Dear Rudy,
At the moment I am open to all ideas about quantum mechanics, sentient observation and particle interactions. Perhaps you can elaborate what you mean by “fine line” .
With regards.
Kashyap
From: online_sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:online_sa...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Rudolph Tanzi
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 6:34 PM
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Cc: C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: C.s. Morrison, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia
Dear Kashyap,
I would think there may be a fine line between “sentient observation” of a human and “reaction to an interaction” of a particle in considering experiences that define realties.
Rudy
more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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/54567b44b5b54c25b7b55ddbb36919b5%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/C452218B-346F-4D2B-A5DF-6704CD191AC8%40gmail.com.
Dear Jack, Rudy and others,
Might I offer the alternative suggestion that anyone who does not understand the implications of DARWIN's theory doesn't understand consciousness. We don't know what consciousness is. But we do know that it is a highly complex instance of something that appears perfectly organised for some function - the encoding of sensory information (real or imagined) in a genetically evaluated way ( where by genetically evaluated I mean that situations that tend to be bad for our prospects of passing on our genes to future generations tend to give us unpleasant experiences whilst those that are good for those prospects tend to give us relatively pleasant ones (for most people most of the time)). Every example of such perfect organisation is explained as a product of positive natural selection.. The organisation in our consciousness ought therefore to be explained the same way. Each small step toward that organization must have had a beneficial effect upon our ancestors' chances of passing on their genes to future generations.
Just think what that means. Since we have no neuroscientific reason to expect visual data to be encoded in retinal-image-like forms anywhere in the human brain, the generators of colour qualia (whatever they are physically) must have been organised through natural selection to produce the colour qualia in these forms. This seems to me to imply that each point in our visual experience must be associated with a distinct output that the system we call our consciousness is generating. The effect of the different types of colour qualia that might appear there can then be understood as varying the probability of that output. For some reason it was beneficial for those colour-adjusted probabilities to vary across that space of potential outputs in a way that was more and more similar (even with colour constancy and the filled in blindspot, etc) to the patterns of light intensity variations across the retina. In my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER I have shown why such evolution would occur if we were the aspect of nature that selects the random outcomes of position measurements of a single quantum particle that the brain has adapted to introduce randomness into our attention-focussing process.
That is why my theory of Position Selecting Interactionism is likely to be the correct explanation. Only if a consciousness is positioning a physical effect at particular positions under the influence of its qualia are you ever going to explain how its colour qualia came to be organised into patterns resembling the patterns of particular wavebands of incident light interacting with the retina.
And if your theory can't explain that, no matter how much of Sutherland's maths you understand, you can't possibly have understood consciousness.
Best wishes,
Colin
If interested, my theory is detailed in my book
THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
Send from Huawei Y360
Which came first, consciousness or the brain?
The notion that consciousness emerged from complex brain computation is belied by the increasing number of mainstream scientists and philosophers who
resort to panpsychism, not to mention Eastern philosophers and quantum consciousness enthusiast who all agree, in various ways, that qualia and feelings existed before life.
If so, feelings (e.g. due to Penrose OR events) in the primordial soup may have prompted the origin of life, and driven its evolution. Behavior is based on reward (feelings,
not gene survival), including not only hedonism, but altruism and spirituality.
And I dont agree that consciousness is necessarily complex. What's complex about a toothache?
cheers
Stuart Hameroff
Dear Jack, Rudy and others,
Might I offer the alternative suggestion that anyone who does not understand the implications of DARWIN's theory doesn't understand consciousness.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/MMXP123MB087931E116D25C6AD3ACD0C2BADA0%40MMXP123MB0879.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
On Jun 21, 2017, at 11:39 AM, Rudy Tanzi <rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:I agree that species-specific perception must serve and be driven by survival taking on properties of a self-organizing system. Comparing bacteria to humans, we know there is much more to perceive than than that of bacteria reacting to attractant and repellents. Likewise, we would have to say the same about ourselves if weconsider alternately evolved beings that we are not capable of perceiving.
In perception, our senses bring us feelings of reward or punishment that serve survival. Our memories of reward and punishment become desires and fears, respectively. When these fears and desires become obligatory for survival, they eventually become genetically programmed instincts via a process that is partly Darwinian and partly epigenetic. The intellectual brain then strategizes, recapitulates, and projects around our instincts and acquired fears and desires, the bases of all emotions, to create rational thought and imagination.
The heated debate arises when we consider the "true" nature of what is actually being perceived and processed by the brain in what we call consciousness.
Most argue it is input from a purely physical world that is evolving. Others say it is pure awareness becoming aware of itself in self-organizing systems such as humans or bacteria. Some argue the only output of awareness is information that further modifies awareness in the absence of a physical substrate.
