April 23, 2019

Do not violate established physics in an attempt to understand consciousness

“Shakespeare reads morally. He’s always attuned to moral issues. He is always interested in ethics and the complexity of decisions. Measure for Measure is a brilliant example of that — of how hard it is to do the right thing in a fallen world.” 


The most magical element of all is fresh water, which is a gift, in this rough country with running brooks that disappear quickly into the sea that is surrounding on all sides. No great rivers can form in this landscape, which reminded me of Kerala in India.
Water is life. The fairy Viviane is nothing but a personification of this life-giving nature of water. Until we realize the sacredness of water, and how we carry it in our own bodies, I don’t think we can truly protect the web of ecology that is necessary for our survival. (end) https://t.co/7I4LAnktB1

Sir, you know much better than I. And you also know that  I am indebted to you for all your suggestions, writings and links available on sm to study Rishi. I've just quoted as I did earlier " in the summoning voice..." (Savitri) to express my regards of respect to Sri Aurobindo

The basic rectangle or Vastu in terms of Vedic ontology is formed by Varuna, Aryaman, Mitra, and Bhaga. This is prior to all legends and mythologies and so their pristine implications need to be internalised accordingly. This hypothesis is on much surer ground than Big bang, etc.

I find it frustrating because I agree that strict passive selection, while obvious and incontrovertible, is nevertheless an incomplete explanation of evolution. Other organizational factors including mind and maybe even cosmos are involved. But it isn’t an either-or proposition as these artificially selected and fit for purpose (note the irony) quotes imply. I hope we can get away from such straw-proposals or I fear the conference will be a waste.

April 22, 2019

This applies only to the neurological sensory consciousness and not to the cosmic or universal consciousness. Such restrictive biological consciousnesses can’t explain non local mind or consciousness and empirical very low frequency EM waves and dilation of space time during transcendental meditation. 
Best Regards 
April 21, 2019

Dear Sigfried,

I have discussed relationship between work and energy in a previous e-mail which you missed. It follows rigorously from that, that  the P.E. for attractive gravity is negative, assuming that it is zero when the two objects are infinite distance apart. And yes it is high school physics!!!

As I agreed in the e-mail you are responding to E(tot)=0 is a very attractive but uncertain idea. Apart from uncertainties of mass, radius (even whether the concept of radius of the universe makes any sense)and what happened at the beginning of the universe. Then there are questions about QM, quantum gravity etc. So as I said it is a fascinating idea but uncertain.

About consciousness, I have been telling Avtar and others, do not mix up established physics with your theory of consciousness. As Ram reminds us there are some 40 different definitions of consciousness. So for the time being do not violate established physics in an attempt to understand consciousness!!! This is my redline! A problem for us physicists on this group is that majority of people here do not understand even high school physics, either they never had or they have forgotten!! So discussion becomes  frustrating at times. It is like discussing something with someone who does not know your language and you do not know his language! But that is life!


April 3, 2019

Hi Ram

Total energy of the universe must always be conserved before and after manifestation and throughout expansion and cannot be zero.
Zero energy means nonexistence pure nothingness not even any field. Even the existence of a field or quantum fluctuations requires positive energy.

Your descriptions would violate empirical observations of the universe hence incorrect.

April 4, 2019
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scientific-basis-of-consciousness/1558841568.15555533.1554394203546%40mail.yahoo.com

Dear Stan,

Let alone that precognition violates present physics, considering even  our ordinary lives, I doubt whether  initiation of goal-oriented actions by our brains obeys causality in present physics. Our actions are often motivated by desires, purposes, needs, and goals, all of which are closely associated with our future states. The purpose, desire, intention, etc. is looking into a future state.  The search for an appropriate course of action to achieve the desired goal and the action itself depend upon some information about a future state; for example, if I want to go to NY, I will take a train to NY but not to Philadelphia. Therefore, the change from my present state depends upon information regarding a future state. The goal in my present imagination is not the same as the future physical state of my body because I am not in NY yet. The imagined goal is a mapping of the future physical state (different from the present physical state, else no action happens), into my present memory. So, the present memory content does depend on a not yet realized physical state. How does the brain get the information about a future state of itself? Since it seems do so with no help from outside, isn't this ability of the brain violate the causality principle in Physics? Does quantum physics allow a quantum system to acquire all by itself, information about a future state of itself?


