11 Problems of Sankhya

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

As you requested previously that I should provide the problems of Sankhya directly in email, I am listing the problems from (Vimal, 2012c). If you still want to defend it, kindly address them.

Interactive substance dualism (ISD), Sāṃkhya, and their problems

If mind and matter are on equal footings but interact then it is interactive substance dualism (ISD). The ISD is somewhat similar, in the sense of two independent fundamental entities, to eastern Sāṃkhya’s Puruṣa-Prakṛti system, where Puruṣa (cosmic consciousness, experiencer, witness) ‘shines’ on Prakṛti (gross physical, astral and causal bodies)^[i] to create our universe. Mind and matter are separable in interactive substance dualism. Here, there is clear cut duality both substance-wise and property-wise. There are eleven problems in ISD and Sāṃkhya combined as follows.

 

Note: Some of the problems are adapted from  (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2011). Comments on some of these problems and replies are given in endnote (with Hari)[ii] and Section 6.5.4.14 (with Sehgal: 29-June-2016 and onwards).

1. Association or mind-brain interaction problem

How does the non-material mind interact with the non-experiential brain? For example, how can we associate redness with red-green cells of ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net?^[iii] This is a problem of unexplained epistemic gap: how is the jump made from the mental redness to material ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net (and vice versa). Furthermore, if nature has two distinct aspects, namely, mind and matter, then how can these distinct aspects of nature ever interact (Stapp, 2009b)? In addition, we face empirical contradiction if we estimate the time needed to experience. For example, when we open our eyes we immediately have phenomenal subjective experience of redness if we look at a ripe tomato with in less than 100 msec. However, if we try to estimate time needed to experience redness using the interactive substance dualism (two independent fundamental entities mind and matter but interacting), we can easily come up that minimum time needed is at least seconds to minutes. This is because there are about 86 billion neurons in the human brain (Azevedo et al., 2009), where processing time is in msec. If the independent mind/consciousness starts searching the red-green cells among billions of cells, it may take about (86*10⁹ * 10^-3) = 10⁶ seconds or if better search procedure is used then at least significantly more than 100 msec.

2. Problem of mental causation, violation of the law of energy conservation and problem of causal closure

How can a mental cause give rise to a behavioral effect without the violation of the conservation of energy and momentum ((Fodor, 1994).p25) and without making category mistake (Feigl, 1967)? How can mental entities such as intentions and/or choices causally generate physical brain events ((Collins, 2011).note5.p265)? The causal closure principle is “every physical effect has its chance fully determined by physical events alone” (Lowe, 2000). Then how is it possible that mind can determine physical events? Materialists, such as ((Dennett, 1991).p35 and (Flanagan, 1991).p21)), argue: (a) If mind does not have an associated physical energy/mass to transfer, how mind can influence brain cells for example going to concert. (b) In addition, since an interaction requires the expenditure of energy to have any effect (within the law of conservation of energy), where does this energy come from? These imply that (a) the law of energy conservation is true for all purely physical interactions and (b) an exchange of energy is involved in all causal interactions (or law-like connections). However, assumptions (a) is false in general theory of relativity (GTR) and (b) is false in quantum mechanics (QM) ((Collins, 2011).p125). However, as per (Collins, 2011), “the law of energy conservation cannot be defined for the gravitational field, and hence for interactions involving gravity. [p127…] The non-conservation of energy in general relativity opens up another response a dualist could give to the energy-conservation objection. A dualist could argue that, like the gravitational field, the notion of energy simply cannot be defined for the mind, and hence one cannot even apply the principle of energy conservation to the mind/body interaction. The mind, like the gravitational field, could cause a real change in the energy of the brain without energy being conserved. [… then why] one should think that it [energy conservation] must apply to the mind/brain interaction. [p130…] The energy-conservation objection against interactionistic dualism fails when one considers the fact energy conservation is not a universally applicable principle in physics and the quantum mechanics sets a precedent for [causal] interaction [between the particles themselves] (or at least law-like correlation [between attributes of distantly separated particles as in quantum entanglement]) without any sort of energy-momentum exchange [by Bell’s theorem], or even any intermediate carrier. Of course, the more general interaction problem for interactionistic dualism still remains, a problem that is addressed [elsewhere (p133)]”. Thus, the problems may still remain for mind influencing the brain in interactive substance dualism. As per (Cacha & Poznanski, 2014), “Interactionism in this sense does not imply an immaterial–material dualism or substance dualism which might violate conservation laws of physics”.

3. ‘Zombie’ problem 

Substance dualism allows brains without conscious experiences (zombies) by subtracting the latter from the former. This implies ‘epiphenomenalism’: “mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events” (Robinson, 2011). My zombie twin behaves just like me but it has no conscious experiences (Eerikäinen, 2000).

4. ‘Ghost’ problem

The problem is that the interactive substance dualism would allow for various paranormal phenomena and that none of them has yet been scientifically verified. It is “the converse of the zombie problem. If the mind is separate from the body, then not only can the brain exist without the mind but also the mind can exist without the brain. Thus, the so-called ‘disembodiment’ becomes a real possibility” (Eerikäinen, 2000).  Nunn argues (personal communication) that the evidence for the occurrence of apparently disembodied states is actually quite strong, for example, near-death experiences (NDEs) (Blackmore, 1996; French, 2005). If this is true then this may not be a problem. However, one could argue that although there is some evidence for states that appear to be disembodied, but this is different from the evidence for disembodiment (soul/self can be separated from its body), since the phenomenon may be illusory.^[iv] Moreover, according to (Klemenc-Ketis, Kersnik & Grmec, 2010), the higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO₂) in arterial blood proved to be important in the provoking of NDEs and higher serum levels of potassium (K) might also be important. In addition, the “factors that could be important in provoking NDEs are anoxia …, hypercapnia …, and the presence of endorphins …, ketamine …, and serotonin …, or abnormal activity of the temporal lobus … or the limbic system ... These psychological theories try to explain the NDEs as a way of dissociation …, depersonalisation …, reactivation of birth memories …, and regression” (Klemenc-Ketis, Kersnik & Grmec, 2010).^[v]

5. Neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem

Interactionism or substance dualism is not favorable to neurophysiological tests because it entails a many-one or many-many relations or correspondences (Feigl, 1967). In neuropsychology, we need one-to-one relationship: for example, experience (mental): physical: function :: redness: V4/V4/VO NN : color detection :: 1:1:1 relationship.

 

As per (Beck & Eccles, 1992), the mind-brain interaction is a quantum process in synapses. One-one relationship means one experience (mental entity) interacts at one synapse (physical entity); many-one relationship means many synapses are related to one experience; many-many relationship means many synapses are related to many experiences. Thus, many-one and many-many relationships/interactions are not tractable for neurophysiological tests. For example, many experiences to one synapse (many-1) relationship can be redness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, greenness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, orangeness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, and so on. On the other hand, one experience to many synapses (1-many) relationship can be redness-retinal_cone_synapse, redness-retinal_ganglion_cell_synapse, redness-LGN_synapse, redness-V1_synapse, redness-V2_synapse, redness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, and so on. These (many-1 and 1-many) entail many experiences to many synapse (many-many) relationship.

6. Causal pairing problem

(O'Connor & Wong, 2005) proposed, “It is exceedingly odd that particular minds and brains form a lifelong ‘monogamy’ despite the absence of any apparent relational framework. [In other words, in ISD, mind is independent of brain and vice versa, but they can interact; but how they interact is unclear, so there is no real framework. In the eDAM, they are inseparable aspects of the same mind-brain state, so there is clear cut framework.] For it is only within the terms of such a framework that we could explain the persistent individual pairings as a consequence of a contingent, external relationship between them, which relations structure mental-physical causality in a general fashion. […] This difficulty might be overcome by positing the emergence of the mental substance, so that the asymmetrical dependency of mind on brain grounds their monogamous interaction”. However, it will be then materialistic emergence.

7. Developmental problem

(O'Connor & Wong, 2005) proposed, “[E]ven an emergentist version of substance dualism requires what is empirically implausible, viz., that a composite physical system gives rise, all in one go, to a whole, self-contained, organized system of properties bound up with a distinct individual. For we cannot say, as we should want to do, that as the underlying physical structure develops, the emergent self does likewise. This would require us to posit changing mereological complexity within the self, which would give rise all over again to problems of endurance that substance dualism is supposed to avoid, and which would run counter to intuitions of primitive unity that substance dualists have regarding persons. No, the emergent dualist view will have to say, instead, that at an early stage of physical development, a self emerges having all the capacities of an adult human self, but most of which lie dormant owing to immaturity in the physical system from which it emerges”. However, this seems to imply that self is not powerful and is a slave of developing physical system.

8. Legal Problem

In Sāṃkhya (which is close to Interactive Substance Dualism), Puruṣa (Parmātman/jīvātman: experiential aspect of consciousness) is like a witness (Sākshi) of whatever activities go on in subject’s brain but does not affect its activities; however, Puruṣa is the real experiencer. Subject’s brain is simply a physical machine/instrument; Puruṣa ‘shines’ (throws ‘lights’ on) this machine to experience. If this is true, then it is unclear who commits the crimes and who goes to jail: the brain or Parmātman/jīvātman?

9. Parsimony problem

The Occam Razor parsimony of the dualistic Sāṅkhya and ISD is 50% of the monistic frameworks such as the extended dual-aspect monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita). This is because dualism has 2 varaibles and monism has one variable.

10. Derivation problem: How can 87 elementary particles be derived from 5 Tanmātras of astral bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya?

Sehgal (21 July 2017): 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 subjective experiences (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.

11. Prakṛti and Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya lack inherent existence

Sehgal: The eDAM and Nāgārjuna’s dependent co-origination, co-evolution and co-development are based upon “essenceless” and “causeless” existence. If the primordial existence or structure is “essenceless” or empty, it will imply an absence of any existence. There can't be any existence without an "essence" regardless of the fact whether "essence" is definable and describable or not?  The inability of human beings to define and describe the primordial existence due to the inability of their mind within their current state of consciousness should not rob the primordial existence from "essence". From a zero existence, how the existence of any co-dependent origination of structure and functions or physicality and mental aspects arise? One cardinal principle: Existence can't arise out of non-existence.

 

Vimal: This is an ancient endless debate between the essence- and cause-based dualistic Sāṅkhya and the “essenceless” and “causeless” Mādhyamika school of Mahāyāna Buddhism. My understanding of Nāgārjuna's argument is if Moola Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya inherently exists then it is independent and it has an essence; it cannot be produced or destroyed; it needs no conditions for its production. However, Prakṛti needs Puruṣa to get activated for the creation. Puruṣa cannot create/cause anything; it simply experiences or it is simply a Dristā or witness of whatever is created. Therefore, Prakṛti and Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya lack inherent existence. In addition, dualistic Sāṅkhya has above 10 serious irresolvable problems. Therefore, Sāṅkhya can safely be rejected. Nāgārjuna rejects ‘inherent existence’ or ‘essence’ in favor of co-dependent origination, and that is also why he rejects causality. The entities that lack inherent existence dependently co-arise, and hence causality for them can be rejected but instead, conditions (such as efficient, percept-object, immediate, and dominant conditions) might be necessary, as in Nāgārjuna’s philosophy. The eDAM follows it for dependent co-origination of the mental and inseparable physical aspects of a state of an entity.

---

[i] As per Vinod Kumar Sahgal (email communication on 29-April-2016) with minor modifications, Prakṛti in Sāṃkhya philosophy consists of

(i)   Causal world (kāran jagat) is composed of 3 gunas (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas) and Ahamkāras;

(ii)  Astral world (sukshma jagat) consists of five Tanmātras (rūpa, śabda, sparśa, rasa, and gandha), Buddhi, Manas, and ten senses; and

(iii)                 Physical world (sthūla jagat) containing fermions, bosons and four fundamental forces

 

[ii] Comments and Replies related to the seven problems of Interactive Substance Dualism (ISD) are as follows.

(1) Association or mind-brain interaction problem: If nature has two distinct aspects, namely, mind and matter, then how can these distinct aspects of nature ever interact (Stapp, 2009)?

     SH (Syamala Hari): As I read the Stapp reference, it did not seem to me that Stapp is asking this question. Rather, he thinks that Von Neumann whose physics and philosophy Stapp fully accepts, has answered the question.  To quote Stapp from this reference: “Quantum mechanics is therefore dualistic in one sense, namely the pragmatic sense. It involves, operationally, on the one hand, aspects of nature that are described in physical terms, and, on the other hand, also aspects of nature that are described in psychological terms. And these two parts interact in human brains in accordance with laws specified by the theory. In these ways orthodox quantum mechanics is completely concordant with the defining characteristics of Cartesian dualism.”

     Author (RLPV): It is unclear what those laws are that can address the association or mind-brain interaction problem at brain level, neural-network-level, neural-level, molecular-level and electron/ion-level. I had email discussion with Stapp (see Section 2.2 of (Vimal, 2011a)). Von Neumann and Stapp’s views appear to claim the existence of independent conscious observer (soul/Ātman, independent of matter) that is necessary in measurements. They make a massive category mistake because mind interacts with matter whereas mind and matter are of two different categories (Feigl, 1967). Interactive substance dualism, materialism (mind from matter), and idealism (matter-in-itself from mind) certainly make category mistake; cross interaction is not allowed.

The ‘dual-aspect monism framework with dual-mode and varying degrees of the manifestation of aspects depending on the entities and their states’ (eDAM) (Vimal, 2010c) does not have this problem. Same-same (mind-mind or matter-matter) interaction is allowed because it does not make category mistake; thus, the eDAM framework is a better option which also makes Von Neumann and Stapp’s view less problematic because the mental aspect of observer can interact with the mental aspect of entity that is being measured; same with physical aspects.

(2) Problem of mental causation

     SH: On pages 20-22 of (Hiley & Pylkkänen, 2005), Hiley and Pylkkänen say the following: Eccles drew on a proposal by (Margenau, 1984), according to which the … mind may be regarded as a field in the accepted physical sense of the term. But it is a nonmaterial field, its closest analogy is perhaps a probability field. It cannot be compared with the simpler nonmaterial fields that require the presence of matter (hydrodynamic flow or acoustic). . . Nor does it necessarily have a definite position in space. And as far as present evidence goes it is not an energy in any physical sense.

     Eccles suggested that this non-material field could change the probability of synaptic vesicular emission, provided that one appeals to quantum principles. He went on to propose that particular quantum effects can be used to control the frequency of exocytosis without violating the conservation of energy. (Beck & Eccles, 1992) concentrated on the function of spine synapses. Here the regulatory function that results from exocytosis occurs only with probabilities much smaller than one for each incoming nerve impulse. They therefore regarded this exocytosis as a candidate for quantum processes to influence neural activity. The appearance of the low transition probabilities in synaptic exocytosis implies that there exists an activation barrier against the opening of an ion channel in the presynaptic vesicular grid. Such barrier transitions can occur either purely stochastically by thermal fluctuations or by stimulation of a trigger process. Beck and Eccles proposed a two-state quantum trigger which activates the gating process by means of quasi-particle tunneling. The calculations given by Beck and Eccles suggest that this is an appropriate place for quantum tunneling to occur, so that the probabilities of exocytosis could be changed by a “mind-field”.

     Hiley and Pylkkänen consider this in light of the Bohm approach. They say that if the “mind-field” can be seen as containing active information which contributes to the quantum potential then the quantum potential effectively reduces the height of the barrier to increase the probability of exocytosis. Thus they regard the “mind-field” as initiating a subsequent neural process which finally activates the motor neurons to produce the outward behavior. Thus they think that Eccles's view of the effect on the brain of a nonmaterial mind-field without violating laws of conservation of energy and momentum is possible in reality.

     I wish to point out that this intuitive picture of the above action of the mind on its brain is realized in concrete mathematical terms in my paper  “Mind and Tachyons: How Tachyon Changes Quantum Potential and Brain Creates Mind”  accepted for publication in the Neuroquantology journal.  You may a take a look at the paper on

http://mind-and-tachyons.blogspot.com/ .

     Author: Mental causation if has same-same then there is no problem, but if it is cross (mind causing matter or vice versa), then there is the category mistake problem.

     Beck and Eccles’ Mind-Field, Interactive Dualism, and the dual-aspect monism framework (Vimal, 2010c): (Beck & Eccles, 1992) might be correct as for as quantum process in synapses is concerned for the information transfer between neurons via classical axon-dendritic neural firing (spikes) sub-pathway of both feed forward and feedback pathways.

     However, as far as the subjective experience aspect of consciousness is concerned, Beck and Eccles’ mind-field (Beck & Eccles, 1992) has substance-dualism that has problems, so it is controversial.  Stapp (Stapp, 1996, 2006) appears extending Beck and Eccles’ framework while addressing some of the problems of substance-dualism; some argue that Stapp’s view is close to solipsism (the skeptical philosophical idea that only one's own mind is certain to exist). However, because of these problems, I have avoided this approach. In neuroscience community (mostly materialists), Eccles’ framework is regarded controversial and there is no general consensus on it.

If we combine our eDAM framework (Vimal, 2010c) and Beck and Eccles’ quantum process in synapses (Beck & Eccles, 1992), then it would have fewer problems. This is because it will avoid category mistake. 

Bohm is clearly dual-aspect monist (Vimal, 2010c). If tachyons (Hari, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b) exist, they should be dual-aspect entities; the mental-aspect of zero-energy tachyon field is the related mind-fields, which should interact with the mental-aspect of related neural-network(NN)-state to avoid category mistake. Similarly, the physical aspect of tachyon should interact with physical aspect of related NN-state.

(3) ‘Zombie’ problem

     SH: The assumption that nothing exists which cannot be verified by scientific verification which always takes the third-person point of view, or that outward behavior is important but not subjective experience is one of the assumptions of Dennett's theory and what Searle considers as the deepest mistake in Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained.  Moreover, creation of a zombie itself is a problem that is being debated.  A robot which simulates any given behavior of a human being can be constructed for sure, but first of all, it has to be constructed by conscious human beings; the robot does not come into existence all by itself. (Actually the purpose of creating robots is to have them carry out tasks without human intervention!). I would think neither can zombies come into existence on their own, at least we have not seen that happen. As far as I know, it is not yet a proven fact that a biological duplicate of a human being but which has no consciousness can be created; even if it is proved that it can be created by human beings, for that very reason, it presents no argument against mental causation in dualist theories. The “subtraction of the mind from the brain” has to be done by very intelligent minds with motivation to do it.

     The remark “it makes no difference what happens in the world, because it does not cause behavior” is confusing. Even a zombie, if it exists, exhibits behavior which means responds to changes in the external circumstances.

                   On the other hand, how does a dual-aspect theory show that a duplicate of the neurophysical configuration of a given human being cannot be created or can be born somewhere else in the world by mere chance? A dual-aspect theory can only say that if a duplicate exists it is a complete duplicate of that person in both physical and mental make up.

     Author: Materialism has problem; I agree. However, substance-dualism’s ‘zombie’ problem implies epiphenomenalism, which is also a problem.

                   I re-wrote this section as: ‘Zombie’ problem:  Substance dualism allows brains without conscious experiences (zombies) by subtracting the latter from the former. This implies ‘epiphenomenalism’: “mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events” (Robinson, 2011). My zombie twin behaves just like me but it has no conscious experiences (Eerikäinen, 2000).

                    Yes, the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2010c) rejects zombie because the molecule-by-molecule replication of human will be conscious as the mental and physical aspects are inseparable. The eDAM framework predicts conscious robots.

(4) ‘Ghost’ problem: The suggestion here is that a dualist theory would allow for various paranormal phenomena and that none of them has yet been scientifically verified. 

     SH: The primary objection to a dualist theory is in fact that it can never be proved scientifically. That is true if the mental aspect is not scientifically defined. The tachyon hypothesis mentioned under problem (2) [the problem of mental causation] above provides the possibility to overcome this objection.  As a matter of fact, even dual-aspect theories have not been experimentally verified as yet and neither does a completely monist theory exist which can claim that it has solved the mystery of consciousness.  On the other hand, there are scientific experimental results which support dualist theories; for example, the delay and antedating of peripheral sensations experiments by Libet (Libet, 1996a, 1996b; Libet, Wright, Feinstein, & Pearl, 1979) cannot be explained by monist or dual-aspect theories but their results are possible in a dualist theory! (The paper referenced under problem (2) actually explains the Libet paradox.) Also, what about unconscious thought? For example, see  (Westen, 1999).

                   Author: Libet is sympathetic to materialistic emergentism. As per (Wolf, 1999), “The ‘delay-and-antedating’ paradox/hypothesis refers to the lag in time of measurable cerebral electrical activity associated with a conscious sensory experience following a peripheral sensation. To account for this paradox, Libet suggested subjective antedating of that experience. In a series of studies (Libet et al. 1979, Libet 1996) several subjects' brains showed that neuronal adequacy (critical neural activity) wasn't achieved until a significant delay time D as high as 500 msecs following a stimulus. Yet the subjects stated that they were aware of the sensation within a few msec (10-50 msec) following the stimulation. Put briefly, how can a subject be aware of a sensation, that is, be conscious of it, if the subject's brain has not registered that ‘awareness’?: Many plausible arguments have been offered and refuted by (Libet, 1996a, 1996b; Libet et al., 1979) and others (Bergenheim, Johansson, Granlund, & Pedersen, 1996).”

                   As per (Libet et al., 1979): (i) Subjective experience of a peripherally-induced sensation does not have significantly delay compared to the experience of a cortically-induced sensation. (ii) However, the putative delay is up to about 500 ms to elicit the peripherally-induced experience for achieving the required ‘neuronal adequacy’. (iii) A hypothesis is proposed to explain this puzzle: “for a peripheral sensory input, (a) the primary evoked response of sensory cortex to the specific projection (lemniscal) input is associated with a process that can serve as a 'time-marker'; and (b), after delayed neuronal adequacy is achieved, there is a subjective referral of the sensory experience backwards in time so as to coincide with this initial 'time-marker'.” (iv) This hypothesis was experimentally tested in human subjects by appropriately implanted electrodes on the medial lemniscus (LM) and the surface of somatosensory cortex (C); the results maintained the hypothesis. The LM is the pathway in the brainstem that is composed of  medulla oblongata, pons, and midbrain and carries sensory information from the gracile and cuneate nuclei of medulla oblongata to the thalamus. The midbrain is comprised of tectum/colliculi, tegmentum, ventricular mesocoelia, cerebral peduncles, and several nuclei and fasciculi. (v) In this experiment, the test stimuli to LM and C were arranged to require the minimum train duration of 200 ms or more for producing any conscious sensory experience in each case. (vi) “Each such cerebral stimulus could be temporally coupled with a peripheral one (usually skin, S) that required relatively negligible stimulus duration to produce a sensation.” (vii) “The sensory experiences induced by LM stimuli were found to be subjectively timed as if there were no delay relative to those for S, that is, as if the subjective experience for LM was referred to the onset rather than to the end of the required stimulus duration of 200 ms or more.” (viii) “On the other hand, sensory experiences induced by the C stimuli, which did not excite specific projection afferents, appeared to be subjectively timed with a substantial delay relative to those for S, that is, as if the time of the subjective experience coincided roughly with the end of the minimum duration required by the C stimuli.” (ix) “A temporal discrepancy between corresponding mental and physical events, i.e., between the timing of a subjective sensory experience and the time at which the state of 'neuronal adequacy' for giving rise to this experience is achieved, would introduce a novel experimentally-based feature into the concept of psychophysiological parallelism in the mind-brain relationship.” 

                   As per (Libet, 1996b), “I had previously proposed a hypothetical ‘conscious mental field’ as an emergent property of appropriate neural activities, with the attributes of integrated subjective experience and a causal ability to modulate some neural processes.” This implies that mind causes modulations in neural processes, which seems to make category mistake. This mistake can be avoided by the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework, where the changes in mental aspect of neural-network(NN)-state is faithfully, rigorously, and automatically translated into the modulations in the inseparable physical aspect (neural processes) of that NN-state because of the doctrine of inseparability of mental and physical aspects.

                   Substance dualism can also explain the Libet’s paradox, but two different kinds of substances are needed, which is not necessary and less parsimonious as per the Occam’s razor. If Atman exists after death then it must be a dual-aspect entity because it carries the Karmic-impressions in the subtle body (physical aspect) for re-birth if Brahman is not realized and/or the intense desire for worldly entities still remains.

                   The dual-aspect monism (Vimal, 2010c) can address Libet’s paradox as follows: The phenomenal subjective experience (SE) of the sensation within a few msec (10-50 msec) following the stimulation is the mental aspect of related phenomenal-neural-network(NN)-state and the activity and this NN is the physical aspect. We need to investigate this early NN for faster route. Perhaps, this phenomenal awareness does not require re-entry and attentional related NN, which is time consuming as it may take up to 500 msec. The temporal delay of about 500 msec gives enough time to activate many re-entry and attentional related NN and hence this SE might be access awareness/consciousness that can be reported precisely. Again, both aspects of related access-NN-state are involved, which needs further investigation. The atheist version of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework rejects ghosts because the mental and physical aspects are inseparable.

                   The data related to unconscious processing (Westen, 1999) can be explained by the eDAM framework. A unconscious thought, in the eDAM framework, is the mental aspect of the NN-state related to unconscious thought and its physical aspect is the related NN and activities as in conscious SEs (Vimal, 2010a, 2010b, 2010d, 2011f).

(5) Neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem

                   SH: Whatever the theory of consciousness one may be pursuing, monist, dual-aspect, or dualist, the mental state is not directly accessible by scientific instruments. A monist claims that the phenomenal information of Chalmers, is a property of the physical brain states; a dual-aspect theorist believes that a given mental state is the other aspect of the mind/brain with a corresponding physical state; a dualist believes that mental and physical states are states of different substances with some rules of correspondence.  No matter what the theory is, the relation between mental and physical states whether one-to-one, many-to-one or many-to-many, it can only be inferred in experiments in which the human subject whose brain is being measured reports his/her mental state to the experimenter.  The experimenter only measures the physical state but not the mental state directly.  So what is the difference between the various theories as regards neurophysiological testing?  If the relation is not one-to-one, so be it, let the truth reveal itself.

     A mental state is similar to a state of software in a computer; a corresponding hardware state (a neurophysical state in the case of the brain) is one which is a mapping of the software state.  A computer's software can be coded in different languages. Depending upon the design, the same computer may carry more than one physical representation of the software like binary, hexadecimal, etc.  But the brain's material is not electronic; hence the relation could be different (many-to-one, one-to-many etc.).

                   Author: The many-to-one or many-to-many relation is not unique type of relationship; it is less parsimonious. The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) has inseparable mental and physical aspects and hence has 1-1 relationship and does not have this problem. Psychophysical data are mostly from first person perspective, such as in color matching, which can be objectively recorded and analyzed as in (Vimal, Pokorny & Smith, 1987). It is unclear what the advantage of interactive substance dualism (ISD) is if the eDAM framework can explain everything what ISD can. The criterion of the selection of metaphysics can be the lesser number of problems when two or all views can explain all the empirical data. The eDAM framework has the least number of problems, compared to all other views, which is the one of the main points for selecting it.

          (6) Causal pairing problem

                   SH: Quite a few researchers have presented rebuttals of Jaegwon Kim's ((Kim, 2005).p78-83) arguments about this problem. Starting from birth, the mind/brain keeps learning by receiving sensory inputs from the environment (including interactions with other living beings) and keeps accumulating experiences and strategies to respond to future inputs, in other words, information.  This is a neurophysically proven fact. Hence the mind IS emergent and therefore overcomes the pairing problem according to (O'Connor & Wong, 2005).  Why do you assume that the emergence is only materialistic?  It is so in an electronic computer which does not have any phenomenal information to begin with but the brain is different from the computer in this very aspect.  For example, see my article referenced under problem (2).  It shows that more mental substance (in the form of tachyons) is created in every interaction with the environment. So a dualist theory does not assume that the emergence of brain/mind is purely materialistic. Along with materialistic emergence, new phenomenal information is also created and accumulated in the brain.

                   Author: Both materialistic and mentalistic emergences have their own explanatory gap problems. Emergentism is a mysterious view. ISD has causal pairing problem because of its own explanatory gap: how the separable mind (Ātman) can pair with matter (neural-network, neural, molecular, and electronic/ionic levels). The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) does not have this problem because of the inseparability of aspects.

(7) Developmental problem

                   SH: Life begins with the interaction of a certain mind (a chunk of some phenomenal information or mental substance) with some matter.  Just like a complex program cannot be loaded into a pocket calculator, all the complex features present in the initial chunk of mind cannot function until the physical brain develops adequately.  As life goes on, the brain gradually develops and is gradually able to manifest all the features that are dormant initially and at the same time, the mind also learns and accumulates more and more information. What the mind in a brain learns depends upon what it receives from outside as well as what its content already is at that time. (A computer's response depends upon both the input and the software content of the computer.) However, this does not necessarily mean that the self is powerless and is a slave of the physical system. Even twins brought up in a similar environment and looking alike may develop different behavioral tendencies if the initial content of their minds is different. For example, one may turn out to be a musician while the other is not; hence the development of the physical system itself could be guided by the initial mind or what you call self.  So, the self starts life by starting interaction with matter and moulds the physical development later on as well. Of course, all this has to be proved scientifically but the point is that dualism does not necessarily imply that self is powerless as you say.

     In a dual-aspect theory, the mental aspect acts on the physical aspect, for example, in a way similar to the quantum wave acts upon its particle in Bohm's theory. But to create a new mental feature, a new physical configuration has to be created first by interacting with some external material agent, which is then accompanied by its mental aspect.  So, the emergence of self does depend upon material interactions.  In the twins example above, a dual-aspect theory cannot accept the fact that one is a musician and the other is not. 

     Author: The objection related to the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework is not tenable. The Cross interaction (mind on matter or vice versa) makes a massive category mistake. ISD (mind interacts with matter), materialism (mind from matter), idealism (matter from mind) all makes category mistake. The eDAM framework (the dual-aspect monism framework with dual-mode and varying degrees of the manifestation of aspects depending on the entities and their states) does not make this mistake because aspects are inseparable, mind does not act on matter or vice-versa. Furthermore, there is no mysterious emergence in the eDAM framework as discussed in (Vimal, 2013) because a specific SE is selected from the SEs embedded in the mental aspect of neural-network-states via the matching mechanism. The eDAM framework accepts the fact that one is a musician and the other is not because the NN-states of twins can be different.

                   To sum up, The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) is a better framework and is a middle path between materialism and interactive substance dualism (ISD) & idealism. It is unclear why we still need ISD instead of the eDAM framework.

                   SH: It does not seem to me that you addressed any of the various points I mentioned except for the one disagreement that substances of two categories cannot interact; this could be the basic assumption of eDAM which a dualist theory does not accept.

                   Tachyonic matter is above the light barrier whereas ordinary matter is below the barrier. The relativity theory says neither one can ever cross the barrier to go to the opposite side. Tachyon theories consider them as different substances and that interaction is possible; they do not say that a tachyon inevitably accompanies a material particle. So if you say tachyons and ordinary matter are dual aspects of the same thing, it may be so in a philosophical sense because everything is an aspect of the absolute Brahman but in scientific sense, one has to show first theoretically how a tachyon inevitably accompanies a material particle.

                   Author: I think that I have addressed all relevant issues. The doctrine of inseparability of aspects is for each entity; an entity could be the fundamental primal Brahman, tachyon, or any other entities. The degrees of the manifestation of aspects vary with the entities and their states. In other words, the mental (M) aspect a brain-state can be a specific SE and its physical (P) aspect can be related NN and its activities; so both aspects are dominant in the wakeful conscious state of brain/mind. The mental aspect of the state of an inert matter appear latent in third person perspective; however, we need to be that matter to understand what its first person perspective might be. Its physical aspect appears dominant. We know from physics with evidence that physical aspects (P-P) interact, i.e., same-same interactions (P-P and M-M) are allowed. Cross-interactions  (M-P or P-M) are prohibited because there is no scientific evidence and they make category mistake. Perhaps, interactive substance dualism, materialism, and mentalistic idealism do not honor category mistake. They allow subjective experiences (SEs) (such as redness) to interact with matter (such as redness-related-V4/V8/VO-neural-network); please give us some evidence for SEs interacting with matter and precisely how.

                   SH: In our experience of the world, we have not seen a purely material interaction that is, an interaction involving only lifeless matter ever generate phenomenal information. So even in a dual-aspect theory in which you say the mental aspect is dominant in living matter but not in lifeless matter, at least one participant in an interaction should be living matter for the result to produce recognizable experience. So, for example, when one sees a red flower first and then a blue flower later, and recognizes that the latter color is different from the former, this awareness is the result of an interaction in which the red experience and the blue experience both must have been participants. Because a computer on the other hand, can also tell the outside world that the latter color is different from the former but it never has any experience. When the new awareness of blue color is produced in the brain, in all quantum theories of consciousness I know, there should be an accompanying quantum collapse of the physical brain (for example, (Stapp, 1995)). What the quantum theories do not say is why a quantum collapse of the physical brain should produce awareness when no collapse of a lifeless quantum system ever produces awareness. At least we have not so far seen that happen. In my paper mentioned in my comments, I showed that new tachyons (new SEs) are produced when the collapse occurs.

                   Author: In the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013), the mental aspect is from the subjective first person perspective and the physical aspect is the objective third person perspective. This means, we do not know what the subjective first person perspective might be for inert entities, we have to be them to know (if any!).

     I agree with you that materialism (that uses classical physics) cannot explain subjective experiences. In the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013), I have precisely and rigorously shown how a specific SE is selected via quantum conjugate matching mechanism. I had long email discussion with Stapp related to quantum collapse, which is given in Sections 1.3 and 2.2 of (Vimal, 2011a). For example in Section 1.3:

     (I) Since horizontal cut is needed to conform to quantum mechanics (QM), there are 4 possible horizontal cuts in the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013):

                    (HC1) Mind-Matter Interaction: The Heisenberg type horizontal cut between (a) the mental aspect (‘abstract ego’) of observer-dependent cognitive feedback signals related higher level brain areas including cortical midline structures (CMS) for self and their neural activities and (b) the physical aspect of stimulus-dependent feed-forward signals related lower and intermediate level brain areas and their neural activities/representations. This is close to Stapp’s framework in QM.

                   (HC2) Matter-Mind Interaction: The horizontal cut between the physical aspect of cognitive feedback observer-dependent part of neural-network and the mental aspect of feed-forward stimulus-dependent part of neural-network. This cut does not appear interesting and relevant.

                   (HC3) Matter-Matter Interaction: The horizontal cut between the physical aspect of cognitive feedback observer-dependent part of neural-network and the physical-aspect of feed-forward stimulus dependent part of neural-network. This is usual neurophysiological feedback-feed-forward signal interaction.

                   (HC4) Mind-Mind Interaction: The horizontal cut between the mental aspect of cognitive feedback observer dependent part of neural-network and the mental aspect of feed-forward stimulus dependent part of neural-network. This is a novel mind-mind interaction and is proposed in the eDAM framework.

     The horizontal cuts (HC1) and (HC2) involve ‘category mistake’ (Feigl, 1967; Vimal, 2010c) because mind and matter are two different categories and it is not crystal clear how the observer-dependent mental aspect can interact with stimulus-dependent physical aspect. Orthodox QM assumes that they simply interact, as the brute fact, is not sufficient because of the failure of “principle of understandability” for many investigators; it is also mystery to me.

     One could argue that if the ‘abstract ego’ acts by her ‘intention’ to make measurements and to perform experiments in a certain way, then this intention has to be expressed in terms of neural-activities, and brain areas must be involved for generating certain action. In other words, HC1 has to take the help of HC3 for the interaction of ‘abstract ego’ with matter, where HC3 is a matter-matter interaction. The horizontal cuts (HC3) and (HC4) are less objectionable because they avoid category mistake.

     HC3 and HC4 are precisely and rigorously implemented in (Vimal, 2010c). Furthermore, if the matter-matter matching via the interaction between the physical aspects of neural signals as in HC3 is accomplished then mind-mind matching is automatically, rigorously, precisely, and faithfully accomplished. This is because the physical and mental aspects of an entity are in 1-1 relationship and cannot be separated because of the doctrine of inseparability. If there is any change in one aspect then that change will be reflected in other aspect faithfully, precisely and automatically. Similarly, vice-versa, i.e., if mind-mind matching via the interaction between the mental aspects of neural signals as in HC4 is accomplished then matter-matter matching is automatically accomplished because physical and mental aspects of an entity-state are inseparable.

                    (II) The eDAM framework maintains that (i) the mental and physical aspects of an entity never get separated and (ii) have 1-1 relationship, and (iii) if any change occurs in its physical aspect (in the objective third person perspective) that change will be reflected in its mental aspect (in the subjective first person perspective) and vice-versa. Thus, this framework maintains the principle of the causal closure of the physical-mental (not just physical). Therefore, the mystery of ontology is uncovered. In other words, the mental part could NEVER veer of in some completely tangential direction because both aspects will never get separated as this is substance monism and property dualism in the sense of inseparable dual-aspect (the eDAM) framework. However, in substance dualism or materialism this mystery remains.

                    (III) In the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013), the physically described aspect, evolving in accordance with the Schrödinger equation, matches the experienced reality via the matching and selection mechanism as briefly elaborated above in (I). The details are given in (Vimal, 2010c). My use of the term ‘soul’/ ‘jīvātman’ has the same meaning as ‘abstract ego’ because both have independent existence and independent ontology.

                    (IV) Please note that, in the eDAM framework, both aspects never get separated from each other; both aspects co-evolve and co-develop very closely as detailed in (Vimal, 2008b). Therefore, I do not see any failure.

                    (V) The matching mechanism involves the interaction between stimulus-dependent feed-forward signals and cognitive feedback signals in a re-entrant neural-network. Then the selection of specific subjective experience (SE) out of many possible SEs occurs; this is what I mean by the term ‘collapse’ of many SEs to one specific SE. It takes time for these neural processes. I agree that there are problems with Penrose-Hameroff OR-Orch model (Hameroff & Penrose, 1996; Hameroff & Penrose, 1998; Hameroff & Powell, 2009) but they are trying their best to address them (Hameroff, 1994; Hameroff, 2009; Hameroff & Penrose, 1998). My framework involves 5 pathways. If their quantum pathway turns out to be wrong, then there are still 4 more pathways to work on.

                    (VI) I do not see that my framework is not compatible with physics. Details are given in (Vimal, 2010c, 2010e, 2010f, 2010g).

     Furthermore, Brihadāranyaka Upaniṣhad that has ISD and idealism honors category mistake and implicitly implies the eDAM framework. For example, the following implies the dual-aspect nature of light and our visual system. “The sun connects itself with the eye by the rays that he projects. The rays emanate from the sun and impinge on the retina of the eye. Then the eyes begin to see the brilliance of the light of the sun, and the same light when it falls on an object of sense becomes responsible for the perception of that object through the eye. But, it is not merely the light of the sun that is responsible for this perception of the object outside. There is something inside us without which perception would be impossible. The conscious element within us that peeps through the eyes and receives the impressions of light emanating from outside brings about connection with the form of light outside. It may appear for all precise purposes that light is inert and unconscious and that we are conscious; that the perceiving individual is conscious and that the light that is responsible for the perception of an object is inert, physical. The Upaniṣhad, at least, does not believe in an ultimate physicality of things. Even the so-called physical objects are ultimately spiritual in their nature, because logic and ratiocination compel us to accept that dissimilars cannot come together and coincide. Consciousness cannot come in contact with that which is dissimilar in its character. Light and consciousness cannot come in contact with each other if consciousness were something different in nature from the light through which perception is made possible. If light is wholly material, unspiritual, or non-spiritual, bereft of the element of consciousness, consciousness cannot come in contact with it. Then there would be no such thing as the perception of an object. So the Upaniṣhad says that the idea that light outside is physical, and not endowed with consciousness, is erroneous. There is a Puruṣha in the sun as well as in the eye. The consciousness that is responsible for the action of the eye in the perception of an object, the consciousness which actually becomes aware of the presence of an object, is connected with the Puruṣha, or the consciousness in that which emanates the light, or projects the light. ‘The Puruṣha in the sun is the Puruṣha within you.’ Dakṣiṇe’kṣan puruṣaḥ tāv etāv: That which is within him, that which is within me, that which is within you and that which is within the sun—they are one. If the two are not one, there would be no connection between light and eye. The connection between the light and the eye and the correlativity of the action of light and the action of the eye implies that there is a similarity of structure, similarity of being, similarity of essence and reality between the sun and the eye” ((Swami Krishnananda, 1983).V.5.2.p313). These arguments can be for both ISD and the eDAM framework, but latter has the least number of problems so it is better.

 

[iii] The color area ‘V8/V4/VO’ refers to visual area V8 of Tootell-group (Hadjikhani, Liu, Dale, Cavanagh, & Tootell, 1998; Tootell, Tsao & Vanduffel, 2003), visual area V4 of Zeki-group (Bartels & Zeki, 2000), and VO of Wandell-group (Wandell, 1999); they are the same human color area (Tootell, Tsao & Vanduffel, 2003).  VO is ventral-occipital cortex.

 

[iv] In the eDAM framework, for OBE/NDE, the mental aspect of the relevant NN-state (a psychophysical entity) appears projected outside (as we experience outside objects). However, activities (such as visual and auditory) are still going on in NNs (but not detected clinically). To reject this hypothesis, subject must wear eye-patches and ear-plugs effectively so no external stimulus-information can travel inside visual and auditory system. Under these conditions, the eDAM hypothesis predicts no visual and auditory OBE/NDE related to external objects; however, endogenous OBE/NDE can still occur.

xxx

[v] The hypothesis of life-after-death based on Out of Body Experiences (OBEs) and Near Death Experiences (NDEs) is pseudoscience: the science-like that is based on logic without scientific solid evidence for the interpretation of data. OBEs/NDEs as discussed by (Laws & Perry, 2010) and others along with my comments are as follows:

(i) OBEs are “episodes, during which a person’s consciousness seems, according to their subjective recall afterwards, to ‘leave’ the body, and therefore the physical brain, remaining aware of physical surroundings.”