The question is how can we do the experiments needed to address these possibilities using a scientific method.
Those tapping into the intuition afforded by deep meditation may argue why bother with the science at all.
The reply to that is intuition and meditation are entirely personal in terms of the answers they bring. But, science makes it universal for all of those who care to learn.
(My apologies to any on this list who do not wish to receive my emails)
On Jun 21, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Rudolph Tanzi <rudy...@gmail.com> wrote:Jack:Regarding the interchange below, if the "key nouns" are all defend as "mathematical objects", then how does a non-mathematician try to understand this without the terms I used or similar ones?Rudy
Most argue it is input from a purely physical world that is evolving. Others say it is pure awareness becoming aware of itself in self-organizing systems such as humans or bacteria. Some argue the only output of awareness is information that further modifies awareness in the absence of a physical substrate.Scientifically meaningless .Too vague, not testable. Your key nouns "input", "awareness" "information" are not properly defined in any Popper-falsifiable way. This is in contrast to PQM in which your key nouns are all defined in terms of mathematical objects that are part of the battle-tested action principle (Lagrangians etc) of theoretical physics that are empirically Popper falsifiable in principle.On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:31 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jsar...@aol.com> wrote:Most argue it is input from a purely physical world that is evolving. Others say it is pure awareness becoming aware of itself in self-organizing systems such as humans or bacteria. Some argue the only output of awareness is information that further modifies awareness in the absence of a physical substrate.Scientifically meaningless .Too vague, not testable. Your key nouns "input", "awareness" "information" are not properly defined in any Popper-falsifiable way. This is in contrast to PQM in which your key nouns are all defined in terms of mathematical objects that are part of the battle-tested action principle (Lagrangians etc) of theoretical physics that are empirically Popper falsifiable in principle.
Dr. Rudolph E. TanziJoseph. P. and Rose F. Kennedy Professor of NeurologyHarvard Medical SchoolVice-Chair, Neurology; Director, Genetics and Aging Research UnitMassachusetts General Hospital114 16th StreetCharlestown, MA, 02129My new TED talk:(Curing Alzheimer’s with Science and Song)My Music: https://www.numberonemusic.com/rudytanzi
Dear Stuart,
The complex thing about a tooth ache is the fact that it is felt to occur in a particular tooth. In fact it is felt to occur in a tooth that's damaged! Need I say more! That is an incredibly precise piece of qualia engineering. So how does the brain accomplish this feat? How can it match the searing pain with the feeling of that tooth or at least that location in the set of feelings we call our mouth? How does Orch OR solve that problem? My theory of Position Selecting Interactionism published in my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER does explain this fact. It tells us why damage should be represented in very intense unpleasant sensations, and it tells us why the system that underlies human consciousness in my theory (a single quantum particle confined in a structure that regularly measures its position) would evolve in a way that makes representations of damage feel like they are occurring in the correct part of the body.
Anyway, in my view consciousness has been around from day one. It is in my view the essence of a single particle. But the experiences of these consciousnesses are nothing like the highly organised consciousness that we constitute. They essentially consist of the infinite set of potential positions of the particle each of which is represented in qualia caused by other conscious particles whose intensity determines how likely the consciousness of the particle is to select that location according to the Born rule. It takes a vast amount of positive natural selection to produce the structures that make a single particle with this sort of experience feel like it is the whole organism in whose brain it resides and participates.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
Body ------------> Awareness ----------> Consciousness
(Firstness) (Secondness) (Thirdness)
<Experience (E)>
<Subjective E>
<Objective E>
<Information (I)>
<Physical I>
<Mental I>
[Object] [Sign] [Interpretant]
| ^
| |
|____________________________________|
h
Figure 10.34. A possible distinction between 'Awareness' and
'Consciousness' within the context of the Peircean principle of ITR (Irreducible
Triadic Relation; Chapter 9). The
symbol, "A ---> B",
can be read as "A determines B", "B presupposes A", or
"B supervenes on A", etc. f = physical or physiological
process; g = mental process; h = information
flow resulting from historical and/or social selection processes. E = Energy; I = Information. Reproduced from Section 10.22 in [1].
The ITR diagram (also called the ITR template) can be read in two complementary ways -- synchornically and diachronically -- the concepts imported from linguistics.
Reading Figure 10.34 diachronically suggests that body emerges first and then awareness followed by consciousness, which may provide a possible answer to the question raised by Stuart.
In passing, it is interesting to note that the synchronic reading of Figure 10.34 would suggest that body, awareness, and consciousness are the different aspects of the same entity X that can be referred to as any one of the three elements of the triad, consciousness, awareness or body (due to the irreducibility), with equal validity, depending on the convenience of thought. In other words, the naming of X is arbitrary from the semiotic point of view.
