"Science follows from Shastras, and not the other way around", as mentioned by Shree Swami Paramananda Bharathi Ji, With Online_Sadhu_Sanga & members, on 2026 March 28, and more, see below
Thirumala Raya Halemane
From: Thirumala Raya Halemane <trhal...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 28, 2026 at 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Darwin's theory is Problematic and incompatible idealization of Reality
To: <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk>, C M S Dass <cms...@gmail.com>, Brajagopal dasa <rad...@gmail.com>, Basudeba Mishra <mishra....@gmail.com>, Bhakti Madhava Puri <bmadha...@gmail.com>, Anirban Bandyopadhyay <anirban...@gmail.com>, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>, Stephen Jarosek <sjar...@iinet.net.au>, Tanzi Rudolph E <TA...@helix.mgh.harvard.edu>, <hame...@email.arizona.edu>, Deepak Chopra <nonlo...@chopra.com>, Kurt Grimm <kgr...@eos.ubc.ca>, Alfredo Tifi <alfred...@gmail.com>, Alex Hankey <alexh...@gmail.com>, Richard Hunt <ribi...@gmail.com>, Leslie S <le...@bu.edu>, Mark McMenamin <mmcm...@mtholyoke.edu>, berthault.guy <bertha...@orange.fr>, Peter Wilders <wilder...@gmail.com>, Bhakti Vijnana Muni PhD <b...@scsiscs.org>
Cc: Shilpi Halemane <shi...@gmail.com>, Kavi Halemane <khal...@gmail.com>, Usha Halemane <uhal...@gmail.com>, Halemane Usha <usha.h...@diag.bracco.com>, Keshava PRASAD Halemane <K.Pra...@gmail.com>, Udaya Bhanu Halemane <Udaya.Bhan...@gmail.com>, Usha Ammankallu <ushaamm...@gmail.com>, Rajendra Halemane <hale...@gmail.com>, Ravi Bhat Halemane <ravibh...@gmail.com>, Ravi Bhat Halemane <madhur...@gmail.com>, keshavaprasad s <mithaja...@gmail.com>, Vijaya Subrahmanya <vijikar...@gmail.com>, Thirumala Halemane <raya...@yahoo.com>, Thirumala Halemane <trhal...@outlook.com>
--
Sorry for a late answer but I have had the flu. First of all thank you for your very careful and insightful reading and interpretation of my long paper. I will make comments in the text, where my meaning diverge from your interpretation.
Peace
Søren
Fra: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com] På vegne af Bhakti Vijnana Muni, PhD
Sendt: 19. februar 2016 17:08
Til: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: SV: [Sadhu Sanga] Darwin's theory is Problematic and incompatible idealization of Reality
Dear Soren Brier,
Namaste. It was nice to read your paper [1] that you have referred in your email. From reading it we get some impressions which we will try to address. Your view is aligned to the non-dualist views of Sripad Sankaracharya. For developing a worldview towards the question of evolution, you admit that Darwinian view does not have enough explanatory power [2].
However when we take from the Vedantic view we must try to be aware of the full development and significance of the Philosophical Thinking in Vedanta. Sripad Sankaracharya fulfills only a necessary need at a particular time, place and focused at a particular audience. Before the full fledged concept of theism could be reintroduced in India in its full fledged glory, the voidism of Buddhism needed to be critiqued and that great service has been done by Sripad Adi Sankaracharya. And that is why he is a teacher to whom all Vedantists are indebted forever. THIS IS WHERE I FIND THE STRENGTH IN THE COMMON GRUND OF SHANKARA, NAGAJUNA AND MEISTER ECKHART AND THROUGH PEIRCE’S PHILOSOPHY SEE A WAY TO MAKE THIS ENCOMPASS WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM SCIENCE SO FAR WITHOUT CROSSING THE LINE INTO WORSHIPPING RELIGION http://www.transpersonalstudies.org/ImagesRepository/ijts/Downloads/A%20Peircean%20Panentheist%20Scientific%20Mysticism.pdf . I AM AWARE THAT YOU CONSIDER THIS AN FURTHER ADVANCED STEP BUT I AM NOT SURE IT CAN BE COMPATIBLE WITH OUR PRESENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
In Scientific education there are teachers for class 1 and then for class 2 and like that for graduation and also there are still higher teachings that lead to a PhD. Then why not the same can be true in the development of the Spiritual and Vedantic thought? Why should we think that we as Mankind are able to grasp the entirety of all the spiritual teachings from only one teacher? Therefore in the Vedantic thought if we neglect the further development brought in by Sripad Ramanujacharya, Sripad Madhvacharya, Sripad Vishnuswami, Sripad Nimbarka Acharya and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, I AM NOT VERSED IN THESE TEACHINGS we will miss its most essential concept which is the full fledged theistic concept, which has been taught in its topmost glory in the soil of India. I THING WE NEED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY AND SPIRITUAL TEACHING
The Absolute Truth is not an Indeterminate Truth. Further Brahman is not the same as atman or the individual soul. BUT THIS IS THE BASEIS FOR MOST PURE MYTICISM AND ADVAITA VEDANTA. The world is a perverted ???? reflection of the spiritual world. It has been compared to an imperishable tree whose roots are upwards. But this does not mean that the individual soul is an illusion. All these topics have been conclusively proven by the great sage Srila Vysasadeva when he explained that ‘It is Not Impossible to Describe the Brahman or the non-dual Absolute Truth’ I DO NOT SEE THE CONNECTION in his composition that is well known as Vedanta Sutra. Further he clarified all the topics of Vedanta sutra in his own commentary which is well known as Srimad Bhagavatam, which is considered as the authentic explanation of Vedanta Sutra.
Logic of Pierce as discussed by your kind self: Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness
From a semiotic understanding in Pierce’s philosophy, you have tried to explain a philosophy of evolution in this paper. You have specified that it is not an atomic materialism. As mentioned by you it is a process philosophy which goes beyond both material-deterministic mechanism as well as pure chance indeterminism and Cartesian dualism [3]. You have explained that Peirce achieved this by creating a pragmaticist and semiotic framework of trans-disciplinary cognition, communication and knowledge development through the three new philosophical categories, viz., conceptions of First, Second and the Third. The First is the being or the conception of existing independent of everything else, the Second is the conception of being relative to or the reaction. And the Third is the conception of mediation where, by the First and the Second, it is brought into relation. About biology you quote Pierce, “In biology, the idea of arbitrary sporting is First, heredity is Second, the process whereby the accidental characters become fixed is Third. Chance is First, Law is Second, the tendency to take habits is Third.” And this is Peirce’s principle of Cosmogonic Philosophy, which is a model for the coming into being or existence of Universe and the sentient beings [3, 4]. YES
However in highlighting these it might have been important to mention that Peirce had retrieved the final causation of Aristotle within his framework. It is the modern scientists who do not include telos or final causation in their mechanical framework because they think it is in conflict with the efficient causation as well as it brings the idea that somehow the future effects the present (i.e. reversing the temporal order). Peirce thinks that the modern neglect of final causation is due to nominalism. It was a doctrine that he tried to overcome all his life. He says, “… the non-recognition of final causation … has been and still is productive of more philosophical error and nonsense than any or every other source of error or nonsense. If there is any goddess of nonsense, this must be her haunt [5].” For many people final cause as a purpose in human is somewhat acceptable but they just cannot harmonize the concept of final cause as an end, for in this case it would mean that nature itself has a purpose. AND TELOS IS NOT SOMEHTING LIKE A CONSCOUS PERSONS INTENTION . PEIRCE AVOIDS THE PERSONIFICATION OF THE DIVINE WHICH YOU CONSIDER THE HIGHIST KNOWLEDGE Peirce was very fond of Aristotle’s idea of dynamis (dunamis) and energeia (actuality). For Aristotle dynamis is always used together with and as opposed to energeia. Peirce said that these concepts of causation of Aristotle, "has proved marvelously fecund.[6]"
There is a unity in causation among these four aspects. Because dynamis and energeia are always together and opposed to each other, it proves the inherent unity of the four kinds of causes of Aristotle. Modern concept of mechanism attempts to break this unity. Yet it is a fact that final cause remains integral and hidden foundation of all causal explanations including mechanisms. In this regard Peirce says, “Efficient causation without final causation, however, is worse than helpless, by far; it is mere chaos; and chaos is not even so much as chaos, without final causation: it is blank nothing…."an efficient cause, detached from a final cause in the form of aw, would not even possess efficiency.” This is one of the main reasons why Darwin’s theory of evolution lacks the explanatory power as noted by you also [2].
As far as the Firstness, it is explained many a times as pure chance (albeit of a mental kind), Peirce meant as a pure uncaused event (not a mechanical event). By pure chance he explained, “pure spontaneity or life as a character of the universe, acting always and everywhere though restrained within the narrow bounds by law, producing infinitesimal departures from law continually, and great ones with infinite infrequency, I account for all the variety and diversity of the universe, in the only sense in which the really sui generis and new can be accounted for. [7]” He expresses such an opinion in his treatise the doctrine of necessity in which he proposed to examine the common belief that every single event in nature is precisely determined by law. YES
This is a very important observation of Peirce because from even the Vedantic worldview life is not described as an inferior material phenomenon. Rather life is explained as the principle of self-determination and is produced from the superior energy of Brahman. Therefore Brahman has internal qualities and self-determinations and is not an utter indeterminate reality. Life is not a result of the permutation and combination of atoms, molecules or waves or Laws of material nature. Therefore life can’t be SUFFICIENTLY described by chemistry, physics or mathematics. Even Quantum Mechanics is not an explanation for life because it is has a deterministic expression (Schrödinger equation) for reality. AGREE
Thus it becomes very important to understand that according to Peirce no event is actually fully determined by law. There is an element of irreducible novelty in each and every event. Conclusion is that Reality can never be explained in terms of deterministic laws and we need the concept of life to even begin the process of Reality and the process of Universe. Modern science must examine its principle of causality as it is incomplete without including the life processes as being fundamental to causation especially by reexamining and realizing that causality as explained by Aristotle is an inseparable unity of final cause, formal cause, efficient cause and material cause. Aristotle’s hylomorphism relation to evolution does not account for new as hylomorphism does not admit accidental events (forms). The evidence is not there that forms diverge, rather they continue within the bounds of their concept (species). THIS IS WHERE I FIND PEIRCE A DEVELOPMENT OF ARISTOTLE IN THAT HE INCORPORATES A COMPLEX UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION MAKING ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY PART OF A TRUE SEMIOTIC PROCESS PHILOSOPHY.
Peirce defines Firstness as “the mode of being of that which is such as it is, positively and without reference to anything else.” Needless to say, many have interpreted this according to monistic views. However Spinoza properly understood the concept of the Absolute Substance as Causa Sui or which is self caused. But this need not mean that it is a monistic substance. Hegel defined the Absolute as By Itself and For Itself. The concept of self determination is the characteristic of all life. Life is its own principle. IN MODERN SYSTEM SCIENCE IT IS KNOWN AS SELF-ORGANIZATION AND AUTOPOIESIS Free will, choice, self determination can never be explained in terms of laws. BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME In Vedanta the definition of Absolute is that which is cause of all causes and He is the cause of Himself. For the Absolute, there is no cause outside of itself for its being. He is therefore ?????? not only Substance but also He is Personal. Thus the Firstness of Peirce can never be extended to any monistic being or substance????. This will be clearer when we study the development of Vedantic Philosophy in India after Shankar. Shankar was successfully well critiqued by all the subsequent acharyas of Vedanta shastra. I HAVE NOT FAMILIARIZED MY SELF WITH THIS SPECIFIC BRANCH OF DEVELOPMENT AFTER SHANKARA. THERE ARE MANY OTHERS AS FAR AS I KNOW. ANYWAY I THINK YOU GO BEYOND PEIRCE’S VIEW TO PREACH YOU OWN RELIGION. PEIRCE DID THINK OF HIS TRIADIC PHILOSOPHY AS A KIND OF MONISM LIKE THE CHRISTIAN THRINITY PHILOSOPHY
Concept of Tychism and Manifestation of World from Pure Chance
As explained by you, Tychism is the doctrine of absolute chance as a factor in the universe. You have also noted Pierce statement that there are critics who cannot accept the Firstness of things that are perfectly dead and material. Peirce says he is with these critics. He states very clearly that whatever is First is Ipso facto Sentient. So from here you have deduced quite correctly that Pierce’s Firstness is quite apart from the modern scientific ontological physicalism that posits matter as the ultimate reality. So the Firstness of Chaos is not just a turmoil of possibilities but also of emotions as qualia. YES
From here you proceed to build an objective idealist ontology. So tychism admits the Firstness of emotions as qualia is the source of evolutionary cosmology in Peirce’s worldview. In this all the regularities of mind and nature are regarded as products of growth. This holds matter to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind. So accordingly you mention that Peirce’s semiotic pragmaticism is a unique transdisciplinary framework that encompasses science and spirituality without compromising any one of them – Logic, Natural Science and the holistic evolutionary process philosophy. So his idea is quite opposite to that of the mechanists who start with universal laws and try to explain everything by applying initial conditions upon them. For Peirce it is therefore ‘law’ that rather needs to be explained, i.e. the explanation must consist in showing how law is developed out of pure chance, irregularity, and indeterminacy. Then you explain that the category of Firstness is prone to lead to Tychism and that is necessary to establish the evolutionary ontology. Thus law in modern science cannot be viewed as absolute orderliness but only a certain degree of regularity that Peirce calls habit taking in cosmogony. THANKS. A VERY GOOD INTERPRETATION. SEE AL SO LEE SMOLINS BOOK TIME REBORN.
Thus what this means is that pure chance (Firstness) is inherent with a tendency to take habit. Then the Firstness which is total freedom seems to be almost outside time and space. Now here you make some vital propositions about Firstness and possibility. You say it can go through all possible forms without any hindrance leading to the scenario of the creation of a manifest world with its developing atoms and things that are regulated by habits. But what is not clear is the detailed nature of the Firstness, which you think must be indeterminate. But the details about the internal determinateness of this Firstness is not well probed here, while it is well taken that it is not determined by any externality or law. PERICE SE FIRSTNESS AS PURE SPONTANIETY AND A BASIC UNEXPLAINABLE ASPECT OF REALITY, WHICH IS PRETTY CLOSE TO MODERN QUANTUM PHYSICS VIEW OF THE ACTIVITY OF THE VACUUM FIELD.
In this philosophy, habits appears almost as universal laws although the laws themselves are still developing. There is no cause or reason behind the creation of a manifest world from a Firstness of all possibilities. The only thing is that a manifested universe is a possibility among many that is tested. These leads to the manifestation of concrete phenomenon like force and will, which is Secondness and they are the immediate differences between phenomenon and things. This is called haecceity by Peirce that indicates the arbitrary here and now-ness of existence, for example a person’s or object’s this-ness which are facts based upon relations and cannot be themselves further explained in terms of individual phenomenon. All these deductions are from YOUR INTERPREATION OF Vedantic viewpoint inconsistent in many ways.
From the Vedantic viewpoint, the category of law indicates a lawmaker. Thus behind the laws of nature there is a rational domain and it is thought, which is foundational. THIS IS WHERE YOU DIVERGE FROM PEIRCE AND WHERE PEIRCE MANAGES TO STAY WITHIN AN ENLARGED VIEW OF SCIENCE BROARDLY UNDERSTOOD. Vedanta explains that Brahman is Raso vai sah or the Abode or the Nectarean Ocean of All Transcendental Mellows. Brahman is highly personal truth. But the realizations of sages are different and so they sometimes describe Brahman from their partial realizations and different ways which are not always equipped to clarify the full aspect of the revealed truth. Hence it is the advice of Srila Vyasadeva, the great sage that a sincere inquisitive student must take up the comparative study of Vedantic literature and gradually he will discover hidden jewels and higher and higher aspects of truth by mercy of the Supreme because it is the nature of the Supreme to help everyone. In Peirce the laws of nature are often compared to habit. But that does not explain the finer aspects of reality like the rising of Sun from east and seasons and nature of consciousness. The laws should not be taken as something that merely becomes fixed by some regularities in nature. PEIRCE’S VIEW OF NATURE IS BIGGER THAN SCIENCE VIEW OF NATURE In the Bhagavad Gita the Lord clearly mentions that nature is being governed under His directions. However the idea can be adjusted by understanding that the laws are subordinate to the Personal truth. However that does not mean that tiny living entities like us can be the lawmakers of Nature. We are dependent principle on a higher life principle. But the Absolute Truth is only Independent Real and therefore all laws are sanctioned by Him. Everything - life or material principle follows His directives.
You talk about something called evolutionary love (agapism) with respect to divine. However the explanation of love is that these are directives about the essence of one’s own being. Since Peirce talked about such an idea it is indeed very interesting. In Vedanta also Srila Sridhar Maharaja talked about the subjective evolution of consciousness [19]. So it is the consciousness of the living entity which is evolving and not the bodies. The essential being is the thinking, willing and feeling being. Therefore if we must talk about evolution, then it must be the evolution of our thought. WITH PEIRCE I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO TALK ABOUT BOTH Our thought must come to harmony with the divine and only in that sense Vedanta talks about the principle of evolution. The world is not controlled by chance of Darwin. And from Peirce we can only gather that his idea of the pure chance or Firstness has the being of the quality of life, which is not determined by any law that is external to it. Then this has to have the nature of free will I AM NOT SURE ONF THIS INTERPREATATION !!. Vedanta offers many insights by which such principles of philosophers can be properly harmonized. The idea of Firstness indicates something of the superiority of life but it does not yet explain the full diversity of the phenomenon of life. So we need more directions about the nature of life. TRUE, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IN PEIRCEAN BIOSEMIOTICS
These explanations would require a greater detail of understanding about the nature of the Firstness itself. Peirce has already accepted Final Cause in his logic. These classical concepts of teleology had been articulated by Plato. Further they have been very clearly explained by Aristotle. PIERCE PLACES HIS SEMIOTICS BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE ADDING MODERN SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTIONARY THEORY INSPIRED BY HEGEL’S DIALECTICS AND FINALLY INTEGRATING MODERN SCIENCE As we have already explained Peirce tried his whole life overcoming the dismissal of the final cause. Peirce tried to overcome the doctrine of necessatarism or determinism when he talked about absolute chance. Teleology in Peirce’s definition is clearly against the deterministic doctrine of mechanism. This anti necessatarism he called as Tychism. Therefore we need to understand that this has meaning with respect to the pure spontaneity which is the characteristic of life and not of deadened matter. Thus to clearly understand tychism we are forced to understand the deeper explanation of life means. Spinoza with whose concepts Peirce was well influenced explained the Absolute Substance as Causa Sui or which is self determined or which has no cause outside of itself. YES.
Quantum Mechanics and Tychism
Now you draw a similarity with modern quantum mechanics here. You explain that particles-waves have only certain probability or tendency to exist when measured and this aspect is described more lawfully than any other physical processes that we know of. However we cannot describe the actual individual phenomenon any better. Thus it is not possible to talk of say an individual particle in nature. We can’t talk about particles in any absolute sense. For such material principles the law applies to a measurement that is applied to an actual huge ensemble. This is Secondness and is closer to the concept of Haecceity of Peirce, which are unexplainable in terms of individual or singular events. Quantum mechanics can only posit a probabilistic model for these thousands of events and this would be the Thirdness of Peirce’s model. The single event is undeterminable in terms of Quantum mechanics and thus breaks from the Classical Physics and in this way comes closer to Peirce’s paradigm. We would like to add here that modern quantum mechanics has shown that naïve realism is not an explanation of the observed phenomenon. The observer and the observed are inseparable. The famous Copenhagen which is till date the best explanation for QM, explains that the wave function describes our knowledge of the electron and not the electron directly. Further the Zeilinger issues ???? have come to question any naive realistic interpretation of QM. That means the laws are applicable to matter within limits and are not absolute in themselves. However this does not mean that there is no individuality as experienced in life. QM per say is not a theory of life. Further the laws do not explain life as they cannot be applied to the principle of self determination. This only means that we need a more conceptual understanding of life. Yet it is not an explanation to say Reality is unexplainable. The Firstness of reality is of the quality of life or pure spontaneity and not caused by matter: that much can be agreed. THANKS A very good interpretation. This is why the cybersemiotic start combines the natural sciences with the life science, the social sciences and the phenomenological view from within consciousness through triadic semiotics.
The empiricist philosophy claims that our ideas come from direct experience of things or the idea of logical positivism. You have quite correctly said w.r.t logical positivism, “It implies individual piece of data can be known directly in themselves without the knowledge of associated concepts. This form of modern logical positivism which you term in your article as modern dataism is definitely quashed by the development of concepts of QM. I AM NOT SURE THIS IS THE SAME ARGUMENT AND PHENOMENON BUT IT IS INTERESTING TO PONDER AS THE POSITIVST THING IS MORE AND ARGUMENT FOR THE NEED OF A PHILOSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC VOCABULARY IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE PHENOMENA IN THE WORLD We cannot talk about one particle or even many particle systems. Rather in the quantum field theory the particles of nature are considered as quanta of relativistic quantum fields.
Here you bring in the idea of the contrast contained in the concept of synechism, a philosophical term proposed by Peirce. The world's foundation is a plenum or field where everything is connected to everything else in hyper complexity implying all knowledge is fallible. Therefore Truth is a possibility through science and is an ideal limit where the irritation of doubt becomes settled with the means we have. Therefore truth will always be provisional.
You have also clarified that the core of Peirce’s philosophy is semiotics which is a sign process of reasoning connecting our “inner” and “outer” worlds. This view also contrasts Peirce away from Kant’s idea of an unknowable “Ding and sich” (The thing-in-itself). Thus Peirce’s idea of evolution is intertwined with a theory of signification, cognition, and communication that unites meaning and rationality. In this he differs from Darwin who did not consider the role of consciousness in evolution. Peirce’s logic adds abductive logic, in addition to the deductive logic as well as inductive logic. YES
Unnecessary Conflating Non-Dualism of Shankara with Firstness of Peirce
You have mentioned that “Peirce’s point is that God is real (as Firstness), but does not exist as an entity that interacts with others. But what God is might be revealed at the end of man’s systematic inquiry and the further development of the universe. If, through this process of inquiry, we converge towards a stability of meaning, we have reached the Peircean final interpretant. In Peirce’s philosophy, God as thirdness is agape or evolutionary love, which makes the universe grow evolutionarily by taking habits just like the symbols mentioned earlier. Therefore, an aspect of the tokens of God is the body of laws developing through evolution. [8]” YES
Further you go on to say, “Peirce’s view of God or the divine is a panentheism which I have already described in Brier. Panentheism can be vied as pantheism combined with the idea of a transcendental reality beyond time and space – a pure zero as Peirce calls it – that cannot be spoken of but, still, is somehow the source of everything. It is a fundamental notion for Shankara’s nondual Advaita Vedanta. [9]” YES
According to Vedanta of Sripad Ramanujacharya and Sripad Madhvacharya as well as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Shankara’s position is untenable. Shankara has considered Vedanta very selectively and does not include the entire body of Vedanta. THIS IS BEYOND MY KNOWLEDGE Shankara philosophy is called THEY CALL IT vivartavaad, which implies an apparent modification of Brahman. The philosophy of Gaudiya Vedanta Vaisnavism is shakti-parinaamavaad, which means the philosophy of the transformation of the potency of the Absolute Truth, or Brahman. Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu critiques vivartavaad of Shankara because it ultimately neglects the Names, Forms, Attributes, Pastimes, Associates, Paraphernalia and Abodes of the Lord or the Absolute Truth. BECAUSE IT IS NOT WITHIN THE POWER OF WORDS TO DESCRIBE Peirce’s Firstness is qualitative. It is indeterminate only in the sense that material laws cannot describe them. So we need to be careful in interpreting these assertions. According to Peirce, "Firstness may be manifested by quality, feeling, freedom, and multiplicity, and is a quality [10]". But when we see this definition of Peirce it is clearly incompatible with Sripad Shankaracharya’s concept of Monism as it does not admit multiplicity I THINK IT DOES THROUGH ITS CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION !!! BUT YOU WANT TO PLACE MULTIPLICITY BEFORE EVOLUTION. or admits it as a mere illusion. So the Firstness of Peirce cannot be compared with Shankaracharya. I THINK WITH CENTAIN UNDERSTANDINGS OF IT. YOUR IS NOT THE ONLY ONE There are important differences in it.
Evolutionary Logic is opposed to the idea of Aristotle’s Hylomorphism
The forms of the living entities continue within the species definition. There is no evolutionary evidence that the forms have changed beyond the species line. HERE WE DISAGREE There are no accidental life forms. The established fossil record indicates sudden appearance or sudden disappearance and long long stasis. So where are the new forms in the fossil record? IN THE SUDDEN APPREARANCES!! I WOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE MODERN BIRDS AS A NEW FORM OF THE DINASAURS Secondly the extended fossil record which was intended to show a Tree of Life based upon morphology is not confirmed by the phylogenetic analysis. ????? So the extended fossil record is not being confirmed by theory. Hence Aristotle’s hylomorphism remains a proven concept of species line even by modern evidence of fossil records. ?????CONTRARY TO BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Critique of Vedanta of Sripad Sankara by Sripad Ramanuja Acharya
Sripad Ramanujacharya in his commentary of Vedanta Sutra called the Sri Bhasya, rejected the three main claims of Shankara [11]. Ramanuacharya critiqued Shankara’s stand that (i) Brahman is non differentiated pure consciousness, that the (ii) universe is unreal and that the (iii) souls are non-enduring existent and that the individual souls are dissolved during liberation [11]. According to Ramanuja, Brahman is not an utter indeterminate existence and rather Brahman is the form of Being, Consciousness and Bliss. Brahman is not formless. Brahman is not at all an utter indeterminate being as conceived by the followers of Shankara. That implies Brahman has no meaning unless its constituent terms have their meanings. Its constituent terms have no meaning if they are not differentiable from their opposites, viz., non-being, non-consciousness and non-bliss [11]. I ONLY SEE POSTULATES AND NO ARGUMENTS.
Now the thing is Shankara accepts the Vedanta Shastras (scriptures) and therefore he should be basing his arguments upon the concepts of Vedanta Sastras. However Shankara covers thr original meanings and gives his own imaginary explanations. It is here Ramanuja rejects Shankara’s concept of Utter Indeterminism of Brahman by drawing conclusions based upon these very Shastras. DIFFERENCE IN INTERPREATION OF HOLY TEXTS. THIS AND THE REST OF YOUR ARGUMENTS IS BEYOND MY EXPERTICE AND NEEDS A LOT STUDY OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY. BUT YOUR INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT THAT THIS GOES FAR BEYOND PEIRCE’S PHILOSOPHY OF SEMIOTICS AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION WHERE WE HAVE COMMON GROUND.
There are many injunctions of the Shastras that prove that Brahman has qualities and attributes. They do not suggest that these are merely provisional facts about Brahman. There can be nothing that has an attribute and yet be an utter indetermination. Therefore the only conclusion is that Brahman is self differentiated. When Shastras say that Brahman is without any qualities or attributes in some places, it only means that Brahman has no material attributes. For example shastras say that Brahman is beyond the perceptive power of the senses, it is colorless, Brahman has no material body and is ungraspable. In all these references, it only means that Brahman is rather transcendental to matter. He must therefore be differentiated. Brahman has super-excellent and all auspicious qualities. By virtue of these qualities he is differentiated from everything else. The atman has an identity with Brahman as a relation between part and whole of a Wholistic Being. Thus the identity part is only partial. Vedanta philosophy must be faithful to the totality of the scriptures [11].
However Shankara takes only a few statements selectively and makes them the basis of his whole philosophical treatise. The study and interpretation of Shastras cannot be based upon a blind faith. A proper conception must be able to withstand the proper and rigorous applications of grammar and logic. Further our sources of knowledge (Vedanta Shastra) does not permit that Brahman is an undifferentiated pure consciousness. The argument of non differentiation is only an appeal to the fallacy of ignorance. For example we can experience objects. However objects are always qualified by a difference. This proves that we cannot experience any undifferentiated object. The self is both a subject as well as an object. The two sides exist simultaneously. So to experience the object called self, we must admit differences and form. Consciousness is always directed to something, or consciousness is consciousness of something, which is necessarily directed to something that possesses a difference or distinction with it by which the object is apprehended or understood. Consciousness is always intentional, and presupposes personality (intent) and difference. Consciousness is explained in the scriptures as eternal and self luminosity (light of knowledge) and therefore it must have some difference from things that lack those qualities.
Perceptions are of two kinds, viz, determinate and indeterminate perceptions. Determinate perception always involves differentiated objects. For example when we see a cow we always see an object qualified by its generic nature or essence. When we first time see a cow we see it together with its generic essence. This thing here has a cow essence. We do not differentiate the individual cow and its generic essence because we have not seen other cows that have the same generic nature. So here the individual and the essence are undifferentiated, and yet the object of perception remains differentiated with respect to the other kinds or things. So Ramanuja Acharya has established that undifferentiated perceptions do not mean an object devoid of all attributes, but they are only devoid of some attributes [11].
Now as perceptions always involve objects qualified by a difference, it means that inferences always involve a difference, because inference involves a relation between things that are objects of perception. Thus as all our sources including the shastras involve objects qualified by difference, we are not permitted through the sources of knowledge that there are undifferentiated objects. This is an inductive argument to prove that no undifferentiated object can exist [11].
Moreover the three qualities of Brahman, viz., being or existence, consciousness and bliss are also not one and the same in all respects. Existence is always an object of consciousness. Therefore Existence and Consciousness is not one and the same thing. Since by that which we grasp and object (consciousness) is different from the object we grasp (Existence), it means consciousness is not the same thing as existence. Moreover the self cannot be identical with pure consciousness because the self is really the knower. The knower is the substrate of consciousness and the true self has permanence or the continuity of existence. The knower can for example recall an object perceived earlier. But this persisting I or the self is not identical with consciousness because consciousness is not permanent and it changes. E.g., I was a child, I am a grown up, I forgot or I remember. Moreover sometimes consciousness can become dormant with no outward expression but still the feeling of I persists. For example after a deep sleep we say I slept happily and not that I was in pure consciousness in deep sleep [11].
Critique of Vedanta of Sripad Sankara by Sripad Madhvacharya
Many people including some in the later phases of Madhva School of Vedanta think that Sripad Madhvacharya advocates a form of Absolute dualism. Madhva used the dialectical methods of Nyaya- Vaisesikha schools and this may have caused them to think so. However Madhva is not an advocate of absolute dualism [12]. His doctrine is based on the functions of Visesas or Identity-in-difference. He does not mean that every particle of matter and human beings has the same kind of existence on par with the Supreme Being. Rather his philosophy is based on the concept of One Independent Real as the supreme conclusion and all the rest as of secondary importance [12]. Madhva has preserved the homogeneity of Brahman in completeness without the need for sacrificing the infinite richness of its qualitative content [13]. And thus he has the more dynamic and colorful conception of Brahman. This he has achieved by the application of the principle of identity-in-difference. This needs a proper understanding of his concept of visesa (identity-in-difference). Therefore Madhava has been given great credit by the followers of the Vaisnava schools of Vedanta and in Indian Philosophical development in general for achieving this extraordinary feat. His doctrine of visesa does not suffer from the short comings of identity cum difference or fictitious difference. It is through the inner resource of the substance itself and it replaces many worn-out and outmoded conceptions of time, space, causation and creation by more satisfactory ones. This is no small contribution to thought [13].
According to Sripad Madhvacharya, Sankara’s Brahman cannot have any self awareness. Neither can we argue for an independence of being from that perspective. If we were to say that Sankara’s Brahman has an independence of being, then that immediately disqualifies it of its so called utter indeterminateness. Shankara’s philosophy becomes entangled in unreasonable and inextricable contradictions. Independence of being implies that the being must be independent of any other principle for its existence, its awareness of its own self and activity of being. It is not possible for Shankara’s Brahman to have any self awareness. If this were so, it would contradict his philosophy by overlapping the subject and the predicate in the same act. Moreover this non-differentiated Brahman cannot have any self directed activity [14]. Madhvacharya accepts the realism of the non-Vedantic schools when they talk about the general principles of empirical realism like the reality of the world, the reality of difference, the reality of possibility of knowledge and the systems of proofs and distinction between matter and spirit [15].
The metaphysical dependence of the universe of Brahman is differently conceived in the different systems of Vedanta. Sankara equates it with an appearance. The world of appearance, which is superimposed on Brahman, would not be there but for the reality of Brahman. It has no existence outside or apart from Brahman. Madhva has no sympathy for this kind of monism of Shankara. Sankara’s monism is indifferent to hopes and aspirations of man alike. Shankara’s monism reduces the beautiful existence of the world of creation to an illusion without reality. Shankara does not admit any questions there not any necessity for answers there. So Madhva has critiqued these fallacies of Sankara. Moreover Madhva does not equate the souls or the world of matter to the same perfection as the Absolute. The souls and matter are real and they are not the result of any superimposition. Neither are they independent of God. God is greater than (transcendental to) His creation. At the same time God is as yet immanent in His creations [16]. When we emphasize the existence of subordinate reals side by side with the independence of Brahman, we have a dualism (identity in difference) but not any absolute dualism. This is a theistic realism.
Man made in the Image of God,
In your paper you have alluded to this idea of Genesis, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”, and you quote a caveat of Pierce that "But does not this remark simply carry the doctrine back to the days when the gods were first made in man’s image? [17]" So in other words as if it were an anthropomorphic idea of God. But if so that would be just an idol of our mind. However Sripad Madhvacharya has explained the concept of Bimba Pratibimbavaad (Image and Reflection) to explain the truth that God is not merely a result of our anthropomorphic imposition on Reality. Actually this explains the very relation between God and the living entities through the function of the dependence of everything on His Being, which alone is the Independent Real. This explains the true nature of the dependence of the living entities on God. Shankara just explained that the jiva is a reflection of the Brahman on the mirror of avidya or ignorance. The term pratibimba or reflection will be completely misunderstood if it is taken in its popular meaning as an appearance brought about by a material or an external medium. In Madhva’s siddhanta it is not in this sense that the concept of reflection is to be applied to the living entity. The living entities are not created and so the jivas are not reflections in this sense. That will be an error. The jivas are not actual reflections projected by Brahman like a concrete substance is reflected in a mirror. There is no external medium of reflection in this case. This is at once the difference between Sankara and Madhva. According to Sankara the Jiva is a reflection of Brahman and therefore this relation can be transcended. But according to Madhva the relation between God and Jiva as BimbaPratibima is inviolable and sacred. This relation will never be annulled and it goes to the very core of the constitution of the living entity and his essence. It is not a false relation. It is the truest and most permanent bond between the jiva and God and the purpose of philosophy is to realize this by progressive realization [18].
Now to explain the concept of Bimba Pratibima bhava, which is meant to bring out the permanent dependence of the living entity on God, Sripad Madhvacharya has given examples beginning with the idea of a man and his shadow in the upanishads. The two important features of a shadow are its dependence and its resemblance on the original object for its existence. Thus the living entities resemble the Brahman to some extent and at the same time are dependent on Brahman (part and parcel to whole relation.) The idea of shadow also implies that God is immeasurably much more than and superior to the living entity. At the same time God is the substantial truth of all living entities. They are bound to the substance and vice versa. The living entities are dependent on God but not vice versa. The shadow is outwardly similar in form to the substance and therefore the souls also have the same form of reality, i.e., existence, knowledge and bliss resembling Brahman. This idea should not be stretched beyond dependence.
It is only an association of the physical idea of reflection and the presence of an external medium that creates the initial confusion about the concept of Bimba Pratibimba Bhava. There is no external reflecting medium between the living entity and the Brahman. If that were so it would immediately render the living entity impermanent. And this would curtail the relation of co eternity between the living entity and God as mentioned in the upanisads. Thus when we draw a simile we should be careful about the contrasts and similarities. Here the point of contact with this simile is the certain kinds of similarities that exist between the jiva and Brahman with respect of Eternity, knowledge and Bliss and the jiva depend on Brahman for those. The point of contrast are not being conditioned by an external medium like a mirror and not being destroyed upon the removal of the medium and not being a transient or lifeless effect. This relation is therefore eternal. And obviously the avidya of Sankara cannot be such a relation. Thus the medium is nothing external but is the internal medium which is the constituent elements of the selfhood operating as the internal medium acting on the power of visesa (the function of identity in difference) [18].
Definition of God and Form and teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Madhva takes us to the highest limit of Divine transcendence. The Supreme is independent of all accessories of creation. The system of his philosophy is called Pure Dualism or Suddha Dvaita. Sriman Mahaprabhu took his line and revealed the highest nature of Eternity, Spiritual Knowledge and Bliss. This is the service conception of non-calculative dedication. His philosophy is called Inconceivable and simultaneous identity in identity and difference. The distinctions are not annulled ever and yet all functions of one limb can be performed by another limb of the Transcendental form of the Lord. He can accept the offerings of a devotee simply by seeing. He does not have to eat only by His mouth. Srila Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhar Dev-Goswami Maharaja says in this regard, “And Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu says that the basis of reality is acintya bhedabheda, inconceivable bipolarity. Everywhere there is something common and something different. Whatever opposing points you may discuss will have something in common, and something different. Nothing is quite the same as anything else. And above all, the infinite is not within your fist. It is inconceivable. The unified and differentiated character of reality is inconceivable; its secret is in the hand of the Supreme. It does not depend upon your whim. Still, that differentiated character of the Absolute will be seen differently according to the subjective relationship we have with Him. [19]”
Conclusions
(i) Sankara’s non dualism has been successfully critiqued by Sripad Ramanuja Acharya, Sripad Madhvacharya and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Reality is not an undifferentiated Monism. Reality is well explained by the identity –in-difference of Sripad Madhvacharya and inconceivable and simultaneous identity in identity and difference of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
(ii) Peirce’s idea of Firstness cannot be an utter indeterminateness in Shankara’s sense because he admits plurality.
(iii) Aristotle hylomorphism is still valid. Evolution cannot proceed independently of the Brahman. The Laws are not simply a result of habit or the laws are not merely an expression of apparent orderliness rising out of pure chance as everything is dependent on Brahman.
(iv) Reality is not formless. Distinction is the very nature of reality. Because distinctions are there in the very being of Brahman, Brahman has Form. Consciousness, Existence and Bliss are not wholly identical with each other in all respects. Since they are qualities of Brahman, it implies Brahman is its own Form.
(iv) If Peirce’s logic could be harmonized with that of Sripad Ramanuja, Sripad Madhvacharya and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu then it will yield a more consistent and proper explanation of Reality.(v) Tychism is the doctrine of pure chance or total freedom. But in the Vedantic concept the living entities have certain amount of free will with respect to reality. However they are not independent in an absolute sense and are dependent on the Brahman by their relation of bimba pratibimba bhava. Neither is the relation temporary but it is eternal. So Tychism is not the controller or destiny maker of the universe. Neither are the living entities free to evolve into whatever form without any hindrance. The forms in this world are dependent on the Form of the Spiritual World. Just as a reflection depends upon its relation with the image. The shadow is dependent on the form of the substance.
(vi) In Vedanta causality is most important. Things are not evolving by pure chance. But they are fully dependent in Brahman for its being and becoming. The only point is the living entities have some freedom to desire. This is the cause of their different destinies.
References
1 Brier, S., Book Chapter in. Death And Anti-Death. Vol. 12 : One Hundred Years After Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914), Ria University Press, 2014, 47-130, http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/ARTICLES/Brier_Peirce.pdf
2. Ibid. 1, pp. 49.
3. Ibid. 1, pp. 6
4. Ibid. 1, pp. 7
6. Hua Henry Wang, "Final Cause, Continuity and Peirce's Understanding of Reality", http://american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2004/submissions/dp-7.htm
7. EP I: 308; 1892;
8 Ibid. 1, pp. 40
9 Ibid. 1, pp. 41
10 Octavian Iordache, Modeling Multi-level Systems, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 7., 2011.
11 Sudduth, M., Ramanuja’s Critique of Shankara’s Philosophy of Non Duality, http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Ramanuja%E2%80%99s-Critique-of-Shankara-Part-I.pdf
12 Sarma, Philosophy of Sri Madhvacharya, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1962, pp 15, 28.
13 Ibid. 12, pp. 29
14 Ibid. 14, pp. 47
15 Ibid. 14, pp. 11
16 Ibid. 14, pp. 23
17 Ibid. 1, pp. 50
18 Ibid. 1, pp. 219 – 229
19 B.R. Sridhar, The subjective evolution of consciousness, Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math, Ananta Printing and Publishing, Caifornia: 1989, pp. 93.
On Thursday, February 4, 2016 12:29 AM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote:
Dear Bhaktivijnana Muni
It is very true that at the time of Aristotle no material evolution theory was arrived at, but C.S.Peirce has put Aristotle’s hylemorphism into a dynamic process semiotics with a theory on the development of forms as signs. The form is the type behind the tokens and the meaning og signs do develop through time. A good paper on Peirce’s evolutionary theory of Agapism http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/peirce/ and one of mine http://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/ARTICLES/Brier_Peirce.pdf
Best
Søren
Fra: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com] På vegne af Bhakti Vijnana Muni, PhD
Sendt: 3. februar 2016 13:28
Til: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Emne: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Darwin's theory is Problematic and incompatible idealization of Reality
Dear Kurt,
Namaste. We are glad to know that you are neither a structuralist nor are inclined to a theory of reasoning algorithmic robot. Reductionist approaches cannot solve the problems of the distinct wholistic forms that we observe in biology. That has been proved many times. What is the information that makes possible the concept of living forms? Neither is the von Neumann's concept of mutual information applicable to the biological process, nor are the Shannon or the Fisher criteria applicable as these neglect the semantic aspects of communication apart from other aspects like cause circularity. The fossil records do not show gradualism in forms. The basic body plans never change. There is no experiment that has shown for e.g. a cell can be formed from molecules. We can't only speak about a form of proto-cell without demonstrating it. How can we explain that how the genome, the protoplasm and the innumerable members of the cell came together? Nowadays the reductionist theory, although without any success in explaining the cell, is nevertheless being extended to explain consciousness as a stage that evolved from a state of proto consciousness. Hence these are speculations that have no actual reality or have some merely partial correspondence to the phenomenon. They do not solve the hard problems of consciousness. Just like the origin of the cellular form, cellular sentience is also an unsolvable problem within reductionism.
Max Plank who is perhaps the greatest scientist that modern science has witnessed explained that "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." [1]
Max Planck went on to clarify, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." [2] Thus in Max Planck’s wisdom from that he gained about the nature of matter, he came to the conclusion that consciousness is irreducible to matter.
I saw one video about time lapse cloud which you have been mentioning in your posts and it was very interesting. In nature we witness so many phenomena that lead to so many forms. One form leads to another within a specific domain. For example in the species, the chicken is a form and the egg is also a form. But those forms are well defined strictly within the boundaries of a species and are the different moments of its movement that is called its concept. We are brought to wonder when we think more deeply that for example how a cow has a form of a cow. In the living world the forms are ubiquitous. We can’t however separate the function from the structure. We need the entire form of structure function whole all at once. Moreover these structure function wholes are cognitive. This is being recognized in many different fields of science. E.g. the Copenhagen Interpretation given by the original founders of QM, Heisenberg and Bohr explain, that the wave function describes the knowledge of the observer about the electron and not the electron itself. Apart from this in biology, the cognitive understanding is on the rise with many scientists like Barbara McClintock and Shapiro openly writing and expressing such views about the same. We find rich irreducible concepts of sensory response, interpretation of environment, interpretation of internal environment; perceptual world of the organisms, intelligence and smart decision making phenomena in the organisms even at the level of the biomolecules. The phenomenon is ubiquitous in living organisms. Certainly without the concept of cognition and cellular sentience, biology can never be ever properly explained.
From your example of the cloud time lapse photography, we may even extend the argument to include the science of form of the universe itself. The equations of physics break down before they can be truly applicable to the universe. The planets are moving at such high velocities and being many body systems, and the equations predict chaos. And yet the Universe exhibits perfect forms. The seasons come and go perfectly. The stars remain orchestrated in relation to one another. And most of all, the Universe breeds life through the concept of the species. Thought is so foundational that thought contributes to everything including the formation of models and equations but yet those equations do not describe our thoughts. Anaxagorus concluded that the nous or reason was fundamental. Above the mechanistic order we must consider the concept of a rational order because the mechanistic order breaks down several times before we can get any comprehensive idea of Reality. The Map is certainly not the same as the terrain.
Your opinion is that the world is more verby and not so much nouny and is explicitly non structural. You explain that form is an inextricable coupling of processing-patterning and in that sense foundational. However for us it is the concept which is foundational. Even Aristotle differentiated between forms that are accidental and forms that are not accidental. He posited the concept of hylomorphism according to which species forms are conserved. It will not be possible to transpose one form to another. Aristotle explained that the living forms are hylomorphic forms. There is no evolution from say monkey to man. This idea of form is supported by Vedanta according to which the biological forms of the bodies are fixed to 8.4 million. What evolves is not these bodily forms but our consciousness. At present we are attached to material plane, the enjoying tendency. But by proper process of inquiry and activity we have to develop attachment to the higher plane of existence. None of the concepts of reductionist, structuralist, neodarwininism or “algorithmic” is complete in themselves. E.g. in artifacts and algorithms there is a question of the epistemic cut. We need to know the initial conditions. A machine is nothing without its initial conditions. Without the epistemic cut there is no closure. That requires a knowledge and thought about purpose which provides the closure conditions for the machines. And yet we try to model life as mechanical chemical with no contribution from thought? So due to these inherent problems of the epistemic cut no idea that neglects thinking and its foundational place in Reality can be Rational enough.
As far as your point 6 and 7 is concerned, the living entity in Vedantic tradition is meant to be a vehicle for the glory of the Lord. Therefore the whole world has been arranged by a higher rational concept for the particular purpose that the living entity may realize his real constitutional position as a serving member of Reality. He is meant to become happy but there is a process and that process can be harmonized with the scientific thinking if they can take up the evidence provided. The Western world has focused about concepts like phenomena and noumena and has tried to deduce reality in terms of motion, force etc. in terms of natural laws. But in the Vedantic tradition we begin with the concept of Independent real and dependent reals. This is because Reality is not merely apprehended as One because Reality is also apprehended as Many. The reals cannot all be independent as then in that case there will be chaos. At the same time all cannot be dependent as there must be a principle to regulate the dependent reals. Hence, we must begin by accepting the principle of an Independent real. There must be a unifying principle to connect the dependent categories. If all the reals were all equal in all respects then all would be equally happy but that is clearly not the case. Being themselves the dependent reals, they cannot direct one another and hence we must accept the principle of an independent real from these considerations also. On the other hand if all are considered as independent then there should be a violation of the experience of dependence. Additionally we should not be experiencing the idea of finitude. So all reals cannot be independent either. Thus the Vedantic Concept is Ontological very Rich. Hopefully we think that you can find more insights from these considerations that are provided in Vedanta in the form of Ontology and its system of proofs. The literature is vast with contributions from many many saintly scholarly figures of India. They have also contributed immense wealth for the benefit of mankind with developed philosophical systems that can help a sincere student of Science.
As far as your idea about the world being more verby and less nouny, it seems to us that you imply that reality is always active and personalities cannot be so fundamental in that sense. But that is not true in the Vedantic viewpoint. We have to admit that although all human beings for example are conscious, as also animals, we must however admit that the content of consciousness in one individual is nowhere exactly replicated in nature. They are all distinct personalities with exclusive contents of consciousness in a common universe. The personality is however not static but is dynamic and has three qualities of thinking, feeling and willing. Therefore the very basis of personality is to be discovered in the uniqueness of the individuality of each. If these were not so why some of us choose to be active materialists and other want to be actively more spiritual, just as yourself. The very nature of the soul is to seek happiness and seek knowledge. But in a material atmosphere we may not be aware of the full content of our personalities. E.g. we may conclude that when we die our personality merges with earth and the other material principles. Then why we are not able to manufacture the contents of personality and consciousness in the chemical labs, if this were so truly. Thanking you,
Bhaktivijnana Muni, PhD
References
[1] Das Wesen der Materie (The Nature of Matter), a 1944 speech in Florence, Italy. Source: Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Cesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797 (As quoted in Braden, Gregg The Spontaneous Healing of Belief Hay House, 2008, p. 212)
[2] quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)
On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 9:21 AM, Kurt Grimm <kgr...@eos.ubc.ca> wrote:
Thank you Dr. Muni and Dr. Chopra
Peace to you my brothers. Thank you for your very informative comments.
I am neither a reasoning algorithmic robot nor a structuralist. I am recovering from several decades of working inside a culture of rigid reductionism, feeling rather like an alien sometimes, particularly in recent years, as spontaneous insight and years of deliberate study intersected innovation with simple concepts and conceptual figures. Words alone are insufficient to express what I wish to express about a distinctive empirical synthesis.
The synthesis itself begins by describing irreducible functionalities, discovering a ubiquity of the nested and self similar functional loops. Expressing a function first view of the world is difficult, for beyond normative conventions (tyrannies) of reductionism, neodarwinism, and organismal-genomic Life definitions, I can rationally and plainly describe that nouny language and cognition is not only widespread, but most scientists are unable to be interested to explore they down process or cognition beyond those snarly focussed lenses.
More explicitly, here are several comments:
1. I am anything BUT a structuralist. Empirically, I am suggesting that the World is more “verby”, not nouny, explicitly non-structural. More precisely, I suggest and we may agree that form (that is, inextricable coupling of processing-patterning) is foundational. To comprehend this perspective, Google “time lapse clouds” and watch videos.
2. As an empiricist, I notice the ubiquity of spontaneous patterning in the Universe, spanning from the very large (whirlpooling galaxies) to the very small (cellular “trafficking) and further beyond. Certainly these phenomena have not and cannot be entirely encompassed by the structure-first and reductionist approaches that characterize normative science. If some differ, are their normative perspectives explicitly falsifiable? If so, let them show us. I think these approaches are falsifiable and have been deeply and profoundly falsified already.
3. Yet I’m not out to argue with anyone. If anyone wishes to make a rigid defense of reductionist, structuralist, neodarwininism or “algorithmic” (computer modelling of natural (complex = irreducible) phenomena) as robust and sufficient empirical approaches, I think we can step beyond argument, and return the burden of proof to them. In fact, even as these perspectives are overwhelmingly normative in science, if their adherents cannot and/or will not engage tests of falsifiability, I no longer take them seriously. Forgive me for speaking to our group so bluntly, but he (she) who argues with a fool is also a fool.
4. We may also agree that the “structure-first” view of the world that is so characteristic of (and leads directly to?) reductionist science is a consequence of language, and that nouny cognition and language does not sufficiently describe how the world actually occurs. In fact, even as Life, consciousness and mind are given as nouns in the English language dictionary, a transformed, truly 21st century cognition and synthesis may require something like an abandonment of these former approaches, regardless of some intransigence that may arise. Very simply, I think we can step aside from arguing with entrenched normative science — monocultures of structure-first, physics-up, thermodynamics-down and algorithmic modelling — and step into a new empirical domain. May we call that empirical phenomenology?
5. Once and for all, to the full-blown, reductionists and neodarwinists, if your perspective is as all encompassing as you claim, make it falsifiable. What observations would falsify the model of the world that has such status and power in the world? If not, I’ll stand with Popper, and set aside further debating with you. Forgive my arrogant tone, yet for many years I have sought to make reasonable inroads, and I’ve encountered mostly hubris, disinterest and intransigence. Of course reductionism and neodarwinism explains some of what we see. But much is missed and much more is simply unseen and distorted through these monotonic lenses. Same goes for the limited, often scoffing and bigoted worldview that thinks and insists that secular perspectives are neutral and unprejudiced. So I’m not pulling my punches. If you feel offended, take it to Popper and deal with it. Or be empirical, perform the experiment: open your mind and heart to actually explore an alternative perspective.
6. Empirically and as a human being, I see myself as a spiritual being having a human experience. In fact, as the Hebrew scriptures proclaim, “ the heaven’s declare the glory of God." I am struck by Wonder and experience reverence towards the material and transcendent Universe. I am drawn to Deity, experience Deity inside a deliberate Spiritual practice. I experience a marvellous parsimony inside the function-first view of Nature I am experiencing, exploring and explaining.
7. Yet may we draw these distinctions?
a. Mystery, transcendence and irreducibility are common in the material Universe, yet their ubiquity do not necessarily require Deity. I am convinced inside my experience that the clear empirical evidence about the material world conforms to the pattern I intuit experience in cognition and the non-material.
b. Bigoted reasoning is not allowed here. I experience Deity and guidance, and am rational and incisive in drawing distinctions.
c. The capacity to reason about God or the capacity to reason about and choose one’s particular belief about God (including atheism) does NOT constrain who and how God actually is or isn’t. There is much confusion about this. Many people believe that what they believe equals, as if defining/constrainign who/what Deity is.
d. Dr Chopra’s earlier comments about faith are relevant: concerning God (by whatever Name), you gotta believe to see.
e. I suggest in my writings that Life (the phenomenon of Living) occurs along a continuum of dynamical self-organizing complexity. But I do not think we need to presume that “everything” is alive or leads to Life. Nor do I think we must abandon such a view. In fact, both may be useful; I am certain they are.
e. If our protoplasmic brains were sufficient to comprehend God/Deity, that God would necessarily be meagre and limited. So I look at the World standing up and thank God on my knees.
Overall, I am eager to engage a small group of colleagues who are genuinely interested in what I am suggesting is a robust and distinctive view of complexity (Complexity is NOT complicated) and Life (Life Is). Conceptual art, not simply words are required to communicate it. Those desiring to receive a pdf summarizing these two empirical works, please send me an email?
May we take engagement to a new level, and find a way to come together in person, and explore these claims?
Sincerely,
Kurt
Kurt Andrew Grimm, Ph. D.Patterning, Transformation & Deep Entrepreneurship
(Website is in preparation, conceptual art is online, requisite introduction is words is forthcoming)
On Jan 30, 2016, at 9:02 AM, Bhakti Vijnana Muni, PhD <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:
Dear Kurt,
Namaste. As far as we can understand from your arguments you have a structuralist idea of the organism. You are not in agreement with the Darwinian Selectionist argument and that is well taken.
However your structuralist view was common before Darwin and has become popular again as another line of a materialist explanation of organism in the 20th century. In past the proponents of such views were Owen, Goeffroy St Hillaire, Carl Gustave Carus and others. For Owen all these forms were predetermined by natural law, something like crystallization of forms. These laws were taken as a special class of natural laws, which were applicable to the vital realm. These were celebrated as the laws of form. These were attempts of a rational lawful description of organisms. Modern structuralists include Chambers, Kauffman, etc[1, 2]. However even the early 20th century biologist, HAE Driesch came up with the idea of teleology and entelechy. Driesch concluded that the biological organisms cannot be explained in terms of thermodynamics and machine logic. In general the very advent of the Functionalist pan-selectionist idea of Darwin came as a possible solution to the impasse created by these structuralist ideas of the pre-Darwin era.
Modern structuralists are also unable to explain the biological form in terms of patterns, chaos, determinism, quantum mechanics or any other such deterministic formalism. Even the organisms are very precise in their structure and functions. The deterministic equations end up in chaos and in this way there is a contradiction that is outside the range of these deterministic formalisms. We try to solve these in terms of physical chemical explanations and yet the data indicates perfect concepts that are not approachable by laws. Especially the question of free will or self determination is completely outside the domain of these deterministic equations. The question of sentience is so important that we just cannot ignore it anymore. We try to see organisms as a bunch of lawful chemicals, and yet the organism does not follow those equations and displays concepts of sentience, response and goal oriented activities (signs of intelligence) even at the level of biomolocules.
Therefore we need not be so impatient to think that spiritual idea is not necessary. Rather we should admit that consciousness, sentience, life, mind etc are all necessary and have not been explained by any of the formalisms that different materialistic approaches have offered. And in practice we must accept the humble approach. Then only the problems can be met with proper concepts. We should not exclude the spiritual concepts just because we like to be stuck to an ideology. Rather we should follow the evidence wherever it leads. Driesch, Pasteur and Planck accepted the higher concepts of entelechy, biogenesis and consciousness respectively. So why don’t you consider these deliberations of some of the greatest scientists and apply the Vedantic wisdom by following the leads given by these great scientists who questioned the presumptions of materialism. Vedanta offers two perfectly structured axiomatic truths for the help of the empiricists so that they can realize a more substantial idea of Reality in terms of consciousness and sentience and the foundational place of life in Reality, and they are (i) Life comes from Life, and (ii) Matter comes from Life. So we are giving scientifically testable axioms and scientists should take it up in all earnestness and help the mankind in developing a more rational idea so that all branches of science, philosophy, art and religion can be harmonized for the common good of all.
As far as the question of Deity is concerned it means that Absolute truth is ultimately Personal. In the West the great German philosopher GWF Hegel also understood the idea of Deity when he explained that Reality is by itself and for itself. When he said Reality is by itself it meant that Reality is its own Substantial Truth. Spinoza also explained Absolute as Causa Sui. When Hegel said Reality is for itself, it means that the Absolute Truth is Personal and does everything for His own satisfaction. Even in this world we see personality everywhere. Human beings, animals, birds, and all life forms are personalities and they are individuals. Consciousness presupposes personality. There is no consciousness without a person who is conscious of something. Then why do you think that the source of all these beings and their becoming is devoid of personality. The effect must already be contained in the cause. Therefore it is a logical fallacy to subtract personality from Absolute Truth.
Thanking you,
Bhaktivijnana Muni, PhD
References
[1] Denton, M., J., Marshall, C., J., Legge, M., The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the Pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law, J. theor. Biol. (2002) 219, 325–342.
[2] Denton, M., J., The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism", Biocomplexity, (2013), Vol. 3, pp. l-18.
On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:06 PM, Kurt Grimm <kgr...@eos.ubc.ca> wrote:
The assertion that Life (the process of Living) is non-mechanical is sound and self-evident.
Selectionist arguments for a diversity finch beak morphologies in Nature are not falsifiable. Same goes for many selectionist arguments more broadly. Nonetheless, selectionist arguments are routinely applied wherever patterns arise and persist in the spectrum of Living phenomena.
Natural selection is subtraction, the process culls existing diversities.
To require the origin of diversity as “randomness” misses the most significane observations. Patterning — including novelty and diversification — arises spontaneously and widely in Nature.
Non-mechanical patterning in Nature (including patterning in Life that is not derived from the organismal genome, including every human heartbeat ) is consistent with but does not require "sentient concepts” or Deity to explain them. This is where this argument is fallacious. If “faith” has a role (and tradition says it must), we cannot intellectually strong-arm anyone to view or discover these mystical possibilities where some of us experience them and the expansive parsimony that accompanies that recognition.
What remains for the parties may be the broader recognition of dynamical patterning in Nature. Phenomenologically, that may resemble a spiritual awakening; in fact these may be homologous phenomena.
As a purely rational exercise, please be curious and hereby perhaps discover the tyranny of nouny cognition. To beginning understanding the assertion that the real world is “verby", Google time lapse clouds and watch videos.
From galaxial whirlpooling and cellular trafficking (note mechanical metaphor) to climate regulation, cognition and every human heartbeat, we arose from and occur in an observable Universe of dynamical emergent complexity. Selectionist process subtract, they cull from existing diversities. The ubiquity of spontaneous processing-patterning in Nature is consistent with but does not require mystical explanations.
I notice that zero comments have been shared in this forum about the assertions I have given elsewhere about the tyranny of organisms-genomic Life definitions. It equally appears that being human, each of the parties (and those clusters of people who agree and debate with clustered others on the other side of a conceptual divides) are firmly convinced with in their perspectives.
May we agree that the likeliest result of more rational arguments across these divides using normative genre is to generate the scholarly activity by which we rationalize ourselves as professionals of high cultural status? If sound argument alone were sufficient, why do we see universities and think tanks filled with normative economists who predict nothing and describe a world that does not really exist, while the ecological economists are tossing grenades from the cultural sidelines?
In the same vein, is it possible that an unexamined presumption — that Life equals the organismal-genomic manifestation of a broader and more fundamental process of Living — is common for all parties that are engaging in this online discussion/debate?
I agree entirely with the assertion in the subject line. May we extend the descriptors of “problematic and incompatible” to the tyrannies of nouny cognition, nouny language and the (crackpot) presumption that Life exactly equals the organismal-genomic state?
Sincerely,
Kurt
On Jan 27, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Bhakti Vijnana Muni, PhD <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:
Dear Richard Hunt,
Namaste. Hopefully you are doing well.
You said: Knowledge has increased since the time of Darwin, so of course there is not a perfect fit of old and new ideas.
Our Reply: Our message was quite elaborate. We have focused on the increasing evidence in biology that biology is not a mechanism. The evolutionary search cost is so gigantic that even the age of planet earth is not sufficient to come up with exact solutions for even minor changes resulting in new functions based upon random trial and hit search criteria of Darwin. The central dogma was proved to be partial information and this has led to the cooling down of the hype created by modern synthesis about species change. So thank you for accepting the point 1. We however emphasize that Darwinism is not only not a perfect fit, but also a massively unfit idea about molecular processes. Molecular processes in cells are not at all random but are sentient concepts based upon information exchange and response and this destroys the very first cornerstone (Random errors) of TOE hypothesized by Darwin.
You said: Darwin's finches maybe messy, but this does not mean that selection is not occurring. The spp. may become more or less differentiated.
Our Reply: You may like to model the studies on finches as confirming selection (which is to you a random event which is selected by nature at population level), we on our side could easily model that based on the idea of intelligent adjustment with nature based upon the cognitive concepts even at the molecular level of the organism with concepts like perception, sensory response to challenge and biosemiotic relations based upon the unity of self, others, environment and forms within the boundary of species especially because the existing primary body plans never change. The body plan of long beak and a short beak are only slightly different in terms of quantity but they are qualitatively both beaks and it is not a novelty at the level of species leap. The cellular processes show a level of cognitive concepts which was unthinkable for scientists at the time of Darwin who were treating organisms as chemical mechanical processes. We have now concepts of error recognition and error correction and the error rates are negligibly insignificant (1 in a billion, Ref: Cooper, S. and Helmstetter, C.E. Chromosome replication and the division cycle of Escherichia coli B/r. J Mol Biol 31, 519-40 (1968)). The organism corrects itself and has a concept of itself. Then how can we say that given the gigantic nature of search sample space, Darwinian concepts can model the organismal processes?
You said: A new man-made sp. is Tritcale
Our Reply: Tritcale is a polyploidy between Wheat and Rye. Some people like to call that as a new species, but the features are simply a combination of the features of wheat and rye and it does not produces any new novel features in the radiation. This kind of polyploidy is a result of paragenetic processes which abounds in nature and especially in the plant kingdom. Polyploidy is more rare in animals. Moreover the generations of these seeds are maintained not by natural means like ordinary plants but by chemical means. So we can hardly say whether the reproductive capacity will be maintained ad infinitum when it will be left to the wild without the chemical treatment involved.
Tritcale techniques combine the properties of high grain yielding capacity of wheat with the two important qualities of Rye, i.e. disease and environmental tolerance. The quality of the Tritcale resembles one of the parents depending upon what process the cultivator utilized. The plant is a hybrid between wheat (female parent) and rye (male parent). The plant is sterile and is treated with colchine to artificially induce polyploidy and thereby make it reproduce. The Tritcale hybrids are in each and every case amphidiploids, meaning the plant is diploid for two genomes received from every species. Different kinds of polyploidy have been created and tested. The tetraploidy is of not much value but the hexaploid was found to generate commercial interests. Some of these varieties have been encouraged for both higher yield potential. But to develop these hybrid seeds we need chemical agents or human intervention. For e.g. the website of Alberta Agricluture and Forestry mentions, “Successful production of hybrid triticales targeting higher yields was reported by several authors (including those from Poland, Australia and CIMMYT) with grain yield hybrid vigor of more than 20% over the best parent (Pfeiffer, 1998) in experimental plots using hand crossing or CHA’s (chemical hybridizing agents) to produce the F1 seed.” (Ref: http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/fcd4232 )
Further the actual status of the hybrid can be understood after studying atleast a few generations, whether such a stability of the hybrid has been achieved. Mostly the processes are patented and require the use of Chemical hybridizing agents to procure the high yielding seeds. All these hybrid species always show a tendency to be infertile or return to one of the parents depending on the kind of hybrid. In this way these hybrids reach an evolutionary dead end and nothing else. Moreover such hybridization is well known to mankind for centuries and is nothing new. In the case of Tritcale since it must be treated with colchinine to induce polyploidy, the big question mark is how we can confer any new species status as viable organism when its reproductive capacity is dependent on chemical treatments to induce polyploidy. Further hybridization proves the inaptness of natural selection. Natural selection has nothing to do with the results of hybridization as it is a fast process and there is no role evolutionary selection.
Thanking you,
Bhaktivijnana Muni
On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 7:05 AM, Richard Hunt <ribi...@gmail.com> wrote:
I give you three items:
1) knowledge has increased since the time of Darwin, so of course there is not a perfect fit of old and new ideas.
2) Darwin's finches maybe messy, but this does not mean that selection is not occurring. The spp. may become more or less differentiated.
3) A new man-made sp. is Tritcale..................R
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Bhakti Vijnana Muni, PhD <b...@scsiscs.org> wrote:
Dear Friends,
Darwin’s theory of evolution has been around for more than 150 years. However today it is being challenged and there are many foundational and problematic issues that have led scientists to deviate from the many of its original formalism of the theory. The predictions of Darwin’s theory do not show up in the actual field. We will discuss a few of them very briefly here.
Different Opinions about the Life and Evolution
In history so many conceptions of evolution have been floating around that it is worthwhile to know a few basic developments that led to the Darwinian hypothesis. Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Empedocles, Epicurus, Socratium and Aristotle all had wide range of thoughts and differed with each other in many ways. Among the pre-modern theorists were Francis Bacon, Swammerdum, Demailet, Maupertius, Bonnet, Linnaeus, Buffon, Hutton and Erasmus Darwin who was the grandfather of Darwin. Thereafter in modern evolution theory there are a large number of them. Sir Charles Lyll supported the concept of Uniformitarianism and this became one of the early pillars of Darwinism in terms of the interpretation of the fossil records found in the strata (which has been invalidated by Guy Berthault’s experiments.)
On the other hand the theory of Biogenesis was supported from the experimental works of Fransisco Redi, Spallanzani and Louis Pasteur. But scientists soon proposed that conditions on the earth billions of years ago were presumably different from those that exists in the earth today. So again they (Haeckel and a long string of chemists like Haldane, Oparin, Miller and Urey) continued to propose the theory of spontaneous generation in terms of a scenario billions of years ago as a onetime fortunate chance incident. Of course this is a big field of research and inspite of the effort and enthusiasm there is very little to prove the hypothesis and so we can say it remains just an ideological motivation that keeps a section of chemists push such an idea as otherwise their house of cards will fall down in no time.
What is the motivation for Darwin
Bringing back the focus to Darwinism, what motivated Darwin to propose his idea of evolution? Michael Denton writes a very illustrative article [1] about this. One of the main reasons was that the works of comparative anatomists like Owen who was a follower of Cuvier did not yield any natural law of forms. The pre 1859 biology held a different concept of the basic forms of the natural world. They were called types and were immanent in nature. They were determined by a set of natural laws which they called laws of form. They had already noted that there are deep homologies and a vast amount of biological complexity was really of an abstract nature and which did not change over time and were of non adaptive nature. Sometimes they would notice that there was a numerical and geometrical order to them that was very striking. Moreover they remained robust and invariant over the period of millions of years in diversity of lineages. Denton [1] wrote a paper in which he summarized this dilemma.
But the frustration was that the scientists could not exactly say what these natural laws of form were. They could not give any law like the law of crystals for these organic forms. Although the law of forms as an idea is traceable to Platonic thoughts, yet these were naturalists and not Platonists and they could not elucidate their opinions in terms of exact natural laws about forms. Among this rising frustration in being unable to describe the theory of forms for organic forms of life, people of early 19th century were already looking for an alternative. And we know that this was an era of mechanization. With Descartes, Newton and others, the rise of chemistry, it became attractive to think alternatively. The contemporary people of Darwin saw that when Darwin gave that theory, with error accumulation and natural selection as the guiding principle it became possible to attempt explanations of biological forms from a new foundation, i.e. in terms of a blueprint for life. Mechanization requires a blueprint and so what was the blueprint of life. Naturally they were looking for ideas like code and when Mendel did his experiments it only further reinforced their belief that they could predict the biological traits in terms of a blueprint and gradually the gene theory became popular and finally it led to the idea of Central Dogma in post 1953 era. Then the whole Darwinian paradigm was reinterpreted in terms of the Central Dogma and it was just an attempt to reinforce the code view of life. So genetic code idea became in vogue for last 70 years or so and the gene concept for about a 100 tears or a little more. The Central dogma has since been proven partial and not a fundamental blueprint of life.
Thus we can say there are two opposing moments in this debate about biological forms. One is the materialist view that has continued in accord with Darwinian evolution theory for past 150 years or a little more and it is known as the functionalist view. The other is the pre-Darwinian view which is a non-selectionist view and was known as the theory of biological forms and it is a Structuralist view. The Darwinian view is really a reaction for the failure of the structuralist views to describe forms. There are a number of differences between the two views. The structuralist view held that number of forms was fixed in nature. But because Darwinian view was a pan-selectionist view, it had to accommodate the idea that new forms could emerge from old forms. It was compulsion of that kind of thinking. But if we hold the Darwinian view is rational then we have to also hold that the structuralist view is also perfectly rational on its own merit. Darwin denied forms their naturalness and life its fundamentalness and reassigned them from being integral to nature to the realm of artifacts of time and chance. However the fact remains that the adaptations are ubiquitous in nature but the attempt to reduce all organic order to the realm of artifacts is not at all convincing. We have failed to find the genetic blueprints that can convincingly explain the Darwinian paradigm of functionalism. Cellular structures are very robust and so are the cellular organelles. The advances reemphasize the developmental robustness. Further the deep homologies do not change even after millions of years. Then the natural question is that what selective advantage is there to keep them unchanging over a millions of years.
Thus we see that both these views, i.e. the structuralist view as well as the functionalist views have their problems and in this century the dialectical movement between these two opposing theories indicates we need a superior paradigm to explain the deeper reality of the biological phenomenon. We cannot explain the phenomenon of day and night if we do not have the idea of the Sun. Similarly we cannot describe the structure of biological form without its comprehensive concept.
Problems in Evolution Theory of Darwin – how large is the sampling space from where to select
Douglas Axe wrote a paper [2] where he lists many examples of this dilemma. The main puzzle is that as mentioned earlier the code implied that a vast number of proteins could be manufactured by the genetic mutations. So why nature which did not have an infinite amount of time to select the best fits, still discovered from an incomplete sampling from a vast space the set of proteins that we find now and it turned out to be highly successful. How did selection know that the impressive array of proteins required was just what it found out and these performed all the functions perfectly? The evolutionary process could have only sampled a miniscule number of proteins out of the totality. Axe gives many examples to indicate this sampling problem is real and it does provide significantly serious challenges to the Darwinian model. Then how do we explain protein origins, given that there are no shortcuts to the protein folds and that means a rethink of biological origins as a whole. We need to understand the structural complexity w.r.t. many of the particular protein functions. The functions are precise and intricate. Normally the sizes of the enzymes are much larger than their active sites. For example the active sites are deeply buried within the enzymes and molecules like H2O2 must pass through long channels before they can be catalytically converted. By replacing amino acids in these enzymes it has been demonstrated that the electric potential gradient has an important role in these catalytic processes. In this way the enzyme has important interactions with substrate which are some distance away from the place where the chemical conversion occurs. Thus enzymes not only have a catalytic function but also a guiding function on the reactants and products in these processes. Thus it is more than chemistry. It is teleology. It requires a structure that extends well beyond the active sites. Further in these function direct coupling of processes occurring at many different active sites of enzymes are necessary. Such direct coupling cannot be provided by simple diffusion alone. This direct coupling requires mediation by different structural connections between the sites that are being coupled. And this further requires more extensive protein structures.
An example is the enzyme named carbamoyl phosphate synthetase (CPS). It is a remarkably complex enzyme and utilizes bicarbonate, glutamine, and ATP to make carbamoyl phosphate. It uses internal molecular tunnels for efficient transfer of reactants and by this uses it to couple the reactions occurring at its three active sites. For this purpose CPS uses two protein chains which has a total length of more than 1,400 amino acid residues and this way it forms a highly orchestrated coupled multi site tunneled architecture.
Now Axe [2] gives a very nice example. He considers the two reactions, viz.,
Hext+ → Hext+ and
ADP+Pi → ATP + H2O
The first reaction describes the movement of proton from the exterior of a membrane enclosed compartment to the interior and the second describes the conversion from an ADP molecule and inorganic Phosphate to ATP. There is no general principle in physics and chemistry by which the transfer of proton fluxes and ATP synthesis has anything to do with each other. However by an engineering process it is possible to combine different phenomenon by using devices like the solar cells. In life processes there is a dependence of many such intricate devices. In this particular case these two reactions are coupled by a highly efficient energetic coupler called proton-translocating ATP synthase. This is a rotor structure, an engine built from more than eight types of proteins some of which are used a multiple times to form symmetrical substructures. And various versions of this device are found in all the different life forms. These are fascinating and underlie the key point that the biological processes utilize very large structures for even simple reactions. This makes in a very tough sampling problem and the Darwinian evolution fails here. Even it requires such intricate orchestration with enormous amount of physical and spatial complexity involved makes one wonder that how even in a small space such a substantial protein structure could be placed.
This example provides an opportunity to refine the connection between protein size and the sampling problem. Further the components in themselves cannot perform any useful function. Rather it requires the whole suit of protein components acting precisely in the assembled complex. This increases the space size required to search to find the structure when a protein chain is useful only in combination with others. It is always a set of distinct proteins which commonly provide for a function. This makes the search space even more challenging. But even functions of more typical complexity amply demonstrate that the challenge of sparse sampling goes all the way back to the origin of protein-catalyzed metabolism and genetic processing. The many functions involved in gene expression had to be in place from the outset, and because these functions require large protein structures, this means the sampling problem appeared as soon as the genetic code appeared.
Now considering the above difficulty it is extremely difficult that even in the entire lifetime of the earth planet, the evolution of the structure of proteins can occur in a purely Darwinian manner due to the enormity of the sampling involved. But even a slight change in the function of the proteins, which is a smaller problem will also be enormously difficult. Axe has argued that even have 6 changes to produce the necessary change would be enough to outdo the time required of the age of the earth. Darwin has to explain the whole suit of components of the transition involved. He cannot be just happy to state that simply some transition occurs. That is unscientific if we do not comprehend the enormity of the problem. Darwin cannot just count on the similarities, he has to focus on the difference and understand what that means for evolution to achieve, in terms of both complexity and time and search based upon unguided and error prone random changes. Accidental and random changes are almost always harmful for the organisms as so many experiments with X ray mutagenesis prove. Durett and Smith have shown that even to achieve a two step mutation process requiring inactivation of a binding site and then create a new binding site will require millions of years and what to say if those changes in step 1 are harmful as that will just prolong the process to 100s of millions of years. So how plausible is it just to flick a few switches and convert say a fruitfly to a butterfly.
The enthusiasm of modern synthesis after the discovery of the DNA was purely imaginary and hypothetical. The actual results convinced though after much resistance that DNA is not a fixed blueprint of life. Early 20th century biology was too simplistic and now we are just beginning to see how enormous is the problem. How does the gene confer itself to the phenotype. How large is a gene and even a genome and how large an information content you require to encode a single protein fold. All evidence is against Darwinian theory. Scientists and members in this forum should learn to accept the evidence from the frontier. The simplistic biology and evolution theory and genetics is simply misleading. We did not know what that junk DNA was. What was its function? What is our knowledge; we simply did not know and preferred to call it junk. This is naïve. We know very little about metabolism, enzymes, protein folds, chemistry and its difference from biology. And yet we want to be creators of our knowledge. This is like a child crying for the moon.
References
[1] Denton, M., J., The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism, 810-Complexly, 2013.
[2] Axe, D.,D., (2010). The case against a Darwinian origin of protein folds. BIO-Complexity 2010(1):1-12.
In a few posts Prof Jo had raised a few issues about evolution and we will address a few of them here.
Finches of Galapagos Island and Evolution
This set of evidence is often quoted as a proof of evolution. But actually there are many shortcomings in that. The work of Grant shows that finches can adapt the size of their beaks when necessary. For example in 1977 and 1982 there were droughts. During the drought they found that the seeds eaten by the finches became harder. In the situation those birds with bigger beaks were better able to survive and reproduce. But after the drought ended the seeds returned to their normal sizes and so did the beaks which returned to their pre-drought sizes. In other words the effect of drought was offset in opposite direction towards smaller beak sizes in 1984-86. If the examples of finches tell us anything it is that it is an example of natural selection that is oscillating. But these are only small scale changes and not changes in the primary body plans. The finches remain finches and the beaks remained as beaks. It is also observed that many of these so called species of finches also retained the ability to reproduce and interbreed. Of course a few works argue that a sexual isolation is created and this selective force propels evolution. That means that as the birds selected their mates according to their choices it would lead to a bigger separation between in evolving population. But still the data is very little and its long term effects are only speculations. Nothing valid can be predicted especially when the fact remains that the ability to interbreed is not lost among these so called species of finches. These observations are not sufficient to establish that these are anything more than adaptive variations.
One paper in nature [3] reports that it is the ALX1 gene that is involved in the variation of beak shapes and sizes. One variation of ALX 1 is related to pointed beaks and another to blunted beaks. But when authors conducted phylogenetic studies they found important discrepancies with the phenotype based taxonomy. They found extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation in the case. This only means that there is extensive interbreeding among the finches and how much reproductive isolation has occurred can be easily questioned. These species are very closely related so much so that any gene based phylogeny becomes obscured. A BBC report [4] indicates that these finch species aren’t really different species. The article title itself reports ‘Genomes reveal Darwin finches messy family tree’. The article says, "The most extensive genetic study ever conducted of Darwin's finches, from the Galapagos Islands, has revealed a messy family tree with a surprising level of interbreeding between species." This has raised questions what does the different species imply here. The article notes. "The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family. This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridize, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands. … When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings."
[3] Peter R. Grant, "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches," Scientific American, pp. 82-82 (October, 1991).
[4] Webb, J., Genomes reveal Darwin finches' messy family tree, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31425720
Why do the primary body plans not change
Gerd Mueller explains that we have to consider three kinds of novelties to achieve the full scope of evolution. These three, viz., type I novelty relates to the primary anatomical architecture of a metazoan body plan, type II novelty relates to the discrete new element added to an existing body plan, and type III novelty relates to a major change of an existing body plan character. From experience of homologies, type III novelty must exclude changes that involve only quantitative aspects. These are qualitative changes and require emergence of new units of construction and the standard variation cannot be considered their source. We have to understand that the existing cell and body designs are extremely robust. The genotype and phenotype are inherited in a close correlation, and development is under program-like control. So the evo-devo is forced to speculate that for the emergence of Type III novelties they have to consider a period when there was a pre-Mendelian world and the connection between genotype and phenotype would have been much looser so that it would have allowed for these novelties. So that once these Novelties of Type III occurred and only the cell aggregates, and tissues would have been the decisive determinants of biological form. Thus it implies a segregation of genetic and phenotypic unity in the early phase of evolution [5].
We can only conclude that this is highly objectionable speculation and we have no evidence for that in the actual experimental studies. It is like saying there once existed unicorns. Kant’s words in his Critique of Judgment are worth pondering here, “Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.”
[5] Mueller, G., B., Epigenetic Evolution., in Evolution - The Extended synthesis , Pigliucci, M., Muller, G., B., MIT Press, 2010.
Why are the number of Species Fixed in Nature
If the structuralist paradigm for natural forms implies that the order of life came from features of basic physical constraints which arise out of the fundamental properties of matter, it constraints to a limit the way organisms are built. These are limited to a few basic designs which include the deep homologies like the pentadactyl limb. Structuralists have a strictly "non-selectionist, non-historicist" conception of the world of biological forms. Leading scientists of the 20th century include William Bateson, D'Arcy Wentworth, Thompson, Rupert Riedl, Stuart Kauffman, Brian Goodman, Stuart Newman etc. The Darwinian Paradigm is on the other hand a functionalist paradigm and it implies that the main designs of life like the pentadactyl limb, body plans, are a result of specific adaptations built additively by selection during the course of evolution, to serve particular functional ends. They are not a result of physical law or intrinsic physical constraints. This means that there should be no limit to the number of body plans, basic designs and features of organisms. And this is precisely the problem of Darwin’s idea of contingent artifacts for organismal evolution. The Vedantic Paradigm agrees with the assertion of the Structuralist paradigm that the number of species in nature is fixed but there are differences in concepts that we can address elsewhere.
Limits of Hybridization Heights
A sheep–goat chimera is produced by combining the embryos of a goat and a sheep. The wikipedia mentions that these successful created chimeras were a mosaic of goat and sheep tissue. It had traits from both the sheep as well as goats. But the cells did not produce any intermediate structures. The cell lines or the parts that developed from the sheep embryo had woolly features. But the cell lines that came from the embryo were hairy. The chimera proves that each cell (germ line) keeps its own species' identity and does not develop any intermediate being between the parental species. As far as the question of fertility is concerned the sheep-goat chimera passes on to either sheep or goat genes that too depending upon wherefrom the reproductive organs were formed, i.e. whichever germ-line formed the ovaries or testes. Similar evidence is there in the field of paragenetics. Thus nature proves that the species are conserved. The artificial attempts of man do not lead to the production of any new species.
The DNA and genome sequences are naturally restructured by the organism or the cell. Such transposon activity has been observed in every species, but that does not lead to any species change rather it helps in adaptability and response. Barbara McClintock called the cells as smart and thoughtful in this sense. But that does not lead to any evolutionary change in the organism as the organism is not just controlled by the DNA or genome but also the DNA or genome is also under the control of the cell or the organism. The DNA shuffling therefore does not establish any evolutionary leap beyond the species definition. Rather the experiments in Drosophila showed that many of these genetically engineered specimens suffered setback rather than any advantages.
Evolution of DNA has problematic issues
Regarding DNA code evolution, Koonin writes, “In our opinion, despite extensive and, in many cases, elaborate attempts to model code optimization, ingenious theorizing along the lines of the coevolution theory, and considerable experimentation, very little definitive progress has been made. Of course, this does not mean there has been no advance in understanding aspects of the code evolution. Some clear conclusions are negative, i.e., allow one to rule out certain a priori plausible possibilities. Thus, many years of experimentation including the latest extensive studies on aptamer selection show that the code is not based on a straightforward stereochemical correspondence between amino acids and their cognate codons (or anticodons). Direct interactions between amino acids and polynucleotides might have been important at some early stages of code’s evolution but hardly could have been the principal factor of the code’s evolution.” [6]
Thus even the genome evolution is a big issue that bothers evolutionary paradigms. Hence if we neatly examine the different aspects of biological formalisms we find that they are all even if combined together are massively inadequate. The predictions of Darwinism do not hold in the actual results. In our next post we will consider a few more important issues regarding sentience, where Darwinism is completely lacking.
[6] Koonin, E.V., Novozhilov, A.S., Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma, IUBMB Life. 2009 February ; 61(2): 99–111. doi:10.1002/iub.146.
--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Download Newsletter
The Harmonizer
http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Download Newsletter
The Harmonizer
http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Download Newsletter
The Harmonizer
http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Download Newsletter
The Harmonizer
http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view, Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
'Science and Scientist' Annual Conference Series
http://scsiscs.org/conference
Support & Participate in the
Scientific Sankirtan Seva: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Download Newsletter
The Harmonizer
http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Join Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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
Conference 'Science and Scientist': http://scsiscs.org/conference
Donate: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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
Conference 'Science and Scientist': http://scsiscs.org/conference
Donate: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.--
----------------------------
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
Conference 'Science and Scientist': http://scsiscs.org/conference
Donate: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
----------------------------
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
Conference 'Science and Scientist': http://scsiscs.org/conference
Donate: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
----------------------------
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
Conference 'Science and Scientist': http://scsiscs.org/conference
Donate: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture & Science
Princeton, NJ, USA: http://bviscs.org
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/about/#instructions
Sadhu-Sanga MP3s: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
Contact: 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