(ii) OBEs frequently combine NDEs. NDEs appear “to transcend physical surroundings and enable subjects to perceive an ‘after life’ scenario.”

(iii) OBEs are usually associated with extreme emotional/physical factors such as (a) NDEs: survival after death, actual short periods of brain death, or flat lining, which less open to delusion, fraud, or contamination by sensory input during minimal consciousness; and (b) extreme stress, drug intoxication, shamanic journeys, and telepathy.

(iv) OBE/NDEs are reports have been accumulated over many years and across many cultures; they are now increasing because of improved technology for resuscitation of patients.

(v) OBE/NDEs usually “include the sensation of ‘rising’ out of one’s body, and actually being able to ‘hover’ above it and look down on it, being still visually and aurally aware of surroundings even if unconscious, from a viewpoint outside the physical body, somehow independent of physical eyes or ears.”

(vi) “Sometimes this disembodied consciousness moves to another room or place, even outside. Especially if the subject is in extremis, in a coma or flatlining, the experience may then go on to the classic NDE. The subject moves through a dark tunnel, with a light at the end. They may ‘see’ their life history, the ‘life review’ feature. They emerge into this light, to awareness of feelings of peace, happiness, an awareness of a benign intelligence, a state they would wish to stay in. Typically, they encounter loved ones who have previously died, who explain to the subject, that they can’t stay but must return to their body until the time is right.”

(vii) “These experiences occur in many cultures, indeed, sometimes a culture- or religion-specific figure is present, but generally, the experiences do not conform to the taught dogmas of the subject’s religion or culture. There is often a ‘boundary’ between the subject’s state and that of their loved ones, which may be culturally determined, eg a river, a line, a wall, that must not be breached. Instead, the subject is guided or sent back into the body. The conscious subject typically recalls their experience as very clear, detailed, and coherent. The individual commonly reports this as a life-changing experience, with feelings of peacefulness, lack of fear of dying, and happiness which remain with them and shape the rest of their lives.”

(viii) “It has to be said that sometimes the experience of the OBE/NDE is not so positive. Frightening, ‘warning’ experiences are also reported. There is a tendency to associate these with would-be suicides, being ‘warned’ against self-slaughter, or drug fuelled states, but there are some instances of negative NDEs not associated with these states. These instances are not so often cited, for obvious reasons.”

(ix) “We’d all like to think that if consciousness survives death, of which those who have NDEs become subjectively convinced, it will be a pleasant experience. This feature of ‘wishful thinking’ can become a distorting factor, in the Chinese Whispers effect.”

(x) (Greyson, 2000) found that 98 reported NDEs and 38 did not. These NDEs were linked to dissociative experiences, such as periods of time unaccounted for, feeling unfamiliar with one's surroundings even one's own body or amnesia. These were not psychiatric disorder, rather they were non-pathological responses to stress.

(xi) (Lange, Greyson & Houran, 2004) surveyed using the Greyson’s NDE scale (Greyson, 1983, 1990) reported that NDEs reflect peace, joy and harmony with increasing intensity. As per QM, the observer influences and determines the observed. However, the interactive substance dualism (truly detached independent scientist/observer) has problems.  

(xii) (French, 2005) proposed the following explanations of NDEs: (a) Spiritually, consciousness detaches from its neural correlates that presumably provides glimpse of afterlife. (b) Psychologically, NDEs can be considered as the defense mechanism in extreme danger. (c) Biologically, NDEs may be due to anoxia, cerebral hypoxia, hypercarbia, which cause the release of endorphins and other brain neurotransmitters; these induce temporal lobe hyperactivity and hallucinations. (d) Rationale: A patient with near-death brain does not show any measurable activity (such as ‘flatlining’). Therefore, This type of patient’s experiences may not be sensory-stimulus dependent. To test this hypothesis patient should have ear plugs and eye patches; if NDEs disappear then NDEs could sensory-stimulus dependent. Otherwise, one of the factors for NDEs might be the physiological effects of anoxia/hypoxia. (e) Furthermore, similar experiences are reported during the electromagnetic stimulation of the brain, the use of drug ketamine, and extreme fatigue. Therefore, one could argue that NDEs might be hallucinations (not real experiences) induced in a damaged brain.

(xiii) One could argue for NDEs/OBEs/consciousness may be outside of the brain because these experiences have well-organized narrative, great clarity of thoughts, and recall, whereas hypoxia has mental confusion. To test this hypothesis, authentic empirical verification of some of NDEs/OBEs (such as seeing doctors, nurses, and things outside of room and so on) is needed. If verified rigorously, then it will not be easy to reject interactive substance dualism.

(xiv) Some of NDEs/OBEs may not be easy to verify scientifically, such as (a) peaceful ‘out of body’ experience, (b) the tunnel, (c) the wonderful light holding ‘god’ like intelligence and love, (d) deceased loved ones waiting for us, (e) the life review, and (f) the feeling that everything that happens actually makes sense.

 (xv) (Yamamura, 1998)’s Japanese-study reported that 14 out of 48 deep coma patients, who subsequently reported NDEs, such as (a) flying in a dark void with a light ahead, (b) encountering relatives and friends, and (c) returning to the world in response to a voice calling,  (d) finding ‘sincere values’ afterwards, and (b) viewing death as a peaceful calm experience.

(xvi) (Lai, 2007) Taiwanese-study reported that 45 (young, religious women were usually in this group) out of 710 dialysis patients reported NDEs, such as (a) OBEs, (b) precognitive visions, (c) tunnel experiences. After effects were (a) being kinder to others and (b) being more motivated towards better life. These effects suggest that NDEs have (a) evolutionary advantage and (b) real psychological positive effects, even if we do not know NDE’s intrinsic underlying mechanisms. For example, if in NDE, the patient’s deceased mother is waiting for him/her at the end (real or hallucination does not matter much if belief is strong), a sense of good feeling arises and the fear of death reduces.

(xvii) Consciousness outside vs. inside: OBEs/NDEs are reported (a) under extreme stress, such as traumatic childbirth, (b) during fleeting brain death or (b) the use of shamanic plants, drugs, meditation and so on. Subjects report ‘seeing’ people, light, rivers, walls, and so on. How could someone ‘see’ with non-functional physical eyes and cortex?

One could speculate that some form of consciousness operates outside the brain-body system and perceives in more than 3D (10D in string theory). One could further speculate that returning patient’s brain ‘translates’ what was perceived ‘outside’ 3D perception into ‘normal’ 3D using their own culturally influenced imagery in just a few seconds.

On the other hand, if NDEs/OBEs are just brain-constructs, the whole NDE happened in seconds as consciousness returned from the unconscious state and nothing happened during the state of clinical death. The brain tried to make sense of the interruption in self-consciousness. One could argue that afflicted brain may have tendency, developed through natural selection, to help the species live less traumatized lives after major trauma. However, NDEs/OBEs are for very few patients, not all. In other words, this hypothesis of NDEs/OBEs is true for very few priviledge patients, not all. Patients who do not have NDEs/OBEs and who have PTSD will contradict this hypothesis. Therefore, it is unclear if the natural selection is the underlying mechanism of NDEs/OBEs.

(xviii) Brain and Quantum Processes:  One could argue that the brain itself uses quantum processes, which could range up to 10^-15 s. (Persinger and Koren, 2007; Persinger et al., 2008) argue that brain-space can contain very large amount of information and space-time increments. (Radin, 1997; Radin, 2006) argue for QM to explain psychic phenomena scientifically. (Schwartz, Stapp & Beauregard, 2005) have proposed neurophysical model of mind-brain interaction using quantum physics in neuroscience and psychology.

(xix) Remote viewing as NDEs/OBEs: NDEs/OBEs also include remote viewing when clinically dead, such as (a) rising out of the body and ‘seeing’ the doctors and nurses in the ICU, (b) ‘listening’ their conversation and/or nurse’s remark, and (c) ‘seeing’ if doctor drops something. As per orthodox thinking, patients should not have no coherent thoughts or experiences during clinical death. In the ‘standstill’ procedure (in 1991, patient PR), for brain surgery to take place, (a) the body is deeply chilled, (b) the brain is drained of blood, (c) the heart is stopped, (d) anaesthesia is applied (so it is not near death procedure), and (e) PR entered the room while awake. The period for the actual ‘standstill’ and flatline was only a few minutes. (Sanborn, Malmberg & Shiffrin, 2004) described a clear timeline of events in the operating room and PR’s reported OBEs that presumably occurred during flatline; however, one could raise questions on the authenticity of the PR’s report although it has witnesses. PR observes her own operation or part of it from outside her own body such as: (a) ‘hearing’ instruments and conversations of medical staff, (b) ‘seeing’ procedures applied to her own operation including the bone saw, (c) ‘hearing’ remarks made on the smallness of her veins, and (d) ‘experiencing’ the classic transcendental NDEs. PR’s hearing may be due to incomplete anaesthesia and earplugs without soundproof (Augustine, 2007) and other OBEs may be due to hypoxia (Woerlee, 2011, June 20).

(xx) Speculations: One could further argue that: (a) brain may still be functional in some relevant way in clinical death; (b) there may be some forms of consciousness that may be  detectable as science advances, such as related to quantum processes at subatomic levels or superfast speeds; and (c) gamma brainwaves were recently detectable, so as technology advances, other waves may be detected. If we have even one case that could be scientifically/empirically verified, then we may be able to model better. Other parapsychological phenomena (shamanic journeys, telepathy, and telekinesis) and models may be interesting as well. It would be interesting to investigate biological equivalents of quantum tunnelling, the uncertainty principle, and string theory. (Sheldrake, 2005: Schmidt, 2004) found small but statistically significant effects of mind on mind and (Radin and Ferrari, 1991) seems to find the effect of mind on matter. These may involve non-local indirect interactions; currently understood mechanisms cannot explain them. The ‘influence of the observer on the observed’ is one of the premises of QM. In other words, just one verifiable case of OBE could revolutionize biomedical science as quantum physics did to classical physics.

(xxi) Alternative explanations: One could argue NDEs/OBEs might be hallucinations; signals might have come from their long-term memory to some extent. In other words, OBEs/NDEs are all long-term memory activated information remain intact after clinical death, it tries its best to survive by making up stories. This means we have excellent protective system. In OBE, the patient’s brain-mind-state may construct experiences that appear as OBE in its mental aspect, but its physical aspect may still be some relevant NN and their residual activities. 

 

(Beauregard, Courtemanche & Paquette, 2009) measured brain activity in subjects with NDEs using fMRI and EEG during Meditation and Control condition. In the Meditation condition, subjects mentally visualize and emotionally connect with the ‘being of light’ supposedly encountered during their NDEs. In the Control condition, subjects mentally visualize the lamp light. The fMRI-activated areas were right brainstem, right lateral orbitofrontal cortex, right medial prefrontal cortex, right superior parietal lobule, left superior occipital gyrus, left anterior temporal pole, left inferior temporal gyrus, left anterior insula, left parahippocampal gyrus and left substantia nigra. The EEG-activated (a) theta power were detected at FP1, F7, F3, T5, P3, O1, FP2, F4, F8, P4, Fz, Cz and Pz; (b) alpha power at FP1, F7, T3 and FP2; and (c) gamma power at FP2, F7, T4 and T5. These brain regions are also involved in positive emotions, visual mental imagery, attention or spiritual experiences.

(Fox, 1962) proposed that OBEs are related to astral projection that is a record of OBEs. (Tart, 1967) analyzed the content of OBEs that include: (a) possessing a nonphysical body, (b) floating, (c) ‘seeing’ one's physical body from the outside such as by hovering over it, (d) thinking of a distant place while ‘outside’ and suddenly finding oneself there, and (e) being absolutely convinced the OBE was not a dream.

(Persinger, 1974) analyzed the temporal sequence of OBEs as: (a) a progression from ‘being pulled by a force’, (b) awareness of the ‘consciousness’ looking down on the physical body, (c) floating sensations ‘like the wind’, (d) movement through space by ‘thinking’ or ‘willing’, and (e) a voice telling the person to ‘return’ or ‘go back’ to the body. In the lifetime of a normal person, OBEs are not expected except when a brain is in pathological state, such as in the acute minor functional reorganization of the right hemisphere (a) during extreme metabolic states that typically diminish the blood flow or perfusion rates, (b) after mild brain injury (Persinger, 1994), or (c) during appropriate electrical stimulation within the temporoparietal regions.

          (Saroka, Mulligan, Murphy, & Persinger, 2010) produced artificial OBEs (such as the self detached from the body and moving through space) in normal subjects using a brief exposure to the magnetic field generated from 64 solenoids designed to affect the brain-fields. Within a few seconds after the 5-min stimulation, (a) subjects felt mild lightness followed by (b) the feeling of floating, then (c) intermittent ‘rushes of anxiety or sensations of falling’ similar to motion sickness, (d) these ‘rushes’ became more and more frequent and were associated with feelings of dissociation from the body and a loss of body image and awareness, (e) the experience lead to the feeling that subject’s head was floating above the spot where his body was sitting, (f) then subject could not distinguish between his limbs, his torso, or the surrounding space and objects in the room, and (g) subject asked to terminate the experiment, and then he felt fatigue and headache. Left temporal lobe (linked with the sense of self and consciousness) and right prefrontal areas (associated with spatial navigation) had high EEG-activities in 4-7 and 15-21 Hz band. The signals for the ‘left temporal-right prefrontal coherence’ started from left temporal areas to left frontal areas to the right frontal areas. This reconstructs the autobiographical memory about where, when, and with whom an event occurred (Buckner & Petersen, 1996) and then ‘mental time travel’ could entail OBEs. The above coherence entails (a) the feeling of separation of the self from the body, (b) the ‘movement in space’, (c) ‘thought’ as the central frame of reference to control this movement, and (d) the feeling of being somewhere else. If the magnetic field stimulation is stopped suddenly, OBEs decreased. Furthermore, one could argue that the states of consciousness are analogous to quantum states embedded with cerebral fields, where the fields contain quantized points.

Transcedental Meditation Siddhi also leads to the feeling of lightness and flying/floating. The intrusion of left hemispheric field in right hemisphere space can be interpreted as: (i) the intrusion is the physical cause for OBE as per physicalism, (ii) soul/self can be separated from its body (disembodiment) as per interactive substance dualism or theist religions, (iii) OBE is the mental aspect of the state whose physical aspect is self-related neural-network that also involves left-temporal and right-frontal areas along with CMS, and is caused by the intrusion as per dual-aspect monism. The interpretation (iii) is optimal because it has the least number of problems. It is indeed amazing how powerful the brain is.

An alternative hypothesis: At near death state, system may become introverted (immersed in thinking and experiencing process for survival purpose, in analogy to head of the state is put into best protected cell from war. Outside, there may be no sign of life, but self might still be alive with intact memory before information-theoretic death and with very little nutrients in analogy to hibernation. I might be thinking/experiencing deeply but outside I might appear unconscious or dead. Varied experiences might occur for the survival of the system.

 .............

6.5.4.14. Discussion on problems of Sāṅkhya: Sehgal-Vimal 13-July-2016

 

In my last mail, I had mentioned that I would comment upon so called 8 problems of ISD. Accordingly, I am putting below my comments para wise

(1) Association or mind-brain interaction problem

Vimal: How does the non-material mind interact with the non-experiential brain? For example, how can we associate redness with red-green cells of ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net? This is a problem of unexplained epistemic gap: how is the jump made from the mental redness to material ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net (and vice versa). Furthermore, if nature has two distinct aspects, namely, mind and matter, then how can these distinct aspects of nature ever interact (Stapp, 2009b)? In addition, we face empirical contradiction if we estimate the time needed to experience. For example, when we open our eyes we immediately have phenomenal subjective experience of redness if we look at a ripe tomato with in less than 100 msec. However, if we try to estimate time needed to experience redness using the interactive substance dualism (two independent fundamental entities mind and matter but interacting), we can easily come up that minimum time needed is at least seconds to minutes. This is because there are about 86 billion neurons   in the human brain (Azevedo et al., 2009), where processing time is in msec. If the independent mind/consciousness starts searching the red-green cells among billions of cells, it may take about (86*10⁹ * 10^-3) = 10⁶ seconds or if better search procedure is used then at least significantly more than 100 msec.

 

Sehgal: In the first case, it is an assumption that mind is non-material and brain is material. Both brain and mind are parts of same Prakṛti but belonging to different realms of nature with different physicality. Both brain and mind are physical (matter) in the sense that both lack consciousness. Both are dependent upon consciousness, transcendental to each, for their activation and operation. Neither mind nor brain experiential.  Both are instruments in completing the process of perception.  Final experience is made by conscious self. So conscious self [Puruṣa] serves twin purpose viz.,   

i) Provides conscious signal for the activation and operation of mind and brain

ii) Experience the process of perception

In view of above, there should be no category mistake in independent entities of brain and mind. This happens in nature otherwise also. Photon (e.m. energy) and electron (matter) interact constantly though belonging to two realms of nature but belonging to same spectrum of physicality.

 

There is no gap in mental processing and corresponding neural activation. When a stimulus of perception enters brain, corresponding neural net will get activated (provided mind's attention is focused on that stimulus) and accordingly mind in astral plane of nature (but as embedded in brain) collects the signal. Actually mind itself does not picks up the signal alone. It collects the signal by co-ordination with the corresponding sense as present in astral body and as embedded in brain. Collected signal is in turn is forwarded to another element of astral body viz., Buddhi, which completes the process of judgement as to which colour, body from which colour emanating, intensity of colour. In this process, a signal from transcendental Chitta, which contains seeds (Saṃskārs) of all memory facilitate Buddhi in making the judgement. Finally, after processing the signal and taking judgmental decision about stimulus, signal is sent to Chitta which preserves its impression (seed -- Saṃskārs) as part of memory & present the processed signal before Conscious Self (Soul) which experience the stimulus in its entirety. 

 

Of course, there may be 86 billion neurons but brain or mind need not search all the 86 billion neurons. When stimulus of red potato enters brain, it is only the corresponding neurons connecting with vision and that too with red colour gets activated. I am not a researching neuro-scientists but such neurons may be few thousand or few lacs. If mind's attention is already focused on that stimulus, corresponding neural net will be formed (synapse) otherwise no synapse will be formed despite stimulus falling upon brain.  Role of corresponding neural net is up to collection of stimulus and forwarding the same to mind and senses. When mind and senses will forward the signal further to Buddhi, judgmental process shall be completed. Then again corresponding neural net corresponding to decision in brain shall get activated.

 

Brain role is up to collection of stimulus rule only. It is an interim stage. in the process of perception. Mind, Senses, Buddhi's role is to further process the signal to enable it to become fit for ultimate experience. Conscious self-role is up to ultimately experiencing the finally processed stimulus. No processing, no judgmental at the level of conscious self. Only experience. In view of above elaboration, there is no category problem or time issue in ISD with both brain and mind having independent entities.

 

Vimal: ISD with western non-material mind and non-experiential matter is little different from Sāṃkhya with Puruṣa (Conscious Self) and Prakṛti (causal, astral and physical bodies). Prakṛti consists of

(i)   Causal world (kāran jagat) is composed of 3 gunas (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas) and Ahamkāras;

(ii)  Astral world (sukshma jagat) consists of five Tanmātras (rūpa, śabda, sparśa, rasa, and gandha), Buddhi, Manas, and ten senses;

(iii)                 And physical world (sthūla jagat) containing fermions, bosons and four fundamental forces.

ISD-mind includes Puruṣa (Conscious Self), causal bodies, and astral bodies; and ISD-matter includes physical bodies.

 

In Sāṃkhya, Puruṣa and Prakṛti of two different categories; they cannot interact, otherwise the serious category mistake will be made. In ISD, ISD-mind and ISD-matter are of two different categories; they cannot interact, otherwise the serious category mistake will be made. In other words, both as hypothesized make serious category mistake.

 

When we discussing a specific metaphysics, we cannot take help of other metaphysics. We need to defend on the basis of metaphysics we are discussing. In Sāṃkhya, Puruṣa is assumed as an experiencer/witness/Dristā/Sākshi. Puruṣa by definition cannot transfer any energy-momentum to Prakṛti because he just watches as a witness/Dristā/Sākshi and remains passive and passively experiences. If Puruṣa is assigned an additional attribute that it also ignites, activates, or ‘provides energy to’ Prakṛti (in analogy to a match-stick ignites an incense), then problem arises how he will perform this task in the face of category mistake. How it will search 86 billion neurons to find which neurons are responsible for color-experience redness. We cannot use materialism based neuroscience as you elaborated above; you need to address the timing problem based on only Sāṃkhya. Please note that Sāṃkhya, does not allow Prakṛti to experience; only Puruṣa can passively experience. For experiencing, experiencer needs to interact with brain; how can non-material Puruṣa interact with material brain and where in brain? Please note that Puruṣa can NOT inseparable with brain; rather they are independent entities and hence 100% separable. Thus, the association problem remains and hence Sāṃkhya is rejected. Please appreciate this problem. The only way we can address this association problem is posting the doctrine of inseparability at conscious-state within spatiotemporal critical threshold interval such as one JND (just-noticeable difference) for example, between colors in 1pp-mental aspect; in 3pp-physical aspect, 1 JND in neural signals corresponding to 1 JND in the experiential aspect of consciousness.

 

(2) Problem of mental causation, violation of the law of energy conservation and problem of causal closure

Vimal: How can a mental cause give rise to a behavioral effect without the violation of the conservation of energy and momentum ((Fodor, 1994).p25) and without making category mistake (Feigl, 1967)? How can mental entities such as intentions and/or choices causally generate physical brain-events ((Collins, 2011).note5.p265)? The casual closure principle is “every physical effect has its chance fully determined by physical events alone” (Lowe, 2000). Then how is it possible that mind can determine physical events? Materialists, such as ((Dennett, 1991).p35 and (Flanagan, 1991).p21)), argue: (a) If mind does not have an associated physical energy/mass to transfer, how mind can influence brain cells for example going to concert. (b) In addition, since an interaction requires the expenditure of energy to have any effect (within the law of conservation of energy), where does this energy come from? These imply that (a) the law of energy conservation is true for all purely physical interactions and (b) an exchange of energy is involved in all causal interactions (or law-like connections); however, assumptions (a) is false in general theory of relativity (GTR) and (b) is false in quantum mechanics (QM) ((Collins, 2011).p125). However, as per (Collins, 2011), “the law of energy conservation cannot be defined for the gravitational field, and hence for interactions involving gravity. [p127…] The non-conservation of energy in general relativity opens up another response a dualist could give to the energy-conservation objection. A dualist could argue that, like the gravitational field, the notion of energy simply cannot be defined for the mind, and hence one cannot even apply the principle of energy conservation to the mind/body interaction. The mind, like the gravitational field, could cause a real change in the energy of the brain without energy being conserved. [… then why] one should think that it [energy conservation] must apply to the mind/brain interaction. [p130…] The energy-conservation objection against interactionistic dualism fails when one considers the fact energy conservation is not a universally applicable principle in physics and the quantum mechanics sets a precedent for [causal] interaction [between the particles themselves] (or at least law-like correlation [between attributes of distantly separated particles as in quantum entanglement]) without any sort of energy-momentum exchange [by Bell’s theorem], or even any intermediate carrier. Of course, the more general interaction problem for interactionistic dualism still remains, a problem that is addressed [elsewhere (p133)]”. Thus, the problems may still remain for mind influencing the brain in interactive substance dualism. As per (Cacha & Poznanski, 2014), “Interactionism in this sense does not imply an immaterial–material dualism or substance dualism which might violate conservation laws of physics.”

Sehgal:  All the above issues of mental causation, conservation of energy and momentum and mental closure are arising due to two wide spread deeply grounded misconceptions viz.,

i) Mind is not a physical entity,

ii) Mind and thoughts are same.

As I have elaborated at aforesaid para, mind is also a physical stuff in Astral body like brain is a physical stuff in the physical body. Difference lies in the nature of physicality which are entirely different. Problem has been that Scientists so far have been unaware of the physicality of Astral plane of nature, therefore, of mind. Secondly, thoughts and mind are not same. Thoughts are some sort of output from mind.

 

Astral plane of nature has its own energy. which is different than physical energy as operating in brain. When a thought of choice or intention emerges out of mind (For sake of simplicity in the context of present discussion, I am using a common word for different entities viz., Manas, Senses, Buddhi, Chittas, Ahamkāras EXCUDING CONSCIOUS SELF), a signal of energy of astral plane, acts upon brain and consequently energy in brain gets activated in behavioral effect.

Thoughts of choice or intention emerges out of physical mind in Astral realm of nature. Behavioral effect occurs in physical realm of nature at the level of brain. In both process -- intentions in mind and behavour in brain, energy of respective realm is consumed. Most probably, Law of conservation of energy should be holding good in respective plane for respective energy.

 

Once above concept becomes clear and recognized, problems of Mental causation, Law of conservation of energy/momentum and Mental closure shall vanish.

 

Another way to interpret above is to state that Mind is the brain of Astral Body. Unless, neuro Scientists remain unaware of the reality of Astral Body and Mind as physical stuff in Astral Body, they will come out with weird problems of brain-mind and also propose weird solutions for the same.  As such, they themselves will remain confused as well as make others confused.

 

Vimal: As elaborated above in the section ‘Association or mind-brain interaction problem’, the problem of mental causation, violation of the law of energy conservation and problem of causal closure remains in both ISD and Sāṃkhya. Please appreciate the difference between them and observe that we must address the problem in ISD or Sāṃkhya without involving materialism. In Sāṃkhya Sāṃkhya, these problems are between Conscious Self (Puruṣa) and brain (Prakṛti): If they interact then (i) the serious category mistake will be made; (ii) so Puruṣa cannot cause brain’s activities because he is simply passive experiencer; he does not have any energy to transfer to activate the brain. If we assume it is the brute fact (that is the way it is!), then there will be violation of conservation of energy between Conscious Self (Puruṣa) and brain (Prakṛti). As per (Wikipedia, 2016b), “Causal closure is a metaphysical theory about the nature of causation in the physical realm with significant ramifications in the study of metaphysics and the mind. In a strongly stated version, the causal closure principle (CCP) says that ‘Physical effects have only physical causes’ ((Vicente, 2006)p.150)”. Thus, if Puruṣa being in experiential realm cannot cause brain-activities in physical realm; same can cause or interact with same, but cross-causation/interaction is forbidden. If Puruṣa is a part of Prakṛti, then Sāṃkhya is an extended materialism; in that case, causal closure disappears.

(3) ‘Zombie’ problem 

Substance dualism allows brains without conscious experiences (zombies) by subtracting the latter from the former. This implies ‘epiphenomenalism’: “mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events” (Robinson, 2011). My zombie twin behaves just like me but it has no conscious experiences (Eerikäinen, 2000).

 

Sehgal I have not grasped this problem fully, as such, difficult to comment upon. However, I want to add that whether in conscious state or un-conscious state (e.g. dreams), if signal of any thought emerges out from "Mind" e.g.  Saṃskārs of memory from Chitta (collectively included in "Mind"), it will act upon brain physical brain. But reverse of this need not necessarily be true. We are walking through a crowded Bazar wherein multitudes of stimulus are entering brain but since mind is engrossed somewhere else, such stimulus will not affect any mental thought process. Though not very sure but I suspect that a synapse is completed in brain (i.e. neural net gets activated) only if Mental attention is focused on particular stimulus despite multitude of stimuli bombarding the brain constantly. Thoughts (1pp) is primary and brain action (3pp) is secondary.

 

Vimal: Since Puruṣa is separate from brain and brain cannot by itself experience anything, we all are basically zombies if Puruṣa decides not to attend brain. This is because brain will do everything whatever it has been doing but will not have any conscious experience. Both ISD and Sāṃkhya allow these two independently entities to be independently exist; therefore, zombie problem remains in both.

(4) ‘Ghost’ problem

The problem is that the interactive substance dualism would allow for various paranormal phenomena and that none of them has yet been scientifically verified. It is “the converse of the zombie problem. If the mind is separate from the body, then not only can the brain exist without the mind but also the mind can exist without the brain. Thus, the so-called ‘disembodiment’ becomes a real possibility” (Eerikäinen, 2000).  Nunn argues (personal communication) that the evidence for the occurrence of apparently disembodied states is actually quite strong, for example, near-death experiences (NDEs) (Blackmore, 1996; French, 2005). If this is true, then this may not be a problem. However, one could argue that although there is some evidence for states that appear to be disembodied, but this is different from the evidence for disembodiment (soul/self can be separated from its body), since the phenomenon may be illusory. Moreover, according to (Klemenc-Ketis, Kersnik, & Grmec, 2010), the higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO₂) in arterial blood proved to be important in the provoking of NDEs and higher serum levels of potassium (K) might also be important. In addition, the “factors that could be important in provoking NDEs are anoxia …, hypercapnia …, and the presence of endorphins …, ketamine …, and serotonin …, or abnormal activity of the temporal lobes … or the limbic system ... These psychological theories try to explain the NDEs as a way of dissociation …, depersonalisation …, reactivation of birth memories …, and regression” (Klemenc-Ketis et al., 2010).

 

Sehgal:  Normally, till we live, mind and brain, despite having independent existence can't be segregated or disembodied. Mind remains in body as per the Karmic Program as programmed before birth. However, at two stages, mind and body are disembodied.

 

i) After death (not NDE), mind permanently leaves physical body and enters the new body in next birth. In new body, carry over mind from past birth serves as instrument in astral realm in generating new thoughts from new brain. Saṃskārs (seeds or impressions of memory) of thoughts of past birth remain preserved in the carried over mind but these are unable to generate memory due to lack of compatibility with fresh brain (for old thoughts).

 

ii) Within Life: Mind can be disembodied from body at two stages and both stages are temporary

a)  In Samādhi: This is the voluntarily and controlled disassociation of mind from body and occurs at the will of Yogi/Saint/Sage. Degree of disassociation depends upon the mental power of Yogi.

b) Near death (NDE): These are involuntary and uncontrolled disassociation of mind from body, therefore, NDEs are often incoherent but these are true. At the time of disassociation many physiological changes like partial CO pressure in blood arteries or higher serum level of K may occur. These physiological changes are due to partial but uncontrolled withdraw of mind from body but not vice versa.

 

Question arises, why such physiological changes can't be observed in Samādhi. There are reasons for this

a) Samādhi is a controlled conscious action but near death withdrawal of mind from body is an unconscious, forced and uncontrolled action.

b) Samādhi, wherein withdrawal of mind from body takes place is "Sattva Pradhaan' where Satvikta dominates over mind and body.  In NDEs, it is "Tammas Pradhan".

c) There have been almost nil studies of subjects who have achieved true Samādhi, having dominance of Sattva, wherein mind can be disassociated from body. Such subjects are quite rare and not inclined to offer them as subjects for observation for satisfying the queries and doubts of scientific community.

Whatever little studies have been made are for subjects who have not even achieved the stages of “Dharnaa or Dhyanaa" -- preliminary stages of Samādhi and that too "Tamas and rajas Pradhaana" wherein mind - body disassociation can't take place.

 

Vimal: So far, scientific authentic empirical data are consistent with the doctrine of inseparability; the separability of Conscious Self (Puruṣa, the experiencer/self) from brain (Prakṛti) does not have such evidence. Therefore, Sāṃkhya and ISD are untenable unfortunately.

(5) Neurophysiological many-one/many relation problems

Interactionism or substance dualism is not favorable to neurophysiological tests because it entails a many-one or many-many relations or correspondences (Feigl, 1967). In neuropsychology, we need one-to-one relationship: for example, experience (mental): physical: function :: redness: V4/V4/VO NN : color detection :: 1:1:1 relationship.

 

As per (Beck & Eccles, 1992), the mind-brain interaction is a quantum process in synapses. One-one relationship means one experience (mental entity) interacts at one synapse (physical entity); many-one relationship means many synapses are related to one experience; many-many relationship means many synapses are related to many experiences. Thus, many-one and many-many relationships/interactions are not tractable for neurophysiological tests. For example, many experiences to one synapse (many-1) relationship can be redness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, greenness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, orangeness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, and so on. On the other hand, one experience to many synapses (1-many) relationship can be redness-retinal_cone_synapse, redness-retinal_ganglion_cell_synapse, redness-LGN_synapse, redness-V1_synapse, redness-V2_synapse, redness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, and so on. These (many-1 and 1-many) entail many experiences to many synapse (many-many) relationship.

Sehgal: In the first place, mind at one instant of time senses only one subject only. For example, if brain is being bombarded with audio visual picture with multi colors, then mind at one instant of time shall sense either audio or visual. In multi colored visuals also, it will sense one colour only either green or red or orange etc. As I have mentioned earlier also, I am unaware of the intricacies of neuroscience but I understand in brain corresponding to one subject i.e. visual or audio and then within visual, for different colours. There should be different neural net which creates different synapse for different subject. For example, within visual sensing area of brain, there should be different synapses for different colours. Similarly, within audio sensing area of brain, there should be different neural nets for audio stimulus of varying frequencies. But Mind in transcendental astral realm, as embedded in brain, is one and it senses signals from different neural networks. In other words, signals from different neural nets of brain all converge at one mind only. But above process of collection of stimulus by different neural nets and convergence of same at the level of mind occurs so rapidly that whole process appears as succession of moving frames like in a movie. Corresponding to 86 billion neurons, I understand that there are about 100 trillion synapses. It might not have been possible for neuroscience of today even to catalogue and classify 86 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses.

In view of above, there should be one to one correspondence relation between mental sensing and physical neural net and validate on neuro physiological test scales. But issue is neuro-physiological tests might not have developed to the stage wherein neural nets corresponding to minutest details of stimulus have been identified. Wonderful thing is in that though mind is one only in astral realm of nature but it senses billions of signals from billions of synapses in brain instantly. Above might be possible since Astral realm (Mind) and Physical realm (Brain) have different sets of space and time'. Time elapses at much higher rates in astral plane than in physical plane of nature.

 

Vimal: The 1-1 relationship is needed to avoid confusion, i.e., one specific experience such as experience of redness from 1pp should have one specific NN from 3pp. This is possible only when 1pp-mental aspect and 3pp-physical aspect are inseparable such as in eDAM framework. This is not possible in Sāṃkhya and ISD because experiencer is separable from brain.

(6) Causal pairing problem

“It is exceedingly odd that particular minds and brains form a lifelong ‘monogamy’ despite the absence of any apparent relational framework. [In other words, in ISD, mind is independent of brain and vice versa, but they can interact; but how they interact is unclear, so there is no real framework. In the eDAM, they are inseparable aspects of the same mind-brain state, so there is clear cut framework.] For it is only within the terms of such a framework that we could explain the persistent individual pairings as a consequence of a contingent, external relationship between them, which relations structure mental-physical causality in a general fashion. […] This difficulty might be overcome by positing the emergence of the mental substance, so that the asymmetrical dependency of mind on brain grounds their monogamous interaction” (O'Connor & Wong, 2005). However, it will be then materialistic emergence.

 

Sehgal: Before understanding the monogamous relation of brain and mind, let us try to understand why brain-mind relation is built at all.

 

After death, when mind as part of astral body leaves physical body, astral body remains in search of most suitable physical body for its further journey. Most suitable physical body is decided based upon karmic relations between Mind and new Physical body. Wherever, karmic relation between Mind and new physical body gets most "perfect fit", Mind along with Astral Body enters the womb of the physical body. Here question arises: physical body had yet not matured, it was still embryo than what is meant by karmic relation of Physical body. That embryo, after maturing as a physical body, will be nurtured in a family with some parents, brothers/sisters and some environment. Karmic Law suggest that newly entered soul and mind have to settle some account with new people and environment. This accounting of past Karmas of soul and mind with new people and environment forms the Karmic basis which directs a particular Astral body to enter a particular embryo. This is how mind built relation with new brain

Why and how monogamous relation of mind with brain persists in entire life? Let me reiterate that [Sāṃkhya-]Mind here does not imply "thoughts" but this being an instrument of perception and cognition, composed of Astral and Causal part of nature and as located in Astral and Causal realms of nature. Mind in Astral body shall remain in new physical body and continue to interact with brain till life persist or Karmic accounting is not over. As such, problem of monogamy between mind and brain no longer exists.

 

Vimal: Western term ‘mind’ includes Puruṣa, and causal and astral bodies of Prakṛti, thoughts and all other mental entities. Therefore, gap always remains in dualistic framework, namely, between Puruṣa and physical bodies (3pp-neural correlates) in Sāṃkhya and between ISD-mind and matter in ISD metaphysics.

(7) Developmental problem

“[E]ven an emergentist version of substance dualism requires what is empirically implausible, viz., that a composite physical system gives rise, all in one go, to a whole, self-contained, organized system of properties bound up with a distinct individual. For we cannot say, as we should want to do, that as the underlying physical structure develops, the emergent self does likewise. This would require us to posit changing mereological complexity within the self, which would give rise all over again to problems of endurance that substance dualism is supposed to avoid, and which would run counter to intuitions of primitive unity that substance dualists have regarding persons. No, the emergent dualist view will have to say, instead, that at an early stage of physical development, a self emerges having all the capacities of an adult human self, but most of which lie dormant owing to immaturity in the physical system from which it emerges” (O'Connor & Wong, 2005). However, this seems to imply that self is not powerful and is a slave of developing physical system.

 

Sehgal:  Above problems arise due to premise that mind and self-emerge out from physical system of physical body. Neither mind nor 'Self" emerge out from development of physical system.

 

When Astral body and Causal body enters the new womb implying new physical system, conscious self, transcendental to both astral and causal body, also enters the new physical system. Here Self can be interpreted in two ways:

 

i)             Like a mirror of consciousness in which everything as processed by Astral and causal body reflects (pure self), and

ii)           Consciousness as identified with thoughts in Astral and causal body (contaminated self).

When Astral body and causal body enters new physical system, self as interpreted at i) above only enters the new physical system.

 

With death of physical body, self as interpreted at ii) also extinguishes. Saṃskārs (seeds/impressions) of all thoughts of past life, though remain stored in Chitta (a component of Causal body) but such saṃskārs can't manifest the thoughts in the absence of old brain which also died along with death of past physical body. In the absence of thoughts of past life, Self as interpreted i) above -- mirror of consciousness, though remaining intact in all lives, can't identify with old thoughts of past life since such thoughts can't manifest even though their Saṃskārs remain intact.

 

When in new life, physical system or body grows, mind starts interacting with new environment and new thoughts develop. Now mirror of consciousness starts identifying with new thoughts and a new self as interpreted ii) above starts developing and remains in position till life lasts.

 

Thus Self as interpreted at i) is beyond birth and death and it is the real self. But Self as interpreted ii) above dies and takes birth with death and birth of physical body in each life.

 

Ultimate purpose of Sadhanaa/Samādhi is to kill the Self at ii) above in the very life.

 

Vimal: Very interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately, re-birth theory does not have scientific robust evidence. If Sāṃkhya is correct, then it must show up some testable effects in physical space-time. It will be nice if you can generate some scientifically testable hypothesis if you want to defend Sāṃkhya and top-down God theory; otherwise, it cannot be considered tenable. The eDAM has a testable hypothesis as elaborated in Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015e) to test its inseparability hypothesis. It is impossible to have an experience without its inseparable physical basis. Even the Nirvikalpa samādhi-state experience has its inseparable 3pp-neural correlates (physical aspect).

(8) Legal Problem

Vimal: In Sāṃkhya (which is close to Interactive Substance Dualism), Puruṣa (Parmātman/jīvātman: experiential aspect of consciousness) is like a witness (Sākshi) of whatever activities go on in subject’s brain but does not affect its activities; however, Puruṣa is the real experiencer. Subject’s brain is simply a physical machine/instrument; Puruṣa ‘shines’ (throws ‘lights’ on) this machine to experience. If this is true, then it is unclear who commits the crimes and who goes to jail: the brain or Parmātman/jīvātman?

 

Sehgal:  All the Karmas (actions) are done by Manas, Senses and Buddhi and not soul (jeevatma). Karmas are also not done by brain. Brain is merely an external physical machine to collect sensory signals, transmit action commands and facilitate cognitive actions.

 

However, pure Self as interpreted at i) above is deeply and strongly identified with Manas, Buddhi and Senses and that how contaminated Self as interpreted at ii) above develops. In view of above, till identification persists i.e. contaminated self persists, Jeevaatmaa along with Manas/Buddhi/Chitta/Senses shall also be considered to do crime and go to Jail. Once contaminated Self dies arising from disappearance of identification, pure self emerges out which is not considered to do any crime despite Manas and Buddhi doing crimes. So this Legal problem also does not persist.

 

Vimal: As per Sāṃkhya, after death, soul acquires subtle body (causal+astral bodies), so soul will become pure only when there is no subtle body. This means impure soul must suffer and face harder hell as in Garuda Purāna after the jail before death. However, a criminal can claim that his brain and body (physical body) must not go to jail; if you want to punish then punish the impure soul+astral+causal bodies. However, how can you take them out from physical body before death, which is impossible. Thus, it is unethical and illegal to punish the physical body of a criminal. He can claim that only Yamrāja can punish him after his death because any court system cannot separate them before death. This would be a bizarre claim; no court will not do that! Thus, legal and ethical problems still persist that how can you convince the judge. If you are a judge, how can you punish a criminal if you are faithful to Sāṃkhya. Thus, Sāṃkhya has legal problems. In the eDAM, such problems do not exist because self/experiencer/Puruṣa, causal bodies, astral bodies, and other mental entities are parts of the mental aspect, which is inseparable from its physical aspect, therefore, the criminal has to accept that s/he has committed the crime and hence her/his whole body-brain-mind must be punished and allow to the correction centers and therapy for trying to help her/his whole system so that s/he should not commit crime again. 

[Robert Boyer]

To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vima

You invited Vinod to respond to your 35-page summary of '11 problems with Sankhya.'

I'm teaching now, but I also would appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you about Sankhya, if you are interested.

As soon time is available, I will digest and respond to your points. Thanks so much for your important scholarship.

I hope you will find useful the developmental context for understanding Sankhya, in terms of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's points that

"Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness," and that Sankhya emphasizes an important stage of understanding

toward the larger context of Vedant. Best wishes, and please stay tuned.

Best wishes,

Robert (Bob) Boyer

---

From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@gmail.com>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>
Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>; Roy Sisir <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 4:24 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] 11 Problems of Sankhya

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/974998829.3397257.1500737987501%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Virus-free. www.avg.com

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Bob,

Thanks. Yes, it will be very nice.

We are stuck with the following query: 

How do you derive Jala (water) from Rasa Tanmātra?

Perhaps, you can help us. 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/2116847293.714657.1501014605438%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Presently mine or your consciousness is miles away from Rasa Tanmātra and you want to find how Jala is derived from Rasa Tanmātra! Please take your consciousness to the level of Rasa Tanmātra in the Astral realm and then try to find how Jala is derived from Rasa Tanmātra. Bob is right when he says that different levels of consciousness have different knowledge.

 

Vimal: Let us suppose our consciousness to the level of Rasa Tanmātra in the Astral realm. We both will observe (experience) how Rasa Tanmātra is gets manifested to Jala (water). And this experience will be highly reproducible. I agreed on this for a long time. I do not question this subjective experience. However, can we really produce water from Rasa Tanmātra in our real physical world out there? My firm answer is absolute NO. This is because the whole observation is simply an experience similar to any other experience, which has neural correlate(s). I am sure that you will not accept this answer. As a matter of fact, I once told you, I was able to observe rūpa (visual form) Tanmātra manifesting into light during my meditation: color blobs oscillating when we meditate for a long time with full concentration at our third eye area (the area between eyebrows). I know how they are produced physiologically; they are visual phosphenes (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2007). However, I am sure that you are not going to accept it because are fully cling to superstitious belief of Sāṅkhya philosophy, which has now 11 unresolvable problems, and you are unable to accept this either. Therefore, some other researchers/teachers will able to help you on this. Sometimes, I ask myself why I still reply you. This is because if somehow I am able to convince you (which now I think, I will certainly fail!) that it is simply a superstition, then, perhaps, millions of other such believers might be convinced.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Wednesday, 26 July 2017 12:36 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Respected Dr. Ram,

Presently mine or your consciousness is miles away from Rasa Tanmaatra and you want to find how Jala is derived from Rasa Tanmaatra! Please take your consciousness to the level of Rasa Tanmaatra in the Astral realm and then try to find how Jala is derived from Rasa Tanmaatra. Bob is right when he says that different levels of consciousness have different knowledge.

Vinod Sehgal

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:51 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Bob,

Thanks. Yes, it will be very nice.

We are stuck with the following query: 

How do you derive Jala (water) from Rasa Tanmātra?

Perhaps, you can help us. 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Tuesday, 25 July 2017 5:10 PM, "'Robert Boyer' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com> wrote:

To: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vima

You invited Vinod to respond to your 35-page summary of '11 problems with Sankhya.'

I'm teaching now, but I also would appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you about Sankhya, if you are interested.

As soon time is available, I will digest and respond to your points. Thanks so much for your important scholarship.

I hope you will find useful the developmental context for understanding Sankhya, in terms of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's points that

"Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness," and that Sankhya emphasizes an important stage of understanding

toward the larger context of Vedant. Best wishes, and please stay tuned.

Best wishes,

Robert (Bob) Boyer

---

From: Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@gmail.com>
To: VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>

Cc: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sadhu_sanga@ googlegroups.com>; Roy Sisir <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>

Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 4:24 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] 11 Problems of Sankhya

Dear Vinod ji,

As you requested previously that I should provide the problems of Sankhya directly in email, I am listing the problems from (Vimal, 2012c). If you still want to defend it, kindly address them.

Interactive substance dualism (ISD), Sāṃkhya, and their problems

If mind and matter are on equal footings but interact then it is interactive substance dualism (ISD). The ISD is somewhat similar, in the sense of two independent fundamental entities, to eastern Sāṃkhya’s Puruṣa-Prakṛti system, where Puruṣa (cosmic consciousness, experiencer, witness) ‘shines’ on Prakṛti (gross physical, astral and causal bodies)^[i] to create our universe. Mind and matter are separable in interactive substance dualism. Here, there is clear cut duality both substance-wise and property-wise. There are eleven problems in ISD and Sāṃkhya combined as follows.

 

Note: Some of the problems are adapted from  (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2011). Comments on some of these problems and replies are given in endnote (with Hari)[ii] and Section 6.5.4.14 (with Sehgal: 29-June-2016 and onwards).

1. Association or mind-brain interaction problem

How does the non-material mind interact with the non-experiential brain? For example, how can we associate redness with red-green cells of ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net?^[iii] This is a problem of unexplained epistemic gap: how is the jump made from the mental redness to material ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net (and vice versa). Furthermore, if nature has two distinct aspects, namely, mind and matter, then how can these distinct aspects of nature ever interact (Stapp, 2009b)? In addition, we face empirical contradiction if we estimate the time needed to experience. For example, when we open our eyes we immediately have phenomenal subjective experience of redness if we look at a ripe tomato with in less than 100 msec. However, if we try to estimate time needed to experience redness using the interactive substance dualism (two independent fundamental entities mind and matter but interacting), we can easily come up that minimum time needed is at least seconds to minutes. This is because there are about 86 billion neurons in the human brain (Azevedo et al., 2009), where processing time is in msec. If the independent mind/consciousness starts searching the red-green cells among billions of cells, it may take about (86*10⁹ * 10^-3) = 10⁶ seconds or if better search procedure is used then at least significantly more than 100 msec.

2. Problem of mental causation, violation of the law of energy conservation and problem of causal closure

How can a mental cause give rise to a behavioral effect without the violation of the conservation of energy and momentum ((Fodor, 1994).p25) and without making category mistake (Feigl, 1967)? How can mental entities such as intentions and/or choices causally generate physical brain events ((Collins, 2011).note5.p265)? The causal closure principle is “every physical effect has its chance fully determined by physical events alone” (Lowe, 2000). Then how is it possible that mind can determine physical events? Materialists, such as ((Dennett, 1991).p35 and (Flanagan, 1991).p21)), argue: (a) If mind does not have an associated physical energy/mass to transfer, how mind can influence brain cells for example going to concert. (b) In addition, since an interaction requires the expenditure of energy to have any effect (within the law of conservation of energy), where does this energy come from? These imply that (a) the law of energy conservation is true for all purely physical interactions and (b) an exchange of energy is involved in all causal interactions (or law-like connections). However, assumptions (a) is false in general theory of relativity (GTR) and (b) is false in quantum mechanics (QM) ((Collins, 2011).p125). However, as per (Collins, 2011), “the law of energy conservation cannot be defined for the gravitational field, and hence for interactions involving gravity. [p127…] The non-conservation of energy in general relativity opens up another response a dualist could give to the energy-conservation objection. A dualist could argue that, like the gravitational field, the notion of energy simply cannot be defined for the mind, and hence one cannot even apply the principle of energy conservation to the mind/body interaction. The mind, like the gravitational field, could cause a real change in the energy of the brain without energy being conserved. [… then why] one should think that it [energy conservation] must apply to the mind/brain interaction. [p130…] The energy-conservation objection against interactionistic dualism fails when one considers the fact energy conservation is not a universally applicable principle in physics and the quantum mechanics sets a precedent for [causal] interaction [between the particles themselves] (or at least law-like correlation [between attributes of distantly separated particles as in quantum entanglement]) without any sort of energy-momentum exchange [by Bell’s theorem], or even any intermediate carrier. Of course, the more general interaction problem for interactionistic dualism still remains, a problem that is addressed [elsewhere (p133)]”. Thus, the problems may still remain for mind influencing the brain in interactive substance dualism. As per (Cacha & Poznanski, 2014), “Interactionism in this sense does not imply an immaterial–material dualism or substance dualism which might violate conservation laws of physics”.

3. ‘Zombie’ problem 

Substance dualism allows brains without conscious experiences (zombies) by subtracting the latter from the former. This implies ‘epiphenomenalism’: “mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events” (Robinson, 2011). My zombie twin behaves just like me but it has no conscious experiences (Eerikäinen, 2000).

4. ‘Ghost’ problem

The problem is that the interactive substance dualism would allow for various paranormal phenomena and that none of them has yet been scientifically verified. It is “the converse of the zombie problem. If the mind is separate from the body, then not only can the brain exist without the mind but also the mind can exist without the brain. Thus, the so-called ‘disembodiment’ becomes a real possibility” (Eerikäinen, 2000).  Nunn argues (personal communication) that the evidence for the occurrence of apparently disembodied states is actually quite strong, for example, near-death experiences (NDEs) (Blackmore, 1996; French, 2005). If this is true then this may not be a problem. However, one could argue that although there is some evidence for states that appear to be disembodied, but this is different from the evidence for disembodiment (soul/self can be separated from its body), since the phenomenon may be illusory.^[iv] Moreover, according to (Klemenc-Ketis, Kersnik & Grmec, 2010), the higher partial pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO₂) in arterial blood proved to be important in the provoking of NDEs and higher serum levels of potassium (K) might also be important. In addition, the “factors that could be important in provoking NDEs are anoxia …, hypercapnia …, and the presence of endorphins …, ketamine …, and serotonin …, or abnormal activity of the temporal lobus … or the limbic system ... These psychological theories try to explain the NDEs as a way of dissociation …, depersonalisation …, reactivation of birth memories …, and regression” (Klemenc-Ketis, Kersnik & Grmec, 2010).^[v]

5. Neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem

Interactionism or substance dualism is not favorable to neurophysiological tests because it entails a many-one or many-many relations or correspondences (Feigl, 1967). In neuropsychology, we need one-to-one relationship: for example, experience (mental): physical: function :: redness: V4/V4/VO NN : color detection :: 1:1:1 relationship.

 

As per (Beck & Eccles, 1992), the mind-brain interaction is a quantum process in synapses. One-one relationship means one experience (mental entity) interacts at one synapse (physical entity); many-one relationship means many synapses are related to one experience; many-many relationship means many synapses are related to many experiences. Thus, many-one and many-many relationships/interactions are not tractable for neurophysiological tests. For example, many experiences to one synapse (many-1) relationship can be redness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, greenness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, orangeness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, and so on. On the other hand, one experience to many synapses (1-many) relationship can be redness-retinal_cone_synapse, redness-retinal_ganglion_cell_ synapse, redness-LGN_synapse, redness-V1_synapse, redness-V2_synapse, redness-V8/V4/VO_synapse, and so on. These (many-1 and 1-many) entail many experiences to many synapse (many-many) relationship.

http://mind-and-tachyons. blogspot.com/ .

     Author: Mental causation if has same-same then there is no problem, but if it is cross (mind causing matter or vice versa), then there is the category mistake problem.

     Beck and Eccles’ Mind-Field, Interactive Dualism, and the dual-aspect monism framework (Vimal, 2010c): (Beck & Eccles, 1992) might be correct as for as quantum process in synapses is concerned for the information transfer between neurons via classical axon-dendritic neural firing (spikes) sub-pathway of both feed forward and feedback pathways.

     However, as far as the subjective experience aspect of consciousness is concerned, Beck and Eccles’ mind-field (Beck & Eccles, 1992) has substance-dualism that has problems, so it is controversial.  Stapp (Stapp, 1996, 2006) appears extending Beck and Eccles’ framework while addressing some of the problems of substance-dualism; some argue that Stapp’s view is close to solipsism (the skeptical philosophical idea that only one's own mind is certain to exist). However, because of these problems, I have avoided this approach. In neuroscience community (mostly materialists), Eccles’ framework is regarded controversial and there is no general consensus on it.

If we combine our eDAM framework (Vimal, 2010c) and Beck and Eccles’ quantum process in synapses (Beck & Eccles, 1992), then it would have fewer problems. This is because it will avoid category mistake. 

Bohm is clearly dual-aspect monist (Vimal, 2010c). If tachyons (Hari, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b) exist, they should be dual-aspect entities; the mental-aspect of zero-energy tachyon field is the related mind-fields, which should interact with the mental-aspect of related neural-network(NN)-state to avoid category mistake. Similarly, the physical aspect of tachyon should interact with physical aspect of related NN-state.

(3) ‘Zombie’ problem

     SH: The assumption that nothing exists which cannot be verified by scientific verification which always takes the third-person point of view, or that outward behavior is important but not subjective experience is one of the assumptions of Dennett's theory and what Searle considers as the deepest mistake in Dennett's book, Consciousness Explained.  Moreover, creation of a zombie itself is a problem that is being debated.  A robot which simulates any given behavior of a human being can be constructed for sure, but first of all, it has to be constructed by conscious human beings; the robot does not come into existence all by itself. (Actually the purpose of creating robots is to have them carry out tasks without human intervention!). I would think neither can zombies come into existence on their own, at least we have not seen that happen. As far as I know, it is not yet a proven fact that a biological duplicate of a human being but which has no consciousness can be created; even if it is proved that it can be created by human beings, for that very reason, it presents no argument against mental causation in dualist theories. The “subtraction of the mind from the brain” has to be done by very intelligent minds with motivation to do it.

     The remark “it makes no difference what happens in the world, because it does not cause behavior” is confusing. Even a zombie, if it exists, exhibits behavior which means responds to changes in the external circumstances.

                   On the other hand, how does a dual-aspect theory show that a duplicate of the neurophysical configuration of a given human being cannot be created or can be born somewhere else in the world by mere chance? A dual-aspect theory can only say that if a duplicate exists it is a complete duplicate of that person in both physical and mental make up.

     Author: Materialism has problem; I agree. However, substance-dualism’s ‘zombie’ problem implies epiphenomenalism, which is also a problem.

                   I re-wrote this section as: ‘Zombie’ problem:  Substance dualism allows brains without conscious experiences (zombies) by subtracting the latter from the former. This implies ‘epiphenomenalism’: “mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events” (Robinson, 2011). My zombie twin behaves just like me but it has no conscious experiences (Eerikäinen, 2000).

                    Yes, the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2010c) rejects zombie because the molecule-by-molecule replication of human will be conscious as the mental and physical aspects are inseparable. The eDAM framework predicts conscious robots.

(4) ‘Ghost’ problem: The suggestion here is that a dualist theory would allow for various paranormal phenomena and that none of them has yet been scientifically verified. 

     SH: The primary objection to a dualist theory is in fact that it can never be proved scientifically. That is true if the mental aspect is not scientifically defined. The tachyon hypothesis mentioned under problem (2) [the problem of mental causation] above provides the possibility to overcome this objection.  As a matter of fact, even dual-aspect theories have not been experimentally verified as yet and neither does a completely monist theory exist which can claim that it has solved the mystery of consciousness.  On the other hand, there are scientific experimental results which support dualist theories; for example, the delay and antedating of peripheral sensations experiments by Libet (Libet, 1996a, 1996b; Libet, Wright, Feinstein, & Pearl, 1979) cannot be explained by monist or dual-aspect theories but their results are possible in a dualist theory! (The paper referenced under problem (2) actually explains the Libet paradox.) Also, what about unconscious thought? For example, see  (Westen, 1999).

                   Author: Libet is sympathetic to materialistic emergentism. As per (Wolf, 1999), “The ‘delay-and-antedating’ paradox/hypothesis refers to the lag in time of measurable cerebral electrical activity associated with a conscious sensory experience following a peripheral sensation. To account for this paradox, Libet suggested subjective antedating of that experience. In a series of studies (Libet et al. 1979, Libet 1996) several subjects' brains showed that neuronal adequacy (critical neural activity) wasn't achieved until a significant delay time D as high as 500 msecs following a stimulus. Yet the subjects stated that they were aware of the sensation within a few msec (10-50 msec) following the stimulation. Put briefly, how can a subject be aware of a sensation, that is, be conscious of it, if the subject's brain has not registered that ‘awareness’?: Many plausible arguments have been offered and refuted by (Libet, 1996a, 1996b; Libet et al., 1979) and others (Bergenheim, Johansson, Granlund, & Pedersen, 1996).”

                   As per (Libet et al., 1979): (i) Subjective experience of a peripherally-induced sensation does not have significantly delay compared to the experience of a cortically-induced sensation. (ii) However, the putative delay is up to about 500 ms to elicit the peripherally-induced experience for achieving the required ‘neuronal adequacy’. (iii) A hypothesis is proposed to explain this puzzle: “for a peripheral sensory input, (a) the primary evoked response of sensory cortex to the specific projection (lemniscal) input is associated with a process that can serve as a 'time-marker'; and (b), after delayed neuronal adequacy is achieved, there is a subjective referral of the sensory experience backwards in time so as to coincide with this initial 'time-marker'.” (iv) This hypothesis was experimentally tested in human subjects by appropriately implanted electrodes on the medial lemniscus (LM) and the surface of somatosensory cortex (C); the results maintained the hypothesis. The LM is the pathway in the brainstem that is composed of  medulla oblongata, pons, and midbrain and carries sensory information from the gracile and cuneate nuclei of medulla oblongata to the thalamus. The midbrain is comprised of tectum/colliculi, tegmentum, ventricular mesocoelia, cerebral peduncles, and several nuclei and fasciculi. (v) In this experiment, the test stimuli to LM and C were arranged to require the minimum train duration of 200 ms or more for producing any conscious sensory experience in each case. (vi) “Each such cerebral stimulus could be temporally coupled with a peripheral one (usually skin, S) that required relatively negligible stimulus duration to produce a sensation.” (vii) “The sensory experiences induced by LM stimuli were found to be subjectively timed as if there were no delay relative to those for S, that is, as if the subjective experience for LM was referred to the onset rather than to the end of the required stimulus duration of 200 ms or more.” (viii) “On the other hand, sensory experiences induced by the C stimuli, which did not excite specific projection afferents, appeared to be subjectively timed with a substantial delay relative to those for S, that is, as if the time of the subjective experience coincided roughly with the end of the minimum duration required by the C stimuli.” (ix) “A temporal discrepancy between corresponding mental and physical events, i.e., between the timing of a subjective sensory experience and the time at which the state of 'neuronal adequacy' for giving rise to this experience is achieved, would introduce a novel experimentally-based feature into the concept of psychophysiological parallelism in the mind-brain relationship.” 

                   As per (Libet, 1996b), “I had previously proposed a hypothetical ‘conscious mental field’ as an emergent property of appropriate neural activities, with the attributes of integrated subjective experience and a causal ability to modulate some neural processes.” This implies that mind causes modulations in neural processes, which seems to make category mistake. This mistake can be avoided by the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework, where the changes in mental aspect of neural-network(NN)-state is faithfully, rigorously, and automatically translated into the modulations in the inseparable physical aspect (neural processes) of that NN-state because of the doctrine of inseparability of mental and physical aspects.

                   Substance dualism can also explain the Libet’s paradox, but two different kinds of substances are needed, which is not necessary and less parsimonious as per the Occam’s razor. If Atman exists after death then it must be a dual-aspect entity because it carries the Karmic-impressions in the subtle body (physical aspect) for re-birth if Brahman is not realized and/or the intense desire for worldly entities still remains.

                   The dual-aspect monism (Vimal, 2010c) can address Libet’s paradox as follows: The phenomenal subjective experience (SE) of the sensation within a few msec (10-50 msec) following the stimulation is the mental aspect of related phenomenal-neural-network(NN)- state and the activity and this NN is the physical aspect. We need to investigate this early NN for faster route. Perhaps, this phenomenal awareness does not require re-entry and attentional related NN, which is time consuming as it may take up to 500 msec. The temporal delay of about 500 msec gives enough time to activate many re-entry and attentional related NN and hence this SE might be access awareness/consciousness that can be reported precisely. Again, both aspects of related access-NN-state are involved, which needs further investigation. The atheist version of the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) framework rejects ghosts because the mental and physical aspects are inseparable.

                   The data related to unconscious processing (Westen, 1999) can be explained by the eDAM framework. A unconscious thought, in the eDAM framework, is the mental aspect of the NN-state related to unconscious thought and its physical aspect is the related NN and activities as in conscious SEs (Vimal, 2010a, 2010b, 2010d, 2011f).

(5) Neurophysiological many-one/many relation problem

                   SH: Whatever the theory of consciousness one may be pursuing, monist, dual-aspect, or dualist, the mental state is not directly accessible by scientific instruments. A monist claims that the phenomenal information of Chalmers, is a property of the physical brain states; a dual-aspect theorist believes that a given mental state is the other aspect of the mind/brain with a corresponding physical state; a dualist believes that mental and physical states are states of different substances with some rules of correspondence.  No matter what the theory is, the relation between mental and physical states whether one-to-one, many-to-one or many-to-many, it can only be inferred in experiments in which the human subject whose brain is being measured reports his/her mental state to the experimenter.  The experimenter only measures the physical state but not the mental state directly.  So what is the difference between the various theories as regards neurophysiological testing?  If the relation is not one-to-one, so be it, let the truth reveal itself.

     A mental state is similar to a state of software in a computer; a corresponding hardware state (a neurophysical state in the case of the brain) is one which is a mapping of the software state.  A computer's software can be coded in different languages. Depending upon the design, the same computer may carry more than one physical representation of the software like binary, hexadecimal, etc.  But the brain's material is not electronic; hence the relation could be different (many-to-one, one-to-many etc.).

                   Author: The many-to-one or many-to-many relation is not unique type of relationship; it is less parsimonious. The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) has inseparable mental and physical aspects and hence has 1-1 relationship and does not have this problem. Psychophysical data are mostly from first person perspective, such as in color matching, which can be objectively recorded and analyzed as in (Vimal, Pokorny & Smith, 1987). It is unclear what the advantage of interactive substance dualism (ISD) is if the eDAM framework can explain everything what ISD can. The criterion of the selection of metaphysics can be the lesser number of problems when two or all views can explain all the empirical data. The eDAM framework has the least number of problems, compared to all other views, which is the one of the main points for selecting it.

          (6) Causal pairing problem

                   SH: Quite a few researchers have presented rebuttals of Jaegwon Kim's ((Kim, 2005).p78-83) arguments about this problem. Starting from birth, the mind/brain keeps learning by receiving sensory inputs from the environment (including interactions with other living beings) and keeps accumulating experiences and strategies to respond to future inputs, in other words, information.  This is a neurophysically proven fact. Hence the mind IS emergent and therefore overcomes the pairing problem according to (O'Connor & Wong, 2005).  Why do you assume that the emergence is only materialistic?  It is so in an electronic computer which does not have any phenomenal information to begin with but the brain is different from the computer in this very aspect.  For example, see my article referenced under problem (2).  It shows that more mental substance (in the form of tachyons) is created in every interaction with the environment. So a dualist theory does not assume that the emergence of brain/mind is purely materialistic. Along with materialistic emergence, new phenomenal information is also created and accumulated in the brain.

                   Author: Both materialistic and mentalistic emergences have their own explanatory gap problems. Emergentism is a mysterious view. ISD has causal pairing problem because of its own explanatory gap: how the separable mind (Ātman) can pair with matter (neural-network, neural, molecular, and electronic/ionic levels). The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) does not have this problem because of the inseparability of aspects.

(7) Developmental problem

                   SH: Life begins with the interaction of a certain mind (a chunk of some phenomenal information or mental substance) with some matter.  Just like a complex program cannot be loaded into a pocket calculator, all the complex features present in the initial chunk of mind cannot function until the physical brain develops adequately.  As life goes on, the brain gradually develops and is gradually able to manifest all the features that are dormant initially and at the same time, the mind also learns and accumulates more and more information. What the mind in a brain learns depends upon what it receives from outside as well as what its content already is at that time. (A computer's response depends upon both the input and the software content of the computer.) However, this does not necessarily mean that the self is powerless and is a slave of the physical system. Even twins brought up in a similar environment and looking alike may develop different behavioral tendencies if the initial content of their minds is different. For example, one may turn out to be a musician while the other is not; hence the development of the physical system itself could be guided by the initial mind or what you call self.  So, the self starts life by starting interaction with matter and moulds the physical development later on as well. Of course, all this has to be proved scientifically but the point is that dualism does not necessarily imply that self is powerless as you say.

     In a dual-aspect theory, the mental aspect acts on the physical aspect, for example, in a way similar to the quantum wave acts upon its particle in Bohm's theory. But to create a new mental feature, a new physical configuration has to be created first by interacting with some external material agent, which is then accompanied by its mental aspect.  So, the emergence of self does depend upon material interactions.  In the twins example above, a dual-aspect theory cannot accept the fact that one is a musician and the other is not. 

     Author: The objection related to the eDAM (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita) framework is not tenable. The Cross interaction (mind on matter or vice versa) makes a massive category mistake. ISD (mind interacts with matter), materialism (mind from matter), idealism (matter from mind) all makes category mistake. The eDAM framework (the dual-aspect monism framework with dual-mode and varying degrees of the manifestation of aspects depending on the entities and their states) does not make this mistake because aspects are inseparable, mind does not act on matter or vice-versa. Furthermore, there is no mysterious emergence in the eDAM framework as discussed in (Vimal, 2013) because a specific SE is selected from the SEs embedded in the mental aspect of neural-network-states via the matching mechanism. The eDAM framework accepts the fact that one is a musician and the other is not because the NN-states of twins can be different.

                   To sum up, The eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013) is a better framework and is a middle path between materialism and interactive substance dualism (ISD) & idealism. It is unclear why we still need ISD instead of the eDAM framework.

                   SH: It does not seem to me that you addressed any of the various points I mentioned except for the one disagreement that substances of two categories cannot interact; this could be the basic assumption of eDAM which a dualist theory does not accept.

                   Tachyonic matter is above the light barrier whereas ordinary matter is below the barrier. The relativity theory says neither one can ever cross the barrier to go to the opposite side. Tachyon theories consider them as different substances and that interaction is possible; they do not say that a tachyon inevitably accompanies a material particle. So if you say tachyons and ordinary matter are dual aspects of the same thing, it may be so in a philosophical sense because everything is an aspect of the absolute Brahman but in scientific sense, one has to show first theoretically how a tachyon inevitably accompanies a material particle.

                   Author: I think that I have addressed all relevant issues. The doctrine of inseparability of aspects is for each entity; an entity could be the fundamental primal Brahman, tachyon, or any other entities. The degrees of the manifestation of aspects vary with the entities and their states. In other words, the mental (M) aspect a brain-state can be a specific SE and its physical (P) aspect can be related NN and its activities; so both aspects are dominant in the wakeful conscious state of brain/mind. The mental aspect of the state of an inert matter appear latent in third person perspective; however, we need to be that matter to understand what its first person perspective might be. Its physical aspect appears dominant. We know from physics with evidence that physical aspects (P-P) interact, i.e., same-same interactions (P-P and M-M) are allowed. Cross-interactions  (M-P or P-M) are prohibited because there is no scientific evidence and they make category mistake. Perhaps, interactive substance dualism, materialism, and mentalistic idealism do not honor category mistake. They allow subjective experiences (SEs) (such as redness) to interact with matter (such as redness-related-V4/V8/VO- neural-network); please give us some evidence for SEs interacting with matter and precisely how.

                   SH: In our experience of the world, we have not seen a purely material interaction that is, an interaction involving only lifeless matter ever generate phenomenal information. So even in a dual-aspect theory in which you say the mental aspect is dominant in living matter but not in lifeless matter, at least one participant in an interaction should be living matter for the result to produce recognizable experience. So, for example, when one sees a red flower first and then a blue flower later, and recognizes that the latter color is different from the former, this awareness is the result of an interaction in which the red experience and the blue experience both must have been participants. Because a computer on the other hand, can also tell the outside world that the latter color is different from the former but it never has any experience. When the new awareness of blue color is produced in the brain, in all quantum theories of consciousness I know, there should be an accompanying quantum collapse of the physical brain (for example, (Stapp, 1995)). What the quantum theories do not say is why a quantum collapse of the physical brain should produce awareness when no collapse of a lifeless quantum system ever produces awareness. At least we have not so far seen that happen. In my paper mentioned in my comments, I showed that new tachyons (new SEs) are produced when the collapse occurs.

                   Author: In the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013), the mental aspect is from the subjective first person perspective and the physical aspect is the objective third person perspective. This means, we do not know what the subjective first person perspective might be for inert entities, we have to be them to know (if any!).

     I agree with you that materialism (that uses classical physics) cannot explain subjective experiences. In the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013), I have precisely and rigorously shown how a specific SE is selected via quantum conjugate matching mechanism. I had long email discussion with Stapp related to quantum collapse, which is given in Sections 1.3 and 2.2 of (Vimal, 2011a). For example in Section 1.3:

     (I) Since horizontal cut is needed to conform to quantum mechanics (QM), there are 4 possible horizontal cuts in the eDAM framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010c, 2013):

                    (HC1) Mind-Matter Interaction: The Heisenberg type horizontal cut between (a) the mental aspect (‘abstract ego’) of observer-dependent cognitive feedback signals related higher level brain areas including cortical midline structures (CMS) for self and their neural activities and (b) the physical aspect of stimulus-dependent feed-forward signals related lower and intermediate level brain areas and their neural activities/representations. This is close to Stapp’s framework in QM.

                   (HC2) Matter-Mind Interaction: The horizontal cut between the physical aspect of cognitive feedback observer-dependent part of neural-network and the mental aspect of feed-forward stimulus-dependent part of neural-network. This cut does not appear interesting and relevant.

                   (HC3) Matter-Matter Interaction: The horizontal cut between the physical aspect of cognitive feedback observer-dependent part of neural-network and the physical-aspect of feed-forward stimulus dependent part of neural-network. This is usual neurophysiological feedback-feed-forward signal interaction.

                   (HC4) Mind-Mind Interaction: The horizontal cut between the mental aspect of cognitive feedback observer dependent part of neural-network and the mental aspect of feed-forward stimulus dependent part of neural-network. This is a novel mind-mind interaction and is proposed in the eDAM framework.

     The horizontal cuts (HC1) and (HC2) involve ‘category mistake’ (Feigl, 1967; Vimal, 2010c) because mind and matter are two different categories and it is not crystal clear how the observer-dependent mental aspect can interact with stimulus-dependent physical aspect. Orthodox QM assumes that they simply interact, as the brute fact, is not sufficient be

...

[Message clipped]  

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Do you think that water in all lakes, ponds, oceans, and rains are derived from rasa Tanmātra? If the answer is yes, then whose Sankalpa they are derived? Don’t you think, you are making science upside down and you are going back to superstitions by making science useless? You are starting from consciousness, then to causal and astral (such as rasa) world, then to the physical world (such as water), but you cannot go in reverse (physical to astral to causal to consciousness). In a science lab, you clearly observe water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen and you can do the reverse as well. Can you take a glass of water and convert it back to rasa? In science, you can convert water back to hydrogen and oxygen, which can further be disintegrated into elementary particles. Which do you think people will believe: science or Sāṅkhya?

Perhaps, you could think that the five (or more) Tanmātras are sub-quantum (deeper, below, or underlying 18 elementary particles) entities. This means, astral bodies are deeper than quantum entities, causal bodies are deeper than astral bodies and Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is the bottom most Planck level entity. At the SS state, yogis observe astral and causal level entities, and at the NS state, they might be observing UPC. Then it will be closer to science and it will be the bottom-up approach similar to science and the eDAM.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Thursday, 27 July 2017 7:00 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Presently mine or your consciousness is miles away from Rasa Tanmātra and you want to find how Jala is derived from Rasa Tanmātra! Please take your consciousness to the level of Rasa Tanmātra in the Astral realm and then try to find how Jala is derived from Rasa Tanmātra. Bob is right when he says that different levels of consciousness have different knowledge.

 

Vimal: Let us suppose our consciousness to the level of Rasa Tanmātra in the Astral realm. We both will observe (experience) how Rasa Tanmātra is gets manifested to Jala (water). And this experience will be highly reproducible. I agreed on this for a long time. I do not question this subjective experience. However, can we really produce water from Rasa Tanmātra in our real physical world out there? My firm answer is absolute NO.

Yes, you will experience or see how   Rasa Tanmaatra is being transformed to Jala ( water) in the physical world. That is how water appeared in the physical world in the primordial stages

 This is because the whole observation is simply an experience similar to any other experience, which has neural correlate(s). 

I had indicated that in the Samadhi state when you will associate with Tanmaatras in the Astral world, the experience of association/observing/seeing Tanmaatras neither builds any NCC in the brain nor it is created from any NCCs. First get at the level of Tanmmatras in the Astral bodily level and see what happens or not? You are talking about a hypothetical situation where you are speculating as to what will be happening at the mountain peak but sitting at the base of the mountain

In the wakeful state also, none of the experience is solely due to NCC but any of such experience builds its NCC since consciousness does operate at the physical brain/body level

I am sure that you will not accept this answer. As a matter of fact, I once told you, I was able to observe rūpa (visual form) Tanmātra manifesting into light during my meditation: color blobs oscillating when we meditate for a long time with full concentration at our third eye area (the area between eyebrows). 

What you observed was not the Rupa Tanmaatras. These colour blobs could be due to the light of the 10 Senses, 1 Manas and 1 Buddhi ( from the Astral body) and 5 Tanmaatras which can illuminate your brain and inside of the skull. With more concentration and purity of mind/body, you could see these elements of the Astral body in a distinct manner and with higher resolution, Then you could also see how a signal of any experience/thought percolates down from the mind/senses/buddhi and build its NCC on the brain.

I know how they are produced physiologically; they are visual phosphenes (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2007). However, I am sure that you are not going to accept it because are fully cling to superstitious belief of Sāṅkhya philosophy,

I have clarified above how those blobs of light are produced.

 which has now 11 unresolvable problems, and you are unable to accept this either. 

I had volunteered to address the issues of saankhya with 1-2 problems at one time. I have already sent you a message 2 days ago in which I have addressed Ist two problems of Saankhya. Now out of some stubborn attitude, you may or may not consider or accept those solutions to two problems is up to your rationale and wisdom.

Therefore, some other researchers/teachers will able to help you on this. Sometimes, I ask myself why I still reply you. This is because if somehow I am able to convince you (which now I think, I will certainly fail!) that it is simply a superstition, then, perhaps, millions of other such believers might be convinced.

I am always open for discussions based upon logical attitude, observations, and evidence --- both subjective from the state of samaaadhi and objective from empirical experimentation. Still, if you say that I am clung to superstitions, please re-check your own beliefs and see if they conform to logical scrutiny and evidence or not? For example, check if the existence of the mental aspects in all the entities of the universe is supported by any subjective or objective evidence or any theistic version as an extension of atheistic version  conforms to the logical scrutiny or the existence of  functions with the structure but not taking birth from structure conforms to a simple logical scrutiny?

If your aforesaid beliefs don't conform to any subjective or objective evidence or logical scrutiny and you still cling to the same, will it be not superstition?

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal: Presently mine or your consciousness is miles away from Rasa Tanmātra and you want to find how Jala is derived from Rasa Tanmātra! Please take your consciousness to the level of Rasa Tanmātra in the Astral realm and then try to find how Jala is derived from Rasa Tanmātra. Bob is right when he says that different levels of consciousness have different knowledge.

 

Vimal: Let us suppose our consciousness to the level of Rasa Tanmātra in the Astral realm. We both will observe (experience) how Rasa Tanmātra is gets manifested to Jala (water). And this experience will be highly reproducible. I agreed on this for a long time. I do not question this subjective experience. However, can we really produce water from Rasa Tanmātra in our real physical world out there? My firm answer is absolute NO. This is because the whole observation is simply an experience similar to any other experience, which has neural correlate(s). I am sure that you will not accept this answer. As a matter of fact, I once told you, I was able to observe rūpa (visual form) Tanmātra manifesting into light during my meditation: color blobs oscillating when we meditate for a long time with full concentration at our third eye area (the area between eyebrows). I know how they are produced physiologically; they are visual phosphenes (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2007). However, I am sure that you are not going to accept it because are fully cling to superstitious belief of Sāṅkhya philosophy, which has now 11 unresolvable problems, and you are unable to accept this either. Therefore, some other researchers/teachers will able to help you on this. Sometimes, I ask myself why I still reply you. This is because if somehow I am able to convince you (which now I think, I will certainly fail!) that it is simply a superstition, then, perhaps, millions of other such believers might be convinced.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

[Joseph McCard]

Vinod, Ram,

"1. Association or mind-brain interaction problem How does the non-material mind interact with the non-experiential brain? (Ram)

The mind is composed of consciousness units that form patterns, gestalt patterns of aware-ized energy. The cells of the brain, all the cells of the body are transducers, receiving and sending signals to/from the nonphysical mind(s). 

The units are basically animations rising from consciousness. I am speaking now of the consciousness within each physical particle regardless of its size -of molecular consciousness, cellular consciousness, as well as the larger gestalts of consciousness with which we are all familiar. The units are electromagnetic, but follow their own patterns of positive and negative charge, following also there own laws of electromagnetism.

The units obviously are within the reality of all cells. The initiation point is the basic part of the unit, as the nucleus is the important part of the cell.  It is the inner self, out of massive knowledge and the unlimited scope of its consciousness, that forms the physical world through the cells of the body. Through the mind, the inner self keeps the outer ego constantly at the job of awareness. It is the inner self that organizes, initiates, projects, and controls the Electromagnetic Energy units, opf which I spoke of in a separate post. They transform energy into objects, into matter. One can imagine Leibniz's monads slowing down to become physical. 

The energy of this inner self is used by it to form from itself -from inner experience - a material counterpart in which the outer ego can then act out its role. The outer ego then acts out a play that the inner self has written [thanks to Jack for bringing up Shakespeare] . That is not to say that the outer ego is a puppet. It is to say that the outer ego is far less conscious than the inner ego, that its perception is less, that it is far less stable though it makes great pretense of stability, that it springs from the inner self, and is therefore less, rather than more aware.

The outer ego is spoon-fed, being given only those feelings and emotions, only that data, that it can handle. This data is presented to it in a highly specialized manner, usually in terms of information picked up by the senses. 

"For example, how can we associate redness with red-green cells of ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net?[iii] This is a problem of unexplained epistemic gap: how is the jump made from the mental redness to material ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net (and vice versa).

The units would have color if you were able to perceive them physically. They are the source of color, and the source of light. 

"Furthermore, if nature has two distinct aspects, namely, mind and matter, then how can these distinct aspects of nature ever interact (Stapp, 2009b)?"

The brain, and all the cells in the body are transducers, converting Electromagnetic Energy unit by "slowing " them down, into physical signals. They are not subject to the speed of light, as they have no mass. And conversely emanating the consciousness signals of the cells back to the conscious mind. Plato talks about this in the Timaeus 45c. 

"In addition, we face empirical contradiction if we estimate the time needed to experience. For example, when we open our eyes we immediately have phenomenal subjective experience of redness if we look at a ripe tomato with in less than 100 msec. However, if we try to estimate time needed to experience redness using the interactive substance dualism (two independent fundamental entities mind and matter but interacting), we can easily come up that minimum time needed is at least seconds to minutes. This is because there are about 86 billion neurons in the human brain (Azevedo et al., 2009), where processing time is in msec. If the independent mind/consciousness starts searching the red-green cells among billions of cells, it may take about (86*109 * 10-3) = 106 seconds or if better search procedure is used then at least significantly more than 100 msec."

The interactions between mind and brain occur almost simultaneously, as I have said in my previous posts. There are no empirical contradictions because the whole system is not entirely empirical. The mind is not operating at empirical speeds. In fact, it needs to operate at speeds fast enough to ensure survival in the face of immediate danger. The assumption that the mind operates at empirical speeds is at fault. 

Well, you asked, joe : )

[Joseph McCard]

Vinod, Ram,

2. Problem of mental causation, violation of the law of energy conservation and problem of causal closure

How can a mental cause give rise to a behavioral effect without the violation of the conservation of energy and momentum ((Fodor, 1994).p25) and without making category mistake (Feigl, 1967)? How can mental entities such as intentions and/or choices causally generate physical brain events ((Collins, 2011).note5.p265)?

What kind of structured universe could explain both the interior and exterior worlds? If we consider the universe as a white hole -our exterior universe of sense -we have at least a theoretical framework that reconciles our inner and outer activity, our physical and spiritual or psychic experience.

For a simple example, see, >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole<

Just as matter escapes this universe through black holes, there is a flow of this vanished matter back into our universe through white holes. The electromagnetic aspect of thoughts and emotions, the animations [Plato's "fire from within", Timaeus  45c], are drawn through these points and can compare to miniature black holes. Here their energy momentarily disappears from our system , is immeasurably accelerated , and returned, re-energized, co-ordinated, organized and concentrated  through what we can call a miniature white hole. There is a wrinkling effect about these points. Some have been observed, but they are ignored as pertinent signs. 

These co-ordination points give our system additional sources of organized energy. The law of entropy does not apply, therefore. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that while the total energy in a closed system  such as our universe remains constant, the amount of energy available for useful work is constantly decreasing. The mathematical factor that measures the unavailable energy is called entropy [this definition differs, I believe, from Serge's]. However, the law of entropy does not apply in our system because THERE ARE NO CLOSED SYSTEMS. 