Finally, one challenging question raised by Figure 10.34 is whether or not Body can be entities other than living organisms such as humans. For example, can Body be elementary particles ? In other words, can elementary particles be conscious ? The easier question to answer would be "Can ITR be applied to abiotic entities ?". The answer to this question is yes, in my opinion. I have reasonalbe evidence that ITR applies to all self-organizng chemical reactions such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction (see Figure 9.8 in [1]). If someone can prove that ITR applies to elementary particles, that would validate the the prediction recently made by Josephson in [5]:
"Semiotics will eventually overtake quantum mechanics in the same way as quantum mechanics overtook classical physics."
For the convenience of future discussions, I took the liberty of referring to this statement as the Josephson conjecture [1, Statement (4.8)].
With all the best.
Sung
References:
[1] S. Ji (2017) The Cell Language Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter. World Scientific, New Jersey (in press).
[2] Ji, S. (2016). WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN PHYSICS AND BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES. Symmetry: Science and Culture 27 (2): 99-127 (2016). http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_SymmetryFestival_2016.pdf
[3] Ji, S. (2015). Planckian distributions in molecular machines, living cells, and brains: The wave-particle duality in biomedical sciences. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Biology and Biomedical Engineering, Vienna, March 15-17, 2015. Pp. 115-137. http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vienna_2015.pdf
[4]Ji, S. (2015). PLANCKIAN INFORMATION (IP): A NEW MEASURE OF ORDER IN ATOMS, ENZYMES, CELLS, BRAINS, HUMAN SOCIETIES, AND THE COSMOS. In: Unified Field Mechanics: Natural Science beyond the Veil of Spacetime (Amoroso, R., Rowlands, P., and Kauffman, L. eds.), World Scientific, New Jersey, 2015, pp. 579-589). http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/PDE_Vigier9.pdf
[5] Josephson, B. (2016). Biological Organization as the True Foundation of Reality. http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/2277379.
Dear Stuart,
The complex thing about a tooth ache is the fact that it is felt to occur in a particular tooth. In fact it is felt to occur in a tooth that's damaged! Need I say more! That is an incredibly precise piece of qualia engineering. So how does the brain accomplish this feat? How can it match the searing pain with the feeling of that tooth or at least that location in the set of feelings we call our mouth? How does Orch OR solve that problem? My theory of Position Selecting Interactionism published in my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER does explain this fact. It tells us why damage should be represented in very intense unpleasant sensations, and it tells us why the system that underlies human consciousness in my theory (a single quantum particle confined in a structure that regularly measures its position) would evolve in a way that makes representations of damage feel like they are occurring in the correct part of the body.
Anyway, in my view consciousness has been around from day one. It is in my view the essence of a single particle. But the experiences of these consciousnesses are nothing like the highly organised consciousness that we constitute. They essentially consist of the infinite set of potential positions of the particle each of which is represented in qualia caused by other conscious particles whose intensity determines how likely the consciousness of the particle is to select that location according to the Born rule. It takes a vast amount of positive natural selection to produce the structures that make a single particle with this sort of experience feel like it is the whole organism in whose brain it resides and participates.
Best wishes,
Colin
C. S. Morrison - Author of THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
Send from Huawei Y360
On 21 Jun 2017 18:43, "Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff)" <hame...@email.arizona.edu> wrote:
Which came first, consciousness or the brain?
The notion that consciousness emerged from complex brain computation is belied by the increasing number of mainstream scientists and philosophers who
resort to panpsychism, not to mention Eastern philosophers and quantum consciousness enthusiast who all agree, in various ways, that qualia and feelings existed before life.
If so, feelings (e.g. due to Penrose OR events) in the primordial soup may have prompted the origin of life, and driven its evolution. Behavior is based on reward (feelings,
not gene survival), including not only hedonism, but altruism and spirituality.
And I dont agree that consciousness is necessarily complex. What's complex about a toothache?
cheers
Stuart Hameroff
From: online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com <online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com> on behalf of C. S. Morrison <cs...@hotmail.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:25 AM
To: Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com; 'JACK SARFATTI' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D.; online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Rudolph Tanzi, RE: C.s. Morrison, RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Physics and qualia
Dear Jack, Rudy and others,
Might I offer the alternative suggestion that anyone who does not understand the implications of DARWIN's theory doesn't understand consciousness. We don't know what consciousness is. But we do know that it is a highly complex instance of something that appears perfectly organised for some function - the encoding of sensory information (real or imagined) in a genetically evaluated way ( where by genetically evaluated I mean that situations that tend to be bad for our prospects of passing on our genes to future generations tend to give us unpleasant experiences whilst those that are good for those prospects tend to give us relatively pleasant ones (for most people most of the time)). Every example of such perfect organisation is explained as a product of positive natural selection.. The organisation in our consciousness ought therefore to be explained the same way. Each small step toward that organization must have had a beneficial effect upon our ancestors' chances of passing on their genes to future generations.
