EFTA00822244.pdf

From: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacation@gmail.com> To: Deepak Chopra Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2016 10:28:02 +0000 paul selig was amusing no more no less- he was off to give a lecture to 60 housewives in wisconsin ( punishment for his transgressions i guess ). I do not know if you are aware of the Sci Foo. conference. its the most respected gathering of thinkers. I suggest we do a SCi WOO. , where we invite the scinents to teach and learn as well as the woo woos to do the same. I tell the science guy , that motivating a group of players in the locker room at half time. does not lend itself to reductionism. I wish you were here today. I am putting together , chomsky, wolfram, hillis negroponti. should be lots of fire works On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Deepak Chopra < wrote: All experience and knowing of experience is in consciousness . Consciousness has no form and hence has to be non local . Matter as such does not exist . It is an interpretation of a combination of sensations images feelings and thoughts in consciousness . Mind /,Body/ Universe are human concepts - of experience and the knowing of experience . In other words there is only consciousness . The is the monistic Advaita understanding based on exploring consciousness as self awareness . Dee ak Cho ra Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and If albeit::: On Aug 6, 2016, at 9:28 AM, ICalluri Rao < > wrote: As per my immature understanding of the subject, One group of thinkers seem to believe that consciousness exists in both living and non living material. While the other group thinks that consciouness is the property of living only. KSR On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:50 AM, 'Serge Patlayskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. M. Puri Maharaja, M. <1 > wrote: [Stephen Jarosek] wrote: >All I know with certainty is that current interpretations fail to take >seriously the implications of entropy and the persistence of >complexity across time. EFTA00822244 In] I agree. Therefore I have constructed my own explanatory framework, and I started from scratch for not to repeat the mistakes of others. My integrated information system (a model I use to formalize the object of study) does take into consideration 'the implications of entropy", and it helps to cope with complexity of the modeled object. So, I take a professional interest in other persons' "axiomatic assertions" to compare with my own, and I would be much obliged if you send me in private a page or two of the fundamentals of your approach. Kindly, Serge PaUayskiy From: Stephen Jarosek < > To: Sent: Tuesday. August 2, 2016 12:27 PM Subject: RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness >"[M] So, what's your "paradigm" -- your set of axiomatic assertions? Where is your "sufficiently complete" model of how the DNA works? How do you know that the existing mainstream interpretation is "incomplete, if not fundamentally broken"? You can know this ONLY by comparing it with your own "more complete" model. Otherwise there is no sense in your words." For an example of the sort of axiomatic framework that I have in mind, refer to my post of 9 January this year in the thread "RE: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology'". There are other issues that I have to be more specific about, beyond a cursory mention in a list of axioms. For example, as they relate to entropy and the persistence of complexity across time, as well as pragmatism and Peircean biosemiotics. I do not have a "sufficiently complete" model of how DNA works, and I make no pretense that I do. I am guessing on DNA (atomic/molecular) entanglement, and in my frustration with the persistence of a broken paradigm that refuses to address the obvious, I am pushing ahead with my own best guess, keeping an open mind. All I know with certainty is that current interpretations fail to take seriously the implications of entropy and the persistence of complexity across time. If it looks like a crock and smells like a crock... Why should we waste our time entertaining a broken paradigm? I don't need to compare it with anything. By contrast, my hunch is motivated by my interest in consistency across principles... ifs not just a blind guess informed by woo. Imagine if Christopher Columbus had stuck with the accepted assumption of a flat world... a broken assumption is a broken assumption, get rid of it, don't even entertain it. Christopher Columbus had to act on his hunch, and a new discovery was made. But he had to rely on funds from the monarchs of Spain to make it happen. Because I have no comparable source of funding, my hunch must remain a hunch until others might accept that it is worth taking a closer look. >"[M] Our consciousness always constructs a "model of Noumenal Reality" for us. This model is just a model -- it may be as enough close to real state of affairs, but it may also be just an illusion (be too far from real state of affairs). To see whether our model is good or not, we conduct additional experiments, or, even simply, we ask the others: "Do you see what I see?", "Do you hear what I hear?", "Do you have the same research data as I have?", and so on." You are missing my point. The essential point is that if every last aspect of our and every other organism's perception of reality is dependent on experience "wiring brains", then we are locked into this subjectivity, and there is no way of stepping beyond it. And the noumenal reality of space is perhaps the most intransigent. Sharing a cultural consensus has nothing whatsoever to do with objective truth. Sharing in a hallucination does not make anything more real. How culture confines us to subjective cultural experience relates to pragmatism, so you would need to bone up on semiotic theory to appreciate why pragmatism is important... and if you don't want to do that because it does not agree with your mechanistic assumptions, well, U not going to teach you. And as for your trust in experimentation and everyone agreeing with it... confirmation bias... confirming accepted biases is all that you are doing. It contributes nothing to establishing consistency in any EFTA00822245 framework that hangs together. >1.1 It is known that to reconstruct the old building requires much more time and resources than to build a new one." On this much we can definitely agree... but to build a new building, you still need to know what you are doing, you need to be reading all the relevant cues. Drawing the best idea out of a barrel of bad ideas is still a bad idea, so your earlier proposals relating to battling it out in a contest of paradigms (if I remember correctly, from other forums) is definitely not the way to proceed. cheers, sj From: 'Sere Patlayski ' via Sadhu-San a Under the holy association of Spd. MI. Puri Maharaja, Imailto: Sent: Monday, 1 August 2016 9:14 AM To: Subject: Re: (Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness [Stephen Jarosekj wrote: >We need to establish the right paradigm first [M] So, what's your "paradigm" — your set of axiomatic assertions? Where is your "sufficiently complete" model of how the DNA works? How do you know that the existing mainstream interpretation is "incomplete, if not fundamentally broken"? You can know this ONLY by comparing it with your own "more complete" model. Otherwise there is no sense in your words. [Stephen Jarosekj wrote: >We must regard our illusions, and therefore our assumptions, with the deepest suspicion Mj Our consciousness always constructs a "model of Noumenal Reality" for us. This model is just a model -- it may be as enough close to real state of affairs, but it may also be just an illusion (be too far from real state of affairs). To see whether our model is good or not, we conduct additional experiments, or, even simply, we ask the others: "Do you see what I see?", "Do you hear what I hear?", "Do you have the same research data as I have?", and so on. Best, Serge Patlayskiy From: Stephen Jarosek < To: Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 1:15 PM Subject: RE: (Sadhu Sanga) Consciousness >"[M)... However, what about the partial problem of the mechanisms of consciousness, namely, the problem of how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. How DNA's role may be here? Do you have any model explaining this?" A sensible question, Serge... but one thing at a time. We know that the existing mainstream interpretation of how DNA works is incomplete, if not fundamentally broken. We need to establish the right paradigm first, and then we might be better placed to enjoy the insights that unfold from there. >"[M] First, these two atoms are NOT identical, if only because of the fact that they occupy different portions of space." As I've suggested before in these forums, space is one of the illusions established by virtue of our experiences wiring our neuroplastic brains. Obviously, meteorites and Mac trucks colliding with you are the objective evidence of real consequences thanks to their motion through the reaches of space, with the suggestion that this thing that we call space is indeed "real". But whatever space "really" is, whether or not its reality can be mathematically (or otherwise) understood in any kind of EFTA00822246  objective sense, ultimately your experience of it can only ever be a subjective illusion, and there is no way around that. So don't get too hung up on atoms occupying different portions of space. "In here" versus "over there" is just a part of the space illusion that has conned you into believing the assumptions that you are making... the assumptions based on the experiences that have wired your bucket of bugs. We must regard our illusions, and therefore our assumptions, with the deepest suspicion. Questions of self and identicality therefore become relevant, because the notion of self is itself an illusion. Cheers, sj From: 'Serge Patlayskiy' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. M. Puri Maharaja, =. [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, 26 July 2016 3:05 PM To: Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Consciousness [Stephen Jarosek] wrote: > I suspect that DNA might be absolutely fundamental to consciousness, It is an organism as a whole complex system that possesses consciousness. So, the above conclusion, in general, is correct. However, what about the partial problem of the mechanisms of consciousness, namely, the problem of how the physical (sensory) signals become transformed into the elements of subjective experience. How DNA's role may be here? Do you have any model explaining this? [Stephen Jarosek] wrote: >Can it be said that two identical atoms are independent "selves", First, these two atoms are NOT identical, if only because of the fact that they occupy different portions of ] space. Second, the "self' pertains only to consciousness-possessing organisms. Atoms do not possess consciousness. However, you may disagree (in case your "axiomatic framework" is based on panpsychism). Best, Serge Patlayskiy Fourth International Conference 'Science and Scientist - 2016' August 26 - 27, 2016, Bangalore University http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2016 Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anolles: 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 VedAntic 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/Danvin EFTA00822247  Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/aboutfiiinstructions 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. Puri Maharaja, ." group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sanga+ To post to this grou send email to Visit this group at For more options, visit Knowledge & Information can be communicated, but not wisdom. Kalluri Subba Rao, PhD.= (BSc), FNA. Fourth International Conference 'Science and Scientist - 2016' August 26 - 27, 2016, Bangalore University http://scsiscs.org/conferenceJscienceandscientist/2016 Sponsorship and Donations for Vedanta and Science Dialogue: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate Reply to Gustavo Caetano-Anolles: 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 Vedintic 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 Online Classes: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga/aboutfitinstructions 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. M. Puri Maharaja, " group. EFTA00822248  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online Sadhu Sanga+ To post to this grow , send email to Visit this group at For more options, visit please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved EFTA00822249