"The causal closure principle is “every physical effect has its chance fully determined by physical events alone” (Lowe, 2000)." (Ram)

So, referring to my previous post on this thread, closure is only empirically true, and hence, Ram has all these questions that can be resolved given a different point to stand on, a different perspective. 

"Then how is it possible that mind can determine physical events? Materialists, such as ((Dennett, 1991).p35 and (Flanagan, 1991).p21)), argue: (a) If mind does not have an associated physical energy/mass to transfer, how mind can influence brain cells for example going to concert. (b) In addition, since an interaction requires the expenditure of energy to have any effect (within the law of conservation of energy), where does this energy come from?" (Ram)

Simply, the basic assumptions about the fundamental nature of this universe are at fault here. Your mind DOES determine your physical events. There is a transfer of energy to mass whereby the nonphysical mind influences not only brain cells, but all the cells in the body. That energy comes from the inner universe, through white holes.

"These imply that (a) the law of energy conservation is true for all purely physical interactions and (b) an exchange of energy is involved in all causal interactions (or law-like connections)."

Yes, that is the implication. 

"...As per (Cacha & Poznanski, 2014), “Interactionism in this sense does not imply an immaterial–material dualism or substance dualism which might violate conservation laws of physics”.

Yes. Interactionism, IN THAT SENSE does not apply.

White holes are great accelerators that reenergize energy itself.

joe

[Murty Hari]

Joseph McCard writes:

"How can a mental cause give rise to a behavioral effect without the violation of the conservation of energy and momentum?  and without making category mistake ? How can mental entities such as intentions and/or choices causally generate physical brain events ?"

Eccles proposed that volition (a mental aspect/entity) triggers exocytosis in all the synatypic terminals in a dendron simultaneously, making it possible for a pyramidal cell to produce a strong enough EPSP ((excitatory postsynaptic potential).  He thought that without volition's role, the quantum tunneling process of exocytosis  would produce probability amplitudes that act independently, causing fluctuating EPSPs and no strong signal come out of the cell.  In the following article I gave a mathematical description for volition, which satisfies all the conditions mentioned above.

"Eccles's Psychons Could be Zero-Energy Tachyons " https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/169/169

Syamala Hari

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: vinodse...@gmail.com; online_sa...@googlegroups.com; sisir.s...@gmail.com; murty...@yahoo.com; rlpv...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

[Joseph McCard]

Joseph McCard writes: "How can a mental cause give rise to a behavioral effect without the violation of the conservation of energy and momentum?  and without making category mistake ? How can mental entities such as intentions and/or choices causally generate physical brain events ?"

Joseph McCard (joe) writes: Ram wrote that. 

joe writes: I suggest, as I have started to do, because I triggered the above, so I am trying to prevent the possibility of misattribution of comments (like those above, and one between Siegfried and I apparently) by prefacing the comments of the writer with the correct writers name, hopefully. 

Murty/Syamala Hari writes (I think): Eccles proposed that volition (a mental aspect/entity) triggers exocytosis in all the synatypic terminals in a dendron simultaneously, making it possible for a pyramidal cell to produce a strong enough EPSP ((excitatory postsynaptic potential).  He thought that without volition's role, the quantum tunneling process of exocytosis  would produce probability amplitudes that act independently, causing fluctuating EPSPs and no strong signal come out of the cell.  In the following article I gave a mathematical description for volition, which satisfies all the conditions mentioned above.

"Eccles's Psychons Could be Zero-Energy Tachyons " https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/169/169

joe writes: So, O.K. it seems what I call Electromagnetic Energy units, transformed from more fundamental consciousness units, are what Eccles and you are calling "psychons". And yes,  they account for mind-brain action without violating the principle of the conservation of energy, as I suggested in my post. [recopied below, and edited as to speaker.]

joe

Vinod, Ram,

Ram wrote: 2. Problem of mental causation, violation of the law of energy conservation and problem of causal closure

How can a mental cause give rise to a behavioral effect without the violation of the conservation of energy and momentum ((Fodor, 1994).p25) and without making category mistake (Feigl, 1967)? How can mental entities such as intentions and/or choices causally generate physical brain events ((Collins, 2011).note5.p265)?

joe wrote: What kind of structured universe could explain both the interior and exterior worlds? If we consider the universe as a white hole -our exterior universe of sense -we have at least a theoretical framework that reconciles our inner and outer activity, our physical and spiritual or psychic experience.

For a simple example, see, >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole<

Just as matter escapes this universe through black holes, there is a flow of this vanished matter back into our universe through white holes. The electromagnetic aspect of thoughts and emotions, the animations [Plato's "fire from within", Timaeus  45c], are drawn through these points and can compare to miniature black holes. Here their energy momentarily disappears from our system , is immeasurably accelerated , and returned, re-energized, co-ordinated, organized and concentrated  through what we can call a miniature white hole. There is a wrinkling effect about these points. Some have been observed, but they are ignored as pertinent signs. 

These co-ordination points give our system additional sources of organized energy. The law of entropy does not apply, therefore. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that while the total energy in a closed system  such as our universe remains constant, the amount of energy available for useful work is constantly decreasing. The mathematical factor that measures the unavailable energy is called entropy [this definition differs, I believe, from Serge's]. However, the law of entropy does not apply in our system because THERE ARE NO CLOSED SYSTEMS. 

Ram wrote: "The causal closure principle is “every physical effect has its chance fully determined by physical events alone” (Lowe, 2000)." (Ram)

joe wrote: So, referring to my previous post on this thread, closure is only empirically true, and hence, Ram has all these questions that can be resolved given a different point to stand on, a different perspective. 

Ram wrote: "Then how is it possible that mind can determine physical events? Materialists, such as ((Dennett, 1991).p35 and (Flanagan, 1991).p21)), argue: (a) If mind does not have an associated physical energy/mass to transfer, how mind can influence brain cells for example going to concert. (b) In addition, since an interaction requires the expenditure of energy to have any effect (within the law of conservation of energy), where does this energy come from?" (Ram)

joe wrote: Simply, the basic assumptions about the fundamental nature of this universe are at fault here. Your mind DOES determine your physical events. There is a transfer of energy to mass whereby the nonphysical mind influences not only brain cells, but all the cells in the body. That energy comes from the inner universe, through white holes.

Ram wrote: "These imply that (a) the law of energy conservation is true for all purely physical interactions and (b) an exchange of energy is involved in all causal interactions (or law-like connections)."

joe wrote: Yes, that is the implication. 

Ram wrote: "...As per (Cacha & Poznanski, 2014), “Interactionism in this sense does not imply an immaterial–material dualism or substance dualism which might violate conservation laws of physics”.

Joe wrote: Yes. Interactionism, IN THAT SENSE does not apply.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

Continuation of previous email...

1. Association problem still remains:

Sehgal:

In the first place, it is an incorrect approach to categorize brain and mind under material and non-material categories. What is non-material? There is nothing like non-material. E.M. energy is a non-material entity but why no doubts are raised on the interaction of the matter particles with that of non-material E.M. energy? Reasons being though E.M. energy is a non-material entity but it has been detected in the empirical experimentation and its interaction with the material particles is well understood. Therefore, though E.M. energy is a non-material entity, it is a physical entity, and material particles are also physical entities, therefore, there is no problem on the interaction between matter particles and E.M. energy. The interaction between matter and particles is a physical-to-physical interaction, therefore, no category mistake.

 

Similarly, the mind is NOT consciousness. It is a NON-MATERIAL but physical entity but its physicality does not fall with the physicality of four forces and baryonic matter. The physicality of the NON-Material but physical mind lies in the Astral realm of nature and a derivative of Moola Prakṛti (Primordial physicality) on the same sequential chain in which matter of the brain manifests. Therefore, from the fundamental perspective, both material brain and Non-material but physical mind are same. The interaction between them is physical-to-physical interaction the way interaction between e.m energy and matter particles is physical to a physical one. Thus in the mind-brain interaction also, there is no category mistake the way there is no category mistake in the E.M. energy-matter interaction.

 

However, the whole confusion of neuroscientists arises from following:

(i) The mind has erroneously been treated as a conscious entity.

(ii) Since the Astral realm of nature is un-investigable by the extent investigative techniques of Physics and neuroscience, therefore, physicists/neuroscientists are unable to study a non-material but physical mind in the astral realm of nature. Therefore, giving birth to a new class of problem called Mind Body Problem.

 

Though physicists and neuroscientists are unable to empirically verify the existence of a non-material but physical mind, a number of yogis/sages/saints have verified the ontological existence of a physical but a non-material mind in the Astral body in the Samādhi state in a quite reproducible manner. Therefore, if correctly interpreted, there is no associative or interactive problem of brain and mind.

 

Now above quotes (“two independent fundamental entities mind and matter but interacting”) is a live example of how a wrong knowledge can lead to all sort of misinterpretation leading to a false problem. Mind and Brain from a fundamental perspective are NOT different but same even though being distinct. They are the distinct and different derivatives of the same primordial physicality but on a continuum. The same continuum runs across from Moola Prakṛti onward to physical world with Causal and Astral realm being the intermediate sections.

 

Now above (timing problem) is a misleading inference arising from an obviously wrong assumption that all the 86 billion neurons are involved in one SE, say viewing the redness of a ripe tomato. In the SEs of viewing the redness of a ripe tomato, not more than a few million neurons will be involved.

 

Now something about the wrong concept of searching the red-green cells by the mind: consciousness is not the mind and not involved in searching any red green cells. In the state of Samādhi, Mind (specifically Manas), is observable as a discrete entity in the Astral bodily level but spatially located in the physical brain in various colors (depending upon the dominance of Guṇas -- Sattva, Rajas, Tamas)  but normally it is observable like a bright star radiating white light. Though the mind is a localized discrete entity in the Astral bodily level, its influence extends in the entire brain and body. In the normal people, its influence extends up to 4-5 ft outside the brain-body. Therefore, a field of some astral force of mind is built around mind in which all the 86 billion neurons are immersed. This is more or less on the same pattern in which a field is developed around a magnet or a charged particle. The way a magnet is not required to search iron pieces as located in its field and no time is consumed in the interaction of the magnetic force and iron pieces similarly mind is not required to search any cell of the brain (involved in  building of any NCC for any specific SE) all of which are located in the Field of the Mind. Therefore, no time is consumed in the interaction of the brain cells with the Mind via its field since all the cells/neurons are already in association/touch of the field. Nevertheless, here one thing should be clearly understood that this field of Mind is not any field of the four forces of the Physical world but it is a field of some Astral energy about which current Physics/neuroscience is unaware of it. So this how your problem of interaction between mind and brain and time involved in interaction is solved.

Vimal

It is not an incorrect approach; rather the basis of categorization is different from Sāṅkhya. In the dualistic Sāṅkhya, the two fundamental independent entities are Puruṣa (the experiencer, witness, Dristā) and Prakṛti (entities other than experiencer, i.e., astral, causal and physical bodies), whereas in the interactive substance dualism, the two independent entities are non-physical mind and physical entities (fermions and bosons). Here, matter and physical entity are used interchangeably. The physical entities are physical bodies and non-physical entities (such as thoughts, experiences, experiences, attention, memory, etc.) are included mind. As per E=mc², energy is equivalent to mass; therefore, E.M. energy is a material/physical energy and is grouped under matter/‘physical entity’. In Sāṅkhya, Puruṣa must interact with Prakṛti to empower it and to experience. This interaction is indeed a category mistake, leading to association problem.

 

What is astral world made of? It is not physical. Then it must be non-physical with mental entities. However, how can it exist independently without physical entities? How can mind exist without brain? There is no objective evidence and not possible to investigate objectively. Therefore, scientists will never agree for the existence of non-physical worlds (astral, causal, and consciousness worlds) beyond our mind-brain system and from our real physical world out there. Manas, Buddhi, Chitta, 10 Senses, 3 guṇas, and all other non-physical entities are part of mental aspect, which is inseparable from the physical aspect of mind-brain system. Yogis at SS/NS state simply experience reproducibly similar to dream and wakeful conscious states, each of which has neural basis/correlate(s), and nothing more than this. Their observations and experiences do not provide any proof of their “real” existence in our physical world.

 

Timing and search problems still remains because consciousness (Puruṣa) has to search just few the specific red-green cells that are activated out of 86 billion neurons and innumerable synapses at the speed of neural signal (which in msec range). The concept of immersion will not work for find specific neurons; for example, magnetic field cannot find just few specific pre-marked iron particles out of 86 billion particles; it will attract all without any discrimination.

 

To sum up, the association problem for dualism (both (Cartesian) Interactive Substance Dualism and (Kapila’s) Sāṅkhya) remains.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Friday, 28 July 2017 4:11 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. It will take time to address other queries because I am very busy in other projects, so please wait.

(1) Association or mind-brain interaction problem

Sehgal: Consciousness is an indivisible holistic fundamental existence. How can it divide into different units forming patterns of some awarized energy". When you refer to awareized energy, does this amounts to the consciousness or some thing else? While referring to the awarized energy, to what type of energy are you referring to? Energy as known to Physics within the domain of 4 fundamental forces or some transcendental energy, as transcendental to 4 forces? When you use the word "awarized energy? what does it means? Is that energy devoid of awareness primordially and get awareness thru some process? If it is so. but what mechanism or process, that primordial energy is endowed with awareness. You say that cells of the brain are transducers emitting and receiving signals from/to the non-physical mind. You are referring to mind as the units of consciousness ( akin to Leibnitz's monads). But this is the whole issue as raised by Dr Ram as to how a physical brain cells interact with a conscious mind? From the brain cells, emission and receipt of only physical e.m energy has been empirically detected and verified.

 

In reality, Mind is not any derivative or units of the consciousness. Mind is a derivative of Moola Prakriti (Primordial Physicality) in The Astral body level on the same sequential lineage/chain in which brain is a derivative of the same Moola Prakriti but located in the Physical body. As such Mind is also physical like brain but its physicality being unknown to the contemporary Physics/neuroscience and not within the domain of  e.m energy and other 3 fundamental forces. In view of this, association of mind and brain is a physical to physical and there is no category mistake. The whole problem of interaction arises when mind is interpreted as some conscious entity or some conscious particles, as you have pointed above. This view of mind is based upon mind as some physical derivative of the primordial physicality in the Astral realm. Another view on mind is as the aggregate of thoughts and experiences. This view is more popular in the  Western philosophy and science/neuroscience and the former view is not so well known.

When the mind as a physical derivatives (former view) undergoes some  transformational/structural changes due to a variety of the external and internal factors thoughts are produced (later view of mind).

 

[Manifested] Consciousness [Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya] is neither of the views of mind -- as  a physical structure (former view) or as aggregate of thoughts/experiences (later one view). But is plays the twin roles:

(i) It is due to the presence of the Consciousness that the “mind” as a physical structural entity is empowered to produce thoughts in it.

(ii) It is the consciousness which in the ultimate stage experiences/perceives the thoughts produced in the “mind”.

Vimal

(i) How can the manifested Consciousness (Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya) empower the “mind” as a physical structural entity (physical bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya) to produce thoughts in it without interaction? In other words, how can Puruṣa empower the Prakṛti without interaction?

 

(ii) How can the manifested Consciousness (Puruṣa) experiences/perceives the thoughts produced in the “mind” (Prakṛti) without interaction. In other words, how can Puruṣa empower the Prakṛti without interaction?

 

If interaction is allowed between Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya, then a category mistake is made and the association problem remains.

 

How is the “manifested Consciousness” (Puruṣa, Trideva) manifested from the “unmanifested Consciousness” (Ādi Shiva) as Shiva Purāṇa claims? 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Friday, 28 July 2017 8:08 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Joseph,

Vinod, Vimal

"1. Association or mind-brain interaction problem How does the non-material mind interact with the non-experiential brain? (Ram)

The mind is composed of consciousness units that form patterns, gestalt patterns of aware-ized 

energy. The cells of the brain, all the cells of the body are transducers, receiving and sending 

signals to/from the nonphysical mind(s). 

Consciousness is an indivisible holistic fundamental existence. How can it divide into different units

forming patterns of some awarized energy".

When you refer to awareized energy, does this amounts to the consciousness or some thing else?

While referring to the awarized energy, to what type of energy are you referring to? Energy as 

known to Physics within the domain of 4 fundamental forces or some transcendental energy, as

transcendental to 4 forces? When you use the word "awarized energy? what does it means ?

Is that energy devoid of awareness primordially and get awareness thru some process? If it is

so. but what mechanism or process, that primordial energy is endowed with awareness.

you say that cells of the brain are transducers emitting and receiving signals from/to the

 non-physical mind. You are referring to mind as the units of consciousness ( akin to 

Leibnitz's monads). But this is the whole issue as raised by Dr Ram as to how a physical

 brain cells interact with a conscious mind? From the brain cells, emission and receipt of

only physical e.m energy has been empirically detected and verified.

______________________________ ______________________________ ____

In reality, Mind is not any derivative or units of the consciousness. Mind is a derivative of Moola 

Prakriti ( Primordial Physicality) in The Astral body level on the same sequential lineage/chain

in which brain is a derivative of the same Moola Prakriti but located in the Physical body.

As such Mind is also physical like brain but its physicality being unknown to the contemporary

Physics/neuroscience and not within the domain of  e.m energy and other 3 fundamental forces.

In view of this, association of mind and brain is a physical to physical and there is no category 

mistake. The whole problem of interaction arises when mind is interpreted as some conscious

entity or some conscious particles, as you have pointed above. This view of mind is based upon

mind as some physical derivative of the primordial physicality in the Astral realm. Another view

on mind is as the aggregate of thoughts and experiences. This view is more popular in the

 Western philosophy and science/neuroscience and the former view is not so well known.

When the mind as a physical derivatives ( former view) undergoes some

 transformational/structural c hanges due to a variety of the external and internal factors

thoughts are produced ( later view of mind).

Consciousness is neither of the views of mind -- as  a physical structure( former view) or

as aggregate of thoughts/experiences ( later one view). But is plays the twin roles

i) It is due to the presence of the consciousness that mind as a  physical structural

entity is empowered to produce thoughts in it

ii) It is the consciousness which in the ultimate stage experiences/perceives the

thoughts produced in mind.

The units are basically animations rising from consciousness. I am speaking now of the 

consciousness within each physical particle regardless of its size -of molecular 

consciousness, cellular consciousness, as well as the larger gestalts of consciousness 

with which we are all familiar. The units are electromagnetic, but follow their own patterns

 of positive and negative charge, following also there own laws of electromagnetism.

Above hypothesis will amount to the splitting of consciousness in different units and presence

of each unit in each of the physical cell of the brain. But this view will be inconsistent with

the consciousness being a holistic indivisible non-emergent whole as  manifesting  from

the transcendental fundamental level. Further, an interaction between the physical e.m energy

 and units of consciousness in each of the physical brain cell will lead to the category mistake.

The units obviously are within the reality of all cells. The initiation point is the basic part of the 

unit, as the nucleus is the important part of the cell.  It is the inner self, out of massive knowledge

 and the unlimited scope of its consciousness, that forms the physical world through the cells

 of the body. Through the mind, the inner self keeps the outer ego constantly at the job of

 awareness. It is the inner self that organizes, initiates, projects, and controls the 

Electromagnetic Energy units, opf which I spoke of in a separate post. They transform 

energy into objects, into matter. One can imagine Leibniz's monads slowing down to 

become physical. 

Same two problems of the fragmentation of consciousness and category mistake of

interaction between physical and consciousness will persist..

Nether mind as a physical structural entity and as a derivative of the primordial physicality

nor mind as aggregate of thoughts is consciousness or some derivative of consciousness

as particles of consciousness or Leibnitz's monads.

The energy of this inner self is used by it to form from itself -from inner experience - a material

 counterpart in which the outer ego can then act out its role. The outer ego then acts out

 a play that the inner self has written [thanks to Jack for bringing up Shakespeare] . That is 

not to say that the outer ego is a puppet. It is to say that the outer ego is far less conscious

 than the inner ego, that its perception is less, that it is far less stable though it makes great

 pretense of stability, that it springs from the inner self, and is therefore less, rather than more 

aware.

I don't get clarity in this interaction/interface between inner vs outer ago, therefore, unable

to comment upon.

The outer ego is spoon-fed, being given only those feelings and emotions, only that data,

 that it can handle. This data is presented to it in a highly specialized manner, usually in 

terms of information picked up by the senses. 

Except lacking the clarity on inner ego vs outer ego, i agree that only that data or information

is supplied to senses and mind which it can handle

"For example, how can we associate redness with red-green cells of ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net?

[iii] This is a problem of unexplained epistemic gap: how is the jump made from the mental

 redness to material ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net (and vice versa).

The units would have color if you were able to perceive them physically. They are the source 

of color, and the source of light. 

Regarding the implausibility of the presence of any units of consciousness with the physical

units ( cells/neurons), I have already commented in the aforesaid.

"Furthermore, if nature has two distinct aspects, namely, mind and matter, then how can these distinct aspects of nature ever interact (Stapp, 2009b)?"

The brain, and all the cells in the body are transducers, converting Electromagnetic Energy unit

 by "slowing " them down, into physical signals.

Converting into what? physical signals or something else?

 They are not subject to the speed of light, 

as they have no mass

OK, it could be.

 And conversely emanating the consciousness signals of the cells back

 to the conscious mind.

But you have hypothesized mind as the units of consciousness so what does

the consciousness signals of the cells back to conscious mind imply to?

You seem to make no distinction in consciousness and mind and hypothesize

the fragmented consciousness in form of  particles, and as present in the physical

cells of the brain, as mind. But in this framework, problems of category mistake

and fragmentation of consciousness do persist

 Plato talks about this in the Timaeus 45c.

I am not aware with the above referred Plato's talks.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal 

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 12:29 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

Do you think that water in all lakes, ponds, oceans, and rains are derived from rasa Tanmātra?

Yes, that is what I meant. Before the creation of water in the physical world, all the Tanmaatras had taken birth in the Astral world

 If the answer is yes, then whose Sankalpa they are derived? 

 This was by the Sankalapa of the cosmic consciousness which has been and is the most fundamental non-emergent existence.  It is not that the cosmic consciousness shall make Sankalpa for each and every action in the universe. A broad Sankalap made at the very beginning of the creation of the universe will unleash a series of Laws in form of Shabda ( conscious signal). All the subsequent actions will go ahead as per those Laws. This we observe in our worldly life also. President Trump makes a broad Sankalpa for the fulfillment of some purpose. Once he takes the Sankalpa, systems/laws down the line automatically take care of the fulfillment of that purpose

In our day to day world also we see, that by Sankalpa we can do many small things. In the state of  samaadhi, a Yogi can transform any Tanmaatra in the Astral world to the respective Bhuttas in the physical world. Sankalpa of a Yogi is much much powerful than the Sankalpa of an ordinary person but much  weaker than that of the cosmic consciousness

Don’t you think, you are making science upside down and you are going back to superstitions by making science useless?

I am not making Science upside down but that is how the universe unfolds but current Science being unaware with the mechanisms/science of the upper realms of nature from which physical realm unfolds. In the state of Samaadhi, the unfolding of the universe from cosmic consciousness --  causal -- astral-- physical is observable and understandable with a fair degree of resolution.

 You are starting from consciousness, then to causal and astral (such as rasa) world, then to he physical world (such as water), but you cannot go in reverse (physical to astral to causal to consciousness). 

When the universe annihilates, reverse mechanism of the physical -to Astral to causal to Moola Prakriti is followed. An advanced level  Yogi can also create the reverse level process in some limited manner. When a physical object disappears, its physical derivatives are transformed to the respective Tanmaatras which  exist in the Astral world. Therefore, the object disappears from the physical world but its astral Tanmaatric form exists in the Astral world. 

In a science lab, you clearly observe water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen and you can do the reverse as well. Can you take a glass of water and convert it back to rasa?

Yes, it is possible by the Sankalpa of an advanced level Yogi in the state of Samaadhi, as indicated above.

 In science, you can convert water back to hydrogen and oxygen, which can further be disintegrated into elementary particles. Which do you think people will believe: science or Sāṅkhya?

Whether people believe or not hardly affects the state of the reality. For the scientists, it is difficult to believe since they are unaware of the ontological reality of the trans-physical Astral world. When we are unaware of the ontological reality of any entity/world, it is difficult to believe. Not very long ago but just about 200 years ago, people in the scientific world were unaware of the ontological reality of the elementary particles. At that time if any one had mentioned that there are all sort of elementary particles beneath the visible classical world, scientists would not have believed in that.

But in the state of Samaadhi, the ontological reality of the causal and astral world and that of the physical world, as manifesting from the Astral world becomes observable in a quite self-evidenced and reproducible manner.

Perhaps, you could think that the five (or more) Tanmātras are sub-quantum (deeper, below, or underlying 18 elementary particles) entities. This means, astral bodies are deeper than quantum entities, causal bodies are deeper than astral bodies and Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is the bottom most Planck level entity.

Yes, you have inferred more or less correctly what I think and have been trying to convey. Tanmaatras of the Astral world could either be some particle below the Planck level or some non-particle reality in some parallel world, as parallel to the physical world. But definitely, Tanmmatras do not seem to be composed of the particles of the physical world since Tanmaatras constitute the main body of the Astral body, which survives birth and death, and currently, it is not known, at least to Science, if any body constituted from any elementary physical particles exist.

 However, cosmic consciousness is not a discrete particle reality. It is a holistic, indivisible, infinite ONE reality having its own non-emergent fundamental ontological existence. It is NOT akin to UPC of eDAM since, in eDAM, UPC has discrete existence as part of the mental aspects with each and every particle of matter and energy. Further, in eDAM, UPC has no ontological existence of its own. It manifests as some functions on the manifestation of the mental aspects and that too in a functional brain. Ontological existence means having a structure and in eDAM structure is for the physical and UPC is a discrete function from some mental aspects. But paradoxically such functions don't take birth from the structure but no explanation available as to how these functions manifest. I have already sent you my detailed comments on the Structure_Function interface in eDAM and Nagarjuna's co-origination and tried to prove logically that no universe is possible from an "essenceless" and "causeless" universe.

Whatever the position with regard to Tanmaatras may be, they have a real ontological existence in the astral world. However, in the current scientific framework, it is difficult to understand as to what the Tanmaatras are. In any case, if Tanmaatras are some particle below the Planck scale or some non-particle entity in some parallel world, with the present investigative tools of the science Tanmaatras are un-investigable by Science since neither Science can approach below Planck scales nor any parallel world.

I have been trying to understand Tanmaatras in terms of the framework of Science but a very few Scientists are aware even with the basic concept of Tanmaatras and Astral World. Two days ago, I sent an email to Robert Boyer, a participant on this forum, who seem to have considerable knowledge of Saankhya as well as the current Science, with a copy marked to you also, requesting him to give his views on the nature of Tanmaatras in terms of the framework of Science. So far I have not received any response from him.

 At the SS state, yogis observe astral and causal level entities, and at the NS state, they might be observing UPC.

As indicated in the aforesaid, there is no equivalence between UPC, as interpreted in eDAM and Cosmic Consciousness, as interpreted in Saankhya/Upanishads. Kindly don't make any forced attempt to equate the two when prima facie, there is no comparison between the two.

 Then it will be closer to science and it will be the bottom-up approach similar to science and the eDAM.

No, it is not bottom up approach. Cosmic consciousness is not carried down to the discrete matter level stage, for its further manifestation at the functional brain level, as is interpreted in eDAM. Consciousness manifests from the top down the physical bodily level via the Causal and Astral bodily intermediate stages. Causal and Astral bodies/Worlds come into existence before the creation/manifestation of the physical bodies/worlds. Furthermore, consciousness unlike in eDAM is not any Function but some ontological holistic infinite indivisible structure. 

Any forced attempt to equate cosmic consciousness with that of UPC of eDAM is a misconceived one.

Regards

Vinod Sehgal

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Do you think that water in all lakes, ponds, oceans, and rains are derived from rasa Tanmātra? If the answer is yes, then whose Sankalpa they are derived? Don’t you think, you are making science upside down and you are going back to superstitions by making science useless? You are starting from consciousness, then to causal and astral (such as rasa) world, then to the physical world (such as water), but you cannot go in reverse (physical to astral to causal to consciousness). In a science lab, you clearly observe water is made out of hydrogen and oxygen and you can do the reverse as well. Can you take a glass of water and convert it back to rasa? In science, you can convert water back to hydrogen and oxygen, which can further be disintegrated into elementary particles. Which do you think people will believe: science or Sāṅkhya?

Perhaps, you could think that the five (or more) Tanmātras are sub-quantum (deeper, below, or underlying 18 elementary particles) entities. This means, astral bodies are deeper than quantum entities, causal bodies are deeper than astral bodies and Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is the bottom most Planck level entity. At the SS state, yogis observe astral and causal level entities, and at the NS state, they might be observing UPC. Then it will be closer to science and it will be the bottom-up approach similar to science and the eDAM.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

...

[Message clipped]  

[Murty Hari]

Dear Joseph McCard,

Thanks for straightening out who wrote what.  As the message became too long I got confused about that.

Yes. I do think that non-physical mind can act upon the physical brain to create physical events without the violation of the conservation of energy and momentum  and without making category mistake.

Moreover, in every new conscious experience  the physical brain does create  new mental (non-physical) content.  

Syamala Hari

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>

To: Murty Hari <murty...@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>; "vinodse...@gmail.com" <vinodse...@gmail.com>; "sisir.s...@gmail.com" <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; "rlpv...@gmail.com" <rlpv...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 4:11 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BDviUFPT_%3Dh__GWhCNBwaNyTPRoTcZ2vxh_gveSZuPTzV39kA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> on July 28, 2017 wrote:

>Just as matter escapes this universe through black holes, there 

>is a flow of this vanished matter back into our universe through

> white holes.

<skip>

> There is a transfer of energy to mass whereby the nonphysical 

>mind influences not only brain cells, but all the cells in the body. 

>That energy comes from the inner universe, through white holes.

<skip>

> White holes are great accelerators that reenergize energy itself.

.

[S.P.] Joseph is an artist of thinking. He generates his ideas in the same way as an eccentric artist does his public-shocking paintings. So, we should treat Joseph's ideas as we treat Modern Art. :-)

.

[Joseph McCard] wrote:

>The mathematical factor that measures the unavailable energy is called 

>entropy [this definition differs, I believe, from Serge's]. However, the 

>law of entropy does not apply in our system because THERE ARE NO 

>CLOSED SYSTEMS.

.

[S.P.] Indeed, my definition of entropy is based on our innate understanding of what is good and what is bad. And yes, I have formulated the Law of Entropy Conservation. I also consider two principles that immediately follow from that law, namely, a principle of competition and a principle of cooperation.

.

Also, when we say that "there are no closed systems" we should add that there are, in fact, no physically closed systems. The model I have elaborated and named the integrated information system is a closed system, since, by design, it is a limit to which knowledge/info about some object of study tends. The integrated information system is not a physical system, so, in its case, the Law of Entropy Conservation is applicable.

.

[Joseph McCard] wrote:

> The interactions between mind and brain occur almost simultaneously, ... 

>The mind is not operating at empirical speeds.

.

[S.P.] Do you know why? I do.

.

[Joseph McCard] wrote:

>There are no empirical contradictions because the whole system is 

>not entirely empirical.

.

[S.P.] As I said above, the integrated information system is not a physical system.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>

To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Cc: vinodse...@gmail.com; online_sa...@googlegroups.com; sisir.s...@gmail.com; murty...@yahoo.com; rlpv...@gmail.com
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 7:27 PM

Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Joseph McCard]

Vinod, 

[there is an exchange missing on this thread I had with Vinod]

Vinod, Vimal, and anyone still following this exchange, 

Ram wrote: "1. Association or mind-brain interaction problem How does the non-material mind interact with the non-experiential brain? (Ram)

joe writes: "The mind is composed of consciousness units that form patterns, gestalt patterns of aware-ized 

energy. The cells of the brain, all the cells of the body are transducers, receiving and sending 

signals to/from the nonphysical mind(s)." (joe)

Vinod writes: Consciousness is an indivisible holistic fundamental existence. How can it divide into different units

forming patterns of some awarized energy".

joe writes: You are right. We must unfortunately deal with analogies, because they can form bridgeworks between concepts. There are, for the sake of discussion, units of consciousness, then as there are units of matter. I do not want you to think of these units as particles, so much as they can best be described and modeled as fields. There is a basic unit of consciousness that, EXPRESSED, will not be broken down, as once it was thought that an atom was the smallest uint and could not be broken down. 

In rendering the universe as a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energy, all that now exists—both seen and unseen. In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into an infinite number of units smaller than the whole. These energy units you might call spirits.

In highest Truth, love is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be. When you move into the absolute, you move into love. The realm of the relative was created in order that God might experience God Self. I already  explained this to you. This does not make the realm of the relative real. It does not make consciousness units real. It is a created reality you and I have created cooperatively through God and continue to create—in order that we may know ourselves experientially. Yet the creation can seem very real. Its purpose is to seem so real, we accept it as truly existing. In this way, God has contrived to create “something else” other than Itself (though in strictest terms this is impossible, since God is—I AM—All That Is).

In matters of gross relationships, you recognize no “in-between.” That is because gross relationships are always dyads,[see, fro example, Ram's talk about dual-aspect monism, DAM, 

Vinod writes: When you refer to awareized energy, does this amounts to the consciousness or some thing else?

joe writes: One and the same. Calling consciousness "aware-ized energy" simply connects consciousness to its source, energy. All energy is aware-ized. 

Vinod writes: "While referring to the awarized energy, to what type of energy are you referring to? Energy as 

known to Physics within the domain of 4 fundamental forces or some transcendental energy, as

transcendental to 4 forces?

joe writes: I am referring to the pure energy of the inner universe, the energy that can be transformed into different types. Consciousness follows the Law of energy transformation, one of the 4 laws of the inner universe. So, O.K., transcendent to the physical world in form. 

Vinod writes: When you use the word "awarized energy? what does it means ?

joe writes: It is aware energy, identified within itself as itself, not "personified" but aware-ized. It is the source of all other kinds of consciousness

Vinod writes: Is that energy devoid of awareness primordially and get awareness thru some process? If it is

so. but what mechanism or process, that primordial energy is endowed with awareness.

joe writes: The energy of action, the workings of action within and upon itself forms identity, and so the two, energy and identity, are inseparable, and is consistent with my claims about "energy", above. (see Ram's comments on separability/inseparability for example) Action is, therefore, a part of all structure, all forms. Action, having of itself and because of its nature formed identities, now also because of its nature would seem to destroy identity, since action must involve change, and any change seems to threaten identity.

It is a mistaken notion however, that identity is dependent on stability. Identity, because of its characteristics , will continually seek stability, while stability is impossible. This creates a dilemma.

It is this dilemma, between identities constant attempts to maintain stability, and action's inherent drive for change, that results in a dynamic imbalance, the creative by-product that is consciousness of Self. For consciousness and existence do not result from delicate balances so much as they are made possible by lack of balance, so richly creative that there would be no reality were balance ever maintained.

Vinod writes: you say that cells of the brain are transducers emitting and receiving signals from/to the

 non-physical mind. You are referring to mind as the units of consciousness ( akin to 

Leibnitz's monads).

joe writes: I am referring to the conscious mind, a Gestalt of aware energy. The consciousness units, monads, (the analogy with Leibniz breaks down somewhat here) can be thought of as emanations, like breath from the body, given off by consciousness. 

 Vinod writes: But this is the whole issue as raised by Dr Ram as to how a physical

 brain cells interact with a conscious mind?

O.K.

Vinod writes: From the brain cells, emission and receipt of only physical e.m energy has been empirically detected and verified.

joe writes: Yes, as I have said in a just previous post, the emanations are presently undetected. That does not mean that they are undetectable. Science is just asking the wrong questions. 

Vinod writes: In reality, Mind is not any derivative or units of the consciousness. Mind is a derivative of Moola 

Prakriti ( Primordial Physicality) in The Astral body level on the same sequential lineage/chain

in which brain is a derivative of the same Moola Prakriti but located in the Physical body.

joe writes: Chaitanya is of the nature of pure consciousness. Atman is the individual Spirit in man and women which is generally referred to as the Monad in Leibniz. The Sanskrit word "Atma" is used both for the Supreme Spirit which underlies, pervades and contains the whole universe within its infinite embrace as well as the individual Spirit which is essentially of the same nature as the Supreme Spirit (as mentioned above), but it, the individual Spirit, is this unbounded, infinite Reality expressing itself thorough a point or centre. The Monad or the individual Spirit who is the innermost self of man and woman is essentially of the nature of pure consciousness or the reality in its outward turned aspect of consciousness. 

Vinod writes: As such Mind is also physical like brain but its physicality being unknown to the contemporary

Physics/neuroscience and not within the domain of  e.m energy and other 3 fundamental forces.

joe writes: yes, if you broaden the conception of physicality to include a larger spectrum of energy. 

Vinod writes: In view of this, association of mind and brain is a physical to physical and there is no category 

mistake.

joe writes: Correct : )

Vinod writes: The whole problem of interaction arises when mind is interpreted as some conscious

entity or some conscious particles, as you have pointed above. This view of mind is based upon

mind as some physical derivative of the primordial physicality in the Astral realm.

joe writes: Yes : )

Vinod writes:  Another view on mind is as the aggregate of thoughts and experiences. This view is more popular in the

 Western philosophy and science/neuroscience and the former view is not so well known.

When the mind as a physical derivatives ( former view) undergoes some

 transformational/structural changes due to a variety of the external and internal factors

thoughts are produced ( later view of mind).

joe writes: O.K.

Vinod writes: Consciousness is neither of the views of mind -- as  a physical structure( former view) or

as aggregate of thoughts/experiences ( later one view). But is plays the twin roles

i) It is due to the presence of the consciousness that mind as a  physical structural

entity is empowered to produce thoughts in it

ii) It is the consciousness which in the ultimate stage experiences/perceives the

thoughts produced in mind.

joe writes: Sounds good to me : )

Joe wrote: The units are basically animations rising from consciousness. I am speaking now of the 

consciousness within each physical particle regardless of its size -of molecular 

consciousness, cellular consciousness, as well as the larger gestalts of consciousness 

with which we are all familiar. The units are electromagnetic, but follow their own patterns

 of positive and negative charge, following also there own laws of electromagnetism.

Vinod writes: Above hypothesis will amount to the splitting of consciousness in different units and presence

of each unit in each of the physical cell of the brain. But this view will be inconsistent with

the consciousness being a holistic indivisible non-emergent whole as  manifesting  from

the transcendental fundamental level. Further, an interaction between the physical e.m energy

 and units of consciousness in each of the physical brain cell will lead to the category mistake.

Given the empirical conception, yes, it would lead to a category mistake. The problem of splitting of consciousness i have addressed above. There is only the apparent splitting, for the sake of experience through relativity.

joe writes: The units obviously are within the reality of all cells. The initiation point is the basic part of the 

unit, as the nucleus is the important part of the cell.  It is the inner self, out of massive knowledge

 and the unlimited scope of its consciousness, that forms the physical world through the cells

 of the body. Through the mind, the inner self keeps the outer ego constantly at the job of

 awareness. It is the inner self that organizes, initiates, projects, and controls the 

Electromagnetic Energy units, opf which I spoke of in a separate post. They transform 

energy into objects, into matter. One can imagine Leibniz's monads slowing down to 

become physical. 

Vinod writes: Same two problems of the fragmentation of consciousness and category mistake of

interaction between physical and consciousness will persist..

joe writes: I hope I have cleared up that issue for you. 

>>?/Nether mind as a physical structural entity and as a derivative of the primordial physicality

nor mind as aggregate of thoughts is consciousness or some derivative of consciousness

as particles of consciousness or Leibnitz's monads. [this quote is not a complete thought, as I read it???

joe writes: The energy of this inner self is used by it to form from itself -from inner experience - a material

 counterpart in which the outer ego can then act out its role. The outer ego then acts out

 a play that the inner self has written [thanks to Jack for bringing up Shakespeare] . That is 

not to say that the outer ego is a puppet. It is to say that the outer ego is far less conscious

 than the inner ego, that its perception is less, that it is far less stable though it makes great

 pretense of stability, that it springs from the inner self, and is therefore less, rather than more 

aware.

Vinod writes: I don't get clarity in this interaction/interface between inner vs outer ago, therefore, unable

to comment upon.

joe writes: Yes. There has been some breakdown staring from the previous comment Lol

joe wrote: The outer ego is spoon-fed, being given only those feelings and emotions, only that data,

 that it can handle. This data is presented to it in a highly specialized manner, usually in 

terms of information picked up by the senses. 

Vinod writes: Except lacking the clarity on inner ego vs outer ego, i agree that only that data or information

is supplied to senses and mind which it can handle

joe writes: O.K.

Ram writes in his paper: "For example, how can we associate redness with red-green cells of ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net?

[iii] This is a problem of unexplained epistemic gap: how is the jump made from the mental

 redness to material ‘V4/V8/VO’ neural-net (and vice versa).

joe writes: The units would have color if you were able to perceive them physically. They are the source 

of color, and the source of light. 

Vinod writes: Regarding the implausibility of the presence of any units of consciousness with the physical

units ( cells/neurons), I have already commented in the aforesaid.

joe writes: Well, maybe you at least have reconsidered that given my comments now.

Ram wrote: "Furthermore, if nature has two distinct aspects, namely, mind and matter, then how can these distinct aspects of nature ever interact (Stapp, 2009b)?"

joe writes: The brain, and all the cells in the body are transducers, converting Electromagnetic Energy unit

 by "slowing " them down, into physical signals.

Vinod writes: Converting into what? physical signals or something else?

joe writes: Physical signals.

 joe writes: They are not subject to the speed of light, 

as they have no mass

Vinod writes: OK, it could be.

O.K.

 joe writes: And conversely emanating the consciousness signals of the cells back

 to the conscious mind.

Vinod writes: But you have hypothesized mind as the units of consciousness so what does

the consciousness signals of the cells back to conscious mind imply to?

joe writes: As I said, the mind is a gestalt, and the consciousness units are emanations thrown off by the mind. 

Vinod writes: You seem to make no distinction in consciousness and mind and hypothesize

the fragmented consciousness in form of  particles,

joe writes: remember, I said not to think of the units as particles. 

Vinod writes: and as present in the physical

cells of the brain, as mind. But in this framework, problems of category mistake

and fragmentation of consciousness do persist

I hope I hjave cleared up this problem in my above remarks : )

joe writes: Plato talks about this in the Timaeus 45c.

Vinod writes: I am not aware with the above referred Plato's talks.

>http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0180%3Atext%3DTim.%3Asection%3D45c<

joe

[Joseph McCard]

Vinod, Ram,

Vinod writes: I have repeated many times that astral world is PHYSICAL and not non-physical. It

is the structural derivative of Moola Prakriti with  Tanmaatras, Manas, Buddhi and

10 senses as its key elements. It appears non-physical to scientists and neuroscientists

since they  are not able to detect empirically and study its physicality.

In the absence of the knowledge of the physicality of the Astral world and  mind,

scientsits term it as non-physical, the way you have also done above.

Ram wrote: However, how can it exist independently without physical entities? 

How can mind exist without brain?

Vinod wrote: Tanmaatras, Mind ( Manas), Indriyaas ( senses), Buddhi are very much physical

entities. you will have difficulty in comprehending this if you will limit your

concept of physicality up to atomic  matter and energies of 4 forces, as known

to Science of the day

Ram wrote: There is no objective evidence and not

 possible to investigate objectively.

 

Vinod wrote: Yes, there is no objective evidence since this is beyond the investigative techniques

of the current science. But in the state of Samaadhi, there is the subjective evidence

of having a   experience of the Astral body/world with all its individual

elements in a quite vivid and reproducible manner.

Ram wrote: Therefore, scientists will never agree for the

 existence of non-physical worlds (astral, causal, and consciousness worlds) beyond 

our mind-brain system and from our real physical world out there.

joe writes: Vinod states, " there is no objective evidence since this is beyond the investigative techniques of the current science." Ram writes that, "There is no objective evidence and not possible to investigate objectively. Recently, Vinod mentioned the word "Shabda". I thank him for bringing the term to my attention, as it resonates with a comment I made on a previous post about consciousness units/ Electromagnetic Energy units, and speaks to the issue just raised by Vinod and Ram. That there is no objective evidence. 

There are electromagnetic structures that are PRESENTLY beyond the range of our scientific instruments, units that are the basic carriers of perception. These emanations can and do appear as sounds (Shabda, see entry below). They have a very brief life. Their size varies. Several units may combine forming gestalts. It is not so much that they move through space as they use space to move through. There is a difference. Thermal qualities are also involved. The units are just beneath the range of physical matter. There is a structure to them. They follow there own rules of attraction and repulsion. As a magnet, you see, will attract with its filaments, so these units attract their own kind and form patterns which then appear to us as perception. 

They are cleverly camouflaged within all structure. and a pulsating nature, they can expand and contract. They can completely envelop a cell, or retreat to the nucleus. There is another reason why they remain a secret to Western science. Intensity governs not only their activity and size, but the relative strength of their magnetic structure. They change constantly

Following is a portion of the wikipedia page related to this discussion: 

"Esoterically, Shabd is the “Sound Current vibrating in all creation. It can be heard by the inner ears.” [1] Variously referred to as the Audible Life Stream, Inner Sound, Sound Current or Word in English, the Shabd is the esoteric essence of God which is available to all human beings, according to the Shabd path teachings of Eckankar, the Quan Yin Method, Sant Mat, Surat Shabd Yoga, and M.S.I.A. (Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness).

Adherents believe that a Satguru, or Eck Master, who is a human being, has merged with the Shabd in such a manner that he or she is a living manifestation of it at its highest level (the “Word made flesh”). However, not only can the Satguru attain this, but all human beings are inherently privileged in this way. Indeed, in Sant Mat the raison d’être for the human form is to meditate on the Sound Current, and in so doing merge with it until one’s own divinity is ultimately realized.

"Naam" ("Word") has been described in many traditions through the use of several different terms. the following expressions are interpreted as being identical to "Naam":

"Naad", "Akash Bani", and "Sruti" in the Vedas

"Nada" and "Udgit" in the Upanishads

"Logos", "Word" and "Holy Spirit" in the New Testament

"Tao" by Lao Zi

"Music of the Spheres" by Pythagoras

"Sraosha" by Zoroaster

"Kalma" and "Kalam-i-Qadim" in the Qur'an

"Naam", "Akhand Kirtan" and "Sacha ('True') Shabd" by Guru Granth Sahib

Sant Baljit Singh, a contemporary Sant Mat Master, uses the term "Light and Sound Current". He describes it as the connecting link between human beings and God." (Wikipedia/Shabda)

joe

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks. Please see blue font texts.

Vimal (28 July 2017)

(i) How can the manifested Consciousness (Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya) empower the “mind” as a physical structural entity (physical bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya) to produce thoughts in it without interaction? In other words, how can Puruṣa empower the Prakṛti without interaction?

 

(ii) How can the manifested Consciousness (Puruṣa) experiences/perceives the thoughts produced in the “mind” (Prakṛti) without interaction? In other words, how can Puruṣa experience the Prakṛti without interaction?

 

If the interaction is allowed between Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya, then a category mistake is made and the association problem remains.

 

(iii) How is the “manifested Consciousness” (Puruṣa, Trideva) manifested from the “unmanifested Consciousness” (Ādi Shiva) as Shiva Purāṇa claims?

Sehgal (29 July 2017)

(i) Cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa) and Moola Prakṛti always remain in close proximity with each other -- before the creation, after the creation, and during the period universe sustains. Due to the close proximity of these two fundamental entities, two fundamental forces manifest in Prakṛti viz Propulsion force (due to which inert Prakṛti becomes active and moves) and second is the Conscious signal (due to which Prakṛti gets the knowledge/guiding direction/Laws). In the Vedic/Upanishadic/Sāṅkhya traditions, the first force is called Parana and second force is called Shabda. There are two views as to how these two fundamental forces manifest in inert Prakṛti. The first view is that these two forces i.e. Prana and Shabda directly emanate out from the cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa). Another view has been that due to the presence of the cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa), Prana and Shabda are produced in the inert Moola Prakṛti. Whatever may be the view, the fact being Shabda and Prana remains present in Moola Prakṛti.

 

The concept of Shabda and Prana is not a hypothetical speculation but in the state of samādhi, both these forces are observable or experienceable.

 

Shabda ( or the signal of consciousness) as present at the primordial Moola Prakṛti level, as elaborated in the aforesaid, percolates down all the structural layered levels of the Moola Prakṛti from casual till the physical one When this signal reaches the Mind at the Astral bodily level, it is empowered to produce thoughts. 

 

(ii) All the thoughts are produced in the mind, as elaborated above. The signal of these thoughts is projected upwards in Chitta, an element of the Causal body. Chitta is an element of the causal body which closest to the consciousness (individualized, soul). Awareness is the very intrinsic attribute or nature of the consciousness. In view of this, localized consciousness (or soul) becomes aware of the signal of thoughts, as present in Chitta, without any actual interaction with Chitta or thoughts present in Chitta. Therefore, there is no category mistake.

 

(iii) Puruṣa or cosmic consciousness never becomes unmanifested. It always remains present in the manifested state. 

 

Manifestation or un-manifestation pertains to Prakṛti or physicality. When the universe has to come into existence, primordial Prakṛti becomes manifest in the form of the observable physical and unobservable causal and Astral worlds. When universe undergoes annihilation, all the Physical, Astral, and causal world dissolves and Prakṛti undergoes thru the reverse mechanism and Prakṛti regains its unmanifested Moola Prakṛti form. In this whole process of the folding and unfolding of the Moola Prakṛti into different layered structures of the universe, Cosmic Consciousness (Puruṣa) remain unaffected.

Vimal (29 July 2017)

You missed my point. In dualistic Sāṅkhya, the Puruṣa MUST interact with Prakṛti to empower and experience it. The propulsion force involves interaction. The localized consciousness (or soul) becomes aware of the signal of thoughts because of the interaction between the two. Without interaction, they are independent and cannot communicate. This entails category mistake. If you deny interaction between Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya then you are very illogical because, without interaction, there is no communication, no empowerment, and no experience in my view. I suggest that you should read carefully Sāṅkhya Kārikā. Perhaps, the experts of Sāṅkhya (such as G. Srinivasan ji and BVK Sastry ji) can help us.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Saturday, 29 July 2017 10:28 AM, Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:

Vinod,

I am not sure why this exchange is not posted to the forum, because I think it goes directly to the issues we have been discussing there. 

FWIW, I happen to agree with with Vinod's comments in blue, and the distinctions he so perceptively makes. However, any further comments I might make may only serve to complicate the discussion. So, Thanks to Vinod 😀

If Ram wants to understand perception, he needs to understand the nature of the inner units that carry and compose perception. That's my opinion anyway, and I only say so in the hope that it helps Ram and his research. It is not necessary for him to spend all his excellent abilities on a path to nowhere other than showing what perception is not. Ram has drawn Vinod's knowledge to him. But, will he use it? 

joe

[Joseph McCard]

Ram wrote: You missed my point. In dualistic Sāṅkhya, the Puruṣa MUST interact with Prakṛti to empower and experience it.

joe writes: I think I see the problem. Ram embraces dualistic Sankhya. The Samkhya system espouses dualism between consciousness and matter by postulating two irreducible, innate and independent realities: puruṣa and prakṛti. If this is the basis of Ram's beliefs, there is no way to defeat him. No one on these forums EVER change their beliefs. His comments to Vinod here are, then, just the continuation of his beliefs. I happen to think he is wrong, because he is overusing his intellect at the expense of other portions of his personality which are meant to bring him additional information. His consciousness has become filled up and obscured by the mental images which have accumulated in his intellect as a result of his schooling, his teachers, and his experiences which he has gone through in the world he has manifested. 

I am not judging him, I am simply making an observation!

The monad, which is the individual spirit, is the innermost self of man and woman, but is also of the nature of pure consciousness, that is, Reality in its outward aspect of Consciousness. In such a system, there is only one Ultimate Reality underlying both the manifest and the unmanifest states of Being. In rendering the universe as a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energy, all that now exists—both seen and unseen. In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. 

The different monads or individual spirits represent different expressions of the same Ultimate Reality. 

And so, from Ram's perspective of a dualistic Sāṅkhya, the illusory paraphernalia of his isolated  intellect deuces 11 problems. These problems become non-existant from the perspective Vinod has been seeing from. My previous posts solved the first two problems easily, and the rest would follow, as my intellect is not as bounded or isolated.

In some minds, Pure Consciousness, which brings into action the Mind principle, create mental worlds in which the intellect becomes imprisoned. It is for this reason that it is necessary to gain Self-realization and become established in the world of Reality. In its highest state, when it is not isolated, the Consciousness of the Monad exists in constant unification with the universal Consciousness of Siva, acquires all the Divine attributes and powers inherent in Pure Consciousness and can thus perform any function in the manifested universe as an Adhikari Purusa. 

"No matter how many systems you master and regardless of the great heights of worldly brilliance you rise to, if you have forgotten that there is only the One – you are in bondage. Therefore the state of being unaware that everything and everyone that exists is not separate from you, as the Consciousness of the One Self, is bondage also. Not knowing ‘undifferentiatedly’ is bondage" (I-2, Shiva-Sutra)

"Knowledge vitiated by the illusions of mind is the cause of bondage of the Monad or Jivatma in the lower worlds." (a different translation of I-2, Shiva-Sutra)

joe 😀 

 

[Christopher Chapple]

The key to the interaction between Purusa and Prakriti lies in the Buddhi, the bridge between consciousness and activity. Buddhi includes a list of either eight or 50 Bhavas that account for human self-emplacement (Prabhuta) within the world. On the sattvika side, one can tend toward Aisvarya, Viraga, Jnana, Dharma (Competency, Nonattachment, Spiritual Knowledge, Dharma). On the tamasika side, one descends into weakness, attachment, ignorance, viciousness. Through steady, applied discernment, one sees na'ham, na'smi, na me... there is no one to claim the doing, no one the claim what is done, no thing to be owned. Freedom! Consciousness and activity symbiotically work through the Buddhi, the place of reflection, for experience and liberation.

Onward and upward,

Chris Chapple

-- 

Christopher Key Chapple
Doshi Professor of Indic and Comparative Theology

Director, Master of Arts in Yoga Studies
Editor, Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology 
University Hall, Room 3763
Loyola Marymount University
Los Angeles, California 90045 USA
310-338-2846; fax: 310-338-1947

Faculty Web Page

New Book: Sacred Thread: Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

New Book: Engaged Emancipation: Mind, Morals, and Make-Believe in the Moksopaya (Yogavasistha)  

New Book: Yoga in Jainism 

LMU Extension Yoga Courses 

Master of Arts in Yoga Studies

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-yoga-masters-degree-20170513-htmlstory.html

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/359230558.2750157.1501342778654%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks, but the association and category mistake problems along with other problems of Sāṅkhya remain. I strongly suggest that you should follow less problematic monistic Shaivism or Viśiṣṭādvaita if you have to follow OOO-God theory.

 Sehgal (30 July 2017)

Cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa) need not interact with the Prakṛti directly. Due to the close proximity of Moola Prakṛti (Primordial physicality) and Cosmic Consciousness, two forces viz. propulsion force (Prāṇa) and knowledge/Laws/conscious signal (Shabda) continue to be created/manifested always in Moola Prakṛti before and after the creation as well as during the sustenance of the universe. It is this Shabda, which remain present in all the layered structures of the Moola Prakṛti from Casual, Astral, and Physical realms of nature. Please keep in mind that in the state of samādhi, both these forces viz Prāṇa and Shabda are observable/experienceable and thus empirically verifiable and carry the force of the subjective evidence. In view of this, there is no place for any other speculative hypothesis.

One more aspect that you should not lose sight of is that for the interaction between two entities, both the entities should be in the reductive and divisible form having parts. Cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa) is NOT a finite, divisible (having parts) entities to enable it to interact with the Prakṛti, It is an infinite, indivisible, holistic, ontological conscious existence. Therefore, even if you forcefully like to have any interaction between the Puruṣa and Prakṛti, the same is not possible on the logical basis of the "interaction".

 

Regarding the creation of thoughts, I have clarified many times and I would like to reiterate that thoughts are produced (in the wakeful and dream state) by the interface of the physical brain in the physical body and Astral Mind wherein Astral mind is also a physical entity. Therefore, in the thought process, interface/association of the brain and mind is Physical-to-Physical interaction. This there is no category mistake. How does the localized consciousness (soul) experience these thoughts? I had elaborated in before, viz. by the projection of the signal of thoughts in "Chitta" in the Causal body (being closest to the localized consciousness (soul) and awareness being the intrinsic nature/attribute of the localized consciousness/soul.

 

Please try to appreciate the difference in the localized consciousness/soul and cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa. I think you are confusing both as the same. Therefore, another aspect of which you are losing sight of is that the soul is like the image of the Sun in water in some vessel on the earth while cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa is like Sun across heavens. Any change/transformation in the image of the Sun in water does not reflect any change/transformation in the Sun across heavens. So is with the localized consciousness/soul and cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa. It is the soul/localized consciousness (IMAGE) which experiences thoughts/experiences and NOT the cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa and that too due to the intrinsic awareness being its nature when the signal of any thought is projected in "Chitta" in the causal body JUST DIRECTLY FACING SOUL. This obviates the need for any interaction between conscious soul and the ultimate signal of thoughts in "Chitta".

 

My above interpretation is based upon logical analysis and subjective evidence as flowing out from the experiences in the state of samādhi. However, still, if you want to cling to a stubborn and illogical notion that there is an interaction between the Prakṛti and consciousness, you may please rebut each and every of my point/issues, line-wise/Para-wise, as raised in  my previous and this messages based upon Logical analysis and  as supported by the evidence. While rebutting the issues/points, you should clearly define the level of the Prakṛti as well as make a clear distinction between the mind and consciousness. As per Sāṅkhya, the mind and consciousness has a clear demarcation.

 

Unless and until one does not read the interpretation of Sāṅkhya by someone who himself has the actual observation/experiences of the internal elements viz. Manas, Buddhi, Indriyas, Tanmātras, Chitta, comprising the Astral and Causal bodies/worlds AND Moola Prakṛti, as indicated in Sāṅkhya  in the state of samādhi, there is the high likelihood of committing mistakes in the interpretations. The experiences in the state of samādhi are akin to objective experimentation in science and thus carries the force of an evidence, though subjective one. It is right that Kapila Muni had indicated of the aforesaid elements of the Astral and causal world after his actual experiences and thus his descriptions carry the force of evidence. However, the problem has been that thousands of years have elapsed since the living of Kapila Muni and Sāṅkhya is described in Sūtra form. Any Sūtra is indicated in a nutshell in very few words and sometimes in a symbolic form and thus is open for a wide interpretation. There is no way to ensure if a large number of interpreters, from the time of Kapila onward until the present times, had the actual experiences of the different elements/entities of the Astral/causal world in the state of Samādhi and then written their interpretation OR Just by reading and theoretical understanding the interpretation of their predecessors , came out their version of the interpretation. In the case of later scenario, there is the high likelihood of making wrong interpretations far astray from the reality since the reality can only be ascertained thru subjective empirical methodology, which is the state of samādhi.

Vimal

If your hypothesis is that the close proximity of Puruṣa and Moola Prakṛti creates Prāṇa and Shabda in Moola Prakṛti, then Puruṣa and Moola Prakṛti MUST FIRST INTERACT with each other; without interaction, there is no communication between them, and hence no creation. Similarly, the empowerment of Moola Prakṛti by Puruṣa and Puruṣa experiencing whatever is going in Prakṛti need interaction between them. Even Puruṣa being just witness or Dristā, interaction is needed. For example, just the act of watching needs interaction between the watcher and the object being watched. Thus, Sāṅkhya clearly makes a category mistake. There is no escape no matter how you justify. This is a serious mistake to reject Sāṅkhya.

 

Similarly dualistic ISD, monistic idealism/Advaita, and monistic materialism/Cārvāka metaphysics make a category mistake and hence they all are rejected.

 

Only the dual-aspect monism metaphysics does not make such any category mistake; such metaphysics are the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita), Kashmir Shaivism (860–925 AD), and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (Ramānujāchārya: 1017-1137 AD: cit (~ consciousness) and acit (~ non-conscious entities) are adjectives/aspects of Brahman).

 

All subjective experiences including Samādhi state experiences are personal and private subjective data from first person perspective, which can vary from person to person; they are not objective data; therefore, they cannot be considered as empirical verification. We need both subjective and objective reproducible data for empirical verification in scientific investigations.

 

I disagree that an interaction requires that interacting entities must be reductive and divisible form having parts. Fundamental entities of the same group (such as elementary particles of Standard Model) can also interact without making a category mistake. To avoid the category mistake Puruṣa and Prakṛti can be considered as two aspects of the primal entity (Brahman) as in Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita, Shaivism (Shiva-Shakti) and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita. Here, the interaction is between the same group (physical-physical or mental-mental), so there is no category mistake. The category mistake was one of the main reasons for developing top-down monistic Shaivism and Viśiṣṭādvaita.

 

Since the categorization in Sāṅkhya is different from the ISD, I am not arguing the physical-to-physical interaction of the entities of Prakṛti; I am arguing against the physical-to-experiential interaction between Chitta (Prakṛti) and experiencer (soul or localized Puruṣa), which you erroneously claim that there is no interaction them because Chitta JUST DIRECTLY FACES SOUL. I would argue that they interact more strongly because the distance between is reduced, in analogy to 1/r² law in gravitation or EM (Coulomb law). I clearly understand the difference between ‘localized consciousness’/soul and ‘cosmic consciousness’/Puruṣa. A category mistake is made whenever Prakṛti (or its component) and Puruṣa (or soul) are forced to interact. However, if you consider Puruṣa and Prakṛti as two aspects of Brahman (as done in Shaivism and Viśiṣṭādvaita), then there is no category mistake although they have their own problems.

 

I do not understand why you are strongly clinging to dualistic Sāṅkhya that has 11 problems; if you like OOO-God theory, then you can follow top-down monistic Shaivism or Viśiṣṭādvaita and keep your most of beliefs. The Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM) follows bottom-up approach; its atheist version is consistent with science and Buddhism; its theist version is somewhat consistent with a unclear mixture of bottom-up and then top-down Shiva Purāṇa (where trideva Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh manifested from the unmanifested Ādi/Sadā Shiva), Shaivism, and Viśiṣṭādvaita.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Sunday, 30 July 2017 3:45 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vimal (28 July 2017)

(i) How can the manifested Consciousness (Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya) empower the “mind” as a physical structural entity (physical bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya) to produce thoughts in it without interaction? In other words, how can Puruṣa empower the Prakṛti without interaction?

 

(ii) How can the manifested Consciousness (Puruṣa) experiences/perceives the thoughts produced in the “mind” (Prakṛti) without interaction? In other words, how can Puruṣa experience the Prakṛti without interaction?

 

If the interaction is allowed between Puruṣa and Prakṛti of  Sāṅkhya, then a category mistake is made and the association problem remains.

 

(iii) How is the “manifested Consciousness” (Puruṣa, Trideva) manifested from the “unmanifested Consciousness” (Ādi Shiva) as Shiva Purāṇa claims?

Sehgal (29 July 2017)

(i) Cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa) and Moola Prakṛti always remain in close proximity with each other -- before the creation, after the creation, and during the period universe sustains. Due to the close proximity of these two fundamental entities, two fundamental forces manifest in Prakṛti viz Propulsion force (due to which inert Prakṛti becomes active and moves) and second is the Conscious signal (due to which Prakṛti gets the knowledge/guiding direction/Laws). In the Vedic/Upanishadic/Sāṅkhya traditions, the first force is called Parana and second force is called Shabda. There are two views as to how these two fundamental forces manifest in inert Prakṛti. The first view is that these two forces i.e. Prana and Shabda directly emanate out from the cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa). Another view has been that due to the presence of the cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa), Prana and Shabda are produced in the inert Moola Prakṛti. Whatever may be the view, the fact being Shabda and Prana remains present in Moola Prakṛti.

 

The concept of Shabda and Prana is not a hypothetical speculation but in the state of samādhi, both these forces are observable or experienceable.

 

Shabda ( or the signal of consciousness) as present at the primordial Moola Prakṛti level, as elaborated in the aforesaid, percolates down all the structural layered levels of the Moola Prakṛti from casual till the physical one When this signal reaches the Mind at the Astral bodily level, it is empowered to produce thoughts. 

 

(ii) All the thoughts are produced in the mind, as elaborated above. The signal of these thoughts is projected upwards in Chitta, an element of the Causal body. Chitta is an element of the causal body which closest to the consciousness (individualized, soul). Awareness is the very intrinsic attribute or nature of the consciousness. In view of this, localized consciousness (or soul) becomes aware of the signal of thoughts, as present in Chitta, without any actual interaction with Chitta or thoughts present in Chitta. Therefore, there is no category mistake.

 

(iii) Puruṣa or cosmic consciousness never becomes unmanifested. It always remains present in the manifested state. 

 

Manifestation or un-manifestation pertains to Prakṛti or physicality. When the universe has to come into existence, primordial Prakṛti becomes manifest in the form of the observable physical and unobservable causal and Astral worlds. When universe undergoes annihilation, all the Physical, Astral, and causal world dissolves and Prakṛti undergoes thru the reverse mechanism and Prakṛti regains its unmanifested Moola Prakṛti form. In this whole process of the folding and unfolding of the Moola Prakṛti into different layered structures of the universe, Cosmic Consciousness (Puruṣa) remain unaffected.

Vimal (29 July 2017)

You missed my point. In dualistic Sāṅkhya, the Puruṣa MUST interact with Prakṛti to empower and experience it. The propulsion force involves interaction. The localized consciousness (or soul) becomes aware of the signal of thoughts because of the interaction between the two. Without interaction, they are independent and cannot communicate. This entails category mistake. If you deny interaction between Puruṣa and Prakṛti of  Sāṅkhya then you are very illogical because, without interaction, there is no communication, no empowerment, and no experience in my view. I suggest that you should read carefully Sāṅkhya Kārikā. Perhaps, the experts of Sāṅkhya (such as G. Srinivasan ji and BVK Sastry ji) can help us.

You have either not read my comments carefully and properly or you fail to follow and understand the same. As I said, cosmic consciousness ( Purusha) need not interact with the Prakriti directly. Due to the close proximity of Moola Prakriti ( Primordial physicality) and Cosmic Consciousness, two forces viz propulsion force ( Prana) and knowledge/Laws/conscious signal ( Shabda) continue to be created/manifested always in Moola Prakriti before and after the creation as well as during the sustenance of the universe. It is this Shabda which remain present in all the layered structures of the Moola Prakriti from Casual, Astral and Physical realms of nature. Please keep in mind that in the state of samaadhi, both these forces viz Prana and Shabda are observable/experienceable and thus empirically verifiable and carry the force of the subjective evidence. In view of this, there is no place for any other speculative hypothesis.

One more aspect which you should not lose sight of is that for the interaction between two entities, both the entities should be in the reductive and divisible form having parts. Cosmic consciousness ( Purusha) is NOT a finite, divisible ( having parts) entities to enable it to interact with the Prakriti, It is an infinite, indivisible, holistic, ontological conscious existence. So even if you forcefully like to have any interaction between the Purusha and Prakriti, same is not possible on the logical basis of the "interaction"

Regarding the creation of thoughts, I have clarified many times and I would like to reiterate that thoughts are produced ( in the wakeful and dream state ) by the interface of the physical brain in the physical body and Astral Mind wherein Astral mind is also a physical entity. So in the thought process, interface/association of the brain and mind is  Physical to Physical interaction. This there is no category mistake. How the localized consciousness experience these thoughts? -- I had elaborated in my previous message viz by the projection of the signal of thoughts in "Chitta" in the Causal body ( being closest to the localized consciousness/soul and awareness being the very intrinsic nature/attribute of the localized consciousness/soul.

Please try to appreciate the difference in the localized consciousness/soul and cosmic consciousness/Purusha. I think you are confusing both as the same.  So another aspect of which you are losing sight of is that the soul is like the image of the Sun in water in some vessel at earth while cosmic consciousness/Purusha is like Sun across heavens. Any change/transformation in the image of the Sun in water does not reflect any change/transformation in the Sun across heavens. So is with the localized consciousness/soul and cosmic consciousness/Purusha. It is the soul/localized consciousness ( IMAGE) which experiences thoughts/experiences and NOT the cosmic consciousness/Purusha and that too due to the very intrinsic awareness being its nature when the signal of any thought is projected in "Chitta" in the causal body JUST DIRECTLY FACING SOUL. This obviates the need for any interaction between conscious soul  and the ultimate signal of thoughts in "Chitta"

My above interpretation is based upon logical analysis and subjective evidence as flowing out from the experiences in the state of samaadhi. However, still, if you want to cling to a stubborn and illogical notion that there is an interaction between the Prakriti and consciousness, you may please rebut each and every of my point/issues, line wise/para wise, as raised in  my previous and this messages based upon Logical analysis and  as supported by the evidence. While rebutting the issues/points, you should clearly define the level of the Prakriti as well as make a clear distinction between the mind and consciousness. As per Saankhya, there Mind and consciousness has a clear demarcation.

Unless and until one does not read the interpretation of Saankhya by someone who himself has the actual observation/experiences  of the internal elements viz Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Tanmaatras, Chitta, Chitta comprising the Astral and Causal bodies/worlds AND and Moola Prakriti, as indicated in Saankhya  in the state of samaadhi, there is the high likelihood of committing mistakes in the interpretations. The experiences in the state of samadhi are akin to objective experimentation in science and thus carries the force of an evidence, though subjective one. It is right that Kapila Muni had indicated of the aforesaid elements of the Astral and causal world after his actual experiences and thus his descriptions carry the force of an evidence. But the problem has been that thousand of years have elapsed since the living of Kapila Muni and Saankhya is described in Suutra form. Any Suutra is indicated in a nutshell in very few words and sometimes in symbolic form and thus open for an open and wide interpretation. There is no way to ensure if a large no of interpreters, from the time of Kapial onward until the present times, had the actual experiences of the different elements/entities of the Astral/causal world in the state of Samaadhi and then written their interpretation OR Just by reading and theoretical understanding the interpretation of their predecessors , came out their version of the interpretation. in the case of later scenario, there is the high likelihood of making wrong interpretations far astray from the reality since the reality can only be ascertained thru subjective empirical methodology which is the state of samaadhi.

Regards.

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 1:03 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vimal (28 July 2017)

(i) How can the manifested Consciousness (Puruṣa of Sāṅkhya) empower the “mind” as a physical structural entity (physical bodies of Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya) to produce thoughts in it without interaction? In other words, how can Puruṣa empower the Prakṛti without interaction?

 

(ii) How can the manifested Consciousness (Puruṣa) experiences/perceives the thoughts produced in the “mind” (Prakṛti) without interaction? In other words, how can Puruṣa experience the Prakṛti without interaction?

 

If the interaction is allowed between Puruṣa and Prakṛti of  Sāṅkhya, then a category mistake is made and the association problem remains.

 

(iii) How is the “manifested Consciousness” (Puruṣa, Trideva) manifested from the “unmanifested Consciousness” (Ādi Shiva) as Shiva Purāṇa claims?

Sehgal (29 July 2017)

(i) Cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa) and Moola Prakṛti always remain in close proximity with each other -- before the creation, after the creation, and during the period universe sustains. Due to the close proximity of these two fundamental entities, two fundamental forces manifest in Prakṛti viz Propulsion force (due to which inert Prakṛti becomes active and moves) and second is the Conscious signal (due to which Prakṛti gets the knowledge/guiding direction/Laws). In the Vedic/Upanishadic/Sāṅkhya traditions, the first force is called Parana and second force is called Shabda. There are two views as to how these two fundamental forces manifest in inert Prakṛti. The first view is that these two forces i.e. Prana and Shabda directly emanate out from the cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa). Another view has been that due to the presence of the cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa), Prana and Shabda are produced in the inert Moola Prakṛti. Whatever may be the view, the fact being Shabda and Prana remains present in Moola Prakṛti.

 

The concept of Shabda and Prana is not a hypothetical speculation but in the state of samādhi, both these forces are observable or experienceable.

 

Shabda ( or the signal of consciousness) as present at the primordial Moola Prakṛti level, as elaborated in the aforesaid, percolates down all the structural layered levels of the Moola Prakṛti from casual till the physical one When this signal reaches the Mind at the Astral bodily level, it is empowered to produce thoughts. 

 

(ii) All the thoughts are produced in the mind, as elaborated above. The signal of these thoughts is projected upwards in Chitta, an element of the Causal body. Chitta is an element of the causal body which closest to the consciousness (individualized, soul). Awareness is the very intrinsic attribute or nature of the consciousness. In view of this, localized consciousness (or soul) becomes aware of the signal of thoughts, as present in Chitta, without any actual interaction with Chitta or thoughts present in Chitta. Therefore, there is no category mistake.

 

(iii) Puruṣa or cosmic consciousness never becomes unmanifested. It always remains present in the manifested state. 

 

Manifestation or un-manifestation pertains to Prakṛti or physicality. When the universe has to come into existence, primordial Prakṛti becomes manifest in the form of the observable physical and unobservable causal and Astral worlds. When universe undergoes annihilation, all the Physical, Astral, and causal world dissolves and Prakṛti undergoes thru the reverse mechanism and Prakṛti regains its unmanifested Moola Prakṛti form. In this whole process of the folding and unfolding of the Moola Prakṛti into different layered structures of the universe, Cosmic Consciousness (Puruṣa) remain unaffected.

Vimal (29 July 2017)

You missed my point. In dualistic Sāṅkhya, the Puruṣa MUST interact with Prakṛti to empower and experience it. The propulsion force involves interaction. The localized consciousness (or soul) becomes aware of the signal of thoughts because of the interaction between the two. Without interaction, they are independent and cannot communicate. This entails category mistake. If you deny interaction between Puruṣa and Prakṛti of  Sāṅkhya then you are very illogical because, without interaction, there is no communication, no empowerment, and no experience in my view. I suggest that you should read carefully Sāṅkhya Kārikā. Perhaps, the experts of Sāṅkhya (such as G. Srinivasan ji and BVK Sastry ji) can help us.

You have either not read my comments carefully and properly or you fail to follow and understand the same. As I said, cosmic consciousness ( Purusha) need not interact with the Prakriti directly. Due to the close proximity of Moola Prakriti ( Primordial physicality) and Cosmic Consciousness, two forces viz propulsion force ( Prana) and knowledge/Laws/conscious signal ( Shabda) continue to be created/manifested always in Moola Prakriti before and after the creation as well as during the sustenance of the universe. It is this Shabda which remain present in all the layered structures of the Moola Prakriti from Casual, Astral and Physical realms of nature. Please keep in mind that in the state of samaadhi, both these forces viz Prana and Shabda are observable/experienceable and thus empirically verifiable and carry the force of the subjective evidence. In view of this, there is no place for any other speculative hypothesis.

One more aspect which you should not lose sight of is that for the interaction between two entities, both the entities should be in the reductive and divisible form having parts. Cosmic consciousness ( Purusha) is NOT a finite, divisible ( having parts) entities to enable it to interact with the Prakriti, It is an infinite, indivisible, holistic, ontological conscious existence. So even if you forcefully like to have any interaction between the Purusha and Prakriti, same is not possible on the logical basis of the "interaction"

Regarding the creation of thoughts, I have clarified many times and I would like to reiterate that thoughts are produced ( in the wakeful and dream state ) by the interface of the physical brain in the physical body and Astral Mind wherein Astral mind is also a physical entity. So in the thought process, interface/association of the brain and mind is  Physical to Physical interaction. This there is no category mistake. How the localized consciousness experience these thoughts? -- I had elaborated in my previous message viz by the projection of the signal of thoughts in "Chitta" in the Causal body ( being closest to the localized consciousness/soul and awareness being the very intrinsic nature/attribute of the localized consciousness/soul.

Please try to appreciate the difference in the localized consciousness/soul and cosmic consciousness/Purusha. I think you are confusing both as the same.  So another aspect of which you are losing sight of is that the soul is like the image of the Sun in water in some vessel at earth while cosmic consciousness/Purusha is like Sun across heavens. Any change/transformation in the image of the Sun in water does not reflect any change/transformation in the Sun across heavens. So is with the localized consciousness/soul and cosmic consciousness/Purusha. It is the soul/localized consciousness ( IMAGE) which experiences thoughts/experiences and NOT the cosmic consciousness/Purusha and that too due to the very intrinsic awareness being its nature when the signal of any thought is projected in "Chitta" in the causal body JUST DIRECTLY FACING SOUL. This obviates the need for any interaction between conscious soul  and the ultimate signal of thoughts in "Chitta"

My above interpretation is based upon logical analysis and subjective evidence as flowing out from the experiences in the state of samaadhi. However, still, if you want to cling to a stubborn and illogical notion that there is an interaction between the Prakriti and consciousness, you may please rebut each and every of my point/issues, line wise/para wise, as raised in  my previous and this messages based upon Logical analysis and  as supported by the evidence. While rebutting the issues/points, you should clearly define the level of the Prakriti as well as make a clear distinction between the mind and consciousness. As per Saankhya, there Mind and consciousness has a clear demarcation.

Unless and until one does not read the interpretation of Saankhya by someone who himself has the actual observation/experiences  of the internal elements viz Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Tanmaatras, Chitta, Chitta comprising the Astral and Cuasal bodies/worlds AND and Moola Prakriti, as indicated in Saankhya  in the state of samaadhi, there is the high likelihood of committing mistakes in the interpretations. The experiences in the state of samadhi are akin to objective experimentation in science and thus carries the force of an evidence, though subjective one. It is right that Kapila Muni had indicated of the aforesaid elements of the Astral and causal world after his actual experiences and thus his descriptions carry the force of an evidence. But the problem has been that thousand of years have elapsed since the living of Kapila Muni and Saankhya is described in Suutra form. Any Suutra is indicated in a nutshell in very few words and sometimes in symbolic form and thus open for an open and wide interpretation. There is no way to ensure if a large no of interpreters, from the time of Kapial onward until the present times, had the actual experiences of the different elements/entities of the Astral/causal world in the state of Samaadhi and then written their interpretation OR Just by reading and theoretical understanding the interpretation of their predecessors , came out their version of the interpretation. in the case of later scenario, there is the high likelihood of making wrong interpretations far astray from the reality since the reality can only be ascertained thru subjective empirical methodology which is the state of samaadhi.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

 

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Curt Rice <curt...@uit.no> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

I do not believe that I ever subscribed to this list. I am unable to unsubscribe, neither through the procedures at the bottom of the email nor through any other strategies I can find on the internet. My attempts to reach the moderator directly also fail.

I desperately want to be spared the discussions on this list. They neither inspire nor enlightenmen me. 

I want to be spared further emails and I do not know how to achieve this. I am asking for your help.

I will use reply all and send this note every time I receive an email from this list until I someone asks the moderator on my behalf to unsubscribe me. My intention is to raise awareness to my plight here and to find a merciful soul who can help.

Maybe you are just that merciful soul?

Thank you ….

Sent from my iPhone

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org /Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroup s.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CA%2BDv iUF7PpQ-CWWeZPDp%2BVQ3w43F9ioY jOLfDbRBhEMceJW4hg%40mail. gmail.com.

[Joseph McCard]

Vinod,

[posted here to correct a mistaken and misunderstood comment in my previous post] 

Thank-you for pointing out my misinterpretation, my misunderstanding. I knew I was taking a chance when I wrote, I have only been on this forum for a few weeks, not years. But, I do learn from my mistakes.

Vinod wrote: He does not embrace dualistic Sankhya.

Please remember, I qualified my comment by writing (and you excluded the comment in your correction), "...If this is the basis of Ram's beliefs...". 

Why did he write the following: 

"You missed my point. In dualistic Sāṅkhya, the Puruṣa MUST interact with Prakṛti to empower and experience it. The propulsion force involves interaction. The localized consciousness (or soul) becomes aware of the signal of thoughts because of the interaction between the two. Without interaction, they are independent and cannot communicate. This entails category mistake. If you deny interaction between Puruṣa and Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya then you are very illogical because, without interaction, there is no communication, no empowerment, and no experience in my view. I suggest that you should read carefully Sāṅkhya Kārikā. Perhaps, the experts of Sāṅkhya (such as G. Srinivasan ji and BVK Sastry ji) can help us." (Ram) 

You say, "He has devised some extended Dualistic Aspect Monism (eDAM) which is based upon some hypothetical mental aspect as inseparable with the physical aspect of all the matter particles of the universe."

You are saying he does not separate the spiritual from the physical? He is positing a hypothetical mental entity that is a physical entity, not a nonphysical entity? 

Vinod wrote:  Apart from a plethora of logical inconsistencies, which I have pointed out to Ram many times...

Are you saying he does not learn from HIS mistakes, or he does not believe you when you say he has made a logical mistake?

Vinod wrote: ...there is no objective evidence, as flowing from empirical scientific experiments

As I have pointed out, there is objective evidence available (sound) of a nonphysical mental state, science has just been asking the wrong questions. 

 Vinod wrote; OR [there is no] subjective evidence from the experiences in the state of Samaadhi.

I do not understand what you are saying here? Why would there be? I thought the Sammadhi state excluded experience. What do you believe the Samaadhi state entails?

I also point out that Ram said, " Perhaps, the experts of Sāṅkhya (such as G. Srinivasan ji and BVK Sastry ji) can help us.", which indicates to me that even he is a bit confused 🤔 

Vinod wrote: What  you have said that Saankhya embraces dualism by espousing two indivisible and independent entities consciousness and the matter is not fully correct. Only cosmic consciousness is indivisible. There is no notion of the matter in Saankkhya. 

joe writes: Take it up with the experts : )

As to the rest you have written, my head hurts, and I need a break. 

Vinod wrote: But there is the notion of Moola Prakriti 9 Primordial Physicality)  which is as fundamental  as the cosmic consciousness or Purusha  for the existential purposes BUT 

1) It is inert and lacks any innate consciousness and propulsion power.

2) It is NOT indivisible but it is divisible and it transforms into various layered structures of the inner and outer world.

3) The transformed structural derivatives of Moola Prakriti encompasses in itself all the matter and physical energy of the physical world ( which you say as the outer world) PLUS all the matter ( Tanmaatras), energy and Mind of the Astral World, which, I think, you name as the inner world.

4) A signal of consciousness, called Shabada in many spiritual traditions, run across like a common thread in all the structural derivatives of the Moola Prakriti from Moola Prakriti till the matter of the physical world via the intermediate stages of the structural derivatives of the Astral World and Mind.

joe

FYI -I am leaving at noon, my time, to go on a weeklong trip into the wilderness, and will be out of communication. If I don't here from you by then, if you are still talking to me, we will renew our productive, inspiring and enlightening discussion, contrary to what Curt Rice (see his post on this thread above) has been experiencing. 😂

joe

[BMP]

Dear Joe

Namaste.

Vinod writes: Consciousness is an indivisible holistic fundamental existence. How can it divide into different units

forming patterns of some awarized energy".

joe writes: You are right.

BMP: Since neither of you know what consciousness is besides naming something, it is amazing that you can speak of it so authoritatively. From a purely experiential level we know that consciousness is differentiated into innumerable units called human beings, jivas, or any of the countless other conscious living entities.  If consciousness were one, then all would be conscious of the same thing at the same time. If one died all would die. If one achieved moksha, all would achieve moksha at the same time. There would be no question of your endless arguing or debating since all would agree with one another. Unless you are hypocrites, you should all just sit quietly meditate on how you are all one and recognize your bickering as complete illusion.

But if we are to be honest we recognize that this is not the case. No doubt there is something similar in addition to the differences or we could not be communicating with one another. But to ignore the difference and claim ultimate oneness is simply based on what the word 'ignore' implies. 

Somehow, contradictions are to be avoided for those who think within the logical terms of the excluded middle. Do you know why they call it the 'excluded middle'? Because the pairs of opposites, whatever they may be, such as oneness and difference, the opposites may be conceived as circles that can touch one another but otherwise entirely exclude one another. The middle point between them is the point where both oneness and difference meet and is thus both oneness and difference. Abstract logic deals with everything but this point. It ignores it. Concrete logic deals with both the oneness of oneness and difference [at the point] as well as the difference of oneness and difference [at the point and beyond], so that the whole thing is covered. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http:/bvsics.org

Facebook

From: Joseph McCard <joseph....@gmail.com>
To: "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2017 2:10 PM
Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/edea0241-8426-4d04-be62-2712902cd5ba%40googlegroups.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Dr. B. Madhava Puri,

 

Namaste.

Thanks for your interesting email.

 

There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term “consciousness” as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009) and listed in its Tables 1 and 2. Therefore, it all depends what meaning you assign to the term “consciousness”. Your “concrete logic” seems to entail Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, 1486-1534).

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/590964859.2134354.1501445987005%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

Sehgal (31 July 2017)

Not necessary that for the creation of Shabda and Prana, Puruṣa (Cosmic consciousness) may have the actual interaction with the Moola Prakriti. Cosmic consciousness is a HOLISTIC INDIVISIBLE IN FINITE entity while Mool Prakriti is a DISCRETE DIVISIBLE entity. For interaction, actual communication, as is normally interpreted in the physical sciences, it is some parts of the Cosmic Consciousness which should have interaction with some parts of the Moola Prakriti. However since the cosmic consciousness is PARTLESS, INDIVISIBLE, HOLISTIC INFINITE ONE, it can't interact, the way you interpret the interaction, even if you want to forcibly want to create an interaction. Then there are two views on the manifestation of Prana and Shabda in Moola Prakriti. The first view states that this is by the very nature of the cosmic consciousness (without any need for any mechanism in the physical sense we understand), Prana and Shabda manifest in the Moola Prakriti. The second view is that Prana and Shabda exist in the very womb of the cosmic consciousness and emerge it out in the Moola Prakriti. In either of these views, no need for interaction in the physical sense arises. Then Most important fact has been that in the state of Samādhi, both Prana and Shabda are actually observable/experienceable. This does not leave the scope for any other interpretation. The point which you are missing is that it is not the cosmic consciousness which empowers Moola Prakrit, but it is the Prana and Shabda  which empowers Moola Prakriti Then how Prana and Shabda manifests in MooLa Prakriti is indicated above. […] I argue that there is no need for any interaction between the soul and final signal of thoughts in Chitta since awareness is the very fundamental nature of the consciousness of the soul.

Vimal

I strongly disagree because you are making totally illogical and impossible argument. The interaction between Puruṣa (either in parts or whole) and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, empowerment. If there is no interaction, then both are isolated. Fields (such as ubiquitous ZPF, EM, or gravitational field) can interact with particles without making category mistake if interaction is between two entities of the same group. You have two contradicting views on Prana and Shabda; they are parts of  Puruṣa vs. parts of Moola Prakṛti; they are certainly not third independent entities. In any case, the Puruṣa and Moola Prakṛti are of from different groups, their interaction is certainly a category mistake and is forbidden. In my view, any kind of awareness by soul/self (even if awareness is fundamental and inherent in soul) needs interaction with the objects it is aware of. Therefore, in my view, the association and category mistake problems of Sāṅkhya remains. To sum up, let us agree that we disagree and let readers to decide.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Monday, 31 July 2017 4:38 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Respected Dr. Ram,

Thanks.

My comments in the red font text given after your comments

Thanks, but the association and category mistake problems along with other problems of Sāṅkhya remain. I strongly suggest that you should follow less problematic monistic Shaivism or Viśiṣṭādv aita if you have to follow OOO-God theory.

 Sehgal (30 July 2017)

Cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa) need not interact with the Prakṛti directly. Due to the close proximity of Moola Prakṛti (Primordial physicality) and Cosmic Consciousness, two forces viz. propulsion force (Prāṇa) and knowledge/Laws/conscious signal (Shabda) continue to be created/manifested always in Moola Prakṛti before and after the creation as well as during the sustenance of the universe. It is this Shabda, which remain present in all the layered structures of the Moola Prakṛti from Casual, Astral, and Physical realms of nature. Please keep in mind that in the state of samādhi, both these forces viz Prāṇa and Shabda are observable/experienceable and thus empirically verifiable and carry the force of the subjective evidence. In view of this, there is no place for any other speculative hypothesis.

One more aspect that you should not lose sight of is that for the interaction between two entities, both the entities should be in the reductive and divisible form having parts. Cosmic consciousness (Puruṣa) is NOT a finite, divisible (having parts) entities to enable it to interact with the Prakṛti, It is an infinite, indivisible, holistic, ontological conscious existence. Therefore, even if you forcefully like to have any interaction between the Puruṣa and Prakṛti, the same is not possible on the logical basis of the "interaction".

 

Regarding the creation of thoughts, I have clarified many times and I would like to reiterate that thoughts are produced (in the wakeful and dream state) by the interface of the physical brain in the physical body and Astral Mind wherein Astral mind is also a physical entity. Therefore, in the thought process, interface/association of the brain and mind is Physical-to-Physical interaction. This there is no category mistake. How does the localized consciousness (soul) experience these thoughts? I had elaborated in before, viz. by the projection of the signal of thoughts in "Chitta" in the Causal body (being closest to the localized consciousness (soul) and awareness being the intrinsic nature/attribute of the localized consciousness/soul.

 

Please try to appreciate the difference in the localized consciousness/soul and cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa. I think you are confusing both as the same. Therefore, another aspect of which you are losing sight of is that the soul is like the image of the Sun in water in some vessel on the earth while cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa is like Sun across heavens. Any change/transformation in the image of the Sun in water does not reflect any change/transformation in the Sun across heavens. So is with the localized consciousness/soul and cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa. It is the soul/localized consciousness (IMAGE) which experiences thoughts/experiences and NOT the cosmic consciousness/Puruṣa and that too due to the intrinsic awareness being its nature when the signal of any thought is projected in "Chitta" in the causal body JUST DIRECTLY FACING SOUL. This obviates the need for any interaction between conscious soul and the ultimate signal of thoughts in "Chitta".

 

My above interpretation is based upon logical analysis and subjective evidence as flowing out from the experiences in the state of samādhi. However, still, if you want to cling to a stubborn and illogical notion that there is an interaction between the Prakṛti and consciousness, you may please rebut each and every of my point/issues, line-wise/Para-wise, as raised in  my previous and this messages based upon Logical analysis and  as supported by the evidence. While rebutting the issues/points, you should clearly define the level of the Prakṛti as well as make a clear distinction between the mind and consciousness. As per Sāṅkhya, the mind and consciousness has a clear demarcation.

 

Unless and until one does not read the interpretation of Sāṅkhya by someone who himself has the actual observation/experiences of the internal elements viz. Manas, Buddhi, Indriyas, Tanmātras, Chitta, comprising the Astral and Causal bodies/worlds AND Moola Prakṛti, as indicated in Sāṅkhya  in the state of samādhi, there is the high likelihood of committing mistakes in the interpretations. The experiences in the state of samādhi are akin to objective experimentation in science and thus carries the force of an evidence, though subjective one. It is right that Kapila Muni had indicated of the aforesaid elements of the Astral and causal world after his actual experiences and thus his descriptions carry the force of evidence. However, the problem has been that thousands of years have elapsed since the living of Kapila Muni and Sāṅkhya is described in Sūtra form. Any Sūtra is indicated in a nutshell in very few words and sometimes in a symbolic form and thus is open for a wide interpretation. There is no way to ensure if a large number of interpreters, from the time of Kapila onward until the present times, had the actual experiences of the different elements/entities of the Astral/causal world in the state of Samādhi and then written their interpretation OR Just by reading and theoretical understanding the interpretation of their predecessors , came out their version of the interpretation. In the case of later scenario, there is the high likelihood of making wrong interpretations far astray from the reality since the reality can only be ascertained thru subjective empirical methodology, which is the state of samādhi.

Vimal

If your hypothesis is that the close proximity of Puruṣa and Moola Prakṛti creates Prāṇa and Shab da in Moola Prakṛti, then Puruṣa andMoola Prakṛti MUST FIRST INTERACT with each other; without interaction, there is no communication between them, and hence no creation. 

Not necessary that for the creation of Shabda and Prana, cosmic consciousness may have the actual interaction with the Moola Prakriti. Cosmic consciousness is a HOLISTIC INDIVISIBLE IN FINITE entity while Mool Prakriti is a DISCRETE DIVISIBLE entity. For interaction, actual communication, as is normally interpreted in the physical sciences, it is some parts of the Cosmic Consciousness which should have interaction with some parts of the Moola Prakriti. However since the cosmic consciousness is PARTLESS, INDIVISIBLE, HOLISTIC INFINITE ONE, it can't interact, the way you interpret the interaction, even if you want to forcibly want to create an interaction. Then there are two views on the manifestation of Prana and Shabda in Moola Prakriti. The first view states that this is by the very nature of the cosmic consciousness ( without any need for any mechanism in the physical sense we understand), Prana and Shabada Manifest in the Moola Prakriti. The second view is that Prana and Shabda exist in the very womb of the cosmic consciousness and emerge it out in the Moola Prakriti. In either of these views, no need for interaction in the physical sense arises.

Then Most important fact has been that in the state of Ssamaadhi, Both Prana and Shabda are actually observable/experienceable. This does not leave the scope for any other interpretation

Similarly, the empowerment of Moola Prakṛti by Puruṣa andPuruṣa ex periencing whatever is going in Prakṛti need interaction between them. 

The point which you are missing is that it is not the cosmic consciousness which empowers Moola Prakritwhich But it is the Prana and Shabda  which empowers Moola Prakriti Then how Prana and Shabda manifests in MooLa Prakriti is indicated above

Even Puruṣa being just witness or Dristā, interaction is needed. For example, just the act of watching needs interaction between the watcher and the object being watched.

In your above interpretation, you are making a no. of mistakes viz

i) You are erroneously equating the witnessing of any physical object by eyes with the witness by the soul.  Both the physical object and eyes are distinct, divisible entities. But the conscious soul is not a divisible entity having parts. Further, it is not the eyes which have the capacity to see any object. Eyes merely collect the physical signals from the external object.

Similarly, it is also not the mind which sees or witness the external object. It also only processes the signal from the external object in the Astral Mind level.

ii) It is not the Purusha ( or cosmic consciousness) which witnesses the finally processed signal of thoughts in Chitta in the Causal bodily level. It is the localized consciousness(soul) which witnesses the thoughts. The relation between the soul and Cosmic consciousness ( Purusha) is that one of between the image of the Sun in water and the Sun across heavens. Any interactive mechanism, as occurring in the image of the Sun in water is not reflected in the Sun. Similarly, even if we may agree that some interactive mechanism should happen between the consciousness and thoughts while experiencing/witnessing the thoughts ( for the discussion sake, we may agree to it for the time being),  same will happen in soul ( localized consciousness) and the thoughts & Cosmic consciousness ( Purusha) will remain immune from this interactive mechanism.

iii) Having awareness is the very innate nature of the consciousness. When consciousness has to become aware of the existence of any external entity/phenomenon, it need not enter into any other mechanism/interaction with the object/phenomenon for awareness SINCE awareness is the very nature of the consciousness.

Please be aware that AWARENESS BY CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT AN EMERGENT PHENOMENON. IT IS THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL INNATE NATURE OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS. INTERACTIVE MECHANISMS ARE REQUIRED WHERE  SOME PHENOMENON IS OF THE EMERGENT NATURE.

When you will read and reread above comments carefully, realization will come to you as where you are making mistakes while insisting on the interaction between the consciousness and Prakriti

Thus, Sāṅkhyaclearly makes a category mistake. There is no escape no matter how you justify. This is a serious mistake to reject Sāṅkhya.

As indicated above, category mistake in Samkhya is due to a no of wrong notions.interpretations, as elaborated above

 

Similarly dualistic ISD, monistic idealism/Advaita, and monistic materialism/Cārvāka metaphysic s make a category mistake and hence they all are rejected.

 

Only the dual-aspect monism metaphysics does not make such any category mistake; such metaphysics are the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita), Kashmir Shaivism (860–925 AD), and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (Ra mānujāchārya: 1017-1137 AD: cit (~ consciousness) and acit (~ non-conscious entities) are adjectives/aspects of Brahman).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

All subjective experiences including Samādhi state experiences are personal and private subjective data from first person perspective, which can vary from person to person; they are not objective data; therefore, they cannot be considered as empirical verification. We need both subjective and objective reproducible data for empirical verification in scientific investigations.

When the subjective experiences are spread over a large population and there is also similarity and reproducibility, need for the objective evidence is obviated. For example, every one of us has a subjective experience of some mind and conscious "I-ness". But is there any objective evidence for the mind and conscious "I-ness"? NIL evidence. But still, it is agreed since this experience is spread over the entire population in some universal manner. Even if science may like to probe into some objective evidence for the existence of any minds and conscious "I-ness", same will not be forthcoming.

When there can't be any objective pieces of evidence for the mundane and peripheral subjective experiences like the existence of minds or conscious "I-ness", how can there be objective evidence for the deeper level Samaadhi state experiences?

 

I disagree that an interaction requires that interacting entities must be reductive and divisible form having parts.

For interaction between two entities, it is necessary that both the entities should be reductive and divisible. This is the reason that so far Physics is not able to understand any interactive mechanism between space and matter particles since space is considered as continuous, indivisible, non-reductive

 Fundamental entities of the same group (such as elementary particles of Standard Model) can also interact without making a category mistake. 

That is OK. But then how e.m energy and matter particles interact without making any category mistake though one is matter and other is non-matter?

To avoid the category mistake Puruṣa and Prakṛti can be considered as two aspects of the primal entity (Brahman)

As elaborated in the foregoing paras, any category mistake in Purusha and Prakriti is due to  a no false notions and misconceptions

 as in Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita,Shaivism (Shiva-Shakti ) and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita. Here, the interaction is between the same group (physical-physical or mental-mental), so there is no category mistake. The category mistake was one of the main reasons for developing top-down monistic Shaivismand Viśiṣṭādv aita.

Advaita and Saankhya differ to the extent only that in Advaita Physicality)  emerges out from the womb of the cosmic consciousness while in the Saankhya, physicality has its own fundamental existence in form of Moola Prakriti like that of the cosmic consciousness. Once emerged out from the cosmic consciousness, it follows the same route of structural transformation into the causal, astral and physical structures in  a sequential manner as in Saankhya 

 

Since the categorization in Sāṅkhya is different from the ISD, I amnot arguing the physical-to-physical interaction of the entities ofPrakṛti; I am arguing against the physical-to-experiential interaction between Chitta (Prakṛti) and experiencer (soul or localized Puruṣa), which you erroneously claim that there is no interaction them because Chitta JUST DIRECTLY FACES SOUL.

I argue that there is no need for any interaction between the soul and final signal of thoughts in Chitta since AWARENESS IS THE VERY FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE SOUL. As already elaborated in the foregoing, interaction/any mechanism for any phenomenon is needed when it is an emergent one and HAVING AWARENESS BY CONSCIOUS SOUL IS NOT AN EMERGENT PHENOMENON.  It is the very nature of the conscious soul to have awareness.

There is one more possibility. On the manifestation of any thoughts in the mind, the conscious signal  ( Shbada) is commensurately modified and projected in Chitta for its witness by the conscious soul. In that case, it will be conscious to conscious experience. However, I am fully sure as to of what ontology the final signal of thought /experience is projected before the soul in Chitta -- whether of some physical astral energy or of the conscious signal ( Shabda). Whatever the case may be, conscious soul need not interact with that signal since awareness is its very fundamental nature.

 I would argue that they interact more strongly because the distance between is reduced, in analogy to 1/r² law in gravitation or EM (Coulomb law).

Now your above argument is based purely on some misconceptions. In the realm of the consciousness, there is no space, so from where r or r to the power 2 will arise? The inverse square law is not applicable to even many physical phenomena of the physical world., leave alone the physicality of the astral world and the cosmic consciousness where there is no space.

 I clearly understand the difference between ‘localized consciousness’/soul and ‘cosmic consciousness’/Puruṣa.

If you understand the difference with soul( like an image of the Sun in water) and cosmic consciousness ( like the Sun in the sky), how do you state that any experience by the soul ( even if it arises from some interaction) will lead to some interaction with the cosmic consciousness/Purusha?

 A category mistake is made whenever Prakṛti (or its component) and Puruṣa (or soul)

A soul is not a component of the cosmic consciousness in the absolute sense. It is an image of the cosmic consciousness in Chitta and an image is always an apparent reality. As already elaborated above, soul always remains aware of the existence of any experience/thoughts in Chitta as part of its fundamental and innate nature. "Becoming aware" by the soul is not an emergent phenomenon for which soul be required to enter into any interactive mechanism.

 are forced to interact.

No need of any forced interaction for the consciousness to be aware of any experience since awareness is NOT an emergent phenomenon

 However, if you consider Puruṣa and Prakṛti as two aspects of Brahman (as done in Shaivism and Viśiṣṭādvaita) , then there is no category mistake although they have their own problems.

I have already indicated above that I am desisting from making comments on other versions of monism but for eDAM, I have pointed out 5 problems. There are many other problems also but for the sake of brevity, I have limited up to the 5 problems only.

 

I do not understand why you are strongly clinging to dualisticSāṅkhya that has 11 problems;

Since this carries the force of the subjective evidence as flowing from the experiences of Samaadhi. In the state of Samaadhi, From Moola Prakriti and Shabda and Prana onwards till the physical world, all the elements of the Astral and Causal world viz Manas, Buddhi, Indriyaas, Tanmaatras, Chitta, Ahamkara are vividly visible in a reproducible manner. Any evidence based empirical model is better than any other epistemological model based upon speculations, however intelligent and robust it may appear to be.

 if you like OOO-God theory, then you can follow top-down monistic Shaivism or Viśiṣṭādv aita and keep your most of beliefs.

Reasons already  are given above.

 The Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (the eDAM) follows bottom-up approach; its atheist version is consistent with science

Science is still unaware of the inner ontological reality of the Astral and Causal world ( which are physical but physicality being different than that of the baryonic matter and 4 forces) and the cosmic consciousness. So any metaphysics based upon the frameworks of the current science, be it eDAM or any other model, can't be the true model since it will be based on the incomplete ontology of the physicality of nature and of the cosmic consciousness. So to say that eDAM is consistent with the framework of the current science does not provide any extra edge to eDAM.

 and Buddhism; 

There is no consensus on various aspects of metaphysics viz consciousness, mind, God in Buddhism

its theist version is somewhat consistent with a unclear mixture of bottom-up and then top-down 

As indicated many times in the past, there is no place for theist version in eDAM. If you think otherwise, please establish logically how any soul can perpetuate after death when brain dismantles into its individual particles. Please don't force any feature of any other metaphysics in eDAM when prima facie it is illogical

Shiva Purāṇa(where trideva Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh manifested from the unmanifested Ādi/Sadā Shiva), Shaivism, and Viśiṣṭād vaita.

There are deep meanings behind Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh. Please don't take this as the human pictures of some persons as shown in the Hindu mythology.

Regards.

Vinod  Sehgal

______________________________ ______________________________ ______

NB:

i) Having the actual interaction and category mistake is a concept of the Science from its study of the Physical world of the baryonic matter. Category mistake, as I understand, is the actual interaction between two entities of different types.

ii) even in the physical world, there is a frequent interaction between the material particles and e.m energy which are of different types. So how and why category mistake does not arise in the interaction of e.m energy and material particles?

iii) Leave alone the realm of the consciousness, there is the high, likelihood that actual interaction thru the exchange of some signals is not required even in the Astral and Causal world.

Vinod Sehgal

 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org /Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/edea024 1-8426-4d04-be62-2712902cd5ba% 40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org /donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.al s.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1942 0889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org /harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org /Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/grou p/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms gid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/5909648 59.2134354.1501445987005%40mai l.yahoo.com.

[BMP]

Dear Ram

Namaste. The point being discussed is not the definition of consciousness. Everyone knows what they mean when they claim to be conscious and can distinguish it from being unconscious although they cannot define it. This is similar to the idea that everyone knows what time is until you ask them to define it, as also for love or innumerable other such things we take as familiar. 

But the point we are discussing here is not about definitions. A number of participants on this list assume that what they call consciousness [as something they do not define, or simply assume in its other name to be awareness] is undifferentiated oneness or identity as opposed to an infinite differentiated identity in difference, both of which are logically identical though different.

This is the point that they all, and perhaps you as well, are not aware of and is being pointed out as something that should be recognized when discussing this topic. The historical problem of opposing oneness to diversity is a long-standing one, and it is held religiously by many. Logically the identity in difference  principle is unassailable though perhaps unknown by most because it involves contradiction which confuses the understanding based on abstract thinking which is also involved in mathematical thinking. 

This logical principle forms the foundation of Hegel's system of philosophy and it is used effectively in the philosophy of Chaitanya vaisnavism to explain the relation between God and His creation and creatures.

The concept of dual aspect monism fails to comprehend this important principle and therefore is unable to resolve dualism within itself forcing its adherents to take a stance outside the absolute and view it from first or third person perspectives or as aspects. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

Thanks.

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

Vimal: A brain is always working since birth to death; neural and physiological interactions always go on in all states of our mind-brain system including deep sleep, dream, wakeful conscious and Samādhi states. Thus, interaction is certainly involved in the experience of complete darkness, especially in the ARAS system. In Nature, there is always interaction one way or other in all living and non-living systems. I do not know any natural isolated system. This is known as Madhu-Vidyā (the doctrine of the mutual interdependence of entities) as elaborated in  Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II.v.1-19, and in the Chandogya Upanishad III 1-5.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

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

Dear  Dr.Ram,

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

Vinod Sehgal

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Respected Dr. Ram,
> Thanks.

> Dear Vinod ji,
> Thanks.
> The key point, which you are failing to grasp, is that the "awareness" is the intrinsic nature of the consciousness and for becoming aware of any entity/phenomenon, it need not enter into any other interaction/mechanism. Awareness is not an emergent/created phenomenon in the consciousness. For example, when you are awake, for becoming awake, you need not enter into any other process/mechanism since you are already awake.
>  
> How an E.M. field and a matter particle like an electron belong to the same group when one is localized matter and other is a ubiquitous field? They interact and how there is no category mistake? 
>  
> Anyhow, examples of e.m field/gravitational field and their interaction with particles are not applicable to the cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti since these fields belong to the Physical realm and mechanisms/Laws of the physical world are not applicable to even the astral world (Realm of tanmātras -- a realm of subtle physicality) let alone cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti. Your problem in thinking has been that you are not able to think beyond the Laws/mechanisms of the Physical world.
>  
> Your above quote is self-contradictory. If awareness is inherent/fundamental/intrinsic to the consciousness, how and why it should require any interaction. This will amount to forcibly bringing in the interaction when awareness is already existing in the consciousness.
>  
> Where is the contradiction? If Shabda and Prāṇa exist in the cosmic consciousness by its very nature (like that of awareness), why it should interact with the Moola Prakriti? If Shabda and Prāṇa are being manifested in Moola Prakriti Due the very presence of the cosmic consciousness, creation of Shabda and Prāṇa will amount to a fundamental/inherent phenomenon in Moola Prakriti without any actual interaction.
>  
> One more thing, which you fail to comprehend, is that for an actual interaction between two entities, both the entities should be discrete and divisible. Cosmic consciousness is NOT a discrete, divisible finite entity. Therefore, even if you would like to have the interaction of the cosmic consciousness and that of the Moola Prakriti, the same is not feasible.
>  
> If you do not agree with the above view, please explain the interaction of discrete matter particles and indivisible space (if it is treated as continuous).
>
> Vimal
>
> To maintain wakefulness, there is constant interaction in ARAS system as per neuroscience of wakefulness. The same goes for any type of awareness.
> This you have indicated the physical aspect of wakefulness. Anyhow, even for the physical aspect of the ARAS system to remain in the state of wakefulness, this system need not interact with any other external system. What I wanted to highlight by this analogy ( and an analogy should not be taken in the literal sense), when any feature of a system is inbuilt in the system as part of its fundamentality, It need not interact with any external system for the manifestation of that feature since that feature  is self-manifested, self-referenced and self-evidence. Based upon this logical argument, "awareness" is the very non-emergent fundamental feature of the consciousness, therefore, it need not interact with any external entity/system for the manifestation of the awareness. Awareness never manifest in the consciousness. It always continues to remain present in the consciousness. In fact, there is no meaning of the consciousness without being aware.
> In western classification, since fields (such as EM and gravitational field), particles (such as an electron), and waves are (non-mental) physical entities, they are in the same major group; so they can interact without making category mistake;
> How do you define a category?
> When are two categories said to be different?
> When and how two categories interact?
> Why there can't be different categories with the physical group?
> You should address the above issues before going into the issue of the category mistake.
> _______________________________________________________________
> Then how do you define non-physical and distinguish it from physical?
> You could say that "anything" which is not physical is non-physical and you may include anything, as known to Science i.e baryonic matter and energy of 4 forces as non-physical and include this under a different category. But this is an arbitrary and incorrect way of defining the second category. Merely stating that whatever is not physical, as known to contemporary science as on day, is non-physical does not serve any purpose since Science is totally blind about the ontology of THAT non-physical.
> So the concept of the category mistake in Science would have been relevant if Science would have been aware of the ontology of both realms viz Physical ( matter and physical energy)  and Non-Physical and then established why and how the interaction between the two is not feasible? But for science non-physical realm is almost non-existing, therefore, why to hypothesize any such category? Unless, science has no clarity about the second category, which it conveniently classify as Non-physical to hide its incompleteness of that realm of nature, how can it say that there is some category mistake?
> __________________________________________________________________
> In Science, there have been some concepts which have been existing since long and taken granted as correct but when investigated a bit further, those are found to be wrong. I shall name two concepts in this regard -- "Self Organizing" and "Category mistake". The concept of self-organizing is taken in the sense that some phenomenon happens on its own without any internal or external Laws like an auto-pilot which is treated as automatic. But in the case of an auto pilot, some inbuilt Laws are built by some external programmer and auto-pilot moves according to those in-built laws. Similarly, there is nothing like any self-organizing phenomenon. All such phenomenon are governed by some internal Laws existing within the system.
> Similarly, there is nothing like category mistake since 
> i) you can't   define the different category in precise terms
> ii) Can't specify when one category will be different than other
> iii) can't specify when and how two categories will interact?
> So the whole concept of the category mistake in Science, which is taken correctly as granted, is a misnomer.
> The fact is that whatever interaction nature allows happens and whatever interaction does not allow does not happen WITHOUT any dependency on categories.
>
>  there is much objective evidence in physics. However, they cannot interact with mental entities (such as thoughts, experiences etc.); otherwise, category mistake will be made.
> But Science is unaware of the ontological existence of any mind and thoughts /experience? Has it ever empirically detected any mind/thoughts/experiences? So how do you state that mind/thoughts do interact with the matter/e.m energy?
> First, you should define the parameters of each category and ways how it is distinguished from the other category?
>  
> In Sāṅkhya, the interaction between Puruṣa (in either parts or whole, the experiencer) 
> You are repeatedly making the same mistake that experience is the Purusha. Experience is not the Purusha or cosmic consciousness but it is the soul which is the image of the cosmic consciousness in Prakriti or Chitta to be more precise in the Causal body of the same pattern in the water in a pond at earth, the Sun cast its image. Any interaction of the image of Sun in the water in pond WITH any other external system at earth will not affect. Similarly, even by conservatism if it is agreed that for the localized consciousness ( soul) to experience some thought/experience, some interaction is required, that interaction will be between the image (soul) and the external system of thought.experience COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS OR PURUSHA WILL REMAIN IMMUNE FROM THAT INTERACTION.
> In my previous email also, I had highlighted this issue but you kept silent.
> and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, and empowerment. It does not matter if Puruṣa (CC) is ubiquitous or not and soul is localized consciousness or not.
> No, this is essential that both the interacting entities should be divisible. If one entity is indivisible infinite, how will you specify which of its parts are involved in any interaction? That is the whole
> problem in defining the interaction between space and matter  particles. So far scientists are not able to define the interaction between space and matter particles in the absence of space having any discrete quantum particles.
>  I think that it is now time to have an agreement that we disagree. 
> Yes, of course, we disagree but we can try to realize where are at missing in our understanding. I have highlighted two issues wherein you seem to be missing in the correct understanding.
> i) The concept of category mistake though in nature there is nothing like the category mistake.
> ii) Invoking an external interactional mechanism for the manifestation of a feature in a system when that feature is a non-emergent fundamental feature ( already existing) of that system
> There is no magic or miracle that Puruṣa or its derivatives/components can watch, experience, empower, and/or communicate with Prakṛti or its components/derivatives.
> The fact is that the whole fundamental existence of cosmic consciousness is a magic for science since it is beyond all the Laws of the Science. It is NOT that the cosmic consciousness may be governed by the Laws of the Science but it is the Laws of the Science which have emerged out from the cosmic consciousness. Therefore, any attempt to understand the cosmic consciousness by the known Laws of Science is going to lead to wrong conclusions
>  If you like you can discuss with other colleagues who know what “interaction” means and what its implications are, such as if there is no interaction then it is “isolation” and hence no experience, no empowerment and no communication between them.
>
> Your aforesaid arguments are applicable to physical realm ONLY and that too between two discrete entities and not between one discrete entity like matter and another a continuous indivisible entity like space. Leave alone the cosmic consciousness, these arguments are not applicable even to the Astral realm of nature which is physical. I always mark my messages to other interesting participants in the group to invite their views.
> Regards.
> Vinod Sehgal

>
>  
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Vinod ji,
>> Thanks.

>> The key point, which you are failing to grasp, is that the "awareness" is the intrinsic nature of the consciousness and for becoming aware of any entity/phenomenon, it need not enter into any other interaction/mechanism. Awareness is not an emergent/created phenomenon in the consciousness. For example, when you are awake, for becoming awake, you need not enter into any other process/mechanism since you are already awake.
>>  
>> How an E.M. field and a matter particle like an electron belong to the same group when one is localized matter and other is a ubiquitous field? They interact and how there is no category mistake? 
>>  
>> Anyhow, examples of e.m field/gravitational field and their interaction with particles are not applicable to the cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti since these fields belong to the Physical realm and mechanisms/Laws of the physical world are not applicable to even the astral world (Realm of tanmātras -- a realm of subtle physicality) let alone cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti. Your problem in thinking has been that you are not able to think beyond the Laws/mechanisms of the Physical world.
>>  
>> Your above quote is self-contradictory. If awareness is inherent/fundamental/intrinsic to the consciousness, how and why it should require any interaction. This will amount to forcibly bringing in the interaction when awareness is already existing in the consciousness.
>>  
>> Where is the contradiction? If Shabda and Prāṇa exist in the cosmic consciousness by its very nature (like that of awareness), why it should interact with the Moola Prakriti? If Shabda and Prāṇa are being manifested in Moola Prakriti Due the very presence of the cosmic consciousness, creation of Shabda and Prāṇa will amount to a fundamental/inherent phenomenon in Moola Prakriti without any actual interaction.
>>  
>> One more thing, which you fail to comprehend, is that for an actual interaction between two entities, both the entities should be discrete and divisible. Cosmic consciousness is NOT a discrete, divisible finite entity. Therefore, even if you would like to have the interaction of the cosmic consciousness and that of the Moola Prakriti, the same is not feasible.
>>  
>> If you do not agree with the above view, please explain the interaction of discrete matter particles and indivisible space (if it is treated as continuous).
>>
>> Vimal
>>
>> To maintain wakefulness, there is constant interaction in ARAS system as per neuroscience of wakefulness. The same goes for any type of awareness.
>>  
>> In western classification, since fields (such as EM and gravitational field), particles (such as an electron), and waves are (non-mental) physical entities, they are in the same major group; so they can interact without making category mistake; there is much objective evidence in physics. However, they cannot interact with mental entities (such as thoughts, experiences etc.); otherwise, category mistake will be made.
>>  
>> In Sāṅkhya, the interaction between Puruṣa (in either parts or whole, the experiencer) and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, and empowerment. It does not matter if Puruṣa (CC) is ubiquitous or not and soul is localized consciousness or not. I think that it is now time to have an agreement that we disagree. There is no magic or miracle that Puruṣa or its derivatives/components can watch, experience, empower, and/or communicate with Prakṛti or its components/derivatives. If you like you can discuss with other colleagues who know what “interaction” means and what its implications are, such as if there is no interaction then it is “isolation” and hence no experience, no empowerment and no communication between them.

>>  
>> Kind regards,
>> Rām
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
>> Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
>> Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
>> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
>> Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
>> rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal 
>> Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
>>

>> On Monday, 31 July 2017 10:27 PM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Respected Dr. Ram,
>> Thanks.

>> I strongly disagree because you are making totally illogical and impossible argument. The interaction between Puruṣa (either in parts or whole) and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, empowerment. If there is no interaction, then both are isolated. Fields (such as ubiquitous ZPF, EM, or gravitational field) can interact with particles without making category mistake if interaction is between two entities of the same group. You have two contradicting views on Prana and Shabda; they are parts of  Puruṣa vs. parts of Moola Prakṛti; they are certainly not third independent entities. In any case, the Puruṣa and Moola Prakṛtiare of from different groups, their interaction is certainly a category mistake and is forbidden. In my view, any kind of awareness by soul/self (even if awareness is fundamental and inherent in soul) needs interaction with the objects it is aware of. Therefore, in my view, the association and category mistake problems of Sāṅkhyaremains. To sum up, let us agree that we disagree and let readers to decide.
>>
>> Sehgal: The key point which you are failing to grasp is that the "awareness" is the very intrinsic nature of the consciousness and for becoming aware of any entity/phenomenon, it need not enter into any other interaction/mechanism.  Awareness is not an emergent/created phenomenon in the consciousness. For example, when you are awake, for becoming awake, you need not enter into any other process/mechanism since you are already awake.

>>
>> Fields (such as ubiquitous ZPF, EM, or gravitational field) can interact with particles without making category mistake if interaction is between two entities of the same group.

>> How an e.m field and a matter particle like an electron belong to the same group when one is localized matter and other is a ubiquitous field? They interact and how there is no category mistake? 
>> Anyhow, examples of e.m field/gravitational field and their interaction with particles are not applicable to the cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti since these fields belong to the Physical realm and mechanisms/Laws of the physical world are not applicable to even the Astral world ( Realm of tanmaatras -- a realm of subtle physicality) let alone cosmic consciousness and Moola Prakriti. Your problem in thinking has been that you are not able to think beyond the Laws/mechanisms of the Physical world.

>>
>> In my view, any kind of awareness by soul/self (even if awareness is fundamental and inherent in soul) needs interaction with the objects it is aware of. 
>>

>> Your above quote is self-contradictory. If awareness is inherent/fundamental/intrinsic to the consciousness, how and why it should require any interaction. This will amount to forcibly bringing in the interaction when awareness is already existing in the consciousness.

>> You have two contradicting views on Prana and Shabda; they are parts of  Puruṣa vs. parts of Moola Prakṛti; they are certainly not third independent entities
>>

>> Where is the contradiction? If Shabda and Prana exist in the cosmic Consciousness by its very nature ( like that of awareness), why it should interact with the Moola Prakriti? If Shbada and Prana are being manifested in Moola Prakriti Due the very presence of the cosmic consciousness, creation of Shabda and Prana will amount to a fundamental/inherent phenomenon in Moola Prakriti without any actual interaction.
>> __________________________________________________________________One more thing which you fail to comprehend is that for an actual interaction between two entities, both the entitities should be discrete and divisible. Cosmnic consciousness is NOT a discrete, divisible finite enetity. So even if you would like to have the interaction of the cosmic consciousness and taht of the Moola Prakriti, the same is not faesible.
>> If you don't agree with the above view, please explain the interaction of discrete matter particles and indivisible space ( if it is treated as continuous).
>> Regards.
>> Vinod sehgal

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Vinod ji,
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Sehgal (31 July 2017)
>>
>> Not necessary that for the creation of Shabda and Prana, Puruṣa (Cosmic consciousness) may have the actual interaction with the Moola Prakriti. Cosmic consciousness is a HOLISTIC INDIVISIBLE IN FINITE entity while Mool Prakriti is a DISCRETE DIVISIBLE entity. For interaction, actual communication, as is normally interpreted in the physical sciences, it is some parts of the Cosmic Consciousness which should have interaction with some parts of the Moola Prakriti. However since the cosmic consciousness is PARTLESS, INDIVISIBLE, HOLISTIC INFINITE ONE, it can't interact, the way you interpret the interaction, even if you want to forcibly want to create an interaction. Then there are two views on the manifestation of Prana and Shabda in Moola Prakriti. The first view states that this is by the very nature of the cosmic consciousness (without any need for any mechanism in the physical sense we understand), Prana and Shabda manifest in the Moola Prakriti. The second view is that Prana and Shabda exist in the very womb of the cosmic consciousness and emerge it out in the Moola Prakriti. In either of these views, no need for interaction in the physical sense arises. Then Most important fact has been that in the state of Samādhi, both Prana and Shabda are actually observable/experienceable. This does not leave the scope for any other interpretation. The point which you are missing is that it is not the cosmic consciousness which empowers Moola Prakrit, but it is the Prana and Shabda  which empowers Moola Prakriti Then how Prana and Shabda manifests in MooLa Prakriti is indicated above. […] I argue that there is no need for any interaction between the soul and final signal of thoughts in Chitta since awareness is the very fundamental nature of the consciousness of the soul.
>>
>> Vimal
>>
>> I strongly disagree because you are making totally illogical and impossible argument. The interaction between Puruṣa (either in parts or whole) and Moola Prakṛti is ESSENTIAL for any type of communication, experience, empowerment. If there is no interaction, then both are isolated. Fields (such as ubiquitous ZPF, EM, or gravitational field) can interact with particles without making category mistake if interaction is between two entities of the same group. You have two contradicting views on Prana and Shabda; they are parts of  Puruṣa vs. parts of Moola Prakṛti; they are certainly not third independent entities. In any case, the Puruṣa and Moola Prakṛti are of from different groups, their interaction is certainly a category mistake and is forbidden. In my view, any kind of awareness by soul/self (even if awareness is fundamental and inherent in soul) needs interaction with the objects it is aware of. Therefore, in my view, the association and category mistake problems of Sāṅkhya remains. To sum up, let us agree that we disagree and let readers to decide.
>>  
>> Kind regards,
>> Rām
>> ------------------------------ ----------------------------
>> Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
>> Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
>> Vision Research Institute, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
>> 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
>> Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

>> rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home
>> https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Dr. Puri,

Thanks.

B. Madhava Puri (1 August 2017)

The point being discussed is not the definition of consciousness. Everyone knows what they mean when they claim to be conscious and can distinguish it from being unconscious although they cannot define it. This is similar to the idea that everyone knows what time is until you ask them to define it, as also for love or innumerable other such things we take as familiar. 

 

However, the point we are discussing here is not about definitions. A number of participants on this list assume that what they call consciousness [as something they do not define, or simply assume in its other name to be awareness] is undifferentiated oneness or identity as opposed to an infinite differentiated identity in difference, both of which are logically identical though different.

 

This is the point that they all, and perhaps you as well, are not aware of and is being pointed out as something that should be recognized when discussing this topic. The historical problem of opposing oneness to diversity is a long-standing one, and it is held religiously by many. Logically the identity in difference principle is unassailable though perhaps unknown by most because it involves a contradiction, which confuses the understanding, based on abstract thinking which is also involved in mathematical thinking. 

 

This logical principle forms the foundation of Hegel’s system of philosophy and it is used effectively in the philosophy of Chaitanya vaisnavism to explain the relation between God and His creation and creatures.

 

The concept of dual aspect monism fails to comprehend this important principle and therefore is unable to resolve dualism within itself forcing its adherents to take a stance outside the absolute and view it from first or third person perspectives or as aspects. 

Vimal

The six major sub-schools of Vedānta (Achintya-Bheda-Abheda or inconceivable oneness and difference is the most recent 6^th sub-school) and Sāṅkhya are based on the top-down approach thru the mysterious “creation”: from fully manifested Brahman or mysterious OOO-God to the innumerable manifestations including us and the rest of universe. This is just opposite to the bottom-up approach. Thus, Oneness is the eternal OOO-God level. I used the term “mysterious” because OOO-God NEVER reveals the secret of His creation by providing mechanisms so that we can scientifically test them. For example, we do not know the mechanism(s) for the creation of 18 elementary particles from 5 Tanmātras of Sāṅkhya, which might be started before Gīta (3000 BC) because Sāṅkhya is mentioned in Gīta.

 

As per Wikipedia (as of 1 August 2017), “Its name, Hegel answers, is different in each stage. In the lowest form it is ‘being’, higher up it is ‘life’, and in still higher form it is ‘mind’. The only thing always present is the process (das Werden). We may, however, call the process by the name of ‘spirit’ (Geist) or ‘idea’ (Begriff). We may even call it God, because at least in the third term of every triadic development the process is God.” In other words, the processes such as the dependent co-origination, co-evolution, co-development, sensorimotor co-tuning and mind-brain processes can be called idea/spirit/soul/God.

 

As I argued before that the eDAM (extended dual-aspect monism) is based on scientific bottom-up approach (from potentiality to actuality), i.e.,  from the dual-aspect unmanifested state of the primal entity (Brahman) to innumerable manifested states of Brahman including us (the most recent manifestation) thru the dependent co-origination, co-development, sensorimotor co-tuning and mind-brain processes. In the unmanifested state of the primal entity (Brahman), the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is its mental aspect and ‘quantum vacuum’, ‘unified field’ or ‘ubiquitous zero-point field (ZPF)’ is its inseparable physical aspect. The information is the same in both aspects, only perspectives of “looking” it are different. Thus, Oneness or the unification is at unmanifested state, perhaps at sub-Planckian level.

 

Furthermore, I do not see the problem related to Oneness (unification of subject-object discrimination or unmanifested state with UPC) and difference (subject-object discrimination or innumerable manifestations) in the monistic eDAM because the information is the same in both aspects, i.e., there is no built-in dualism. Moreover, the deactivation of the parietal lobe and the more activation of frontal lobe lead us to experience the loss of subject-object discrimination or Oneness. There is no mystery in this.

 

On the other hand, Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is a mysterious proposal because by it postulates that the “oneness and difference” is mysteriously inconceivable. The cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism) is a little clearer, but it is also based on the top-down approach. In any case, in Vedānta and Sāṅkhya, the best we can do is to pray or practice meditation full time by completely surrendering ourselves to mysterious OOO-God and if we are lucky, we might reach to Nirvikalpa Samadhi by His grace in this life; otherwise we may end up going thru a mysterious cycle of 8.4 million (84 lakh) rebirths. To sum up, if we follow the OOO-God theory, consciousness research will reach to the dead-end and we are left with prayer (Bhakti yoga) and/or meditation (Rāja yoga) and the scientific and technological progress we have attained so far will also reach to the dead-end.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 7:10 AM, "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Dear Ram

Namaste. The point being discussed is not the definition of consciousness. Everyone knows what they mean when they claim to be conscious and can distinguish it from being unconscious although they cannot define it. This is similar to the idea that everyone knows what time is until you ask them to define it, as also for love or innumerable other such things we take as familiar. 

But the point we are discussing here is not about definitions. A number of participants on this list assume that what they call consciousness [as something they do not define, or simply assume in its other name to be awareness] is undifferentiated oneness or identity as opposed to an infinite differentiated identity in difference, both of which are logically identical though different.

This is the point that they all, and perhaps you as well, are not aware of and is being pointed out as something that should be recognized when discussing this topic. The historical problem of opposing oneness to diversity is a long-standing one, and it is held religiously by many. Logically the identity in difference  principle is unassailable though perhaps unknown by most because it involves contradiction which confuses the understanding based on abstract thinking which is also involved in mathematical thinking. 

This logical principle forms the foundation of Hegel's system of philosophy and it is used effectively in the philosophy of Chaitanya vaisnavism to explain the relation between God and His creation and creatures.

The concept of dual aspect monism fails to comprehend this important principle and therefore is unable to resolve dualism within itself forcing its adherents to take a stance outside the absolute and view it from first or third person perspectives or as aspects. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 4:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

Dear Dr. B. Madhava Puri,

 

Namaste.

Thanks for your interesting email.

 

There are over 40 meanings assigned to the term “consciousness” as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009) and listed in its Tables 1 and 2. Therefore, it all depends what meaning you assign to the term “consciousness”. Your “concrete logic” seems to entail Achintya-Bheda-Abheda (inconceivable oneness and difference, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, 1486-1534).

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 

Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/334079260.3340252.1501582650809%40mail.yahoo.com.

[BMP]

Dear  Ram

Namaste. Thank you for your kind reply.

Ram: , Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is a mysterious proposal because by it postulates that the “oneness and difference” is mysteriously inconceivable. 

BMP: Oneness in difference is an established logical principle, well understood and explained, utilized as I mentioned as a basic principle in Hegel's philosophy. So it is not mysteriously inconceivable. What Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established was inconceivable for those He addressed who were on the platform of consciousness or experience. Chaitanya, after all, means consciousness. He is considered an avatar or manifestation of God who appeared in 1486 and taught almost a century before Descartes who is considered the initiator of modernity and the priority of ego-centered consciousness and experience.

The conceivability of the principle exists for reason beyond consciousness or understanding. This idea began with Kant the first in the modern age to distinguish between reason [Vernuft] and understanding [Verstand].

Ram:  I used the term “mysterious” because OOO-God NEVER reveals the secret of His creation by providing mechanisms so that we can scientifically test them.

BMP: It is convenient for the analytic understanding to adopt the mechanistic view of science which is based on the analytic method of combining and separating parts that retain their identity in both cases. Nature, however, does not exhibit this type of mechanical behavior. Taking apart a watch, the parts retain their identity in the machine as well as separated from it. But you can't do that with a living organism. This can be called the Humpty Dumpty principle: break an egg and you can never put it back together again. The mechanistic model thus fails to explain Nature. All mechanical explanations apply to mechanics but not to Nature. Therefore the mystery of Nature remains for the mechanists. This mystery is the result of the ego-centered consciousness of first or third person perspectives failing to recognize the platform of pure reason that operates above and beyond experiential consciousness. 

Ram: In the unmanifested state of the primal entity (Brahman), the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is its mental aspect and ‘quantum vacuum’, ‘unified field’ or ‘ubiquitous zero-point field (ZPF)’ is its inseparable physical aspect. 

BMP: Excuse me Ram, but you cannot use the concept Brahman from sastra, and then make up your own ideas about it having mental and physical aspects. I mean you are free to do so, God bless you, but then it has nothing at all to do with what is meant by Brahman.

Sincere good wishes to you,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

---

From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 6:41 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Bhakti Madhava Puri on August 3, 2017 wrote:

> BMP: It is convenient for the analytic understanding to adopt the 

>mechanistic view of science which is based on the analytic method of 

>combining and separating parts that retain their identity in both cases. 

>Nature, however, does not exhibit this type of mechanical behavior. 

>Taking apart a watch, the parts retain their identity in the machine as 

>well as separated from it. But you can't do that with a living organism.

> This can be called the Humpty Dumpty principle: break an egg and 

>you can never put it back together again.

.

[S.P.] Indeed, the main (or traditional) model in Physics is a decompositional one (or DEC-model for short): to know/study/investigate the Whole, it has to be decomposed into parts/debris. And it is positive that you realize that the decompositional approach cannot be used when we deal with such whole complex systems as living organisms. But, is there anything of your own that you may suggest as an alternative (or supplementation) to decompositional approach?

.

As to me, in my numerous posts to this group I have suggested that instead of decompositional models alone we have to make use of the system of AS-DIS-DEC models. For example, in my reply to Deepak Chopra on Oct 27, 2016 I wrote: 

.

"Therefore, for the needs of consciousness studies and, in general, for the needs of formalizing the whole complex systems, I have elaborated the system of associational (or AS for short), dissociational (or DIS for short) and decompositional models -- the system of AS-DIS-DEC models. The main idea is that the initial whole, formalized as an element of AS-model, can be either decomposed into parts, or dissociated into other wholes. See how it works." (for details, see the attached text-file Sadhu_Sanga-post2_27-10-2016.txt).

.

See also my reply to John Jay Kineman on June 2, 2017 where I wrote:

.

"So, if we start with an idea that there is an initial Whole, and we model it using the associational model (or AS-model for short), then, instead of the DEC-model alone we have to talk about a system of AS-DIS-DEC models. As it turns out, such a system of models is very convenient to formalize as the "torrent of thoughts" (and other consciousness-related effects), so such effects as beta-decay and nonlocal entanglement." (for details, see the attached text-file Sadhu_Sanga-post_3-06-2017.txt).

.

Moreover, I consider seven types of inter-model transitions: AS-DIS, AS-DEC, DIS-AS, DIS-DEC, DEC-DIS, DEC-DIS-AS, and DEC-AS. Now then, your example of Humpty Dumpty principle (break an egg and you can never put it back together again) corresponds to the case of DEC-AS transition which is considered as prohibited.

.

With respect,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:39 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

Dear  Ram

Namaste. Thank you for your kind reply.

Ram: , Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is a mysterious proposal because by it postulates that the “oneness and difference” is mysteriously inconceivable. 

BMP: Oneness in difference is an established logical principle, well understood and explained, utilized as I mentioned as a basic principle in Hegel's philosophy. So it is not mysteriously inconceivable. What Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established was inconceivable for those He addressed who were on the platform of consciousness or experience. Chaitanya, after all, means consciousness. He is considered an avatar or manifestation of God who appeared in 1486 and taught almost a century before Descartes who is considered the initiator of modernity and the priority of ego-centered consciousness and experience.

The conceivability of the principle exists for reason beyond consciousness or understanding. This idea began with Kant the first in the modern age to distinguish between reason [Vernuft] and understanding [Verstand].

Ram:  I used the term “mysterious” because OOO-God NEVER reveals the secret of His creation by providing mechanisms so that we can scientifically test them.

BMP: It is convenient for the analytic understanding to adopt the mechanistic view of science which is based on the analytic method of combining and separating parts that retain their identity in both cases. Nature, however, does not exhibit this type of mechanical behavior. Taking apart a watch, the parts retain their identity in the machine as well as separated from it. But you can't do that with a living organism. This can be called the Humpty Dumpty principle: break an egg and you can never put it back together again. The mechanistic model thus fails to explain Nature. All mechanical explanations apply to mechanics but not to Nature. Therefore the mystery of Nature remains for the mechanists. This mystery is the result of the ego-centered consciousness of first or third person perspectives failing to recognize the platform of pure reason that operates above and beyond experiential consciousness. 

Ram: In the unmanifested state of the primal entity (Brahman), the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is its mental aspect and ‘quantum vacuum’, ‘unified field’ or ‘ubiquitous zero-point field (ZPF)’ is its inseparable physical aspect. 

BMP: Excuse me Ram, but you cannot use the concept Brahman from sastra, and then make up your own ideas about it having mental and physical aspects. I mean you are free to do so, God bless you, but then it has nothing at all to do with what is meant by Brahman.

Sincere good wishes to you,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Dr. Puri,

 

Namaste,

 

Thanks for your kind reply and comments.

 

[1] Ram: Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is a mysterious proposal because by it postulates that the “oneness and difference” is mysteriously inconceivable.

 

BMP: Oneness in difference is an established logical principle, well understood and explained, utilized as I mentioned as a basic principle in Hegel's philosophy. So it is not mysteriously inconceivable. What Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established was inconceivable for those He addressed who were on the platform of consciousness or experience. Chaitanya, after all, means consciousness. He is considered an avatar or manifestation of God who appeared in 1486 and taught almost a century before Descartes who is considered the initiator of modernity and the priority of ego-centered consciousness and experience. The conceivability of the principle exists for reason beyond consciousness or understanding. This idea began with Kant the first in the modern age to distinguish between reason [Vernuft] and understanding [Verstand].

 

Ram: I am not sure if Hegel’s philosophy and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta can address the following query: 

Let us suppose our universe is consists of only achromats, trichromats, and a ripe-tomato. Let us suppose achromats, trichromats, and OOO-God are looking at a ripe-tomato. What would be their color experiences? I certainly know that trichromats will experience redness and achromats will experience grayness. Please tell us what OOO-God will experience as a “whole”?

 

[2] Ram:  I used the term “mysterious” because OOO-God NEVER reveals the secret of His creation by providing mechanisms so that we can scientifically test them.

 

BMP: It is convenient for the analytic understanding to adopt the mechanistic view of science which is based on the analytic method of combining and separating parts that retain their identity in both cases. Nature, however, does not exhibit this type of mechanical behavior. Taking apart a watch, the parts retain their identity in the machine as well as separated from it. But you can't do that with a living organism. This can be called the Humpty Dumpty principle: break an egg and you can never put it back together again. The mechanistic model thus fails to explain Nature. All mechanical explanations apply to mechanics but not to Nature. Therefore the mystery of Nature remains for the mechanists. This mystery is the result of the ego-centered consciousness of first or third person perspectives failing to recognize the platform of pure reason that operates above and beyond experiential consciousness. 

Ram: Well, at least a few mechanisms should be revealed as we do in science. For example, we do not even know how 18 elementary particles are derived from 5 tanmātras. We do not how first life arose. This is very frustrating to do any further research. In your OOO-God theory framework, what kind of consciousness research you expect us to do other than prayer and meditation?

 

[3] Ram: In the unmanifested state of the primal entity (Brahman), the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is its mental aspect and ‘quantum vacuum’, ‘unified field’ or ‘ubiquitous zero-point field (ZPF)’ is its inseparable physical aspect. 

 

BMP: Excuse me Ram, but you cannot use the concept Brahman from Śāstra, and then make up your own ideas about it having mental and physical aspects. I mean you are free to do so, God bless you, but then it has nothing at all to do with what is meant by Brahman.

 

Ram: In metaphysics and consciousness research, a word or term can have many meanings assigned.  For example, Advaita and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism) have different meanings assigned to the term ‘Brahman’. Another example, there are over 40 meanings assigned to the term “consciousness” as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009b). I agree with you that this certainly causes confusion if the term is not defined before using it. However, I have clearly defined the term “Brahman” as the primal entity (whatever that may be!). Therefore, if you do not like my meaning assigned to this term, then you can just think ‘primal entity’ instead. It should not cause any confusion as long as we pre-define our terms. I still do not understand what meanings you have assigned when you use the term “consciousness” and “Brahman”. My definition of the term ‘consciousness’ is clearly defined in (Vimal, 2010b).^[i]

---

[i] There are over forty meanings attributed to the term ‘consciousness’, which were identified and categorized according to whether they were principally about a function or about an experience (Vimal, 2009b). An immediate advantage of this categorization is that it makes clear what materialism can do and what it cannot do. Materialism may explain functions to some extent but cannot explain experiences. In other words, this categorization sets the clear-cut limit for materialism.

A general definition of consciousness (that accommodates most views) may be: consciousness is the mental aspect of a beable ontological dual-aspect state of the mind-brain-system or a mind-brain-process, which has two sub-aspects: a conscious experience, a conscious function, or both depending on the context from the 1^st person perspective, where the term ‘context’ refers to metaphysical views, constraints, specific aims, and so on (Vimal, 2010b).

The optimal definition (that has the least number of problems) of consciousness is: consciousness is the mental aspect of a beable ontological dual-aspect state of a mind-brain-system or a mind-brain-process, which has two sub-aspects: a conscious experience and a conscious function from the 1^st person perspective (Vimal, 2010b).

In other words, consciousness has functional and experiential aspects and includes subjective experiences (SEs) including emotional experiences, functions, thoughts, and experiences related to the subject (self), objects, emotions, and Samādhi state.

This special beable ontological dual-aspect state has specific consciousness (1pp-mental aspect) when ‘viewed’ from the 1^st person perspective 1pp and has its inseparable physical aspect (a correlated specific NN and its activities) when the same information is ‘viewed’ from the 3^rd person perspective (3pp).

Furthermore, this state is selected after matching the stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signal with cognitive feedback (FB) signals from the related long-term memory when the following necessary conditions are satisfied: the formation of the related neural-network, wakefulness, reentry, attention for the access (reportable) consciousness, information integration, working memory, stimulus contrast at or above a threshold, potential experiences embedded in neural network and so on. Attention is not necessary for the phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness.

Here, a beable ontological dual-aspect state is defined as the dual-aspect state of a mind-brain-system or a mind-brain-process that really exist and we can empirically measure it using psychophysical methods (for the 1pp-mental aspect) and neurophysiological methods such as fMRI/EEG (for the 3pp-physical aspect).

 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/448862614.7096896.1501816789885%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

Dear B Madhava Puri,

On 03 Aug 2017, at 21:36, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:

Dear  Ram

Namaste. Thank you for your kind reply.

Ram: , Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is a mysterious proposal because by it postulates that the “oneness and difference” is mysteriously inconceivable. 

BMP: Oneness in difference is an established logical principle, well understood and explained, utilized as I mentioned as a basic principle in Hegel's philosophy. So it is not mysteriously inconceivable. What Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established was inconceivable for those He addressed who were on the platform of consciousness or experience. Chaitanya, after all, means consciousness. He is considered an avatar or manifestation of God who appeared in 1486 and taught almost a century before Descartes who is considered the initiator of modernity and the priority of ego-centered consciousness and experience.

The conceivability of the principle exists for reason beyond consciousness or understanding. This idea began with Kant the first in the modern age to distinguish between reason [Vernuft] and understanding [Verstand].

Ram:  I used the term “mysterious” because OOO-God NEVER reveals the secret of His creation by providing mechanisms so that we can scientifically test them.

BMP: It is convenient for the analytic understanding to adopt the mechanistic view of science which is based on the analytic method of combining and separating parts that retain their identity in both cases. Nature, however, does not exhibit this type of mechanical behavior. Taking apart a watch, the parts retain their identity in the machine as well as separated from it. But you can't do that with a living organism. This can be called the Humpty Dumpty principle: break an egg and you can never put it back together again. The mechanistic model thus fails to explain Nature. All mechanical explanations apply to mechanics but not to Nature. Therefore the mystery of Nature remains for the mechanists. This mystery is the result of the ego-centered consciousness of first or third person perspectives failing to recognize the platform of pure reason that operates above and beyond experiential consciousness. 

I do relate a lot with this if we model "mechanism" with the notion of total computable function. It becomes doubtful if this is extended to the partial computable functions. The price of having universal machine (like eggs, universe, cells, computer, interpreter, .. are (at least)) is that it introduces in that reality many non stopping machines, with long and deep history, looking more and more like Humpty Dumpty.

All mechanical models fails, and simple total controllable machines are very bad metaphor indeed, notably to describe the universal machines. 

A bit like god, the computer model does not explain anything. It is more like a child coming with new and more question, it is an unknown, a strange unknown that inhabit already ourselves.

I think also that the difference between natural and artificial is .. artificial. It is natural from the self centered view.

A little bacteria told me that she finds the Eukaryotic Cells' constructions quite artificial!

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKW4F0Nu-UY  )

Best Regards,

Bruno

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

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/24424576.5318332.1501789011835%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

I am sorry, I meant to ask what color OOO-God will experience: redness, grayness, both, or a mixture of both? Please note the in this example, the “whole” is simply color experiences and nothing else.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Saturday, 5 August 2017 3:45 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dr. Ram wrote to BMP:

Ram: I am not sure if Hegel’s philosophy and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta can address the following query: 

Let us suppose our universe is consists of only achromats, trichromats, and a ripe-tomato. Let us suppose achromats, trichromats, and OOO-God are looking at a ripe-tomato. What would be their color experiences? I certainly know that trichromats will experience redness and achromats will experience grayness. Please tell us what OOO-God will experience as a “whole”?

Sehgal: For OOO-God, a  round tomato will appear in all the possible forms in past/present/future yet each of the forms will appear like an illusion, the way we see our dream experiences on awakening. OOO_God is not stuck one specific and particular form, the way achromats and trichromats see Reasons? The consciousness of the trichromats and achromats is bounded by mind and senses and any experience happens at a particular moment of time in the present. But the consciousness of the OOO-God is not bounded by the mind/senses and any experience is out of space/time. Appearing red or gray are the attributes arising out from the characteristics of eyes and not of the mind or consciousness. The consciousness of OOO-God can experience, without the senses and mind and all the forms which can exist in the entire timeline but it also knows that none of the forms are real.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

 

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

---

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@ googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

Dear  Ram

Namaste. Thank you for your kind reply.

Ram: , Achintya-Bheda-Abheda i s a mysterious proposal because by it postulates that the “oneness and difference” is mysteriously inconceivable. 

BMP: Oneness in difference is an established logical principle, well understood and explained, utilized as I mentioned as a basic principle in Hegel's philosophy. So it is not mysteriously inconceivable. What Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established was inconceivable for those He addressed who were on the platform of consciousness or experience. Chaitanya, after all, means consciousness. He is considered an avatar or manifestation of God who appeared in 1486 and taught almost a century before Descartes who is considered the initiator of modernity and the priority of ego-centered consciousness and experience.

The conceivability of the principle exists for reason beyond consciousness or understanding. This idea began with Kant the first in the modern age to distinguish between reason [Vernuft] and understanding [Verstand].

Ram:  I used the term “mysterious” because OOO-God NEVER reveals the secret of His creation by providing mechanisms so that we can scientifically test them.

BMP: It is convenient for the analytic understanding to adopt the mechanistic view of science which is based on the analytic method of combining and separating parts that retain their identity in both cases. Nature, however, does not exhibit this type of mechanical behavior. Taking apart a watch, the parts retain their identity in the machine as well as separated from it. But you can't do that with a living organism. This can be called the Humpty Dumpty principle: break an egg and you can never put it back together again. The mechanistic model thus fails to explain Nature. All mechanical explanations apply to mechanics but not to Nature. Therefore the mystery of Nature remains for the mechanists. This mystery is the result of the ego-centered consciousness of first or third person perspectives failing to recognize the platform of pure reason that operates above and beyond experiential consciousness. 

Ram: In the unmanifested state of the primal entity (Brahman), the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is its mental aspect and ‘quantum vacuum’, ‘unified field’ or ‘ubiquitous zero-point field (ZPF)’ is its inseparable physical aspect. 

BMP: Excuse me Ram, but you cannot use the concept Brahman from sastra, and then make up your own ideas about it having mental and physical aspects. I mean you are free to do so, God bless you, but then it has nothing at all to do with what is meant by Brahman.

Sincere good wishes to you,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/ scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist. org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j. als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 19420889.2015.1085138
 

Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist. org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist. org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

[BMP]

Dear Serge

Namaste. Thank you for your detailed comments and question

Serge:  But, is there anything of your own that you may suggest as an alternative (or supplementation) to decompositional approach?

BMP; From the beginning we have been emphasizing the point that the Bhakti Vedanta conception is based on the original idea of the Isopanisad that wholes come from wholes, that life comes from life, consciousness comes from consciousness, and that there is a Complete Whole from which all others come.

The conception of 'decomposition' is based upon a prior ontological presupposition that reality is essentially atomic pr digital in nature, and therefore any forms are the result of compounds of such finite digits. Such a presupposition may be convenient for numerical manipulation, but it is not necessarily the true conception of reality if it is not essentially digital.

To conceptualize this problem without excluding either the ultimate oneness or differentiation of reality we accept the principle of identity in difference as the most inclusive epistemological conception that will concretely embrace all viewpoints without exception.

AS I also mentioned in my post to Whit today, the synchronic inseparability of universal-particular-individual is essential to comprehend any idea of a composite part of a whole. What this means is that the universal must be grasped as immanent to everyone of its parts in order to understand what the true nature of the part is. I think this can be very clearly runderstood in the example of the blind men and the elephant. It is not enough to scientifically analyze things without understanding one's metaphysical presumptions or boundary conditions in order to properly conclude what one is experiencing. Science and philosophy are not inimical but essential to each other.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

---

From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 4:32 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

[BMP]

Dear Ram

Namaste. Thank you for your questions.

Ram: Let us suppose achromats, trichromats, and OOO-God are looking at a ripe-tomato. What would be their color experiences?

BMP: First of all we have to understand that there is a great difference between God, the Absolute, the Source, and that which is relative, finite creatures of the creator and a product or energy of the Source.A painting cannot be expected to do or express everything a painter can do and express.  

Finite creatures are limited, conditioned by their lack of complete wholeness. They are wholes but not complete wholeness in themselves. They depend for their existence on that which is outside themselves. 

The ability to see is not merely a function of the type of eye one has. The eyeball, the optic nerve, the ocippital lobe in the back of the brain, are not able to see. A dead body may have a fully functioning eye or light sensitive spot, but without the living soul the bodily appurtenances will be useless. That is why when an organ is taken from a recently decease body it can be placed in another body that is living and thereby be made use of. The essential principle is life - the spirit soul, not the organs as such.

So colors are seen by specific living entities according to their subjective qualities or conditioning, and in simplified language we can say they occupy a body accordingly. God being absolute does not suffer any of these conditions or limitations. God can see with God's ears, or touch, or any of God's senses. That is the nature of the absolute. So until one understands the nature of the absolute source, it is foolish to compare God with the relative experiences of God's finite creatures. 

As I explained in my previous message to you, you are standing outside the absolute from your first or third person perspective. Because of that you will never be able to comprehend the Absolute as it is in itself and for itself. 

Ram: In your OOO-God theory framework, what kind of consciousness research you expect us to do other than prayer and meditation?

BMP: First of all, it is not my theory. What do I know about God? I can only present what I have learned and understood from the literature and those before me who have some realization concerning these topics.

I am not contributing to this forum using prayer and mediation, am I? The vast literature on the subjects which I am offering are in the form of a rational scientific, systematic, philosophical and religious nature. From what i have read of your ideas, although you have obviously worked very hard to accumulate whatever knowledge you do have, I do not see the quality of insight gained from the many authors I have read and know about.  So I am presenting some of those arguments for you to consider for your own benefit and development. I don't expect you or anyone else to know everything. That is one purpose for which this forum exists - to learn from one another, not only for each person's propaganda about themselves. This is the spirit of sadhu-sanga which, as others have commented, is the unique quality of this forum. We don't reject prayer and meditation, or atoms and molecules, or supernatural phenomena, or anything else within the human and divine spirit.All are subjects for consideration if there is an actual rational element being offered for common discussion in defense of such ideas. No one here is interested in dogmatic fundamentalism.

The study and knowledge of consciousness was already accomplished long before you or modern science ever came on the scene. If you are not willing to accept that and think you have the only valid means of understanding the concept of consciousness, for me that would disqualify anyone that I would consider a scientist.

 
Ram: I have clearly defined the term “Brahman” as the primal entity (whatever that may be!).

BMP: The Sanskrit term Brahman is not subject to your definition of it. It is given to us by the  Vedas, just as the word Spirit is not something that science or philosophy has given us, It has originated from religion only. You may not respect and honor the Vedic literature from which you have taken the word Brahman but your ideas in turn will not be honored by the learned who have studied and understood sastra as it has explained the pure and unconditioned nature of Brahman as free of any mental or physical 'aspects.' I do not want to get into scriptural references. Dr. Bhakti Vijnana Muni Maharaja has already done that for you.

We may not want to hear that there are other conceptions of reality that differ from our own. But we are here together to work out what consciousness may actually mean, and all are trying to contribute their insights as well as critiques as to what may or may not be a valid way to proceed.  Humility, tolerance and respect are requisite in such a process. That's all we can expect  from honest men/women with good will, along with some prayer and mediation that a proper conception may arise from our sincere endeavors in that spirit.

Thank you for your scholarly and gentlemanly attitude here. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

---

From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga]: 11 Problems of Sankhya, Hegel’s philosophy, Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta, and eDAM

Dear Dr. Puri,

 

Namaste,

 

Thanks for your kind reply and comments.

 

[1] Ram: Achintya-Bheda-Abheda is a mysterious proposal because by it postulates that the “oneness and difference” is mysteriously inconceivable.

 

BMP: Oneness in difference is an established logical principle, well understood and explained, utilized as I mentioned as a basic principle in Hegel's philosophy. So it is not mysteriously inconceivable. What Chaitanya Mahaprabhu established was inconceivable for those He addressed who were on the platform of consciousness or experience. Chaitanya, after all, means consciousness. He is considered an avatar or manifestation of God who appeared in 1486 and taught almost a century before Descartes who is considered the initiator of modernity and the priority of ego-centered consciousness and experience. The conceivability of the principle exists for reason beyond consciousness or understanding. This idea began with Kant the first in the modern age to distinguish between reason [Vernuft] and understanding [Verstand].

 

Ram: I am not sure if Hegel’s philosophy and Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta can address the following query: 

Let us suppose our universe is consists of only achromats, trichromats, and a ripe-tomato. Let us suppose achromats, trichromats, and OOO-God are looking at a ripe-tomato. What would be their color experiences? I certainly know that trichromats will experience redness and achromats will experience grayness. Please tell us what OOO-God will experience as a “whole”?

 

[2] Ram:  I used the term “mysterious” because OOO-God NEVER reveals the secret of His creation by providing mechanisms so that we can scientifically test them.

 

BMP: It is convenient for the analytic understanding to adopt the mechanistic view of science which is based on the analytic method of combining and separating parts that retain their identity in both cases. Nature, however, does not exhibit this type of mechanical behavior. Taking apart a watch, the parts retain their identity in the machine as well as separated from it. But you can't do that with a living organism. This can be called the Humpty Dumpty principle: break an egg and you can never put it back together again. The mechanistic model thus fails to explain Nature. All mechanical explanations apply to mechanics but not to Nature. Therefore the mystery of Nature remains for the mechanists. This mystery is the result of the ego-centered consciousness of first or third person perspectives failing to recognize the platform of pure reason that operates above and beyond experiential consciousness. 

Ram: Well, at least a few mechanisms should be revealed as we do in science. For example, we do not even know how 18 elementary particles are derived from 5 tanmātras. We do not how first life arose. This is very frustrating to do any further research. In your OOO-God theory framework, what kind of consciousness research you expect us to do other than prayer and meditation?

 

[3] Ram: In the unmanifested state of the primal entity (Brahman), the Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC) is its mental aspect and ‘quantum vacuum’, ‘unified field’ or ‘ubiquitous zero-point field (ZPF)’ is its inseparable physical aspect. 

 

BMP: Excuse me Ram, but you cannot use the concept Brahman from Śāstra, and then make up your own ideas about it having mental and physical aspects. I mean you are free to do so, God bless you, but then it has nothing at all to do with what is meant by Brahman.

 

Ram: In metaphysics and consciousness research, a word or term can have many meanings assigned.  For example, Advaita and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism) have different meanings assigned to the term ‘Brahman’. Another example, there are over 40 meanings assigned to the term “consciousness” as elaborated in (Vimal, 2009b). I agree with you that this certainly causes confusion if the term is not defined before using it. However, I have clearly defined the term “Brahman” as the primal entity (whatever that may be!). Therefore, if you do not like my meaning assigned to this term, then you can just think ‘primal entity’ instead. It should not cause any confusion as long as we pre-define our terms. I still do not understand what meanings you have assigned when you use the term “consciousness” and “Brahman”. My definition of the term ‘consciousness’ is clearly defined in (Vimal, 2010b).^[i]

---

[i] There are over forty meanings attributed to the term ‘consciousness’, which were identified and categorized according to whether they were principally about a function or about an experience (Vimal, 2009b). An immediate advantage of this categorization is that it makes clear what materialism can do and what it cannot do. Materialism may explain functions to some extent but cannot explain experiences. In other words, this categorization sets the clear-cut limit for materialism.

A general definition of consciousness (that accommodates most views) may be: consciousness is the mental aspect of a beable ontological dual-aspect state of the mind-brain-system or a mind-brain-process, which has two sub-aspects: a conscious experience, a conscious function, or both depending on the context from the 1^st person perspective, where the term ‘context’ refers to metaphysical views, constraints, specific aims, and so on (Vimal, 2010b).

The optimal definition (that has the least number of problems) of consciousness is: consciousness is the mental aspect of a beable ontological dual-aspect state of a mind-brain-system or a mind-brain-process, which has two sub-aspects: a conscious experience and a conscious function from the 1^st person perspective (Vimal, 2010b).

In other words, consciousness has functional and experiential aspects and includes subjective experiences (SEs) including emotional experiences, functions, thoughts, and experiences related to the subject (self), objects, emotions, and Samādhi state.

This special beable ontological dual-aspect state has specific consciousness (1pp-mental aspect) when ‘viewed’ from the 1^st person perspective 1pp and has its inseparable physical aspect (a correlated specific NN and its activities) when the same information is ‘viewed’ from the 3^rd person perspective (3pp).

Furthermore, this state is selected after matching the stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signal with cognitive feedback (FB) signals from the related long-term memory when the following necessary conditions are satisfied: the formation of the related neural-network, wakefulness, reentry, attention for the access (reportable) consciousness, information integration, working memory, stimulus contrast at or above a threshold, potential experiences embedded in neural network and so on. Attention is not necessary for the phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness.

Here, a beable ontological dual-aspect state is defined as the dual-aspect state of a mind-brain-system or a mind-brain-process that really exist and we can empirically measure it using psychophysical methods (for the 1pp-mental aspect) and neurophysiological methods such as fMRI/EEG (for the 3pp-physical aspect).

 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Dr. Puri,

Thanks for your kind reply. My responses are in blue texts.

[1] Vimal: Let us suppose achromats, trichromats, and OOO-God are looking at a ripe-tomato. What would be their color experiences?

 

BMP: First of all, we have to understand that there is a great difference between God, the Absolute, the Source, and that which is relative, finite creatures of the creator and a product or energy of the Source. A painting cannot be expected to do or express everything a painter can do and express.  

 

Finite creatures are limited, conditioned by their lack of complete wholeness. They are wholes but not complete wholeness in themselves. They depend for their existence on that which is outside themselves. 

 

The ability to see is not merely a function of the type of eye one has. The eyeballs, the optic nerve, the occipital lobe in the back of the brain, are not able to see. A dead body may have a fully functioning eye or light sensitive spot, but without the living soul the bodily appurtenances will be useless. That is why when an organ is taken from a recently deceased body it can be placed in another body that is living and thereby be made use of. The essential principle is life - the spirit soul, not the organs as such.

 

So colors are seen by specific living entities according to their subjective qualities or conditioning, and in simplified language, we can say they occupy a body accordingly. God being absolute does not suffer any of these conditions or limitations. God can see with God's ears, or touch, or any of God's senses. That is the nature of the absolute. Therefore, until one understands the nature of the absolute source, it is foolish to compare God with the relative experiences of God's finite creatures. 

 

As I explained in my previous message to you, you are standing outside the absolute from your first or third person perspective. Because of that, you will never be able to comprehend the Absolute as it is in itself and for itself. 

 

Vimal: My question is very simple: What color OOO-God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato. I already know what trichromats and achromats will experience. You are the expert in OOO-God theory and I will be obliged for your simple straightforward one word/sentence answer: redness, grayness, or some other color.

 

[2] Vimal: In your OOO-God theory framework, what kind of consciousness research you expect us to do other than prayer and meditation?

 

BMP: First of all, it is not my theory. What do I know about God? I can only present what I have learned and understood from the literature and those before me who have some realization concerning these topics.

 

I am not contributing to this forum using prayer and meditation, am I? The vast literature on the subjects which I am offering are in the form of a rational scientific, systematic, philosophical and religious nature. From what I have read of your ideas, although you have obviously worked very hard to accumulate whatever knowledge you do have, I do not see the quality of insight gained from the many authors I have read and know about. Therefore, I am presenting some of those arguments for you to consider for your own benefit and development. I do not expect you or anyone else to know everything. That is one purpose for which this forum exists - to learn from one another, not only for each person's propaganda about themselves. This is the spirit of Sadhu-Sanga which, as others have commented, is the unique quality of this forum. We do not reject prayer and meditation, or atoms and molecules, or supernatural phenomena, or anything else within the human and divine spirit. All are subjects for consideration if there is an actual rational element being offered for common discussion in defense of such ideas. No one here is interested in dogmatic fundamentalism.

 

The study and knowledge of consciousness was already accomplished long before you or modern science ever came on the scene. If you are not willing to accept that and think you have the only valid means of understanding the concept of consciousness, for me that would disqualify anyone that I would consider a scientist.

 

Vimal: Thanks. My goal is to bring science and spirituality/religions closer because we need both in our lives for balanced living. As I understand, there are two major but opposite approaches: the top-down OOO-God based Vedānta and Sāṅkhya, and the bottom-up science-based materialism and extended dual-aspect monism. We can also classify based on theist and atheist frameworks. There are problems in both approaches if we critically look them very closely. I have tried to list problems in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010d), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012c), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). We are stuck on three problems: 

(1) how do we derive 18 elementary particles (or any physical entity) from 5 Tanmātras? 

(2) How can OOO-God/(Cosmic Puruṣa)/soul/(localized Puruṣa) experience physical objects (Prakṛti) without interaction (as shri Vinod Sehgal claims)? 

(3) Query related to the group-experience: What color OOO-God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato. Perhaps, you can give us some clues on these queries.

 
[3] Vimal: I have clearly defined the term “Brahman” as the primal entity (whatever that may be!).

 

BMP: The Sanskrit term Brahman is not subject to your definition of it. It is given to us by the  Vedas, just as the word Spirit is not something that science or philosophy has given us, It has originated from religion only. You may not respect and honor the Vedic literature from which you have taken the word Brahman but your ideas in turn will not be honored by the learned who have studied and understood sastra as it has explained the pure and unconditioned nature of Brahman as free of any mental or physical 'aspects.' I do not want to get into scriptural references. Dr. Bhakti Vijnana Muni Maharaja has already done that for you.

 

We may not want to hear that there are other conceptions of reality that differ from our own. But we are here together to work out what consciousness may actually mean, and all are trying to contribute their insights as well as critiques as to what may or may not be a valid way to proceed. Humility, tolerance, and respect are requisite in such a process. That is all we can expect  from honest men/women with good will, along with some prayer and meditation that a proper conception may arise from our sincere endeavors in that spirit. Thank you for your scholarly and gentlemanly attitude here. 

 

Vimal: I agree. However, unless we have some working definition on which we are doing research, further research may not be possible. Please note, the goal is to bring science and religions closer from both east and west. Therefore, tolerance, respect, and humility are needed from both sides. What is problem in my definition: Brahman as the Primal entity. I think, both sides can use this definition; this is very flexible definition. You can consider the OOO-God as the Primal entity (Brahman) if you like. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, Brahman as dual-aspect primal entity is also used in Kashmir Shaivism (860–925 AD) and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (Ramānujāchārya: 1017-1137 AD: mind (cit) and matter (acit) are adjectives  or aspects of Brahman). We need flexibility; rigidity is not going to take us further. 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Sunday, 6 August 2017 10:40 AM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

My question is simple: What color OOO-God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato? 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Sunday, 6 August 2017 6:19 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Achromat and tomato forms one physical system 1, trichromat and tomato forms another physical system 2. Colour Red is the product of system 2 and color gray is the product of system 1. In this way, there can be innumerable systems and corresponding innumerable products. The 

Information about all the innumerable products remains embedded in the womb of the cosmic consciousness of OOO-God. Here information may not be interpreted in the physical sense of energy transfer.  Therefore, cosmic consciousness will be aware of all the colours -- whatever is conceivable and not conceivable by us. Our localized consciousness is conditioned to think in the product of only one physical system but cosmic consciousness is not conditioned by this.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

I am sorry, I meant to ask what color OOO-God will experience: redness, grayness, both, or a mixture of both? Please note the in this example, the “whole” is simply color experiences and nothing else.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

[Tusar Nath Mohapatra]

Dear RLPV,

As regards your tomato quiz, my impression is that there can't be any situation where the God is looking at a tomato. Thus the question is absurd and a mere word play. The following excerpt can help to make things clear.

"we may regard, describe, and realise it as Lila, the play, the child's joy, the poet's joy, the actor's joy,...of the Soul of things eternally young, perpetually inexhaustible, creating and re-creating Himself in Himself for the sheer bliss of that self-creation...Himself the play, Himself the player, Himself the playground"

[Sri Aurobindo,  The Life Divine, p.103],

http://www.kheper.net/integral/manifest_absolute.html

I haven't noticed you having referred to Sri Aurobindo ever. And I feel that is the reason you haven't been able to convince anyone of the soundness of your eDAM thesis.

Thanks for your patience for responding to all sorts of doubts and disagreements in this forum.

Tusar (b.1955)
August 7, 2017

https://selforum.blogspot.in/2017/08/sri-aurobindo-is-most-relevant-and.html

...

[BMP]

Dear Ram

Namaste. The attempt to understand God as an object of your own perspective is bound to failure because the finite cannot possibly grasp the infinite without turning it into a finitude. If anything we should try to comprehend that God is a super-subject of which we are objects.

Ram:  What color OOO-God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato.

BMP: Here the whole concept of OOO God has nothing to do with God as super-subject. As I have been trying to explain, the whole viewpoint of looking at God as external to first or third person perspectives already places the viewer and his knowledge outside the absolute/God. But God is not outside anyone or anything including tomatoes. So first you have to establish yourself in the proper frame of reference or the God's eye view.

A small child in the arms of his guardian may hold out its hand to touch the bright shining ball of the Moon because the child's sense of huge distances is not yet developed. In the same way the experiences of finite conditioned entities may seem to be directly related to God, but this is the case only at a very immature stage of spiritual development and knowledge. 

Sometimes it is possible to ask a question that is completely inappropriate, like asking what is the taste of two plus four. Such questions arise due to lack of proper knowledge and understanding. First a person must understand what mathematics is then proper questions can be asked. In the same way when there is a proper understanding of what God is, then proper questions can be asked.

Ram: -- questions about tanmatras and 18 elementary particles, and divine experience of physical nature --

BMP: These are topics concerning material existence and my ideas on that are too radically different from yours to discuss here.

Ram: mind (cit) and matter (acit) are adjectives  or aspects of Brahman)

BMP: That would be a serious misunderstanding because cit acit refer to the appearing universe of which Brahman is the underlying and permeating reality and upon which they are dependent.This means that Brahman is independent of cit acit, so how can they be adjectives or aspects of it.  They lie dormant in Brahman during the cosmic destruction and so do not participate in the pure spiritual nature of Brahman. When manifested, cit acit act outside of Brahman without disturbing in any way the nature of Brahman.  Don't try to read your viewpoint into Vishistadvaita. What benefit will that bring?

Regarding your remark about rigidity, if F=ma, and you claim for the sake of flexibility that we can say  F=mv because acceleration also involves velocity, then such flexibility will not take you further into enlightenment but further into ignorance. Proper conception is necessary even when it may be inconvenient for one's most cherished delusions. That's my opinion.

Thank you Ram,

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: Online Sadhu Sanga <online_sa...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Vivekanand Pandey Vimal <vvima...@gmail.com>; Roy Sisir <sisir.s...@gmail.com>; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com>; Abhishek Prasad <prasadab...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 12:28 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga]: 11 Problems of Sankhya, Hegel’s philosophy, Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Vedānta, and eDAM

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/120136442.782088.1502034509393%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Dr. Puri,

Namaste,

Thanks for your kind email.

[1] BMP: The attempt to understand God as an object of your own perspective is bound to failure because the finite cannot possibly grasp the infinite without turning it into a finitude. If anything, we should try to comprehend that God is a super-subject of which we are objects.

 

Vimal: Your hypothesis, “God is a super-subject of which we are objects” seems to contradict the four Mahāvākyas, which seems to imply that we as Ātmans are Brahman (OOO God). One could argue that God was invented by extrapolating or generalizing the subjective experiences from our own first person perspectives at Samādhi states.

 

As per Wikipedia (as of 7 August 2017), “The Mahāvākyas are:

1. prajñānam brahma - "Prajñāna^{[note 1: "Consciousness",[4][web 2] "intelligence",[5][6]"wisdom"[web 3]]} is Brahman"^{[note 2: "The Absolute",[4][web 2] "infinite",[web 2] "the Highest truth"[web 2]]}, or "Brahman is Prajñāna"^{[web 3]} (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)

2. ayam ātmā brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)

3. tat tvam asi - "Thou art That" (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)

4. aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman", or "I am Divine"^[7] (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)”

My point is that we have freedom to ask all kinds of questions/queries, and no question/query is a silly question/query.

 

[2] Vimal:  What color OOO-God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato.

 

BMP: Here the whole concept of OOO God has nothing to do with God as super-subject. As I have been trying to explain, the whole viewpoint of looking at God as external to first or third person perspectives [1pp/3pp] already places the viewer and his knowledge outside the absolute/God. However, God is not outside anyone or anything including tomatoes. So first, you have to establish yourself in the proper frame of reference or the God's eye view.

 

A small child in the arms of his guardian may hold out its hand to touch the bright shining ball of the Moon because the child's sense of huge distances is not yet developed. In the same way, the experiences of finite conditioned entities may seem to be directly related to God, but this is the case only at a very immature stage of spiritual development and knowledge. 

 

Sometimes it is possible to ask a question that is completely inappropriate, like asking what is the taste of two plus four. Such questions arise due to lack of proper knowledge and understanding. First, a person must understand what mathematics is then proper questions can be asked. In the same, way when there is a proper understanding of what God is, then proper questions can be asked.

 

Vimal: I guess, I was not clear on my query. I have never meant to put God external to 1pp/3pp. Instead, my query is: if you were God then what color will you experience when you look at a ripe-tomato from your first person perspective? If all entities are included in OOO God, then God can be considered as an accumulation of all entities as our infinite universe is. In that case, I do not see a major conflict between the bottom-up based science/eDAM and top-down based OOO God theory of religions.

 

Furthermore, the query, “What color OOO-God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato” is equivalent to asking “What color our universe will experience when it looks at a ripe-tomato”. One could then argue that it is equivalent to asking “What color the conscious entities within our infinite universe will experience when they look at a ripe-tomato”. Then the answer is clear: The specific subjective experience (SE) of a specific individual will depend on his/her specific visual system. If s/he were achromat then color SE would be grayness, if trichromat then the color SE would be redness, and so on.

 

However, I am not sure that you will agree that God = our infinite universe. I guess, you and shri Vinod Sehgal would like to include also entities and worlds (such as astral, causal, and cosmic/manifested consciousness worlds: various Lokas) beyond our infinite universe. This is where problems start. Science needs objective reproducible evidence and we have none.

 

Then you and shri Vinod Sehgal will baffle us by suggesting first attain the most difficult Samādhi state, which may be lifelong (and many rebirths) task by prayers and rigorous full-time meditation after complete surrender and then you will observe yourselves all such worlds and entities.

 

Then my argument would be that Samādhi state experiences are simply SEs similar to any dream and wakeful conscious experiences and hence each of them must have neural correlate(s)/basis. Thus, they are within the realm of our mind-brain systems residing in our ‘real’ infinite universe out there, which will imply that God = our infinite universe and resolve the conflict between science and religions.

 

[3] Vimal: Questions about tanmātras and 18 elementary particles, and divine experience of physical nature.

 

BMP: These are topics concerning the material existence and my ideas on that are too radically different from yours to discuss here.

 

Vimal: Radical ideas are most welcome! They are very helpful for further research.

 

[4] Vimal: mind (cit) and matter (acit) are adjectives or aspects of Brahman)

 

BMP: That would be a serious misunderstanding because cit and acit refer to the appearing universe of which Brahman is the underlying and permeating reality and upon which they are dependent. This means that Brahman is independent of cit and acit, so how can they be adjectives or aspects of it. They lie dormant in Brahman during the cosmic destruction and so do not participate in the pure spiritual nature of Brahman. When manifested, cit and acit act outside of Brahman without disturbing in any way the nature of Brahman. Do not try to read your viewpoint into Viśiṣṭādvaita. What benefit will that bring?

 

Regarding your remark about rigidity, if F=ma, and you claim for the sake of flexibility that we can say  F=mv because acceleration also involves velocity, then such flexibility will not take you further into enlightenment but further into ignorance. Proper conception is necessary even when it may be inconvenient for one's most cherished delusions. That is my opinion.

 

Vimal: The benefit of bringing/discussing Neutralism, Kashmir Shaivism, and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (Ramānujāchārya) vs. Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) is to resolve the conflict between atheist science and theist religions and bring them closer.

 

If you propose that Brahman is an aspectless and attributeless neutral primal entity (neither cit nor acit), then one could argue that how cit (consciousness, mental aspect) and acit (physical aspect) are derived from Brahman that does not even a trace of them.

 

The flexibility in that sense would make it clear if a test hypothesis can be rejected. For example, the hypothesis F=mv will be rejected in a well-designed experiment but not the F=ma. One could argue that “Proper conception” could also mean a rigorous training of brain-mind system in a specific manner may lead to strong subjective biases and also ignorance. In my view, freedom of thinking and open-mindedness are extremely important in search of unbiased fundamental truth (“real” not “pseudo” enlightenment). In other words, we now need the critical virtues/attitudes of both scientist and yogi in one mind-brain system when we meditate towards Samādhi state in the search of fundamental truth. 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/89253591.929029.1502101389924%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Bhakti Madhava Puri on August 6, 2017 wrote:

> Namaste

.

[S.P.] An interesting word. It can be read as "na-mas-te". The case is that in the Ukrainian language, the ending "te" stands for polite form of "you". For example, the word "siday-te" means "please, sit down", the word "znay-te" means "please, be informed that...", the word "zachekay-te" means "I am afraid, but you will have to wait for some time", and so on. The Ukrainian word "na" means "take it/this" or "have it". 

.

The Ukrainian phrase "na mas(h)" or "ma-te" means "here you are" or "take this -- it is for you". The whole phrase "na-mas-te", if being translated from Ukrainian language, may mean "this is what I can give you", but it will have such a meaning if it is accompanied by some body movements or gestures to demonstrate what we are going to give to other person.

.

Another interesting word is "namas-kar". The Sanskrit word "kara" stands for "action" or "doing". But, the Ukrainian word "kara" stands for the "act of punishment". The word "karaty" means "to punish" or "to prosecute". The phrase "karniy kodeks" stands for "criminal code". 

.

Now, concerning the word "Brahman". In the Ukrainian language, there is a word "brama" which means "gate". Therefore, "bramman" may be considered as a judge who guards the gate and decides whom to let and whom to prohibit going through the gate. Therefore, as I think, there should be "Bramman" but not "Brahman", as well as instead of "Brahma-putra" the name of a river should be "Bram(m)a-putra". 

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

> From the beginning we have been emphasizing the point that 

>the Bhakti Vedanta conception is based on the original idea of the 

>Isopanisad that wholes come from wholes, that life comes from life, 

>consciousness comes from consciousness, and that there is a Complete

> Whole from which all others come.

.

[S.P.] OK. Vedanta is some meta-theory or a belief system. Therefore, the way of understanding it is through investigating it for compatibility with another meta-theory. Now then, the idea that "wholes come from wholes" is compatible with my meta-theoretical statement that the initial Whole may dissociate with formation of a chain of wholes. For example, if during the process of cognition we enframe some entity, we, first, ascribe some term to it (say, "organism") and, second, we formalize it as a whole{organism} -- the element of AS-model. Then, in case we perform the AS-DIS transition, we will receive the following chain of wholes:

.

the whole{organism just after the moment of conception}; ...; the whole{organism at the moment of birth}; ...; the whole{organism at the moment of adulthood};...; the whole{organism just before the moment of death}. 

.

Here, every element of this chain of wholes is an all-sufficient and fully functional living organism with respect to the stage of its development. However, if we perform the AS-DEC transition, we will receive the following set of parts as the elements of decompositional model: part 1{head}; part 2{left hand}; part 3{right leg}; and so on. 

.

For me, the idea that "life comes from life" should be considered as encompassing the idea that "consciousness comes from consciousness". In this case it will be compatible with my idea that life and consciousness are inseparable. The idea that there is a "Complete Whole from which all others come" may be compatible with my representation of Noumenal Reality as a whole{Reality} -- the element of AS-model.

.

The very idea of "Brahman" or "Bramman" may be compatible with my idea of an interface between Phenomenal Reality and Noumenal Reality. To say more, a deeper investigation is required.

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

>that reality is essentially atomic pr digital in nature

.

[S.P.] The idea that "reality is essentially atomic pr digital in nature" results from performing the AS-DEC transitions during the process of cognition. So, I do not reject this idea. My system of AS-DIS-DEC models is of universal application. See what I mean. In case we may safely ignore the activity of informational factor (like when studying Brownian motion) we may perform the AS-DEC transition and come to parts/debris/atoms/molecules whose behavior obeys the laws of Physics. But, if we deal with complex systems like living organisms, we have to formalize them by using the DIS-models, and by making the AS-DIS transitions during the process of cognition.

.

Of special importance are also the "horizontal" transitions like DEC-DIS and DIS-DEC. They are important when formalizing/explaining the mechanisms of transformation of the physical (sensory) signals into the products of consciousness, and vice versa, when formalizing/explaining how the products of consciousness result in body movements.

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

>What this means is that the universal must be grasped as 

>immanent to everyone of its parts in order to understand what 

>the true nature of the part is.

.

[S.P.] Hope, this is only your own private thought, but not what Vedanta actually holds, because such an interpretation is incompatible with my approach. The case is that when dealing with complex systems, we start from the existing whole complex systems like the living organisms -- we do not come to the whole complex systems by assembling them with parts. When using the DIS-models we take no interest in parts at all. Instead, we take an interest in the universal properties of the model we use to formalize the wholes and in the law of development it obeys. So, I may suppose that sometimes Vedanta is misinterpreted. 

.

With kind regards,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2017 4:10 PM

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[BMP]

Dear Ram

Namaste. I find that we are going over the same things repeatedly. In other words there is no real communication of ideas. That is possible due to differences in conditioning. You may know about the five sheaths [koshas] that are said to cover the self, such as annamoya, pranamaya, manomaya,vijnanamaya, anandamaya. Thus if you were to show pearls to a goat, who is on the annamaya platform it would probably try to eat them. Their value and beauty might only be properly appreciated by a human being at the manomaya platform. 

These are real differences and we have to respect them. You seem to be systematically accumulating much information regarding your own particular viewpoint, and that will surely help others who may share that with you.

I am impressed with your patient treatment of Vinode who seems to me to be of similar argumentative mentality.

So for now, I feel we will have to agree to disagree [which is just another expression of unity in difference]. .

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE – of Spiritual Culture & Science

Facebook

 

---

From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 4:03 PM

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/172888377.1604117.1502125747776%40mail.yahoo.com.

[BMP]

Dear Serge

Namaste. Thank you for your interesting email. Regarding the relation between universal and particular, you may have a misunderstanding of what I meant. 

For example, an apple is a fruit. The universal in this case is fruit, the particular is apple. We can understand that the universal concept [fruit] is in [or implicit to] the apple. A  more relevant example to what I think you are concerned with, the hand is part of the human body. The body as a whole includes the hand, and the hand cannot properly be understood except as part of the body. It is not that the hand is a whole unto itself. Aristotle used this example to explain the importance of the final cause that he interpreted as 'that for the sake of which a thing exists.' He considered the hand to be properly identified only in its connection to the whole as a human body, and not as something to be considered merely as a whole on its own. 

I hope this will clarify what I was referring to in my comments to you. I did not imply that the whole is constructed from its parts, only that the various members or parts of the whole formed an integral unity in difference. This means the whole is not a mere composition of parts since the parts are defined only in their relation to the whole. Taking the parts from the whole, the parts loose their true identity. Replacing some parts with machines that perform the same functions may be possible if they can be utilized by the body. But that does not mean that the whole body can be composed of machines and become a robot. The unity of the organic whole or organism is more than the systematic totality of its parts. This transcendental unity is the missing ingredient in systems theories. 

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, August 7, 2017 3:56 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Dr. Puri,

Thanks.

I thought that you are on the highest anandamaya platform, so you should able to answer my simple query. However, it is fine with me with unity in difference.

All the best!

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/262957221.1774521.1502195368285%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Dear Vinod ji,

You may like to investigate if Swami YogeshwaraNanda ji has written something on this topic. Alternatively, you try to find some yogi who is on the highest level and able to answer my simple query. My personal guess is that there is no group experience as concluded in (Theiner & O’Connor, 2010), Therefore, God, as a group of all entities (if He is equivalent to our infinite universe), does not experience anything (I know you will disagree!). However, we (our Ātmans = God because of the Mahāvākya aham brahmāsmi) are the ones who can experience because we have necessary NNs in our mind-brain systems.

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

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

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 12:22 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Respected Dr. Ram,

Since with our  current state of consciousness, we are  unable to about the cosmic consciousness of

 OOO-God,  therefore, it is difficult for us to find exactly how a tomato is experienceable by OOO God.

In view of this, your question is also ill framed  the way as rightly pointed by BMP that a child trying to 

get hold of the moon in the lap of his/her mother.

What I replied was based on my logical understanding and not experience. Therefore, you should have

 also responded based upon some logical understanding.

Vinod Sehgal

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:01 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

Dear Vinod ji,

Either you find out the answer or please do not discuss about OOO-God or such theory when you do not know anything about Him. That may be all fiction.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Monday, 7 August 2017 3:25 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

My answer is very direct and simple. OOO-God consciousness has the information./experience

of all the states of the phenomenal reality of a tomato.  I and you are barred from knowing

what will be that experience since I and you are not placed in the cosmic consciousness

of OOO-God. Your question is akin to an ant asking another ant as to what President Trump will

be doing in the white house?

Vinod sehgal

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

My question is simple: What color OOO-God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato? 

 

Kind regards,

Rām

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

Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

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

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

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

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http:// sites.google.com/site/ rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_ Vimal 

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

On Sunday, 6 August 2017 6:19 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Achromat and tomato forms one physical system 1, trichromat and tomato forms another physical system 2. Colour Red is the product of system 2 and color gray is the product of system 1. In this way, there can be innumerable systems and corresponding innumerable products. The 

Information about all the innumerable products remains embedded in the womb of the cosmic consciousness of OOO-God. Here information may not be interpreted in the physical sense of energy transfer.  Therefore, cosmic consciousness will be aware of all the colours -- whatever is conceivable and not conceivable by us. Our localized consciousness is conditioned to think in the product of only one physical system but cosmic consciousness is not conditioned by this.

Regards.

Vinod Sehgal

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal <rlpv...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:

I am sorry, I meant to ask what color OOO-God will experience: redness, grayness, both, or a mixture of both? Please note the in this example, the “whole” is simply color experiences and nothing else.

 

Kind regards,

Rām

[Paul Werbos]

On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 12:22 AM, VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL <vinodse...@gmail.com> wrote:

Respected Dr. Ram,

Since with our  current state of consciousness, we are  unable to about the cosmic consciousness of

 OOO-God,  therefore, it is difficult for us to find exactly how a tomato is experienceable by OOO God.

In view of this, your question is also ill framed  the way as rightly pointed by BMP that a child trying to 

get hold of the moon in the lap of his/her mother.

What I replied was based on my logical understanding and not experience. Therefore, you should have

 also responded based upon some logical understanding.

Ah, logic! It truly makes me feel better to see interest in such a good old friend (however incomplete).

The logical point was made, implicitly: if God or the cosmos are much more complex and information rich that our breains or even our minds, how could we know anything at all about them?

This argument from complexity has been used in many fields. For example, how could one human brain understand another? 

How could a human brain understand such a vast thing as the physics of the universe? It is indeed important to keep the complexity issues in mind, and to learn more and more practical ways to cope with them.

I feel deep reverence for Isaac Newton, for his key insight: the LAWS OF CHANGE may be low-complexity enough that we can learn and understand them, even if we cannot hold the total present state of the universe in our brains. The same insight transfers to functional understanding of learning in the brain, which doesn't tell us EVERYTHING we are interested in regarding brains but does tell us very important things. Both issues are real and important.

What of "God"? The word 'God" is just a three letter word in English, and we make a huge mistake if we take it for granted and wave it mindlessly as a kind of patriotic flag. The old British analytic philosophers would say: "Before you waste time arguing over such a word, you should first define it very precisely." (Or "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain..") Maybe that's a bit strong, but I have often felt that the insights of the analytic philosophers should be remembered here, even as we remember other things as well and take a broader view. For myself, when people use the word "God" I hear them thinking about a variety of things. some real and some not, often mixed up in a fuzzy way. 

Real are higher but finite emergent minds in the cosmos, and the cosmos itself, both with thoughts (or "thoughts"?) much greater than what our own minds encompass but both operating on principles which are in principle understandable to us, if we work at it and if they permit.

Best of luck,

    Paul

[Paul Sherbow]

Dear Ram,

For my reference, which text of Sankhya do you refer to when mentioning the term?

Any particular edition of the text? Commentary (in any language)?

It would be helpful for me.

Many thanks,

Paul H. Sherbow

Religion Department

Rutgers University

New Brunswick NJ

--

----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgexqzLHnQHbdtoppU%3DOSwnKtBprZmEuZ-5MP_%3D67DGMaA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Asingh2384]

Dear Puri Ji:

Well said: - “The unity of the organic whole or organism is more than the systematic totality of its parts. This transcendental unity is the missing ingredient in systems theories.”

It is shown that when the spontaneous transformation between mass/energy/space/time is allowed in system theories, the empirical universe becomes predictable as observed as a relativistic state of the absolute eternal conscious wholesome universe. The unity is founded in the spontaneous equivalence of the wholesome continuum of mass/energy/space/time, the zero-point state representing the un-manifested universal consciousness.

Manifested parts or partial realities (material universe, nature, beings, mind, brain, thoughts, emotions, perceptions, particles etc.) are nothing but relative realities that are derivatives of the ONE Wholesome Universal Reality or Consciousness.

 

Best Regards

Avtar Singh, Sc.D.

Alumni, MIT

Author of "The Hidden Factor - An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology, and Universal Reality"

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1765552850.1738584.1502193106105%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Eric Reyes]

Dear Ram Vimal,

          "What color OOO-God will experience when He looks at a ripe-tomato?"

      I think you're missing something important Ram. We humans like to look at tomatoes, colors, vision, thoughts, etc as simple objects for our study and manipulation, but the intelligent see what is behind everything, not how can I bend and break and reduce and compartmentalize every little thing. The intelligent see the source behind everything, in everything, knowing that they themselves also originate from that very same source. You see tomato, we will see who created that tomato. You see red, we see beauty from the Infinite. We see the whole picture, you see only a small part and long to dissect it, challenge it. We all see what we want to see. If you want to limit your vision that is always possible. But if you want to understand the whole truth without challenging it, that is always possible too. We all get what we want out of life, all possibility is there in the Absolute. 

Regards, Eric Reyes

      

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 6:14 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:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1416523400.2408480.1502197640695%40mail.yahoo.com.

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

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 6:14 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:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1416523400.2408480.1502197640695%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Purna Prasad]

Dhanyosmi Avatarji,

You summed the nature of energy well. Great to make an acquitance with a Adyatma Bandu.

Aum

Purna

Dr. Purna Prasad, Ph.D
VP, Chief Technology Officer
Office of the CIO, IT
Northwell Health
New York

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/15dc491b06c-15de-8a6a%40webprd-m70.mail.aol.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 11:19 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

-

Bhakti Madhava Puri on August 3, 2017 wrote:

> BMP: It is convenient for the analytic understanding to adopt the 

>mechanistic view of science which is based on the analytic method of 

>combining and separating parts that retain their identity in both cases. 

.

[S.P.] Indeed, the main (or traditional) model in Physics is a decompositional one (or DEC-model for short):

A major method used by priest-kings and science lobbyists alike to try to sell their cause and achieve power over others is by creating and emphasizing false strawman stereotypes of other communities. It is such an old tactic, and it is a crucial part of mental discipline to be conscious of when we ourselves are falling into that trap.

At least in mathematical physics, it is a fundamental method to try to make general universal statements about the dynamics of 

{phi(X,t)}, the combined state of all fields across all points in space-time. They are not advocates of your DEC approach. Where things get narrower and more particular is when experiments are sought, as cost-effective as possible... a kind of reality testing badly needed as well by those who claim to be doing something relevant to the greater expression and development of soul. But aversion to reality testing is also a common weakness which needs to be overcome.

This last reminds me of an NSF panel I once observed. When a certain proposal came up, the first reviewer was mildly supportive but not pushy. Then a very loud response came from a senior guy determined to kill it. "We should not even consider funding this proposal. It is too high risk." First reviewer:"What is so risky about it?" Reply: "There is a big risk it might disprove my theory..." These were among the most brilliant people on earth, and not so atypical. They COULD learn better. Or they could end up committing collective suicide. The same is true for all major communities on earth. We will see.

 

[Alarik Arenander]

All this universe is pervaded by my unmanifest form. All beings abide in me, i do not abide in them.

And yet, all beings do not abide in me. Behold my sovereign yoga. Sustaining beings, yet not seated in them is Myself, the support of beings…….

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

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

Alarik Arenander, PhD

Kindly use ALAR...@GMAIL.COM

Director, Brain Research Institute

www.brainresearchinstitute.org

President, Anti-Aging Company

www.anti-agingcompany.com

President, EBrainMatrix

www.ebrainmatrix.org

President, Leaders Brain Consulting

www.theleadersbrain.org

alar...@gmail.com

Skype: vedicbrain

---

[i] There are over forty meanings attributed to the term ‘consciousness’, which were identified and categorized according to whether they were principally about a function or about an experience(Vimal, 2009b). An immediate advantage of this categorization is that it makes clear what materialism can do and what it cannot do. Materialism may explain functions to some extent but cannot explain experiences. In other words, this categorization sets the clear-cut limit for materialism. 

A general definition of consciousness (that accommodates most views) may be: consciousness is the mental aspect of a beable ontological dual-aspect state of the mind-brain-system or a mind-brain-process, which has two sub-aspects: a conscious experience, a conscious function, or both depending on the context from the 1^stperson perspective, where the term ‘context’ refers to metaphysical views, constraints, specific aims, and so on (Vimal, 2010b). 

The optimal definition (that has the least number of problems) of consciousness is: consciousness is the mental aspect of a beable ontological dual-aspect state of a mind-brain-system or a mind-brain-process, which has two sub-aspects: a conscious experience and a conscious function from the 1^st person perspective (Vimal, 2010b). 

In other words, consciousness has functional and experiential aspects and includes subjective experiences (SEs) including emotional experiences, functions, thoughts, and experiences related to the subject (self), objects, emotions, and Samādhi state. 

This special beable ontological dual-aspect state has specific consciousness (1pp-mental aspect) when ‘viewed’ from the 1^st person perspective 1pp and has its inseparable physical aspect (a correlated specific NN and its activities) when the same information is ‘viewed’ from the 3^rd person perspective (3pp). 

Furthermore, this state is selected after matching the stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signal with cognitive feedback (FB) signals from the related long-term memory when the following necessary conditions are satisfied: the formation of the related neural-network, wakefulness, reentry, attention for the access(reportable) consciousness, information integration, working memory, stimulus contrast at or above a threshold, potential experiences embedded in neural network and so on. Attention is not necessary for the phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness. 

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org 
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/120136442.782088.1502034509393%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Bhakti Madhava Puri on August 8, 2017 wrote:

>For example, an apple is a fruit. The universal in this case is fruit,

> the particular is apple. We can understand that the universal 

>concept [fruit] is in [or implicit to] the apple.

.

[S.P.] No, an apple is an apple, and nothing more than an apple -- such a conclusion we make while we are on a level of simple description. A person who makes such a conclusion may have only the apple trees in his orchard and know nothing about the trees of other kind. Only when we go to the level of generalization and systematization (for example, after visiting a market) we coin a term "fruit" and state that "apples", "pears", "oranges", etc. are fruit. So, the concept "fruit" is not implicit to the "apple". 

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

> The body as a whole includes the hand ...

.

[S.P.] No. When we talk about the Whole we take no interest in its parts at all. For example, it is Mr. Brown as a whole (personality) who has just get married, or has become a president of the US, or has made a scientific discovery, or has visited a dentist, or has submitted a post to Sadhu Sanga forum, etc. When we state that the "body as a whole includes the hand", it means that during the process of cognition we perform the AS-DEC transition and view the initial whole (formalized as an element of AS-model) as being decomposed into parts, debris, halves, etc.

.

So, I start from considering the living organism as a whole, and assume that it is an organism as a whole complex system that possesses its instance (or exemplar) of consciousness. In so doing, I may know nothing about what the organism consists of, or what parts/organs it can be decomposed into. When describing the mechanisms of consciousness, the DEC (or decompositional) models are of no use. Here, we need the models which can be used to show in which a person who has got some knowledge differs from that same person who has not got this knowledge yet. And such are the DIS-models (or dissociational models). 

.

A standard DIS-model -- it is a chain of wholes, where every element is itself a fully functional whole. For example, to formalize the "torrent of thoughts", it would be much more convenient and correct to use the DIS-models than the DEC-models, since every thought (every element of experience, every feeling, etc.) is a whole complex system.

.

Similarly, in Physics, to explain/formalize the effect of transmutation of elementary particles, it would be more correct to use the DIS-models instead of the DEC-models. The problem of transmutation (or, "plus/minus" beta decay) may be exemplified as follows: when we drop a piano from the top of a skyscraper, then, instead of a heap of debris/parts, we receive a set of new and fully functional musical instruments. When using the DEC-models this effect stays unexplainable.

.

So, those thinkers who suggest an idea that when the brain splits into two halves then consciousness has to split into two "consciousnesses" as well have no chance to understand the mechanisms of consciousness, since their way of thinking is purely decompositional. They make a similar mistake when considering the parts of an experience. Treating the organism as a machine composed of parts (organs, neurons, particles, etc.) is not a good approach when we aim to explain consciousness.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

.

PS. For the system of AS-DIS-DEC models see my post on August 7, 2017 given below.

---

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 3:32 PM

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[BMP]

Dear Serge

Namaste.

Serge:an apple is an apple, and nothing more than an apple 

BMP: Certainly that may be the case for those who without thinking any further than what they immediately or sensuously apprehend. However, "apple" is not just an object or a being. It is also a concept [or idea]. A dog, for instance, or an insect knows nothing of "apples." They simply see objects that are edible or inedible, or that taste good or bad. 

As soon as the word 'apple' is thought or uttered, however, a specifically determined object is implied. The word 'determined' means 'delimited' or 'thought.' "Object' is a universal term. "Being' is a universal term. When we determine or delimit a universal like object or being, we negate its universality and produce a particular, specific, instance, or instantiation or exemplar of that universal object or being.

If you agree with me this far, then it follows that an apple is not merely an apple but a concept of apple and its reality, being or specific/particular instantiation. But the concept and its actual reality are not two separate things but identical [like identical twins]. The only difference is that the concept is the negative of the real which is the positive. This is similar to a photograph and its negative - which is an old concept from the days of film now discarded with the advent of digital cameras. 

The point is, without the concept  'apple' we could not identify the object 'apple' before us, even if we were not familiar with any other fruit. So even in this sense we cannot have simply the object 'apple' without its concept intrinsically/implicitly identical with and different from it. This is true of all universals and particulars. They are different from each other but not separable from each other.

The next point is that if we abstracted the idea of fruit from the object 'apple' we would not be able to know or say what the apple was. If you take the essence 'fruit' from the apple then what is left? We could not intelligibly say what it is. If you abstract the essence 'animal' from a dog, then what is left? Again you would not be able to say what it is. 

The conclusion is that two things or two features are inseparably involved in whatever objects we immediately or sensuously apprehend: their being and their essence. Being always has an essence or truth to it, and essence must always be the essence of a being.

Rather than covering at one time all the points of your previous email, let me stop here, so you can consider what has been offered so far and make a reply. then we can get to the other points in future messages. 

If I may make a humble suggestion, please include a small glossary in your messages so that we can refer to what you mean by your various abbreviations, and what thought-processes they represent.

Thank you Serge for your polite and patient willingness to explain your ideas.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 4:07 AM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: 11 Problems of Sankhya

-

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Bhakti Madhava Puri on August 14, 2017 wrote:

> However, "apple" is not just an object or a being. It is also a 

>concept [or idea].

.

[S.P.] There is a difference between "term" and "concept". A term, as a set of typographic symbols or a set of sounds or other physical signals, exists objectively, while a concept is a model our consciousness creates for us. A "term" stands for some "concept". But, there may be the concepts that may not have the correspondent terms appended to them yet. Sometimes we say that we fail to find the appropriate words to express our feelings. We may also say: "I have an idea in my mind, but I cannot verbalize it yet." But where do the concepts come from? Let us see the following example.

.

Please, recollect how you were learning your mother tongue when you were a 1 year old toddler. You first had a lot of new concepts in your mind and then you learned the proper terms that should be appended to these concepts. For example, when visiting a zoo you were asking your mother: "How should I call this big animal with long neck?" -- here, "big animal with long neck" is a (new) concept you have formed in your mind. Your mother replied: "We call it a giraffe." -- here, "giraffe" is a term that the people in your society usually append to the concept "big animal with long neck". 

.

Sometime, the toddlers invent/coin own terms to stand for the new concepts, and we have a phenomenon of toddler's language which is not understandable for adults.

.

Similarly, we have a concept "round eatable something", and then we append a term "apple" to it. And only afterwards we come to the concept "fruit". However, there is a problem with English language. In Ukrainian language we have two different words: 1) we talk about something that we reap, or about a result of our activity; and 2) we talk about fruit as a product of any fruit tree. I mean that the result of human activity cannot be termed as "fruit".

.

A collection of terms (written/spoken words, other sounds, signals, signs, gestures, formulas, pictures, hieroglyphs, etc.) constitutes a language as a means of communication. Depending on the terms being used we can talk about the different kinds of languages. So, we may talk about the language of words, the language of gestures, the language of music, the language of pictures, the language of dance, etc. 

.

If two people have similar concepts but they use different terms to stand for these concepts, then a translation is possible between the languages. However, if people use the same terms, but these terms stand for different concepts, then no translation is possible, and people cannot understand each other. By way of example, in Computer Science, the term "information" stands for physical signal, while in Consciousness Studies, the term "information" stands for the product of consciousness.

.

That is why I have asked Colin Morrison to fill in the blanks in the sentence "I use the term "consciousness" to stand for ...", because I have a suspicion that we use the same term which stands for different concepts, and that is why I cannot understand his ideas.

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

> please include a small glossary in your messages so that we can 

>refer to what you mean by your various abbreviations, and what 

>thought-processes they represent.

.

[S.P.] In Post Scriptum to my post I indicated that for the system of AS-DIS-DEC models see my post on August 7, 2017 given below. For example, I say: "associational model" (or AS-model for short); decompositional model (or DEC-model for short); dissociational model (or DIS-model for short). I provide a detailed explanation of the system of AS-DIS-DEC models in my various posts to this group (see, for example, my reply to you on August 7; see also my reply to John Jay Kineman on June 2, 2017; for your convenience, the correspondent text-files are attached below).

.

Thanks for your interest,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:15 PM

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com

[BMP]

Dear Serge

Namaste. Thank you for your response to my message.

In your example, ‘big,’ ‘animal,’ ‘long,’ and ‘neck’ are all concepts. Their unity as ‘giraffe’ is a composite concept.  The objects or object referred to are the objective side or reality of those concepts. So we can say that the ideality [subjective concept] and reality [objective content of those concepts] are both equally necessary for understanding when referring to an object. This is true for giraffes, apples, atoms, electrons, molecules, DNA, or anything else. Each of these objects has an associated concept inseparably accompanying them.

I realize that modern science and scientists do not recognize this double nature, which we may call the negative and positive nature of reality, when they talk about ‘scientific facts.’ It has long been the criticism of what is known as logical positivism in science that such a view ignores the negative or conceptual ideality that is essential to a comprehensive understanding of reality. It seems to me you may be misunderstanding reality within the intellectual framework of the same one-sided positivism.

Even if a person knows only apples, as you mentioned in a previous post, still the fact that many apples exist in the orchard means that they are all being referred to by the same name ‘apple.’ In other words, ‘apple’ does not just refer to a single object but to many objects, and that makes it a universal concept and not just an object. Similarly, even if you refer to a single object as a ‘round edible something’ each of those terms are concepts that are universally applicable to many different singular objects.

As far as being unable to come up with a word or concept to express a feeling or experience we may have – we will have to consider if that is a limitation on our part or on the object or content that produces that experience. An aboriginal native may have never seen or heard about an airplane in their culture. Upon seeing one they may not be able to express what it is except in relation to more familiar ideas like big birds.  Thus certain concepts may be lacking in specific cultures, but that does not mean that concepts don’t exist along with the objects or reality that belong to those concepts.

The concepts of consciousness and spirit do not belong to the system of mechanistic science as it has been cultivated over the past 200 years. Thus the attempt is made to comprehend them in terms of concepts they are familiar with but in fact do not apply to them. In orderto comprehend such new concepts for them they have to be willing to step outside of and beyond the framework in which their familiar concepts have limited them.

In my next post I will try to address your remarks concerning the relation between whole and parts.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

---

From: "'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:14 AM

[BMP]

Dear Serge

Namaste. Here is the second part of my post dealing with the whole and its parts.

 

Serge: When we talk about the Whole we take no interest in its parts at all.

BMP: If you are thinking of a whole as an immediate static object or geometric shape, then it’s determinate parts are excluded by the fact that you are thinking of it as an unmediated abstraction, i.e. as abstracted from its parts. However, a concrete whole [to distinguish it from an abstract whole] such as a triangle, does not merely consist of a shape but also, as its name implies, three angles as well as three sides. An organism is an even more complex whole because it is a dynamic, living whole. The very name itself implies an organization of parts/members.

The basic point I want to offer for consideration is that the two conceptions, immediate and mediate, are not separable models [as you prefer to call them] but are interpenetrating one another, in which it is not possible to conceive one without the other – what I call the logic of identity in difference. When the intellect conceives an object as an immediate [universal, indeterminate] whole separate from its mediate [determinate, particular] parts it is epistemologically abstracting  [artificially] from the original whole its essential ontological integrity.  This means there is no decomposition or dissociation occurring in thought or deed, only a neglect or ignorance of the implicit oneness in difference [wholeness in parts] that characterizes the original object in its actuality. This further implies that there is never a time when the concrete whole is not a oneness in difference, but is always and already one and different from its inception or conception.

There is yet another level to consider in all this [in fact there are many more, but we will only mention one here] and that is the dynamic or dialectical movement of thinking identity in difference, or oneness in difference, that attempts to articulate the very life of Reason in itself and in the world.

Serge:  I start from considering the living organism as a whole, and assume that it is an organism as a whole complex system that possesses its instance (or exemplar) of consciousness. In so doing, I may know nothing about what the organism consists of, or what parts/organs it can be decomposed into.

BMP: Now here you describe the organism as a whole that is a ‘whole complex system’ or what I call the concrete whole. But now you distinguish this concrete whole from consciousness which it possesses. However, if we consider the situation using the logic of identity in difference we can understand that what is called ‘consciousness’ is actually the concept of the object [whole body] and the body is the content of that concept/consciousness. If we try to separate the two, the body remains as a mere abstract existence or being while the concept seems to remain empty or devoid of its content.

 

To understand this situation more completely requires a more detailed knowledge of the logic and science of concepts. In that study we will find that the concepts are the real or eternal, and the existents are the ideal, which we can intuitively understand since existents vanish or do not endure after some time. This in turn means that the concepts [which we are calling consciousness] represent the potential or possible while the existential [body] represents their actualization. If the concept is the real or eternal then many possible bodies can be actualized, and thus we have the possibility of reincarnation that many of the ancients understood. Of course that is a very complex subject requiring knowledge of birth, growth, and death, viz. the concept of Life. Life is the middle or mediating term between consciousness and the body.

All this is completely unknown to the scientists who think only in terms of energy, matter, and information. It is likewise completely unknown to the abstract monists who recognize only the  indeterminate monolith of consciousness.

Sincerely,

B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.

Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute

http://bviscs.org

Facebook

 

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 8:57 AM

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Bhakti Madhava Puri on August 15, 2017 wrote:

> In your example, ‘big,’ ‘animal,’ ‘long,’ and ‘neck’ are all concepts. 

>Their unity as ‘giraffe’ is a composite concept.

.

[S.P.] You make a mistake as the one being made by Craig Weinberg, namely, you decompose the many-word term into parts/debris. The term "big animal with long neck" stands for a single whole concept. Any concept is a whole complex system -- it should not be decomposed into parts. 

.

Yes, there are other concepts too, like the concept{biggness (or being big)}, the concept{animalness (or being the animal)}, the concept{longiness (or being long)}, and the concept{neckness (or having the neck)}. But all these concepts pre-exist the concept{big animal with long neck} -- you already had these concepts in mind before visiting a zoo. These concepts are not the parts of which the concept{big animal with long neck} is "composed of". We should not try to compose the whole from the parts, and to talk about the "composite concepts".

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

>This is true for giraffes, apples, atoms, electrons, molecules, DNA, or 

>anything else. Each of these objects has an associated concept 

>inseparably accompanying them.

.

[S.P.] A concept -- it is a model that consciousness creates for us. A concept{giraffe} is a model of some entity as an element of Noumenal Reality. In so doing, the number of entities is much bigger than the number of concepts. There are such entities which we do not know even how to name yet. That is why we use the universal concept{something} to model such entities. 

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

>Even if a person knows only apples, as you mentioned in a previous post, 

>still the fact that many apples exist in the orchard means that they are all 

>being referred to by the same name ‘apple.’ In other words, ‘apple’ does 

>not just refer to a single object but to many objects, and that makes it a 

>universal concept and not just an object.

.

[S.P.] An "apple" is a term (composed of the typographic symbols "a", "p", "p", "l", "e") appended to a concept{round eatable something}. A concept{apple} is a model which our consciousness creates for us -- it is a model of some entity (object), but it is not an entity (object) itself. My argument is that the concept{fruit(s)} appears only after we visit a market where we can see many things which are "not-apples". We form a concept{fruit(s)} only after we realize that they are not only the apples that can grow on the trees. To the point, I still do not know whether the pineapple is a fruit or a vegetable and where it grows. :-)

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

>The concepts of consciousness and spirit do not belong to the system

> of mechanistic science...

.

[S.P.] That is why I say about the importance to construct a special meta-theory before trying to account for consciousness. A meta-theory (as a set of postulates) considers also the problem of constructing a language which can be used to talk about consciousness. Any language is a set of postulates. For example, can you prove why you call an apple an apple? No. Calling an apple an apple is a tradition which is accepted without proofs in the given society.

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] in another post wrote:

>But now you distinguish this concrete whole from consciousness

> which it possesses.

.

[S.P.] I just want to say that if we need fish we have to go to the riverside. A river -- it is a whole complex system from which fish can be got in principle. Similarly, if we need consciousness as an object of study, we have to consider the living organism. To look for consciousness in the brain is the same as to look for fish in a desert. 

.

Then, to "elicit" ("extract") consciousness as an object of study from the living organism, we have to formalize (to model) the living organism as a complex system which has such-and-such properties, describes by such-and-such characteristics, and obeys such-and-such laws of development. In other words, to get fish from the river we need a specially constructed tool called a fishing-rod. Similarly, to get/isolate consciousness as an object of study from the living organism we need special methods and models. And this is what my research is about.

.

[Bhakti Madhava Puri] wrote:

>All this is completely unknown to the scientists who think only 

>in terms of energy, matter, and information.

.

[S.P.] The problem here is that by "information" they mean "physical signals". We should not make a mistake and mix "information" with "physical signal". We should rather say that modern Science does not "think" in terms of "information" as a product of consciousness. Physics deals with events and processes where the activity of informational factor can be safely ignored.

.

Best,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: "'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
To: "Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 3:57 PM

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com