Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology
2 views
Skip to first unread message
BMP
May 15, 2017, 2:36:57 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear list members,
Namaste.
A person [a
spiritual entity] has subjective experiences, he has a brain that has neurons
whose firings can be detected by machine M. The person (experiencer) looks at a
pattern P and the Machine M records a pattern Pm of neuron firings. A decoder then correlates the pattern Pm with the pattern P as identical. This is the
process called brain reading.
A phrenologist
correlates bumps on the head by a similar process. By correlating the
characteristics of persons with certain bump patterns they can then determine
the characteristics of persons simply by feeling their heads.
Astrology can do the
same thing by correlating the pattern of stars and planets at birth with
certain characteristics of people born under those celestial patterns. This can
all be made very complex as we find in computerized astrology programs.
The Chinese beat a
gong whenever the Moon dog comes to eat the Sun god during a solar eclipse.
Every time they do it it works. So much for the empirical
correlation/modeling/mapping method of 'science.' Can such a method ever
explain anything or can it only ever be simply metaphor?
Of course these
examples are all falsifiable. Does that make them scientific? More importantly,
what does it really tell us about thoughts and neurons? Do neurons create
subjective thoughts? Do subjective thoughts correspond to neuron firings? Or
are there other undreamt of theories like this that no one has yet imagined?
Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.
D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
priyedarshi jetli
May 15, 2017, 8:20:46 PM5/15/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Madhava Puri,
Do we need to define "person" and debate it or do we just lay down what 'person' means and everyone agrees to it? The same goes for 'subjective experience'.
Priyedarshi
--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
BHAKTI VEDANTA INSTITUTE Report Archives
http://bviscs.org/reports
Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anollés: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1160191
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
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
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: 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_Sanga+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1718076789.1910354.1494873287345%40mail.yahoo.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
BMP
May 17, 2017, 6:16:39 AM5/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyadarshi
Namaste. First of all I have to thank you for paying attention to this message.
You write:
>Do we need to define "person" and debate it or do we just lay down what 'person' means and >everyone agrees to it? The same goes for 'subjective experience'.
Generally, I consider it a mistake to confine oneself to definitions, which the word even
etymologically concerns limited or finite determinations which are insufficient when referring to the infinite
or spiritual. In my opinion what is needed in such circumstances is conceptual
comprehension, not definitions. Although the questions you ask are important,
and I have already discussed them on other occasions, they are related to but
do not touch the scientific problem of correlationism that the rest of my post
is about. This is directly related to current discussion on this list regarding
qualia. The attempt to correlate thoughts, feeling, or willing with phenomenal
appearances fails to recognize the difference between being and essence, or
thought and being. True there is a mediated identity or intrinsic unity between
being and essence, since being is what essence appears as. However, it is mere
abstraction or naivety to collapse the difference and ignore the negativity
(mediation) in the relation.
Abstract monism,
scientism, impersonalism, voidism, materialism, and so on are all products of
this failure to acknowledge the role of mediation or negation that is the
hallmark of the difference between spirit and nature. Science has long taken
the philosophically rejected path of the positivists in which immediate
(unmediated) being is held to be the permanent and fixed reality or truth (as
the ancient Parmenidians did). This view was challenged by the ancient
Heraclitians then just as it is today by those who refute the static
non-dialectical framework of the abstract understanding.
In India the ancient
atheistic and materialistic samkhya philosophy was challenged by the theists
who introduced the importance of Purusha, the person, to what they argued was
the otherwise impotent impersonalist viewpoint. The idea of person (the unity in
difference of thinking being) was revived in modern times by Descartes, who,
for reasons of spirits own purposes, divided that unity in difference into an
opposition of thought and being, or res cogitans and res extensus, from which
the duality of subjectivity and objectivity arises. The attempt to overcome
that duality by positing a sheer identity is a move by philosophically bereft
scientists and others, who have given us the naive realism of science today.
Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
hyyp://bviscs.org
From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
To: Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
May 17, 2017, 6:16:39 AM5/17/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Professor Priyedarshi
Jetli Ji
Namaskar.
One of the dictionary
(biology online) definitions of “person” is as
follow:
“self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child. Consider what person stands for;
which, i think, is a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection.”
As a professor in
philosophy you certainly know that human consciousness is capable to create
profound subjective experiences for itself and others to relish
philosophy.
Please read an
interesting article published in Nature
on “disputed
definitions” in science, where it is stated:
“To a great extent, science is about
arriving at definitions. What is a man? What is a number? Questions such as
these require substantial inquiry. But where science is supposed to be precise
and measured, definitions can be frustratingly vague and variable.”
However, by simple emphasizing
the “disputed definitions” of different terms you are simply avoiding the main
point stressed by Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. in his email. To
have a scientific understanding of consciousness we need a concept that goes
well beyond any neurological wiring diagram of the brain. We need the concept
that can include all four quadrants of objective and subjective, reactive and
proactive, experiences of the reality.
Sincerely,
 | |
 +91-( | |
 #8, Gopalakrishnan Mansion, Konappana Agrahara, Electronic City, Bangalore, Karnataka, India | |
 | |
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.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CAG9qgfBXRZxkKj0EDUvp9%2BosTZBxex69ia_3S-tn%2Bx%3DEZZmrDQ%40mail.gmail.com.
priyedarshi jetli
May 18, 2017, 7:04:04 AM5/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Madhava Puri,
Terms like 'person' and 'subjective experience' need not be defined as you say but if anyone is to debate what is being said about them, one must have some agreement on the use of these terms. I doubt that there is a consensus on this. The distinction between being and essence has a very rich history in the history of philosophy. Summarily declaring that there must be such a distinction and then go on to spell out what this distinction does not do justice to the history of philosophy. As far as the debate between Parmenides and Heraclitus goes, Heraclitus was earlier than Parmenides. So, the idea of the world being in constant flux without there being any fixed being is older in history of Presocratics than the Eleatic notion of there being only being without any change, or all change being an illusion in contrast to being as an unchanging reality.
Priyedarshi
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology
Dear Madhava Puri,Do we need to define "person" and debate it or do we just lay down what 'person' means and everyone agrees to it? The same goes for 'subjective experience'.Priyedarshi
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/56192481.1390448.1495016122080%40mail.yahoo.com.
BMP
May 18, 2017, 4:32:16 PM5/18/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Dear Priyadarshi
Namaste. Thank you for your kind reply. But you have not really offered your viewpoint. I know there are a lot of topics discussed on this list, and even in this email, and it may be hard to consider all of them. But perhaps you could look at the more modernistic ideas of Descartes that I referred to regarding the modern development of subjectivity, and let me know what you think.
So far as Parmenides of Elea [ca. 515 BC] coming after Heraclitus [ca. 535 BC] is concerned, the ideas of Heraclitus were so difficult to understand [he was called obscure], concerned as they were with the unity of opposites, such as the unity of thought and being, those who came after him were unable to grasp his thought. Parmenides was one of a long line of abstract monists to follow him. For Parmenides, thought and being were the same. Throughout history these two rivers, one of Being the other of Becoming, can be traced in the philosophical developments of both East and West. In the West it was Hegel in the modern period who came to embrace the Heraclitean idea of unity in difference and propound his encyclopedic philosophy on that basis. In the East it was embraced by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. To this day it remains the most difficult to understand idea because most prefer the more easily grasped abstract concept of sameness or identity.
Sincerely,
B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology
Madhava Puri,
Terms like 'person' and 'subjective experience' need not be defined as you say but if anyone is to debate what is being said about them, one must have some agreement on the use of these terms. I doubt that there is a consensus on this. The distinction between being and essence has a very rich history in the history of philosophy. Summarily declaring that there must be such a distinction and then go on to spell out what this distinction does not do justice to the history of philosophy. As far as the debate between Parmenides and Heraclitus goes, Heraclitus was earlier than Parmenides. So, the idea of the world being in constant flux without there being any fixed being is older in history of Presocratics than the Eleatic notion of there being only being without any change, or all change being an illusion in contrast to being as an unchanging reality.
Priyedarshi
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:45 PM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear PriyadarshiNamaste. First of all I have to thank you for paying attention to this message.You write:>Do we need to define "person" and debate it or do we just lay down what 'person' means and >everyone agrees to it? The same goes for 'subjective experience'.Generally, I consider it a mistake to confine oneself to definitions, which the word even etymologically concerns limited or finite determinations which are insufficient when referring to the infinite or spiritual. In my opinion what is needed in such circumstances is conceptual comprehension, not definitions. Although the questions you ask are important, and I have already discussed them on other occasions, they are related to but do not touch the scientific problem of correlationism that the rest of my post is about. This is directly related to current discussion on this list regarding qualia. The attempt to correlate thoughts, feeling, or willing with phenomenal appearances fails to recognize the difference between being and essence, or thought and being. True there is a mediated identity or intrinsic unity between being and essence, since being is what essence appears as. However, it is mere abstraction or naivety to collapse the difference and ignore the negativity (mediation) in the relation.Abstract monism, scientism, impersonalism, voidism, materialism, and so on are all products of this failure to acknowledge the role of mediation or negation that is the hallmark of the difference between spirit and nature. Science has long taken the philosophically rejected path of the positivists in which immediate (unmediated) being is held to be the permanent and fixed reality or truth (as the ancient Parmenidians did). This view was challenged by the ancient Heraclitians then just as it is today by those who refute the static non-dialectical framework of the abstract understanding.In India the ancient atheistic and materialistic samkhya philosophy was challenged by the theists who introduced the importance of Purusha, the person, to what they argued was the otherwise impotent impersonalist viewpoint. The idea of person (the unity in difference of thinking being) was revived in modern times by Descartes, who, for reasons of spirits own purposes, divided that unity in difference into an opposition of thought and being, or res cogitans and res extensus, from which the duality of subjectivity and objectivity arises. The attempt to overcome that duality by positing a sheer identity is a move by philosophically bereft scientists and others, who have given us the naive realism of science today.Sincerely,B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
priyedarshi jetli
May 19, 2017, 2:23:57 PM5/19/17
to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com
Madhava,
I have no disagreements. I do not necessarily have a perspective in the philosophy of mind. Descartes is often invoked as the founder of modern dualism. However, his contemporary Hobbes was a materialist. So, dualism was never a consensus position nor was idealism later. Debates were on and are still on.
Priyedarshi
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:57 AM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dear Priyadarshi
Namaste. Thank you for your kind reply. But you have not really offered your viewpoint. I know there are a lot of topics discussed on this list, and even in this email, and it may be hard to consider all of them. But perhaps you could look at the more modernistic ideas of Descartes that I referred to regarding the modern development of subjectivity, and let me know what you think.So far as Parmenides of Elea [ca. 515 BC] coming after Heraclitus [ca. 535 BC] is concerned, the ideas of Heraclitus were so difficult to understand [he was called obscure], concerned as they were with the unity of opposites, such as the unity of thought and being, those who came after him were unable to grasp his thought. Parmenides was one of a long line of abstract monists to follow him. For Parmenides, thought and being were the same. Throughout history these two rivers, one of Being the other of Becoming, can be traced in the philosophical developments of both East and West. In the West it was Hegel in the modern period who came to embrace the Heraclitean idea of unity in difference and propound his encyclopedic philosophy on that basis. In the East it was embraced by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. To this day it remains the most difficult to understand idea because most prefer the more easily grasped abstract concept of sameness or identity.
Sincerely,B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute
From: priyedarshi jetli <pje...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Neurology, Phrenology, Astrology
Madhava Puri,Terms like 'person' and 'subjective experience' need not be defined as you say but if anyone is to debate what is being said about them, one must have some agreement on the use of these terms. I doubt that there is a consensus on this. The distinction between being and essence has a very rich history in the history of philosophy. Summarily declaring that there must be such a distinction and then go on to spell out what this distinction does not do justice to the history of philosophy. As far as the debate between Parmenides and Heraclitus goes, Heraclitus was earlier than Parmenides. So, the idea of the world being in constant flux without there being any fixed being is older in history of Presocratics than the Eleatic notion of there being only being without any change, or all change being an illusion in contrast to being as an unchanging reality.Priyedarshi
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 3:45 PM, 'BMP' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com> wrote:Dear PriyadarshiNamaste. First of all I have to thank you for paying attention to this message.You write:>Do we need to define "person" and debate it or do we just lay down what 'person' means and >everyone agrees to it? The same goes for 'subjective experience'.Generally, I consider it a mistake to confine oneself to definitions, which the word even etymologically concerns limited or finite determinations which are insufficient when referring to the infinite or spiritual. In my opinion what is needed in such circumstances is conceptual comprehension, not definitions. Although the questions you ask are important, and I have already discussed them on other occasions, they are related to but do not touch the scientific problem of correlationism that the rest of my post is about. This is directly related to current discussion on this list regarding qualia. The attempt to correlate thoughts, feeling, or willing with phenomenal appearances fails to recognize the difference between being and essence, or thought and being. True there is a mediated identity or intrinsic unity between being and essence, since being is what essence appears as. However, it is mere abstraction or naivety to collapse the difference and ignore the negativity (mediation) in the relation.Abstract monism, scientism, impersonalism, voidism, materialism, and so on are all products of this failure to acknowledge the role of mediation or negation that is the hallmark of the difference between spirit and nature. Science has long taken the philosophically rejected path of the positivists in which immediate (unmediated) being is held to be the permanent and fixed reality or truth (as the ancient Parmenidians did). This view was challenged by the ancient Heraclitians then just as it is today by those who refute the static non-dialectical framework of the abstract understanding.In India the ancient atheistic and materialistic samkhya philosophy was challenged by the theists who introduced the importance of Purusha, the person, to what they argued was the otherwise impotent impersonalist viewpoint. The idea of person (the unity in difference of thinking being) was revived in modern times by Descartes, who, for reasons of spirits own purposes, divided that unity in difference into an opposition of thought and being, or res cogitans and res extensus, from which the duality of subjectivity and objectivity arises. The attempt to overcome that duality by positing a sheer identity is a move by philosophically bereft scientists and others, who have given us the naive realism of science today.Sincerely,B Madhava Puri, Ph.D.Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institutehttp://bviscs.org
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1895515782.1008702.1495139259563%40mail.yahoo.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages