Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fifth International Conference "SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST — 2017" People Serge Patlavskiy Today at 1:00 PM To Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com BCC Yahoogroups Message body - Shilpi Saxena on June 14, 2017 wrote: >> [S.P.] wrote: >> Noumenal Reality (which I postulate exists objectively and >>independently of the process of cognition) is common for everybody. > >My reply: What is your basis for this radical assertion? What do you >mean by objective reality and why do you feel that it is independent >of process of cognition? [S.P.] The key word here is "to postulate". This word indicates that I talk about some meta-theory. A meta-theory is not an applied theory. The applied theory must have certain explanatory and predictive power, and must be a result of direct observations, data gaining through experiments, data generalization and systematization and formulating the hypotheses. The applied theory -- it is what requires proofs. But, a meta-theory, by definition, does not require proofs or explanation why it is formulated such as it is formulated. If somebody believes in something, he has no need to explain why he has such a belief system, and to prove the existence of the object of believing. It would be incorrect to ask a composer why he has composed such a musical composition but not the other musical composition. It would be incorrect to ask a painter why he has painted such a painting but not some other paining. It would be incorrect to ask a poet why he has written such a verse but not some other verse. Why? Because in all such cases the reply will be identical: "This is how I see the world I live in. You have to live my life and start looking at the world by my eyes, and then, maybe, you will understand why I have composed such a musical composition (or, have painted such a painting, or have written such a verse)". Second. I do not use the concept "objective reality". Instead, I use the concepts "Noumenal Reality" and "Phenomenal Reality". So, I start constructing my special meta-theory by formulating the following postulates: I consider Noumenal Reality as existing objectively and independently of the process of cognition. I consider Phenomenal Reality as a model of Noumenal Reality. Every living organism, due to activity of own consciousness, has got its own unique subjective version of Phenomenal Reality, or, it has got its own model of the outer world. The versions of Phenomenal Reality differ (cf.: Latin "Quot homines, tot sententiae") while Noumenal Reality is one for all the consciousness-possessing organisms. If you disagree with these postulates, then you are free to formulate your own postulates (and start attending different church, so to say). But, I formulate some objective criterion which can be used to say whether the constructed meta-theory is good or not. Please, follow my idea attentively. I assume that any applied theory is constructed within the limits of such or other meta-theory. For example, Physics as a discipline -- a collection of applied theories -- is constructed within the limits of a meta-theory called the Modern Materialistic Picture of the World. So, I state my objective criterion: a meta-theory is good if the applied theories constructed within its limits possess sufficient explanatory and predictive power, and it is the more good the more such applied theories are there. Now then, within the limits of my special meta-theory I have constructed a lot of applied theories, including the applied theory of consciousness. Since it has sufficient explanatory power (viz. it is able to explain how the physical sensory signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience), therefore I treat my special meta-theory (which includes the postulate about objective and consciousness-independent existence of Noumenal Reality) as enough good. [Shilpi Saxena] wrote: > My reply: What is your version of Nouminal reality? Let me >understand it first! [S.P.] I have written several big papers explaining this. As I have mentioned in my reply to Vinod Sehgal on June 12, my explanatory framework is not an easy one -- it has level-by-level structure, and it can be compared with a multi-storey building. But, if you indeed want to understand it, you may start with the following links: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/messages/15600 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/jcs-online/conversations/messages/15621 (In case you do not have a Yahoo account, I attach these posts below). [Shilpi Saxena] wrote: > Do you know what is the meaning or definition of God? [S.P.] I may share with you some my considerations on this subject. In the Ukrainian language, the word "bo(h)" stands for "God", and, simultaneously, it also stands for "because". So, suppose, people observe what is going on around, and they make the following conclusions: "It is raining, bo (Eng. because) there are black clouds in the sky"; "It is cold, bo (Eng. because) it is winter outdoor"; "It is hot, bo (Eng. because) it is summer and the Sun is high.", and so on. In these cases, people are able to see the cause-effect relations between the events. But, there are also special cases: "The child died unexpectedly, bo ..."; "A fierce drought has perished this year's crops, bo ..."; "A thunderbolt has struck a man, bo ...". In these cases, the ellipsis after the word "bo" means that people had found no evident and simple answer why this or that even has taken place. With time, the word "bo" was hypostasized -- it has acquired independent existence as an unexplainable cause of the events. In result, people started explaining the above-mentioned events thus: "The child died unexpectedly -- it is Bo(h) (Eng. God) who took it."; "A fierce drought has perished this year's crops -- it is Bo(h) (Eng. God) who has punished us"; "A thunderbolt has struck a man -- it is Bo(h) (Eng. God) who has punished him for his sins", and so on. Now then, Bo(h) (Eng. God) was considered as an Ultimate Cause of events which had no other explanations. Then, people's fantasy led to "garbing" Bo(h) into anthropomorphic forms like an Old Man with a grey beard. Thanks for your questions, Serge Patlavskiy From: Dr Shilpi Saxena To: "online_sadhu_sanga@googlegroups.com" Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fifth International Conference "SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST — 2017" [S.P.] wrote: >> Noumenal Reality (which I postulate exists objectively and independently of the process of cognition) is common for everybody. My reply: What is your basis for this radical assertion? What do you mean by objective reality and why do you feel that it is independent of process of cognition? >> [S.P.]: "Real identity" as an element of Noumenal Reality is vision-independent. In so doing, God should also have his/her/its own personal version of Phenomenal Reality as a model of Noumenal Reality. My reply: What is your version of Nouminal reality? Let me understand it first! Do you know what is the meaning or definition of God? With Best Regards On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 3:14 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote: - Shilpi Saxena on June 9, 2017 wrote: >So you are seen differently by different subjects. [S.P.] Indeed, every consciousness-possessing living organism has got its own unique version of Phenomenal Reality as a model of Noumenal Reality. In so doing, Noumenal Reality (which I postulate exists objectively and independently of the process of cognition) is common for everybody. [Shilpi Saxena] wrote: >Yet you have your own identity and your real identity is also >dependent on the vision of God [S.P.] "Real identity" as an element of Noumenal Reality is vision-independent. In so doing, God should also have his/her/its own personal version of Phenomenal Reality as a model of Noumenal Reality. [Shilpi Saxena] wrote: >... because nothing is independent of God. [S.P.] As I said, we should attend different churches. I mean that our meta-theoretical basements (or world-views, or belief systems) are incompatible. With respect, Serge Patlavskiy From: Dr Shilpi Saxena To: "online_sadhu_sanga@ googlegroups.com" Sent: Friday, June 9, 2017 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fifth International Conference "SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST — 2017" [SP] wrote "I believe that the Moon is out there even when nobody looks at it. If you believe that the outer world is a product of your consciousness then we should attend different churches." Some of your friends will look at you and they will see a friend in you. You parents will see you differently. A hungry lion will see you as a food. Different subjects will see you as different objects. So you are seen differently by different subjects. Yet you have your own identity and your real identity is also dependent on the vision of God because nothing is independent of God. It is same for everything that we observe in this world. With Best Regards Dr Shilpi Saxena, MRSC, Ph.D, FICCE Women Scientist-DST Ex-Executive Member of Board of INC-IAH (United Kingdom) University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:40 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote: - Shilpi Saxena on June 6, 2017 wrote: > Where is your proof for your radical view? [S.P.] I postulate Noumenal Reality (or, the outer world) as existing objectively and independently of the activity of consciousness. I believe that the Moon is out there even when nobody looks at it. If you believe that the outer world is a product of your consciousness then we should attend different churches. Since we talk here about belief systems (or, better say, meta-theories) therefore no proofs are required. Everybody is free to believe in what he prefers to believe. The physical signals (say, e-m radiation, air vibration, etc.) are the elements of Noumenal Reality and therefore their existence do not depend of our thinking about them. Our sense organs transform the physical signals into physical sensory signals (viz. electric impulses propagating along neuronal channels to the brain), so the physical (sensory) signals also exist objectively and independently of the process of cognition. Important note: the physical (sensory) signals do not produce experience themselves. It is our consciousness which may process the given physical (sensory) signal and transform it into new experience for us. Consciousness can also process the formerly memorized element of experience and transform it into new element of experience, therefore new experience is possible even in total absence of new sensory input. [Shilpi Saxena] wrote: >To prove your view, can you send some electric impulses to a machine > and make it experience taste or colour? [S.P.] As I have mentioned above, electric impulse does not produce experience. For there to be experience, there must be consciousness in the first place. A machine does not possess consciousness, so it will not be able to "experience taste or colour" even if being exposed to direct lightning stroke. [Shilpi Saxena] wrote: >What you have to say about plants? Do they sense anything or not? [S.P.] I hold that life and consciousness are inextricable. The immediate role of consciousness is to create a model of the outer world for the bearer of consciousness. So, for a living organism to possess the adequate model of the outer world is as important as to consume food and to take part in energetic interactions. Since plants (and fungi) are living organisms therefore they must possess their exemplars of consciousness as well (with all that it implies). However, one may object here that plants do not possess brains. Important note: I do not consider consciousness as an epiphenomenon of brain processes. Quite the contrary, I hold that every living organism has such a {brain+nervous system+sense organs (or whatever stands for these in the given organism} as is required by normal functioning of its exemplar of consciousness. In so doing, consciousness keeps under control all the processes in the organism. [Shilpi Saxena] wrote: >What is there in electric wires or electric charges to create the >impulse in you to write the replies? [S.P.] I repeat for the second time: electric impulses (or the physical sensory signals) have nothing to do with my writing the replies. My reply is a product of my consciousness. Second. Electric impulses do not carry information. Information appears only when the given person's consciousness processes the physical (sensory) signals -- the e-m radiation reflected from computer screen and transformed by eyes into sensory signals -- and transform them into new elements of experience (or, which is the same, into new knowledge, new information for the given person). Thanks for your questions, Serge Patlavskiy From: Dr Shilpi Saxena To: "online_sadhu_sanga@ googlegroups.com" Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 6:56 PM Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Fifth International Conference "SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST — 2017" Dear Serge, >>Sensory data are pure by default. They are the electric impulses sent by sense organs to the brain. So, sensory data are the elements of Noumenal Reality and therefore they are consciousness-independent. Where is your proof for your radical view? To prove your view, can you send some electric impulses to a machine and make it experience taste or colour? What you have to say about plants? Do they sense anything or not? It is quite strange to think that whatever ideas you are trying to convey by your email replies are nothing but electrical impulses. What is there in electric wires or electric charges to create the impulse in you to write the replies? With Best Regards Dr Shilpi Saxena, MRSC, Ph.D, FICCE Women Scientist-DST Ex-Executive Member of Board of INC-IAH (United Kingdom) University of Delhi, Delhi-110007 On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:44 PM, 'Serge Patlavskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote: - Shilpi Saxena on June 6, 2017 wrote: >There is nothing like pure sensory data and pure physics because >everything is dependent on mind and consciousness. [S.P.] Due to consciousness, a person has own version of the model of the outer world. In so doing, the outer world does not depend on what model the given person has. Noumenal Reality is postulated to exist objectively and independently of the cognitive activity -- it is such as it is, and it does not care what we think about it. :-) Second. Sensory data are pure by default. They are the electric impulses sent by sense organs to the brain. So, sensory data are the elements of Noumenal Reality and therefore they are consciousness-independent. In so doing, the different bearers of consciousness may have different models of the outer world, which means that consciousness of different persons may interpret the same physical signals (and correspondent sensory data) in a different way. Hence we have the fact that one man's meat is another man's poison. With respect, Serge Patlavskiy Вірусів немає. www.avast.com 2 AttachmentsView allDownload all jcs-online-post_15600 .html jcs-online-post_15621 .html