Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Dean Radin
unread,
Jul 14, 2017, 9:04:54 PM7/14/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to JACK SARFATTI, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:
More details on this story are found in David Kaiser's "How the Hippies Saved Physics" and in this video that fills in some gaps not found in that book. https://www.youtube.com/wat... Also see Annie Jacobsen's recent book Phenomena as well as books and articles by Russell Targ, Hal Puthoff, Dean Radin and Edward May.
For physicists, quantum mechanics provides a beautiful set of tools for understanding the fundamental workings of the universe. For nonphysicists, quantum theory seems to promise so much more: miracle cures, a basis for describing consciousness, even an understanding of God. In a recently published xkcd comic (right), Randall Munroe brilliantly captures why the combination of wild philosophical implications and absurdly complex mathematics leads so many people to think quantum mechanics contains the answers to life’s strangest mysteries.
The tendency for nonexperts to bestow magical powers upon quantum mechanics isn’t new. I found an amusing example after I searched, just out of curiosity, for “Physics Today” in an online database of CIA documents.
The second search result was an April 1973 memo written by an unnamed US intelligence officer with some encouraging news about the military’s secret attempts to harness the power of parapsychology. As part of what would come to be called Project Star Gate, intelligence agencies were working with the Stanford Research Institute to determine whether some people could acquire information about obscured objects solely with their minds. Government-recruited researchers had tested a man named Ingo Swann for his ability to “determine the colors of a light switch[ed] on in a remote room,” and they planned to do the same with Uri Geller.
In the memo, the unnamed agent reports learning about a new paper on parapsychological phenomena written by Evan Harris Walker, a PhD physicist at the US Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland—the officer calls him a “theoretically physicist.” Walker, who later gained fame for asserting (wrongly, historians say) that Albert Einstein stole the idea of special relativity from his wife Mileva Marić, claimed to have found “a physical basis for paranormal phenomena” by linking them to quantum mechanics.
The new study apparently reminded the agent of a series of letters about quantum mechanics, including one by Walker, published in the April 1971 issue of Physics Today. Several months earlier the magazine had printed an article by theoretical physicist Bryce DeWitt that addressed why we observe only one value of a measurement when quantum mechanics predicts a superposition of many. The best explanation, DeWitt asserted, was the many-worlds interpretation. Apparently the article garnered so many reader responses that editors decided to publish six of them as a package, along with a reply from DeWitt.
Walker’s letter in Physics Today referred to his Mathematical Biosciencespaper on “The nature of consciousness.” He explained that he had developed a solution to the measurement dilemma posed by DeWitt that is “essentially a combination of [Eugene] Wigner’s conscious observer and [David] Bohm’s hidden variables.” Walker wrote that his research indicated that “conscious events are associated with, and serve as, hidden variables that cause the collapse of the state vector of every quantum-mechanical event.”
The agent seemed most excited about Walker’s theory because it included testable predictions that presumably went beyond asking self-proclaimed psychics to guess the color of a light in another room. However, the officer was sketchy on the details of the proposal, bemoaning that the supposedly popular research summaries in Physics Today “are difficult reading for those not familiar with quantum mechanics terminology.” The officer suggested that intelligence agencies focus on Walker’s general idea rather than try to make sense of the quantum physics and the mathematics behind it. The memo ends with what was surely an objective, scientific-minded assertion: “It is possible that we are now observing and contributing to the development of one of the most significant scientific developments of our time.”
Despite the anonymous agent’s optimism, the secret efforts to harness psychic powers, with or without the help of quantum mechanics, bore little fruit. The CIA canceled and declassified Project Star Gate in 1995. A book about the regrettable scheme, The Men Who Stare at Goats, was published nine years later.
Hat tip to Sarah Zielinski for the idea to search the CIA archives.
Serge Patlavskiy
unread,
Jul 15, 2017, 4:51:58 AM7/15/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
>This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google
>makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic,
>even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence.
.
[S.P.] As to "tons of ignored empirical evidence". Do you still believe that we can come to the effective theory of consciousness (which would also account for the various consciousness-related phenomena) just by accumulating, generalizing and systematizing the research data? Here, by "effective" I mean the one which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power and obeys the criteria of formal correctness. In other words, do you believe that a theory of consciousness can be constructed in a way analogous to the one we follow when constructing some physical theory?
.
I hold that all the experiments that involve the activity of informational factor (like in case of the consciousness-related phenomena) may be divided into two major groups:
1) the ones that aim to prove the existence of phenomenon of mind-matter interrelation, and
2) the ones that aim to construct a theory of mind-matter interrelation.
.
Your paper (Radin, D., at.al. 'Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments', Physics Essays, 25 (2), 157-171; http://deanradin.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/consciousness-and-double-slit.html) clearly belongs to the first group, since you do not even try to formulate a hypothesis on the mechanisms of mind-matter interrelation.
.
As I am convinced, the mainstream science will never accept the existence of mind-matter interrelation unless an effective theory of such an interaction is constructed. A skeptic will never believe in levitation even in case he himself will be flying in the air.
.
In my view, the data gained in the experiments that involve such factors as the focused attention of participants should be assessed only depending on whether they prove or disprove a version of the theory of mind-matter interrelation which has to be constructed in the first place, or beforehand. In the field of consciousness-studies, the experimentation without a theory is like a blind-walking in the unknown town. I hold that mere accumulation of research data and empirical evidences will never lead to a theory explaining these evidences because of the extreme complexity of the object of study.
.
So, I am firmly convinced that any experiment in the field of consciousness studies should be aimed at proving or disproving such or other already constructed version of the theory of consciousness. And, as I show, we can construct the required theory if we start not from accumulating tons of empirical evidences (as we traditionally do in Physics), but from constructing the appropriate epistemological framework (or a meta-theory) which will include the general method and system of models able to deal with complex systems like consciousness-possessing living organisms.
This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical models. I.e., if one assumes based on prevailing neuroscience concepts that telepathy or precognition are impossible, then it would be a waste of time to develop models that explain such effects.
Thus, when it comes to anomalies that challenge prevailing ideas, the very first step must be empirical tests to see if the anomalies stand up to scrutiny; the second step is devising theoretical explanations. Both efforts are important. I focus on step 1 because that's my interest. Others are welcome to develop theoretical models.
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 4:11 AM Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
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)
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Dean,
Ive seen you several times at SSE. Conferences and IONS but never had much chance to talk. I really appreciate the work you are doing to nail down anomalous phenomena. I would like to point out the complementary view of a theoretician,
however.
At many SSE conferences, the question is asked "how much empirical evidence do we have to produce before certain paranormal phenomena will be accepter?" I
Yours, thought about that and decided there is no amount that will be convincing without a theory. The reason is that only theory can tell you what experimental controls are needed or may have been missed. Like empirical data, however, theory has to be done
right or it is useless. There are epistemological criteria for establishing the value of a new worldview underlying new theory. The present mechanistic worldview does. Ot have a broad enough metaphysical foundation to allow for explanations of the existence
of life, complexity, and consciousness. At most it can badly explain certain behaviors, mainly with theory bandaids.
One approach that i am following is to look at causality kinds that are mathematically required by category theory to account for things like origin. Efficient and material cause can only explain behavior, not existence. This is
a mathematically provable case. So, the additional causes must be part of the assumption foundation of any theory of true complexity, consciousness, and life. And if natural expiation requires it there, it must also be in the physics, if we believe it is a
unified reality.
So i think there is ample room for theory development based on current evidence, and yet I totally agree that theory and empirical data must correspond, as in a "modeling relation".
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Well spoken, Dean Radin. What are the three most compelling things you have
learned recently in your research involving step 1?
Best,
Mark McMenamin
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org> wrote:
Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical models. I.e., if one assumes based on prevailing neuroscience concepts that telepathy or precognition are impossible, then it would be a waste of time to develop models that explain such effects.
Thus, when it comes to anomalies that challenge prevailing ideas, the very first step must be empirical tests to see if the anomalies stand up to scrutiny; the second step is devising theoretical explanations. Both efforts are important. I focus on step 1 because that's my interest. Others are welcome to develop theoretical models.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dean,
I'm Not sure if you are keeping up with my work or not, but I have published complete models of consciousness and mind, how the neural networks give rise to human consciousness and how what you do works and fits into the greater context of the universe within the context of a completely unified field theory. I call all of this neurocosmology. If you aren't keeping up with my work, you and your colleagues should since I've added a testable theoretical component to your researches.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dean:
I do not agree with your statement –“Without empirical
evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories
do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more
comprehensive theoretical models.”
The fact is that the current mainstream theories fail miserable to predict 96%
(dark matter, dark energy etc) of the universe and the current myriad of
inconsistencies and unresolved paradoxes including the ridiculous/unproven
multiple universes demean science founded on the principle of ONE UNIVERSE with
one set of laws, and ONE THEORY of EVERYTHING. And this embarrassing state of
the current mainstream theoretical models is enough as well as an urgent reason
to develop more comprehensive models integrating the missing physics of
consciousness.
While additional empirical data is always helpful, any data
must have a theoretical framework to make sense as well as justify its utility.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach
for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On the whole, I tend to agree with Dean on most points. Here I think he has oversimplified a bit -- for good understandable reasons. There is so much wild speculation out there both in physics and metaphysics, and I see that as his main concern here. He does not say that development of new theory is all bad, but that he chooses to focus on experiments directly addressing powers of mind which many imagine are impossible.
Since none of us can do EVERYTHING useful, I would certainly not criticize him for focusing on one part of the picture.
On the other hand, Dean's work on "presentience" (and the test you can download for yourself, suggested by Julia Mossbridge) butts up against the fact that canonical, Copenhagen quantum field theory (KQFT) predicts that that kind of black-tie flow of real information is impossible. I have done a lot of theoretical work, leading to proposals for two specific physics experiments which I expect would disprove key assumptions in KQFT, without which Dean's results in psychology suddenly become possible in principle. I doubt that Dean meant to criticize THIS kind of theoretical work, but I do feel some duty to mention it here.
Theoretical analysis at another level, the neural network level, may also have some value in suggesting new directions for experiment and application in psychology. But it requires a certain level of discipline to get out of the verbal prisons so many people condemn themselves to by overindulging in euphoria.
Best of luck, Paul
P.S. I suspect that Dean, like I, would have good words to say about the book by mcmoneagle on time, most especially the section on mental discipline. But in my view, what we really need us something likev3 or 4 times the kind of discipline mcmoneagle discusses...
Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical models. I.e., if one assumes based on prevailing neuroscience concepts that telepathy or precognition are impossible, then it would be a waste of time to develop models that explain such effects.
Thus, when it comes to anomalies that challenge prevailing ideas, the very first step must be empirical tests to see if the anomalies stand up to scrutiny; the second step is devising theoretical explanations. Both efforts are important. I focus on step 1 because that's my interest. Others are welcome to develop theoretical models.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
My advice: stop using the phrase "THEORY of EVERYTHING". There is just one verifiable theory of everything: The CTMU. Deviate by one iota, and you're in more trouble than you can gargle.
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:31 AM, 'Asingh2384' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Dean:
I do not agree with your statement –“Without empirical
evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories
do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more
comprehensive theoretical models.”
The fact is that the current mainstream theories fail miserable to predict 96%
(dark matter, dark energy etc) of the universe and the current myriad of
inconsistencies and unresolved paradoxes including the ridiculous/unproven
multiple universes demean science founded on the principle of ONE UNIVERSE with
one set of laws, and ONE THEORY of EVERYTHING. And this embarrassing state of
the current mainstream theoretical models is enough as well as an urgent reason
to develop more comprehensive models integrating the missing physics of
consciousness.
While additional empirical data is always helpful, any data
must have a theoretical framework to make sense as well as justify its utility.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach
for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 15, 2017 2:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical models. I.e., if one assumes based on prevailing neuroscience concepts that telepathy or precognition are impossible, then it would be a waste of time to develop models that explain such effects.
Thus, when it comes to anomalies that challenge prevailing ideas, the very first step must be empirical tests to see if the anomalies stand up to scrutiny; the second step is devising theoretical explanations. Both efforts are important. I focus on step 1 because that's my interest. Others are welcome to develop theoretical models.
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)
And beyond those, Daryl Bem et al's meta-analysis of his implicit precognition experiment demonstrates that all the orthodox gnashing of teeth about whether his precognition effect is independently repeatable is for all practical purposes settled in the affirmative: https://f1000research.com/articles/4-1188/v2
I also agree with all the comments by others. Yes, we need better theories that can account for consciousness, dark matter/energy, etc. And yes, I'm aware that some such models have been proposed. I believe as such theories are developed and tested we will find increasing theoretical support for psi, among other things.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to dra...@noetic.org, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Matters Of Mind, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Roy Sisir, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Ramakrishna Rao
Dear Dean,
I assume that psi related paranormal data are well collected;
therefore, I do not question their authenticity. I suppose they are subjective
experiences (SEs) of subjects involved, each of which should have NCC/‘neural
basis’.
I am trying to explain these data using extended dual-aspect
monism (eDAM) framework thru the hypothesis of the sixth sense. Each of the sixth sense related SEs must have
its NCC. In other words, we do not have to invoke dualism or idealism. The eDAM
is neither dualism not materialism. The five-component eDAM is elaborated in (Vimal, 2008b),
(Vimal, 2010c),
(Vimal, 2013),
(Vimal, 2015g),
(Vimal, 2016d),
and summarized in (Vimal, 2016b).
I would like to know your comments on this approach.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:51 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegrou ps.com> wrote:
>This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google
>makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic,
>even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence.
.
[S.P.] As to "tons of ignored empirical evidence". Do you still believe that we can come to the effective theory of consciousness (which would also account for the various consciousness-related phenomena) just by accumulating, generalizing and systematizing the research data? Here, by "effective" I mean the one which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power and obeys the criteria of formal correctness. In other words, do you believe that a theory of consciousness can be constructed in a way analogous to the one we follow when constructing some physical theory?
.
I hold that all the experiments that involve the activity of informational factor (like in case of the consciousness-related phenomena) may be divided into two major groups:
1) the ones that aim to prove the existence of phenomenon of mind-matter interrelation, and
2) the ones that aim to construct a theory of mind-matter interrelation.
.
Your paper (Radin, D., at.al. 'Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments', Physics Essays, 25 (2), 157-171; http://deanradin.blogspot.com. au/2012/05/consciousness-and-d ouble-slit.html) clearly belongs to the first group, since you do not even try to formulate a hypothesis on the mechanisms of mind-matter interrelation.
.
As I am convinced, the mainstream science will never accept the existence of mind-matter interrelation unless an effective theory of such an interaction is constructed. A skeptic will never believe in levitation even in case he himself will be flying in the air.
.
In my view, the data gained in the experiments that involve such factors as the focused attention of participants should be assessed only depending on whether they prove or disprove a version of the theory of mind-matter interrelation which has to be constructed in the first place, or beforehand. In the field of consciousness-studies, the experimentation without a theory is like a blind-walking in the unknown town. I hold that mere accumulation of research data and empirical evidences will never lead to a theory explaining these evidences because of the extreme complexity of the object of study.
.
So, I am firmly convinced that any experiment in the field of consciousness studies should be aimed at proving or disproving such or other already constructed version of the theory of consciousness. And, as I show, we can construct the required theory if we start not from accumulating tons of empirical evidences (as we traditionally do in Physics), but from constructing the appropriate epistemological framework (or a meta-theory) which will include the general method and system of models able to deal with complex systems like consciousness-possessing living organisms.
This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
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)
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.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Please don't misunderstand me -- I'm not criticizing theory development. It's an essential part of science. It's just not something that I personally focus on because I know my limitations.
I agree that a solid theory will help, and perhaps be necessary, for a broader acceptance of psi. But it's always puzzled me that so many scientists first evaluate data based on whether existing theories predict that data, rather than whether the data are correct. This seems completely backwards to me -- even anti-scientific -- given that theories evolve as we gain a more comprehensive understanding of reality. And that more comprehensive understanding often is stimulated by new instruments producing new data. But again, this is my prejudice as an empiricist.
- Dean
Alex Hankey
unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 5:12:41 AM7/17/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Paul, you are missing several other considerations when you say this.
For example, the macroscopic world only slowly incorporates
quantum uncertainties when evolving in time. There are several others
that you have missed. The situation is far more complex than your
statements allow. You need to think through all the factors more deeply.
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Dean,
On 15 Jul 2017, at 18:05, Dean Radin wrote:
Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories
What do you mean by "conventional mind-body theories"? If you mean the usual materialism + mechanism, this hides the mind-body problem since long. See my papers for a proof that Mechanism is actually incompatible with (weak) materialism. That "conventional theory" does not work at all.
do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical models.
Given that weak materialism (the doctrine that there is a physical reality not explainable from something non physical) is incompatible with mechanism (the doctrine that a brain activity relevant for consciousnesss is Turing emulable), either we keep materialism, and have to call for a non mechanist theory of mind, or we keep Mechanism, and have to explain the apperance of the physical laws from arithmetic and meta-arithmetic (which embeds itself in arithmetic). The second path makes much mores sense to me that the first, which put only more obscurity. In fact, some results have already been obtained on the second path.
I.e., if one assumes based on prevailing neuroscience concepts that telepathy or precognition are impossible, then it would be a waste of time to develop models that explain such effects.
Thus, when it comes to anomalies that challenge prevailing ideas, the very first step must be empirical tests to see if the anomalies stand up to scrutiny; the second step is devising theoretical explanations. Both efforts are important. I focus on step 1 because that's my interest. Others are welcome to develop theoretical models.
I am agnostic on most of this except when it is non sensical. For example, I don't believe in instantaneous telepathy because I don't believe in "instantaneity" or "non locality". Some says that Bell's inequality violation proves non local influence at a distance, but that is true only in QM with collapse, and that is why I take Bell's violation as a (strong) evidence for a many-worlds or many-dreams account of ... arithmetic. The many-dreams account is a quasi-direct consequence of Mechanism (in cognitive science). In fact, the Mechanist assumption in cognitive science and consciousness theory leads quickly to the weirdest aspect of the quantum.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I think all this is good, and I greatly respect Dean's work - I hope that is understood despite my making some defense of theory. I also agree that speculative theory is. Ot very helpful and can serve to reinforce many myths and superstitions. Nevertheless,
science requires theory in order to be science vs. phenomenology. And the question of why empirical evidence alone is. Not convincing to traditionalists does have an answer in methodology aside from just stubbornness or tribalism. Statistics alone say that
a phenomenon occurred, but not why. Empirical science tests theories in order to understand why. But in modern times it has become fashionable to reject causality itself because of anomalous phenomena, rather than expand our idea of causality. That also prevents
new theory development which requires us to consider broader types of causality, whereas old ideas of types of causality are too arbitrarily limited. So the modern mainstream trend to "just calculate" within empirical paradigms actually prevents us from advancing
science enough to actually understand things like consciousness and life, which are not strictly founded in mechanisms. Again, I totally agree with the work Dean is doing, but am only making the point that empirical evidence and theoretical explanation are
true complements, and despite previous notions that theory comes after data, it is actually a more creative process than that, where they must develop together. But one sentiment I totally agree with is that much speculative theory should be discarded because
it is not properly methodical. It has to follow rigorous theory development in step with empirical testing to be useful. And yet I believe this is entirely possible for such phenomena.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear John,
Thank you for bringing up the issue of causality, which I believe is one of the core issues in any theoretical approach to understanding consciousness (and life). In an earlier post, I mentioned that ‘top-down’ causality is implicitly
embedded in many of our equations of physics, in the form of the need to input initial and boundary conditions. Another simple observation is that much of our generic use of the word ‘causation’ seems to focus on ‘efficient cause’, and at that primarily as
it follows Newton’s second law of motion. But, in my opinion, in Newton’s 3rd law of motion we find a deeper notion of causation than is inherent in his 2nd law: that no action arises in isolation. And, finally, the action principle
from which we can derive the equations of motion, is an integral principle (global) rather than a differential and local one that challenges the local view causality.
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)
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.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Serge Patlavskiy, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
There are six, which I've described on the list before. They are:
Generality (a world view is our concept of nature itself. If the first assumption is that it is a unified reality then the view should be valid everywhere so the more general the better)
Parsimony (explains more, better, with fewer assumptions)
Consistency (the view should be self consistent and consistent with all other well known phenomena, or else we have to revise our understanding of those phenomena in some consistent way)
Formality (ability to formalize the theory, even if incompletely)
Necessity (in terms of resolving a demonstrated paradox in previous theory)
Utility (it must be applicable to important questions and problems of interest)
>There are epistemological criteria for establishing the value of
>a new worldview underlying new theory.
Which criteria do you mean? I am all the ears. :-) I would like to compare your criteria with my own which I call "the criteria of formal correctness" and the objective criterion of "goodness" of the
constructed meta-theory.
>a broad enough metaphysical foundation to allow for explanations
> of the existence of life, complexity, and consciousness.
Is this the same as when I say that we need an appropriate meta-theory which would make room for the activity of informational factor in general and consciousness in particular?
Exlanation, or the applied theory, will be constructed within the limits of this meta-theory.
Your paper (Radin, D.,
at.al. 'Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments', Physics Essays, 25 (2), 157-171;
http://deanradin.blogspot.com. au/2012/05/consciousness-and- double-slit.html) clearly belongs to the first group, since you do not even try to formulate a hypothesis on the mechanisms of mind-matter interrelation.
.
As I am convinced, the mainstream science will never accept the existence of mind-matter interrelation unless an effective theory of such an interaction is constructed. A skeptic will never believe in levitation even in case he himself will be flying in the
air.
.
In my view, the data gained in the experiments that involve such factors as the focused attention of participants should be assessed only depending on whether they prove or disprove a version of the theory of mind-matter interrelation which has to be constructed
in the first place, or beforehand. In the field of consciousness-studies, the experimentation without a theory is like a blind-walking in the unknown town. I hold that mere accumulation of research data and empirical evidences will never lead to a theory explaining
these evidences because of the extreme complexity of the object of study.
.
So, I am firmly convinced that any experiment in the field of consciousness studies should be aimed at proving or disproving such or other already constructed version of the theory of consciousness. And, as I show, we can construct the required theory if we
start not from accumulating tons of empirical evidences (as we traditionally do in Physics), but from constructing the appropriate epistemological framework (or a meta-theory) which will include the general method and system of models able to deal with complex
systems like consciousness-possessing living organisms.
This story in
Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
> Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that
>conventional mind-body theories do not predict or accommodate,
>there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical
>models.
.
> I agree that a solid theory will help, and perhaps be necessary,
>for a broader acceptance of psi.
.
[S.P.] What, in fact, we are discussing here? We are not discussing whether the psi phenomena are real or not. We are discussing the way in which the Science of Consciousness can be transformed into the all-sufficient objective scientific discipline, on par with such disciplines as Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc. This is the only way in which consciousness researchers may become finally treated as legal members of scientific community, but not as freaks and charlatans as they are mainly treated now.
.
Indeed, the traditional way of doing science is as follows: we collect data, then we generalize and systematize data and formulate hypotheses, and then we come (or may come) to a theory which explains and predicts something. With time, a meta-theory is formed like the one called the Modern Materialistic Picture of the World.
.
But, in case consciousness and consciousness-related phenomena are the objects of study, the traditional way no longer works. It is because of extreme complexity of the object of study. I mean that in this case, a mere accumulation of research data gives us no chance even to formulate a correct hypothesis, saying not of constructing a theory of consciousness.
.
That is why I suggest to follows a different way, namely, to start from constructing the appropriate meta-theory which would supply us with the methods, models, and other tools able to deal with complex systems like living organisms. By now, the living organisms are these only known for us entities from which consciousness as an object of study can be "isolated", so to say. Then, we may try to construct an applied theory of consciousness within the limits of this meta-theory. And then we may devise the experiments on testing such or other conclusions that follows from the already constructed theory (for example, see my Sadhu_Sanga-post_16-07-2017.txt attached below).
.
Why I think Dean Radin's approach is wrong? First reason is that Dean naively hopes that mainstream science will accept the existence of paranormal (or psi) phenomena someday if the number of proofs will be enough big. For me, this is the same as to hope that the Gods will return when the number and size of Moai statues will be enough big.
.
The second reason is that Dean continues using a third-person approach which is traditional when studying physical phenomena, but which, in my view, is absolutely inappropriate for studying consciousness-related phenomena, or the phenomena when we cannot ignore the activity of informational factor.
.
So, for the Science of Consciousness to become an objective discipline,
1) the problem of intersubjectivity must be solved;
2) the methods and models have to be elaborated which would correspond to the nature of the object of study; and
3) the research tools must correspond to the nature of the object of study as well.
.
If of interest, we may discuss these three items one by one. To the point, in the field of consciousness studies, the traditional borders between "theory" and "practice" dissolve. I mean that the very possession of some knowledge (say, about the mechanisms of consciousness) may produce direct physical impact upon the bearer of this knowledge and the environment. Such is not the case while doing Physics.
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
Please don't misunderstand me -- I'm not criticizing theory development. It's an essential part of science. It's just not something that I personally focus on because I know my limitations.
I agree that a solid theory will help, and perhaps be necessary, for a broader acceptance of psi. But it's always puzzled me that so many scientists first evaluate data based on whether existing theories predict that data, rather than whether the data are correct. This seems completely backwards to me -- even anti-scientific -- given that theories evolve as we gain a more comprehensive understanding of reality. And that more comprehensive understanding often is stimulated by new instruments producing new data. But again, this is my prejudice as an empiricist.
To:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical models. I.e., if one assumes based on prevailing neuroscience concepts that telepathy or precognition are impossible, then it would be a waste of time to develop models that explain such effects.
Thus, when it comes to anomalies that challenge prevailing ideas, the very first step must be empirical tests to see if the anomalies stand up to scrutiny; the second step is devising theoretical explanations. Both efforts are important. I focus on step 1 because that's my interest. Others are welcome to develop theoretical models.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:51 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google
>makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic,
>even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence.
.
[S.P.] As to "tons of ignored empirical evidence". Do you still believe that we can come to the effective theory of consciousness (which would also account for the various consciousness-related phenomena) just by accumulating, generalizing and systematizing the research data? Here, by "effective" I mean the one which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power and obeys the criteria of formal correctness. In other words, do you believe that a theory of consciousness can be constructed in a way analogous to the one we follow when constructing some physical theory?
.
I hold that all the experiments that involve the activity of informational factor (like in case of the consciousness-related phenomena) may be divided into two major groups:
1) the ones that aim to prove the existence of phenomenon of mind-matter interrelation, and
2) the ones that aim to construct a theory of mind-matter interrelation.
.
Your paper (Radin, D., at.al. 'Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments', Physics Essays, 25 (2), 157-171; http://deanradin.blogspot.com. au/2012/05/consciousness-and- double-slit.html) clearly belongs to the first group, since you do not even try to formulate a hypothesis on the mechanisms of mind-matter interrelation.
.
As I am convinced, the mainstream science will never accept the existence of mind-matter interrelation unless an effective theory of such an interaction is constructed. A skeptic will never believe in levitation even in case he himself will be flying in the air.
.
In my view, the data gained in the experiments that involve such factors as the focused attention of participants should be assessed only depending on whether they prove or disprove a version of the theory of mind-matter interrelation which has to be constructed in the first place, or beforehand. In the field of consciousness-studies, the experimentation without a theory is like a blind-walking in the unknown town. I hold that mere accumulation of research data and empirical evidences will never lead to a theory explaining these evidences because of the extreme complexity of the object of study.
.
So, I am firmly convinced that any experiment in the field of consciousness studies should be aimed at proving or disproving such or other already constructed version of the theory of consciousness. And, as I show, we can construct the required theory if we start not from accumulating tons of empirical evidences (as we traditionally do in Physics), but from constructing the appropriate epistemological framework (or a meta-theory) which will include the general method and system of models able to deal with complex systems like consciousness-possessing living organisms.
This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Radin and Serge,
I am reading interesting debate between you two. I side somewhat with Radin. Before you develop theories, you have to have clear, unassailable data which scientists
can accept. Then we can try to explain the data by means of theories. The influence of meditating observers on double slit experiment is quite interesting. If this is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, physicists will surely pay attention. The problem with
many paranormal phenomena is that many are not reproducible and depend on subjects etc.
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)
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.
Paul, you are missing several other considerations when you say this.
For example, the macroscopic world only slowly incorporates
quantum uncertainties when evolving in time.
Hi, Alex!
Fuzzy put-downs like your first sentence do not belong in a serious intellectual discussion. Without more mental discipline, activities like yoga lose their very purpose.
Your second sentence hints that it might possibly mean something, but does It? Is there any principle in physics which states that quantum transitions must only be gradual and never discrete? Is it established that quantum field theory applies only to the microscopic world and not the macroscopic? And finally, while you attack me on this point, I did not actually say anything about the point in what I said in response to Dean.
It is so far from reality already in two sentences that no more comment is warranted.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, Online Sadhu Sanga
Hi Jim,
Thanks.
I agree with you. We need all what you wrote. In addition,
the same framework should explain other data related to living and non-living
systems, such as data related to physics, cosmology, all other sciences,
philosophy, spirituality/religions, arts, legal system, peace, war and so on. In
my view, the eDAM framework is capable of doing that. One authentic contradiction
can reject it; so far, I cannot find any. If you find any contradictory data,
please let me know.
I hope it is not rude of me to insert myself into this conversation.
Regarding your questioning:
Do you still believe that we can come to the effective theory of
consciousness (which would also account for the various
consciousness-related phenomena) just by accumulating, generalizing and
systematizing the research data? Here, by "effective" I mean the one
which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power and obeys
the criteria of formal correctness. In other words, do you believe that a
theory of consciousness can be constructed in a way analogous to the
one we follow when constructing some physical theory?
It seems to me that the issue is not about experimental data vs. theory -- but is the range of experimental data.
Theory derives from data. A theory relating to consciousness has to address consciousness. The data Dean and others are viewing may provide some clues about consciousness, but empirical data more directly addressing consciousness is required. Obviously this includes first person data -- your domain. This is not theory preceding data -- it is a combining of data from different domains, first, second and third person. An expanded theory will result from an expanded base of data. (Yours is fundamental, What you may call "illusion" is exceedingly important. We live there.)
Theory has to follow experience -- all experience, first person included.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dean, these are excellent points, but I would say theory and observation are inseparable, and the whole art of science is that neither is first, or both...it is an endless cycle of observing and theorizing; and in some sense that may be what the very
thing we are studying is also doing.
I would submit this brief dialog quoted on
smallplanet.org in support:
"It is theory which decides what we can observe" -Einstein
Post Date:
June 5, 2015
Fast Fact Content:
"In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory which decides what we can observe."
From Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, Arnold J. Pomerans, trans. (New York: Harper, 1971), p. 63.
In context:
Heisenberg: "We cannot observe electron orbits inside the atom...Now, since a good theory must be based on directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more
fitting to restrict myself to these, treating them, as it were, as representatives of the electron orbits."
"But you don't seriously believe," Einstein protested, "that none but observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?"
"Isn't that precisely what you have done with relativity?" I asked in some surprise...
"Possibly I did use this kind of reasoning," Einstein admitted, "but it is nonsense all the same....In reality the very opposite happens. It is the theory
which decides what we can observe."
(FML: quote also found in Rosamund Zander and Benjamin Zander, The Art of Possibility, (New York: Penguin, 2000), 11)
D.O. Hebb, "Science and the World of Imagination," Canadian Psychology 16 (1975), 4-11
Heisenberg, Physics and Beyond, Arnold J. Pomerans, trans. (New York: Harper, 1971), p. 63.
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)
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.
In the (eDAM), a state of our mind-brain system has the inseparable 1pp-mental aspect (such as subjective experience redness when a trichromat looks at a ripe tomato) and 3pp-physical aspects (such as brain’s visual area V8-neural-network and its activities related to redness). The degree of the manifestation of aspects from the primal entity (Brahman) varies with the level of states of our mind-brain system. [1pp: 1st person perspective and 3pp: 3rd pp]. We have assumed that, in Nature, the subjective experiences potentially co-exist with its inseparable physical aspect. Here, the 1pp-mental aspect consists of superposed potential basis-states related to the potential primary irreducible subjective experiences (SEs) representing the co-existence of the potentiality of experiences for us. A specific SE is realized by the matching and selection mechanism (see below). In other words, there are two robust reproducible sources of information 1pp and 3pp in our wakeful conscious life; this is empirical data that we need to explain how they are linked. In the eDAM, the doctrine of the inseparability of aspects tightly links these two sources of data.
The eDAM uses dual-mode and the matching and selection mechanisms to connect qualia/subjective experience (SE, such as redness when a trichromat views a ripe tomato) to neurons: this is discussed in (Damasio, 2010). Briefly, there are two modes: stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-extrinsic-mode and cognitive-feedback-signals-related-intrinsic-mode. They interact for conjugate matching and then the selection of a specific subjective experience occurs and experienced by the self(Northoff, 2014b; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004).
For experiencing a specific SE, there are three major interacting signals: (i) stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signals, (ii) stimuli-related-memory-dependent cognitive feedback (FB) signals, and (iii) self-related signal that is a part of reentrant FB signals. The potential SEs are embedded as memory traces in FB signals during the developmental period.
The self (a) is the subjective experience of subject (Pereira Jr., 2013; Radhakrishnan, 1960; Swami Krishnananda, 1983), (b) consists of proto-self, core-self, and autobiographical-self (Pereira Jr., 2013; Pereira Jr., Vimal & Pregnolato, 2015; Vimal, 2013), and (c) is the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of ‘self-related neural network (such as cortical and subcortical brain-stem midline structures: (Vimal, 2015g)) and its activities (intrinsic activities).
The matching/interaction is between FF and FB signals (or mode if we use QED); then the self-related signals/modes interact with the resultant signal/mode representing the matching between stimulus-related FF signal/mode and cognitive FB signals/mode; thus, there are interactions between the three major signals/modes; this interactive process can be called as ‘the specific SE is selected and experienced by the self’.
The eDAM (extended dual-aspect monism) is NOT interactive substance dualism that has many problems. The physical aspect of a state of an entity includes both its appearance and its intrinsic nature (entity-in-itself).
The 3pp-appearance of matter (such as color related V8-NN and its activities) and matter-in-itself (such as V8-NN-in-itself) are inseparable and are parts of the physical aspect of a state of an entity (such as V8-NN for color). This physical aspect is inseparable with 1pp-mental aspect (such as the experience redness when a trichromat views a ripe tomato) of the same state of the same entity (such as V8-NN for color). Therefore, the eDAM is a monist framework because of the doctrine of inseparability. In dualism, aspects and/or sub-aspects are separable, for example, mind and matter can exist independently but they can interact; this metaphysics has serious problems.
In any case, we cannot ignore 99.99… % of our universe that we cannot ‘see’ or we do not know; they are also the manifestation of the primal entity. I completely agree with idealists that all sciences and philosophy and everything we do in daily lives are in wakeful consciousness in mind-dependent reality (MDR).
We, as physicists, usually make models (such as relativity, QM, string theory, Standard Model such as mass, charge, and the spins of 17 elementary particles, QFT and so on) in MDR and assume that they are for mind-independent reality (MIR) once we have some consensus. We do not know the intrinsic nature of matter-in-itself (although we have postulated mass, charge, and the spins of 17 elementary particles as their intrinsic nature) and consciousness-in-itself (Universal potential Consciousness: UPC), but we try our best in MDR to assume they might be for MIR. We have hypothesized that experiences (such as redness, greenness, blueness, and so on) are quantized (Hameroff, email communication on 3/6/16) as excitations of UPC, in analogy to elementary particles are quantized modes of excitations of the quantum field.
In my view, the fundamental reality is the dual-aspect potential field from which both physical and mental aspects co-arise, co-evolve and co-develop and they co-exist and are inseparable; same reality but with two inseparable aspects: mental and physical.
One could argue that what ways the doctrine of inseparability different from the identity theory, eliminativism, emergentism of materialism.
Materialists want to either eliminate experiences or try to create experiences from non-experiential matter (such as a brain). Thus, they have a serious problem: how can they eliminate experiences when they are the main source of empirically reproducible 1pp-data? Or how can they create experiences from non-experiential matter that does not have a single trace of experience? The identity theory and emergentism of materialism have a serious problem simply because their matter is non-experiential. An analogy: there is no way we can create oranges from apple seeds that do not have a single trace of orange.
In the eDAM, we use an alternative definition of matter that has the potentiality of experiences and framed it in dual-aspect language to avoid category mistake. We postulate that a state of an entity has inseparable mental and physical aspect. The degree of manifestation of aspects varies with an entity.
There are two concepts of matter:
(i) First, the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, where matter has rūpa/form and has the potentiality for experiences; it is used in our frameworks.
(ii) Second, the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter (who identifies matter with atoms/particles), which implies that matter is non-experiential; it is used in science (such as physics, chemistry, and biology).
The second concept misleads materialistic biologists who make the grave mistake of following non-experiential materialism that has serious unsolvable problems and hence cannot address the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) because it does not explain about life, especially how experiences arise from non-experiential matter. Biologists who follow Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter should not have such problems.
It is very simple if you want to create an experience from a brain, the brain as matter must have a potential for creating experiences; otherwise, how can brain create experiences out of ‘nothing’. For example, apple seeds have a potential to create apple tree; that is why apples can be created from apple seeds.
To sum up, let us make sure that we cannot create experiences from non-experiential non-mental matter that does not even have a single trace of the potentiality of experiences. We cannot create apple out of orange seeds.
By the way, once you accept Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, then you are no more materialist; you are dual-aspect.
The frameworks, such as the extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM), that follow the first concept of matter do not face such problems (Vimal, 2015).
Please recommend an introductory paper regarding eDAM;
this is new to me.
Best wishes,
Jim
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Thanks.
I agree with you. We need all what you wrote. In addition,
the same framework should explain other data related to living and non-living
systems, such as data related to physics, cosmology, all other sciences,
philosophy, spirituality/religions, arts, legal system, peace, war and so on. In
my view, the eDAM framework is capable of doing that. One authentic contradiction
can reject it; so far, I cannot find any. If you find any contradictory data,
please let me know.
I hope it is not rude of me to insert myself into this conversation.
Regarding your questioning: Do you still believe that we can come to the effective theory of
consciousness (which would also account for the various
consciousness-related phenomena) just by accumulating, generalizing and
systematizing the research data? Here, by "effective" I mean the one
which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power and obeys
the criteria of formal correctness. In other words, do you believe that a
theory of consciousness can be constructed in a way analogous to the
one we follow when constructing some physical theory?
It seems to me that the issue is not about experimental data vs. theory -- but is the range of experimental data.
Theory derives from data. A theory relating to consciousness has to address consciousness. The data Dean and others are viewing may provide some clues about consciousness, but empirical data more directly addressing consciousness is required. Obviously this includes first person data -- your domain. This is not theory preceding data -- it is a combining of data from different domains, first, second and third person. An expanded theory will result from an expanded base of data. (Yours is fundamental, What you may call "illusion" is exceedingly important. We live there.)
Theory has to follow experience -- all experience, first person included.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Yahoogroups
Serge wrote: > Why I think Dean Radin's approach is wrong? First reason is that Dean naively hopes that mainstream science will accept the existence of paranormal (or psi) phenomena someday if the number of proofs will be enough big.
Not so. I hold no such hopes. If data were enough, psi would have become a mainstream topic long ago. What the resistance tells us is that we need a more comprehensive scientific worldview that can accommodate both physical and mental aspects of reality (as some on this list have proposed).
However, what is true is that there are many scientists who are vitally interested in seeing science expand beyond its nihilistic framework, but they dare not talk about it in public for pragmatic, sociopolitical reasons. For them, seeing persuasive empirical evidence that consciousness is more than neural correlates of brain activity is important, because they can (and do) use that evidence as a reason to publicly justify their interests.
>
The second reason is that Dean continues using a third-person approach which is traditional when studying physical phenomena
...
Yes, but that's a known limitation of scientific epistemology. We often use meditators in our studies to help leverage the subjective side of the psychophysical phenomena we're interested in, and I've been a meditator myself since the 1970s. So I acknowledge our epistemological limitations and would be pleased to get recommendations on how to develop more appropriate methods that would be acceptable to the larger scientific community.
best wishes,
Dean
Jim Beichler
unread,
Jul 18, 2017, 10:15:15 PM7/18/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Yahoogroups
Dean,
You are absolutely correct. You've hit the nail on the head.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, jcs-o...@yahoogroups.com
Dean
Rightly said. You've hit the nail on the head. As I say on the back cover of my book "To Die For" (see attachment), science won't accept a physical theory of consciousness, the paranormal or the possibility of an afterlife until it can provide a new physical context for them in the form of a truly unified field theory that combines the quantum and reltivity, and that would be revolutionary. That has been my goal for the past forty years. I started out in the area of paraphysics, which morphed into the broader context of bio-psychophysics about fifteen years ago and then into the new science of neurocosmology about ten years ago. I finally have a handle on it and can now say with confidence that the revolution has begun. If you are at all interested, read the attached paper (unpublished) which is basically a longer version of what I presented at the SSE meeting last month. Sorry you weren't there, I would have liked to have said hello.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Yahoogroups
Data alone can not change the paradigm, the work of Dan Kahan at Yale, explains why this is so. Scientists are like everyone, peer acceptance is more important to many people than facts. But as the studies done by the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center at Rensselaer Polytech Institute has shown when 10% of a cohort changes the whole cohort changes.
But it is the accumulation of anomalies that causes change.
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)
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Accumulating anomalies are what cause a paradigm to go into crisis. The first response is to extend theory to encompass phenomena without changing the paradigm. When that fails the paradigm goes into crisis. When 10% of the cohort change their perspective encompassing a new paradigm, the whole cohort has to tack to that conversion, and the cohort changes.
You can see the process playing out before our eyes, and identify examples of each stage of the process.
-- Stephan
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Dean Radin <dra...@noetic.org> wrote:
Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical models. I.e., if one assumes based on prevailing neuroscience concepts that telepathy or precognition are impossible, then it would be a waste of time to develop models that explain such effects.
Thus, when it comes to anomalies that challenge prevailing ideas, the very first step must be empirical tests to see if the anomalies stand up to scrutiny; the second step is devising theoretical explanations. Both efforts are important. I focus on step 1 because that's my interest. Others are welcome to develop theoretical models.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I couldn't agree with you more, Dean. Only when a quantum paradigm in which consciousness/awareness is fundamental is available , and when also the empirical evidence for psi/synchronicity/survival-of-consciousness-after-death of phenomena (which any form of the classical paradigm is completely unable to account for, but the quantum paradigm is able to account for) will the quantum paradigm break through, and will the 'anomalous" be considered normal. It needs both theory and empirical evidence. The synergy between a consciousness-based quantum paradigm (which already exists in outline), and the overwhelming evidence for psi (to which you have significantly contributed, Dean) will overcome the resistance of the true believers in materialism, a now obsolete paradigm.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Serge --
There are now 12 protocols testing the existence of nonlocal consciousness, each of which has odds that it is a chance phenomenon greater than one in a billion. These protocols have been so rigorously scrubbed methodologically that there is no question about the authenticity of the data.
I know, I know, people are still claiming it can't be true. That is a statement of willful ignorance, and sloppy thinking. The hallmark of the criticism of nonlocal consciousness research is it's mediocrity. I will be happy to provide you with multiple examples of what I mean.
This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
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)
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.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir, Kashyap V. Vasavada, Rael Cahn, Paul Werbos, Shiv Lakhan Pandey
Dear George,
Weissmann: Well, Vimal, I sent you references for research
establishing survival of consciousness of physical death. That definitely
refutes edam, at least the atheist version, as you yourself admitted. But you
rejected the strong evidence without any basis, as far as I can tell.
Vimal: Thanks for reminding me our old interesting conversation.
Yes, if soul (the self or individual consciousness after death) exists, then the atheist eDAM is rejected and the theist eDAM (which is simply an extension of atheist eDAM) holds. Thus, either way, the eDAM cannot be rejected.
However, if we at look at closely the data in references (Fontana, 2005; Fontana,
2009) (online)
and (Calvi-Parisetti, 2008) (online) can be explained by the atheist eDAM thru the sixth sense (ESP) NN hypothesis as discussed before. Thus, the data do not yet establish that a soul exists.
I understand that we all like to be immortal, which certainly leads to think that the physical death is a beautiful event to celebrate because we get a new body-brain in place of old miserable, sick, useless, painful body-brain as an another chance for our liberation (Moksha) from the cycle of rebirths and sufferings. This pleasant wishful thinking needs further research to have authentic, rigorous, replicable data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 2:28 AM, 'George Weissmann' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Well, Vimal, I sent you references for research establishing survival of consciousness of physical death. That definitely refutes edam, at least the atheist version, as you yourself admitted. But you rejected the strong evidence without any basis, as far as I can tell.
Please recommend an introductory paper regarding eDAM;
this is new to me.
Best wishes,
Jim
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Thanks.
I agree with you. We need all what you wrote. In addition,
the same framework should explain other data related to living and non-living
systems, such as data related to physics, cosmology, all other sciences,
philosophy, spirituality/religions, arts, legal system, peace, war and so on. In
my view, the eDAM framework is capable of doing that. One authentic contradiction
can reject it; so far, I cannot find any. If you find any contradictory data,
please let me know.
I hope it is not rude of me to insert myself into this conversation.
Regarding your questioning: Do you still believe that we can come to the effective theory of
consciousness (which would also account for the various
consciousness-related phenomena) just by accumulating, generalizing and
systematizing the research data? Here, by "effective" I mean the one
which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power and obeys
the criteria of formal correctness. In other words, do you believe that a
theory of consciousness can be constructed in a way analogous to the
one we follow when constructing some physical theory?
It seems to me that the issue is not about experimental data vs. theory -- but is the range of experimental data.
Theory derives from data. A theory relating to consciousness has to address consciousness. The data Dean and others are viewing may provide some clues about consciousness, but empirical data more directly addressing consciousness is required. Obviously this includes first person data -- your domain. This is not theory preceding data -- it is a combining of data from different domains, first, second and third person. An expanded theory will result from an expanded base of data. (Yours is fundamental, What you may call "illusion" is exceedingly important. We live there.)
Theory has to follow experience -- all experience, first person included.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir, Kashyap V. Vasavada, Rael Cahn, Paul Werbos, Shiv Lakhan Pandey
Great Question, Alfredo! But it shouldn't have been limited to quantum entanglement & information.
Ram, in addition I'd like to know how the Sixth Sense (or any sort of psi) is related to the 18 (as I recall) known particles of quantum field theory. The 18 include the 16 of the Standard Model, plus Higgs plus graviton.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Yahoogroups
Dean,
As former President of the International Society for the Systems Sciences I would very much like to explore possibilities for some collaborative activity or joint project along these lines of developing an appropriate epistemology for consciousness studies.
I'm thinking of perhaps a collaborative working group comprising interested members of ISSS, SSE, and IONS, plus, of course, people from this list. Would that be a feasible thing? I would network others in the Boulder area via SSE, and identify those in ISSS.
My personal interest would be to develop this not just for consciousness research, but as a truly general theory of natural systems. If we are correct that consciousness itself is the foundation of nature (which I increasingly see no alternative to believing),
then working out the methodology in this most problematic area would work it out generally as well. It sounds to me that eDAM and some others are on this track, but my feeling is that very tight protocols and criteria are needed to provide the "proofs" and
to do the hardest work of all, which is to link a new theory explaining general consciousness phenomena to existing theories of other kinds of systems to show both consistency on those phenomena both theories view, and what the new theory changes in that view.
My own field is theoretical ecology and I feel that the basic conscious relation is actually involved in ecological relations even more obviously than in the physics - that physics is ultimately ecological, and ecology is ultimately psyho-bio-physical.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir, Kashyap V. Vasavada, Rael Cahn, Paul Werbos, Shiv Lakhan Pandey
Dear
Vimal:
I
know you are a very smart guy but do you really believe that eDAM (atheist or
theist) is the foundation of the universe? eDAM is the product of (a specific)
human mind and as such describes part of Reality. But the whole of Reality? Any
product of the (human) mind is subjected to what I call the Pinocchio effect,
wherein a product of a human is taken (by its creator!) to replace its creator
(the human).
The
ancient Indian systems covered the waterfront, from base materialist to
non-dual monism. All part of Reality but none complete by itself. The ancient
Greek philosophers also covered the waterfront. What comes to mind are two
teachings of the father of philosophy, Socrates: "One thing for sure I
know, that I don't know anything". And, "know thyself".
Saivism,
the great Indian system that comes closest to science but also is giving the
non-dualist approach states in one of the Siva sutras: "Limited knowledge
is bondage". Saivism is practical, yet philosophical. Maybe you can
check out eDAM how it fits within Saivism.
And
let's not forget, experience encompasses thought.
As
for death, in many cultures death is actually celebrated as experience showed
people in these cultures that death was release from current life shackles and
a new beginning. Were they crazy? Or are we?
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir, Kashyap V. Vasavada, Rael Cahn, Paul Werbos, Shiv Lakhan Pandey
Ram, which of the 18 known particles are used for the sixth sense? It can't be the photon since the reasonable wavelength photons coming from neurons can't penetrate the skull.
Stan
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:52 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Alfredo,
Thanks for your kind words.
Pereira, Jr.: How is the Sixth Sense related to quantum
entanglement and quantum information?
Vimal: I agree that they are related. For example, when two mind-brain systems
are entangled, the quantum information in them are correlated as is evident in
many QM experiments such as (Aspect, 1999; Aspect, Dalibard & Roger,
1982; Aspect, Grangier & Roger, 1981, 1982) and experiments with humans (Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy,
& Persinger, 2010)(Persinger, Saroka, Koren,
& St-Pierre, 2010)(Burke, Gauthier, Rouleau,
& Persinger, 2013).
However, these data have been misinterpreted that they are the proofs of ‘real’
non-locality and physical information can be transmitted at speed faster than
light. There are at least four justifications that nonlocality is apparent and
data can be explained by correlation, where there is no information transfer or
physical information is transfer at v≤c.
Since experiences related to paranormal data have their respective neural basis
or NCC (i.e., sixth sense experiences and their related NNs), the entanglement
and quantum information are within our mind-brain system and within our real
physical universe out there. Here, the paranormal information processing is
thru our usual five senses; the proposed hypothetical sixth sense processes it
further in its NN (yet to be discovered).
To sum up, we do not have to assume
dualism and idealism beyond our mind-brain system for explaining paranormal
data as elaborated in the atheist eDAM.
Weissmann: Well, Vimal, I sent you references for research
establishing survival of consciousness of physical death. That definitely
refutes edam, at least the atheist version, as you yourself admitted. But you
rejected the strong evidence without any basis, as far as I can tell.
Vimal: Thanks for reminding me our old interesting conversation.
Yes, if soul (the self or individual consciousness after death) exists, then the atheist eDAM is rejected and the theist eDAM (which is simply an extension of atheist eDAM) holds. Thus, either way, the eDAM cannot be rejected.
However, if we at look at closely the data in references (Fontana, 2005; Fontana,
2009) (online)
and (Calvi-Parisetti, 2008) (online) can be explained by the atheist eDAM thru the sixth sense (ESP) NN hypothesis as discussed before. Thus, the data do not yet establish that a soul exists.
I understand that we all like to be immortal, which certainly leads to think that the physical death is a beautiful event to celebrate because we get a new body-brain in place of old miserable, sick, useless, painful body-brain as an another chance for our liberation (Moksha) from the cycle of rebirths and sufferings. This pleasant wishful thinking needs further research to have authentic, rigorous, replicable data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM.
Well, Vimal, I sent you references for research establishing survival of consciousness of physical death. That definitely refutes edam, at least the atheist version, as you yourself admitted. But you rejected the strong evidence without any basis, as far as I can tell.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mind+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir, Kashyap V. Vasavada, Rael Cahn, Paul Werbos, Shiv Lakhan Pandey
Dear Alfredo,
Thanks for your kind words.
Pereira, Jr.: How is the Sixth Sense related to quantum
entanglement and quantum information?
Vimal: I agree that they are related. For example, when two mind-brain systems
are entangled, the quantum information in them are correlated as is evident in
many QM experiments such as (Aspect, 1999; Aspect, Dalibard & Roger,
1982; Aspect, Grangier & Roger, 1981, 1982) and experiments with humans (Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy,
& Persinger, 2010)(Persinger, Saroka, Koren,
& St-Pierre, 2010)(Burke, Gauthier, Rouleau,
& Persinger, 2013).
However, these data have been misinterpreted that they are the proofs of ‘real’
non-locality and physical information can be transmitted at speed faster than
light. There are at least four justifications that nonlocality is apparent and
data can be explained by correlation, where there is no information transfer or
physical information is transfer at v≤c.
Since experiences related to paranormal data have their respective neural basis
or NCC (i.e., sixth sense experiences and their related NNs), the entanglement
and quantum information are within our mind-brain system and within our real
physical universe out there. Here, the paranormal information processing is
thru our usual five senses; the proposed hypothetical sixth sense processes it
further in its NN (yet to be discovered).
To sum up, we do not have to assume
dualism and idealism beyond our mind-brain system for explaining paranormal
data as elaborated in the atheist eDAM.
Weissmann: Well, Vimal, I sent you references for research
establishing survival of consciousness of physical death. That definitely
refutes edam, at least the atheist version, as you yourself admitted. But you
rejected the strong evidence without any basis, as far as I can tell.
Vimal: Thanks for reminding me our old interesting conversation.
Yes, if soul (the self or individual consciousness after death) exists, then the atheist eDAM is rejected and the theist eDAM (which is simply an extension of atheist eDAM) holds. Thus, either way, the eDAM cannot be rejected.
However, if we at look at closely the data in references (Fontana, 2005; Fontana,
2009) (online)
and (Calvi-Parisetti, 2008) (online) can be explained by the atheist eDAM thru the sixth sense (ESP) NN hypothesis as discussed before. Thus, the data do not yet establish that a soul exists.
I understand that we all like to be immortal, which certainly leads to think that the physical death is a beautiful event to celebrate because we get a new body-brain in place of old miserable, sick, useless, painful body-brain as an another chance for our liberation (Moksha) from the cycle of rebirths and sufferings. This pleasant wishful thinking needs further research to have authentic, rigorous, replicable data that cannot be explained by the atheist eDAM.
Well, Vimal, I sent you references for research establishing survival of consciousness of physical death. That definitely refutes edam, at least the atheist version, as you yourself admitted. But you rejected the strong evidence without any basis, as far as I can tell.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir, Kashyap V. Vasavada, Rael Cahn, Paul Werbos, Shiv Lakhan Pandey
Dear Menas,
Thanks for kind words and raising the interesting issues.
Kafatos: Do you
really believe that eDAM (atheist or theist) is the foundation of the universe?
The eDAM is the product of (a specific) human mind and as such describes part
of Reality. But the whole of Reality? Any product of the (human) mind is
subjected to what I call the Pinocchio effect, wherein a product of a human is
taken (by its creator!) to replace its creator (the human).
Vimal: As long as
the eDAM is not rejected thru empirical reproducible data, we are safe to
assume that the eDAM is one of the foundational frameworks, which has the least
number of problems. To address if the eDAM describes the whole of Reality, we
first need to understand the types of “Reality” and the meanings assigned to it.
In my view there are two types of Reality: Mind-Dependent Reality (MDR) and
Mind-Independent Reality (MIR). The MDR has two subtypes: our conventional quotidian MDR (cMDR) in wakeful conscious
state and ultimate Nirvāṇic or Nirvikalpa Samādhi (≈ zero thought-fluctuations) MDR (uMDR).
The MDR is indeed subjected to your Pinocchio effect, but not the MIR.
However, MIR is, strictly speaking, unknown. Presumably, the uMDR (very
difficult to attain) is closest to MIR. To sum up, the best we can do is just
keep on trying our level best.
Kafatos: The ancient
Indian systems covered the waterfront, from base materialist to non-dual
monism. All part of Reality but none complete by itself. The ancient Greek
philosophers also covered the waterfront. What comes to mind are two teachings
of the father of philosophy, Socrates: "One thing for sure I know, that I
don't know anything". And, "know thyself". Saivism, the great
Indian system that comes closest to science but also is giving the non-dualist
approach states in one of the Siva sutras: "Limited knowledge is
bondage". Saivism is practical, yet philosophical. Maybe you can
check out eDAM how it fits within Śaivism. And let's not forget, experience
encompasses thought.
Vimal: The eDAM is
consistent with Śaivism
because both are based on dual-aspect monism as elaborated in (Vimal, 2012c). The Śiva (consciousness) in Śaivism is (or equivalent) to the mental aspect
in eDAM and the Śakti (energy) in Śaivism is the physical aspect in eDAM. There
are over 40 meanings assigned to term ‘consciousness’ as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009f), which were
categorized in two groups: experiences and functions. Here, by consciousness, I
mean experiences (which includes thoughts).
Kafatos: As for
death, in many cultures death is actually celebrated as experience showed people
in these cultures that death was release from current life shackles and a new
beginning. Were they crazy? Or are we?
Vimal: My answer would be “none”. This is because craziness depends on how
much knowledge that is available to people (in my view). The knowledge of
neuroscience that all kinds of experiences (such as experiences in dreams,
wakeful conscious states, and Samādhi states) must have their respective neural basis or NCC was not
available to ancients. Therefore, they interpreted the Nirvāṇic or Nirvikalpa
Samādhi subjective data (such OBEs, unified experience due to loss of
subject-object discrimination, Bliss, inner light perception, etc.) in terms of
the existence of immortal soul, OOO-God, life-after-death and so on beyond our
mind-brain system and our physical universe. Therefore, they celebrated the
death and for the reason I elaborated before. Personally, I love the wishful
thinking that we (our souls) are fundamentally immortal so nothing to worry
about: enjoy this life and new life we get after death. To me, Moksha (liberation)
is a little bit depressing because we lose our identities (equivalent to slavery,
many people will argue against it); so I prefer rebirth; perhaps this may be
because of my ego (Ahaṃkāra) and ignorance (built-in avidyā). However, once we have a taste
of democracy living in countries such as in USA and India, it is not easy to
give up the freedom from losing the identity.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 10:33 AM, "Kafatos, Menas" <kaf...@chapman.edu> wrote:
Dear Vimal:
I know you are a very smart guy but do you really believe that eDAM (atheist or theist) is the foundation of the universe? eDAM is the product of (a specific) human mind and as such describes part of Reality. But the whole of Reality?
Any product of the (human) mind is subjected to what I call the Pinocchio effect, wherein a product of a human is taken (by its creator!) to replace its creator (the human).
The ancient Indian systems covered the waterfront, from base materialist to non-dual monism. All part of Reality but none complete by itself. The ancient Greek philosophers also covered the waterfront. What comes to mind are two
teachings of the father of philosophy, Socrates: "One thing for sure I know, that I don't know anything". And, "know thyself".
Saivism, the great Indian system that comes closest to science but also is giving the non-dualist approach states in one of the Siva sutras: "Limited knowledge is bondage". Saivism is practical, yet philosophical. Maybe you can
check out eDAM how it fits within Saivism.
And let's not forget, experience encompasses thought.
As for death, in many cultures death is actually celebrated as experience showed people in these cultures that death was release from current life shackles and a new beginning. Were they crazy? Or are we?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, jcs-o...@yahoogroups.com
Dear
John:
I
support your proposed initiative for some collaborative activity in
Consciousness research and would be glad to participate in it.
In my
view based on my research, a viable theory of universal consciousness is
possible that bridges the current theories of matter with mind and
consciousness. It would be a mistake to assume that a theory of consciousness
is devoid of matter and objective reality. Consciousness theory must be
wholesome universal model integrating all contents of the universe – matter,
mind, and consciousness from physical to non-physical, quantum to classical,
relative to absolute, nothingness to everything-ness etc.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The Hidden
Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and
Universal Reality"
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, Online Sadhu Sanga, Roy Sisir
Dear Richard,
Thanks for raising interesting issues.
As
you might know that materialism has a serious problem of explanatory gap, so
it can be rejected as elaborated in Section
1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d),
Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c),
and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013),
which also discuss the problems of dualism and idealism. The Copenhagen
Interpretation of QM is based on dualism and/or idealism, so it has problems.
Similarly, other 43 interpretations of QM have problems. Therefore, the eDAM
based interpretation of QM is justified. Searle may have called himself as a
materialist (to align himself in the mainstream science!), but he professes
Biological Naturalism, which is a sort of a mixture of materialism and dualism
and hence confusing to many. However, the controversy can be addressed by
interpreting it in the eDAM, which is elaborated in (Vimal, 2015b).
A “more balanced overall picture” may be a middle way, such as the eDAM.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 1:25 PM, 'Richard Khuri' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear All:
The importance of the "Pinocchio effect" cited by Prof. Kafatos cannot be overestimated. There are so many fateful examples of modern culture and thought falling for this. I mention four:
1. The notion of "brute matter", i.e. dead matter to be radically distinguished from whatever has animus, was a medieval and early modern invention that almost comically led some to eventually espouse a philosophical materialism based on dead matter (whose "transition" to life has yet to acquire even the most rudimentary elements of an explanation). The universal notion of a living universe became suppressed, unmentionable in polite company. It is now making a comeback, in part thanks to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics that bypass the restrictions imposed by the Copenhagen Interpretation. But what was self-evident to thinkers from the pre-Socratics, Indians, and Chinese to Hegel, Schopenhauer, Schelling, Nietzsche, Bergson, and Whitehead will face a tedious and tortuous path to rehabilitation within the sciences thanks to the habit of thinking in brute material terms. (I recall John Searle at Berkeley prefacing his lectures on the Philosophy of Mind with: "Of course I am a materialist.")
2. Another cardinal error involves the notion of "reason", especially to the extent that it became increasingly narrowly defined over time from a quasi-cosmic notion of intellect among ancient and medieval thinkers to one more restricted to logical processes in the wake of Descartes and Leibniz (albeit distortive of their broader notions) and finally to what is effectively computational reason. The comic reduction is to claim that all the we know, and thence all that there is, lies within the compass of computational reason - again, a small part swallowing up the whole.
3. Consciousness also underwent a comic twist. As Husserl tirelessly pointed out, Wittgenstein more indirectly, claims made by a limited notion of reason, which occurs within consciousness, are made about consciousness itself, in which all reason is ultimately grounded. Throw the foregoing twists into the mix, and you end up with the materialistic notion of consciousness as an epiphenomenon - a hilarious development for those able to see through all the steps were it not for the fact that so many intelligent and influential individuals take it so seriously.
4. The entire AI project falls under this rubric. After decades, generations perhaps, of being confined to mechanical/computational reason, brute materialism, and an ingrained inability to recognize consciousness as "something" sui generis, is it any wonder that some commit the egregious metaphysical fallacy of placing man and machine at the same ontological level? I believe explaining how this could ever happen will be far more interesting than the AI project itself, which will meet its Goedel one of these days and crash promptly. In fact, it already has in the late Wittgenstein's writings, but these rely on an intuitive recognition that is in principle beyond the reach of the algorithmic certifications enforced within many circles, both among scientists and, often still more so, those in the humanities with a chronic case of science-envy. So we await a rigorous proof like Goedel's, which I believe is only a matter of time, although in the nature of the case, it cannot be entirely algorithmic and will have to rely on the kind of intuition by which, say, we admit what is axiomatic in arithmetic or are able to recognize a syllogism as such (an ability the significance of which was already highlighted by Aristotle).
Bolder interpretations of quantum mechanics in conjunction with new discoveries, philosophical breakthroughs that will suggest themselves as biologists carry on with their Sisyphean pursuit of an algorithmic account of life, ecological thought that comes to us through the rapid expansion and deepening of Earth science, and practical exigencies as we deal with major crises facing us, will I hope finally help restore us to a more balanced overall picture.
I know you are a very smart guy but do you really believe that eDAM (atheist or theist) is the foundation of the universe? eDAM is the product of (a specific) human mind and as such describes part of Reality. But the whole of Reality?
Any product of the (human) mind is subjected to what I call the Pinocchio effect, wherein a product of a human is taken (by its creator!) to replace its creator (the human).
The ancient Indian systems covered the waterfront, from base materialist to non-dual monism. All part of Reality but none complete by itself. The ancient Greek philosophers also covered the waterfront. What comes to mind are two
teachings of the father of philosophy, Socrates: "One thing for sure I know, that I don't know anything". And, "know thyself".
Saivism, the great Indian system that comes closest to science but also is giving the non-dualist approach states in one of the Siva sutras: "Limited knowledge is bondage". Saivism is practical, yet philosophical. Maybe you can
check out eDAM how it fits within Saivism.
And let's not forget, experience encompasses thought.
As for death, in many cultures death is actually celebrated as experience showed people in these cultures that death was release from current life shackles and a new beginning. Were they crazy? Or are we?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Matters Of Mind" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to matters-of-mi...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to matters...@googlegroups.com.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, matters...@googlegroups.com, BT APJ, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Sehgal: A person in the state of Samādhi, with his eyes and ears closed, observes some objects at some remote distances. How is this paranormal phenomenon related to our usual senses when eyes and ears are closed? Any contention that signal transmission from the remote objects to the brain may be thru E.M. radiations other than visible light i.e. thru IR or radio etc also can't be accepted since the physiology of our brain/body is designed to sense e.m radiations of visible range only.
Vimal: You have raised an interesting issue. If all sensory systems are shut down, then obviously the usual five different ways of information transfer to our mind-brain systems are also shut down. In this condition, one could argue for the correlation because of the entanglement between two mind-brain systems, in which there is no information transfer. For some of the human data, see (Burke, Gauthier, Rouleau, & Persinger, 2013)(Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy, & Persinger, 2010)(Persinger, Saroka, Koren, & St-Pierre, 2010).
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 11:46 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dr. Ram wrote to Alfredo:
"Here, the paranormal information processing is thru our usual five senses; the proposed hypothetical sixth sense processes it further in its NN (yet to be discovered)."
A person in the state of Samaadhi, with his eyes and ears closed, observes
some objects at some remote distances. How is this paranormal phenomenon related
to our usual senses when eyes and ears are closed?
Any contention that signal transmission from the remote objects to the brain
may be thru e.m radiations other than visible light i.e thru IR or radio etc also
can't be accepted since the physiology of our brain/body is designed to sesne
e.m radiations of visible range only.
Vinod Sehgal
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Alfredo,
Thanks for your kind words.
Pereira, Jr.: How is the Sixth Sense related to quantum
entanglement and quantum information?
Vimal: I agree that they are related. For example, when two mind-brain systems
are entangled, the quantum information in them are correlated as is evident in
many QM experiments such as (Aspect, 1999; Aspect, Dalibard & Roger,
1982; Aspect, Grangier & Roger, 1981, 1982) and experiments with humans (Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy,
& Persinger, 2010)(Persinger, Saroka, Koren,
& St-Pierre, 2010)(Burke, Gauthier, Rouleau,
& Persinger, 2013).
However, these data have been misinterpreted that they are the proofs of ‘real’
non-locality and physical information can be transmitted at speed faster than
light. There are at least four justifications that nonlocality is apparent and
data can be explained by correlation, where there is no information transfer or
physical information is transfer at v≤c.
Since experiences related to paranormal data have their respective neural basis
or NCC (i.e., sixth sense experiences and their related NNs), the entanglement
and quantum information are within our mind-brain system and within our real
physical universe out there. Here, the paranormal information processing is
thru our usual five senses; the proposed hypothetical sixth sense processes it
further in its NN (yet to be discovered).
To sum up, we do not have to assume
dualism and idealism beyond our mind-brain system for explaining paranormal
data as elaborated in the atheist eDAM.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Jim Bleicher asks why he did not get more interest when he presented his new unified field theory to a conference. And he gives a link to his papers at academia.edu.
I wanted to give some constructive feedback, but academia.edu wanted to access all my contacts before allowing a download. Maybe later, but not now. Jim did send us a word attachment or easy link before on the topic, for a paper which did not contain a single equation. I do have papers like that myself for situations which call for avoiding equations, but for a theory of physics to be considered serious by physicists they do have to see equations (or at least be convinced they exist somewhere). I understand the cultural prejudices re personal web pages or vixra, but if that's what it takes to get real equations out there, it is worth the price. Better than having people imagine that it is just another collection of empty words.
On Jul 15, 2017 9:34 PM, "'Jim Beichler' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dean,
I'm Not sure if you are keeping up with my work or not, but I have published complete models of consciousness and mind, how the neural networks give rise to human consciousness and how what you do works and fits into the greater context of the universe within the context of a completely unified field theory. I call all of this neurocosmology. If you aren't keeping up with my work, you and your colleagues should since I've added a testable theoretical component to your researches.
Without empirical evidence that consciousness can do things that conventional mind-body theories do not predict or accommodate, there'd be no reason to develop more comprehensive theoretical models. I.e., if one assumes based on prevailing neuroscience concepts that telepathy or precognition are impossible, then it would be a waste of time to develop models that explain such effects.
Thus, when it comes to anomalies that challenge prevailing ideas, the very first step must be empirical tests to see if the anomalies stand up to scrutiny; the second step is devising theoretical explanations. Both efforts are important. I focus on step 1 because that's my interest. Others are welcome to develop theoretical models.
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:51 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google
>makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic,
>even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence.
.
[S.P.] As to "tons of ignored empirical evidence". Do you still believe that we can come to the effective theory of consciousness (which would also account for the various consciousness-related phenomena) just by accumulating, generalizing and systematizing the research data? Here, by "effective" I mean the one which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power and obeys the criteria of formal correctness. In other words, do you believe that a theory of consciousness can be constructed in a way analogous to the one we follow when constructing some physical theory?
.
I hold that all the experiments that involve the activity of informational factor (like in case of the consciousness-related phenomena) may be divided into two major groups:
1) the ones that aim to prove the existence of phenomenon of mind-matter interrelation, and
2) the ones that aim to construct a theory of mind-matter interrelation.
.
Your paper (Radin, D., at.al. 'Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: Six experiments', Physics Essays, 25 (2), 157-171; http://deanradin.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/consciousness-and-double-slit.html) clearly belongs to the first group, since you do not even try to formulate a hypothesis on the mechanisms of mind-matter interrelation.
.
As I am convinced, the mainstream science will never accept the existence of mind-matter interrelation unless an effective theory of such an interaction is constructed. A skeptic will never believe in levitation even in case he himself will be flying in the air.
.
In my view, the data gained in the experiments that involve such factors as the focused attention of participants should be assessed only depending on whether they prove or disprove a version of the theory of mind-matter interrelation which has to be constructed in the first place, or beforehand. In the field of consciousness-studies, the experimentation without a theory is like a blind-walking in the unknown town. I hold that mere accumulation of research data and empirical evidences will never lead to a theory explaining these evidences because of the extreme complexity of the object of study.
.
So, I am firmly convinced that any experiment in the field of consciousness studies should be aimed at proving or disproving such or other already constructed version of the theory of consciousness. And, as I show, we can construct the required theory if we start not from accumulating tons of empirical evidences (as we traditionally do in Physics), but from constructing the appropriate epistemological framework (or a meta-theory) which will include the general method and system of models able to deal with complex systems like consciousness-possessing living organisms.
This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
>>Serge wrote: > Why I think Dean Radin's approach is wrong? First
>>reason is that Dean naively hopes that mainstream science will
>>accept the existence of paranormal (or psi) phenomena someday if
>> the number of proofs will be enough big.
>
>Not so. I hold no such hopes. If data were enough, psi would have
>become a mainstream topic long ago.
.
[S.P.] My argument stands: for "psi" (or, better say, for the consciousness-related phenomena) to become "a mainstream topic" (or, better say, to become an object of study for the Science of Consciousness as of the objective and all-sufficient discipline), it is the availability of appropriate explanatory framework that matters, but not the number (quantity/quality) of data.
.
Indeed, of which "enough number" of psi-phenomena we can talk if these phenomena, by their very nature, are rare, unpredictable, and basically unrepeatable? That is why the statistical approaches for assessing the results of experiments are not applicable here.
.
Moreover, what to do with the system of proofs? Have you ever had the following experience: suppose, you are listening to a TV announcer who says "During this car accident ..." -- and, at this very moment, you "hear" the inner voice which tells you, for example, "five" -- and then, a moment later, you hear as the announcer continues "... five persons have been seriously wounded". I am having similar experiences on a regularly basis. But, the question is how to prove to others that the person does have this experience? Why the others who do not experience this consciousness-related phenomenon have to believe that you are telling the truth? Therefore, objectively, a new system of proofs has to be constructed, and the problem of intersubjectivity has to be solved.
.
So, what does the word "objective" mean when I talk about the Science of Consciousness? It means that "objectivity" is not a question of acceptance or agreement. "Objectivity" means that the Science of Consciousness must possess the methods, models, and other tools which correspond to the nature of the object of study. A good example is as follows: the given computer is good not because there is acceptance/agreement that it is good, but because it objectively has sufficiently productive hardware (processor, operative memory, video adapter, SSD, etc.) and an effective operative system.
.
So, I argue that instead of looking for agreements/acceptance among mainstream physicist, biologists, and neurophysiologists, the Science of Consciousness has to form its own special cognitive environment which would consist of the people who do have own versions of the theory of consciousness, and of those researchers who apply the first-person approach and use their consciousness simultaneously as an object of study and as a research tool of the required sensitivity and functionality.
.
[Dean Radin] wrote:
> What the resistance tells us is that we need a more comprehensive
>scientific worldview that can accommodate both physical and mental
>aspects of reality (as some on this list have proposed).
<skip>
> So I acknowledge our epistemological limitations and would be
>pleased to get recommendations on how to develop more appropriate
>methods that would be acceptable to the larger scientific community.
.
[S.P.] A version of such a "worldview" (or, better say, a meta-theory) is already constructed -- I have published the correspondent paper 5 years ago and another one yet in 1999. These ones and the other my papers are exactly on how to construct "a more comprehensive scientific worldview ", and on "how to develop more appropriate methods". For example, the title of my 2012 paper is "General Theory: the Problems of Construction".
.
So, as I know from my own experience, to construct a meta-theory which would make room for the activity of informational factor in general and consciousness in particular is, by oneself, an extremely complex task. Only afterwards, namely, within the limits of this new meta-theory, we may try to construct a theory of consciousness which would have the required explanatory and predictive power, or which would be able to account for the mechanisms of how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience (and vice versa).
.
I tell this all for you because I want you to realize what, in fact, you are asking for when you ask for the "more comprehensive scientific worldview" and "more appropriate methods". A good analogy here is as follows. The applied theory of consciousness can be compared with the applied program MS Word, while the appropriate meta-theory can be compared with operative system like MS Windows. Now then, we ran the applied program MS Word within the limits of the appropriate operative system. In so doing, the appropriate operative system is much bigger and more complex than any applied program that can be run within its limits (or in its environment).
.
Another analogy is that to ask for a theory of consciousness without considering the appropriate meta-theory would be as naive as asking for a moonrock without considering a problem of constructing a space rocket.
.
My personal decades-long experience of communicating with people on the various discussion forums and in private makes it possible for me to conclude that the real problem consists not in availability of the required meta-theory, but in inability/reluctance of other persons to comprehend this new "worldview". I mean that even to understand the new "worldview" (saying not of accepting it) a person would have to forget for the time being the worldview he/she currently adopts. But, as real practice tells us, the old dog cannot be taught new tricks. :-)
.
Unfortunately, most of people naively think that since they are able to understand how the wall clock works therefore they could be also able to understand how consciousness operates. But, to keep in mind knowledge about the mechanisms of consciousness is not the same as to keep in mind knowledge about how the wall clock works -- to keep in mind the former knowledge objectively requires years of training. A good analogy here is as follows. To lift and keep in hands a uranium ball which weights 100 gram is not the same as to lift and keep in hands an orange of the same weight -- the aftermaths for the holder may be very different.
.
Therefore, the problems of constructing a new "worldview" (or a new meta-theory) can be (or, at least, should preferably be) discussed only between the thinkers who do have their versions of such a meta-theory. A cobbler has to talk with another cobbler -- only in this case these two people will have a chance to understand each other and to come to some comprehensive solution with time. As to me, my version of the applied theory of consciousness is accompanied by a new meta-theory and a set of concomitant applied theories, therefore my approach is, possibly, a most complex one.
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
This story in Physics Essays is a good example of how Google makes everyone feel that they're instant experts on any topic, even complex histories and tons of ignored empirical evidence. Ironically, the message offered by the cartoon is completely missed by the journalist.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vinod, Vimal and other interested members,
I have a question about paranormal phenomena, such as ESP, telepathy, clairvoyance etc. Has anyone compiled evidence which an unbiased scientist can accept? All
of us have heard anecdotal stories, something happened to someone and it is described in a book! But that is obviously not enough to get attention of serious scientists. First, the data must be from many many subjects , perhaps thousands, if not hundreds of
thousands and they should be reproducible and not one time random. It should be under controlled conditions, e.g. it should be possible to change some conditions and variables and change subjects. In such a case scientists will pay attention. Who does not
want to be rich and famous?! I have an open mind about this subject and am willing to learn.
Best Regards.
Kashyap
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL [mailto:vinodse...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:44 AM To: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
I don't think it is feasible to formulate a theory of consciousness on objective lines as have been
formulated for matter and energy. For formulating an objective theory on any entity, the subject
should be out of that entity ( object). All theories in science have been and are being formulated by consciousness possessing subjects i.e human beings. But when an objective theory has to be formulated on
consciousness itself, how the consciousness shall come out of consciousnes to create a
subject-dichotomy? And without the creation of a subject-object divide, you can't study any
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, matters...@googlegroups.com, BT APJ, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Roy Sisir
It seems to me that observing remote objects without sensory input is not surprising or unusual..we do this every time eyes and ears are closed. We do. Ot know where these images come from, they are not necessarily exact memories. But the question is
their correctness and correlation with present conditions elsewhere in the world. That could be achieved through some kind of harmonic resonance, as opposed to the usual way we imagine constructing the details of an image that doesnt already exist, as in
a camera. We know, for example, that we see previously constructed mental models of things, synchronized with the outer world by data, not pictures totally constructed from data. In that case only some signature of a pattern or something more like a musical
similarity is required to "see" the remote object.
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to vinodse...@gmail.com, joseph....@gmail.com, vasa...@iupui.edu, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear
Vinod:
Agree,
pure consciousness is Existence in its most fundamental form and has no theory.
“Theory of Consciousness” is a misnomer; it should be Theory of Everything
(matter-mind-consciousness) instead.
On the
other hand, there is no need or relevance of a theory of pure consciousness
since it is all-in-all. What is relevant is a TOE including
matter-mind-consciousness that provides an integrated wholesome universal view
of reality and merges into pure consciousness as an asymptotic Zero Point state.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh, Sc.D.
Alumni, MIT
Author of "The
Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and
Universal Reality"
-----Original Message-----
From: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
To: Asingh2384 <asing...@aol.com>; Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>; Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu>
Sent: Thu, Jul 20, 2017 4:44 am
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
I don't think it is feasible to formulate a theory of consciousness on objective lines as have been
formulated for matter and energy. For formulating an objective theory on any entity, the subject
should be out of that entity ( object). All theories in science have been and are being formulated by consciousness possessing subjects i.e human beings. But when an objective theory has to be formulated on
consciousness itself, how the consciousness shall come out of consciousnes to create a
subject-dichotomy? And without the creation of a subject-object divide, you can't study any
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Matters Of Mind, BT APJ
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Yes, in the entanglement, we need to prepare the systems first as in anti-correlated electrons in quantum EPR-type experiments. This may not work in remote viewing at Samādhi state with eye closed. In your example, other 9 Indriyas are not shut down. Physical information from remote objects can still propagate at v≤c. In addition, TMS (trans-cranial magnetic stimulation), magnetic have effects in the brain. Another possibility is somewhat similar to astral world information transfer, except the astral world is a part of mental aspect of a state of a mind-brain system in the eDAM and physical information transfer at v≤c.
You vaguely mentioned thatSāṅkhya’s astral world is very close (within less than micro-cm) to NNs inside the brain; its location is still not clear; the astral world may be related to parallel worlds, dimensions other than 3D+1, Planck level information transfer, etc. I can answer better if you can clarify the location of astral, causal, and manifested worlds of dualistic Sāṅkhya. They seem to be useful concepts and I would like to interpret them in the atheist eDAM.
Query: Why do you always favor easy but problematic dualism and easy but very mysterious God theory? For example, dualistic Sāṅkhya has 9 serious problems that cannot be resolved. It would better to use useful concepts of Sāṅkhya into monistic down-to-earth systems, such as atheist eDAM first. Why do you like to always fly in the sky for your wishful thinking and make thing mysterious and problematic and keep on defending the problematic metaphysics? It makes no sense to me and it is simply waste of time. This is because once you assume OOO-God theory then there is nothing to research because God is OOO and He can do everything without revealing any mechanism to us. This is the dead-end and not an interesting framework.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 1:48 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. Ram,
Thanks.
You wrote:
"In this condition, one could argue for the correlation because of the entanglement between two mind-brain systems, in which there is no information transfer. For some of the human data, see (Burke, Gauthier, Rouleau, & Persinger, 2013)(Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy, & Persinger, 2010)(Persinger, Saroka, Koren, & St-Pierre, 2010)."
For building entanglement between two systems, two systems should be in the close vicinity. When a person, in the state of Samaadhi, with all the sense systems closed, observes some objects at remote distances ( clairvoyance), how correlation thru entanglement can be built up since there were never the circumstances to build the correlation ( since these systems were never in the close proximity). Have you ever heard of entanglement between two particles ( photons or electrons) located in two different galaxies without ever been in the close vicinity?
Then you are talking about correlation thru entanglement between two mind-brain systems and not between onemind brain system & one inert physical system. In the case of the paranormal phenomenon of viewing remote objects by a person in the state of Samaadhi, with all the sense systems closed, one system of the person could be the mind brain system but the system of the remote objects observed is a non-mind body physical system.
So you can appreciate that just a little logical scrutiny can invalidate the proposed mechanisms, whether of 6th sense or otherwise, to explain the paranormal phenomenon.
The fact has been real sense systems are neither our sense organs as attached to our physical body nor in any part of the physical brain. External sense organs are merely external sockets to collect and transmit the signals of physical energy from the stimuli. Neuroscientists somehow misinterpret these sense organs of physical body as sense system. The real sense systems are placed in the Astral bodily level, which scientists particularly neuroscientists are reluctant to understand and accept. Therefore, they propose all sort of proposed mechanisms to explain the phenomena like ESPs. But all such proposals do not stand the scrutiny of even preliminary logical investigation the way your proposal of ESP by correlation thru entanglement has faced.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Sehgal: A person in the state of Samādhi, with his eyes and ears closed, observes some objects at some remote distances. How is this paranormal phenomenon related to our usual senses when eyes and ears are closed? Any contention that signal transmission from the remote objects to the brain may be thru E.M. radiations other than visible light i.e. thru IR or radio etc also can't be accepted since the physiology of our brain/body is designed to sense e.m radiations of visible range only.
Vimal: You have raised an interesting issue. If all sensory systems are shut down, then obviously the usual five different ways of information transfer to our mind-brain systems are also shut down. In this condition, one could argue for the correlation because of the entanglement between two mind-brain systems, in which there is no information transfer. For some of the human data, see (Burke, Gauthier, Rouleau, & Persinger, 2013)(Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy, & Persinger, 2010)(Persinger, Saroka, Koren, & St-Pierre, 2010).
Kind regards,
Rām
C. S. Morrison
unread,
Jul 21, 2017, 5:55:30 AM7/21/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com, Menas Kafatos, Shiv Lakhan Pandey, Roy Sisir, Kashyap V. Vasavada, Vivekanand Pandey Vimal, Paul Werbos, Rael Cahn, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL
Dear Menas
You wrote ' As for death, in many cultures death is actually celebrated as experience showed people in these cultures that death was release from current life shackles and a new beginning. Were they crazy? Or are we?'
The worry to my mind is that this is just wishful thinking. I think we have a lot of scientific reasons to think our consciousness survives the death of our body. However, since all the organisation within it appears to be supplied by the brain,
I think we have no scientific reasons to think the experience we are going to get afterwards is going to be anything wonderful. In fact, it seems to me that we should expect it to be a highly impoverished experience, incapable of thought or memory. An experience
that doesn't represent any reality wider than the tiny bit of the universe we currently constitute, which isn't even going to be felt in a way that gives us any understanding of what we are.
What you call 'life shackles' are in my view the amazing ways in which our qualia are organised to represent the reality around us. They are what connect us to the universe. When they vanish we will cease to be intelligent reasoning beings. That
is why I am a Christian. I believe God has promised to resurrect us if we so choose at some time in the future., giving us back such 'shackles' (though more perfect ones that allow us to understand things more clearly).
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vinod,
You brought up many interesting points. However,
“For example, you are viewing white house in your mind and I am viewing Taj Mahal in my mind in the wakeful conscious state. Definitely, this will build some neural circuits in our minds. But by mapping and studying NCCs in the brain of
both of us, neuroscience can't say that in my mind I am viewing Taj Mahal and in your mind, you are viewing White House. So there is a wide gap in the brain and mind.” is not quite right.
With FMRI neuroscientists are making some progress. Recently they showed subjects 10 objects such as a screwdriver, house etc. And then later asked them to think about one of them. By looking at the FMRI, they could say that the subject
is thinking about screw driver now!!
(1) "Then there is intense >99% hostility to a line of research, it causes many, many obstacles to slow progress, as Dean can attest - but this is not the only example of this phenomenon in the history of
science, by far!!!"
(2) "Yet in a way, aren't human mental abilities beyond the mundane within the scope of Yoga as well as science?
Why has yoga not gotten Further? BOTH questions are important, not as a way of seeking bad action, but as a way to think more how we could all do better, as well we all should"
I agree with your above Ist quotes. Scientists are not Gods that they may be immune to all
the social and psychological weaknesses of which a normal person is a victim. They are also
the victims of all sort of mental prejudices, personal stubbornness and partisan attitudes like
any other individual. This could be one of the reasons behind a slow and unsystematic
research behind the paranormal phenomenon of
ESP and telepathy.
But let me add that the people who possess genuine powers of ESP and telepathy in high degree
are also not available in hordes. Whatsoever people are available having genuine powers in
quite fair degrees have spiritual purpose and orientation, thus, not inclined to become subjects
in labs offering themselves for the objective investigative experimentation. This does not match
with their spiritual bent of mind.
Another issue which I would like to comment is that most of the paranormal phenomena occur at
the Astral bodily level and are observed the state of deep samaadhi when consciousness mostly
withdraws from the body/brain. In view of the withdrawal of the consciousness from the body/brain
level. no signal of any experience of the paranormal phenomenon will percolate down at the
brain, therefore, no neural network will be built at the brain level. So even if some people capable
of entering the true Samaadhi states and having genuine paranormal powers in fairly high degrees
offer to attend the labs for neurobiological investigation using imaging techniques from brain
mapping. what will be found in the investigation? NIL since no neural circuits will be found for
such experiences.
It is true that in the past 40-50 years, neuroscience has made a tremendous progress in the
mapping the NCCs for various mental states. But most of these studies have been for the
mental states in the normal wakeful conscious states. It is from the success of these states
that neuroscience has devised a cardinal principle: No NCC means No mental experience.
But this cardinal principle of neuroscience is not universal in all the states of the
consciousness particularly super-conscious one.
But there are also the states of superconsciousness in Samaadhi, when consciousness
withdraws mostly from the physical body/brain level, gets concentrated at the Astral body level,
Astral mind gets decoupled from the physical brain level, no signal of any mental experiences
is left at the physical brain level and so no NCCs are built at the physical brain level.
One quite worth noting and interesting thing. Despite such a tremendous progress in the area of
mapping of neural circuits by neuroscience, it is yet not possible to de-codify the mental
experiences by studying the mapping and studying the neural circuits. For example, you are
viewing white house in your mind and I am viewing Taj Mahal in my mind in the wakeful
conscious state. Definitely, this will build some neural circuits in our minds. But by mapping and
studying NCCs in the brain of both of us, neuroscience can't say that in my mind I am viewing
Taj Mahal and in your mind, you are viewing White House. So there is a wide gap in the brain
and mind.
What I say that with the existing frameworks of Physics. QM and neuroscience, this gap is not
going to be filled. This gap will be filled when scientists will seriously try to understand the reality
of the Astral body and astral world as transcendental to the physical body/world.
Thanks and regards for noticing my comments and responding
Vinod Sehgal
.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
If paranormal is a widely prevalent phenomenon, this addresses Kashyap's query. In that case, what stops scientists to study
paranormal phenomenon in a systematic manner as a separate discipline of science? If ESP and other paranormal phenomenon had been present in wide populations the way now wide populations possess cars and TVs, scientists would have studied
it systematically long ago up to now and come out with some credible scientific models to explain it.
It is curious that I hear that question in a room just a few blocks away from the statue of Galileo in Florence.
When there is intense >99% hostility to a line of research, it causes many, many obstacles to slow progress, as Dean can attest - but this is not the only example of this phenomenon in the history of science, by far!!!
I certainly remember how insane and powerful the resistance to neural networks was from about 1960 to 2010. Perhaps I should write a book someday on all the many forms of irrationality and tribalism which got in the way. It would also be
RELATIVELY easy to perform either of the decisive experiments which would first test and then evaluate a fundamental new directions in QED (quantum mechanics), and the immense social obstacles.
Yet in a way, aren't human mental abilities beyond the mundane within the scope of Yoga as well as science?
Why has yoga not gotten Further? BOTH questions are important, not as a way of seeking bad action, but as a way to think more how we could all do better, as well we all should.
Part of the answer.. if you forgive.. is "It takes a village." It requires collaborations of different types of skills and people to make maximum progress, or to attain real higher levels.
Best regards, Paul
Not only this, populations and nations would have utilized /misutilized this phenomena for for meeting their narrow ends. It is good that ESP and other paranormal phenomenon are not present with wide populations since without high spiritual/moral
values, there is all the likelihood that some people/nations may mis-utilize it for their selfish and narrow ends at the cost oof others
the way atomic/nuclear arsenals are endangering the world now.
Nevertheless, thanks for providing references on paranormal. I shall try to procure the article and read the same
Vinod Sehgal
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
Probably Dean Radin or Julia Mossbridge would be the best people on the list to answer your question precisely.
I am depressed that anyone on this list would reassure us with absolute total conviction that paranormal connections exist only in a tiny fraction of humanity, somewhere less than .01%. Work in Dean's community, and in western mystical
disciplines, suggests that this is false. Priest kings following the tradition of ancient Sumeria have used that lie, and claims of their divinity, to control and repress both brains and souls, for millennia -- most recently support by a follower of Ayn Rand,
Mercer, of Ted Cruz, as a cynical way to subvert democracy. (Just search Google news!) As with mathematics ability, another discipline of the mind, DNA does matter, but training (intensity and quality) matters more, and the abilities aren't so strictly personal
as the priest kings seem to imagine.
Once again, I highly recommend the article "Are we a nation of mystics?" by Greeley and McCready (sp?), reprinted in Goleman anthology Consciousness, which everyone on this list should own. (I bought it for $1 used
on amazon.)
Powers of ESPs having clairvoyance, clairaudience and telepathy are not possessed by
thousands that you may collect the data for them. The people having such genuine powers
are very rare and having the spiritual purpose and orientation and, as such, it is not easy
To motivate such people to come to the controlled labs for scientific testing. I am not naming
any person of our age to have such powers ( since then immediately you will ask, what is the
evidence that that person possesses ESP powers), however, had as a scientist, you have been
living in the age of Krishna or Buddha and asked him to come to a lab for investigation
of his ESPs, have they come to the lab? I need not answer this question. You know better.
If there has been no book having the compilation of the descriptions/claims of ESPs, then
who will compile it? This job has also to be done by some serious scientists only who are
seriously interested in the subject of ESPs.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
Barry Urie
unread,
Jul 21, 2017, 9:25:54 PM7/21/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Kashyap,
Thought you might find this interesting, according to an article in 'Singularity Hub' a computer recreated faces just by reading the brainwaves of monkeys that viewed them.
Best Regards,
Barry
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Kashyap
Barry Urie's reference on brain waves, I think brings up a
very interesting point. It relates to the question you asked about
telepathy and related phenomena.
I am very reluctant to believe in, miracles outside science.
Brain waves have provided a physical explanation of telepathy. The
discoverer of brain waves in 1920s, Hans Berger , a German
physiologist scientist, was motivated in his work by his sister
recognising a danger, he was in. She was a few hundred miles away and
wrote to their father immediately that Hans was in danger. There is a
similar story about S. Radhakrishnan (philosopher and former President
of India) and his daughter who was at Oxford in UK. and whose fall he
sensed in Europe. Brainwave communication seems to be a scientific
answer.
As brainwaves are EM waves they are limited by speed of
light and causality. If such paranormal phenomena violate causality
than we have to look for other non scientific explanations. I do
believe, in such science limited, telepathy. This is the sixth, but
physical sense.
Predictions of retro causality, by Werbose, Jack
and others will of course alter many arguments if they are observed.
Of course, I do believe in unity of atman and Brahman.
I wonder if brain wave explanation is adequate for it.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Please note that the EEG ‘waves’ called brain waves are not in fact waves. They are static alternations in field potentials. That is completely different from an EM ‘wave’ in the sense of a radio wave. Radio waves are not actually waves either but at least they are travelling dynamic units. EEG patterns are not.
So I think we can be pretty sure that Berger’s brain waves have nothing to do with telepathy.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Panchu,
Good to hear from you. Hopefully, rigorous scientific studies of paranormal phenomena with FMRI, brain waves etc. will throw light on these phenomena. But just anecdotal incidents will not help science. Subjects and specially Yogis have to cooperate!
Best Regards.
Kashyap
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Joe,
You are right." Brain waves" is just a colloquial way of describing these field potentials. We do not expect propagation like ordinary electromagnetic waves. But the larger question is if these alternating potentials have an external effect and how? That could be investigated.
Regards.
kashyap
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to matters...@googlegroups.com, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga, Roy Sisir, BT APJ
Thanks Ram Vimal,
As one of the two MoM list managers I would like to make a strong request that people not post to MoM if the basis of your beliefs have something other than the standard 18 known particles of physics. Discussions that violate present physics would be much better appreciated on the Sadhu Sanga list.
Stan
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 7:22 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Sehgal: It is from Tanmātras of the astral world that Pancha Mahābhutas (all the baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces) manifest in some sequential order.
Vimal: How an electron and other 17 elementary particles are derived from 5 Tanmātras? What is the mechanism of motion of an entity in the astral world?
Sehgal (22 July 2017):When you yourself will enter the Samādhi state in which the mechanism of the transformation from Tanmātras to atoms and molecules is observable. Answers to some things are directly available ready made and for something has to be understood and inferred. In the first step, instead of making the aforesaid query, you need to understand and get a conviction that in the Samādhi state mechanism of the transformation of Tanmātras to atoms/molecules is observable. Then how do you take, understand and interpret that mechanism will depend upon up to what extent the meditator, who has entered that state of samādhi, has the knowledge.
Vimal: You have failed to derive them. I interpret that what a yogi at SS/NS state reproducibly observes is simply SEs, similar to dreams; each of which has NCC within a mind-brain system. There is no way one can derive 18 elementary particles from Tanmātras. Thus, dualistic Sāṅkhya that has now 10 serious problems must be rejected.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Saturday, 22 July 2017 4:05 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Respected Dr, Ram,
Thanks
Let us closely understand the astral world in a step-by-step manner.
Sehgal: It is from Tanmātras of the astral world that Pancha Mahābhutas (all the baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces) manifest in some sequential order.
Vimal: How an electron and other 17 elementary particles are derived from 5 Tanmātras? What is the mechanism of motion of an entity in the astral world?
YOu want the answers to the above big questions in an email discussion without making serious efforts. If you are serious enough why don't you read the two books by Swamiji as already recommended by me? Part understanding, you may get by reading the books and part understanding you may get, when you yourself will enter the Samaadhi state in which the mechanism of the transformation
from Tanmaatras to atoms/molecules is observable. Answers to some things are directly available ready made and for something has to be understood and inferred.
In the first step, instead of making the aforesaid query, you need
to understand and get a conviction that in the Samaadhi state
mechanism of the transformation of Tanmaatras to atoms/molecules is observable. Then how do you take, understand and interpret that mechanism will depend upon
up to what extent the meditator, who has entered that state of samaadhi, has the knowledge.
Regards.
Vinod sehgal
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Let us closely understand the astral world in a step-by-step manner.
Sehgal: It is from Tanmātras of the astral world that Pancha Mahābhutas (all the baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces) manifest in some sequential order.
Vimal: How an electron and other 17 elementary particles are derived from 5 Tanmātras? What is the mechanism of motion of an entity in the astral world?
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Friday, 21 July 2017 8:00 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Respected Dr. Ram,
Thanks.
Sehgal: In the state of Samādhi all the external sense organs stop working in analogy to very deep sleep.
From the spatial point of view, the astral and causal worlds are very much here where the physical world is located. What is the distance between E.M. radiations and gravitation? Or what is the distance between space and E.M. radiations? Visualize a spherical shell having 4 concentric spheres. The outermost shell is the cosmic consciousness in which all the other 3 shell are immersed. Next shell (from outer side) is the causal world, which itself is immersed in the cosmic consciousness but other two shells viz. astral and causal worlds are located within it. Next shell is the astral world which is located in the causal world and the cosmic consciousness but the shell of the physical world is immersed in it. The innermost shell is that of our physical world which is located in all other 2 worlds viz. astral and causal and cosmic consciousness. This is an analogy and can’t be taken in the literal sense but it will give you some broad idea as to where the astral and causal worlds are located.
Vimal: Analogy is not enough; you need to describe in detail to make sense these worlds. There is no physical space between shells, which are not physically concentric because physical universe is infinite and it will contradict the hypothesis that these worlds are within mirco-cm distance from each neuron of every living entity. Thus, they cannot be physically and temporally separated. Thus, the only way it makes sense is that astral, causal, and Chetan bodies are the three inseparable sub-aspects of the mental aspect of a state of a living entity. Since astral and causal bodies are not conscious, they should be parts of functional sub-aspect and the Cheten body is the experiential sub-aspect of the mental aspect. The separability need be interpreted in terms of the degree of manifestation. In other words, if soul leaves astral and causal bodies after Moksha and enters into CC (Chetan worlds), the degree of manifestation of astral and causal sub-aspect becomes latent. In this way, the 9 problems of dualistic Sāṅkhya can be addressed when we properly interpret it in terms of the eDAM framework.
Analogies are analogies and should never be taken in the literal sense. Still, analogies are helpful
in having a"feel" what the communicator wants to state. There is no evidence that physical universe is infinite and logically, it can be inferred that physical universe is not infinite. The physical universe, as it is understood by the cosmologists in the given Big Bang cosmology, started sometime in the past at some 13.8 billion years ago and since then it is expanding. In the finite past 13.8 billion years, the universe can expand up to finite ends only. Therefore, our physical universe can't be infinite. Probably the big bang which cosmologist hypothesize as the start of the universe pertains
to only the physical universe having the baryonic matter and 4 fundamental forces. This does not include and explains about the structural reality of the Astral world having Tanmaatras, Manas,
10 Senses and Buddhi constituting our mental domain. However, Saankhya's and Upanishadic philosophy explains ( and this is verifiable in direct experience in the state of Samaadhi) that
before the creation of the Physical world, both the Astral world, having the aforesaid elements and Causal world, having Chitta and Ahamkara as the primary elements, manifest as the real
ontological structural entities from Moola Prakriti in some sequential order. It is from these Tanmaatras that the physical derivatives of the world ( Pancha Mahabhuttas -- Prithvi, Jala,
Vaayu, Agni, and Akasha) manifest. In the state of Samaadhi, a Yogi can observe the mechanism as to how Tanmaatras are being transformed to the respective Bhuttas. Prithvi, Jala and Vaayu represent the 3 phases of the matter in the solid, liquid and gaseous phase while Agni Bhuttas represent energy of all 4 fundamental forces and Akaasjh represents the space. This in these 5 Pancha Mahabhuttas, all the physical world as known to current science is exhausted. But this leaves a wide part of the nature encompassing the Causal and the Astral world, having numerous elements as stated, and as manifesting from the Moola
Prakriti ( Primordial physicality)
From Moola Prakriti, atoms/molecules and 4 forces do not emanate as is currently understood
in different models of Physics and cosmology.
From Moola Prakriti ( primordial physicality), Causal world( having Chitta and Ahmkaara) and
then Astral world ( having Tanmaatras, Manas, Indriyaas, Buddhi) manifest in succession
in some transformational and sequeniall order having some cause-effect relation. It is from
Tanmaatras of the Astral world that Pancha Mahabhuttas ( all the barynic matter and energy
of 4 forces) manifest in some sequential order. I am again repeating that this not aspeculative
or hypothetical model but all the mechanism observable in the state of samaadhi in
a qyuite reproducible manner. It is these Indriyyas at the Astral level which are involved in our day to day perceptual and cognitive process and in ESP in the state of Samaadhi.
So nature from Mool Prakriti ( primordial physicality) onward till Pnacha Mahabhuttas ( baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces) is a big contiuum of various layers of structural reality with different layers grouped under 3 broad haeds -- physical, Astral and Causal.
So now you can get a more clear idea where the Astral, Causal worlds are located when these are the sections of the same continuum of a very big nature with our physical world as the last link in the continuum.
There is no mental aspect in the discrete matter particles. This is only your speculation and
not supported by any subjective evidence in the state of Samaadhi or by any objective
empirical experimentation of science. But the above stated framework for the creation is
observable and understnadable in the state of samaadhi and thus carries the force of
an evidence, though subjective one only.
You have raised many times the issue of how a non-experiencial matter can be experienced? And for explaining this, you have speculatively invented some mental aspects as inseprable
with the physical aspects of the discrete matter particles. It is the Tanmaatra which represent the experiencial ( or the mental aspects). Since Panacha Mahabhuttas or matter and energy are the derivatives of Tanmaatras, therefore, experiencial aspect is somehow implicit in the matter in form of Tanmaatras
You wrote:
"Thus, the only way it makes sense is that astral, causal, and Chetan bodies are the three inseparable sub-aspects of the mental aspect of a state of a living entity.
when the whole concept of the existence of any mental aspect with the discrete matter particles is a speculative one devoid of any subjective ( from the state of samaadhi) or objective evidence ( from the objective emoiricak scientific experimentation), the whole issue of treating astral, causal and chetan bodies as some sub-aspects of that mental aspect of a living entity becomes redundant. For your kind information and knowledge,
the existence of the Astral and causal bodies does not arise from the living entity only. After the death of a living entity say a human being ( and destruction of his physical body/brain), a Yogi can see the Astral body of that person in the Astral world. A yogi who himself has died ( i.e his physical body/brain burnt) can also see the Astral body of any other person i) while in the physical world while possessing the physical body Or
ii) in the Astral world when that person has died and left the physical body/brain and same destroyed
Since astral and causal bodies are not conscious, they should be parts of functional sub-aspect and the Cheten body is the experiential sub-aspect of the mental aspect.
There is nothing like Chetan bodies. As already indicated above, existence of any mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects is not more than a speculation and
not supported by any evidence--subjective or objective and observations. Plus this concept is replete with a lot of logical inconsistencies.
The separability need be interpreted in terms of the degree of manifestation. In other words, if soul leaves astral and causal bodies after Moksha and enters into CC (Chetan worlds),
Which soul are you speaking of in eDAM when with the dismantling of the brain structure and disintegration of particles of the brain and its scattering at remote places, the manifestation of any mental aspects shall stop?
Which Chetan worlds are you talking in eDAM when Chetanta ( consciousness) itself is the manifestation from some hypothetical mental aspects as inseparable with the physical aspects of the brain particles at the functional brain level?
And very paradoxically, you have prescribed memory, attention, conscious state as the essential conditions for the manifestation of the consciousness from the mental aspects of the brain particles.
the degree of manifestation of astral and causal sub-aspect becomes latent."
Since there is no mental aspects with the brain particles, so there is no question
of manifestation or de-manifestation of any astral or causal sub-aspects
The way the physical reality of our physical world always remain manifested till the physical world lasts similarly the structural reality of the astral and causal world also remain manifested till the Astral world lasts.
Thanks and regards.
Vinod sehgal
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Continuation of my prev email;
Sehgal: In the state of Samādhi all the external sense organs stop working in analogy to very deep sleep.
From the spatial point of view, the astral and causal worlds are very much here where the physical world is located. What is the distance between E.M. radiations and gravitation? Or what is the distance between space and E.M. radiations? Visualize a spherical shell having 4 concentric spheres. The outermost shell is the cosmic consciousness in which all the other 3 shell are immersed. Next shell (from outer side) is the causal world, which itself is immersed in the cosmic consciousness but other two shells viz. astral and causal worlds are located within it. Next shell is the astral world which is located in the causal world and the cosmic consciousness but the shell of the physical world is immersed in it. The innermost shell is that of our physical world which is located in all other 2 worlds viz. astral and causal and cosmic consciousness. This is an analogy and can’t be taken in the literal sense but it will give you some broad idea as to where the astral and causal worlds are located.
Vimal: Analogy is not enough; you need to describe in detail to make sense these worlds. There is no physical space between shells, which are not physically concentric because physical universe is infinite and it will contradict the hypothesis that these worlds are within mirco-cm distance from each neuron of every living entity. Thus, they cannot be physically and temporally separated. Thus, the only way it makes sense is that astral, causal, and Chetan bodies are the three inseparable sub-aspects of the mental aspect of a state of a living entity. Since astral and causal bodies are not conscious, they should be parts of functional sub-aspect and the Cheten body is the experiential sub-aspect of the mental aspect. The separability need be interpreted in terms of the degree of manifestation. In other words, if soul leaves astral and causal bodies after Moksha and enters into CC (Chetan worlds), the degree of manifestation of astral and causal sub-aspect becomes latent. In this way, the 9 problems of dualistic Sāṅkhya can be addressed when we properly interpret it in terms of the eDAM framework.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 1:25 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Sehgal: However, how other 4 senses of perception viz. hearing,
taste, touch, smell, and other 5
senses are senses of action will detect a signal needed for remote viewing? Have
you ever heard that with ears (sense of hearing) one may see and with eyes (sense
of viewing), one may listen?
Vimal: We need just information
somehow to enter in a mind-brain system; all NNs are interacted; some short and
direct pathways and some long pathways. All external information is transduced
thru respective receptors into neural signals. Yes,synesthetescan
see auditory information.
Sehgal: Anyhow, in the state of Samaadhi all the external
sense organs (which has been wrongly interpreted as senses) stop working due to
the withdrawal of the consciousness. The way in a very deep sleep, all the
external sense systems stop working, similarly in deep samaadhi also, all the
external sense organs don't work.
Astral body and Astral worlds are not the parts of the mind
body system. Please stop making wild speculations. There is nothing like the
mind brain system with the birth of mind from the physical brain (materialism)
or from some inseparable mental aspects with the brain particles (eDAM). Mind
and brain are different and distinct structural entities -- mind being an
element ( organ) of the astral body while brain being an organ in the physical
body. However, at the functional level, they work as one aggregate. This
framework is not a part of any speculative hypothesis but an subjectively
empirically verified observation in the state of Samaadhi and
that too in reproducible manner. Therefore, no room for any other speculation
for the mind brain system..
From the spatial point of view, the Astral and Causal worlds
are very much here where the physical world is located. What is the distance
between e.,m radiations and gravitation? or what is the distance between space
and e.m radiations?
Visualize a spherical shell having 4 concentric spheres. The
outermost shell is the cosmic consciousness in which all the other 3 shell are
immersed. Next shell ( from outer side) is the Causal world which itself is
immersed in the cosmic consciousness but other two shells viz Astral and causal
worlds are located within it. Next shell is the Astral world which is located
in the Causal world and the cosmic consciousness but the shell of the
physical world is immersed in it. The innermost shell is that of our physical
world which is located in all other 2 worlds viz Astral and causal and cosmic
consciousness. This is an analogy and can't be taken in the literal sense but
it will give you some broad idea as to where the astral and causal worlds are
located.
Vimal: Analogy is not enough;
you need to describe in detail.
Query: Why do you always favor easy but problematic
dualism and easy but very mysterious God theory? For example, dualistic Sāṅkhya has 9 serious problems that cannot be
resolved. It would better to use useful concepts of Sāṅkhya into monistic down-to-earth systems, such
as atheist eDAM first. Why do you like to always fly in the sky for your
wishful thinking and make thing mysterious and problematic and keep on
defending the problematic metaphysics? It makes no sense to me and it is simply
waste of time. This is because once you assume OOO-God theory then there is
nothing to research because God is OOO and He can do everything without
revealing any mechanism to us. This is the dead-end and not an interesting
framework.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 12:55 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. Ram,
Thanks.
What a senseless wild speculations you make for explaining the ESP phenomenon of clairvoyance by a person( Yogi) when he can see a remote object with his eyes closed!
First, you indicated that all the paranormal phenomenon are within 5 senses, When I pointed out that with the Yogi's eyes closed, how the signal of e.m radiations of visible light will enter his eyes? Then you speculated that this may be due to correlation from entanglement. When I pointed out for the entanglement of both the systems should be in the close vicinity, Now you have made a quite wild and senseless speculation that other 9 senses of the Yogi in samaadhi will be opened? But while proposing this wild speculation, did you not think that how other 4 senses of perception viz hearing, taste, touch, smell, ( other 5 senses are senses of action) will detect a signal for viewing?
Have you ever heard that with ears (sense of hearing) one may see and with eyes(sense of viewing), one may listen?
Anyhow, in the state of Samaadhi all the external sense organs ( which has been wrongly interpreted as senses) stop working due to the withdrawal of the consciousness.The way in a very deep sleep, all the external sense systems stop working, similarly in deep samaadhi also, all the external sense organs don't work.
Astral body and Astral worlds are not the parts of the mind body system. Please stop making wild speculations. There is nothing like the mind brain system with the birth of mind from the physical brain ( materialism) or from some inseparable mental aspects with the brain particles (eDAM). Mind and brain are different and distinct structural entities -- mind being an element ( organ) of the astral body while brain being an organ in the physical body. However, at the functional level, they work as one aggregate. This framework is not a part of any speculative hypothesis but an subjectively empirically verified observation in the state of Samaadhi and that too in reproducible manner. Therefore, no room for any other speculation for the mind brain system..
From the spatial point of view, the Astral and Causal worlds are very much here where the physical world is located. What is the distance between e.,m radiations and gravitation? or what is the distance between space and e.m radiations?
Visualize a spherical shell having 4 concentric spheres. The outermost shell is the cosmic consciousness in which all the other 3 shell are immersed. Next shell ( from outer side) is the Causal world which itself is immersed in the cosmic consciousness but other two shells viz Astral and causal worlds are located within it. Next shell is the Astral world which is located in the Causal world and the cosmic consciousness but the shell of the physical world is immersed in it. The innermost shell is that of our physical world which is located in all other 2 worlds viz Astral and causal and cosmic consciousness. This is an analogy and can't be taken in the literal sense but it will give you some broad idea as to where the astral and causal worlds are located.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
Regards.
Vinod sehgal
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Yes, in the entanglement, we need to prepare the systems first as in anti-correlated electrons in quantum EPR-type experiments. This may not work in remote viewing at Samādhi state with eye closed. In your example, other 9 Indriyas are not shut down. Physical information from remote objects can still propagate at v≤c. In addition, TMS (trans-cranial magnetic stimulation), magnetic have effects in the brain. Another possibility is somewhat similar to astral world information transfer, except the astral world is a part of mental aspect of a state of a mind-brain system in the eDAM and physical information transfer at v≤c.
You vaguely mentioned thatSāṅkhya’s astral world is very close (within less than micro-cm) to NNs inside the brain; its location is still not clear; the astral world may be related to parallel worlds, dimensions other than 3D+1, Planck level information transfer, etc. I can answer better if you can clarify the location of astral, causal, and manifested worlds of dualistic Sāṅkhya. They seem to be useful concepts and I would like to interpret them in the atheist eDAM.
Query: Why do you always favor easy but problematic dualism and easy but very mysterious God theory? For example, dualistic Sāṅkhya has 9 serious problems that cannot be resolved. It would better to use useful concepts of Sāṅkhya into monistic down-to-earth systems, such as atheist eDAM first. Why do you like to always fly in the sky for your wishful thinking and make thing mysterious and problematic and keep on defending the problematic metaphysics? It makes no sense to me and it is simply waste of time. This is because once you assume OOO-God theory then there is nothing to research because God is OOO and He can do everything without revealing any mechanism to us. This is the dead-end and not an interesting framework.
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)
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.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
In 1977, after the U.S. Navy had spent $125 million determining both the depth to which em penetrates seawater, and the bit rate of transmission (how much information can be gotten across in a period of time) I carried out a study, Deep Quest, using a submarine specifically to test the em hypothesis. It completed a line of research begun in the USSR by physiologist Leonid Vasiliev and, in the process, also refuted a 1973 hypothesis advanced by Canadian researcher Michael Persinger who had proposed that nonlocal consciousness involved ELF transmission.
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)
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.
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)
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I see no reason to thin that the alternations are of any interest to the outside world. They are just an artefact of the temporal co-ordination of parts of a brain. The rhythms have no information content. They are a bit like the noise of looms in a mill. Close to a loom you hear a regular rhythm. A bit further away you hear a cacophony of muddled rhythms. And neither tells you anything at all about what the colours of the threads being woven are, or the patterns coming out on the cloth.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Jo E
You are right. One has to worry about the nature of brain
waves. Any alteration of potential can not be static in time. Any time
variation produces both local changes in fields ( which fall off
faster than inverse square) as well as radiation which obeys inverse
square fall off. So radiation however small has to be there, I think.
Recent progresses in this field are :using pattern
recognition to be able to read alphabets and face profiles from brain
waves.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Jo E, Kashyap
The fluctuations or alternations are of interest to the outside world
and have been interpreted in terms of alphabets or group of words ( M.
Kaku's last book ) or faces of humans or monkeys (see Barrie Urie).
That is the reason for all the excitement. If you are
not convinced, maybe you can give your reasons.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Panchu,
The reason is that the fluctuations measured by EEG electrodes are entirely an artefact of having detectors approximately 1-2cm away from cerebral cortex.
If you measure further in, as with needle recordings, you get quite a different pattern. If you go any further out you get no pattern at all. That is not to do with the inverse square law. It is to do with the fact that the radio frequency photons emitted have such long wavelengths that there is no possibility of ‘focusing’ them as with an optical system and without that all the photons from all the areas of cortex jumble up to produce pure noise. Moreover, as indicated before, the fluctuations are themselves irrelevant. What people have been studying is relative electrical activity in different cortical areas. The fluctuations are a crude reflection of the increased activity and of no interest in themselves.
To go back to my analogy of the mill with looms. The recent studies are a bit like wiring up microphones a foot above each loom in the factory. The supervisor can tell what cloth patterns are being produced if she looks at a printout of the noise picked up by each microphone and she knows from previous calibration which microphone is attached to which loom and what pattern of cloth that loom is programmed to produce.
In the case of face recognition, the researchers may be able to predict what face is being thought about if they attach electrodes to the skull surface and calibrate the features handled by each area of cortex by showing the individual specific face types beforehand and then interpreting the patterns achieved with viewing a new face on the basis of look up tables based on the prior calibration. If they move the electrodes around a little bit they will have to re-calibrate all over again.
So absolutely nothing relevant about a person’s experiences can be known or experienced by someone else even using detectors stuck on the skull unless there is precise previous calibration against previous reports by that individual. Absolutely nothing like alphabets or words is being broadcast to the outside world. And anybody more than ten centimetres away from the thinking head will just receive jumbled noise, as said before.
Anyone excited about this needs some lessons in basic physics and common sense I think!!
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D., jsar...@aol.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
The communicative units (they can be called Electro-magnetic energy units, EE units) related to paranormal phenomena are just beneath the range of matter. They are, in a sense, electromagnetic, but they are the source of electromagnetism. They follow their own patterns of activity. Consciousness actually produces these emanations, and they are the basis for any kind of perception, both sensory in usual terms and extrasensory.
These emanations can also appear as sounds, and we will be able to translate them into sound before you actually discover their meaning.
"The fluctuations or alternations are of interest to the outside world and have been interpreted in terms of alphabets or group of words ( M. Kaku's last book ) or faces of humans or monkeys (see Barrie Urie)."
So, you see, they are fixated on the wrong fluctuations. One of the reasons this is so is because the emanations are cleverly camouflaged within all structures. Being just beyond the range of matter, having a structure but a nonphysical one, and being of a pulsating nature, they can expand or contract. They can completely envelop, for example, one small cell, or retract into the nucleus. They combine qualities of a unit and a field, in other words.
There is a reason they remain a secret from Western science. Intensity governs not only their activity and size, but the relative strength of their magnetic nature. They will draw other such units to them , according to the intensity of the emotional tone of the particular consciousness at any given point.
The units obviously change constantly. If we must speak in terms of size, then they change in size constantly as they expand and contract. They give off thermal qualities, and these are the only hints that science has received of them so far.
They are emitted by cells, but for a simple example, consider these units as they are related to a rock. The rock is composed of atoms and molecules, each with their own consciousness. This forms a gestalt rock consciousness. These units are sent out indiscriminately by the various atoms and molecules, but portions of them are also directed by the overall rock consciousness. The units are sent out, informing the rock as to the nature of its changing environment: the angle of the sun and temperature changes as night falls; and even in the rock's case they change as the rock's loosely called emotional tone changes.
They constantly emanate out from the rock and return to it in a motion so swift it would seem simultaneous. The units meet with, and to some extent merge with, other units sent out from foliage and other objects. There is constant blending, attraction and repulsion.
It is these electromagnetic-like structures that are presently beyond our present scientific instruments, units that are the basic carriers of all perceptions, normal and paranormal.
Don't say no one ever told you : )
"So whenever the stream of vision is surrounded by midday light, it flows out like unto like,(#)1 and coalescing therewith it forms one kindred substance along the path of the eyes' vision, wheresoever the fire which streams from within collides with an obstructing object without. And this substance, having all become similar in its properties because of its similar nature,...(Timaeus 45c)
"#1 Vision is explained on the principle that “like is known by like”: a fire-stream issuing from the eye meets a fire-stream coming from the object of vision ( Cf. the view of Empedocles)."
Vasavada, Kashyap V
unread,
Jul 23, 2017, 9:56:02 AM7/23/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Hi Panchu,
I do not know enough about telepathy experiments to argue one way or other. If these are due to electromagnetic waves, it should be easy to rule out by shielding. I understand some experiments have been already done and e.m. waves have been ruled out. If I am not mistaken, Dean Radin has mentioned this. Some people suggest entanglement. That is independent of distance and difficult to rule out. This will be interesting topic for this group to discuss.
Regards.
Kashyap
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Sunday, 23 July 2017 8:04 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Respected Dr Ram,
Thanks
Sehgal: It is from Tanmātras of the astral world that Pancha Mahābhutas (all the baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces) manifest in some sequential order.
Vimal: How an electron and other 17 elementary particles are derived from 5 Tanmātras? What is the mechanism of motion of an entity in the astral world?
Sehgal (22 July 2017):When you yourself will enter the Samādhi state in which the mechanism of the transformation from Tanmātras to atoms and molecules is observable. Answers to some things are directly available ready made and for something has to be understood and inferred. In the first step, instead of making the aforesaid query, you need to understand and get a conviction that in the Samādhi state mechanism of the transformation of Tanmātras to atoms/molecules is observable. Then how do you take, understand and interpret that mechanism will depend upon up to what extent the meditator, who has entered that state of samādhi, has the knowledge.
Vimal: You have failed to derive them. I interpret that what a yogi at SS/NS state reproducibly observes is simply SEs, similar to dreams;
In a hurry to arrive at some conclusion as conforming to your biased mindset, you forget even to differentiate between the basics of the dream state experiences and the Samaadhi state experiences which are quite obvious.
Are the dream state experiences reproducible? -- No. But Samaadhi state experiences are reproducible
Are the dream state experiences achievable voluntarily and willingly? - NO. But Samaadhi state experiences are achievable at will and voluntarily.
Is discriminative power of Buddhi available in dreams? -- NO. But in Samaadhi state, discriminative power is present in degrees higher than even in the wakeful conscious state
Is the level of consciousness higher in dreams than the wakeful conscious state? NO, it is at much lower level - a state of the sub-conscious state. Samaadhi state experiences are the states of super -consciousness states at levels much much higher than that of the wakeful conscious state.
Do experiences appear real in the dream conscious state Vs the wakeful conscious state? Both appear equally real in the respective states.
Do experiences in the Samaadhi state are real Vs wakeful conscious state? Both appear equally real.
Does dream conscious state appear unreal in the dream
conscious state: No, it appears equally real as the wakeful state
When the dream conscious state appear unreal? When the consciousness reverts back to the wakeful conscious state.
Does the wakeful conscious state appear unreal in the wakeful state? No, it appears quite real and concrete.
Is there any conscious state when the wakeful conscious state
appears unreal? YES, Samaadhi conscious state is the state when the wakeful conscious state.
From the above analysis, one can easily infer that Samaadhi state is real even more than the wakeful conscious state but in your shortsightedness, you are equating it with the dream conscious state!
Before arriving at conclusions, you should apply your mind properly. There should be no hurry for arriving at conclusions without complete consideration.
Now you please respond in a systematic and sequential manner to the aforesaid issues how Samadhi state experiences are equal to the dream conscious state in the light of above observations.
each of which has NCC within a mind-brain system.
No, Samaadhi state should not have any NCC since it is the state of superconsciousness and state of superconsciousness is achievable when consciousness gets rid of the shackles of the body/brain. Consciousness is neither produced from the body/brain ( materialism) nor manifests from some hypothetical mental aspect with the brain particles( eDAM). On the contrary, brain, and body limit the manifestation of the consciousness. That is why in the deep sleep and coma, manifestation of the consciousness is at the minimal level
There is no way one can derive 18 elementary particles from Tanmātras. Thus, dualistic Sāṅkhya that has now 10 serious problems must be rejected.
You should have done your homework as suggested. But you are arriving at biased conclusions hurriedly without doing your homework. This is an unscientific approach.
Please see my comments on this issue in another email also sent today
You seem to be in very hurry to arrive at biased conclusions without proper considerations and doing the full home work. You have maintained your silence on my following suggestions
"You want the answers to the above big questions in an email discussion without making serious efforts. If you are serious enough why don't you read the two books by Swamiji as already recommended by me? Part understanding, you may get by reading the books and part understanding +, you may get by reading the books and part understanding you may get,'
And
"In the first step, instead of making the aforesaid query, you need to understand and get a conviction that in the Samādhi state mechanism of the transformation of Tanmātras to atoms/molecules is observable"
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Sehgal: It is from Tanmātras of the astral world that Pancha Mahābhutas (all the baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces) manifest in some sequential order.
Vimal: How an electron and other 17 elementary particles are derived from 5 Tanmātras? What is the mechanism of motion of an entity in the astral world?
Sehgal (22 July 2017):When you yourself will enter the Samādhi state in which the mechanism of the transformation from Tanmātras to atoms and molecules is observable. Answers to some things are directly available ready made and for something has to be understood and inferred. In the first step, instead of making the aforesaid query, you need to understand and get a conviction that in the Samādhi state mechanism of the transformation of Tanmātras to atoms/molecules is observable. Then how do you take, understand and interpret that mechanism will depend upon up to what extent the meditator, who has entered that state of samādhi, has the knowledge.
Vimal: You have failed to derive them. I interpret that what a yogi at SS/NS state reproducibly observes is simply SEs, similar to dreams; each of which has NCC within a mind-brain system. There is no way one can derive 18 elementary particles from Tanmātras. Thus, dualistic Sāṅkhya that has now 10 serious problems must be rejected.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Saturday, 22 July 2017 4:05 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Respected Dr, Ram,
Thanks
Let us closely understand the astral world in a step-by-step manner.
Sehgal: It is from Tanmātras of the astral world that Pancha Mahābhutas (all the baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces) manifest in some sequential order.
Vimal: How an electron and other 17 elementary particles are derived from 5 Tanmātras? What is the mechanism of motion of an entity in the astral world?
YOu want the answers to the above big questions in an email discussion without making serious efforts. If you are serious enough why don't you read the two books by Swamiji as already recommended by me? Part understanding, you may get by reading the books and part understanding you may get, when you yourself will enter the Samaadhi state in which the mechanism of the transformation
from Tanmaatras to atoms/molecules is observable. Answers to some things are directly available ready made and for something has to be understood and inferred.
In the first step, instead of making the aforesaid query, you need
to understand and get a conviction that in the Samaadhi state
mechanism of the transformation of Tanmaatras to atoms/molecules is observable. Then how do you take, understand and interpret that mechanism will depend upon
up to what extent the meditator, who has entered that state of samaadhi, has the knowledge.
Regards.
Vinod sehgal
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Let us closely understand the astral world in a step-by-step manner.
Sehgal: It is from Tanmātras of the astral world that Pancha Mahābhutas (all the baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces) manifest in some sequential order.
Vimal: How an electron and other 17 elementary particles are derived from 5 Tanmātras? What is the mechanism of motion of an entity in the astral world?
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 3:30 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Continuation of my prev email;
Sehgal: In the state of Samādhi all the external sense organs stop working in analogy to very deep sleep.
From the spatial point of view, the astral and causal worlds are very much here where the physical world is located. What is the distance between E.M. radiations and gravitation? Or what is the distance between space and E.M. radiations? Visualize a spherical shell having 4 concentric spheres. The outermost shell is the cosmic consciousness in which all the other 3 shell are immersed. Next shell (from outer side) is the causal world, which itself is immersed in the cosmic consciousness but other two shells viz. astral and causal worlds are located within it. Next shell is the astral world which is located in the causal world and the cosmic consciousness but the shell of the physical world is immersed in it. The innermost shell is that of our physical world which is located in all other 2 worlds viz. astral and causal and cosmic consciousness. This is an analogy and can’t be taken in the literal sense but it will give you some broad idea as to where the astral and causal worlds are located.
Vimal: Analogy is not enough; you need to describe in detail to make sense these worlds. There is no physical space between shells, which are not physically concentric because physical universe is infinite and it will contradict the hypothesis that these worlds are within mirco-cm distance from each neuron of every living entity. Thus, they cannot be physically and temporally separated. Thus, the only way it makes sense is that astral, causal, and Chetan bodies are the three inseparable sub-aspects of the mental aspect of a state of a living entity. Since astral and causal bodies are not conscious, they should be parts of functional sub-aspect and the Cheten body is the experiential sub-aspect of the mental aspect. The separability need be interpreted in terms of the degree of manifestation. In other words, if soul leaves astral and causal bodies after Moksha and enters into CC (Chetan worlds), the degree of manifestation of astral and causal sub-aspect becomes latent. In this way, the 9 problems of dualistic Sāṅkhya can be addressed when we properly interpret it in terms of the eDAM framework.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 1:25 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Sehgal: However, how other 4 senses of perception viz. hearing,
taste, touch, smell, and other 5
senses are senses of action will detect a signal needed for remote viewing? Have
you ever heard that with ears (sense of hearing) one may see and with eyes (sense
of viewing), one may listen?
Vimal: We need just information
somehow to enter in a mind-brain system; all NNs are interacted; some short and
direct pathways and some long pathways. All external information is transduced
thru respective receptors into neural signals. Yes,synesthetescan
see auditory information.
Sehgal: Anyhow, in the state of Samaadhi all the external
sense organs (which has been wrongly interpreted as senses) stop working due to
the withdrawal of the consciousness. The way in a very deep sleep, all the
external sense systems stop working, similarly in deep samaadhi also, all the
external sense organs don't work.
Astral body and Astral worlds are not the parts of the mind
body system. Please stop making wild speculations. There is nothing like the
mind brain system with the birth of mind from the physical brain (materialism)
or from some inseparable mental aspects with the brain particles (eDAM). Mind
and brain are different and distinct structural entities -- mind being an
element ( organ) of the astral body while brain being an organ in the physical
body. However, at the functional level, they work as one aggregate. This
framework is not a part of any speculative hypothesis but an subjectively
empirically verified observation in the state of Samaadhi and
that too in reproducible manner. Therefore, no room for any other speculation
for the mind brain system..
From the spatial point of view, the Astral and Causal worlds
are very much here where the physical world is located. What is the distance
between e.,m radiations and gravitation? or what is the distance between space
and e.m radiations?
Visualize a spherical shell having 4 concentric spheres. The
outermost shell is the cosmic consciousness in which all the other 3 shell are
immersed. Next shell ( from outer side) is the Causal world which itself is
immersed in the cosmic consciousness but other two shells viz Astral and causal
worlds are located within it. Next shell is the Astral world which is located
in the Causal world and the cosmic consciousness but the shell of the
physical world is immersed in it. The innermost shell is that of our physical
world which is located in all other 2 worlds viz Astral and causal and cosmic
consciousness. This is an analogy and can't be taken in the literal sense but
it will give you some broad idea as to where the astral and causal worlds are
located.
Vimal: Analogy is not enough;
you need to describe in detail.
Query: Why do you always favor easy but problematic
dualism and easy but very mysterious God theory? For example, dualistic Sāṅkhya has 9 serious problems that cannot be
resolved. It would better to use useful concepts of Sāṅkhya into monistic down-to-earth systems, such
as atheist eDAM first. Why do you like to always fly in the sky for your
wishful thinking and make thing mysterious and problematic and keep on
defending the problematic metaphysics? It makes no sense to me and it is simply
waste of time. This is because once you assume OOO-God theory then there is
nothing to research because God is OOO and He can do everything without
revealing any mechanism to us. This is the dead-end and not an interesting
framework.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 12:55 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. Ram,
Thanks.
What a senseless wild speculations you make for explaining the ESP phenomenon of clairvoyance by a person( Yogi) when he can see a remote object with his eyes closed!
First, you indicated that all the paranormal phenomenon are within 5 senses, When I pointed out that with the Yogi's eyes closed, how the signal of e.m radiations of visible light will enter his eyes? Then you speculated that this may be due to correlation from entanglement. When I pointed out for the entanglement of both the systems should be in the close vicinity, Now you have made a quite wild and senseless speculation that other 9 senses of the Yogi in samaadhi will be opened? But while proposing this wild speculation, did you not think that how other 4 senses of perception viz hearing, taste, touch, smell, ( other 5 senses are senses of action) will detect a signal for viewing?
Have you ever heard that with ears (sense of hearing) one may see and with eyes(sense of viewing), one may listen?
Anyhow, in the state of Samaadhi all the external sense organs ( which has been wrongly interpreted as senses) stop working due to the withdrawal of the consciousness.The way in a very deep sleep, all the external sense systems stop working, similarly in deep samaadhi also, all the external sense organs don't work.
Astral body and Astral worlds are not the parts of the mind body system. Please stop making wild speculations. There is nothing like the mind brain system with the birth of mind from the physical brain ( materialism) or from some inseparable mental aspects with the brain particles (eDAM). Mind and brain are different and distinct structural entities -- mind being an element ( organ) of the astral body while brain being an organ in the physical body. However, at the functional level, they work as one aggregate. This framework is not a part of any speculative hypothesis but an subjectively empirically verified observation in the state of Samaadhi and that too in reproducible manner. Therefore, no room for any other speculation for the mind brain system..
From the spatial point of view, the Astral and Causal worlds are very much here where the physical world is located. What is the distance between e.,m radiations and gravitation? or what is the distance between space and e.m radiations?
Visualize a spherical shell having 4 concentric spheres. The outermost shell is the cosmic consciousness in which all the other 3 shell are immersed. Next shell ( from outer side) is the Causal world which itself is immersed in the cosmic consciousness but other two shells viz Astral and causal worlds are located within it. Next shell is the Astral world which is located in the Causal world and the cosmic consciousness but the shell of the physical world is immersed in it. The innermost shell is that of our physical world which is located in all other 2 worlds viz Astral and causal and cosmic consciousness. This is an analogy and can't be taken in the literal sense but it will give you some broad idea as to where the astral and causal worlds are located.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
Regards.
Vinod sehgal
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Yes, in the entanglement, we need to prepare the systems first as in anti-correlated electrons in quantum EPR-type experiments. This may not work in remote viewing at Samādhi state with eye closed. In your example, other 9 Indriyas are not shut down. Physical information from remote objects can still propagate at v≤c. In addition, TMS (trans-cranial magnetic stimulation), magnetic have effects in the brain. Another possibility is somewhat similar to astral world information transfer, except the astral world is a part of mental aspect of a state of a mind-brain system in the eDAM and physical information transfer at v≤c.
You vaguely mentioned thatSāṅkhya’s astral world is very close (within less than micro-cm) to NNs inside the brain; its location is still not clear; the astral world may be related to parallel worlds, dimensions other than 3D+1, Planck level information transfer, etc. I can answer better if you can clarify the location of astral, causal, and manifested worlds of dualistic Sāṅkhya. They seem to be useful concepts and I would like to interpret them in the atheist eDAM.
Query: Why do you always favor easy but problematic dualism and easy but very mysterious God theory? For example, dualistic Sāṅkhya has 9 serious problems that cannot be resolved. It would better to use useful concepts of Sāṅkhya into monistic down-to-earth systems, such as atheist eDAM first. Why do you like to always fly in the sky for your wishful thinking and make thing mysterious and problematic and keep on defending the problematic metaphysics? It makes no sense to me and it is simply waste of time. This is because once you assume OOO-God theory then there is nothing to research because God is OOO and He can do everything without revealing any mechanism to us. This is the dead-end and not an interesting framework.
Kind regards,
Rām
BMP
unread,
Jul 23, 2017, 4:33:00 PM7/23/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jo
Namaste. You have offered a very nice metaphor to explain what I call the significance of correlationism. I wrote about the exact same theme in my message to this group in May and posted to the web as Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology to explain how correlationsim can be used to describe even phrenology or astrology. It does not really provide a valid scientific basis for or understanding of anything.
Also, I hope the irony is not lost when discussing how a monkey brain can be used to describe how human brains detect faces using correlationism.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Jo.
How does one explain the typewriters now available, which will type
the alphabets you are thinking about, after initial calibration.
(Read M.Kaku's book and other sources)
Some information is definitely being communicated.
Do you disagree with that ? The medium of communication is em field.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Kashyap, Vinod, others interested
I had also read several years ago that MIT has ruled out em
waves for telepathy. I do not know what form of telepathy they
studied. Further experiments will certainly help.
In the cases I mentioned about Hans Berger's sister and S.
Radhakrishnan the evidence is convincing for telepathy. Whether it is
due to enhanced and explosive activity of brain waves, like I am
suggesting, certainly, requires much further observation like they
seem to be doing now at UC Berkeley and other places before general
acceptance.
Enlightened persons often go deep into themselves, get
detached, and obtain guidance for their decisions. If they are getting
in touch with Brahman, then one can ask the question, whether the
communication is by a force subject to science or outside it (one can
call it "extra sensory"). Science should try to explore this if
possible. I do not think Nature or God violates his or her own rules.
If the force is a scientific one it has to respect constraints like
speed of light and causality to the extent we know it.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Its a good point BMP.
My PhD Student Ramesh Rao Narayana completed his PhD on the influence of astrological conditions on microbiological phenomena, including animal vaccinations and microbial growth (two kinds of bacteria, and three kinds of virus). We published an explanation for the phenomena in terms of criticality and quantum correlations generated by the collapse of the solar system.
The overall conclusions were, (1) astrological phenomena occur in every planetary system influencing every instability at the Edge of Chaos, and (2) metabolic processes in every cell in every organism on earth are influenced by the various planets and other bodies orbiting the sun. Mostly the planets. (Several other systematic effects were noted. His paper on eclipses won a Best in Conference award!.
We are now developing further tests, with the aim of studying the metabolic effects in detail.
On 24 July 2017 at 02:00, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Jo
Namaste. You have offered a very nice metaphor to explain what I call the significance of correlationism. I wrote about the exact same theme in my message to this group in May and posted to the web as Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology to explain how correlationsim can be used to describe even phrenology or astrology. It does not really provide a valid scientific basis for or understanding of anything.
Also, I hope the irony is not lost when discussing how a monkey brain can be used to describe how human brains detect faces using correlationism.
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 9:54 AM Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
Dear Panchu,
The reason is that the fluctuations measured by EEG electrodes are entirely an artefact of having detectors approximately 1-2cm away from cerebral cortex.
If you measure further in, as with needle recordings, you get quite a different pattern. If you go any further out you get no pattern at all. That is not to do with the inverse square law. It is to do with the fact that the radio frequency photons emitted have such long wavelengths that there is no possibility of ‘focusing’ them as with an optical system and without that all the photons from all the areas of cortex jumble up to produce pure noise. Moreover, as indicated before, the fluctuations are themselves irrelevant. What people have been studying is relative electrical activity in different cortical areas. The fluctuations are a crude reflection of the increased activity and of no interest in themselves.
To go back to my analogy of the mill with looms. The recent studies are a bit like wiring up microphones a foot above each loom in the factory. The supervisor can tell what cloth patterns are being produced if she looks at a printout of the noise picked up by each microphone and she knows from previous calibration which microphone is attached to which loom and what pattern of cloth that loom is programmed to produce.
In the case of face recognition, the researchers may be able to predict what face is being thought about if they attach electrodes to the skull surface and calibrate the features handled by each area of cortex by showing the individual specific face types beforehand and then interpreting the patterns achieved with viewing a new face on the basis of look up tables based on the prior calibration. If they move the electrodes around a little bit they will have to re-calibrate all over again.
So absolutely nothing relevant about a person’s experiences can be known or experienced by someone else even using detectors stuck on the skull unless there is precise previous calibration against previous reports by that individual. Absolutely nothing like alphabets or words is being broadcast to the outside world. And anybody more than ten centimetres away from the thinking head will just receive jumbled noise, as said before.
Anyone excited about this needs some lessons in basic physics and common sense I think!!
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)
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.
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vimal
I am talking about scientific reasons. So, for example, NDEs don't count (I suspect these are conjured up like dreams as the brain shuts down or reboots anyway).
Prior to the recent experimental evidence of the Higgs boson and gravitational waves, you would probably agree that there was a lot of scientific reasons to think these things exist. When I say there are a lot of scientific reasons to believe
consciousness survives the death of our body, I am thinking along similar lines.
The reason we were so confident about the existence of the Higgs was because it was predicted by our most successful explanation for quantum phenomena (the Standard Model). The reason I am so confident that our consciousness could survive the death
of our bodies is because that is predicted by the most scientific account of its designlike organisation. That explanation is derived in my book The Blind Mindmaker and is too complex to do justice in an email. However, let me try to give you some idea of
why I claim it to be most scientific. Then I'll explain why it suggests our consciousness lives on.
The one thing we can say with absolute certainty about our consciousness is that it has a highly organised structure that appears perfectly designed to represent the information it encodes in a way that evaluates it in terms of how it is likely
to affect the survival chances of our genes. Every other example of such designlike perfection in nature that has been explained by science is accounted for as a product of Darwinian natural selection. So we should expect the same to be true of the organisation
in human consciousness. Crucially though, that same form of explanation does not apply to the media that have become organised. The existence of the matter that has become arranged to form a biological organism is ultimately not a product of natural selection,
but a result of the laws and initial conditions of the universe (or at least the conditions at some previous time) and the time that has gone by. And we should expect the same to apply to the media that has become arranged to represent information in human
consciousness - in other words, our consciousness and qualia. To cut a long story short, a Darwinian explanation for that perfect organisation requires consciousness and qualia to have physical influences, which operated even before those qualia became organised
to represent any biological structure. In other words, it means consciousnesses could exist in unorganised structures. And as my book shows, it also requires that our consciousness be freely choosing the position of its influence in a way that was statistically
biased by the qualia it experiences.
The most parsimonious way to satisfy this criterion is for a consciousness to actually be the essence of what in physics we call a particle (its pattern of qualia being essentially that particle's wave function). And since most of the particles
in your brain don't fall apart when the brain stops working (the smaller molecules even survive its decay), we therefore have every scientific reason to think that we will also survive our brain's death. But as I said, we clearly have no scientific reason
to think that the experiences we are going to get afterwards are going to be organised to represent anything biological (and certainly not neurological phenomena like thoughts and memories). We would have to be adapted to exactly the same role in another intelligent
organism, and there isn't much chance of that (Which is why I think the sort of resurrection offered by Christ is our only hope).
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
>The communicative units (they can be called Electro-magnetic energy
>units, EE units) related to paranormal phenomena are just beneath the
>range of matter. They are, in a sense, electromagnetic, but they are the
>source of electromagnetism. They follow their own patterns of activity.
>Consciousness actually produces these emanations, and they are the
>basis for any kind of perception, both sensory in usual terms and
>extrasensory.
.
[S.P.] It is only a pity that all the above statements are nothing but the elements of concrete person's belief system. A belief system -- it is what requires no proofs. I still wait when we come from stating own beliefs to explaining something.
.
[Joseph McCard] wrote:
> The rock is composed of atoms and molecules, each with their
>own consciousness.
.
[S.P.] Another meta-theoretical statement which requires no proofs. I would only like to remark that the doctrine of panpsychism is antiscientific -- no effective theory of consciousness can be constructed within its limits. The entropic characteristic of the system{atom} is not sufficiently low for the effect of self-organization to appear -- there is no reduction of own entropy through dealing with physical signals and transforming them into new elements of experience. Therefore, the atom (as well as vacuum cleaners and coffee-pots) DOES NOT possess consciousness. The only complex system which we know for sure that does possess consciousness is a living organism.
.
[Joseph McCard] wrote:
>It is these electromagnetic-like structures that are presently beyond
>our present scientific instruments, units that are the basic carriers
>of all perceptions, normal and paranormal.
.
[S.P.] For the effect of telepathy to be explained, we have to use specially developed explanatory tools. (To the point, these same explanatory tools can be used also to account for the effect of nonlocal entanglement.) We will explain nothing just by stating own beliefs and inventing/postulating such "entities" as "carriers of all perceptions", "emanations", or "communicative units".
.
[Joseph McCard] on July 23, 2017 wrote:
> Emotion is energy in motion.
.
[S.P.] First. Energy cannot move, since it is not a material thing -- please, consult a school Physics textbook on what is a mechanical motion. Second. Emotion is a product of consciousness.
.
[Joseph McCard] wrote:
>Like energy attracts like energy
.
[S.P.] It sounds like a tale for the preschool kids: evil attracts another evil, and so on. However, as I suppose after reading other posts, the "adult kids" on this forum will be charmed by this tale.
.
[Joseph McCard] on July 23, 2017 wrote:
>Now this nothing which holds the beginning of the everything
>is what some people call God.
.
[S.P.] "Nothing" is "nothing". Since it is "nothing", therefore it cannot "hold" anything, "the beginning of everything" including. But I am really impressed by the level of absurdity of a conclusion made that "God is nothing", however, by definition, "nothing" should not even have a name.
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Physics Today and the US government’s quest for psychic powers
C. S. Morrison
unread,
Jul 24, 2017, 12:11:18 PM7/24/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Dear Serge
On 24 Jul 2017 14:35, you wrote
"The only complex system which we know for sure that does possess consciousness is a living organism."
I would like to point out that we are reasonably sure that a brain possesses consciousness and it is not a living organism (it is only part of one). You might think that this is a trivial observation but in the same way the universe is a complex
system and it also possesses at least one consciousness (my one). And I would also argue that since the data content of my brain at each moment in time is billions of times more than the data in my consciousness at that moment, we must be something that much
smaller than the brain (and for reasons given in my book, almost certainly confined to a very tiny region of neural tissue -though that does not affect this argument).
Now if I understand you rightly, you are really saying that the only complex system that we know to possess consciousness is that tiny weeny bit of a brain (however spread out it may be). For very logical reasons, I suspect that tiny region of
the brain to be the wave function of a single atom or molecule or some other single particle, position measurements of which have been adapted to trigger randomly selected shifts in attention.
The system confining the particle has evolved to shape its wave function in a way that encodes sensory and other neural outputs in sensory image like forms as a way of improving the efficiency of this attention-shifting process.
A form of panpsychism that I call psi-psychism (where a consciousness of a system arises with its isolation from other systems) appears to be implied by this theory. And in my view the explanatory power of this theory gives me every reason to think
it is correct.
But even without such a theory I think the very fact that our consciousness is a highly organised and highly complex example of a consciousness, gives us every reason to believe that simpler and less organised examples of such a thing exist.
We have no reason at present to posit a lower limit to the complexity of a consciousness. Since we cannot know of any other instances of consciousness because we cannot interrogate atoms verbally, the fact that we only know of this one instance is no reason
to doubt the existence of any of these other types.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
> .
> [Joseph McCard] wrote:
> >It is these electromagnetic-like structures that are presently beyond
> >our present scientific instruments, units that are the basic carriers
> >of all perceptions, normal and paranormal.
> .
> [S.P.] For the effect of telepathy to be explained, we have to use specially developed explanatory tools. (To the point, these same explanatory tools can be used also to account for the effect of nonlocal entanglement.) We will explain nothing just by stating
own beliefs and inventing/postulating such "entities" as "carriers of all perceptions", "emanations", or "communicative units".
> .
> [Joseph McCard] on July 23, 2017 wrote:
> > Emotion is energy in motion.
> .
> [S.P.] First. Energy cannot move, since it is not a material thing -- please, consult a school Physics textbook on what is a mechanical motion. Second. Emotion is a product of consciousness.
> .
> [Joseph McCard] wrote:
> >Like energy attracts like energy
> .
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to C. S. Morrison, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Colin,
Thanks.
I agree with you that NDEs/OBEs can be explained by the abnormal
functioning of TPJ (temporal-parietal junction), which may occur during NDEs.
I also agree that we have highly organized brain-structure
and functional and experiential sub-aspects of consciousness (Vimal, 2009b).
However, it is unclear why you need easy but problematic
substance dualism and/or idealism to explain it. They have serious problems as
elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010),
Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012),
and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013).
We can explain it thru down-to-earth atheist monistic eDAM that has least
number of problem and does not postulate the survival of self after physical
death.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
unread,
Jul 24, 2017, 1:29:12 PM7/24/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Vasavada, Kashyap V, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Thanks for your honesty. Please let us know at
least the derivation of water (H2O) from Tanmātras. If you do not
know, then please say so. In that case, please find out from some yogi.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 24 July 2017 1:06 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Respected Dr.Ram,
I don,t understand the context in which you have sent this email. What do you mean by how to derive them? If you want to say how elementary particles are derived from Tanmastras, yes I have never thought deeply over this issue and I don't know about this. I nether have the capacity to enter the type of Samaadhi in which Tanmaatras and the mechanism of their transformation to atoms, /molecules is visible nor do I know the details of the manifestation of each and every particle from some primordial field in the framework of the current physics. But this does not imply that so far none of Yogis has entered the Samaadhiss in which Tanmastras are visible and the process of the transformation of same into physical derivatives is visible.
Actually Yogis describe the conversion of Tanmaatras into respective Mahabhuttas and not into individual 17 elementary particles of modern Physics. They describe that Gandha, Rasa, Sapsrsha, Rupa and Shabda Tanmaatras are transformed to Pancha Mahabhuttas viz Prithvi, Jala, Vaayu, Agni and Aakash Mahabhuttas respectively. The Ist 3 Bhuttas viz Prithvi, Jala and Vaayu encompass all the matter in the baryonic form while Agni means all energy of 4 forces So there is no doubt that all the baryonic matter and energy of our physical universe manifests from Tanmaatras from the Astral World. But how individual elementary particles emanate from Tanmastras, either none of the Yogis has gone into such depths while observing the process of the transformation of Tanmastras to individual elementary particles in the state of Samasdhi or if any Yogi has gone to the depths of observing the transformation of Tanmastras into individual elementary particles and also described the same somewhere, I might not be aware.
Vinod Sehgal
Joseph McCard
unread,
Jul 24, 2017, 1:29:12 PM7/24/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D., jsar...@aol.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Panchu,
"...the communication is by a force subject to science or outside it (one can call it "extra sensory"). Science should try to explore this if
possible. I do not think Nature or God violates his or her own rules. If the force is a scientific one it has to respect constraints like
speed of light and causality to the extent we know it."
There are camouflaged electromagnetic-like structures that are presently beyond our present scientific instruments, units that are the basic
carriers of all perceptions, normal and paranormal. It is often the case that science, using new methods and techniques, discovers
new aspects of reality, EM waves, atomic nucleus, genes, cells, bacteria...
Please consider reading my post of last week, "The Camouflage Universe".
Instruments can be developed, but science is asking the wrong questions. So, for example, although the units are electromagnetic, they follow their own patterns of positive and negative charge, and their own laws of magnetism. The units are just beneath the range of physical matter. Their structure is beyond the range of EM qualities as science understands them. Consciousness produces these emanations and they are the basis for any kind of perception, both sensory and extrasensory.
I fully appreciate the skepticism, and I have no plans on trying to prove what I am saying, as proof is an overvalued concept, impossible in fact. I suggest you look to your own experiences. But I am happy to present a different perspective on the problem of subjectivity, one that fits with my experience, is understandable, simple and concise, and makes sense to me.
joe
C. S. Morrison
unread,
Jul 24, 2017, 4:42:48 PM7/24/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Vimal
They still aren't downloading but I'll try setting up an account with that username. That should work.
I am not convinced we need a separate physical side to matter. I think that is an illusion created by our experiences of touch and vision, and how they represent things (aggregates of interacting consciousnesses) that are outside our consciousness.
When we feel something hard that hardness - substance - is a subjective experience. In my theory it is a cumulative effect of billions of consciousnesses in a certain part of our brain that interact with us by placing a slight experience of touch and pressure
at a suitable place in our consciousness. We interact with them by positioning some combination of qualia somewhere in their consciousness in a way that is statistically influenced by the whole experience we are having at the time. And that is all there
is to it. The laws of physics are manifested in the type of experience each consciousness gives to others and the effect of each type of experience upon the probability of where each consciousness next chooses to locate its effect. What else is needed?
But getting back to the feeling of touch, which is largely responsible for the illusion that there is something other than experiencing consciousnesses out there, when this experience occurs in a constant or increasing way at the same place as
a feeling of pressure we get a sense of hardness. A faint presence and absence of this experience gives us our concepts of substantial and insubstantial.
The reason a ball bounces off of a table top is not because there is necessarily anything hard about the ball or tabletop. It is because the interacting consciousnesses making up the surface of the ball experience a sudden change in their qualia
caused by the interacting consciousnesses making up the tabletop. That change is a rapid decrease in the strength of the qualia favouring them choosing to place their effect closer to the table, and an appropriate increase in their tendency to place it elsewhere.
And when they do so they cause changes in the consciousnesses in other parts of the ball favouring them also locating their particle further from the table. I know that doesn't sound like classical mechanics. But we must remember that classical mechanics
is the cumulative effect of trillions of quantum interactions, and quantum interactions do sound rather like what I have described (to me anyway).
That said, I would be interested to know how your extended Dual Aspect Monism accounts not for the redness we experience when looking at a ripe tomato but the fact that this redness is ... well... ROUND. My theory has a very good explanation for
this roundness.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
Thanks. I have now given access to you thru your email
cs...@hotmail.co.uk for freely downloading all my articles.
The major problem of idealism and its variants is the explanatory gap problem (which is the reverse of materialism): how can matter-in-itself arise from the non-material consciousness?
The eDAM[i]
framework has five components, which are elaborated in the following five articles:
In the (eDAM), a state of our mind-brain system has the
inseparable 1pp-mental aspect (such as subjective experience redness when a trichromat looks at a ripe tomato) and 3pp-physical aspects (such as brain’s visual area V8-neural-network and its activities related
to redness). The degree of the manifestation of aspects from the primal entity (Brahman) varies with the level of states of our mind-brain system. [1pp: 1st
person perspective and 3pp: 3rd pp]. We have assumed that, in Nature, the subjective experiences
potentially co-exist with its
inseparable physical aspect. Here, the 1pp-mental aspect consists of superposed potential
basis-states related to the potential primary irreducible subjective experiences (SEs) representing the co-existence of the
potentiality of experiences for us. A specific SE is
realized by the matching and selection mechanism (see below). In other words, there are two robust reproducible sources of information 1pp and 3pp in our wakeful conscious life; this is empirical data that we
need to explain how they are linked. In the eDAM, the
doctrine of the inseparability of aspects tightly links these two sources of data.
The eDAM uses dual-mode and the matching and selection mechanisms to connect qualia/subjective experience (SE, such as redness when a trichromat
views a ripe tomato) to neurons: this is discussed in (Damasio, 2010). Briefly, there are two modes: stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-extrinsic-mode and cognitive-feedback-signals-related-intrinsic-mode. They interact
for conjugate matching and then the selection of a specific subjective experience occurs and experienced by the self(Northoff, 2014; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004).
For experiencing a specific SE, there are three major interacting signals: (i) stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signals, (ii) stimuli-related-memory-dependent
cognitive feedback (FB) signals, and (iii) self-related signal that is a part of reentrant FB signals. The
potential SEs are embedded as memory traces in FB signals during the developmental period.
The self (a) is the subjective experience of subject
(Pereira Jr., 2013; Radhakrishnan, 1960; Swami Krishnananda, 1983), (b) consists of proto-self, core-self, and autobiographical-self
(Pereira Jr., 2013; Pereira Jr., Vimal & Pregnolato, 2015; Vimal, 2013), and (c) is the 1pp-mental
aspect of a state of ‘self-related neural network (such as cortical and subcortical brain-stem midline structures:
(Vimal, 2015b)) and its activities (intrinsic activities).
The matching/interaction is between FF and FB signals (or mode if we use QED); then the self-related signals/modes interact with the resultant
signal/mode representing the matching between stimulus-related FF signal/mode and cognitive FB signals/mode; thus, there are interactions between the three major signals/modes; this interactive process can be called as ‘the specific SE is selected and experienced
by the self’.
The eDAM (extended dual-aspect monism) is NOT interactive substance dualism that has many problems. The physical aspect of a state of an
entity includes both its appearance and its intrinsic nature (entity-in-itself).
The 3pp-appearance of matter (such as color related V8-NN and its activities) and matter-in-itself (such as V8-NN-in-itself) are
inseparable and are parts of the physical aspect of a state of an entity (such as V8-NN for color). This physical aspect is
inseparable with 1pp-mental aspect (such as the experience redness when a trichromat views a ripe tomato) of the same state of the same entity (such as V8-NN for color). Therefore, the eDAM is a monist framework
because of the doctrine of inseparability. In dualism, aspects and/or sub-aspects are separable, for example, mind and matter can exist independently but they can interact; this metaphysics has serious problems.
In any case, we cannot ignore 99.99… % of our universe that we cannot ‘see’ or we do not know; they are also the manifestation of the primal
entity. I completely agree with idealists that all sciences and philosophy and everything we do in daily lives is in wakeful consciousness in mind-dependent reality (MDR).
We, as physicists, usually make models (such as relativity, QM, string theory, Standard Model such as mass, charge, and the spins of
17 elementary particles, QFT and so on) in MDR and
assume that they are for mind-independent reality (MIR) once we have some consensus. We do not know the intrinsic nature of matter-in-itself (although we have postulated mass, charge, and the spins of
17 elementary particles as their intrinsic nature) and consciousness-in-itself (Universal potential Consciousness: UPC), but we try our best in MDR to assume they might be
for MIR. We have hypothesized that experiences (such as redness, greenness, blueness, and so on) are quantized (Hameroff, email communication on 3/6/16) as excitations of UPC, in analogy to elementary particles are quantized modes of excitations of the quantum
field.
In my view, the fundamental reality is the dual-aspect potential field from which both physical and mental aspects co-arise, co-evolve
and co-develop and they co-exist and are
inseparable; same reality but with two
inseparable aspects: mental and physical.
One could argue that what ways the doctrine of inseparability different from the identity
theory, eliminativism, emergentism of materialism.
Materialists want to either eliminate experiences or try to create experiences from non-experiential matter (such as a brain). Thus, they
have a serious problem: how can they eliminate experiences when they are the main source of empirically reproducible 1pp-data? Or how can they create experiences from non-experiential matter that does not have a single trace of experience? The identity theory
and emergentism of materialism have a serious problem simply because their matter is non-experiential. An analogy: there is no way we can create oranges from apple seeds that do not have a single trace of orange.
In the eDAM, we use an alternative definition of matter that has the potentiality of
experiences and framed it in dual-aspect language to avoid category mistake. We postulate that a state of an entity has inseparable mental and physical aspect. The degree of manifestation of aspects varies
with an entity.
There are two concepts of the matter:
(i) First, the
Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, where matter has rūpa/form and has the
potentiality for experiences; it is used in our frameworks.
(ii) Second, the Kaṇāda-Democritus’
concept of matter (who identifies matter with atoms/particles), which implies that matter is non-experiential; it is used in science (such as physics, chemistry, and biology).
The second concept misleads materialistic biologists who make the grave mistake of following
non-experiential materialism that has serious unsolvable problems and hence cannot address the hard problem of consciousness
(Chalmers, 1995) because it does not explain about life, especially how experiences arise from non-experiential matter. Biologists who follow
Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter should not have such problems.
It is very simple if you want to create an experience from a brain, the brain as matter must have a
potential for creating experiences; otherwise, how can brain create experiences out of ‘nothing’. For example, apple seeds have a
potential to create apple tree; that is why apples can be created from apple seeds.
To sum up, let us make sure that we cannot create experiences from non-experiential non-mental matter that does not even have a single
trace of the potentiality of experiences. We cannot create apple out of orange seeds.
By the way, once you accept Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, then you are no more a materialist; you are a
dual-aspect-monist.
The frameworks, such as the extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM), that follow the first concept of matter do not face such problems
(Vimal, 2015).
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 24 July 2017 11:47 AM, C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Vimal
I don't appear to be able to access your links. Do I need to create a Google account? I have never heard of eDAM. Perhaps you could give me a quick summary.
My view is also monistic. I see it as the Real Physicalism of Galen Strawson - or perhaps even better it is what Frank Herbert called 'quantum animism'. It is idealistic but I do not see that as a disadvantage. In fact idealism is more parsimonious
than dualism (and I think non-experiential physicalism just ignores the experiential side of reality). For me there are only consciousnesses and aggregates of consciousnesses. And by the way, my theory does not postulate the survival of consciousness beyond
death. That is a consequence of its very defensible postulate that we are some tiny particle adapted to introduce randomness into our focus of attention. And my theory is also perfectly secular. However, its requirement that isolated quantum systems are
consciousnesses does imply that the universe has a consciousness that experiences everything within and can freely act in a way guided by that universal experience. I think it is unreasonable to think such a being would not experiment and act creatively as
it would be perfectly capable of doing. Hence, I find this form of theism more plausible than atheism.
But wouldn't such a being be interested in human civilization? It is by far the most sophisticated and unique thing happening in the universe, and we have so far no evidence it is happening elsewhere. Perhaps such a being would even try to
communicate with us. I can see no reason why it would not.
I agree with you that NDEs/OBEs can be explained by the abnormal functioning of TPJ (temporal-parietal junction), which may occur during NDEs.
I also agree that we have highly organized brain-structure and functional and experiential sub-aspects of consciousness
(Vimal, 2009b).
However, it is unclear why you need easy but problematic substance dualism and/or idealism to explain it. They have serious problems as elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal,
2010), Chapter 2 of
(Vimal, 2012), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). We can explain
it thru down-to-earth atheist monistic eDAM that has least number of problem and does not postulate the survival of self after physical death.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal
unread,
Jul 25, 2017, 4:14:09 AM7/25/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
This means, even after spending over 30 years in SAnkhya, you cannot even derive water from rasa (forget about elementary particles). You must understand that the onus is on you. This is your claim, not mine.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 24 July 2017 6:18 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dr. Ram wrote:
My query is how do you derive Rasa Tanmātra into Jala (water) without going to Samādhi state?
When don't you have any approach to Rasa Tanmaatra either thro any objective means or thru by the subjective means by going to the Samadhi state, how you can derive Jala Tattva ( water) in this physical world from Rasa Tanmaatra in the Astral world? Can you derive any effect without approaching its cause?
Can you derive it in our physical world? Do you know the mechanism? Tell us honestly.
If you do not know, can you find any yogi who can do it?
I had suggested you read comprehensively and systematically those two books of Swamiji. I am hopeful that you may get many new insights by reading those two books. I am not a Ph.D. scholar or some academician or read many books and philosophies, But just be reading those two books and contemplating over the same for many years, many insights took birth in me which now I share with you and others
My understanding is that as I wrote many times that the observation in Samādhi state is simply an experience, which does not mean you can really derive Tanmātras into any material entity such as Rasa Tanmātra into Jala (water) in our real physical world.
Above is your misconception borne out of short understanding and not coming across of some Yogi/Saint who has really entered the Astral/Causal world and the realm of cosmic consciousness. All the Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi and Indriyaas are the real ontological entities in the Astral world and our physical world is a manifestation from that astral world. In the state of samadhi, all these entities are clearly visible and their transformation to their physical aspects are also observable with a fair degree of detail. But I am not aware If any yogi has gone or can go to the extent of quark and electron level or not. Even if anyone has gone to depths of the transformation of Tanmaatras to the level of quarks and electron, I don;t know about that.
Regards
Vinod Sehgal
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
My query is how do you derive Rasa Tanmātra into Jala (water) without going to Samādhi state? Can you derive it in our physical world? Do you know the mechanism? Tell us honestly.
If you do not know, can you find any yogi who can do it?
My understanding is that as I wrote many times that the observation in Samādhi state is simply an experience, which does not mean you can really derive Tanmātras into any material entity such as Rasa Tanmātra into Jala (water) in our real physical world.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 24 July 2017 4:07 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Respected Dr. Ram,
Thanks.
A Yogi can see in the state of samadhi how Rasa Tanmaatra is being transformed to
Jala ( water). But if you want to find, how H and then O is being formed and how they are
being combined with different forces, I think, either some Yogis have not gone to that micro extent Or if they have really gone, either I might not have understood the same or might be unaware of the same. But this is sure that in the state of samadhi, how Rasa Tanmaatra is being transformed to Jala ( water) is visible.
I think, better you may study the two books of Swamiji as recommended. May be you could understand something about which I might not have understood.
Regards.
Vinod Sehgal
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Dear Vinod ji,
Thanks.
Thanks for your honesty. Please let us know at
least the derivation of water (H2O) from Tanmātras. If you do not
know, then please say so. In that case, please find out from some yogi.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 24 July 2017 1:06 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Respected Dr.Ram,
I don,t understand the context in which you have sent this email. What do you mean by how to derive them? If you want to say how elementary particles are derived from Tanmastras, yes I have never thought deeply over this issue and I don't know about this. I nether have the capacity to enter the type of Samaadhi in which Tanmaatras and the mechanism of their transformation to atoms, /molecules is visible nor do I know the details of the manifestation of each and every particle from some primordial field in the framework of the current physics. But this does not imply that so far none of Yogis has entered the Samaadhiss in which Tanmastras are visible and the process of the transformation of same into physical derivatives is visible.
Actually Yogis describe the conversion of Tanmaatras into respective Mahabhuttas and not into individual 17 elementary particles of modern Physics. They describe that Gandha, Rasa, Sapsrsha, Rupa and Shabda Tanmaatras are transformed to Pancha Mahabhuttas viz Prithvi, Jala, Vaayu, Agni and Aakash Mahabhuttas respectively. The Ist 3 Bhuttas viz Prithvi, Jala and Vaayu encompass all the matter in the baryonic form while Agni means all energy of 4 forces So there is no doubt that all the baryonic matter and energy of our physical universe manifests from Tanmaatras from the Astral World. But how individual elementary particles emanate from Tanmastras, either none of the Yogis has gone into such depths while observing the process of the transformation of Tanmastras to individual elementary particles in the state of Samasdhi or if any Yogi has gone to the depths of observing the transformation of Tanmastras into individual elementary particles and also described the same somewhere, I might not be aware.
Vinod Sehgal
On Sunday, July 23, 2017, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > Dear Vinod ji, > > Thanks. > > If you do not know how to derive them then please just confess that you do not know. The onus is on you. In my view, it is not possible. > > 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
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to C. S. Morrison, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Colin,
Thanks for an interesting interpretation. However, what I meant was if we remove the ball and table top, then your experiences are also lost. This means, the ball-in-itself and the table-in-itself really exist out there in the real physical world. Do you agree?
I am attaching the summary article, but you need to read original 5 articles.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 24 July 2017 11:47 AM, C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Vimal
I don't appear to be able to access your links. Do I need to create a Google account? I have never heard of eDAM. Perhaps you could give me a quick summary.
My view is also monistic. I see it as the Real Physicalism of Galen Strawson - or perhaps even better it is what Frank Herbert called 'quantum animism'. It is idealistic but I do not see that as a disadvantage. In fact idealism is more parsimonious
than dualism (and I think non-experiential physicalism just ignores the experiential side of reality). For me there are only consciousnesses and aggregates of consciousnesses. And by the way, my theory does not postulate the survival of consciousness beyond
death. That is a consequence of its very defensible postulate that we are some tiny particle adapted to introduce randomness into our focus of attention. And my theory is also perfectly secular. However, its requirement that isolated quantum systems are
consciousnesses does imply that the universe has a consciousness that experiences everything within and can freely act in a way guided by that universal experience. I think it is unreasonable to think such a being would not experiment and act creatively as
it would be perfectly capable of doing. Hence, I find this form of theism more plausible than atheism.
But wouldn't such a being be interested in human civilization? It is by far the most sophisticated and unique thing happening in the universe, and we have so far no evidence it is happening elsewhere. Perhaps such a being would even try to
communicate with us. I can see no reason why it would not.
I agree with you that NDEs/OBEs can be explained by the abnormal functioning of TPJ (temporal-parietal junction), which may occur during NDEs.
I also agree that we have highly organized brain-structure and functional and experiential sub-aspects of consciousness
(Vimal, 2009b).
However, it is unclear why you need easy but problematic substance dualism and/or idealism to explain it. They have serious problems as elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal,
2010), Chapter 2 of
(Vimal, 2012), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). We can explain
it thru down-to-earth atheist monistic eDAM that has least number of problem and does not postulate the survival of self after physical death.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Monday, 24 July 2017 9:02 AM, C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Dear Vimal
I am talking about scientific reasons. So, for example, NDEs don't count (I suspect these are conjured up like dreams as the brain shuts down or reboots anyway).
Prior to the recent experimental evidence of the Higgs boson and gravitational waves, you would probably agree that there was a lot of scientific reasons to think these things exist. When I say there are a lot of scientific reasons to believe
consciousness survives the death of our body, I am thinking along similar lines.
The reason we were so confident about the existence of the Higgs was because it was predicted by our most successful explanation for quantum phenomena (the Standard Model). The reason I am so confident that our consciousness could survive the
death of our bodies is because that is predicted by the most scientific account of its designlike organisation. That explanation is derived in my book The Blind Mindmaker and is too complex to do justice in an email. However, let me try to give you some
idea of why I claim it to be most scientific. Then I'll explain why it suggests our consciousness lives on.
The one thing we can say with absolute certainty about our consciousness is that it has a highly organised structure that appears perfectly designed to represent the information it encodes in a way that evaluates it in terms of how it is likely
to affect the survival chances of our genes. Every other example of such designlike perfection in nature that has been explained by science is accounted for as a product of Darwinian natural selection. So we should expect the same to be true of the organisation
in human consciousness. Crucially though, that same form of explanation does not apply to the media that have become organised. The existence of the matter that has become arranged to form a biological organism is ultimately not a product of natural selection,
but a result of the laws and initial conditions of the universe (or at least the conditions at some previous time) and the time that has gone by. And we should expect the same to apply to the media that has become arranged to represent information in human
consciousness - in other words, our consciousness and qualia. To cut a long story short, a Darwinian explanation for that perfect organisation requires consciousness and qualia to have physical influences, which operated even before those qualia became organised
to represent any biological structure. In other words, it means consciousnesses could exist in unorganised structures. And as my book shows, it also requires that our consciousness be freely choosing the position of its influence in a way that was statistically
biased by the qualia it experiences.
The most parsimonious way to satisfy this criterion is for a consciousness to actually be the essence of what in physics we call a particle (its pattern of qualia being essentially that particle's wave function). And since most of the particles
in your brain don't fall apart when the brain stops working (the smaller molecules even survive its decay), we therefore have every scientific reason to think that we will also survive our brain's death. But as I said, we clearly have no scientific reason
to think that the experiences we are going to get afterwards are going to be organised to represent anything biological (and certainly not neurological phenomena like thoughts and memories). We would have to be adapted to exactly the same role in another intelligent
organism, and there isn't much chance of that (Which is why I think the sort of resurrection offered by Christ is our only hope).
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 2:28 AM, 'George Weissmann' via Matters Of Mind <matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Well, Vimal, I sent you references for research establishing survival of consciousness of physical death. That definitely refutes edam, at least the atheist version, as you yourself admitted. But you rejected the strong evidence without any basis, as far
as I can tell.
Please recommend an introductory paper regarding eDAM;
this is new to me.
Best wishes,
Jim
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:40 PM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Matters Of Mind
<matters...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Thanks.
I agree with you. We need all what you wrote. In addition, the same framework should explain other data related to living and non-living systems, such as data related to physics, cosmology, all other sciences, philosophy, spirituality/religions, arts, legal
system, peace, war and so on. In my view, the eDAM framework is capable of doing that. One authentic contradiction can reject it; so far, I cannot find any. If you find any contradictory data, please let me know.
I hope it is not rude of me to insert myself into this conversation.
Regarding your questioning:
Do you still believe that we can come to the effective theory of consciousness (which would also account for the various consciousness-related phenomena) just by accumulating, generalizing and systematizing the research data? Here, by "effective" I mean the
one which possesses a sufficient explanatory and predictive power and obeys the criteria of formal correctness. In other words, do you believe that a theory of consciousness can be constructed in a way analogous to the one we follow when constructing some
physical theory?
It seems to me that the issue is not about experimental data vs. theory -- but is the range of experimental data.
Theory derives from data. A theory relating to consciousness has to address consciousness. The data Dean and others are viewing may provide some clues about consciousness, but empirical data more directly addressing consciousness is required. Obviously this
includes first person data -- your domain. This is not theory preceding data -- it is a combining of data from different domains, first, second and third person. An expanded theory will result from an expanded base of data. (Yours is fundamental, What you
may call "illusion" is exceedingly important. We live there.)
Theory has to follow experience -- all experience, first person included.
I assume that psi related paranormal data are well collected; therefore, I do not question their authenticity. I suppose they are subjective experiences (SEs) of subjects involved, each of which should have NCC/‘neural basis’.
I am trying to explain these data using extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) framework thru the hypothesis of the sixth sense. Each of the sixth sense related SEs must have its NCC. In other words, we do not have to invoke dualism or idealism. The eDAM is neither
dualism not materialism. The five-component eDAM is elaborated in
(Vimal, 2008b),
(Vimal, 2010c),
(Vimal, 2013),
(Vimal, 2015g),
(Vimal, 2016d), and summarized in
(Vimal, 2016b). I would like to know your comments on this approach.
>>[S.P.] "The only complex system which we know for sure that
>>does possess consciousness is a living organism."
>I would like to point out that we are reasonably sure that a brain
>possesses consciousness and it is not a living organism (it is only
> part of one).
.
[S.P.] I have no idea whom you mean by "we", and what is "reasonable" for you, but according to my approach, consciousness is a feature which pertains to the complex system as a whole, but not to any of its parts. So, it is a living organism as a whole complex system that can only be said to possess consciousness. Why? Because possessing consciousness (or, possessing the ability to have an adequate model of the outer world) is one of three ways in which an organism as a whole can keep its overall entropy as low as necessary.
.
I also hold that every living organism has such a brain+nervous system+sense organs (or whatever stands for these body parts in the given organism) as is required by normal functioning of its exemplar of consciousness. From this follows that even the brainless single-cell prokaryote must possess consciousness to stay alive. This view is reasonable for me. Why? Because it accounts for the firmly established facts that the prokaryote can discern between food and its kin, and a conditional reflex can be elaborated in its case. The doctrine that the human only is endowed with reason is profoundly mistaken and antiscientific.
.
[Colin Morrison] wrote:
>... in the same way the universe is a complex system and it also
>possesses at least one consciousness (my one).
.
[S.P.] My argument stands: possession of consciousness is a feature which pertains to the complex system as a whole, but not to its parts. From the fact that a bus is full of consciousness-possessing passengers does not follow that a bus is a complex system which itself is consciousness-possessing.
.
As follows from my doctrine of pan-informationism, only a complex system with sufficiently low overall entropy may become consciousness-possessing. This may take place when the effect of self-organization appears and the complex system starts reducing its overall entropy itself also through dealing with physical signals and transforming them into the elements of experience.
.
[Colin Morrison] wrote:
>Now if I understand you rightly, you are really saying that the
>only complex system that we know to possess consciousness is
>that tiny weeny bit of a brain (however spread out it may be).
.
[S.P.] The terms of spatial localization cannot be used when talking about consciousness. I mean that we can talk about consciousness only in such terms as wholeness, entropy reduction, mind-body interrelation, inter-system interaction, and so on. Consciousness can only be talked about in its own proper terms. Consciousness is not a homunculus localized (or dwelling) in the brain as a "tiny weeny bit" of it, or in some other body parts.
.
However, sometimes, when characterizing the behavior of some young person, people may conclude that this boy thinks not with his head, but with his genitals. :-) Sometimes we say that the man thinks with his stomach, while the woman thinks with her heart. Such talks are allowed for vernacular language. In either case, everybody is free to decide which body part to use as an instrument of thinking. :-)
.
[Colin Morrison] wrote:
>A form of panpsychism that I call psi-psychism (where a
>consciousness of a system arises with its isolation from other
>systems) appears to be implied by this theory. And in my view
>the explanatory power of this theory gives me every reason to
>think it is correct.
.
[S.P.] First, from the info provided in parentheses it is not clear for me what your doctrine of "psi-psychism" consists in. Second, the doctrines such as panpsychism are the elements of a certain meta-theory. A meta-theory IS NOT an applied theory! It does not have, and should not have by definition, the explanatory power. A meta-theory itself explains nothing and predicts nothing. Its role is different, namely, it has to serve as an epistemological or conceptual basement or framework for the applied theories which could possibly be constructed within its limits someday.
.
Third, my doctrine of pan-informationism rejects (or, speaking mildly, does not tolerate) any forms of panpsychism. See what I mean. I start from what I call the existential condition: for any entity to be existent, it must be formalizable as a complex system which depends simultaneously on the activity of three equally fundamental factors: informational factor, material factor, and energetic factor.
.
So, since both a rock and an organism are equally existent, they can be formalized as a system{rock} and a system{organism} which both depend on the same set of factors, including the informational one. But, consciousness appears only when the overall entropy of the concrete complex system reaches a certain required minimum. That is why a rock does not possess consciousness, while an organism does. This is, in short, what my doctrine of pan-informationism consists in.
.
[Colin Morrison] wrote:
>But even without such a theory I think the very fact that our
>consciousness is a highly organised and highly complex example
>of a consciousness, gives us every reason to believe that simpler
>and less organised examples of such a thing exist.
.
[S.P.] Unlike you, my conclusions are strictly theory-laden. So, I hold that every organism to stay alive must possess the fully functional and potent exemplar of consciousness. I mean that the very idea of "simpler consciousness" is profoundly mistaken and misleading -- it echoes the antiscientific doctrine of anthropocentrism. The firmly established facts tell us that every living organism behaves expediently rational.
.
Figuratively speaking, an ant is by no means duller than an elephant. Consciousness does not evolve, by which I mean that its mechanisms remain the same in all the living organisms. In so doing, there are as geniuses so blockheads among the representatives of all species. :-)
"The only complex system which we know for sure that does possess consciousness is a living organism."
I would like to point out that we are reasonably sure that a brain possesses consciousness and it is not a living organism (it is only part of one). You might think that this is a trivial observation but in the same way the universe is a complex
system and it also possesses at least one consciousness (my one). And I would also argue that since the data content of my brain at each moment in time is billions of times more than the data in my consciousness at that moment, we must be something that much
smaller than the brain (and for reasons given in my book, almost certainly confined to a very tiny region of neural tissue -though that does not affect this argument).
Now if I understand you rightly, you are really saying that the only complex system that we know to possess consciousness is that tiny weeny bit of a brain (however spread out it may be). For very logical reasons, I suspect that tiny region of
the brain to be the wave function of a single atom or molecule or some other single particle, position measurements of which have been adapted to trigger randomly selected shifts in attention.
The system confining the particle has evolved to shape its wave function in a way that encodes sensory and other neural outputs in sensory image like forms as a way of improving the efficiency of this attention-shifting process.
A form of panpsychism that I call psi-psychism (where a consciousness of a system arises with its isolation from other systems) appears to be implied by this theory. And in my view the explanatory power of this theory gives me every reason to think
it is correct.
But even without such a theory I think the very fact that our consciousness is a highly organised and highly complex example of a consciousness, gives us every reason to believe that simpler and less organised examples of such a thing exist.
We have no reason at present to posit a lower limit to the complexity of a consciousness. Since we cannot know of any other instances of consciousness because we cannot interrogate atoms verbally, the fact that we only know of this one instance is no reason
to doubt the existence of any of these other types.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
> >The communicative units (they can be called Electro-magnetic energy
> >units, EE units) related to paranormal phenomena are just beneath the
> >range of matter. They are, in a sense, electromagnetic, but they are the
> >source of electromagnetism. They follow their own patterns of activity.
> >Consciousness actually produces these emanations, and they are the
> >basis for any kind of perception, both sensory in usual terms and
> >extrasensory.
>.
>[S.P.] It is only a pity that all the above statements are nothing but the elements of concrete person's belief system. A belief system -- it is what requires no proofs. I still wait when we come from stating own beliefs to explaining something.
>.
>[Joseph McCard] wrote:
> > The rock is composed of atoms and molecules, each with their
> >own consciousness.
>.
>[S.P.] Another meta-theoretical statement which requires no proofs. I would only like to remark that the doctrine of panpsychism is antiscientific -- no effective theory of consciousness can be constructed within its limits. The entropic characteristic of the system{atom} is not sufficiently low for the effect of self-organization to appear -- there is no reduction of own entropy through dealing with physical signals and transforming them into new elements of experience. Therefore, the atom (as well as vacuum cleaners and coffee-pots) DOES NOT possess consciousness. The only complex system which we know for sure that does possess consciousness is a living organism.
>.
> [Joseph McCard] wrote:
> >It is these electromagnetic-like structures that are presently beyond
> >our present scientific instruments, units that are the basic carriers
> >of all perceptions, normal and paranormal.
> .
> [S.P.] For the effect of telepathy to be explained, we have to use specially developed explanatory tools. (To the point, these same explanatory tools can be used also to account for the effect of nonlocal entanglement.) We will explain nothing just by stating
own beliefs and inventing/postulating such "entities" as "carriers of all perceptions", "emanations", or "communicative units".
> .
> [Joseph McCard] on July 23, 2017 wrote:
> > Emotion is energy in motion.
> .
> [S.P.] First. Energy cannot move, since it is not a material thing -- please, consult a school Physics textbook on what is a mechanical motion. Second. Emotion is a product of consciousness.
> .
> [Joseph McCard] wrote:
> >Like energy attracts like energy
> .
> [S.P.] It sounds like a tale for the preschool kids: evil attracts another evil, and so on. However, as I suppose after reading other posts, the "adult kids" on this forum will be charmed by this tale.
>.
> [Joseph McCard] on July 23, 2017 wrote:
> >Now this nothing which holds the beginning of the everything
> >is what some people call God.
>.
>[S.P.] "Nothing" is "nothing". Since it is "nothing", therefore it cannot "hold" anything, "the beginning of everything" including. But I am really impressed by the level of absurdity of a conclusion made that "God is nothing", however, by definition, "nothing" should not even have a name.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Serge Patlavskiy, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Serge
So how does your theory account for the fact that amputees often experience a phantom limb?
For me that is conclusive proof that my consciousness is constructed purely by my brain and not my whole organism. I also find your claims that consciousness is definitely in bacteria, etc, unconvincing. For me consciousness is not synonymous
with awareness or ability to distinguish between food and relatives, etc. And I do not consider such abilities to even remotely constitute a sign of consciousness. When I drive to work I often take in my surroundings, avoid obstacles etc, unconsciously
while thinking of something else. Likewise when I eat my food and avoid eating my relatives. Hence I am not at all convinced the presence of such abilities indicates consciousness
Though I do not exclude the possibility that nature has adapted a consciousness to a functional role in such organisms, the evidence according to my theory would be a controlled form of randomness. An isolated system is one that is set up so that
no information about some unknown property of the system is leaking out into its environment. In other words, it is one whose indeterminate properties would be represented by a notional wave function in quantum mechanics. The form of the position representation
of the wave function for an isolated single particle is in my theory what our experience constitutes. That particle could be diffusing through some neural membrane or structure provided no information about its whereabouts is leaking out of that structure
via the interactions it is undergoing.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Vinod
You said
" If we need not a separate physical side of matter, why illusion of touching a hard surface is not created from all surfaces? Then representing things ( aggregate of interacting consciousness) OUTSIDE our consciousness? Interacting consciousness
outside the consciousness! What else than consciousness that something should lie outside of it?"
Let me first answer your first point. All surfaces do not give rise to feelings of hardness in my theory because our brain has evolved to only generate feelings of hardness in our consciousness when our body makes contact with a rigid surface
(a surface that doesn't sink or collapse under slight pressure). It evolved to generate such feelings at that moment probably because, out of all our tactile qualia, those feelings are the strongest. Their association with rigid objects has thus occurred
because, out of all surfaces, rigid ones are likely to be most dangerous or most useful - they are after all the ones it is beneficial to grasp etc. The strength of the feeling of hardness makes our consciousness more likely to select their location and thereby
trigger a shift in attention to those potentially dangerous or useful surfaces.
Your second point is a good one, but not one my theory doesn't answer. To interact, consciousnesses must overlap in the sense that the selection of a position in my consciousness positions a subjective effect in other consciousnesses. So what
determines where the boundary is? How can there be interacting consciousnesses outside mine. My answer is that in my theory our experience is essentially the wave function of a confined particle. Although essentially boundless, that particle has almost
no probability of being anywhere other than its region of confinement. Consequently, although it has a vague sense of a vast universe beyond what it immediately sees and feels and hears, tastes, smells, etc, none of those locations are represented in any
salient way so that it simply does not manage to select them (or does so only extremely rarely). Being outside our consciousness thus means being in a position where the particle we constitute in my theory is very unlikely to appear.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
>
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:48 AM, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Colin,
>>
>> Thanks for an interesting interpretation. However, what I meant was if we remove the ball and table top, then your experiences are also lost. This means, the ball-in-itself and the table-in-itself really exist out there in the real physical world. Do you
agree?
>>
>> I am attaching the summary article, but you need to read original 5 articles.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
So how does your theory account for the fact that amputees often experience a phantom limb?
For me that is conclusive proof that my consciousness is constructed purely by my brain and not my whole organism. I also find your claims that consciousness is definitely in bacteria, etc, unconvincing. For me consciousness is not synonymous
with awareness or ability to distinguish between food and relatives, etc. And I do not consider such abilities to even remotely constitute a sign of consciousness. When I drive to work I often take in my surroundings, avoid obstacles etc, unconsciously
while thinking of something else. Likewise when I eat my food and avoid eating my relatives. Hence I am not at all convinced the presence of such abilities indicates consciousness
Though I do not exclude the possibility that nature has adapted a consciousness to a functional role in such organisms, the evidence according to my theory would be a controlled form of randomness. An isolated system is one that is set up so that
no information about some unknown property of the system is leaking out into its environment. In other words, it is one whose indeterminate properties would be represented by a notional wave function in quantum mechanics. The form of the position representation
of the wave function for an isolated single particle is in my theory what our experience constitutes. That particle could be diffusing through some neural membrane or structure provided no information about its whereabouts is leaking out of that structure
via the interactions it is undergoing.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
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)
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.
>In multi-tasking one can maintain many operations without
>paying too much attention, and still focus on the thing you
>consider most important.
.
[S.P.] Hi, Alex. Try yourself and also suggest your students to perform the following experiment. The all you need is to start the MS Windows (Android, or MacOS) Calculator program. Then type "1" and "+" and keep your finger on a keyboard's "Enter" button. Close your eyes and start pressing the button "Enter" and simultaneously counting in your mind the keystrokes in a middle tempo: "two", "three", "four", "five", ..., and so on.
.
At some moment, your attention may shift from counting to thinking about some other problem. Then, after a while, focus your attention on counting again. You may find yourself counting, for example: ... "eighty two", "eighty three". At this very moment you have to stop counting, open your eyes, look at a calculator to see whether your "eighty two" coincides with what a calculator displays.
.
If there is a coincidence, record your results, for example: "eighty two" minus "five" equals "seventy seven" -- it is a result that will be of our interest. Here, "five" is a moment of shifting attention, and "eighty two" is a moment of focusing on counting again.
So how does your theory account for the fact that amputees often experience a phantom limb?
For me that is conclusive proof that my consciousness is constructed purely by my brain and not my whole organism. I also find your claims that consciousness is definitely in bacteria, etc, unconvincing. For me consciousness is not synonymous
with awareness or ability to distinguish between food and relatives, etc. And I do not consider such abilities to even remotely constitute a sign of consciousness. When I drive to work I often take in my surroundings, avoid obstacles etc, unconsciously
while thinking of something else. Likewise when I eat my food and avoid eating my relatives. Hence I am not at all convinced the presence of such abilities indicates consciousness
Though I do not exclude the possibility that nature has adapted a consciousness to a functional role in such organisms, the evidence according to my theory would be a controlled form of randomness. An isolated system is one that is set up so that
no information about some unknown property of the system is leaking out into its environment. In other words, it is one whose indeterminate properties would be represented by a notional wave function in quantum mechanics. The form of the position representation
of the wave function for an isolated single particle is in my theory what our experience constitutes. That particle could be diffusing through some neural membrane or structure provided no information about its whereabouts is leaking out of that structure
via the interactions it is undergoing.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D., jsar...@aol.com, online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Alex description of consciousness (below), and out ability to change its focus, will help lead us to an understanding about the nature of consciousness (as I see it : )
The only one way to learn what consciousness is, is by studying and exploring our own awareness. When you look inside yourself, the very effort extends the limitations of your consciousness, expands it, and allows the egotistical self to use abilities that it often does not realize it possess.
So, for example, when Vinod says your consciousness is locked inside your skull, you will never even try to move it outside your body. And, if you have such an experience spontaneously, you will just say it is because of something you ate, "an underdone potato, a bit of bad beef..." (Scrooge).
Thanks Alex : )
joe
C. S. Morrison
unread,
Jul 26, 2017, 9:56:49 PM7/26/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Vasavada, Kashyap V, 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D., VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL, Online Sadhu Sanga
Dear Vimal
I didn't got see this question till now. Sorry. You said
what I meant was if we remove the ball and table top, then your experiences are also lost. This means, the ball-in-itself and the table-in-itself really exist out there in the real physical world. Do you agree?
I hope from my recent response to Vinod that you can see the answer is YES. It is just that I see the physical world as being completely made up of interacting consciousnesses. We are each just one of countless trillions of interacting consciousnesses.
Evolution has just resulted in some of them becoming arranged so that the experiences they give us accurately represent the behaviour of vast aggregates of such consciousnesses with respect to other vast aggregates of such consciousnesses that do lie 'out
there' in the sense that the consciousnesses that make them up do not noticeably affect our experience directly.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Joseph McCard, Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D., online_sa...@googlegroups.com, jsar...@aol.com
Joe said
Colin, I feel that you need to distinguish Attention from underlying Awareness.
> In multi-tasking one can maintain many operations without paying too much attention,
> and still focus on the thing you consider most important.
Sorry Joe. I thought I had made that distinction pretty clear with my driving observation. My brain is aware of a lot of things. My consciousness appears to be mainly concerned with what it is focusing its resources on - not with the total stream
of sensory inputs and ideas it is playing around with constantly. But as your party story shows the information represented in consciousness is not exclusively that which is being attended to. In my theory it is the set of potential sources of data to which
it could shift its attention next, each of which is prioritised by the strength of the associated qualia. The reason the focus of the brain's attention is so dominant is simply because it is usually more beneficial for our brain to continue attending to
that same source of data than it is to immediately shift attention elsewhere.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
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)
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Serge, that is an interesting process.
I shall discuss it with some students and see what results we obtain.
Thanks, Alex
But what this seems to check is the level of distraction in the mind
associated with activity of the default mode network.
If what you say is correct, it would provide a wonderfully simple and
accessible method to check progress made in bringing the mind to
a clearer state of awareness.
On 26 July 2017 at 09:05, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>In multi-tasking one can maintain many operations without
>paying too much attention, and still focus on the thing you
>consider most important.
.
[S.P.] Hi, Alex. Try yourself and also suggest your students to perform the following experiment. The all you need is to start the MS Windows (Android, or MacOS) Calculator program. Then type "1" and "+" and keep your finger on a keyboard's "Enter" button. Close your eyes and start pressing the button "Enter" and simultaneously counting in your mind the keystrokes in a middle tempo: "two", "three", "four", "five", ..., and so on.
.
At some moment, your attention may shift from counting to thinking about some other problem. Then, after a while, focus your attention on counting again. You may find yourself counting, for example: ... "eighty two", "eighty three". At this very moment you have to stop counting, open your eyes, look at a calculator to see whether your "eighty two" coincides with what a calculator displays.
.
If there is a coincidence, record your results, for example: "eighty two" minus "five" equals "seventy seven" -- it is a result that will be of our interest. Here, "five" is a moment of shifting attention, and "eighty two" is a moment of focusing on counting again.
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)
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)
>So how does your theory account for the fact that amputees
>often experience a phantom limb?
.
[S.P.] To account for phantom pains, we have to start from considering the complex system{living organism} and apply the methods and models specially designed to be able to deal with complex systems. So, these facts are of no mystery for me. However, to show "how", I would have first to present the mentioned above methods and models.
.
[Colin Morrison] wrote:
> For me that is conclusive proof that my consciousness is constructed
> purely by my brain and not my whole organism. I also find your
>claims that consciousness is definitely in bacteria, etc, unconvincing.
>For me consciousness is not synonymous with awareness or ability to
>distinguish between food and relatives, etc. And I do not consider
>such abilities to even remotely constitute a sign of consciousness.
.
[S.P.] My claim is that life and consciousness are inseparable. To the point, I use my own definition of consciousness which may not coincide with your definition (if you have the one, of course).
.
[Colin Morrison] wrote:
>When I drive to work I often take in my surroundings, avoid
>obstacles etc, unconsciously while thinking of something else.
>Likewise when I eat my food and avoid eating my relatives.
>Hence I am not at all convinced the presence of such abilities
>indicates consciousness
.
[S.P.] By "consciousness" I mean the ability of a living organism to reduce own overall entropy by transforming the physical (sensory) signals into new elements of experience, or into permanently updating model of the outer world. In so doing, I assume that consciousness can work in its sub-conscious regime, normal everyday regime, and ultra-conscious regime. So, "the presence of such abilities" clearly "indicates consciousness".
.
[Colin Morrison] wrote:
>The form of the position representation of the wave function for an
>isolated single particle is in my theory what our experience constitutes.
>That particle could be diffusing through some neural membrane or
>structure provided no information about its whereabouts is leaking out
> of that structure via the interactions it is undergoing.
.
[S.P.] So, your idea of consciousness-possessing particle which is diffusing through some neural membrane looks as a mixture of panpsychism with homunculism. Then it is indeed a modification of panpsychism (or, modification of homunculism), and which you call "psi-psychism".
.
As to "information... leaking out of...", you, as I see, also use your own definition of information. For me, information is a product of consciousness, and it cannot move, or leak. It is a physical signal that can leak, travel, be recorded, and so on.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
Colin, reluctantly Serge 😀,
Colin Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> on July 25, 2017 wrote: So how does your theory account for the fact that amputees often experience a phantom limb?
joe writes: Pain is a judgement in the nonphysical mind. Pain is not the brain/neural representation itself. But, given that, my neuro-philosopher prof wrote a paper saying that no one knows what pain is. And I do not know of any contradiction to his claim except mine .
[S.P.] To account for phantom pains, we have to start from considering the complex system{living organism} and apply the methods and models specially designed to be able to deal with complex systems.
If pain is a judgement, by the mind about the neural representation in the brain, then the whole complex system is the non-physical mind & the living organism.
joe
C. S. Morrison
unread,
Jul 29, 2017, 9:38:35 PM7/29/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:16, "'Serge Patlavskiy' wrote.
> .
> [S.P.] My claim is that life and consciousness are inseparable. To the point, I use my own definition of consciousness which may not coincide with your definition (if you have one, of course)...By "consciousness" I mean the ability of a living organism to
reduce own overall entropy by transforming the physical (sensory) signals into new elements of experience, or into permanently updating model of the outer world.
[CM] You are right. That is not what I mean by consciousness. For me, a consciousness is simply a stream of those elements of experience. By your definition anything with a permanently updating model of the outer world possesses a consciousness.
[S.P.] "As to "information... leaking out of...", you, as I see, also use your own definition of information. For me, information is a product of consciousness, and it cannot move, or leak. It is a physical signal that can leak, travel, be recorded,
and so on.
[CM] I use the physicist's definition of information which roughly speaking does mean physical signal.
> So how does your theory account for the fact that amputees often experience a phantom limb?
Bruno Marchal
unread,
Jul 30, 2017, 1:41:02 PM7/30/17
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Joseph,
On 28 Jul 2017, at 20:13, Joseph McCard wrote:
Colin, reluctantly Serge 😀,
Colin Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> on July 25, 2017 wrote: So how does your theory account for the fact that amputees often experience a phantom limb?
joe writes: Pain is a judgement in the nonphysical mind. Pain is not the brain/neural representation itself. But, given that, my neuro-philosopher prof wrote a paper saying that no one knows what pain is. And I do not know of any contradiction to his claim except mine .
[S.P.] To account for phantom pains, we have to start from considering the complex system{living organism} and apply the methods and models specially designed to be able to deal with complex systems.
If pain is a judgement, by the mind about the neural representation in the brain,
If pain is a judgement by a mind, it is not about the neural representation in the brain, it is about the danger inferred from real or unreal internal damage of the local body.
The neurophysiological state is just a relative tool, which match or not some reality.
then the whole complex system is the non-physical mind & the living organism.
I agree. But if the mind is still representational, (like the phantom limb suggests), the soul is not, as it is the conjunct of the representation and truth. That conjunct makes the person into a first person(at least the one which can manifest herself with respect to some possible reality).
With the Mechanist assumption, the immateriality of the person is contagious on the possible environments which emerge eventually from a statistic of dream/computations.
With Mechanism, there is something like a Universal Dreamer Person. "Awakening/enlightenment" is when "He/She/It" becomes lucid. That is why training in lucid dream can also serve a spiritual and/or metaphysical quest.
This does not (necessarily) lead to solipsism. Arithmetic is full of ways a universal person can instantiate itself in many multiples copies, locally and relatively amnesic, capable of interacting, and recognize themselves, or not.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
I feel that any theory of consciousness has first to come to grips with the fact that consciousness which arises in beings is different in kind, not in degree, from the physical base in which it arises. Still, consciousness has no independent existence as made out by religionists and philosophers and has to have its base in the brain. Of course, we can analyse fully the neurological activity that takes place in the brain hopefully as more and more empirical evidence and analysis accumulates in time. But that activity by itself is not tantamount to consciousness, as anyone can verify. "Never try to teach music to a pig, because it is a waste of time for you and it annoys the pig". This is because the pig just does not have the faculty of appreciating music and cannot be inculcated in it by performing some brain surgery. Consciousness, which in final analysis is the capacity to register sensory experience and recollect it at an exceedingly fast pace, is a gift of nature to living beings in a greater or lesser degree. Man, so far as we know, has the greatest manifestation of this faculty. At the same time, there is no point in allotting a separate individual entity of existence to consciousness. No matter, no life, and no life, no consciousness. Krishna says in the Gita, "Bhoomirapo nalo vayuhu kham mano buddhi revacha, Ahankara miteeyam mey bhinna prakrithirasthadhah" ( I have created mind and intellect or " mano, buddhi", apart from the five elements, and also the feeling of self or "ahankara"). So, mind and intellect (they are one and the same according to me, but that is not the point now) are not part of the material elements. Where there is mind, there is consciousness, in fact mind can be characterised only through consciousness. The extent of consciousness depends on the underlying brain structure.
In whatever way the physical universe is explained - in newtonian, quantum or some other terms - the phenomenon of consciousness lies, in my view, beyond their pale. It is altogether of a different genre, just as life is different from body.
- Dr K Srinivasa Rao, MA CAIIB PhD, from Cupertino, California.
On 30 July 2017 at 22:48, Bruno Marchal <mar...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
Colin Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk> on July 25, 2017 wrote: So how does your theory account for the fact that amputees often experience a phantom limb?
joe writes: Pain is a judgement in the nonphysical mind. Pain is not the brain/neural representation itself. But, given that, my neuro-philosopher prof wrote a paper saying that no one knows what pain is. And I do not know of any contradiction to his claim except mine .
[S.P.] To account for phantom pains, we have to start from considering the complex system{living organism} and apply the methods and models specially designed to be able to deal with complex systems.
If pain is a judgement, by the mind about the neural representation in the brain,
If pain is a judgement by a mind, it is not about the neural representation in the brain, it is about the danger inferred from real or unreal internal damage of the local body.
The neurophysiological state is just a relative tool, which match or not some reality.
then the whole complex system is the non-physical mind & the living organism.
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)
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.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
My dudes,
It is hard to take this conversation seriously if you don't at least build up the current neuroscientific understanding of nociception and then nuance your own position from there.
Lots of work done on A-delta and C fibers tracing well defined spino-thalamo-cortical pathways to the posterior insula, etc.
To be scholarly requires due diligence, or else what is this?
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to online_sa...@googlegroups.com
Sure dude, but here's an idea for an inroad along the lines you're thinking: probing the texts further, isn't Buddhism about the cessation of pain, and doesn't Christianity teach that in heaven there will be no more pain? Interesting
theme, to be sure, this idea of ceasing of pain in pure consciousness, once no longer attached to body.
But then doing diligence would be to consider that, as Embodied, pain is part of evolution, part of protection, part of growth, and the road to enlightenment qua "long suffering." Introducing these elements from various traditions,
east and west, then allows for a thematized conversation about the nature of pain in an embodied species, and yet still allows for consideration of a mode of pure consciousness without pain, which could even begin a thought journey about being transcendent
of embodied mortal consciousness, if one wishes to.
But to say, as you do, simply that "Consciousness, which in final analysis is the capacity to register sensory experience and recollect it at an exceedingly fast pace" doesn't properly nuance it from embodied vs. transcendent/pure,
or whatever, and doesn't do due diligence to either religion or science!
When you get down to it there's a fascinating few ways this can be explored. Hope this helps a little.
Personally I think understanding pain is key to wisdom in life, and interesting that nociceptive pathways follow the same neurovisceral axis as interoception, which can be tied to meditation benefits, and then overcome via interplay
of the two (pain and interoception). Understand this and you've got something big to share with others.
I will work to do so over the next few months, but if anyone's looking for a postdoc or knows where to find a little funding, it would greatly help!! I'm still unaffiliated full time, besides heading a small project at the
center for Process studies
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jesse,
I may not agree quite with Joseph or Bruno but I cannot see what difference the tract neuroanatomy makes.
It is a bit like saying that the power cable goes to the back of my computer. It does, but Apple could just as well have built a laptop with the cable at the front. Birds probably have a fairly similar mental life to ours but have no neocortex.
Calling a bit of brain insula surely does not help with the sort of discussion of interest here.
We all accept that signals come in through spinothalamic tracts, together with interoceptive signals and visual signals indicating the likely threat posed by the origin of the spinothalamic signals. The question is how these things are integrated
(at the interface between the physical dynamics and experience) to produce an evaluation - a truth of the matter. Published neuroscience at present, as far as I know, does not even bother to address these issues.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Srinivasa,
On 31 Jul 2017, at 00:54, Srinivasa Rao Kankipati wrote:
I feel that any theory of consciousness has first to come to grips with the fact that consciousness which arises in beings is different in kind, not in degree, from the physical base in which it arises. Still, consciousness has no independent existence as made out by religionists and philosophers and has to have its base in the brain. Of course, we can analyse fully the neurological activity that takes place in the brain hopefully as more and more empirical evidence and analysis accumulates in time. But that activity by itself is not tantamount to consciousness, as anyone can verify. "Never try to teach music to a pig, because it is a waste of time for you and it annoys the pig". This is because the pig just does not have the faculty of appreciating music and cannot be inculcated in it by performing some brain surgery. Consciousness, which in final analysis is the capacity to register sensory experience and recollect it at an exceedingly fast pace, is a gift of nature to living beings in a greater or lesser degree. Man, so far as we know, has the greatest manifestation of this faculty. At the same time, there is no point in allotting a separate individual entity of existence to consciousness. No matter, no life, and no life, no consciousness. Krishna says in the Gita, "Bhoomirapo nalo vayuhu kham mano buddhi revacha, Ahankara miteeyam mey bhinna prakrithirasthadhah" ( I have created mind and intellect or " mano, buddhi", apart from the five elements, and also the feeling of self or "ahankara"). So, mind and intellect (they are one and the same according to me, but that is not the point now) are not part of the material elements. Where there is mind, there is consciousness, in fact mind can be characterised only through consciousness. The extent of consciousness depends on the underlying brain structure.
In whatever way the physical universe is explained - in newtonian, quantum or some other terms - the phenomenon of consciousness lies, in my view, beyond their pale. It is altogether of a different genre, just as life is different from body.
I have no problem with what you say, if by consciousness you mean human consciousness. It needs life and matter to manifest itself in the relative way.
But I am interested in the big picture, and try to understand where the appearance of brain, mind matter comes from. Then I have the taste for simple and refutable theory. My point is only that if we assume the Mechanist theory of mind/consciousness (which is basically computer science), then the physical reality, although quite real, is not the fundamental reality. The physical reality is an evolving and emerging projection of the consciousness of all machines or numbers. That evolution is not done in time and space (that would be circular), but in a logical space of all possible machine or number dreams. A bit like human biology comes from exchange of information between growing chromosome (from proto-bacteria to human cells), the physical reality emerges from exchange of dreams between collections of numbers.
The advantage are multiple:
1) the theory gives a role to the conscious first person (so we are prevented of the materialist eliminativism of first person)
2) the theory unify quanta and qualia, and explain the differences.
3) the theory suggests that all universal machine have the same basic right. It generalizes "humanity" for a vast collection of entity, and help us to recognize ourself in a larger set of entities.
4) the theory is testable and illustrates that theology can be done scientfically (that is by being modest and never claiming truth).
5) the theory is very simple (it is very elementary arithmetic. By "very" I mean we don't need the "induction" axioms.
It is shocking, probably, for those who believe "religiously" (I mean here: dogmatically) in the existence of PRIMARY matter (a metaphysical concept).
Those are just wrong, in case Mechanism is true.
Some people doesn't like it also, but just by confusing the conception of machine and arithmetic before and after Gödel 1931. They confuse a digital computer with a finite automaton. Universal machine are absolutely impredictible, and like Arithmetic (the reality, not the theories) it is beyond anything we could imagine. In fact the universal machine already explains how it can refute all reductionist theories about itself. It is a sort of universal dissident.
The math then shows some isomorphism between machine's theology, and some idealist religion, yet, based on a Pythagorean ontology.
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to mar...@ulb.ac.be, Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Bruno,
You're always talking about "numbers", arithmetic, machines etc. Here's my question:
Numbers of what? Don't you think that's important? To know just what it is you are counting? What is the substance, the units? Where did that substance or units come from? How did they get here? Can you answer these questions for us?
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)
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
On 01 Aug 2017, at 10:46, 'Eric Reyes' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:
Bruno,
You're always talking about "numbers", arithmetic, machines etc. Here's my question:
Numbers of what?
Oh! I see you assume there are things?
You might appreciate the von Neuman-Kuratowski representation of the numbers in sets, where a number is defined by the number of number less than itself.
so 0 is the number of anything you want in an empty set, and this makes 0 represented by the empty set { }. I will write 0 = { }.
1 is the number of number less than 1, so 1 is represented by {0}: 1 = {0} = {{ }}
2 = {0, 1} = { { } {{ }} }
3 = {0, 1, 2}
4 = {0, 1, 2, 3}
...
omega = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
omega+1 = {0, 1, 2, 3, .... omega},
...
As you see this extends into the transfinite, and this is disallowed for the so called natural numbers (for technical reason).
But I prefer to NOT use a set representation, and just define the number axiomatically. It is anything obeying classical logic and the axioms:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
the symbol s is intended for the successor. 1 = s(0), 2 = s(s(0)), 3 = s(s(s0))), ...
I do not use them to count anything. the fact is that with only the axioms given here we can prove the existence of universal number and we can prove the existence of the computations, and thus, assuming mechanism, of all possible dreams. The physical reality will be an appearances emerging from a very special statistics that those dreams can be shown to obey.
Don't you think that's important? To know just what it is you are counting?
One we have the axiomatic definition, we can count the numbers themselves. for example we can define and count the divisors of some number, or the number of multiple of some number below some number, or the number of of "time-step" of some halting computation, etc. Eventually, the numbers can count the objects they perceive in their dreams, sharable or not sharable.
What is the substance, the units?
There is no substance possible/accessible once we assume mechanism. Units are in the head of the universal machine, so to speak.
Where did that substance or units come from? How did they get here? Can you answer these questions for us?
All there is, with the axiom above is 0, s(0) (the successor of 0), s(s(0)), s(s(s0))), etc. Ontologically, there is nothing else.
Both matter and consciousness will be phenomenological notions, which can be shown unavoidable from the first person view of all universal numbers.
What is not simple here, is in understanding that the elementary arithmetical truth is Turing complete. Yet, this was found mainly by Gödel in 1931, and much stronger result have been obtained since. In fact there is a Turing universal degree four diophantine polynomial equation (diophantine means that the polynom has integers coefficient, and the solutions are supposed to be natural numbers). That is close to be unbelievable (and indeed famous logicians doubt it until Matiyasevic proves this). How could a polynome simulates exactly (emulates) an expoential functions???? The solution illustrates how natural numbers (digital numbers) are more complex than real numbers. real polynomials cannot simulate exponential, natural numbers can!
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Yes Bruno,
But that still does not explain what reality is, what is its meaning. That has to be something beyond the numbers. Numbers are only data in the end. Machines are only mechanistic, there's no intrinsic meaning to a number or a machine until the conscious entity gives it some meaning. Dwelling on the numbers or the mechanical does not define the meaning of reality itself, it's only an external side show in the end. So many words spoken about something of lesser importance in my opinion, and I have an opinion because I am more than a number or a machine. I am a conscious personality!
Now what pops into my mind suddenly is Patrick McGoohan shouting at the bubble trying to consume him in The Prisoner, "I AM NOT A NUMBER!!" Remember that cool cult series from the '60s?
This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (
