Nice discussion here.

Some ideas seem to me are replications of discussions by Descartes, the connection of mind and matter and the question of the reality of dreams for example. I am sure you all know his famous solutions.

On the other hand ideas of panpsychism are discussed.

Let me try it systematically:

1. We have to admit that our knowledge is limited.

2. Language as means to talk about experience is limited (It is flat compared to experience or to the complexity of reality, but it often is useful.).

3. The only thing that is concrete to us and to which we have direct access is our 1. person perspective.

4. Concepts like consciousness, matter, substance, particles, life, dreams, awareness, … , are abstract concepts or constructions. We learn about their meaning obviously by interacting with others (co-constructing) or by the interaction with the world (Whatever that means).

5. Objectivity is nothing else than inter-subjectivity.

6. The relation of the construct of matter and the construct of consciousness / mind depends on definitions and meanings.

7. If one tends to follow realism, it must be a weak form. We perhaps have to admit, that something outside exists but our descriptions of it depends on perspectives.

8. It is a problem to talk about the experience even of other persons. And it is even harder to talk about the experience / consciousness of other species etc. (see Thomas Nagel: What is it like to be a bat?). We cannot take up their position or perspective. Therefor if there is consciousness outside of our 1. person perspective, we can only assume or admit it.

In consequence of 1-7 it is possible to argue that consciousness was first and it is manifested in matter (e.g. if consciousness is defined as something like god or a conscious universe and matter is defined as something like biological substance). But it is also possible to argue that consciousness has developed by evolution in specific species (e.g. if consciousness is defined as a product of nervous systems and nervous systems are defined to be biological matter).

Perhaps Immanuel Kant’s antinomies inspired my statement, sorry. Additionally one book of Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False) can be an interesting reading material in the context of our discussion here.

Regards Thomas

An empirical test would be whether or not something demonstrates consciousness, which begs the question of what we mean by the term. For me, something demonstrates consciousness to the extent that it responds to direct or indirect stimulation. Then the question can be a bit more meaningfully articulated. For instance, does a chemical 'reaction' represent a 'response'? Probably not. Does the less than perpendicular development of a tree on a windy promontory demonstrate a response? Does the angle obtained by a tree 'seeking' sunlight from beneath a permanent shadow (such as a building or awning) represent a response? I would argue that these do in fact represent responses, and that this might stand as a starting point for a discussion of the consciousness of 'matter'.

Dear Leah,

Consciousness is knowing, not responding to stimulus. This is a basic fact which should not be missed. If something responds to a stimulus it does not necessarily mean that it knows the stimulus or the response, much less both.

Thank you and best wishes,

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

I don't think consciousness and knowledge are as closely linked as your response seems to imply. I would like to hear your view on the difference between awareness and consciousness. Above, I said a chemical reaction was a reasonable example of something that is responsive, but not conscious. Whereas the tree examples demonstrate an appropriate response that assists the organism to thrive - demonstrating some form of awareness of the environment, and also demonstrating capacity to take best advantage of that environment. If the trees were to grow upward in a straight line regardless of the circumstances I've outlined, they would waste resources (in the case of the windy promontory), or die due to a lack of opportunity to photosynthesise and gather water. So for me, responses that demonstrate awareness of the environment, and which demonstrate capacity to direct available energy into useful channels is a pretty good way to observe consciousness AND knowledge.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,

LM

Dear Leah,

Consciousness is that which has knowledge of the self as well as of the other (what is other than the self). It is the same as awareness. But mostly consciousness is understood in the sense of "being aware" (conscious ) of something other than the self.

The question is, did this consciousness arise newly from matter as it became sufficiently complex and (probably) self-organized during the process of inorganic evolution or was it present in some form all the way from the beginning as you rightly point out in the purposive movements of trees etc. ? Are the interactions between a pair of charges or masses manifestations of an inherent consciousness (however rudimentary a level that may be) present in them ?

Matter as far as we know is unconscious, insentient and lacks any kind of awareness whatsoever. How could, and why should, something like consciousness arise from it?

Thank you very much

Regards,

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

It may be the case that a series of small quantitative changes could lead to a change that is qualitatively more than the sum of its parts. In the same way that it is conceivable for a very primitive sensitivity to the PRESENCE of light to gradually resolve into a much more sophisticated sensitivity that is something we would recognise as 'sight'. But I think there is a problem with the idea of self-hood as the basis of knowledge or awareness. Science has tended to privilege what it perceives as individuals and to assign meaning to the smallest unit (visible by whatever means). Hence we've moved beyond 'atoms' to 'sub-atomic' and as our instruments evolve our view of the 'smallest' has changed. This question itself may be a manifestation of what this has done to our view of what might be 'meaningful'. We look more and more closely, and we don't 'see' a clearly defined spark that we can claim as the basis of something we experience everyday.

However, there are many human and non-human animal groups that provide examples of quite different and varied notions of a meaningful 'unit' - few of these have the 'selfhood' that most European-based cosmologies assume. For instance, Buddhism is focused on a unit that is all inclusive, and Biospherical Egalitarianism takes a similar approach, although it is an ethics that draws the line at the 'biosphere' (in this case the planet Earth). In both these philosophies there is no meaning in a person as an individual. There is no distinction between the 'unit' that is Leah Mason, and the 'unit' that is the earth. A line can be drawn, but it has consequences that both buddhism and environmental ethics question at a foundation level.

So, perhaps we shouldn't draw a line around consciousness as characteristic of individuals until we have to? I'm thinking about colony-type 'organisms' (corals, some jellyfish types, sea pens) but also bees....it may not be very useful to analyse individual polyps or bees if you want to understand a 'consciousness' that is potentially best understood at the group level.

When we speak of phenomenal reality, we are talking about systems of dynamic (non-linear) relationships. In my view there is not a better way than this, to try to understand reality. When we speak of consciousness, we refer to a particular system of dynamic relationships. When we speak of an atom, we are talking about a particular system of dynamic relationships, and so on.

What are the essential traits that identify the system of dynamic relationships "consciousness"? When can we speak of a conscious behavior?

When the system of dynamic relationships examined, in order to ensure its subsistence is able to change its behavior independently of the prescriptive system (relationships) that qualifies it. This kind of behavior is called "break/overcoming the stereotyped behavior". This is valid both for an atom as for a living organism. A conscious behavior, implies the breakdown of the relationship of continuity that binds the system of relations (atom, cell, planet ....), to the system of dynamic relationships "environment" to which it belongs......

Dear Leah,

It is not so much whether the individual exists or not, it is the question of how could such a thing as self-awareness come from matter which fundamentally lacks such a property ? Be it individually or in groups the fact of awareness is there. How does this arise anew from inert matter ?

May I request you to see my paper "Quantum Mechanics of consciousness" on RG?

Regards,

Rajat

Dear Claudio,

The sense of self-existence in us is self-evident and requires no nonlinear or whatever relationship with anything else. The "I exist" sense in us is the fundamental characteristic of consciousness. Then come the rest whatever you propose.

Thanks and Regards

Rajat

Rajat,

Are animals conscious or unconscious? In either case, they may be aware instinctually but not know in human terms.

Dear John,

Animals are as conscious as humans are regarding the self and the other. The difference lies in the discriminating ability between good and bad, right and wrong etc., which is the function of the intellect present in humans only. Sometimes, more evolved animals may and do even show some rudimentary forms of intellectual ability also. But, as you rightly said they mostly live in the plane of instincts.

Regards

Rajat

I think it is more likely (one can say, obvious) that our concept of matter is sequent from our concept of consciousness.

We organize "outer" world (matter, energy etc.) in terms of our self-organization, perceived as such (soul, consciousness etc.). We simply have no other terms of organizing "outer" perceptions, except for comparing them with our own organization, explaining them on the language of "inner" perceptions.

For example, the concept of atom, being something "solid", "single", "permanent", is just a copy of our concept of soul, of our self-awareness. I believe atom to be just as solid, single and permanent as "me", for I developed such an attitude towards myself from my psychical experience, and it is natural for me to search something like that in the "outer" world.

This approach is well-developed in european philosophical tradition, although it is not something that people tend to notice...

Marx wrote in his dr. theses in 1841 (see the cited fragment here http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/marx/works/1841/dr-theses/ch07.htm ): "The atom is nothing but the natural form of abstract, individual self-consciousness".

Nietzsche wrote in 1888 (see the page here https://archive.org/stream/WritingsFromTheLateNotebooks/Nietzsche-Will_to_powerkauf#page/n367/mode/2up/search/atom ): "The atom ... is inferred according to the logic of perpectivism of consciousness" etc.

So the matter, I think, is by definition just a "shadow" of consciousness. The rest is a subject for more thorough research.

Is there a definable 'unit' in universe accepting that each phenomenon is unique in physical expression in at least one scale of analysis or perception. Taking natural variation into account, there may be an uncountable number of so-called 'conscious' states, like a gradient from no conscious state towards a more conscious state towards.... Perhaps this implies existence of principles of emergence (e.g. Lewis), i. e. a higher unit is more than the sum of the particles building up the unit.

Dear Marcel,

The problem is, no matter how you arrange the units, as long as your starting point is matter, you are not going to be able to get consciousness afterwards through howsoever a miraculous kind of evolution you assume the world to have been through. Meaning (which leads to knowledge) cannot be put in to information (ordered data) without the fundamentally distinct category of consciousness being there from the beginning itself.

Regards

Rajat

Thanks Rajat for opening an interesting line of enquiry. Consciousness appears to be a quality that emerges as material systems become organised in particular complex ways. The Hindu soul or spirit may be eternal but it only becomes conscious when it finds a body. I suppose we could say that the potential for consciousness is always present in matter, but this is not saying much. Presumably if we could build a computer with the right level of organised complexity, then we might see it as becoming conscious. Indeed some claim that they are already done this.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Some people claim a conscious state does not require a biological body.... E.g. some people claim they can leave their body and perceive aspects disconnected from their physical body....

Yes this is certainly something that people claim but I am not sure about the status of the claim. I guess that there might be tests to see if a person can attain knowledge of a situation that s/he could not know without being physically present. People have claimed this but as far as I understand it, instances do not constitute a systematic body of evidence. I suppose that if we argue that this is a question of location of consciousness then I might still claim that consciousness is necessarily a product of material organisation but that it is not necessarily limited in location to its point of production.

Hello Mike,

we only need one reliable case out of thousands of claims, and the phenomenon exists! I have seen somewhere they did or initiated some tests in hospitals to study this phenomenon in more detail. Anyway, (I think) it's true

What might count as a reliable case? The problem that I have with the disembodied mind is that the portals for incoming information to the mind, e,g, the eyes and ears, are clearly located in bodies. How does a disembodied mind 'see' or 'hear' ?

Dear Mike,

How did Kekule see the Benzene ring structure in dream ? It is quite possible for the mind to directly perceive things once it is sufficiently weaned away from its habitual ways of perceiving through the senses. And, it need not be a dream perception always.

But who is going to take all the trouble of shutting down the senses ? It is always easy to say that all such claims are so much humbug and rubbish.

This is what all of us do and are rather trained to do by our mentors in objective science propaganda. This counts as scientific temper (ament.).

There is always more to it than meets any of our sense.

Regrds

Rajat

It takes two seconds to provide critics or an interpretation, but it can take years to provide critics or an interpretation that make sense to many

Dear Mike,

There are subtle counterparts of the senses in the disembodied mind also which perceives directly through them. These are called subtle senses in vedanta and they may have physiological correspondence with the corresponding area s in the brain, but cannot be equated with them.

Regards

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

Clearly we are able to conjure up images in our minds, both from imagination and in dreams, and these images do not need to conform to what we see in the real world e.g. unicorns, benzene rings, etc. It is difficult, however, to see how these images are not dependent upon images that we have not previously acquired via the senses. The models or perceptual units upon which the mind constructs is images are those taken from perception.

I can see why those who argue for disembodied perception would need some alternative to the senses and the 'subtle senses' might be this, but I am not sure what they are. Presumably they bypass the eyes and optic nerve - do they bypass the neural receptors that process visual information ? You may wish to argue that they completely by pass any physiological part of the system but then we are being taken onto mystical grounds on which I do not feel qualified to comment.

Regards, Mike

Hello Mike,

when I dream I meet a lot of people (individual or in group), landscapes, houses, streets, cities, architectures, paintings etc... I never perceived consciously before. It can happen that I see a new face for the first time in a dream and meet the person for the first time in real life a couple of days later. It also happens I see dream copies, it is exactly the same dream film with an interval of a couple of weeks. These are empirical observations from a scientific point of view. Providing underlying mechanisms becomes more complicated.

Hi Marcel,

I wish that my French was as good as your English - my compliments.

We might compare the imaginative landscapes of your mind with the fictional

landscapes of the artist. Presumably the artist's landscapes are made up of colours, shapes, textures, etc., but to recognize it as a landscape I should have to have seen a landscape, not the same one, but one perhaps containing the same components. One might argue the same for fictional portraits - but in order for me to recognize this picture as a portrait, it must contain the elements that are experienced, not just by me but in general by the public.

Perhaps the point is that to discuss dreamscape streets, cities, architecture, I have to have a concept of all these things, concepts that enable me to make sense of their visual nature. As Kant said, experience without concepts is blind.

Hi Mike,

I agree. There must be some reference based on past experiences. The incredible thing is the perceived 'novelty' or 'emergence' aspect. I have the impression dreams are more than the sum of experienced components from the past. Dreams are also combined with physical feelings, which can be sound, taste, physical shaking, gravity experiences, flying......

Hi Mike and Marcel,

Interesting comments by both of you.

The thing is that that which knows cannot be unconscious matter, since matter does not have that ability in the elementary particle stage, and also in the subsequent conglomeration formation in to atoms molecules and thence on to more grosser manifestations like gases, liquids, solids etc.

Or is it the other way around ?

Consciousness is hidden everywhere and in every stage , till it becomes manifest in the so called living creatures !

It is true that all dream stuff is made up of components from waking experiences. But that does not and cannot take away the ability of the dreamer to synthesize meaningful/meaningless stuff in dream. It does all things that the waking consciousness does.

When you see landscape in dreams you see with closed eyes. This means that vision can be independent of eyes. Perception can be independent of senses, at least if inputs from waking sate are already there.

Do the congenital blinds see and the congenital deafs hear in dreams or not ?

This will answer your query.

Regards

Rajat

Yes Rajat,

And the pictures and movies at night can be as sharp and as colourful as the most advances television techniques, with the eyes closed

The 'seeing' or vision that occurs in dreams is not the same as that which occurs in waking moments. We might say that the mind reproduces the images that sensory perception has previously make available to it. We may play the recording of the violin again and again but the violin was only played once. Dreams are like recordings of experiences of waking life - they can the juxtaposed and perhaps given new meaning, but we cannot 'see' in dreams, only reproduce that which has been seen. Perhaps the point will be better made if we should ask what are the objects of the images that we 'see' in our dreams?

Let's state it differently: I can perceive the same quality of images while I am awake and while I am dreaming (with the eyes closed). This does not exclude there are differences at the physical level concerning the images I perceive.

I also have experiences while awake, like feeling different types of energy around my physical body, which is context-dependent. A couple of years ago a read a book about Buddhism, and read 3/4 of the book. Then I decided to read the last page of the book, and suddenly felt a strong energy field around my head. This is perception and related to environmental factors. To me, it's like empirical research in a science context, but with a spiritual background.

@ Mike, Marcel, Rajat

"...The problem that I have with the disembodied mind is that the portals for incoming information to the mind, e,g, the eyes and ears, are clearly located in bodies. How does a disembodied mind 'see' or 'hear' ?..."

Of course it is not just your problem Mike!

I think that to give an acceptable answer to the disembodied mind problem, it is necessary to first determine "what is not" the psychic phenomenon (in my opinion, the mental phenomenon is a special case of the psychic phenomenon, while consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the human mental phenomenon): it is NOT an energetic phenomenon.

So what is it?

I will answer this question with a premise, from the abstract of my article "A Cosmogonic Model Of Human Consciousness":

What is presented is a cosmogonic model based on the centrality of Tension assumed as an intrinsic and irreducible ontological presupposition associated with a pre-energetic undifferentiated and totipotent proto-dynamic principle (dynamis), whose differentiation gives birth to a space-time system of correlative interactions between physical objects denominated differentiated tensorial fractals (or tangent tensions) and undifferentiated tensorial fractals (or qualia). To describe the structure and dynamics that qualify the fundamental space-time dimension we can make use of the holographic principle, fractal self-similarity and the role reserved to the twisting moment (torque) in certain dual torus topology. In this light, human consciousness is recognized as the ecological and neuropsychological result obtained from the joint action realized through the holographic module, between poietic function, syntropic function and mnemotropic function the meanings of which shall be defined in the articles.

In this perspective, the psychic phenomenon, generically definable as "psychism", coincides with the tensorial phenomenon. Normally, by tension is meant the effect or the state produced by a difference in potential or by the application of a force but in the context of the fundamental and irreducible physical state (Non-Exited Irreducible Relativistic Dimension) the Tension/dynamis is understood not as the effect but as the presupposition (super-symmetry of implicated tension) of all the differences in potential, of all the interactions or forces and of all the physical (energy fluctuation) and para-physical (tensorial fluctuation) relationships.

The energy-mass dimension (Hyper-Middle Dimension) we belong to, is defined as the dimension of condensed matter (atomic and supra-atomic organization of the fermionic quantum states) and can be treated as a massive fractal oscillating system influenced by four orders of phenomena:

i)tensorial phenomena,

ii)ondulatory and corpuscular subatomic phenomena,

iii)supra-atomic phenomena in a gassy-liquid-solid form ,

iv)autopoietic biological phenomena,

and by three types of correlative dynamics or couplings:

i)a coupling of a frequency (fermions)↔ phase (boson) type between the massive H-MD plane and the EQD (Exited Quantum Dimension) particle-granular plane;

ii)a coupling of the phase (bosons)↔tension (tangent tensions) type between the EQD plane and the reducible ERRD (Exited Reducible Relativistic Dimension) tensorial plane;

iii)a coupling of the tension (tangent tensions)↔tension (differentiated tensorial fractals) type between the ERRD plane and the irreducible EIRD (Exited Irreducible Relativistic Dimension) tensorial plane.

In interacting directly or indirectly with each of the three embricated physical planes (EQD-ERRD-EIRD) the H-MD plane manifests aspects of one and the other including the one we nominate psychism, the para- and meta-physical fabric of images, or stationary and unstable fractalized patterns of qualia, which form a background to the dynamic of the mnemotropic processes, and which, in relation to the various multiple levels of confinement lead to the explication of specific, peculiar mnemotropic systems.

In this interpretative perspective what we indicate as human consciousness is defined thus:

human consciousness is that mnemopoietic neuro-psycho-logical system stationary but not stable that emerges from a network of delocalized correlations between multiple poietic-syntropic-mnemopropic systems stationary but not stable.

When we refer to human consciousness we are referring to a para (complementary) and meta (connecting) physical system whose physical nature cannot ignore the fact that: Consciousness does not belong, so to speak, to a group of neurons: it belongs to an organism, to a human being, to an action that one is living (Francisco Varela).

Here then in the attempt to qualify the levels or degrees of suspension of consciousness, relative, for example, to a state of suspension of consciousness such as coma, what we can state is that these levels and degrees are a function (i.e. they vary with the varying) of the level and degree of compromise of the system of correlations and interactions between the various poietic-syntropic-mnemotropic systems implicated in the individual/environment relationship, first and foremost those associated with the biological body and those associated with the Central Nervous System, identifiable as determinants for the adaptive and over-adaptive functionality of the state of consciousness or state of mnemopoiesis of the human individual.

To the problem of disembodied mind, I'll leave to respond the protagonist, Sean, of my novel published (in Italian) in Fall 2013.

The corporeal and mental dynamics belong to two distinct physical systems, which occupy two planes of different and coexisting realities. The body system is the energy expression of a progression of frequencies, organized around a carrier frequency. The mental system is a non-energy expression, a progression of tensions, organized around a carrier tension. A biological organism is the expression of the coupling relationship between a given configuration of frequencies and a given configuration of tensions. In technical terms, it is said that this coupling is of the type phase-tension. This state of coupling is achieved when the dynamic modes of the two configurations, the frequency and tension interfere and engage, that resonate, forming a dynamic unity. In the case of sexed organism, this state of the coupling is realized during the phase of conception, when the frequential component and the tensorial one, each conveyed by the female and male gamete, enter into relationship, engage and couple. That's why the dynamics of the body can affect the dynamics of the mind and vice versa, because they are a function of the other, the variation of one varies the other. The positions and movements of the body, food, certain substances can change the mental dynamics and, conversely, certain thoughts, feelings, mental states, they can actually change the dynamics corporeal. Usually these changes are transient and do not exceed a certain threshold, but under certain conditions the relation of engage-coupling between the two dynamics can exceed the threshold value, determining a state of mind-body dissociation. A physical or psychological trauma, for example, can literally lift the body system from that of the mind, or, alternatively, may release any body subsystem from any psychic complex. The so-called Out of Body Experiences, are particular experiences induced by a transient and reversible uncoupling of the body-frequential plan from the mental-tensorial plane. There are two categories of OBE, those experienced in a state of suspension of brain activity accompanied by cardiac and respiratory arrest, not exceeding two or three minutes, also called Near Death Experiences, and those experienced during altered states of consciousness that do not provide the elimination of vital signs, also called Thanato Mimesis Experiences. In both cases, the effect induced by transient and reversible uncoupling of the body plan from the mental plane is to experiment yourself as if you are watching at you standing somewhere outside of yourselves, in the surrounding environment or anywhere else. The effect is very similar to the hypnagogic hallucinations, experienced in the dream, and those hypnopompic, experienced in the transition state between sleep and wakefulness. The most curious aspect of the whole affair, relates the experiences of the subject in a real state of near-death, characterized by a transient and reversible resetting of vital signs and a flat electroencephalogram. How does an individual judged clinically dead, to continue to experiment reality if his neurological activity is absent, zero? ........................

The problem is that we are accustomed to think of our mind as something living inside our brain and electroencephalogram such a test that detects the activity of the mind .... Our thoughts! .... As if each neuro-electro-chemical pulse recorded by electroencephalography corresponded to a thought or a fragment of a thought ....... None of that! This is a typical case in which it applies a Taoist aphorism, which says "The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon", that is to say that the neuro-electro-chemical activity indicate yes mental activity, but it is not mental activity! The mind, in fact, can not be located anywhere, not even in our brain and has not a life of his own, disconnected by the act of thinking. The mind, in order to exist, must be thought out, otherwise it will not exist at all! The neuro-electro-chemical activity is just a frequencial interface, specialized in maintaining the relation between our own frequency and tensorial systems, so as to evoke in us that particular perceptual experience we call mind, thinking activity. This means that before someone who thinks, there is a neurological-individual who experiences, passively or actively, the effect of this interfacing relationship. The question then is: who experiences the mind in a state of near-death, and how can experience it, if his/her neuro-electro-chemical activity is reduced to zero? To find an acceptable answer we must go step by step. A state of near-death is not equivalent to a state of death, but to a state in which the activity of the heart, lung and brain is temporarily absent but reversibly. The individual is clinically dead but is not irreversibly dead. The vital cellular activity of the whole organism is not cleared, but depressed, a situation similar to that experienced in the states lethargic or cataleptic. In this state, transient and reversible near-death, the coupling relationship between the mental plan and the body plan, and that is the relationship that makes an individual a dynamic system unit, does not decay, as in the case of death, but subsists. What occurs, is a transient and reversible uncoupling of the neurological relationship between frequencial-body dynamics and mental-tensorial dynamics. But the neurological relationship, represents only a relationship specialized in carrying out the task of interfacing the individual with his environment. A function that prior, and independently of the presence of nerve tissue, was and continues to be absolved by other cells, not by neurons. This means that our body, is able to make us experience a much less integrated form of what we call mind, bypassing both the nervous tissue and the nervous system! But, I wonder, can we experience reality, to observe it visually, whether the visual organ is so out of order, as in a state of near-death? I think so. And how? The eye is a receptor structure specialized in placing the individual in connection with a certain range of electromagnetic waves, included in the visible. In other organisms, devoid of the receptor organ eye, this task is performed by other structures or, in the case of the most basic, by a cell, in a less integrated but still effective manner. This means that our body is able to make us experience a rudimentary form of what we call "visual experience" bypassing the visual organ eye, provided that the individual already has a visual memory. A person born blind does not have a visual memory and therefore can never have a visual experience. The same reasoning is valid for all the sense organs. What enables an individual in a state of near-death, of seeing his own body from outside, it is the interaction between the visual memory of the individual and his corporeal perception of a certain spectrum of electromagnetic radiation reflected and emitted by objects of the surrounding environment. In this way, an associative process is triggered an extracorporeal reconstruction, more or less faithful, of the surrounding reality.

Hello C,

You are apparently theoretical specialist. My experiences are empirical based. They started about 8 years ago (autumn 2005), so they were acquired. My sensory system became apparently over sensitive. When I saw/see people falling, I felt/feel an organ, e.g. like I felt/feel an oversensitive neuroendocrine axis. I can feel any part of my biological body, depending on the context. It comes and goes mainly linked to more 'egocentric/earthly' thinking. The last three-four years I also felt energy fields around my body, mainly linked to social giving. For instance, if I share something with poor people in the street, I feel the energy around my body. In (lucid) dreams I can see and feel people (family, friends) that passed away and also feel energy when people recently passed away.

I also feel the activity in places like the front of my head between but above the eye, as indicated with a painted spot in people from India.

Any clear explanation for this?

In a recent article on NDEs, I take into consideration the Electromagnetic After-Effects (due to an NDE or TME, the characteristics of the bioelectromagnetic field issued by some subjects is changed to such an extent as to make them sensitive to, and capable of interfering with , the electromagnetic field emitted by electrical or electronic ordinary devices , until possibly be damaged, or damage them).

The explanation of this phenomena (EAEs), is based on the assumption that by energy is meant "THE ABILITY TO GENERATE INTERFERENCE", and can be worded as follows:

The EAEs depend on a modification of the correlative dynamics (coupling) of the first type (FPCDs, Frequency-Phase Correlative Dynamics), which belong to the group of the Phase Conjugate Dynamics (PCDs), between the frequency (fermions) ↔ phase (bosons), ie between the massive plan H-MD (body-massive) and the particle-granular plane EQD (body-energy). Since these dynamics support the Bio-Electro-Magnetic Field (BEMF) at a very low intensity produced and emitted by every living organism, the modification of FPCDs also changes the characteristics of the BEMF. This change corresponds to a change of the angles of temporal rotation (from 0 ° to 180 ° between the wave and anti-wave along the common axis of diffusion) that exist between the scalar component (or longitudinal) and the transverse component of the bioelectromagnetic field generated by the individual. A variation which is stabilized with a phase transition, towards a quantum-relativistic non-linear wave-field, characterized by a frame of longitudinal waves (scalar standing waves) amplified (laser-like effect). The result would be the generation of a bio-scalar field with an increased tendency to interfere (via scalar waves) with surrounding weak electro-magnetic fields . This trend should be detectable by measuring the electro-photonic emission of the body, a detection possible through the Gas Discharge Visualization (GDV; see: N. Kostyuk et Al., Gas Discharge Visualization: An Imaging and Modeling Tool for Medical Biometrics, International Journal of Biomedical Imaging, 2011, http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbi/2011/196460/ ).

Dear Claudio,

If you have to explain all this in front of a class room with 10-year old children, how would you explain it in a more simple way accessible to citizens for instance.

All the best,

Marcel

Dear Marcel, what do you think of a class of younger children .......?

Once upon a time, long and long ago, when people, animals, plants, mountains, oceans, planets, stars and so the world itself did not yet exist, there was a fairy named Lin, who spent her time playing a magic flute. She was so good at playing, that one fine day the sounds she produced with her magic flute decided to make her a nice surprise. When Lin would play her flute, musical notes would be transformed into so many bright and colorful butterflies. And so they did.

Lin, seeing that phantasmagoria of lights and colors, was very happy and thanked the sounds asking them to continue to keep on transforming, assuming different forms and colors. Since that day, the sounds of her flute first gave shape to the stars, then planets, oceans, mountains, plants, animals, and, finally, to people, boys and girls. Everything around us, including us, is made ​​up of sounds, musical notes, who dance and transform all the times Lin plays her magic flute.

When we are awake, it is difficult to hear the music of Lin, but if we close our eyes, in silence, and remain listening, we can hear the music of which we are made, and play with it!

Hello Claudio,

If people would see this in a dream, they would be happy and very motivated to start a new day... !

Cheers

Dear All,

The discussion has reached somewhat of a misty level.

One thing, however, can be said with certainty I suppose:

" Everything is a play of consciousness only, whatever we see in waking or dream or imagine in a half-awake state in-between. Even the state of deep sleep is a seemingly unconscious state, where consciousness is present in a latent manner forgetfully partaking of the experience of rest and recuperation in the non-existence of either the dream or the waking world."

Regards,

Rajat

Dear All,

If, as is currently understood, the universe is a play of matter-energy in space-time , they how could something like consciousness emerge, without its being there all through in some hidden form right fro the supposed big-bang, if at all there was one ?

This question is to be addressed first.

Can we devise an experiment where this scientific position could be verified or falsified ?

Is the Miller-Urey experiment fault-free ?

Can life emerge from non-living ?

Hope to have further discussions with you all on these issues.

Regards

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

perhaps provide more details concerning the Miller-Urey experiment.

That life can emerge from non-living will also depend on how you define 'life'.

What is the definition of life or a living being accepting that what people name 'living forms' are formed from physical particles or waves that cluster together.

Very good point Marcel,

How would you define life or living forms ?

My definition is "These are forms through which consciousness palys/manifests".

"Consciousness is the ability to know"

Regards,

Rajat

Consciousness requires life, but life does not require consciousness?

Some people claim that life requires presence of a (dynamic) flux of 'liquids' as in cells, organs, tissue, etc. People therefore might claim that 'hair' or 'nails' are 'not living' whereas cells or organs are 'living'.

The next question then is: Can consciousness be absent in biology-based life forms?

- Is there a difference in consciousness between a 'single-cell organism' versus a 'single cell belonging to a multi-cellular organism'?

- Can people be conscious in the absence of what scientists name 'living biology-based organisms'? Some people claim they communicate with ghosts, which would imply that consciousness can be expressed in what many name 'after-life' (e.g. paranormal, religion, etc.) ....

Hi Rajat,

That is an extraordinarily narrow definition of life and consciousness. I assume that you would agree that a tree or a leaf is a living form but surely not conscious ?

Much (if not most, or even all) of the activity of the behaviour of lower forms of animal life is instinctive and therefore does not imply knowing in a conscious sense. But an instinctive lifestyle does not exclude sensation and aesthetic sensibility e.g. to feel pain. The experience of feeling pain comes in long before cognition.

I would suggest that organic material emerged as a product of non linear and dynamic interactions between multiple inorganic substances i.e. in the 'primeval soup'. This seems to be the most commonly held view among those who have a right to an opinion.

Mike.

Hi Mike,

I liked your last sentence for its wonderful English and I think I have a right to like if not to opinion !

Feeling of pain, love, hunger and fear; recognizing what is food and what is not, are all indicators of presence of consciousness (ability to know) in lower forms of animal life. Consciousness manifests as animal instincts in these situations.

A Tree is a living form having special kind of endowments like heat sensors etc to respond to stimuli and the manifestation is below the level of instincts. These are sensations only.

Only in non-living (inorganic aggregates like stones etc) the consciousness is not manifest, though it is present. Please have a relook at my definition and you will now realize its width and depth.

Regards

Rajat

Apologies Rajat for my expression 'those who have a right to an opinion'. We all have a right to an opinion. I suppose I should have said, 'commonly held by those in the community of the biological and life sciences'. Of course, being in that community does not necessarily make them right.

I agree with what you say about consciousness in organic contexts. I also agree that inorganic material has the potential for consciousness given the right conditions e.g. 'the primeval soup'. It is debatable, however, whether the potential for consciousness lies in the nature of the material or in the nature of the interactions between inorganic materials, i.e. the conditions in which we understand life to have emerged.

Marcel, thanks for some very interesting questions.

I would agree that life does not require consciousness e.g. plant life - although some people claim that carrots scream when we pull them from the ground! .... but I don't think that we can understand consciousness, as we know it, without a central nervous system or at least its equivalent.

If we could build a computer with the complexity and subtlety of a human brain then I assume that we could create something inorganic that was conscious. Some believe that we are already at this stage but if not we seem to be getting closer.

Mike.

Hi Rajat,

I am not sure how to contact you off the RG page. I attach a private message.

My email address is [email protected].

Regards, Mike.

Dear Mike,

there are reports that religious 'un-living' statutes, like Maria statues, can cry or light up, attracting many people to watch. This has recently been reported in well respected journals addressed to citizens. Does it imply that un-living material can be conscious in at least some level? What is your opinion as a member of the Christ Church University?

Thank you very much Marcel for the interesting issues that you have raised.

I think these questions should be discussed with more openness than has been done up to now. These are pointers to further improving our understanding of the key issues in the mind-brain linkage and also the central quest of understanding consciousness and its ramifications.

I very eagerly look forward to that day when scientists, philosophers and psychologists and neurobiologists would sit together to discuss these issues with utmost seriousness and sincerity.

Regards,

Rajat

I agree Rajat. True scientists are open-minded. If 1000000.. people claim they saw a bizarre phenomenon unknown to science or poorly understood in a science framework (e.g. spiritual experiences, paranormal phenomena, UFO sightings claimed to be observed by several people simultaneously, and continuously reported for decades or centuries), you only need 1 reliable observation of a phenomenon expressed outside the individual brain to demonstrate its existence, even if >99.9999% of the observations are defined by scientists as mental illusions or inventions without scientific proof.

Yes Marcel,

The objectivity of science is its greatest strength and that precisely turns out to be its greatest weakness in these situations. There should be a new shift in science regarding "acceptable observations" and also "acceptable theories". Most of these they put in the category of pseudoscience or some such derogatory bracket and sleep happily over them for centuries no matter how intensely they bang on the doors of science to open.

This is a pity.

Regards

Rajat

To stimulate discussion about understudied phenomena.

have a look at the MUFON web-site supported by different TV channels like National Geographic. interesting!

Dear Marcel,

If science provides valid explanations for everything, then it surely falls on its lot to provide explanations for hallucinations or illusions that are reported by several people to be of the same nature.

The mechanism of the coming about of such hallucinations/illusory perceptions has to be explained scientifically. Even this, if done seriously, would surely pave the way for the resolution of the mind-over-matter issue. Is the mind capable of creating such non-existent objects in hallucination, so that the observer thinks that they are really "out there" rather than being projections of his/her hallucinated mind ?

If many people have the same kind of illusory perception then it kind of becomes an objective phenomenon worthy of serious investigation. One may call it paranormal or whatever one likes.

Regards

Rajat

A question from an evolutionary point of view: Why should Darwinian selection have favored hallucinations/illusory perceptions?

Good question, dr Lambrechts, I just wonder whether Darwinian selection is an illusory perception in itself......

Dear Emilio,

I just observe and try to understand.

Cheers

The Darwinian theory of selection is not a perception but an explanation. It may be correct or it may be mistaken but it is not an illusion.

There are multiple anthropological cases of communities in which the ritual consumption of naturally occurring substances contributed to hallucinatory experiences. It is also argued that the control of breathing and the reduction of oxygen intake in some mediaeval plainchant can induce trance like states akin to hallucination.

These eventualities may be associate with human imagination as well as a yearning to understand something that is inaccessible to every day perception. They are also a product of the complexity of the human mind. It may be argued that they are not damaging to human survival and therefore are not likely to be bred out of the species in the process of selection.

The role of science has a part to play in explaining hallucination insofar as hallucinations can be both induced and inhibited by medical intervention. We should not have hallucinatory drugs like LSD or crystal meth without the scientific processes that developed them.

The content of hallucination is normally determined by existing experience of the subject e.g. it is unlikely that I should hallucinate that a giant lobster is following me down the street, without actually having never seen a lobster in my more sober moments. The contents of the mind are stirred up and when people share a similar hallucination it may be that they share certain cultural associations for example, in religious communities of the 12th and 13th centuries, people commonly had hallucinations featuring Christ and the devil.

There has been serious consideration given to understanding hallucinations for example by Aldous Huxley in his books 'The Doors of Perception' and 'Of Heaven and Hell'. In these books he is exploring his mentally ill wife's delusions, some of which were terrifying and others quite wonderful.

In the context of these observations I don't think that we could argue that the occurrence of hallucinations is particularly mystical or that it adds anything to the issue of consciousness and the brain.

Dear Mike,

What is the difference between hallucination (abnormal?) and dreaming (normal?)? In both cases, perceived images and movies can be fantastic and scientifically often interpreted as useless or without value. Given the complexity and beauty of the images it can give me strength and confidence.

A mistaken explanation, an insuficient, or a short minded one is not far away from an illusion. Illusions may be created by repetition and this may happen during education in a slower and more progressive way, but sometimes with effects comparable to other treatments.

Wonderful evolutionary question Marcel and some very useful answers.from Mike and Emilio.

Darwinian evolution is something of a marvel, no doubt, but it has chinks also of a very peculiar nature in serious need of ironing out. The core doctrine of "Survival of the fittest" is something that seems very untenable on the face of it. In fact the so called weakest have survived far longer than could even be dreamt of in evolutionary biology and the strongest of species have perished in the history of the earth times without number. The evolutionary biologists only explain in a post-facto manner of justifying what the dictum says, and they are blind to the contrary arguments and the propaganda that science is guarantees that the theory continues to be a pet one.

The most debatable point is concerning the evolution getting perpetuated through the genes.

"How do genes encode thoughts or actions of an individual even, much less of a species ? "

Regards

Rajat

Religion mentions selection processes favouring the 'good' and penalizing the 'bad'.

How or why biology-based selection processes explained in a Darwinian framework differ from selection processes at other scales of analysis or perception, like selection in reincarnation across lives or live styles explained in a Buddhist or Hindu framework?

Dear Marcel,

I think more of interdisciplinary studies will facilitate mutual understanding amongst researchers in different fields. This is highly essential.

Regards

Rajat

There are claims that people (e.g. young children) can talk in detail about former lives in the framework of Buddhism or Hypnosis practice, and why not dream experiences. But how can reincarnation become accessible as a science topic quantifiable/testable with scientific tools? How to demonstrate scientifically that reincarnation is a (scientific) fact?

Dear Marcel,

The first thing that science has to admit is the existence of something called mind which it is now just beginning to take notice of. Then only the issues raised by you can be addressed scientifically.

It will take some more time.

Regards

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

How would you define 'mind'? Does it need a biological body?

Dear Marcel,

The mind can and does exist outside the mind although it is usually manifested through the CNS in body. This is again like the particle-field duality in physics. For example, The electromagnetic fields are usually observed to be created by charges but this does not mean that they cannot and do not exist independently of the charges.

Regards,

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

A significant number of people (medium, spiritual figures, ordinary people) claim they have strange experiences. They claim ghosts exist and communicate with people in different ways?

My father and sisters of my mother claimed they had such unusual experiences. My mother also claimed she had unusual experiences (like me).

Do you have unusual experiences yourself to support your statements, and if so, how are they physically expressed? It's like personal empirical observations that guide thinking.

Dear Marcel,

Frankly speaking, I do not have any such strange or unusual experiences of ghosts or anything of the kind so far. But I do not reject the possibility of other people having such experiences. An experience is an experience and it requires not another to certify. The experiencer alone suffices to grant it existence.

Thanks and regards

Rajat

Hi Rajat,

If more people would have such unusual experiences, it would substantially change the vision and functioning of the world. For instance, a world where 7 billions people accept the existence of reincarnation will substantially differ from a world where many people ignore its existence. Why is it biologically not allowed that more people have such unusual experiences to guide behaviour? Unfinished evolution?

If reincarnation truly exists this also would imply that both the biological world and the spiritual world (1) interact (e.g. energy or wave transformations) and (2) evolve in time (and space?). E.g. the spiritual world from 5000 years ago would differ from the spiritual world today.

Very Best wishes,

Marcel

Dear Marcel,

I fully agree with you that a world with "acceptance of rebirth" by majority population would be really much much better than the present. It would be a world of the wise, for the wise and by the wise, while the current world has only people !

In the second part both the statements are correct. And it would have tremendous implications for evolution theory.

Regards

Rajat

Both answers are CORRECT !

1st and FUNDAMENTAL problem is what is primary? Conciousness of matter?

It depends on your position.

Dear Fermin,

Thank you for joining this thread.

Can both be primary simultaneously ?

Obviously not.

Then which position is logically more tenable and appropriate ?

What is your opinion?

Regards,

Rajat

Nice discussion here.

Some ideas seem to me are replications of discussions by Descartes, the connection of mind and matter and the question of the reality of dreams for example. I am sure you all know his famous solutions.

On the other hand ideas of panpsychism are discussed.

Let me try it systematically:

1. We have to admit that our knowledge is limited.

2. Language as means to talk about experience is limited (It is flat compared to experience or to the complexity of reality, but it often is useful.).

3. The only thing that is concrete to us and to which we have direct access is our 1. person perspective.

4. Concepts like consciousness, matter, substance, particles, life, dreams, awareness, … , are abstract concepts or constructions. We learn about their meaning obviously by interacting with others (co-constructing) or by the interaction with the world (Whatever that means).

5. Objectivity is nothing else than inter-subjectivity.

6. The relation of the construct of matter and the construct of consciousness / mind depends on definitions and meanings.

7. If one tends to follow realism, it must be a weak form. We perhaps have to admit, that something outside exists but our descriptions of it depends on perspectives.

8. It is a problem to talk about the experience even of other persons. And it is even harder to talk about the experience / consciousness of other species etc. (see Thomas Nagel: What is it like to be a bat?). We cannot take up their position or perspective. Therefor if there is consciousness outside of our 1. person perspective, we can only assume or admit it.

In consequence of 1-7 it is possible to argue that consciousness was first and it is manifested in matter (e.g. if consciousness is defined as something like god or a conscious universe and matter is defined as something like biological substance). But it is also possible to argue that consciousness has developed by evolution in specific species (e.g. if consciousness is defined as a product of nervous systems and nervous systems are defined to be biological matter).

Perhaps Immanuel Kant’s antinomies inspired my statement, sorry. Additionally one book of Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False) can be an interesting reading material in the context of our discussion here.

Regards Thomas

Dear Thomas,

well constructed arguments. Do they match your personal experiences ? Why do people have to read books from others when they may have access to the same information through empirical observation, as is definitely the case for the famous people mentioned above? To compare individual specific experiences?

Dear Thomas,

This is very good point raised by Marcel.

Please see it in connection with your point no. 5 above. viz. "Objectivity is inter-subjective agreement."

How many subjects must agree for something to be objective ? More than one ?

These are very interesting issues eally.

Regards

Rajat

Dear Marcel,

the answer to the 1. question is yes.

The second question I do not really understand.

Dear Rajat,

If we admit that others have also 1. person perspectives, objectivity is possible. So objectivity can be understood as the co-construction of interpersonal committment.

Regards Thomas

Dear Thomas,

Even the smartest people in the world will only use what they observe and perceive to construct their perceived organisation of the world, and what they observe and perceive will depend on their limited/biased living environment (office, garden, family, friends, colleagues, local culture, etc...).

Of course, I believe in spiritual connectivity among people (e.g. conscious or unconscious telepathy, related to your point 8?), which may change bias in the experienced individual living environment and therefore may change the individual perception of the organisation of the world.

To go back to the initial question:

If living beings are considered 'matter' consciousness evolved from matter AND matter can become conscious!

This is a very good argument Marcel. We, in science, do consider a living being to be matter only, highly complex and self-organized though. Then it appears that matter can become conscious as has happened, assuming the above position to be true. And, the accepted scientific position is that consciousness is an epi-phenomenon which appears at a certain level of complexity and organization of matter. It is a bulk property (like Young's modulus of solids), which is not defined for individual atoms and molecules but is defined for bulk matter only. This is necessitated by the fact that there is no evidence of there being consciousness present in any form in individual atoms and molecules, but it appears at larger scales, in special complex self-organized conglomerates of atoms and molecules.

The question then is "Is consciousness akin to Young's modulus" of solids?

Regards

Rajat

Please explain a bit more about Young's modulus. Is consciousness involved in the elasticity of matter? Are rocks conscious?

To come back to another remark:

How many subjects must agree for something to be objective ? More than one ?

If there is general scientific consensus that rocks are not conscious, what is the scientific proof rocks are not conscious?

It has never been necessary for scientific theory to achieve consensus to be correct. Consensus is the enemy of science and the keenest ally of dogma. If consensus ever mattered it would be true to describe witches, demons and hobgoblins as extinct species since only a few centuries ago consensus held them to exist.

Scientific theory can be strengthened by repeat experimentation but the purpose of this verification of theory is to develop the theory, not crystallise it in some immortal consensus. The process of consciousness is a mixture of matter and energy and thought is both electrical and chemical signalling in its essence. It may never be possible to define consciousness or sentience in any total sense. It is a good thing perhaps that some things may always be beyond human understanding.

Hello Barry,

But what if there is no consensus at all? If specialists never agree, does it give the impression they are incompetent or competent, e.g. one specialist is not able to convince the other specialists with arguments? In these conditions, decision-makers not familiar in the specialist field will never be able to know who is right and who is wrong....

Marcel, I take your point that in the absence of a better form of verification we are stuck with consensus but we should not feel comfortable with it. It does of course give the impression of competence when scientists agree but sometimes the impression is all there is and an 'impression of competence' is a poor substitute for fact.

I also agree that we may need specialists to argue a state of affairs to a decision maker who is not familiar with the specialist field. The Expert witness in court is a clear example. The system can still of course be flawed. Here in the UK a few years ago a woman was found guilty of murdering two of her children, who had died at different times from Cot Death Syndrome. She was found guilty on statistical evidence that two children from the same family would be unlikely to have died from this condition. Not only were the statistics flawed but so was the reasoning, reasoning led by consensus.

If the pernicious culture of the 'key opinion leader' did not blight scientific research, if we did not rate scientists by impact, if science was led by evidence rather than powerful opinions we would be safer in a world of consensus. Consensus retarded the advance of science for centuries and still does today, innovative treatments are stifled by professional consensus in medicine, consensus allows commercial and other vested interests to dominate scientific endeavour. We should always be suspicious of the pack!

"Eppur si muove" is my answer to consensus.

Dear Marcel and Barry,

Consensus is no proof of truth, as Barry has clearly pointed out. But that does not and should not mean that in all matters where a consensus exists there cannot be truth, as in the case of ghosts etc.. Few centuries back, says Barry, there was a kind of consensus on the existence of ghosts. And now there is no consensus. Or a consensus in the scientific world to the contrary. This consensus for or against the existence of the ghosts either way does not give us anything that can be called the truth about the existence of ghosts.

Regards

Rajat

Dear Rajat et al.,

Imagine 'humans' like 'ants'. There is consensus among ants at a certain scale of perception, but much of what exists is not perceived by ants and therefore not incorporated to construct 'ant consensus'. There is consensus among humans at a certain scale of perception, but much of what exists is not perceived by humans and therefore not incorporated to construct 'human consensus'.

And some people might therefore claim: There is consensus among ghosts/extra terrestrial organisms at a certain scale of perception, but much of what exists is not perceived by ghosts/ extra terrestrial organisms and therefore not incorporated to construct 'ghost/ extra terrestrial consensus'...

Dear Marcel,

Your argument is right. The whole problem with humans is that they think quite naturally only anthropically, i.e.only in a human-centric manner, and tend to decide everything from the point of view of humans only. This is a peculiarity of the psychological make up of humans. They think only as humans, act like sub-humans and make bogus claims like super-humans.

The existence or non-existence of something cannot be decided so easily as is thought of quite naively by the empiricist-rationalist band-wagon.

Regards

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

How do you imagine a science form a nonhuman (not human-centric) perspective? There is the nice article from Thomas Nagel (What Is It Like to Be a Bat? In: The Philosophical Review. Vol. 83, No. 4. (1974), S. 435-450) who argues that there is a central epistemological problem. I would state that there is no way out of consensus but consensus is not all we should rely on. Objectivity and truth are nothing science is able to reach. Science and knowledge change, not because the world changes but because the human (scientific) perspective changes. Science is human affairs and even objectivity is not an outside perspective only a potential independency. Truth and objectivity are kind of regulative ideas that are necessary in research as guidelines but not something anyone can state that he has reached.

Regards Thomas

Dear Thomas,

I agree with what you say in regard to objectivity and the changing nature of all our sciences or for that matter any human-built edifice of knowledge or whatever else. There is an epistemological problem. YES ! and it cannot be solved at the level of the problem itself ! We have to go beyond the currently accepted paradigms. Psychology has to be integrated with biology proper and then a new understanding will emerge that will pave the way for understanding the nature of the subjective phenomena and then that also has to be further unified with Physics which describes objective phenomena at the level of matter-energy. Then we'll have a science that leaves out nothing, and includes matter, energy, life and mind also.

Regards,

Rajat

Does Physics describe objective phenomena at the level of matter-energy?

I thought that specialists in Physics only have access to the description of perceived reflectance patterns from matter, not matter per se. There is also always a time-interval between the occurrence of a phenomenon (e.g. A) and the perception of that phenomenon, which is not phenomenon A. Thus, phenomenon A will always be transformed into a perceived phenomenon A', where phenomenon A does not equal phenomenon A'.

Humans, like any other living forms, therefore do not have access to the true nature of nature....

Wow ! Wonderful point Marcel !

I have always thought exactly the same way since the last twenty years or so. If the world is TRULY represented by A, the perceived world is A' and it differs from subject to subject and there can be any number of them. Thus objectivity is really an illusion, but then it is only thing that sells in science and as science ! The lowest common factor in all subjective perceptions can be identified as a working definition of objectivity in science which is ensured by the scientific method.

Regards

Rajat

It seems for this (not the first…) talking it would be useful a number of remarks:

(i) – to understand (at least as some adequate approximation) something in philosophy is possible only in the framework of the “the Information as Absolute” conception, where the main point that all/ everything is/are some informational patterns, which are some elements of the Set “Information”. From this follow

(ii) – since the [human’s, for example] consciousness operate with the information, then it is capable, in principle, to “read” – or “decode” correctly some informational structures, connections, etc. that exist outside the consciousness; including, e.g., - to discover “Nature laws”;

(iii) – Matter and Consciousness are principally different subsets of the Set; that is practically evident from rather simple reason: Matter is some informational structure, where exclusively true informational exchanges exist; it would be rather bad things in Nature, if material objects start to lye. When such things are usual for (at least) some consciousnesses. From this follows that

(iv) the consciousness cannot arise from Matter, they exist parallelly, and – as anything/ everything in the Set – exist always, “in absolutely infinite time”. Though a consciousness can interact and impact on material objects; for that there are more then 7 billions of examples now, when human consciousness governs by human’s material body.

(v) more – see http://vixra.org/abs/1402.0173 .

Cheers

Welcome Sergey to this thread !

You may be right in stating that matter and consciousness exist parallelly in absolutely infinite time, as a temporary relief.

But, you state that information is absolute. Time is absolute. Matter and consciousness are absolutes etc.. !

How many absolutes can we have ? Or is there only one absolute of which the rest are only projections or may be there exist maps relating one another.

This is a very deep question indeed.

Thanks and regards

Rajat

Dear Rajat,

Matter is just a front. Consciousness animates matter. In matter, Consciousness is at its lowest level. In Light, Consciousness is at its highest.

Marcel;

In the science of Yoga, Consciousness exists everywhere as the essence of everything and so it is also called Background Consciousness. Upon this substratum, Matter exists. But matter, as pointed in an earlier post, is only superficial, an illusion called as 'Maya' in Yoga and "Satan" in Judaeo-Christian analogy.

What we call as existence is actually the 'evolution of Consciousness'. Consciousness evolves from a lower material stage to a higher Pure Consciousness stage.

To illustrate, at the bottom end of the scale is the 1. Mineral kingdom which you refer to as Matter. The cycle of creation starts with this kingdom which is high in matter and low in Consciousness. Consciousness is known to be 'sleeping' in matter, but still very much there. It then evolves to the 2.Plant kingdom where consciousness has awakened and interacts with Pure Consciousness in the form of Sunlight. This is a step higher than the previous one. Next it evolves into the 3.Animal kingdom where Consciousness has evolved higher but still under the grip of nature. Nature guides animals through 'instincts'.When to eat, sleep, mate are all lead and restricted by nature. A wild animal thus eats/sleeps/mates only according to natures rhythms. Thus Consciousness evolves into the next kingdom , the 4. Human Kingdom, where Consciousness for the first time has evolved so high that nature releases its grip to an extent giving rise to the appearance of 'free-will'. In animals free will doesnt exist. In fact, the only difference between an animal and a man is that an animal is not aware that it exists. It has the same biological needs, emotions and everything else, but it is not consciously aware that it exists. That gift from nature is the turning point in evolution, where for the first time nature allows us to guide our own lives, for the better or the worse. A child led by the hand by his mother through out life does not evolve much. So the mother stands back and watches the child take its first steps. In man, nature stands back and watches, while we experiment with our 'free will'. The more we behave responsibly, the more 'freedom' we are given. If we, for example, misuse our free will and imagine that we are free to do with matter as we please, nature ends our destructive path with disease and natural catastrophes(in the micro and macro cosmic scales). If we instead learn from our mistakes and interact with matter responsibly, we evolve more towards light. In the human kingdom, a great opportunity is thus given, to descend towards matter(Meat, Money, Women, Moon, Mind, Senses, Material Acquisitions...Dakshinayan) OR gradually train ourselves and our bodies to use less and less matter to grow towards light(Sun, Spirit, Man, Ascent, Upward path,-Uttarayan). The first is called the spiral descent into material bondage and the second is the spiral ascent into liberation and freedom. Religions label these two paths as the 'Bad' and the 'Good'. The people who have succeeded to work against the gravity of matter are those who have grown in Consciousness, and are depicted in all cultures with a 'halo' or aura around their heads, implying the presence of more 'light of Consciousness/wisdom' in them. "Light of Asia"-Buddha, is an example.

Now to answer your two questions:

1. All is light. Everything has Consciousness at its root. Only differs by varying degrees. Matter is itself, Condensed light energy. Matter is density at its highest, and light is density at its lowest. But they have the same essence-Consciousness which is the Background of everything, very much like the Unified Field Theory in physics. Physics studied light first as a particle(matter) and later as a wave function and now ascribe a dual function to it. The first is an objective, materialistic approach, that a "thing" is the cause of everything(cartesian). The second is a subjective approach, where a non-materialistic essence is thought to be behind everything(Yogic). The light of Buddhism you refer to is thus non-materialistic in origin. In physics, Light is a physical phenomena whose origins are yet unknown. In Buddhism, Light is Consciousness and therefore revered as Spirit. Thus the buddhist abandons the empirical, objective, material part of light and focusses purely on the Subjective, non material , Spiritual part of light, in order to elevate himself to higher levels. A physicist is a passive observer of light who conducts experiments on light in the laboratory and goes home. An example is the 'rectilinear propagation of light' experiment we all study in school where three strips of paper with identical holes are placed in line to demonstrate that light travels in straight lines. In Yoga, the same is emphasized to show that unless our Thoughts, Words and Deeds are in a straight line, we do not evolve higher, the 'Spirit doesn't shine through'.

>"If light is perceived at night during a dream, is it true physical light as perceived during the day?"

Yes, the light we see in a dream is true physical light, but to measure it, we need to go into that state of Consciousness. Yoga states that when we are in a dream state, everything appears solid and 'real'. Yet when we awake, the solid and 'real' fades away. What has happened is that our consciousness became involved in the creation of a 'scenario' where everything rang true. However the truth became evident later in the next higher state of Consciousness-The Awakened state(Yoga has Four States of Consciousness-1. Sleep 2. Dream 3. Awakened into Objectivity 4. Awakened into Subjectivity or Active Awareness). Yoga also states that our present objective physical state is the 'dream' state of the Creator and therefore impermanent and untrue. Finally, the only 'truth' in existence, when all else falls away as untrue, is Pure Consciousness achieved by entering the Superconscious state of deep meditation, where there is no physical matter and the Observer, the Observed and the Observation becomes One.

2. Consciousness does exist in Antarbhava, albeit in a sleeping/dormant stage. There is no question of non-existence, as Consciousness/Spirit is at the root of everything. After pralaya(destruction) a stage of dormancy exists, depicted as the 'deep' in many religions. And from the 'deep' and 'void' emerges the universe as a 'golden egg'(Hiranyagarbha). It is also very relevant that the stages of development of the Universe from a 'golden egg' resemble the stages in development of a human fetus in a womb.

Yoga also states that ghosts are disembodied beings, without physical matter but also having Consciousness as their root. But they exist in another plane, quite different from ours, and need not be taken seriously. Only the caution needs to be observed not to let 'our human mind open the doors of evil'.

Yes, since Consciousness is all pervading, the Spirit can exist with or without physical matter or a body. It is Pure Consciousness or energy which can transform into any other state. Matter is a localized packet of Conscious energy. A man is a 'localised' packet of Consciousness, imagining himself to have a personality and free will in a 'real' world while in Truth, nothing but Consciousness exists. To come out of this illusion is the riddle of existence. The Universe is the Lock, and the Mind is the Key.

Regards

Dear Raveendra,

Thank you very much for the detailed reply.

You said: 'In animals FREE WILL does not exist. In fact, the only difference between an animal and a man is that an animal is not aware that it exists.'

Several remarks/questions:

- Why should animals NOT be aware they exist given they have feelings and respond to environmental change? Can humans decide for other living beings to decide how they perceive the world?

- What is the definition of a FREE WILL in humans given that they are imprisoned by the biological body and its constraints?

- How can the descriptions of the empirical observations during the biological lives of Buddhists (meditation, yoga of dreaming, etc...) tell use something about the consciousness/energy levels experienced after the biological lives or between two biological lives (reincarnation framework)?

- How do we (Buddhists) know that the empirical (spiritual) observations DURING the biological lives are correlated/matches the levels of consciousness AFTER or BEFORE the biological lives?

Dear Marcel,

I correct my earlier statement. Free will does exist in animals but in a lesser degree than Humans.

1. Animals have feelings and respond to environmental change. But their Consciousness has not evolved to a higher level like that of Humans, thus they are not aware of the fact that they exist. They are guided by nature as natural instincts. I 'think' you can compare it to a digital device which has lesser RAM than a supercomputer which has terabytes of RAM. Otherwise they are just like humans.

"Can humans decide for other living beings to decide how they perceive the world? "

No. We cannot. At best we can decide for our own selves, not for others, not for animals.

2. Humans do have free will, but only within a larger subset of his/her own karma and nature. We are free to do as we please, but our past actions, the current ready-to-materialise-karma and the environment in which we live, our biological limits, limit our free willing actions to a certain extent. Thus we do have free will, but only in a small subset within a larger subset.

3. Regarding Consciousness before and after biological lives, I am afraid, you need to read up on the "Sankhya" teachings by Kapila where it is described in great detail.

Regards

Dear Marcel,

The spiritual experiences DURING biological life serve as lessons learnt and propel our "evolution of Consciousness". After death, these impressions of higher evolution are retained(without a biological body) and in the next birth(picking up a body again), the evolved soul chooses a family commensurate with its evolution in Consciousness and Karma. A spiritualist chooses a spiritual couple(ascending into Spirit) as his/her parents while an alcoholic chooses alcoholic(descending into matter) parents (alcoholism shows up in the genes).This enables the retaining of previous evolutionary experiences so as to not start all over again from scratch. Examples are children born with incredible scholastic/artistic/musical/mathematical/spiritual talent and exhibit an affinity for these fields from quite an young age. India is witness to a number of children who enter life and quite soon get disenchanted with materialistic worldly life at a tender young age and take up the path of meditation to quickly attain higher stages. Such examples are usually not highlighted in the news but prove to be a blessing for the family and surrounding relatives and friends who also get inspired to follow the Spiritual path.

Hope this answers your query.

Regards

Marcel,

The 'fantastic' spiritual experiences you mention in your post are known as 'Vibhuti' yoga or the 'power' of the Siddhas-Siddhi's. These are the abilities of mastery over nature gained due to higher evolution of consciousness which include the capacity to materialise and de-materialise matter, commonly known as 'miracles'. The yogic texts mention that these are just offshoots and should not be taken as the main Spiritual experience. Examples galore are mentioned in popular tales about yogis and saints who get side-tracked by these 'miraculous powers' momentarily which soon bring about their downfall. They have to 'pay' the cosmic 'fines' for abusing the laws of nature for their own benefit, grandeur and pomposity, and start on the spiritual path of evolution of Consciousness again. Many Yoga and Zen masters therefore never even broach the subject when queried about these 'powers'.

Regards

Dear Raveendra,

Not talking about unusual experiences is a selfish attitude. An important goal is that people share experiences to learn and advance. You can share ideas without earning lot's of materialistic benefits.

Dear Marcel,

Perhaps this is what you seek?

http://blog.good-will.ch/WordPress/2014/04/22/easter-experience-freeing-earthbounds/

The author is a close friend and a wonderful person.

Regards