Just think what that means. Since we have no neuroscientific reason to expect visual data to be encoded in retinal-image-like forms anywhere in the human brain, the generators of colour qualia (whatever they are physically) must have been organised through natural selection to produce the colour qualia in these forms. This seems to me to imply that each point in our visual experience must be associated with a distinct output that the system we call our consciousness is generating. The effect of the different types of colour qualia that might appear there can then be understood as varying the probability of that output. For some reason it was beneficial for those colour-adjusted probabilities to vary across that space of potential outputs in a way that was more and more similar (even with colour constancy and the filled in blindspot, etc) to the patterns of light intensity variations across the retina. In my book THE BLIND MINDMAKER I have shown why such evolution would occur if we were the aspect of nature that selects the random outcomes of position measurements of a single quantum particle that the brain has adapted to introduce randomness into our attention-focussing process.
That is why my theory of Position Selecting Interactionism is likely to be the correct explanation. Only if a consciousness is positioning a physical effect at particular positions under the influence of its qualia are you ever going to explain how its colour qualia came to be organised into patterns resembling the patterns of particular wavebands of incident light interacting with the retina.
And if your theory can't explain that, no matter how much of Sutherland's maths you understand, you can't possibly have understood consciousness.
Best wishes,
ColinIf interested, my theory is detailed in my book
THE BLIND MINDMAKER: Explaining Consciousness without Magic or Misrepresentation
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Mindmaker-Explaining-Consciousness-Misrepresentation/dp/1541283953
Send from Huawei Y360
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/54567b44b5b54c25b7b55ddbb36919b5%40IN-CCI-EX03.ads.iu.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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/C452218B-346F-4D2B-A5DF-6704CD191AC8%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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/161ED08C-CAA9-433E-8D17-B8C517358B3B%40aol.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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/MMXP123MB087931E116D25C6AD3ACD0C2BADA0%40MMXP123MB0879.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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/1498064464041.5113%40email.arizona.edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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/MMXP123MB087979DC2F1BFF89FD1FD83CBADA0%40MMXP123MB0879.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
It's a most absorbing discussion that has raised the following questions and points in my mind, and i hope members of this group will please help provide some answers.
1. To what extent do we share identical or similar definitions of "consciousness" and "mind"? Hopefully, we agree (almost?) completely about the "brain" as a physical object.
2. In any case, all of us clearly and unambiguously observe that there are conditions, laws and rules (CLaR) that operate in our Universe, and should be so in others (multiverses) too. Even the absence of CLaR (anywhere) will automatically and trivially dictate a primal or root CLaR specifying so. On the contrary, is "nothingness" feasible at all anywhere, anytime? These CLaR inter alia relate to all aspects of our lives, physical, mental and beyond, if any. So, what is the primal or root source of these CLaR?
3. There have been some points earlier about primal or root randomness. However, as mentioned above, even this should arise from the corresponding CLaR. All models and theories dealing with QM and its interpretations, however fine they may be, must eventually
meet head on with CLaR and their eventual single source.
4. Let's note that CLaR are not physical in themselves, but do have a strong presence by manifesting in and through our physical Universe. Clearly, the CLaR must precede any physical manifestation.
Which came first, consciousness or the brain?
The notion that consciousness emerged from complex brain computation is belied by the increasing number of mainstream scientists and philosophers who
resort to panpsychism, not to mention Eastern philosophers and quantum consciousness enthusiast who all agree, in various ways, that qualia and feelings existed before life.
If so, feelings (e.g. due to Penrose OR events) in the primordial soup may have prompted the origin of life, and driven its evolution. Behavior is based on reward (feelings,not gene survival), including not only hedonism, but altruism and spirituality.
And I dont agree that consciousness is necessarily complex. What's complex about a toothache?
cheers
Stuart Hameroff
To view this discussion on the web visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/MMXP123MB087931E116D25C6AD3ACD0C2BADA0%40MMXP123MB0879.GBRP123.PROD.OUTLOOK.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_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/1498064464041.5113%40email.arizona.edu.
Excellent points. Hence my own interest in the semiotics of CS Peirce, where the potential for this kind of thinking is ripe for further development. Firstness, secondness and thirdness, perhaps understood in the context of motivation, association and habituation respectively, are relevant to any entity that makes choices from an ecosystem. This opens up the narrative to explore concepts like nothingness, void, space, etc. At its most primal, for example… what are the laws that “motivate” a virtual particle of the quantum void to become a matter particle that persists across time?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1498124084097.74606%40iitm.ac.in.