purua) is present in all the entities of a mind-brain system and does not interact with them then it has to be the inseparable aspect of the entities (Prakriti). If they are separable, then they must interact for the soul to experience the objects. Simple presence is not going to do anything, such as experiencing the objects. This is simply because they then are isolated systems, which by definition, there would be no communication between them. If you like you can verify with any knowledgeable unbiased colleague. If you do not agree then let us agree that we have no agreement on this topic.
 
It is too complicated to discuss darkness physiology here; you need to understand whole physiology by reading a book including how retina, visual system, SCN, and ARAS works. In any case, there are lots of interaction in CNS when there is no light. If you want, you can verify my claim with any knowledgeable physiology professor.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Saturday, 5 August 2017 5:17 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Thanks. Let us discuss the first problem of khya. I will address your queries related to the eDAM later if other colleagues are also interested because I have discussed them many times with you.

Sehgal: You still fail to grasp the key point which I have been trying to bring out repeatedly. The Localized consciousness/soul is placed in Chitta in the causal body. Awareness being an intrinsic and integral attribute/nature of the consciousness, a “Field of Awareness” permeates Chitta or may be even beyond that. When the finally processed signal of any thought/experience is projected upwards in Chitta, it automatically comes in the “Field of Awareness” That is all. Why do you want to bring forcefully any interaction between the signal of thought/experience and consciousness when signal already exist in the “Field of Awareness” implying thought/experience is already awareized?
 
Vimal: You are unable to understand what the term “interaction” means and what its implications are in the context of our discussion.

I had my definition of interaction in the pure physical context in my 
previous message also. Let me mention that once again. Two entities 
are said to be in interaction in the physical sense when either they are
in actual physical contact with each other, wherein some exchange of something
 actually, take place between the two OR  they are distant and a signal of some 
physical energy exchanges/transits between the two entities. Please keep in mind that
this is the definition applicable to physical entities ONLY and not necessarily applicable
to the conscious entities. If you have any other definition, clarify the same since first
it will ne necessary to arrive at some consensual definition of interaction

 Let us look at closely what you have written. “Field of Awareness” 
permeates Chitta”: the verb “permeates” implies “interaction”.

No, in the aforesaid, you are mistaking and misinterpreting. Please
don't go after semantics and sometimes language becomes a barrier
in expressing the intended meanings. When I used the words
 "Field of Awareness" 
permeates Chitta, I did not intend to mean
that this Field has any interaction with Chitta.What I intended to
convey was that the Field of Awareness just make its presence in
Chitta without having any actual interaction with Chitta ( with interaction as
defined above). Now for the argument sake, You can say 
that "just making the presence" is also a verb. But wait, it was the limitation of
the language to express some idea. Field of awareness actually
never makes its presence in Chitta as part of some emergent
phenomenon. It fundamentally remain present in all the entities -
before, after and during the existence of all the entities.

I hope the following analogy may help you to grasp  the key point 
if you are willing to approach the whole issue with an open and 
honest mindset. When a closed room or some physical object say a pot is constructed,
we can say that space has permeated or the room or pot. But neither 
any action (verb) is done by space nor any interaction take place
between the space and pot/room for its permeating/appearing. The 
space was present, is present and will present before the construction
of the room and pot; it did make any action to permeate in the 
room/pot, there is no interaction between the pot/room and space 
yet space is present in the pot/room.

So is the case with the localized consciousness having a Field
of Awareness and Chitta.


 
“When the finally processed signal of any thought/experience
 is projected upwards in Chitta, it automatically comes in 
the “Field of Awareness” ” The terms “projected” and “comes” 
also imply “interaction”.

Did I use the words "projected" and "comes" for the consciousness?
I used these words for the signal of thoughts/experiences and did
I indicate that this signal is consciousness? It seems that you are commenting mechanically
without the application of the proper mind. And then "projecting"
and "comes" in the "Field of Awareness" should also be understood
in the same way as any physical object is projected and comes in 
the space
 
 In all cases, none of 
them (such as "Field of Awareness"/Purua and Chitta/P rakti
remain isolated.

Please ponder over repeatedly the analogy of space and  physical
objects say  a pot/room and  slowly it will become clear how the
Field of Awareness or Purusha alawys remain present in 
Chitta/Prakriti  without any interaction
 

 Just replacing "interacts" with other words is 
not going to change what is going on between Purua and Prakti
 of khya 
Nothing happens between Purusha and Prakriti the way nothing
happens between the space and physical objects. Yet space 
remains present in all physical objects, similarly, Purusha
always remains present in all the entities and in Chitta to be more
specifically for the purpose of experience of any thought.

Then I had indicated in my message also that it is NOT the Purusha
which ultimately experiences the thoughts. It is the localized
consciousness/soul, which is an image of Purusha the way an 
image of the Sun reflects in water in a pond, which experiences
the thoughts/experiences. Therefore, any experience by the localized
consciousness/soul of any thought/experience does not affect the
Purusha the way any change/modification of the image of the Sun
in water in one pond does neither affects the  Sun nor the images
of Sun in innumerable other ponds/vessels.


if we examine closely and carefully in an unbiased 
manner.

Yes, if you will ponder with an open and unbiased mindset over
the aforesaid thoughts, you may become free from the misconception
of any interaction between the consciosuness and Chitta/thoughts/
Prakriti.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

______________________________ ______________________________ _

NB. But still you have not responded how we get the awareness
of the darkness despite the absence of any obvious interaction
between the darkness and our brain/mind.

Vinod Sehgal
 

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. Let us discuss the first problem of khya. I will address your queries related to the eDAM later if other colleagues are also interested because I have discussed them many times with you.

Sehgal: You still fail to grasp the key point which I have been trying to bring out repeatedly. The Localized consciousness/soul is placed in Chitta in the causal body. Awareness being an intrinsic and integral attribute/nature of the consciousness, a “Field of Awareness” permeates Chitta or may be even beyond that. When the finally processed signal of any thought/experience is projected upwards in Chitta, it automatically comes in the “Field of Awareness” That is all. Why do you want to bring forcefully any interaction between the signal of thought/experience and consciousness when signal already exist in the “Field of Awareness” implying thought/experience is already awareized?
 
Vimal: You are unable to understand what the term “interaction” means and what its implications are in the context of our discussion. Let us look at closely what you have written. “Field of Awareness” permeates Chitta”: the verb “permeates” implies “interaction”. “When the finally processed signal of any thought/experience is projected upwards in Chitta, it automatically comes in the “Field of Awareness” ” The terms “projected” and “comes” also imply “interaction”. In all cases, none of them (such as "Field of Awareness"/Purua and Chitta/P rakti) remain isolated. Just replacing "interacts" with other words is not going to change what is going on between Purua and Prakti of khya if we examine closely and carefully in an unbiased manner.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Friday, 4 August 2017 3:17 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr, Ram,

Thanks.

Your thinking is not correct. The “intrinsic awareness as a non-emergent fundamental attribute in all the states” also needs interaction with the objects to be aware of. If there is no interaction then it is an isolated system without any communication, then how can soul or God be aware of the objects? Just saying that they do because it is intrinsic is a total nonsense.

You still fail to grasp the key point which I have been trying to bring out repeatedly. The Localized consciousness/soul is placed in Chitta in the causal body. Awareness being an intrinsic and integral attribute/nature of the consciousness, a "Field of Awareness permeates Chitta or may be even beyond that. When the finally processed signal of any thought/experience is projected upwards in Chitta, it automatically comes in the "Field of Awareness' That is all. Why do you want to bring forcefully any interaction between the signal of thought/experience and consciousness when signal already exist in the "Field of Awareness" implying thought/experience is already awareized?
 
I suggested reading physiology because you really need background what interaction means and what are its implications. Darkness also needs endogenous interaction within its neural network to experience darkness even if there is no exogenous (external) signal from the pitched darkness. When there are no light signals, only ‘cone’ photoreceptors do not work, but ‘rod’ photoreceptors start working in pitch darkness. In addition, ARAS system and thalamo-cortical system also keep on working and hence interactions between the components of the related NN occur during darkness.

The key issue is not if cone photoreceptors or rod [hotorece[ptors work OR thalmocortical system work or not. Before the experience of the darkness also, thalmonuclear system was working So what special feature is added by the working of the thalmocortical system when darkness is experienced? Similarly, even if rod photoreceptors work, how it ensures that some interaction is taking place between darkness and rod [hotoreceptors?

The key question is that you have been insisting that for having awareness of 'anything", an interaction should be established between 'that thing" and the consciousness via the brain and mind. I have been highlighting that when we experience "darkness", no interaction can be established between the "darkness"-- which is awarized by the consciousness and even the brain/mind, leave alone the consciousness.

In the strict physical framework of the mechanism of interaction, for establishing any interaction between two things, a signal of some physical energy should transit between the two things. So if you insist that for having the awareness of "anything: ( darkness here), establishing an interaction between "that thing" and consciousness is must, please explain what type of signal can propagate from the darkness to eyes/brain. At the moment, I am speaking of an interaction between the darkness and eyes/brain and not consciousness. If no signal can propagate from darkness to eyes/brain, implying the absence of any interaction, how can a signal propagate to the consciousness? Please address this very issue in a frontal manner and NOT speak of other in-brain mechanisms which are not connected to the experience of darkness.

The fact is that the consciousness, due to its very innate nature of "awareness", becomes aware of the existence as well non-existence, presence as well absence, light as well darkness WITHOUT any interaction. The "awareness" by the consciousness is not governed by the normal Laws of the interaction between matter/energy in the physical world, which you forcibly want to extend to the awareness by the consciousness also.

 The same goes for sleep and dream where eyes are closed and sleep, dream, or imagine in a pitch dark.  Moreover, thoughts always entail interactions. In the NS state also when thoughts are minimized or zero, yogi’s system has endogenous interactions.
 
The queries you listed as problems of the eDAM are all your misunderstanding and misconstruction of the eDAM. If you seriously want to understand the eDAM, first you rigorously need to read completely with the understanding of 5 articles: (Vimal, 2008),(Vimal, 2010a)(Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2015b), and (Vimal, 2016c). You need enough background in related sciences to understand them; they are technical stuff in these articles.

I have read and pondered over these articles a no of times. On a no of occasions, I requested you to point out my misunderstanding/misconstructi on in a specific manner but you could bring out none of these. Now since we are discussing in a wide forum, with all my messages marked to 6 more participants also, it is better that you may respond to the problems of eDAM, instead of having a complacency, that this metaphysics is problem free and perfect or less problematic than other metaphysics

I am again replicating the problems of eDAM, as highlighted by me in my previous message as well many times previously but got no satisfactory and convincing response/solution from your side

i) There is no objective or subject evidence for the existence of any mental aspects with the physical aspects of the matter particles. The whole notion of the existence of any mental aspects with the matter particles is a speculative one.

ii) The mental aspect is hypothesized as the Functions and the physical aspects as structure. But it is also hypothesized that the mental aspects don't take birth from the physical aspects. There is no logical and convincing explanation as to how the mental aspects manifest if these are functions and also don't take birth from the structure ( physical). eDAM's attempt to base the physical-mental aspects on the co-origination and co-evolution philosophy of Nagarjuna's Buddhist Philosophy of "essenceless" and "causeless" primordial existence is replete with a no of explanatory gaps/problems. I sent you a detailed message on the Structure_Function interface in Nagarjuna's Philosophy/eDAM a few days ago, pointed out a no of problems, but you did not respond

iii) In the primordial stage, both the physical and mental aspects are hypothesized in eDAM to exist in some common state of superposition. eDAM further hypothesizes that the physical aspects manifest in the CM by the collapse of the superposition but paradoxically, mental aspects continue to stay in the state of superposition. No explanation for this.

iv) eDAM states that all our subjective experiences are due to the manifestation of some Potential experiences( PEs) in the mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects of the matter particles. Implicitly, this amounts to a high degree of superdeterminism in all the subjective experiences of all the people of the universe at all the times -- a highly improbable and bizarre situation.

v) eDAM is based upon the Quantum Vacuum of the quantum physicists which is not able to explain even the physical aspects of the observable universe, leave alone the mental aspects.

For the sake of brevity, I want to limit the above 5 problems only otherwise there is a no of other problems in eDAM which don't have any solution

Now I am adding some more problems to the above list of problems

i) We observe that we have a  conscious self ( "I-ness") which remains invariant in the entire life from childhood till the old age, from birth till death. If the mental aspects of the conscious invariant self could be the manifestation from some latent mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects of the matter particles of the brain, it means there should be some invariant
physical NCC. But this is not possible since from the childhood till death, out brain undergoes continues change from moment to moment. Old cells/neurons are continuously replaced with the new one. Therefore, there can not be any invariant NCC corresponding to invariant conscious self.

ii) eDAM hypothesizes that there is one mental aspect in the latent state with the matter particles which manifests in a functional brain only. But for this manifestation, eDAM has prescribed no of conditions viz the presence of the working memory, conscious state, attention. This is a paradox. All these are the part of the mental aspects which is hypothesized to manifest from the latent mental aspects. So the mental aspects which is supposed to manifest from the latent mental aspects with the brain particles itself have been made to exist in the functional brain!

iii) eDAM hypothesizes that in the primordial stage, the mental aspect exists in some latent form for which the term Potential Experiences (PES). At the functional brain level, at the time of the manifestation, this mental aspect splits into two groups -- function sub-aspects viz thoughts, judgment, emotions. memory, planning, all perceptual and cognitive functions AND experiential sub-aspect which experiences all these functional sub-aspects. But there is no clear mechanism as to how the same mental aspects split into two different sub-aspects.

Further, the conscious aspect which experiences is a constant, ever persisting, ever life and the mental functions are the shut on/shut off one-time phenomenon. How. both these differently sub-aspects can exist in a common mental aspect? No clarity on this

iv) eDAM postulates some theistic version of eDAM were conscious soul perpetuates after death. But eDAM fails to account for how it is possible within its key postulates. After the death, the brain particles disintegrate and scatter away. How from those scattered particles, any conscious soul can manifest since while in the living conditions, the conscious soul manifests from an aggregate of those scattered particles and that too when the brain is fully functional?

v) eDAM hypothesizes that the mental aspect exists in some latent ( potential) format as inseparable with the physical aspects of all the discrete elementary and compound particles of the matter and energy in the universe right from the primordial stage onwards. The mental aspects is also governed by the same physical laws as governing the physical particles. The mental aspects also undergo thru the same transformational and transmutational process as the physical aspects. So ipso facto, there is no mental aspect but this is a physical aspect.

In order to not to make the whole issue not so complicated, let me give a break here.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

 



On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
 
Thanks.
 
Your thinking is not correct. The “intrinsic awareness as a non-emergent fundamental attribute in all the states” also needs interaction with the objects to be aware of. If there is no interaction then it is an isolated system without any communication, then how can soul or God be aware of the objects? Just saying that they do because it is intrinsic is a total nonsense.
 
I suggested reading physiology because you really need background what interaction means and what are its implications. Darkness also needs endogenous interaction within its neural network to experience darkness even if there is no exogenous (external) signal from the pitched darkness. When there are no light signals, only ‘cone’ photoreceptors do not work, but ‘rod’ photoreceptors start working in pitch darkness. In addition, ARAS system and thalamo-cortical system also keep on working and hence interactions between the components of the related NN occur during darkness. The same goes for sleep and dream where eyes are closed and sleep, dream, or imagine in a pitch dark.  Moreover, thoughts always entail interactions. In the NS state also when thoughts are minimized or zero, yogi’s system has endogenous interactions.
 
The queries you listed as problems of the eDAM are all your misunderstanding and misconstruction of the eDAM. If you seriously want to understand the eDAM, first you rigorously need to read completely with the understanding of 5 articles: (Vimal, 2008), (Vimal, 2010a), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2015b), and (Vimal, 2016c). You need enough background in related sciences to understand them; they are technical stuff in these articles.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Thursday, 3 August 2017 2:19 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Continuation of prev email:

... We need to convert dualistic khya into a version of dual-aspect monism. For example, Purua can be considered as the experiential aspect and inseparable Prakti as physica l-mentalaspect (with causal and astral bodies as mental sub-aspect, and physical bodies as physical sub-aspect)

Your aforesaid views/hypothesis are not supported by any subjective
evidence ( as flowing from the reproducible experiences in the state of 
Samaadhi Or any objective evidence as flowing out from any objective empirical experimentation . Furthermore, the whole concept of the presence of any mental aspects
with the physical aspects of the discrete matter and energy particles ( which is the central
 feature of eDAM) is replete with a no of logical inconsistencies. Vide my message as sent
 3 days ago, I had indicated some 5 problems of eDAM but you did not respond. Let be replicate those 5 problems again for your consideration and response.

I shall comment only on eDAM and Nagarjuna's co-origination ( which forms the basis for eDAM). There is a large no of evidence and logical based inconsistencies in eDAM. I shall point out a few of these here

i) There is no objective or subject evidence for the existence of any mental aspects with the physical aspects of the matter particles. The whole notion of the existence of any mental aspects with the matter particles is a speculative one.

ii) The mental aspects is hypothesized as the Functions and the physical aspects as structure. But it is also hypothesized that the mental aspects don't take birth from the physical aspects. There is no logical and convincing explanation as to how the mental aspects manifest if these are functions and also don't take birth from the structure ( physical). eDAM's attempt to base the physical-mental aspects on the co-origination and co-evolution philosophy of Nagarjuna's Buddhist Philosophy of "essenceless" and "causeless" primordial existence is replete with a no of explanatory gaps/problems. I sent you a detailed message on the Structure_Function interface in Nagarjuna's Philosophy/eDAM a few days ago, pointed out a no of problems, but you did not respond

iii) In the primordial stage, both the physical and mental aspects are hypothesized in eDAM to exist in some common state of superposition. eDAM further hypothesizes that the physical aspects manifest in the CM by the collapse of the superposition but paradoxically, mental aspects continue to stay in the state of superposition. No explanation for this.

iv) eDAM states that all our subjective experiences are due to the manifestation of some Potential experiences( PEs) in the mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects of the matter particles. Implicitly, this amounts to a high degree of superdeterminism in all the subjective experiences of all the people of the universe at all the times -- a highly improbable and bizarre situation.

v) eDAM is based upon the Quantum Vacuum of the quantum physicists which is not able to explain even the physical aspects of the observable universe, leave alone the mental aspects.

For the sake of brevity, I want to limit the above 5 problems only otherwise there is a no of other problems in eDAM which don't have any solution.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

______________________________ ______________________________ ___
 Now I am adding some more problems to the above list of problems

i) We observe that we have an  conscious self ( "I-ness") which remains invarant in the entire life from childhood till the old age, from birth till death. If the mental aspects of the conscious invariant self could be the manifestation from some latent mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects of the matter particles of the brain, it means there should be some invariant
physical NCC. But this is not possible since from the childhood till death, out brain undergoes continues change from moment to moment. Old cells/neurons are continuously replaced with the new one. Therefore, there can not be any invariant NCC corresponding to invariant conscious self.

ii) eDAM hypothesizes that there is one mental aspect in the latent state with the matter particles which manifests in a functional brain only. But for this manifestation, eDAM has prescribed no of conditions viz the presence of the working memory, conscious state, attention. This is a paradox. All these are the part of the mental aspects which is hypothesized to manifest from the latent mental aspects. So the mental aspects which is supposed to manifest from the latent mental aspects with the brain particles itself have been made to exist in the functional brain!

iii) eDAM hypothesizes that in the primordial stage, the mental aspect exists in some latent form for which the term Potential Experiences (PES). At the functional brain level, at the time of the manifestation, this mental aspect splits into two groups -- function sub-aspects viz thoughts, judgment, emotions. memory, planning, all perceptual and cognitive functions AND experiential sub-aspect which experiences all these functional sub-aspects. But there is no clear mechanism as to how the same mental aspects splits into two different sub-aspects.

Further, the conscious aspect which experiences is a constant, ever persisting, ever life and the mental functions are the shut on/shut off one-time phenomenon. How. both these differently sub-aspects can exist in a common mental aspect? No clarity on this

iv) eDAM postulates some theistic version of eDAM were conscious soul perpetuates after death. But eDAM fails to account for how it is possible within its key postulates. After the death, the brain particles disintegrate and scatter away. How from those scattered particles, any conscious soul can manifest since while in the living conditions, the conscious soul manifests from an aggregate of those scattered particles and that too when the brain is fully functional?

v) eDAM hypothesizes that the mental aspect exists in some latent ( potential) format as inseparable with the physical aspects of all the discrete elementary and compound particles of the matter and energy in the universe right from the primordial stage onwards. The mental aspects is also governed by the same physical laws as governing the physical particles. The mental aspects also undergo thru the same transformational and transmutational process as the physical aspects. So ipso facto, there is no mental aspect but this is a physical aspect.

In order to not to make the whole issue not so complicated, let me give a break here.

Regards and thanks.

Vinod Sehgal









On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Continuation of prev email:

... We need to convert dualistic khya into a version of dual-aspect monism. For example, Purua can be considered as the experiential aspect and inseparable Prakti as physical-mental aspect (with causal and astral bodies as mental sub-aspect, and physical bodies as physical sub-aspect).  ...
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 10:10 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:


Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal (2 August 2017)

Above is OK that brain always continues to function from birth until death. If the brain may stop function, life may come to end. However, with this, consciousness and awareness will not come to an end. The same consciousness and awareness manifests in the new brain in a new body in a new birth BUT NOT MIND (with a due difference in the consciousness and mind as an aggregate of manifested thoughts). However, seeds of thoughts (Samskāras), mind as a structural reality of the Primordial physicality still, survives the death of the physical body/brain. ARAS system was working even before the awareness of the darkness. If you stick to the notion that for the awareness of any external system by the consciousness, some interactional mechanism should be set up between the external system and the consciousness, it means when our consciousness becomes aware of the darkness, some interactional mechanism should be set up between the darkness and our brain/mind/consciousness. In addition, for establishing any interactional mechanism, some signal of some energy should emanate out from the darkness to the brain/mind/consciousness. Now you may please explain which signal can emanate out from the darkness to the brain/mind/consciousness for establishing an interactional mechanism. One thing more, ARAS system does not create awareness or consciousness. It is like a shut on/shut off gate for the manifestation of the consciousness/awareness at the physical body/brain system. An enlightened yogi can have his awareness in the manifested state even without the ARAS system being in the functional form for the manifestation of the awareness but minimum vital parameters necessary for sustaining life should continue to be maintained.
Vimal
Please read ARAS and sleep, dream, consciousness physiology for your queries. My point is that interaction is always involved. Therefore, in khya, the interaction between Purua (in either parts or whole) and Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, and empowerment. This is a serious category mistake. Therefore, the association problem remains and hence we cannot use khya as it is. We need to convert dualistic khya into a version of dual-aspect monism. The sub-Planck level physics might be an interesting project but it is unclear how to link it to astral level. Many World Interpretation (MWI) of QM seems to use the concept of parallel worlds or multiverse, but it has its own problem and again it is unclear how to link it to astral world. The third clue may be String Theory, where multi-dimensions (more than 4D+1) are used, but how to link to the astral dimension is unclear.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Wednesday, 2 August 2017 2:37 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Vimal: A brain is always working since birth to death; neural and physiological interactions always go on in all states of our mind-brain system including deep sleep, dream, wakeful conscious and Samādhi states.

Above is OK that brain always continues to function from birth till death. If
the brain may stop function, life may come to end. But with this, 
consciosuness and awareness will not come to an end. The same consciousness and
awareness manifests in the new brain 
in new body in the new birth BUT NOT MIND ( with due difference in
the consciousness and mind as an aggregate of manifested thoughts).

However seeds of  thoughts ( Samskaras), Mind as a structural reality
of the Primordial physicality still, survives the death of the physical 
body/brain.


 Thus, interaction is certainly involved in the experience of complete 
darkness, especially in the ARAS system.

ARAS system was working even before the awareness of the darkness.
If you stick to the notion  that for the awareness of any external 
system by the consciousness, some interactional mechanism should 
be set up between the external system and the consciousness, 
it means when our consciousness becomes aware of the darkness, 
some interactional mechanism should be set up between the darkness 
and our brain/mind/consciousness. And for establishing any 
 interactional mechanism, some signal of some energy should 
emanate out from the darkness to the brain/mind/consciousness.
Now you may please explain, which signal can emanate out from
the darkness to the brain/mind/consciousness for establishing
an interactional mechanism?

One thing more. ARAS system does not create awareness or consciousness It is like a 
shut on/shut off gate for the manifestation of the consciousness/awareness at
the physical body/brain system. An enlightened Yogi can have his awareness
in the manifested state even without the ARAS system being in the functional
form for the manifestation of the awareness but minimum vital parameters 
necessary for sustaining life should continue to be maintained.

 In Nature, there is always interaction one way or other in all living and non-living systems. I do not know any natural isolated system. This is known as Madhu-Vidyā(the doctrine of the mutual interdependence of entities) as elaborated in  Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II.v.1-19, and in the Chandogya Upanishad III 1-5.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Another example as to how the consciousness can become aware of the 'others' due to its in-built fundamental feature. Of awareness without going into any interactional mechanism with some external system, you stay in a pitch dark room. You are aware that there is darkness in the room without any interaction of the darkness and your consciousness. Even if you would like to forcibly bring interaction in the experience of the darkness, you can't bring in the same. What is in the darkness -- which signal which will interact with the consciousness or even with eyes/brain/mind? But it is a fact that we as consciousness become aware if darkness without any interaction. So is with all thoughts and experiences.

Vimal: A brain is always working since birth to death; neural and physiological interactions always go on in all states of our mind-brain system including deep sleep, dream, wakeful conscious and Samādhi states. Thus, interaction is certainly involved in the experience of complete darkness, especially in the ARAS system. In Nature, there is always interaction one way or other in all living and non-living systems. I do not know any natural isolated system. This is known as Madhu-Vidyā (the doctrine of the mutual interdependence of entities) as elaborated in  Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II.v.1-19, and in the Chandogya Upanishad III 1-5.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 4:00 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Dear  Dr.Ram,

Another example as to how the consciousness  can become aware of the 'others' due to its in-built fundamental feature. Of awareness without going into any interactional mechanism with some external system
You stay in a pitched dark  room. You are aware that there is darkness in the room without any interaction of the darkness and your consciousness. Even if you would like to forcibly bring interaction in the experience of the darkness, you  can't bring in the same. What is in the darkness -- which signal which will interact with the consciousness or even with eyes/brain/mind? But it is a fact that we as consciousness  become aware  if darkness without any interaction. So is with all thoughts and experiences.

Vinod Sehgal

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Respected Dr. Ram,
> Thanks.
> Dear Vinod ji,
> Thanks.
> The key point, which you are failing to grasp, is that the "awareness" is the intrinsic nature of the consciousness and for becoming aware of any entity/phenomenon, it need not enter into any other interaction/mechanism. Awareness is not an emergent/created phenomenon in the consciousness. For example, when you are awake, for becoming awake, you need not enter into any other process/mechanism since you are already awake.
>  
> How an E.M. field and a matter particle like an electron belong to the same group when one is localized matter and other is a ubiquitous field? They interact and how there is no category mistake? 
>  
> Anyhow, examples of e.m field/gravitational field and their interaction with particles are not applicable to the cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti since these fields belong to the Physical realm and mechanisms/Laws of the physical world are not applicable to even the astral world (Realm of tanmātras -- a realm of subtle physicality) let alone cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti. Your problem in thinking has been that you are not able to think beyond the Laws/mechanisms of the Physical world.
>  
> Your above quote is self-contradictory. If awareness is inherent/fundamental/intrinsic to the consciousness, how and why it should require any interaction. This will amount to forcibly bringing in the interaction when awareness is already existing in the consciousness.
>  
> Where is the contradiction? If Shabda and Prāṇa exist in the cosmic consciousness by its very nature (like that of awareness), why it should interact with the Moola Prakriti? If Shabda and Prāṇa are being manifested in Moola Prakriti Due the very presence of the cosmic consciousness, creation of Shabda and Prāṇa will amount to a fundamental/inherent phenomenon in Moola Prakriti without any actual interaction.
>  
> One more thing, which you fail to comprehend, is that for an actual interaction between two entities, both the entities should be discrete and divisible. Cosmic consciousness is NOT a discrete, divisible finite entity. Therefore, even if you would like to have the interaction of the cosmic consciousness and that of the Moola Prakriti, the same is not feasible.
>  
> If you do not agree with the above view, please explain the interaction of discrete matter particles and indivisible space (if it is treated as continuous).
>
> Vimal
>
> To maintain wakefulness, there is constant interaction in ARAS system as per neuroscience of wakefulness. The same goes for any type of awareness.
> This you have indicated the physical aspect of wakefulness. Anyhow, even for the physical aspect of the ARAS system to remain in the state of wakefulness, this system need not interact with any other external system. What I wanted to highlight by this analogy ( and an analogy should not be taken in the literal sense), when any feature of a system is inbuilt in the system as part of its fundamentality, It need not interact with any external system for the manifestation of that feature since that feature  is self-manifested, self-referenced and self-evidence. Based upon this logical argument, "awareness" is the very non-emergent fundamental feature of the consciousness, therefore, it need not interact with any external entity/system for the manifestation of the awareness. Awareness never manifest in the consciousness. It always continues to remain present in the consciousness. In fact, there is no meaning of the consciousness without being aware.
> In western classification, since fields (such as EM and gravitational field), particles (such as an electron), and waves are (non-mental) physical entities, they are in the same major group; so they can interact without making category mistake;
> How do you define a category?
> When are two categories said to be different?
> When and how two categories interact?
> Why there can't be different categories with the physical group?
> You should address the above issues before going into the issue of the category mistake.
> ______________________________ ______________________________ ___
> Then how do you define non-physical and distinguish it from physical?
> You could say that "anything" which is not physical is non-physical and you may include anything, as known to Science i.e baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces as non-physical and include this under a different category. But this is an arbitrary and incorrect way of defining the second category. Merely stating that whatever is not physical, as known to contemporary science as on day, is non-physical does not serve any purpose since Science is totally blind about the ontology of THAT non-physical.
> So the concept of the category mistake in Science would have been relevant if Science would have been aware of the ontology of both realms viz Physical ( matter and physical energy)  and Non-Physical and then established why and how the interaction between the two is not feasible? But for science non-physical realm is almost non-existing, therefore, why to hypothesize any such category? Unless, science has no clarity about the second category, which it conveniently classify as Non-physical to hide its incompleteness of that realm of nature, how can it say that there is some category mistake?
> ______________________________ ______________________________ ______
> In Science, there have been some concepts which have been existing since long and taken granted as correct but when investigated a bit further, those are found to be wrong. I shall name two concepts in this regard -- "Self Organizing" and "Category mistake". The concept of self-organizing is taken in the sense that some phenomenon happens on its own without any internal or external Laws like an auto-pilot which is treated as automatic. But in the case of an auto pilot, some inbuilt Laws are built by some external programmer and auto-pilot moves according to those in-built laws. Similarly, there is nothing like any self-organizing phenomenon. All such phenomenon are governed by some internal Laws existing within the system.
> Similarly, there is nothing like category mistake since 
> i) you can't   define the different category in precise terms
> ii) Can't specify when one category will be different than other
> iii) can't specify when and how two categories will interact?
> So the whole concept of the category mistake in Science, which is taken correctly as granted, is a misnomer.
> The fact is that whatever interaction nature allows happens and whatever interaction does not allow does not happen WITHOUT any dependency on categories.
>
>  there is much objective evidence in physics. However, they cannot interact with mental entities (such as thoughts, experiences etc.); otherwise, category mistake will be made.
> But Science is unaware of the ontological existence of any mind and thoughts /experience? Has it ever empirically detected any mind/thoughts/experiences? So how do you state that mind/thoughts do interact with the matter/e.m energy?
> First, you should define the parameters of each category and ways how it is distinguished from the other category?
>  
> In Sāṅkhya, the interaction between Puruṣa (in either parts or whole, the experiencer) 
> You are repeatedly making the same mistake that experience is the Purusha. Experience is not the Purusha or cosmic consciousness but it is the soul which is the image of the cosmic consciousness in Prakriti or Chitta to be more precise in the Causal body of the same pattern in the water in a pond at earth, the Sun cast its image. Any interaction of the image of Sun in the water in pond WITH any other external system at earth will not affect. Similarly, even by conservatism if it is agreed that for the localized consciousness ( soul) to experience some thought/experience, some interaction is required, that interaction will be between the image (soul) and the external system of thought.experience COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS OR PURUSHA WILL REMAIN IMMUNE FROM THAT INTERACTION.
> In my previous email also, I had highlighted this issue but you kept silent.
> and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, and empowerment. It does not matter if Puruṣa (CC) is ubiquitous or not and soul is localized consciousness or not.
> No, this is essential that both the interacting entities should be divisible. If one entity is indivisible infinite, how will you specify which of its parts are involved in any interaction? That is the whole
> problem in defining the interaction between space and matter  particles. So far scientists are not able to define the interaction between space and matter particles in the absence of space having any discrete quantum particles.
>  I think that it is now time to have an agreement that we disagree. 
> Yes, of course, we disagree but we can try to realize where are at missing in our understanding. I have highlighted two issues wherein you seem to be missing in the correct understanding.
> i) The concept of category mistake though in nature there is nothing like the category mistake.
> ii) Invoking an external interactional mechanism for the manifestation of a feature in a system when that feature is a non-emergent fundamental feature ( already existing) of that system
> There is no magic or miracle that Puruṣa or its derivatives/components can watch, experience, empower, and/or communicate with Prakṛti or its components/derivatives.
> The fact is that the whole fundamental existence of cosmic consciousness is a magic for science since it is beyond all the Laws of the Science. It is NOT that the cosmic consciousness may be governed by the Laws of the Science but it is the Laws of the Science which have emerged out from the cosmic consciousness. Therefore, any attempt to understand the cosmic consciousness by the known Laws of Science is going to lead to wrong conclusions
>  If you like you can discuss with other colleagues who know what “interaction” means and what its implications are, such as if there is no interaction then it is “isolation” and hence no experience, no empowerment and no communication between them.
>
> Your aforesaid arguments are applicable to physical realm ONLY and that too between two discrete entities and not between one discrete entity like matter and another a continuous indivisible entity like space. Leave alone the cosmic consciousness, these arguments are not applicable even to the Astral realm of nature which is physical. I always mark my messages to other interesting participants in the group to invite their views.
> Regards.
> Vinod Sehgal
>
>  
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Vinod ji,
>> Thanks.
>> The key point, which you are failing to grasp, is that the "awareness" is the intrinsic nature of the consciousness and for becoming aware of any entity/phenomenon, it need not enter into any other interaction/mechanism. Awareness is not an emergent/created phenomenon in the consciousness. For example, when you are awake, for becoming awake, you need not enter into any other process/mechanism since you are already awake.
>>  
>> How an E.M. field and a matter particle like an electron belong to the same group when one is localized matter and other is a ubiquitous field? They interact and how there is no category mistake? 
>>  
>> Anyhow, examples of e.m field/gravitational field and their interaction with particles are not applicable to the cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti since these fields belong to the Physical realm and mechanisms/Laws of the physical world are not applicable to even the astral world (Realm of tanmātras -- a realm of subtle physicality) let alone cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti. Your problem in thinking has been that you are not able to think beyond the Laws/mechanisms of the Physical world.
>>  
>> Your above quote is self-contradictory. If awareness is inherent/fundamental/intrinsic to the consciousness, how and why it should require any interaction. This will amount to forcibly bringing in the interaction when awareness is already existing in the consciousness.
>>  
>> Where is the contradiction? If Shabda and Prāṇa exist in the cosmic consciousness by its very nature (like that of awareness), why it should interact with the Moola Prakriti? If Shabda and Prāṇa are being manifested in Moola Prakriti Due the very presence of the cosmic consciousness, creation of Shabda and Prāṇa will amount to a fundamental/inherent phenomenon in Moola Prakriti without any actual interaction.
>>  
>> One more thing, which you fail to comprehend, is that for an actual interaction between two entities, both the entities should be discrete and divisible. Cosmic consciousness is NOT a discrete, divisible finite entity. Therefore, even if you would like to have the interaction of the cosmic consciousness and that of the Moola Prakriti, the same is not feasible.
>>  
>> If you do not agree with the above view, please explain the interaction of discrete matter particles and indivisible space (if it is treated as continuous).
>>
>> Vimal
>>
>> To maintain wakefulness, there is constant interaction in ARAS system as per neuroscience of wakefulness. The same goes for any type of awareness.
>>  
>> In western classification, since fields (such as EM and gravitational field), particles (such as an electron), and waves are (non-mental) physical entities, they are in the same major group; so they can interact without making category mistake; there is much objective evidence in physics. However, they cannot interact with mental entities (such as thoughts, experiences etc.); otherwise, category mistake will be made.
>>  
>> In Sāṅkhya, the interaction between Puruṣa (in either parts or whole, the experiencer) and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, and empowerment. It does not matter if Puruṣa (CC) is ubiquitous or not and soul is localized consciousness or not. I think that it is now time to have an agreement that we disagree. There is no magic or miracle that Puruṣa or its derivatives/components can watch, experience, empower, and/or communicate with Prakṛti or its components/derivatives. If you like you can discuss with other colleagues who know what “interaction” means and what its implications are, such as if there is no interaction then it is “isolation” and hence no experience, no empowerment and no communication between them.
>>  
>> Kind regards,
>> Rām
>> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
>> Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
>> Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
>> Vision Research Institute, 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.inhttp:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
>> https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 
>> Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
>>
>> On Monday, 31 July 2017 10:27 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Respected Dr. Ram,
>> Thanks.
>> I strongly disagree because you are making totally illogical and impossible argument. The interaction between Puruṣa (either in parts or whole) and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, empowerment. If there is no interaction, then both are isolated. Fields (such as ubiquitous ZPF, EM, or gravitational field) can interact with particles without making category mistake if interaction is between two entities of the same group. You have two contradicting views on Prana and Shabda; they are parts of  Puruṣa vs. parts of Moola Prakṛti; they are certainly not third independent entities. In any case, the Puruṣa and Moola Prakṛtiare of from different groups, their interaction is certainly a category mistake and is forbidden. In my view, any kind of awareness by soul/self (even if awareness is fundamental and inherent in soul) needs interaction with the objects it is aware of. Therefore, in my view, the association and category mistake problems of Sāṅkhyaremains. To sum up, let us agree that we disagree and let readers to decide.
>>
>> Sehgal: The key point which you are failing to grasp is that the "awareness" is the very intrinsic nature of the consciousness and for becoming aware of any entity/phenomenon, it need not enter into any other interaction/mechanism.  Awareness is not an emergent/created phenomenon in the consciousness. For example, when you are awake, for becoming awake, you need not enter into any other process/mechanism since you are already awake.
>>
>> Fields (such as ubiquitous ZPF, EM, or gravitational field) can interact with particles without making category mistake if interaction is between two entities of the same group.
>> How an e.m field and a matter particle like an electron belong to the same group when one is localized matter and other is a ubiquitous field? They interact and how there is no category mistake? 
>> Anyhow, examples of e.m field/gravitational field and their interaction with particles are not applicable to the cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti since these fields belong to the Physical realm and mechanisms/Laws of the physical world are not applicable to even the Astral world ( Realm of tanmaatras -- a realm of subtle physicality) let alone cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti. Your problem in thinking has been that you are not able to think beyond the Laws/mechanisms of the Physical world.
>>
>> In my view, any kind of awareness by soul/self (even if awareness is fundamental and inherent in soul) needs interaction with the objects it is aware of. 
>>
>> Your above quote is self-contradictory. If awareness is inherent/fundamental/intrinsic to the consciousness, how and why it should require any interaction. This will amount to forcibly bringing in the interaction when awareness is already existing in the consciousness.
>> You have two contradicting views on Prana and Shabda; they are parts of  Puruṣa vs. parts of Moola Prakṛti; they are certainly not third independent entities
>>
>> Where is the contradiction? If Shabda and Prana exist in the cosmic Consciousness by its very nature ( like that of awareness), why it should interact with the Moola Prakriti? If Shbada and Prana are being manifested in Moola Prakriti Due the very presence of the cosmic consciousness, creation of Shabda and Prana will amount to a fundamental/inherent phenomenon in Moola Prakriti without any actual interaction.
>> ______________________________ ______________________________ ______One more thing which you fail to comprehend is that for an actual interaction between two entities, both the entitities should be discrete and divisible. Cosmnic consciousness is NOT a discrete, divisible finite enetity. So even if you would like to have the interaction of the cosmic consciousness and taht of the Moola Prakriti, the same is not faesible.
>> If you don't agree with the above view, please explain the interaction of discrete matter particles and indivisible space ( if it is treated as continuous).
>> Regards.
>> Vinod sehgal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Vinod ji,
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Sehgal (31 July 2017)
>>
>> Not necessary that for the creation of Shabda and Prana, Puruṣa (Cosmic consciousness) may have the actual interaction with the Moola Prakriti. Cosmic consciousness is a HOLISTIC INDIVISIBLE IN FINITE entity while Mool Prakriti is a DISCRETE DIVISIBLE entity. For interaction, actual communication, as is normally interpreted in the physical sciences, it is some parts of the Cosmic Consciousness which should have interaction with some parts of the Moola Prakriti. However since the cosmic consciousness is PARTLESS, INDIVISIBLE, HOLISTIC INFINITE ONE, it can't interact, the way you interpret the interaction, even if you want to forcibly want to create an interaction. Then there are two views on the manifestation of Prana and Shabda in Moola Prakriti. The first view states that this is by the very nature of the cosmic consciousness (without any need for any mechanism in the physical sense we understand), Prana and Shabda manifest in the Moola Prakriti. The second view is that Prana and Shabda exist in the very womb of the cosmic consciousness and emerge it out in the Moola Prakriti. In either of these views, no need for interaction in the physical sense arises. Then Most important fact has been that in the state of Samādhi, both Prana and Shabda are actually observable/experienceable. This does not leave the scope for any other interpretation. The point which you are missing is that it is not the cosmic consciousness which empowers Moola Prakrit, but it is the Prana and Shabda  which empowers Moola Prakriti Then how Prana and Shabda manifests in MooLa Prakriti is indicated above. […] I argue that there is no need for any interaction between the soul and final signal of thoughts in Chitta since awareness is the very fundamental nature of the consciousness of the soul.
>>
>> Vimal
>>
>> I strongly disagree because you are making totally illogical and impossible argument. The interaction between Puruṣa (either in parts or whole) and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, empowerment. If there is no interaction, then both are isolated. Fields (such as ubiquitous ZPF, EM, or gravitational field) can interact with particles without making category mistake if interaction is between two entities of the same group. You have two contradicting views on Prana and Shabda; they are parts of  Puruṣa vs. parts of Moola Prakṛti; they are certainly not third independent entities. In any case, the Puruṣa and Moola Prakṛti are of from different groups, their interaction is certainly a category mistake and is forbidden. In my view, any kind of awareness by soul/self (even if awareness is fundamental and inherent in soul) needs interaction with the objects it is aware of. Therefore, in my view, the association and category mistake problems of Sāṅkhya remains. To sum up, let us agree that we disagree and let readers to decide.
>>  
>> Kind regards,
>> Rām
>> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
>> Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
>> Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
>> Vision Research Institute, 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 University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
>



















Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Aug 7, 2017, 3:57:22 PM8/7/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir, George Weissmann, Joseph McCard, BT APJ, Roman Poznanski
Dear Vinod ji,
 
Thanks.

Sehgal: [1] We have a very large universe with space extending to almost infinities. Definitely, there will be large swathes in the universe in which there will be no matter, energy, radiations (ignoring any vacuum energy). Will there be no existence of space in these swathes of the universe? Is it not an obvious observation?
 
[2] The experience of darkness is not like other SEs. In other SEs, a signal of some physical energy emanates from the stimuli but in the experience of the darkness, none of the signals of any physical energy can emanate from the darkness. It is because of an absence of light stimulus, which causes a chain of interactive signals from retina to cortex. This could be that with darkness or the absence of light, a chain of interactive signals might be setting in motion from the retina to cortex but we can’t say that this experience has resulted from any interaction between the darkness and the brain. In my other message, I have clarified that there is no doubt that with darkness, some NCCs might be setting up but we can't say that these NCCs are due to any direct interaction between the darkness and the brain. The point which I am trying to focus, emphasize and re-emphasize is that despite the absence of any direct interaction between the darkness and the brain, darkness is experienced by us. We can't say that NCCs start building up due to darkness (or the absence of light) since no signal can emanate out from the darkness (or absence of light).The issue which we are discussing is the point of direct interaction between a "thing" to be experienced and brain/mind and consciousness. If there is no exogenous signal from darkness, then we can't say that experience of darkness is due to direct interaction between the darkness and brain/mind. As such, it can’t be treated like other SEs like the view of a red rose. When the experience of the darkness is not akin to other normal SEs, we can't say if this is an SE at all. But then we can't say that this is due to the interaction between darkness and the brain. This proves that experiences of many things can be accomplished even in the absence of direct interaction between those "things: and the body/brain. However, consciousness experiences everything in the absence of any interaction between it and the finally processed signal of "that thing" due to the pre-existing non-emergent Fundamental Field of Awareness. You need to understand the fundamental non-emergent awareness of the holistic consciousness as placed beyond space and time. You also need to understand that interaction is required for an emergent phenomenon as occurring in space/time. Awareness is not an emergent phenomenon as happening in space/time. Only when you will fully grasp these issues then you will be able to get rid of the “interactionalism” in the experiences of anything by the consciousness.
 
Vimal: [1] Obviously scientists did not observe such large swathes. Therefore, it would be simply a speculation. If you like, you can also speculate that human beings might be flying somewhere in the universe, and there are astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds such as Indra Loka (world), Satya or Brahma Loka, Vishnu Loka, and so on. You can fantasize anything you want, such as an experiencer does not interact with objects and still able to experience them in some fictitious Loka. It is a free world and you have complete freedom to imagine anything and say this is the fundamental truth because you can observe it in some Samādhi (SS/NS) state even though you have not yet attained this state.
 
[2] You arguments are totally illogical. Darkness is NOT an object, not a thing, and not a stimulus in the real physical world out there. It is simply due to the lack of light signal in pitch dark. Darkness is simply a visual SE that involves the interaction of (a) the self-related neural signals with (b) the resultant of endogenous FF (feed forward) signals representing a lack of any external light stimulus and cognitive FB (feedback) signals. As per neuroscience, darkness must have its neural correlate(s)/basis, like any other SE. Therefore, I disagree with you that an experiencer can experience an external object without interacting with it.
 
My colleagues Profs. Roman (Poznanski) and Alfredo (Pereira Jr.) will agree with me on the topic of interactionalism. If you like you can discuss with them further (if they have time!).
 
I think now that we MUST agree that we have a disagreement on this topic and there is no point in this endless debate.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Monday, 7 August 2017 7:30 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

My comments in blue and red font text after your comments.

I am sorry, please ignore my 3 previous emails because they were not clear.

I would like to request you that please qualify your writing with some references. For example, you should write, “As per my understanding of khya Kārikā of Swarga Krishna,  Kapila’s khya, or (Swami Yogeshwaranand Paramahans Saraswati, 2014)’s interpretation of khya (or whatever you have read, give the reference of the book) 

Swami Yogeshawaranand Paramhans had not written any interpretation on Saankhya Kaarika. Whatever, he has written in his books is based purely on his personal experiences in the state of Samadhi. While articulating his experiences, he has used the terminology of both Saankhya and Upnishadas.The personal experiences in the state of Samaadhi are akin to  empirical
experiments in the objective scientific methodology and such
experiments/experiences are not treated as interpretations.

seems to imply that the localized Purua (soul, experiencer) experiences physical objects (Prakti) without interacting with it.” Otherwise, your writing would be misleading, will not be taken authentic, and will lead to confusion. This is because you have not attained SS/NS state so you cannot say without such references. I have tried to write a sentence to this effect in blue text in your text below. In my writing, I follow this research ethics.

It is true that my thinking/understanding has largely been moulded
by the findings of Swami YogeshawaraNand Paramhans but this does not mean that this is the only source which affected by thinking/understanding. During the past many years by interaction with different sources, input from multi sources contributed in developing and molding my thinking.

Some times, even a simple clue from a source can help in developing a whole full fledged idea or hypothesis. So in my messages, some ideas are directly from some specific sources and some are as inferred/developed by me. This happens with everyone.
For example, you observed in neuroscience that there is a relation of correspondence between SEs(mental aspects, conscious experiences)  and the NCCs ( Physical aspects). Taking a cue from this observation, you speculated that all the matter and energy particles of the universe have some mental aspect ( consciousness) which is inseparable with their physical aspects. However, neither there is any empirical evidence to this effect not any of the Eastern metaphysics of Vishisht Adavita or Kashmiri Shaivism mentions that
Brahman ( Cosmic Consciousness) descends down from the primordial stage in discrete particle formatsl like the physical elementary particles. Furthermore, neither the existence of
the Brahman is supported by the subjective experience of any one in the state of samaadhi in any of spiritual tradition.
Brahman ( 

Sehgal (6 August 2017)
The following view is based on my understanding of(Swami Yogeshwaranand Paramahans Saraswati, 2014)’s interpretation of khya.

These views are not based purely on the findings of Swamy Yogeshawaranand Paramhans Saraswati. There is a contribution from diverse sources and some views have been inferred/developed by myself.

[1] The Field of Awareness, as arising out of the consciousness, is not compared with the one as that of an electric charge or the magnetic field. The electric and magnetic fields are the emergent/derived fields and they act on each point in the space. In other words, the electric field and magnetic field remain present in each point of space/time. However, the Field of Awareness had never emerged out of any other thing thru some mechanism. It always existed as such, whether before or after the creation or during the period universe remains in the manifested stage. Further, it is not that the field of the Awareness remains present in each point of space/time but it is the space and time which emerges out from the Field of Awareness and each and every point of space/time exist in that Field. So any comparison of the field of awareness with those of physical fields like that of electric or magnetic one is ill conceived and arguments as applicable to the physical electric/magnetic fields are not applicable to the Field of Awareness. I had used the term Field of Awareness to make it more understandable on the lines of the physical fields.

The closest comparison of the Field of Awareness, which comes to my mind, is that of the space. The primary function of the space is to provide a base, a medium for the existence and operation (motion) to the distinct physical objects. When space fulfills these two functions viz. providing base and medium for the motion, space do no interact with the physical objects since these functions are always self-evident in space. Similarly, awareness is always self-evident, self-manifested in the consciousness and it need not interact with the final signal of thought/experiences.

I think that you are extending the logic of the mechanism of the interaction between two physical entities to the consciousness and awareness but forgetting that awareness is the fundamental, innate and self-evident attribute/ nature of the consciousness on the same pattern providing the basis for existence and medium for motion is the fundamental, innate and self-evident attribute/nature of space.
 
[2] Again by comparing the field of awareness with the physical field like a quantum field, you are arriving at wrong inferences/conclusion. The Field of the Awareness, unlike some physical quantum field, is not a quantum field. The cosmic consciousness and Field of Awareness as fundamentally innate with it is an infinite, indivisible, a Holistic One and it is not located in space/time, but it is space/time, which emerges out such Field of Awareness. It is not that each and every point of the Field of Awareness (in fact, there are no points/parts in this field due to it being holistic infinite one) is located in each and every point of space/time BUT it is the each and every point of the space/time which is located in the infinite holistic Field of Awareness. Therefore, any attempt to understand the cosmic consciousness or Field of Awareness from the conventional logic as applicable to the mechanism as applicable to the physical entities is bound to lead to wrong inferences/conclusions.
 
[3]  It is separable from the ontological existential point of view, remain present in Prakriti and all its derivatives but for having awareness of the Prakriti, it need not interact with Prakriti due to awareness being its fundamental and innate nature, as elaborated in the foregoing Paragraphs. Again, the analogy of the space and physical objects will help you to understand this point of view. Space remains present in all the physical objects but it is separable from the physical objects and for its fundamental functions viz providing base for the existence of the physical objects and medium for their operation (motion), it need not interact with the physical objects. On the same pattern, consciousness( having fundamental awareness) always remain present in Prakriti and its derivatives and yet it is separate from Prakriti and for having awareness of Prakriti and its derivatives, it need not interact with the Prakriti and its derivatives ( due to awareness being a fundamental and innate nature/attribute of the consciousness). Actually, it is wrong to state that consciousness/awareness remain present in Prakriti or its derivatives. It is the Prakriti and its derivatives, which reside/exist in the consciousness or Field of Awareness. Please try to come out from the logic of physicality as applicable to the physical systems. Please try to understand from the analogy of space and physical objects as to how Prakriti and its entire derivatives can exist in Consciousness/Field of Awareness yet they can be separate and for the consciousness to be aware of the Prakriti, it need not interact with it. That is why I send copies of my messages to other people also (6 as indicated above) but no one has commented. I thought they will also provide their views but so far, none has done so. I request you to send our debate/conversation to other people also.
 
[4] I am not denying the physiological changes/process undergoing in the eyes/body/brain during darkness and sleep/dreams. What I had been emphasizing and somehow you are not directly responding that even though our consciousness can have the awareness of the darkness but no actual physical interaction takes place between darkness and our brain and mind, leave alone the consciousness. I had provided this analogy of the awareness of darkness in the absence of any actual interaction to highlight the point that consciousness/ awareness can have the awareness of the finally processed signal of thoughts/experiences without any interaction with these signals.

If you still subscribe to the view that interaction is necessary for the awareness of the consciousness, please address this very issue as to how the darkness is awarized by the consciousness and yet no interaction take place even between the darkness and brain/body. Here I am speaking of the direct interaction between the darkness and the brain/body and mind and NOT of any physiological changes/process in the brain. Those processes/changes occur otherwise also in the brain in the absence of the darkness.

Vimal
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? As per  Sten Odenwald, “No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.”

We have a very very large universe with space extending to almost infinities. Definitely, there will be large swathes in the universe in which there will be no matter, energy, radiations ( ignoring any vacuum energy). Will there be no existence of space in these swathes of the universe? Is it not an obvious observation?
 
Darkness is a SE experienced by the self like any other SE and has neural correlate(s).

The experience of darkness is not like other SEs. In other SEs, signal of some physical energy emanates from the stimuli but in the experience of the darkness, none of the signals of any physical energy can emanate from the darkness

 It is because of an absence of light stimulus, which causes a chain of interactive signals from retina to cortex.

This could be that with darkness or the absence of light, a chain of interactive signals might be setting in motion from the retina to cortex but we can;t say that this experience has resulted from any interaction between the darkness and the brain. In my other message, I have clarified that there is no doubt that with darkness, some NCCs might be setting up but we can't say that these NCCs are due to any direct interaction between the darkness and the brain. The point which I am trying to focus, emphasize and re-emphasize is that despite the absence of any direct interaction between the darkness and the brain, darkness is experienced by us.
We can't say that NCCs start building up due to darkness ( or the absence of light) since no signal can emanate out from the darkness ( or absence of light).

The issue which we are discussing is the point of direct interaction between a "thing" to be experienced and brain/mind and consciousness.

 This leads to SE of darkness thru the matching and selection mechanism of the eDAM using interaction between the endogenous (because there is no exogenous/external signal from an object in pitch dark)

If there is no exogenous signal from darkness, then we can't say that experience of darkness is due to direct interaction between the darkness and brain/mind. As such, it can;t be treated like other SEs like the viewal of a red rose.

 feed forward signals and cognitive feedback signal. The SE darkness is selected from the SEs stored in LTM by the selection mechanism and is experienced by the self.

When the experience of the darkness is not akin to other normal SEs, we can't say if this is an SE at all.

 My colleagues agree on interaction between experiencer/self and objects for a SE.

I request your colleagues to place their comments on the subject

 This is a testable hypothesis by an easy experiment by just reducing the intensity of light signal from high value to zero and recording neural activities using EEG/fMRI.

But then we can't say that this is due to the interaction between darkness and the brain. This proves that experiences of many things can be accomplished even in the absence of direct interaction between those "things: and the body/brain. However, consciousness experiences everything in the absence of any interaction between it and the finally processed signal of "that thing" due to the pre-existing non-emergent  Fundamental Field of Awareness.
 
You do not need to give me any example. I fully understand your point of view. However, unfortunately it is 100% incorrect hypothesis that the interaction between an experiencer/self and object is not needed for experiencing it. 

Instead of making any one sided emphatic claim on any issue, you should discuss based upon some logical arguments, observations, and evidence. You need to understand the fundamental non-emergent awareness of the holistic consciousness as placed beyond space and time. You also need to understand that interaction is required for an emergent phenomenon as occurring in space/time.
Awareness is not an emergent phenomenon as happening in space/time. Only when you will fully grasp these issues that you will be able to get rid of the "interactionalism" in the experiences of anything by the consciousness.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal


On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
 
Thanks.

I am sorry, please ignore my 3 previous emails because they were not clear.

I would like to request you that please qualify your writing with some references. For example, you should write, “As per my understanding of khya Kārikā of Swarga Krishna,  Kapila’s khya, or (Swami Yogeshwaranand Paramahans Saraswati, 2014)’s interpretation of khya (or whatever you have read, give the reference of the book) seems to imply that the localized Purua (soul, experiencer) experiences physical objects (Prakti) without interacting with it.” Otherwise, your writing would be misleading, will not be taken authentic, and will lead to confusion. This is because you have not attained SS/NS state so you cannot say without such references. I have tried to write a sentence to this effect in blue text in your text below. In my writing, I follow this research ethics.

Sehgal (6 August 2017)
The following view is based on my understanding of (Swami Yogeshwaranand Paramahans Saraswati, 2014)’s interpretation of khya.

[1] The Field of Awareness, as arising out of the consciousness, is not compared with the one as that of an electric charge or the magnetic field. The electric and magnetic fields are the emergent/derived fields and they act on each point in the space. In other words, the electric field and magnetic field remain present in each point of space/time. However, the Field of Awareness had never emerged out of any other thing thru some mechanism. It always existed as such, whether before or after the creation or during the period universe remains in the manifested stage. Further, it is not that the field of the Awareness remains present in each point of space/time but it is the space and time which emerges out from the Field of Awareness and each and every point of space/time exist in that Field. So any comparison of the field of awareness with those of physical fields like that of electric or magnetic one is ill conceived and arguments as applicable to the physical electric/magnetic fields are not applicable to the Field of Awareness. I had used the term Field of Awareness to make it more understandable on the lines of the physical fields.

The closest comparison of the Field of Awareness, which comes to my mind, is that of the space. The primary function of the space is to provide a base, a medium for the existence and operation (motion) to the distinct physical objects. When space fulfills these two functions viz. providing base and medium for the motion, space do no interact with the physical objects since these functions are always self-evident in space. Similarly, awareness is always self-evident, self-manifested in the consciousness and it need not interact with the final signal of thought/experiences.

I think that you are extending the logic of the mechanism of the interaction between two physical entities to the consciousness and awareness but forgetting that awareness is the fundamental, innate and self-evident attribute/ nature of the consciousness on the same pattern providing the basis for existence and medium for motion is the fundamental, innate and self-evident attribute/nature of space.
 
[2] Again by comparing the field of awareness with the physical field like a quantum field, you are arriving at wrong inferences/conclusion. The Field of the Awareness, unlike some physical quantum field, is not a quantum field. The cosmic consciousness and Field of Awareness as fundamentally innate with it is an infinite, indivisible, a Holistic One and it is not located in space/time, but it is space/time, which emerges out such Field of Awareness. It is not that each and every point of the Field of Awareness (in fact, there are no points/parts in this field due to it being holistic infinite one) is located in each and every point of space/time BUT it is the each and every point of the space/time which is located in the infinite holistic Field of Awareness. Therefore, any attempt to understand the cosmic consciousness or Field of Awareness from the conventional logic as applicable to the mechanism as applicable to the physical entities is bound to lead to wrong inferences/conclusions.
 
[3]  It is separable from the ontological existential point of view, remain present in Prakriti and all its derivatives but for having awareness of the Prakriti, it need not interact with Prakriti due to awareness being its fundamental and innate nature, as elaborated in the foregoing Paragraphs. Again, the analogy of the space and physical objects will help you to understand this point of view. Space remains present in all the physical objects but it is separable from the physical objects and for its fundamental functions viz providing base for the existence of the physical objects and medium for their operation (motion), it need not interact with the physical objects. On the same pattern, consciousness( having fundamental awareness) always remain present in Prakriti and its derivatives and yet it is separate from Prakriti and for having awareness of Prakriti and its derivatives, it need not interact with the Prakriti and its derivatives ( due to awareness being a fundamental and innate nature/attribute of the consciousness). Actually, it is wrong to state that consciousness/awareness remain present in Prakriti or its derivatives. It is the Prakriti and its derivatives, which reside/exist in the consciousness or Field of Awareness. Please try to come out from the logic of physicality as applicable to the physical systems. Please try to understand from the analogy of space and physical objects as to how Prakriti and its entire derivatives can exist in Consciousness/Field of Awareness yet they can be separate and for the consciousness to be aware of the Prakriti, it need not interact with it. That is why I send copies of my messages to other people also (6 as indicated above) but no one has commented. I thought they will also provide their views but so far, none has done so. I request you to send our debate/conversation to other people also.
 
[4] I am not denying the physiological changes/process undergoing in the eyes/body/brain during darkness and sleep/dreams. What I had been emphasizing and somehow you are not directly responding that even though our consciousness can have the awareness of the darkness but no actual physical interaction takes place between darkness and our brain and mind, leave alone the consciousness. I had provided this analogy of the awareness of darkness in the absence of any actual interaction to highlight the point that consciousness/ awareness can have the awareness of the finally processed signal of thoughts/experiences without any interaction with these signals.

If you still subscribe to the view that interaction is necessary for the awareness of the consciousness, please address this very issue as to how the darkness is awarized by the consciousness and yet no interaction take place even between the darkness and brain/body. Here I am speaking of the direct interaction between the darkness and the brain/body and mind and NOT of any physiological changes/process in the brain. Those processes/changes occur otherwise also in the brain in the absence of the darkness.

Vimal
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? As per  Sten Odenwald, “No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.”
 
Darkness is a SE experienced by the self like any other SE and has neural correlate(s). It is because of an absence of light stimulus, which causes a chain of interactive signals from retina to cortex. This leads to SE of darkness thru the matching and selection mechanism of the eDAM using interaction between the endogenous (because there is no exogenous/external signal from an object in pitch dark) feed forward signals and cognitive feedback signal. The SE darkness is selected from the SEs stored in LTM by the selection mechanism and is experienced by the self. My colleagues agree on interaction between experiencer/self and objects for a SE. This is a testable hypothesis by an easy experiment by just reducing the intensity of light signal from high value to zero and recording neural activities using EEG/fMRI.
 
You do not need to give me any example. I fully understand your point of view. However, unfortunately it is 100% incorrect hypothesis that the interaction between an experiencer/self and object is not needed for experiencing it. 

 
Kind regards,
Rām
...

[Message clipped]  



Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Aug 8, 2017, 2:14:09 PM8/8/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, George Weissmann, Roy Sisir, Joseph McCard
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: The existence of large swathes of space devoid of matter and energy/radiations is based upon some scientific arguments and not mere speculation. If we trust that cosmic inflation and BB theory of the creation of the universe is correct, there is all the possibility that there may be many swathes of the universe having NIL matter and energy/radiations. The BB was followed immediately with a superluminal expansion of space but matter and energy within space cannot travel more than the speed of light. In other words, at the time of the cosmic inflation of space, matter/energy expanding with it might not have kept pace with the expansion of the space. This will result in the creation of some territories of space devoid of any matter/energy.
 
Vimal: As per Wikipedia (as of 8 August 2017), “In physical cosmologycosmic inflationcosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of the exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the Universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.[1]
 
How big was the universe at the end of inflation? As per (FrankH, 2012), “So given a size of the currently observable universe, we can ask how big was that volume at any particular time in the past. According to this paper at the end of inflation the universe's scale factor was about 10−30 smaller than it is today, so that would give a diameter for the currently observable universe at the end of inflation of 0.88 millimeters which is approximately the size of a grain of sand (See calculation at WolframAlpha). It is believed that inflation needed to expand the universe by at least a factor of 60 e-foldings (which is a factor of e60). So using WolframAlpha again we find that the diameter of the universe before inflation would have been 7.7×10−30 meters, which is only about 480,000 Planck lengths.”
 
 
Sehgal: Even in the current era, there have been Yogis/Sages who have had the reproducible experiences of the Astral and Causal worlds in a quite vivid manner.
 
Vimal: Can you provide the names, addresses, and phone numbers of such yogis so that we can contact them directly? And/or bring them in this discussion forum to confront our queries. In my view, what they observe are simply their subjective experiences, which have their respective neural correlate(s)/basis.
 
Sehgal: But then we cannot say that this signal has emanated out from the darkness or there has been some actual interaction between the darkness and the brain. [Vimal’s paraphrase of Sehgal’s queries: Individual localized consciousness (soul, self) does not interact with Chitta-signal to experience the physical objects, i.e., Purua and Prakti of khya do not interact, for example, the experience of darkness, which is a different kind of experience. Moreover, there are problems in the eDAM.]
 
Vimal: You are missing my point again. Darkness is simply a visual SE (like any other SE) that involves the interaction of (a) the self-related neural signals with (b) the resultant of endogenous FF (feed forward) signals representing a lack of any external light stimulus and cognitive FB (feedback) signals. As per neuroscience, darkness must have its neural correlate(s)/basis, like any other SE.
 
I disagree with your claim: Purua and Prakti of Sākhya NEVER interact for performing any function or experience or for anything; just the proximity of Purua and Prakti is enough, rest is all-automatic. One example is experiencing darkness, which is a different kind of experience.
 
Of course, darkness is a different kind of experience similar to redness is different from grayness or sweetness, but the processing of neural information thru the matching and selection of a specific SE (such as darkness vs. redness) related to SE is similar in their respective NNs as mentioned above.
 
In the eDAM, the “self” is the 1pp-mental aspect of the state of self-related NN. The external objects simply reflect or emit light, which gets converted into neural signals; then self-related signals interact with the object-related signals. Please note that physical signals interact with physical signals to avoid category mistake. A mental entity (such as self) cannot directly interact with a physical entity (such as an external object); otherwise, category mistake will be made. There is no light signal in pitch dark, which has nothing to do with my argument because the interaction is between neural signals, not with physical objects. Please, try to understand this point. That is why your half-knowledge in neuroscience and in the eDAM are causing you such a big problem to the extent you are losing all your credibility.
 
khya makes a serious category mistake. You are forcing that Purua and Prakti of khya do not interact to avoid category mistake; this is where you are making a big mistake.
 
As far as I am concerned, the dualistic khya is 100% rejected because of its 11 problems whether you like it or not. To save it to some extent, it needs to be converted into a version of dual-aspect monism or that of the eDAM. 

What you call problems in the eDAM is simply your half-knowledge and misunderstanding and misconstruction. If you seriously read my at least the five articles related to 5 components of the eDAM, namely (Vimal, 2008), (Vimal, 2010a), (Vimal, 2013), (Vimal, 2015b), and (Vimal, 2016d),  then I can try helping you with further clarifications. 

Otherwise, it is your choice. In this case, as BMP’s implies, let us agree with humility, tolerance, and compassion for each other that we have disagreement using the concept of “unity in diversity”.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 1:54 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:


Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: [1] We have a very large universe with space extending to almost infinities. Definitely, there will be large swathes in the universe in which there will be no matter, energy, radiations (ignoring any vacuum energy). Will there be no existence of space in these swathes of the universe? Is it not an obvious observation?
 
[2] The experience of darkness is not like other SEs. In other SEs, a signal of some physical energy emanates from the stimuli but in the experience of the darkness, none of the signals of any physical energy can emanate from the darkness. It is because of an absence of light stimulus, which causes a chain of interactive signals from retina to cortex. This could be that with darkness or the absence of light, a chain of interactive signals might be setting in motion from the retina to cortex but we can’t say that this experience has resulted from any interaction between the darkness and the brain. In my other message, I have clarified that there is no doubt that with darkness, some NCCs might be setting up but we can't say that these NCCs are due to any direct interaction between the darkness and the brain. The point which I am trying to focus, emphasize and re-emphasize is that despite the absence of any direct interaction between the darkness and the brain, darkness is experienced by us. We can't say that NCCs start building up due to darkness (or the absence of light) since no signal can emanate out from the darkness (or absence of light).The issue which we are discussing is the point of direct interaction between a "thing" to be experienced and brain/mind and consciousness. If there is no exogenous signal from darkness, then we can't say that experience of darkness is due to direct interaction between the darkness and brain/mind. As such, it can’t be treated like other SEs like the view of a red rose. When the experience of the darkness is not akin to other normal SEs, we can't say if this is an SE at all. But then we can't say that this is due to the interaction between darkness and the brain. This proves that experiences of many things can be accomplished even in the absence of direct interaction between those "things: and the body/brain. However, consciousness experiences everything in the absence of any interaction between it and the finally processed signal of "that thing" due to the pre-existing non-emergent Fundamental Field of Awareness. You need to understand the fundamental non-emergent awareness of the holistic consciousness as placed beyond space and time. You also need to understand that interaction is required for an emergent phenomenon as occurring in space/time. Awareness is not an emergent phenomenon as happening in space/time. Only when you will fully grasp these issues then you will be able to get rid of the “interactionalism” in the experiences of anything by the consciousness.
 
Vimal: [1] Obviously scientists did not observe such large swathes. Therefore, it would be simply a speculation.

The existence of large swathes of space devoid of matter and energy/radiations is based upon some scientific arguments and not mere speculation.  If we trust that cosmic inflation and BB theory of the creation of the universe is correct, there is all the possibility that there may be many swathes of the universe having NIl matter and energy.radiations. The BB was followed immediately with a superluminal expansion of space but matter and energy within space can't travel more than the speed of light. In other words, at the time of the cosmic inflation of space, matter/energy exapnding with it might not have kept pace with the expansion of the space. This will result in creation of some territories of space devoid of any matter/energy.

 If you like, you can also speculate that human beings might be flying somewhere in the universe, and there are astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds such as Indra Loka (world), Satya or Brahma Loka, Vishnu Loka, and so on. You can fantasize anything you want, such as an experiencer does not interact with objects and still able to experience them in some fictitious Loka. It is a free world and you have complete freedom to imagine anything and say this is the fundamental truth because you can observe it in some Samādhi(SS/NS) state even though you have not yet attained this state.

Your inference that the astral and causal worlds are the fictitious worlds is based upon your misconception, short understanding, and information and above all arising out from some stubborn and conservative/ superstitious attitude grounded in gross materialism. Even in the current era, there have been Yogis/Sages who have had the reproducible experiences of the Astral and Causal worlds in a quite vivid manner. But there is no way out for a person who is not willing to follow the accounts of such people seriously or wants to reject outrightly the same out of sheer conservatism/superstition.

Furthermore, the existence of the Astral and causal worlds is supported by the spiritual wisdom of past millennia but modern neuroscience is not more than a few decades old.

There are many things in our life which we are unable to experience ourselves personally but this does not imply that we should not agree to the same if they are found to be correct after due logical scrutiny. It is correct that I myself have not the experience of the Astral and causal world in the state of samaadhi but this does not mean that I should not agree to their existence if my long logical scrutiny of the accounts of others, who had such experiences, support the existence of such realm of nature.

Now I take an example wherein you agree to the existence of some things out of your sheer stubborn conservative attitude.

You believe that there is the existence of some mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects in all the discrete matter and energy particles in the universe. But kindly examine if this hypothesis is

Supported by any empirical evidence?            NO

Supported  by Samaadhi state experiences      NO
in any spiritual traditions?

Is free from logical inconsistencies?                 NO

Is indicated in any monistic Eastern                 NO
or Western metaphysics?

Yet you trust the existence of some mental aspects in the discrete
matter particles. This is what is called though pretending to be scientific but a stubborn conservative and superstitious attitiude
 
[2] You arguments are totally illogical. Darkness is NOT an object, not a thing, and not a stimulus in the real physical world out there. It is simply due to the lack of light signal in pitch dark.

That is what I have been repeating in the very beginning that there are some things which can be experienced even in the absence of an actual interaction between that "thing" and the brain/mind.

 Darkness is simply a visual SE that involves the interaction of (a) the self-related neural signals with (b) the resultant of endogenous FF (feed forward) signals representing a lack of any external light stimulus and cognitive FB (feedback) signals. As per neuroscience, darkness must have its neural correlate(s)/basis, like any other SE. Therefore, I disagree with you that an experiencer can experience an external object without interacting with it.

Darkness can't be a visual SE like other normal SEs like the SE of the viewing of a tree. In the case of viewing of a tree, a signal goes from the tree to the brain and NCC is built up. But in the case of darkness, which signals and from where any signal shall emanate and enter the brain for building up of any NCC. I am not discounting the possibility of the ordination of some endogenous signal and built up some NCC when light vanishes but then we can't say that this signal has emanated out from the darkness or there has been some actual interaction between the darkness and the brain

My point had been and which still I am reiterating is that despite the origination of some endogenous signals, darkness is experienced but there is no actual interaction between the darkness and the brain. I may repeat, repeat, I am saying about the actual interaction between the darkness and the brain and not about the origination of any endogenous signal
 
My colleagues Profs. Roman (Poznanski) and Alfredo (Pereira Jr.) will agree with me on the topic of interactionalism. If you like you can discuss with them further (if they have time!).

You may please give my reference to your colleagues and let them discuss the topic if they are really interested. If they can understand well the concept of the non-emergent infinite indivisible Field of Awareness in the fundamental cosmic consciousness, out of space/time. they will also agree to the concept of  
non-interactionism wherein the consciousness becomes aware of all the thoughts/experiences without the actual interaction. But for this they will be required to come out of the physical mindset of the interaction between two physical entities
 
I think now that we MUST agree that we have a disagreement on this topic and there is no point in this endless debate.

Yes, I also agree that we have the disagreement. How can we agree when you are not willing to understand the concept of the ever existing, ever manifested innate awareness of the fundamental cosmic consciousness out of space/time with an open mindset?
Still, I tried my best to make you understand this very essential nature/feature of the cosmic consciousness by elaborating a lot and also by giving a no of analogies.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal
 

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
 
Thanks.

Sehgal: [1] We have a very large universe with space extending to almost infinities. Definitely, there will be large swathes in the universe in which there will be no matter, energy, radiations (ignoring any vacuum energy). Will there be no existence of space in these swathes of the universe? Is it not an obvious observation?
 
[2] The experience of darkness is not like other SEs. In other SEs, a signal of some physical energy emanates from the stimuli but in the experience of the darkness, none of the signals of any physical energy can emanate from the darkness. It is because of an absence of light stimulus, which causes a chain of interactive signals from retina to cortex. This could be that with darkness or the absence of light, a chain of interactive signals might be setting in motion from the retina to cortex but we can’t say that this experience has resulted from any interaction between the darkness and the brain. In my other message, I have clarified that there is no doubt that with darkness, some NCCs might be setting up but we can't say that these NCCs are due to any direct interaction between the darkness and the brain. The point which I am trying to focus, emphasize and re-emphasize is that despite the absence of any direct interaction between the darkness and the brain, darkness is experienced by us. We can't say that NCCs start building up due to darkness (or the absence of light) since no signal can emanate out from the darkness (or absence of light).The issue which we are discussing is the point of direct interaction between a "thing" to be experienced and brain/mind and consciousness. If there is no exogenous signal from darkness, then we can't say that experience of darkness is due to direct interaction between the darkness and brain/mind. As such, it can’t be treated like other SEs like the view of a red rose. When the experience of the darkness is not akin to other normal SEs, we can't say if this is an SE at all. But then we can't say that this is due to the interaction between darkness and the brain. This proves that experiences of many things can be accomplished even in the absence of direct interaction between those "things: and the body/brain. However, consciousness experiences everything in the absence of any interaction between it and the finally processed signal of "that thing" due to the pre-existing non-emergent Fundamental Field of Awareness. You need to understand the fundamental non-emergent awareness of the holistic consciousness as placed beyond space and time. You also need to understand that interaction is required for an emergent phenomenon as occurring in space/time. Awareness is not an emergent phenomenon as happening in space/time. Only when you will fully grasp these issues then you will be able to get rid of the “interactionalism” in the experiences of anything by the consciousness.
 
Vimal: [1] Obviously scientists did not observe such large swathes. Therefore, it would be simply a speculation. If you like, you can also speculate that human beings might be flying somewhere in the universe, and there are astral, causal, and manifested consciousness worlds such as Indra Loka (world), Satya or Brahma Loka, Vishnu Loka, and so on. You can fantasize anything you want, such as an experiencer does not interact with objects and still able to experience them in some fictitious Loka. It is a free world and you have complete freedom to imagine anything and say this is the fundamental truth because you can observe it in some Samādhi (SS/NS) state even though you have not yet attained this state.
 
[2] You arguments are totally illogical. Darkness is NOT an object, not a thing, and not a stimulus in the real physical world out there. It is simply due to the lack of light signal in pitch dark. Darkness is simply a visual SE that involves the interaction of (a) the self-related neural signals with (b) the resultant of endogenous FF (feed forward) signals representing a lack of any external light stimulus and cognitive FB (feedback) signals. As per neuroscience, darkness must have its neural correlate(s)/basis, like any other SE. Therefore, I disagree with you that an experiencer can experience an external object without interacting with it.
 
My colleagues Profs. Roman (Poznanski) and Alfredo (Pereira Jr.) will agree with me on the topic of interactionalism. If you like you can discuss with them further (if they have time!).
 
I think now that we MUST agree that we have a disagreement on this topic and there is no point in this endless debate.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
------------------------------ ----------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Aug 8, 2017, 2:42:00 PM8/8/17
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, George Weissmann, Roy Sisir, Joseph McCard, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: When the consciousness of a normal person in the wakeful state can see with the help of brain and astral mind and consciousness of a Yogi can see in Samādhi with the astral mind only WITHOUT brain, why the consciousness of God should not be able to see?
 
Vimal: That is what my query is: what color God experiences when He looks at a ripe tomato? Similarly, what color a yogi experience when he looks at a ripe tomato in Samādhi state with the astral mind only WITHOUT brain? Please compare it with that in a wakeful conscious state with his brain intact.
 
As you wrote, this is your framework based on your many years of contemplation of various sources (mostly from Swami YN andkhya because you are using their terms). However, with humility and respect, I disagree with you.
 
In my view, the term OOO God (or Brahman) as you understand is invented by yogis. Of course, all entities are the various manifestations of the unmanifested Brahman (the primal entity). However, in the eDAM, the highest manifestation of Brahman is in us at SS/NS states. Therefore, the eDAM concludes that God is inside us, which you also agree. In other words, this is the only agreement we have.
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/939502842.2509936.1502214308661%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Aug 8, 2017, 3:26:32 PM8/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Vinod and Vimal,

If you forgive me for jumping into  your debate, in this case I agree with Vinod that,

The existence of large swathes of space devoid of matter and energy/radiations”.

GR just says that matter curves (distorts) space time. It does not say that there can be no space without matter or radiation. In fact de Sitter universe keeps on expanding with no matter, just a positive cosmological constant. Forget about models of inflation, even now, there is huge amount of interstellar space where there is practically no or extremely little matter or energy. Interstellar space is practically vacuum e.g. you may run into a molecule every few miles! It is possible that I may have  misunderstood your disagreement!

Best Regards.

Kashyap

--

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal

unread,
Aug 8, 2017, 5:35:45 PM8/8/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir, Joseph McCard, BT APJ
Dear Kashyap,
 
Thanks for the information. This means that the large swathes of space are like vacuum field with quantum fluctuations (QFs), in analogy to the usual vacuum field with QFs.
 
Either way is fine with my argument that, in khya, (a) Purua and Moola Prakti must interact for Cosmic Fire or Big Bang, and (b) localized Purua (soul, self) must interact with Chitta (Prakti) to experience objects.
 
In the eDAM, the self is the 1pp-mental aspect of a self-related state of a mind-brain system, which has neural correlates/basis (such as cortical and subcortical midline structures) as its inseparable 3pp-physical aspect.

For the self to experience a specific SE, such as redness (or darkness), there is the interaction of (a) the self-related neural signals with (b) the resultant of the interaction/matching between (i) exogenous or endogenous FF (feed forward) signals representing a stimulus (or a lack of any external light stimulus) and (ii) cognitive FB (feedback) signals. If the matching is successful, the "self" selects the specific matched SE from the LTM and experiences it. For detail, please see (Vimal, 2010a). In any case, interaction is always involved. 

Vinod claims that interaction is not needed. What is your opinion? 
 
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmai Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools


Vasavada, Kashyap V

unread,
Aug 9, 2017, 7:46:51 AM8/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Vimal,

You and Vinod have interesting debate going on. But the fundamental physics is not yet clear on what was the primordial stuff. The general agreement is that there was a very small patch of vacuum just at the time of big bang before inflation started. So some form of space was there. It had probably one unified quantum field. Later on this field was split into a number of fields. If there is just one field in the beginning, you can draw parallel with Brahman. That would be self-interacting. If there are more than one quantum fields before inflation, then surely they will be interacting with each other. There are large number of models, probably one for each physicist working on this!!! Anyway, I do not know what would correspond with  Prakriti and Purush. Laws of nature were of course there in some abstract form. Can you call them Purush and quantum field  Prakrity?

Siegfried Bleher

unread,
Aug 9, 2017, 1:07:12 PM8/9/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com

Dear Kashyap,

 

Very good point—I too feel it is rather early in the game of physics for us to be taking current understanding (i.e. of cosmology or even of Standard Model) into the arena of fundamental nature of consciousness.  If anything, as I understand Samkhya philosophy, all of physics fits into Prakriti, quantum fields, quantum vacuum, etc., all of it, whatever the specifics.  The laws of nature maybe do represent Purusha, since as laws they are unobserved--in a sense they represent (our collective) intelligence.  On the other hand many of our ‘laws of nature’ appear to lack the unchanging nature of Purusha--their forms may change from one generation to the next (and are dependent on particular conceptualization of Nature)…

 

Best wishes,

 

Siegfried