April 7, 2019

QM and CM are in conflict and not extensions of each other until a bridge of missing physics is found to re-conciliate them. Collapse of the wave function or objective reduction must be explained to achieve it.

Similarly, GR, QM, and EM have to be reconciled or bridged otherwise they would remain in conflict and paradoxical.


April 7, 2019

Hi Stan,

I agree with John. In my view, if current physics, biology, and neuroscience are kept as they are while extending them, then it would not be considered violation; instead, it would be its extension, which is allowed in physics and other sciences. For example, would you consider QM violated CM (classical mechanics)? I would consider QM extended the CM instead to explain six physical phenomena that could not be explained by CM.


Kind regards,
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

April 7, 2019

Hi all,

It seems that formless/patternless, aspectless, attributeless, energyless, consciousness-less, matter-less, symmetric primal Unus Mundus (UM) is Vedānta’s Brahman using its ‘Neti-Neti” concept, which needs further unpacking.

Perhaps, the primal UM has “latent”, “hidden” or “unmanifested” forms/patterns, aspects, attributes, energy, consciousness, and matter as long as symmetry not broken. In other words, the primal UM has the potentiality for aspects, attributes, energy, consciousness (experiencer and experiences, cognition, functions, and patterns/forms), and physical universe. When the UM’s symmetry is broken say thru Big Bang (Cosmic Fire), then all its above-hidden characteristics are manifested appropriately at an appropriate time thru evolution.


Kind regards,

April 6, 2019

Thanks, Rosie.

You mentioned that “… love was the first system – the universe was created through love.” Then a query will be where from “love” came? Perhaps, you might say it is the fundamental primal energy field, which may have many names. In the eDAM, it is called Unified Information Energy Field (UIEF). In Vedanta, it is called “Brahman”, similarly, in other religions. Science calls it a quantum vacuum. In the Intelligent Design (ID) framework, I always wonder who created the designer of the designer of ... of our beautiful universe?  But again, the ID might say the designer is the primal entity. In other words, perhaps, all frameworks are saying the same thing in different languages, but the fundamental reality remains the same, language should not matter.

The Big Bang of science seems like an equivalent to Cosmic Egg and Cosmic Fire (Virāt), as mentioned in the most revered Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad; see (Vimal, 2012c).


Kind regards,
April 4, 2019

There are two concepts of the matter:

(i) First, the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, where matter has rūpa/form and has the potentiality for experiences (Pereira Jr., 2013; Radhakrishnan, 1960; Swami Krishnananda, 1983); it is used in our frameworks (Pereira Jr., 2013; Pereira Jr. et al., 2015; Vimal, 2013).

(ii) Second, the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter (who identifies matter with atoms/particles), which implies that matter is non-experiential (Vimal, 2015d); it is used in science (such as physics, chemistry, and biology).

The second concept misleads materialistic biologists who make the grave mistake of following non-experiential materialism that has serious unsolvable problems and hence cannot address the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) because it does not explain about life, especially how experiences arise from non-experiential matter. Biologists who follow Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter should not have such problems.

There is a simple argument against the above second concept: you want to create an experience from the brain; brain as matter must have a potential for creating experiences, otherwise, how can brain create experiences out of ‘nothing’. For example, apple seeds have the potential to create an apple tree; that is why apples can be created from apple-seeds. In other words, we cannot create oranges from apple-seeds.

To sum up, let us make sure that we cannot create experiences from non-experiential non-mental matter that does not even have a single trace of the potentiality of experiences. We cannot create apple out of orange seeds.

By the way, once you accept Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, then you are no more materialist; you are dual-aspect.

The frameworks, such as the extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM), that follow the first concept of matter do not face such problems (Vimal, 2015).


Kind regards,
April 1, 2019


I have asked a very simple and straight question viz where is the empirical scientific evidence that a stone at the macro level or an electron at the quantum level, apart from the detected physical properties, have also

feelings and information?

In view of wave-particle duality, what is the meaning of forms/patterns ( which, I think, you interpret as information) in electrons and other fundamental particles?

Vinod Sehgal

March 29, 2019

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/1049201121.14414636

Dear Kashyap,

Strictly speaking, science provides only a theory of how matter interacts with itself. It does not provide any theory of matter itself. This is very important distinction that needs to be made. Is there any scientific theory that can describe an electron or photon in its entirety without referring to any interactions?

What Yogic studies say is that all these multitude of particles and their varied interactions are totally irrelevant when we are talking of how matter interacts with consciousness. You are right in saying that Yogic studies say nothing about how matter interacts with itself. That is totally within the purview of science. But consciousness can also exercise control over matter and that is what these siddhis are about. This does not contradict science in any way.

Now how do we verify these siddhis? You are again right in saying that neither me nor anyone else on this group, as far as we know, actually has the capability to demonstrate any of the siddhis mentioned in PYS. But does that mean that we should not believe in these siddhis? No! Whether we believe in a person or not largely depends on that person's character and integrity (and not which university s/he is affiliated with and how many degrees s/he has). This is true in science also. We would hardly make any progress if all scientists had to personally verify all experiments. And when a person of Vivekananda's and Ramakrishna's character and integrity says that the siddhis mentioned in our scriptures exist, we should not discard this idea just like that. We also need not blindly believe in this! An important point here is that a belief in the siddhis is not necessary for making spiritual progress. In fact, some of these siddhis are considered to be obstacles in the spiritual path and aspirants are strongly advised to turn them away when they arise during deep meditative states.

I am personally neither interested in promoting a belief in the siddhis nor in pursuing them myself. I will only object when someone discards them without trying to properly understand. Even Einstein could not come to terms with Quantum Mechanics all his life. And so, I do understand that even the most rational people can have deep rooted beliefs which can prevent them from appreciating various aspects of reality. Yogic studies are lot more deeper and cannot be understood unless we are willing to radically change our perspective.

July 22, 2018

This issue of verification you have raised is actually becoming problematic in science also these days, as you know very well. There is lot of emphasis on "reproducible research" since many labs these days come under publication pressure and end up reporting data without proper verification. And with the coming decades, it will become all the more problematic since more advanced theories will require that much more advanced equipment which will not be readily available everywhere. Yoga does not face this problem since all its theories and predictions can be verified by an individual without needing any advanced equipment except the body-mind complex. But of course, this does not mean that Yoga is easy. It requires many decades or even lifetimes of intense sadhana under proper guidance. So the main point I am making is that the issue of verification you have raised is extremely important, but it cannot be settled without undergoing the required sadhana. And asking for empirical verification of PYS statements is totally meaningless, since they are about interaction of consciousness with matter and not of matter with itself.

Hence, instead of discussing how to empirically verify the PYS statements, we should discuss the methods proposed in PYS. I would certainly be very much interested in discussing them one by one!

KV: Whatever we know about electrons or photons is enough most of the time to understand empirical results.
KV: Typically science is  interested in understanding “how” rather than “why”.

All that we have in science are theories for how an electron/photon interacts with other particles. There is no scientific theory of an electron or photon itself! These two are very different things. Interestingly, Yoga is also mainly interested in "how" and the "why" questions are dealt with in Advaita/Sankhya/etc. The primary difference between Science and Yoga is of the kind of interactions being studied. Science studies Matter-Matter interactions, whereas Yoga studies Consciousness-Matter and Consciousness-Consciousness interactions. So obviously, the tools that are useful in one domain are unlikely to be useful in the other.

July 23, 2018

No comments:

Post a Comment