Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: PSI People Serge Patlavskiy Today at 11:06 PM To Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com Message body - Ram Vimal on January 22, 2018 wrote: >McCard: I can only propose a subjective test, at this point. One would merge >their consciousness with the stone. >Vimal: Can you merge yourself? If you can, then what is your conclusion? >What is the mental aspect of a state of the stone? How makes you to think > that people will believe you? . [S.P.] The effect of "merging" may be formalized as formation of the chain of wholes by such whole complex systems as a system{person} and a system{stone} which become the elements of the same DIS-model (here I apply a system of AS-DIS-DEC models to formalize the psi-phenomenon). In case such a chain is formed, then, by changing the entropic state of the system{stone}, a person may make a stone even to lose its weight and to start levitating. However, it is not correct to say that consciousness merges with the stone. . In fact, the mechanism of this psi-phenomenon may look like as follows. First. I assume that every complex system (as a special model) describes by three systemic characteristics -- informational, material, and energetic, and a characteristic of its overall state, or entropic characteristic. In so doing, the change of informational characteristic of the system{person} pertains to the activity of person's consciousness. . Then, the change of informational characteristic of the system{person} may result in changing the entropic state of the system{person} (provided its material and energetic characteristics will stay unchanged or quasi-unchanged). Then, if the system{person} and the system{stone} form the same chain of wholes (they become the elements of the same DIS-model), the change of entropic state of the system{person} will immediately bring about the change of entropic state of the system{stone} in spite of the distance between a person and a stone. (So, no need in the idea of "tachyons"). . Then, the change of entropic state of the system{stone} may result in changing any of its systemic characteristics: either informational, material, or energetic. If it will be the material characteristic that changes, this may manifest itself as losing weight and levitating, or changing the stone's spatial location. If it will be the informational (or energetic) characteristic, then there will be different effects manifesting. . And, finally. There are possible also more complex cases when, for example, the material characteristic of the system{stone} changes together with its informational characteristic while its energetic characteristic stays quasi-unchanged. This case has to be considered when trying to formalize, for example, a phenomenon of poltergeist. . Best, Serge Patlavskiy From: "'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." To: Joseph McCard ; VINOD KUMAR SEHGAL Cc: Paul Werbos ; poznanski@biomedical.utm.my; BT APJ ; sklein@berkeley.edu; vasavada@iupui.edu; asingh2384@aol.com; Robert Boyer ; Vivekanand Pandey Vimal ; Jonathan Edwards ; Online Sadhu Sanga Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 4:21 AM Subject: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: PSI Hi Joe and Vinod ji, Thanks. I am combining my responses of queries from both of you because they are related to each other to some extent. (I). My main interest is how to detect mental aspect of a state of an entity from the entity’s 1pp in any entity to address Sehgal’s query of empirical subjective and/or objective evidence. Objective evidence is always from 3pp so it is not nonsensical to try 3pp-objective evidence for 1pp-mental aspect because it would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Thus, remaining method would be some method for subjective evidence if enlightened yogis have ability to enter into an entity (especially inert entities) and investigate if they have any 1pp-mental aspect. This also seems very hard because it is hard to find such yogis near future who will be willing to participate in experiments. Thus, only remaining is a logical reasoning but this method is subjective, i.e., for the eDAM, it is logical to hypothesize that whatever is going on in the physical aspect must, by definition of inseparability, effectively be going on in the inseparable mental aspect, and vice-versa, but 1pp-mental aspect is latent/hidden for us as 3rd person. However, opponents such as dualism based theist SAnkhya supporters such as Vinod ji want to have subjective/objective evidence, which is currently not available. I am interested to investigate what idealism based framework such as your aware-ized/conscious energy as fundamental says about it, i.e., all mental and physical entities are basically consciousness/experiences; so inert matter also has some kind of awareness/experiences/‘mental aspect’ in addition to their usual physical properties. When you mentioned that your experiment can detect rock’s c-units (which would be mental aspect in the eDAM), I became interested. I do not understand your experimental design and I wanted to more information on it. (II) What is c-unit? Joe, you mentioned that c-units have the following properties: 1. They cannot ionize any entity, such as atom. 2. They have properties similar to heat (thermal) and sound. 3. They are the carriers of perception, including telepathy and clairvoyance, and are a part of natural effects. 4. They have properties that allow it to code information, for one example, they form patterns. (III). Vimal: How do you rule out the reflected light and other types of emissions from a stone to detect emanations of c-units from the stone? McCard: Through a filter built into the design of the instrument. Vimal: Please write in detail what kinds of filters are built into the design of the instrument. (IV). Vimal: How do you detect the mental aspect of a state of the stone thru your experiments? McCard: I can only propose a subjective test, at this point. One would merge their consciousness with the stone. Vimal: Can you merge yourself? If you can, then what is your conclusion? What is the mental aspect of a state of the stone? How makes you to think that people will believe you? (V). McCard: So, [monads + c-units + tachyons + psychons] is a good start: Vimal: If you think they will be useful in detecting the mental aspect of a state of an inert entity, then please go ahead. (VI) McCard: Have you given any thought as to how these c-units might fit into your ideas about visual perception? Vimal: If they exist, then they would be part of mental aspect in the eDAM framework because idealism can be represented in this aspect. (VII) Sehgal: … So, in my view, the observations at the operational level in brain, are framework neutral and unable to test and establish any framework. Vimal: If separability is found in the experiment proposed in Section 3.2 of (Vimal, 2015b), then monistic frameworks will certainly be rejected. Otherwise, it will support the eDAM because the eDAM is preferred due to the problems of other frameworks elaborated in Section 1.1 of (Vimal, 2010b), Chapter 2 of (Vimal, 2012), and Section 2.2.2 of (Vimal, 2013). Therefore, experiment is worth carrying out. (IX). Sehgal: It is not correct to have any hypothesis which is prima facie inconsistent with rational and obvious logic and observational facts. For example, quite paradoxically you are stating that the states of wakeful conscious state, memory are not the states of the manifested mental aspect!! Vimal: I prefer not to qualify any of the necessary conditions with “conscious” because otherwise it would be circular and misleading. For example, I would prefer to say “wakeful beable ontic state” instead of “wakeful conscious state”. Of course, all the states are dual-aspect, but the degree of manifestation of mental aspect varies with an entity and its state. In this example, wakeful state is related to signals from ARAS system, but this would not have ability that lead to the “self” to experience any specific SE, such as redness, for which other necessary conditions need to be satisfied. Similarly, other necessary conditions will have the same incompleteness problem. When all the necessary conditions are met, then only a specific SE will be experienced by the “self”. Please appreciate what the necessary and sufficient conditions of consciousness mean. Cheers! Kind regards, Rām ---------------------------------------------------------- Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D. Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research) Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept. 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907 rlpvimal@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools On Sunday 21 January 2018, 10:45:49 AM GMT-5, Joseph McCard wrote: Ram, Ram wrote: Please first discuss with each other and decide if Joe’s consciousness-unit can be called Leibnitz’s or Jo’s Monad or not. Joe wrote: As you can see, per his withdrawal from the list, Jonathan does not, and will talk to me, for about 600 years. Ram wrote: If not, then Joe should use consciousness-unit (or c-unit in short). Joe wrote: I had thought perhaps "monad" would be a common unifying concept. But, like the concept "soul", it is difficult to unravel the built-in conceptual difficulties. Ram wrote: In that case, my queries to Joe are: 1. What is the wavelength-range of a c-unit? Joe wrote: A good question. I would refer to the following paper by Syamala Hari as a start: "This paper suggests that mental units called psychons by Eccles could be tachyons defined theoretically by physicists sometime ago. Although experiments to detect faster-than-light particles have not been successful so far, recently, there has been renewed interest in tachyon theories in various branches of physics. We suggest that tachyon theories may be applicable to brain physics." >https://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/169< I am not sure if there has been a function assigned to these tachyons. I will look for further details. Perhaps there is a connection with c-units as c-units are the carriers of perception, including telepathy and clairvoyance, and are a part of natural effects. Ram wrote: 2. Since c-unit has properties of both photon and sound: how do you reconcile? Joe wrote: The c-unit has thermal and sound (not noise) properties. The c-unit is not limited to, but does have many properties of the monad, >http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/leibniz1714b.pdf< , as described from the beginning of the Monadology. Ram wrote: If you cannot reconcile then consider one of them or something else. Joe wrote: If I suggested that c-units have the properties of photons and sound, I misspoke. It is thermal and sound properties. Ram asked: Almost instantaneous information transfer between two remote locations A and B needs further explanation (for paranormal remote viewing). Joe wrote: I understand. So far, I have suggested a connection to tachyons, and to non-ionizing radiation. In addition, the c-unit has properties that allow it to code information. For one example, they form patterns. Ram wrote: 3. How do you rule out the reflected light and other types of emissions from a stone to detect emanations of c-units from the stone Joe wrote: Through a filter built into the design of the instrument. Ram wrote: ... or detect the mental aspect of a state of the stone thru your experiments? Joe wrote: I can only propose a subjective test, at this point. One would merge their consciousness with the stone. So, [monads + c-units + tachyons + psychons] , a good start. Have you given any thought as to how these c-units might fit into your ideas about visual perception? Thank-you, joe