immortal

Even I wish I was free, I have to prepare for my exams and will not be able to participate with much intensity.

I found a few statements of Erwin Schrodinger which are worth mentioning,

What is this "I"?.... You will, on close intospection, find that what you really mean by "I" is the ground-stuff upon which[experience and memories] are collected.

Our perceiving self is nowhere to be found within the world-picture, because it itself is the world-picture.

It might help to refer outside this disussion. Here are three extracts that seem relevant and helpful. The first clarifies Kant's position and says something about the 'unreality' of phenomena. The second shows the Buddha paying a lot of attention to an anlysis of the evidence of his senses, and dismissing the idea that consciousness can survive apart from a body, and the third says something about distinctions, unity and knowledge.

 

" After death there is no consciousness: this is what I say.' Thus spake Yahñavalka.

 

But Maitreyi said: 'In this, good sir, you have thrown me into confusion in that you say that after death there is no consciousness.'

 

And Yajnavalka said: 'There is nothing confusing in what I say. This is surely as much as you can understand now.'

 

For where there is any semblence of duality, then does one smell another, then does one speak to another, then does one think of another, then does one understand another. But when all has become one's very Self, then with what should one hear whom? With what should one see whom? With what should one hear whom? With what should one speak to whom? With what should one think of whom? With what should one understand whom? With what should one understand Him by whom one understands this whole universe? With what indeed should one understand the Understander?" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad)

Wow, I just can not believe you quoted Yajnavalkya here in this science forum, I'm very excited, I really appreciate it. Yajnavalkya Mahirshi is a person for whom I hold some great respect. It was by his means the world got to know about the Ishavashya Upanishad, one day his master asked him to give back all the knowledge that was taught to him due to some misunderstandings that arose between each other (which was a play of the gods) and by giving all his learned knowledge back to his master, he sat and worshipped the sun god and went on to write a new veda of his own with the grace of sun god, which is called as the krishna yajurveda. The Ishavashya Upanishad is a small upanishad consisting of only a 17 or odd sutras. Yajnavalkya was a true Sarvajna, it is thought that he got to know about the nature of the elements that is the thing-in-itself in just 15 days which is thought to require almost a year of practice and sacrifice. He wrote the Yajnavalkya Smriti which teaches about the conduct of human beings. I wish I knew atleast a tiny drop of knowledge from what he knew. Here is the full conversation between them it will help us to understand it better. Conversation of Yajnvalkya and Maithreyi on the Absolute Self (I have linked to the last conversations which is very much relevant here)

I think the credit should go to Peter for pointing out us here. I somehow understand it better now. I had read about the biography of Yajnvalkya, it is a book called 'Mahadarshana' by Devudu Narasimha Shastry, there were many secrets of the upanishads and as well a narration of the story of Yajnavalkya, but unfortunately it is not available in the english version yet.

I can agree with all of your first para. I happen to think you are wrong to assume that the authors of the books you are reading never know what they are talking about, but on the rest we can agree. Hooray.

Oh!! Yeah there are experienced authors in those subjects whose books are worth reading. I was talking about the other ones's.

To understand this idea of being here and not here at the same time, that we both exist and do not exist as Heraclitus puts it, or 'do not really exist' as a Buddhist might put it, which is possible to some extent by analysis without inner revelations, I would recommend reading about Nagarjuna's doctrine of Two Worlds or Truths, the philosophical foundation for 'Middle Way' Buddhism.

Certainly, I will consider reading it, though I was not influenced by Buddhism.

The second para I find unnecessarily pessimistic and not so correct. Are you sure your body can operate without the presence of awareness? How would you prove it? Then, the idea that liberated people have no awareness of their bodies does not fly. They wouldn't be able to get through the day. They must struggle for survival along with the rest of us.

Yes it is well documented in the literature, we call those persons as 'Sarvagna' means one who knows everything, since you have asked for a proof, I have to give a modern example for it so Check this out. I don't completely understand what he is saying since he doesn't talk in technical terms but we do have a fair knowledge what's going on him from the similar behaviour of mystic people recorded in the past history.

The brain has pre-programmed instincts which will help it to survive on its own and react to dangers, so the brain will fire a neuron when he sees a tree falling on you and move your body from there, one doesn't have to be aware of it, there is no need for it. Its also interesting how the senses work as described by that man, there is nothing in the brain or in the senses which helps us to identify the things which are surrounding us, it just K+ and Na+ potential differences, signals thats all, its the mind which connects the knowledge of the brain into the sense perception of the eye and help us to recognize the things and therefore a liberated man who is disassociated from the brain and the sense organs doesn't remember the connection of things in the phenomenal world, he sees something else and doesn't have any interests to know what it is. It is a normal phenomena and it is well documented in literatures.

U.G.: It was finished. And then the strangest thing from then on was the senses took over. And then, I discovered the real way the senses operate. There was no transmitter who was saying, "that is a bright sun" or "it is dark" or "this is hard, this is soft". I was looking at the cow there in field, and I asked Valentine, who was sitting next to me on the bench, "What is that?". She said, "A cow". And after another five minutes, again, like a child, I asked her, "What is that, Valentine?" She was so disgusted. "How many times do I have to tell you that that is a cow? Don't you know that?" You see, in the beginning it intrigued me. I didn't even know what that was. Now, I'm in the same situation and I never know what I'm looking at. If you ask me the question, "What is that?", I would say "It is a cow".

U.G.- So, what I am stressing all the time is how the body, freed from this strangled hold of culture, functions. That's all that I am describing. And there is no way you can control the functioning of this body. Nothing you can do, you see. The body doesn't actually need all that we feed it. It is a pleasure movement. We eat for our pleasure. That's a fact.

For the scientists it is the food which reduces entropy but for a mystic what keep it working is something else.

U.G.- Automatically, it has tremendous intelligence to protect itself. It knows how to protect itself and how to survive. So, you have no part to play in the functioning of this body. And then, you see, the intelligence that is there takes over and takes care of itself.

One important factual point. There is a very clear concensus on the falsity of monism and dualism. Unless both of the ideas are false then Buddhism and the entire wisdom tradition is a pack of lies. This is not a matter of what we can and cannot know, but of what the doctrine claims. Nondualism, as is implied by its name, states that dualism is false, and monism would be just another form of dualism. On this issue the literature of mysticism is crystal clear.

There are monists, dualists and non-dualists and we have a whole detail of literature about them but what do we believe in, to believe in only one doctrine we have to disprove the others or falsify it but to do it you have to experience itself, there is no other way out, this is the point I was making.

In the end all distinctions would be false, and this would be why we must be said to both exist and not-exist. When we do not actually experience this truth in our lives then we are 'Believing We Exist. When we do see it, at all times, then this would the shaman's 'Awakened Awarenesss', a state which is not called 'Believing We Don't Exist' as we might expect, but refers to our awakeness to the fact that there is a sense in which we do not exist.

 

Thus when the Buddha is stopped while walking down the road by someone struck by his appearance, who asks him for an explanation of it, and asks what is so special about him, he answers by saying only that he is awake.

Interesting perspective but I doesn't like to go in depth about this, it sounds great when it comes from the mouth of Shaman or Buddha, we can only make an analysis of it which can not touch the heart of the matter that exists.

PeterJ,

You have missed my point, In the earlier post I had said that we have conditional access to reality, we can not know the fundamental reality but it is not impossible, we don't have a free access to it, we have to earn it. To know the fundamental reality one has to start interacting with the world without using the sense organs and turn the mind inwards, it is this part of the process which is the most difficult and there's not quite a lot of people who can show you your mind and we don't have much knowledge of how this can be done so that the sciences can predict it, it is in this context which I meant that we can not know of the fundamental reality, I didn't said it was impossible to know it or never will.

Yes ofcourse we can know about everything that there is and as for the authority of it is concerned I'm trying to find an universal way of how this can be done, till then I know no one would believe it and its not right on me either to expect everyone to believe in it, as I have said in my posts I made those statements based on persons who have observed the mind and how it is associated with the platonic intelligence and I'm quite crystal sure about the authority of those persons. But this is not enough to make the scientific community believe in it. I apologize if I was not modest here.

Okay. I quoted the Shaman's view regarding the two forms of consiousness, and said of the way they were named, 'This says it all.' You replied that I could not say this unless I knew exactly what the Shaman meant by these names, which would require having the same knowledge as him.

 

I see why you objected. You assumed that I was claiming to know what he knows. But I wouldn't do this whether I do or not. I should be more clear, and will try to be from now on. I should have added 'about this worldview'.

 

What I meant was that the use of these two names, 'Believing We Exist' and 'Awakened Awareness', neatly captures or summarises the view that I was describing. These names suggest unusually clearly that for the mystics many of the OPs ideas would have some truth in them. I speculate that they would be interchangable with 'Samsara and 'Nirvana'.

 

I suppose I'm trying to suggest that he does not need to reinvent the wheel.

Yes, I thought that you said it in a context where you believed that having just theoretical knowledge was sufficient enough to understand what the mystics meant and claimed that you could make those statements. There is a difference between what we know and what the Shaman knows and I have been thinking on the same lines and after reading many books I have realized that reading about them with out any revealation is like reading in a dark room with all lights switched off, it will take you no where and I have stopped reading books about them. They all say it is this or it is that but neither the author nor the one who is reading it really knows what it is. For example when he says that we were never really here in the first place doesn't deny the fact that I'm struggling to survive each day subjected to the constraints of space and time and taking the pleasures and pains of life. I don't get this.

The body is a machine it can survive on its own it doesn't require any awareness as an add on property to carry on its workings and so it begs the question why do we have to be aware of all this, persons who are liberated will not have any awareness about their bodies, infact they don't even remember their names or the address of where they live, its only when they interact with the phenomenal world they have to worry about all that. It is only when you get liberated you know whether you had those characteristics priorly in you or will you transform into something different which is not you, as you can see one can not make a consenus on whether monism is right or dualism.

Not sure what you mean by that.

But an investigation of the "meaning" behind language is what I am currently involved with.

 

I have as a standard in this investigation, that everybody, meaning all humans, are just that, humans.

 

Outside of gross deformities, accidents, and disease, all humans have remarkably similar equipment.

We did not get this equipment by accident or gift. We developed it, because it worked, it fit, it allowed us to stick around.

 

There is a difference between the universes I can create in my mind, and the "actual" universe. I can "manipulate" the models in my mind, far more easily than the actual uninverse/world that I derive my models from.

 

But I am not without the ability to manipulate the actual world.

 

The current hypothesis I am working on is that our internal sense/motor neural arrangement that allows us to monitor and control our own bodies, can be, and has been extended, by various methods to attempt the same thing with items in the real world, outside of our bodies. Pack hunting, farming, building shelters, roads, ships, smoke signals, vehicles, tools, equipment, machines, sensing devices and measurement schemes. All in some sense, extentions of our sensing and motor control skills.

 

What is done in ones mind does not have to fit reality. What is done in reality actually does exactly fit reality.

 

What is done in ones mind has little effect on reality, outside of some expenditure of energy, and some synapse rearrangement in ones own skull. Things can be gotten wrong, gotten right, work or not work, and easily changed.

 

But out in the real world, past the limits of our neural connections, once done, the manipulation is permanent and real.

You break the vase, and you own it.

 

I go through all that, just to let you know, that I don't know what you mean by "pushed out from the door to reality".

 

By my thinking there is no door between my mind and reality. My brain is real, my senses pick up real actual patterns from and about reality and perceive them and store them in an analog fashion as to represent rather acurately what is going on around me. I can build maps and models of it, use transforms and analogies, and get a pretty good "idea" of what it is that I am in and of. I can put "myself" in the shoes of any entity I chose, and imagine what they might be experiencing. I can "imagine" unseen others.

 

It is in light of these thoughts that I "understand" other's philosophies, religion and psychology.

And from my personal point of view, the scientific method is a fine way for us to utilize the explorations of reality that others have made, and to add those explorations to my own understanding of the nature of "the thing in itself".

 

People like me and you? Absolutely. That's everybody.

 

Regards, TAR2

According to mystics the brain and the mind are two different things, they are dualists. Yes the synaptic plasticity of the brain will help us to learn things and manipulate the stuff of nature as you have mentioned in the OP which is very much real but mystics claim that seeing through the eyes is not the only way to know things there is an another way which is as real as the former one is by seeing without the sense organs. There has to be a reality which is fundamental and which we can not know of, this might interest you as you want to understand what we know of and how we know what.

They view the mind as a tightly held rope with the five senses attached to one end and the intelligence attached at the other end. They don't see intelligence as something associated with the brain instead they see it as physical entities existing in their own realm like platonic values. This model is based upon the individual experiences of persons who have observed the mind. Note that there is nothing associated with the brain or any other signals, it doesn't come into the picture at all.

If one has to have mystical experiences then they have to detach the connection between the mind and the sense organs. Now the mind appears as a fallen rope and only then we can experience the noumenal world otherwise we'll be seeing the phenomenal world as we see through our eyes. This is the reason why such people abstain themselves from worldly pleasures. It is normally believed that the more pleasure you give to your sense organs more is the strength of the connection between the mind and the sense organs so in order to gain knowledge about the noumenal world through experiences one has to refrain himself from desiring worldly pleasures.

But here the difference between the world we model, and the actual world becomes evident and crucial to differenciate between. You can imagine going out with a movie star. So can a million others. But only one (or so) people at a time can actually go out, with the actual movie star.

Nothing is what it seems, if the movie star can appear in many places at once then he can obviously go out with as many people as he could. It is these things like quantum teleportation, looking into the future and many other things which begs the question is there something more fundamental than what we can see through our eyes.

I hope by now you can understand what I meant when I said that we'll be pushed from the door to reality, this isn't the only reality that exists.

The major hurdle physicists need to overcome to find a proper final theory, is their religious attachment to current theories, in particular those of Einstein, which is reminiscent of the renaissance attitude to Aristotle. It may be true that general relativity describes the solar system better than Newtonian mechanics; but when applied to the motions of galaxies it does not work, it is disproved by observation, therefore it is wrong.

The theory of general relativity has been tested with very high precision and saying that the whole theory is completely wrong seems to me a rather outrageous statement. Earth dragging space and time as it rotates. A better statement is to say that it fails to account for the observations produced in a particular case. Both Newtonian mechanics and General relativity tries to explain the behaviourof matter and light in large gravitational fields and its not that one is better and the other is bad. The Newtonian mechanics was re-constructed at the speeds of light, general relativity didn't completely overthrew it

The paper says,

 

Einstein's theory of general relativity has been highly successful at explaining how matter and light behave in strong gravitational fields, and has been successfully tested using a wide variety of astrophysical observationsEinstein's theory of general relativity has been highly successful at explaining how matter and light behave in strong gravitational fields, and has been successfully tested using a wide variety of astrophysical observations.

"Our measurement agrees 99 percent with what is predicted by general relativity, which is within our margin of error of plus or minus five percent," said Pavlis. "This is a significant improvement over our 1998 measurement, which had an error margin of plus or minus 20 percent using the best gravitational model available at the time."

Trying to join general relativity to quantum mechanics, is never going to result in a proper final theory. What physicists need to do, is realise that real scientific progress comes from disproving existing models, not from holding a religious attachment to them.

Real scientific progress comes by fine tuning the little wrong assumptions in the theory or the existing models and fixing it not by completely overthrowing existing models. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics has with stood the test of the times and both are one of the most intellectual theories of mankindand it is not that one is right or the other is wrong its just that few assumptions of the model might be redefined or reconstructed and I don't think physicists choose religious attachment over scientific attitude to come to conclusions.

May be I might have misunderstood you, there's not much to argue against.

Am I not allowed to make statements unless I don't know what they mean?

I didn't get you here, need some clarification.

I think you've touched on the point, by suggesting that there must be actual experience, and a method to know the exact nature of things as they are. Which sounds a pretty good definition of how experimental Science works. What needs to be added, is a dash of Philosophy. But not too much!

I think we need more than that, we need new physics, I'm on the side of Penrose, Einstein and others. I was very conscious when I made that statement since I have some serious doubts as to whether science can really model the objective world in the first place with its current scientific attitude. The more we have dwelled in comprehending the working of the nature the more is the evidence that the things what ever out there is very much different from the things what we imagine in our models or the things taught in our schools. With Bell's inequality disproving the objectivity of the world that the properties of an object always exist irrespective of an observer we hardly have a picture of what the hell is happening.

We have to learn from the positivist approach of Quantum Physics which is very strict on what the theory claims to explain and what the theory predicts.

A quote from Niels Bohr.

Every atomic phenomenon is closed in the sense that its observation is based on registrations obtained by means of suitable amplification devices with irreversible functions such as, for example, permanent marks on a photographic plate caused by the pentration of the electrons into the emulsion.

 

"From this point of view, the function of quantum physics is to make statistical predictions about the outcome of experiments and we should not attribute any truth value to any experiments we may draw about the nature of the quantum system itself" - Alastair I.M. Rae

 

I don't think Einstein was kidding when he said that all events are always happening and our notion of past, present and future is a mere illusion. He would have never took back that statement easily.

But the picture given by quantum physics is something else it forces us to model ourselves (i.e the state of the observer) in order to model the objective world. We need a way to predict the next firing in the neuron of the brain or the next choice of the observer, we're an integral part of the system and to model the universe from the begining till the end we need to model ourselves.

Now if science claims to give an objective account of reality it has to model the observer as indicated by QM who is beyond science itself.

The positivist approach might have helped in explaining various phenomena like superconductivity, superfluidity, bose-einstein condensates etc but it doesn't satisfy people like Einstein and Penrose.

 

Yes. I wouldn't disagree that we would have to 'go beyond the senses' to actually know. But I think we can think about what might be true. Space and time only exist for the senses, so to go beyond the senses would entail going beyond space and time. If it is possible to do this, as you suggest, then space and time are not fundamental, and some phenomenon accessible to us by some other means than our senses would have to be prior. I think this is pretty much Kant's and Hegel's reasoning, by which they arrive at this pre-spatiotemporal phenomenon as a unity, so it is certainly possible to theorise about this and yet still allow that you are right, we cannot actually know our theory is true without empirical knowledge. But this is true of all theories.

 

 

Hmm. I think Kant may have been closer to agreeing with you than you might imagine. Note how quickly Hegel extended his view to reach your position. For what seems to be your view, to know things as they really are would be to know the voidness of phenomena, which is not far from what Kant proposed.

 

 

Yes. It is a big mistake in my opinion also.

The distinction made by Immanuel Kant between the phenomenon and the noumenon was itself a big paradigm and I have repeatedly posted about this and the attitude of the physicists in here and in my blog, I don't like to name it since it is against the rules of this site to advertise one's posts. Yes without the kantian philosophy my whole view will be baseless. Kant completely overthrew metaphysics stating that a synthetic a priori statement was not possible in metaphysics since it required to go beyond the senses, that's the only point where I disagree with him. But he was absolutely right in pointing out that one needed both experience as well as reason to model the reality. Yes its not far from his views.

But I would not agree that an hypothesis is metaphysical if it can be neither proved nor disproved. It is usually quite easy to disprove metaphysical statements. That's the whole problem with them. It is not that we can't decide which of, say, Materialism and Idealism is false and which is true. It is that we can falsify both of them quite easily. Your view is common, but to me it seems incorrect. Carnap rejected metaphysics because he could not find a metaphysical position he could not refute.

I was saying it from the context of science where a model which can not be testified under basic axioms of science was considered to be metaphysical. Ofcourse one could disprove it with other metaphysical arguments.

 

I don't find eastern philosophy implausable. It is most likely absolutely correct, as is, in my thinking, everybody's philosophy. My problem with it, is the same problem I have with everybody's philosophy (including my own), and that is, that they are the ones that see it correctly, and everybody else is missing the point.

 

My current investigation is to understand the common "meaning". Why and how we think what and how we think.

 

I do not think the universe changes all that much, depending on what we think of it. However we would not think at all, without it.

 

If I do not accept eastern philosopy as plausable, I would have to abandon my investigation and all its premises with it.

 

Each thing that eastern philosphy says. I can understand in "my" terms. So they are not saying anything that I do not already find very plausable.

 

As I said, my objection is to the attitude that you know something I don't. That you have grasped its total nature, and I am just wallowing about clueless. (you being the shaman, or the monk, or the Buddah, or some other person in touch with the "true" nature of reality.)

 

 

My theory is, that we all, already get it. We are just trying to figure out what the heck to do about it.

 

Regards, TAR2

I don't like to drag this too much in this thread but to have the ability to know the reality would mean to be able to manipulate it and one can go on to create a parallel world if you would like to, when you have reached that state you are no longer interested in knowing anything or doing anything because you know everything that's the beauty of it, infact they can look into the future but they are not interested in it and so it has to be ensured that a knowledge like that should not go into wrong hands and therefore one has to have a pure mind and body in order to know the reality. We all have conditional access to reality one has to prepare one's mind and body to know the reality, one should earn it. If not people like you and me will be pushed out from the door to reality.

Yes, I agree. Not sure about the relevance to my comments however. I did not suggest otherwise.

If you agree then you shouldn't make a speculation about the nature of the 'one' as you have done in the OP. I would never do that. The sages never discussed or argued about it instead they used to share their experiences with each other and based on those experiences they would come to a conclusion and that's how they validated the experiences by carefully examining the experience of the experiencer. So a discussion without actually experiencing it will lead you no where and any conclusion you make about the nature of the 'one' will be baseless and hence one should never try to describe it.

I mean to conclude just monism is right or dualism is right or saying ''here unity would not mean one'' has no credibility.

The problem runs like this, To know the exact nature of the entities like space, time and matter one has to go beyond the senses to know them, thereof an experiment or a testable model to know their exact nature is not universal since everyone will not have the ability to see without using the sense organs. The mistakes where some people make is when they completely rubbish it as metaphysics, a hypothesis is regarded as metaphysics if it can neither be proved nor disproved. In this case we have a testable model but it is just not universal. Science takes mathematical models more seriously than any other models and it is not the only branch of philosophy or the only road we have, to know the reality. We have to shift our thoughts and consider other branches more seriously and this can be a new paradigm in human history.

I think a unified theory of everything will not come from scientists, it will come from real philosophers, who just don't think but actually experience and have a method to know the exact nature of all things as they are. I have to disagree with Kant, humans do have the epistemological knowledge to know the things as they are.

Erm. Don't know what you mean by this. Am I not allowed to make statements unless I don't know what they mean?

 

Wittgenstein said 'whereof we can not speak thereof we should remain silent'.

We can not understand the 'ONE' with reason, rationalism or with speech and discussion. It has to be known only through experience. Its similar to tasting a sugar and saying it was sweet but when asked about what is sweetness, the mind goes ??????.

Saint Augustine had the same view, from his excerpt City of God.

 

10. Of the simple and unchangeable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one God, in whom substance and quality are identical.

 

There is, accordingly, a good which is alone simple, and therefore alone unchangeable, and this is God. By this Good have all others been created, but not simple, and therefore not unchangeable. "Created," I say,--that is, made, not begotten. For that which is begotten of the simple Good is simple as itself, and the same as itself. These two we call the Father and the Son; and both together with the Holy Spirit are one God; and to this Spirit the epithet Holy is in Scripture, as it were, appropriated. And He is another than the Father and the Son, for He is neither the Father nor the Son. I say "another," not "another thing," because He is equally with them the simple Good, unchangeable and co-eternal. And this Trinity is one God; and none the less simple because a Trinity. For we do not say that the nature of the good is simple, because the Father alone possesses it, or the Son alone, or the Holy Ghost alone; nor do we say, with the Sabellian heretics, that it is only nominally a Trinity, and has no real distinction of persons; but we say it is simple, because it is what it has, with the exception of the relation of the persons to one another. For, in regard to this relation, it is true that the Father has a Son, and yet is not Himself the Son; and the Son has a Father, and is not Himself the Father. But, as regards Himself, irrespective of relation to the other, each is what He has; thus, He is in Himself living, for He has life, and is Himself the Life which He has.

 

It is for this reason, then, that the nature of the Trinity is called simple, because it has not anything which it can lose, and because it is not one thing and its contents another, as a cup and the liquor, or a body and its colour, or the air and the light or heat of it, or a mind and its wisdom. For none of these is what it has: the cup is not liquor, nor the body colour, nor the air light and heat, nor the mind wisdom. And hence they can be deprived of what they have, and can be turned or changed into other qualities and states, so that the cup may be emptied of the liquid of which it is full, the body be discoloured, the air darken, the mind grow silly. The incorruptible body which is promised to the saints in the resurrection cannot, indeed, lose its quality of incorruption, but the bodily substance and the quality of incorruption are not the same thing. For the quality of incorruption resides entire in each several part, not greater in one and less in another; for no part is more incorruptible than another. The body, indeed, is itself greater in whole than in part; and one part of it is larger, another smaller, yet is not the larger more incorruptible than the smaller. The body, then, which is not in each of its parts a whole body, is one thing; incorruptibility, which is throughout complete, is another thing;--for every part of the incorruptible body, however unequal to the rest otherwise, is equally incorrupt. For the hand, e.g., is not more incorrupt than the finger because it is larger than the finger; so, though finger and hand are unequal, their incorruptibility is equal. Thus, although incorruptibility is inseparable from an incorruptible body, yet the substance of the body is one thing, the quality of incorruption another. And therefore the body is not what it has. The soul itself, too, though it be always wise (as it will be eternally when it is redeemed), will be so by participating in the unchangeable wisdom, which it is not; for though the air be never robbed of the light that is shed abroad in it, it is not on that account the same thing as the light. I do not mean that the soul is air, as has been supposed by some who could not conceive a spiritual nature; but, with much dissimilarity, the two things have a kind of likeness, which makes it suitable to say that the immaterial soul is illumined with the immaterial light of the simple wisdom of God, as the material air is irradiated with material light, and that, as the air, when deprived of this light, grows dark, (for material darkness is nothing more than air wanting light,) so the soul, deprived of the light of wisdom, grows dark.

 

According to this, then, those things which are essentially and truly divine are called simple, because in them quality and substance are identical, and because they are divine, or wise, or blessed in themselves, and without extraneous supplement. In Holy Scripture, it is true, the Spirit of wisdom is called "manifold" because it contains many things in it; but what it contains it also is, and it being one is all these things. For neither are there many wisdoms, but one, in which are untold and infinite treasures of things intellectual, wherein are all invisible and unchangeable reasons of things visible and changeable which were created by it. For God made nothing unwittingly; not even a human workman can be said to do so. But if He knew all that He made, He made only those things which He had known. Whence flows a very striking but true conclusion, that this world could not be known to us unless it existed, but could not have existed unless it had been known to God.

 

I think I'm suffering from this syndrome, I have most of the symptoms metioned in here -->wiki. I was doing an intense traditional practice for almost one year without taking advice from a spiritual master, it was an intense physical exercise which also requires one to have breathing exercises at the same time and one day all of a sudden I fell forward in the morning and backward in the evening (not my words, it was put nicely by my friend), when I was doing it in the morning that day I lost my consciousness and after I was awake I was lying on my mat with my whole body jerking with involuntary movements, it was a rush of energy which I felt. Since I had no guidance I unfortunately continued to do it in the evening too which is a traditional practice and this time I fell backwards and my head smashed on to the floor and I was on my mom's lap when I woke up. She said that my body was very cold.

I didn't visited a physician since I thought it was not the kind of problem a medical proffesional could diagnose it and I stopped doing it out of fear and continued or tried to live a normal life, and I would consider myself being normal but the stresses are showing on my body and my emotions, I got meddled with someone's personal space and it has made it a lot worse. Symptoms like disinterest, disassociation, cries, uncontrollable emotions, fantasy prone can be highlighted.

Since we don't find too many people who can remove those stresses from the body I might have to bear this spiritual emergency by leading a normal healthy life as described in that article. I was astonished to read that information on wiki, it seems mutants are on the rise. I wonder what's the take of transpersonal psychology on this.

I don't know how feasible this is, but is it possible to provide some space for saved posts before they can be posted into the forum, I mean a button like 'drafts saved' which automatically saves the content of our posts while we are writing it, since members like me who don't have a power back up for my pc, its really annoying sometimes when I'll be writing some lengthy posts and suddenly the power goes off and there is no way of getting it back again and I have to re-group my thoughts to post it again, so a feature like that will be really helpful.

The first one is correct there are no problems with that but I have some doubts for the second one. If I'm not wrong doesn't 14CD:3C point to the location having the byte 00, and so by a dword that would mean 00 00 00 01 and yes ofcourse you need to put 'H' next to them since they are in hexadecimal. I apologize if my answers make you lose some homework points but this is what I think.

Well, then hear the other side of the argument.

1. How did life originate? How did the DNA code originate?

Even though this is irrelevant to what Evolution by Natural Selection intend to explain I'm responding to it, since they have included chemical evolution in their definition and requested for a natural process on how the DNA and its code can originate through evolutionary mechanisms. Towards understanding of the origin of genetic languages.

CMI'S definition of evolution for the purposes of this pamphlet is the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’^{<A name=txtRef1>1} This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!

2. How could mutations? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway?

Evolution doesn't work by random mutations, it works by random muttations followed by non-random selection, it works by cumulative selection i.e. accumulation of good design. The following paper shows how Evolution by NS can lead to increase in information. Explaining gene duplication.

3. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

There are three kinds of natural selection mainly positive selection, normalizing selection and sexual selection. If an organism hasn't changed over the years it means they were subjected to normalizing selection and according to the mathematical models by Kauffman

The simulations typically contain a number of species that remain 'frozen' for quite a long period of time, in much the same way that shark and cockroaches have survived with very little change over the last hundreds of millions of years. At the same time, however, the simulations always contain a number of rapidly evolving species engaged in a kind of evoultionary race, rather like the tree and the beetle

And also the rate of evolution depends on the rate at which the mutations are fixed in the population.

4. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Metabolic cooperation through inter cellular interactions and their molecular biology has been studied extensively, experiments show that cells in direct contact communicate by exchanging large metabolites and in a growing cell having high energy requirement it would be a better strategy for the cell to share large metabolites with the other cell rather than battling alone in the battle for life. So those mutations which helped the cells to better communicate with each other got selected and passed on and there is no need for any teleological assistence for them to originate.

5. How did sex originate?

Having traits which attract other individuals of the same population is an advantage since it passes on the traits to the next generation, but these attractive traits can also attract some predators but if the risk is less compared to the selective advantage then those alleles will be fixed. evolution of sex chromosomes.

6. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

Even though humans exhibit extraordinary behaviours of intelligence, altruism and morality we're more or less animals in the first place, and most of the evolutionary psychology is based on this dogma. According to models of game theory applied to evolutionary biology by John Maynard Smith, the brains of the animals including humans are always developing survival strategies whether its in the wild for animals or in the gambling of humans, they exhibit innate instincts to make a choice which gives them the best possible outcome i.e. they make a selfish choice. Evolutionary psychology just explains the behaviours of living things when subjected to different environmental conditions. They just claim to explain one perspective of humans based on the dogma of seeing them as evolutionary by products.

They don't claim to explain the origin of mind, intelligence and other higher morals, if some group of people are so annoyed if we say that humans think along the same lines as evolutionary psychological patterns its not the theories fault. They just say the truth. Its for us to realize that we are living in a civilized and a moral world and infact evolutionary psychology will go on to say that any ruthless act of misbehaviour in a socialized world will inturn lead to the isolation of those individuals and there by hindering their genes to be passed on, we're all animals(machines) first and then human beings.

7. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Evolution has helped us to better understand the complexities of the living organisms and how selections acts at various levels from genes to individuals to organisms and to populations. Our ability to make a distinction and divide a population into two different species even if they are so morphological identical between each other is only a great success we have had. This can lead to prediction on how the ecosystem can change over the years in the near future helps us to take actions to preserve the diversity of life that we on earth.

8. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

Ofcourse living organisms exhibit some amazing design solutions which is intriguing to our observation and Evolution by Natural selection is the only model which explains all the bio-diversity in the world, Yes there are some loop holes in the model which will be present in any model of physical sciences which will be later updated by new synthesis. If these proponents of Intelligent design give us a model which explains about the diversity of life on earth which can be testified based on their claim of a teleological hand behind the design of novel forms then we will be very much be happy to be included in the school curriculum but right now its not even a science and I guess it will never be a field of science and so we can just keep it far from science. We don't popularize pseudoscience in our classrooms.

9. Why is natural selection not a creative process?

Here is a paper which shows how smal mutations in a gene can lead to macro-evolution. How animal body shapes changed in early evolution

Well, welcome Vinil, you've introduced yourself in the wrong thread, we have a thread called the 'The official introduce yourself thread' which is pinned at the top of this forum, you seem like you want to stand aside from the crowd anyways this is not my job, nice to meet you.

You have to start the count from 0 at the line 14CD:50 then you'll get the right answer. And also remember they are asking the value of the word(16 bits) and the double word(32 bits) but you've chosen only 8bits or 1 byte.

Use a client software like Bitlord 1.1, you can search for the torrent files from the bitlordsearch.com, the application software itself will search and download the torrent file for you and then you can use the torrent file to download your desired file. This seems more reliable.

This is done by tracing the program line by line.

c:\MASM>MASM FILENAME.ASM ---> for compilation.

c:\MASM>LINK FILENAME.OBJ ----> for linking the object file.

c:\MASM>DEBUG FILENAME.EXE -----> for debugging or execution of the file.

then if you give

-G ---> the program will be executed.

-T ----> the program will be traced line by line untill one of the registers become zero.

There are other commands like that which I have forgot, I hope this helps even I'm not sure about it I learnt about it long back and now I have forgot.

Sir,

 

1. No. There are only three entities- Braham(God), Jeev(soul) and maya(power of God which makes us materialistic)

So, there can be only two religion- One which leads to God and other which leads to maya. Thus the path leading to God has no effect of religion. Every religion would suggest contradicting ideas but look for the Vedas which would help you understand why contradicting facts are written.

 

2. Look, God and soul are both eternal but soul is a part of God. If I ask you who you are, you would say you are a scientist. But that's your post. Then you would say that you are Greatest I am but that would be your name. Than you would say that you are human. But that's your body. Look, you are soul why because you relate to body as something other than you. We say," My eyes are black" but not "Me eyes are black." Nor God created man nor man created God. God is no senior to us in terms of age.

 

3. Surely, getting human body is the top grace which God and bestow.

 

4. God lives everywhere. He provides the power to soul to work. Even if the soul attains a body of dog, God would be still with the soul.

 

5. What everyone wants is happiness without even being taught. Have you seen someone who wants pain? No, even if he practice for hundred or thousands of years he would still want happiness. Why is it so that naturally, without being taught, everyone wants happiness? Because we are a part of God and God is happiness or Bliss. Read again. Happiness or Bliss doesn't lie in God but he is happiness. from time immemorial we have worked to attain happiness because human can't remain non-doer for a second. (This is why even people of heaven wants human body). But we have rejected all and still continue to find it. Every part loves his whole. We would remain doing so for time immemorial again because until we attain God we can't attain bliss. No one can get milk out of water.

 

I would like to remove your misconception about God. God is one and eternal. He has two parts- Anshavatar- The parts which are governed by Swaroop Shakti an power of God. These have never been under maya or they have never been materialistic. They have their different abodes. Other is Vibhinanshavatar- which are under maya from time immemorial and would remain unless they attain God. All souls and people of heaven and hell are included. So, God is one and eternal.

 

6. He can never be! He remains inside you even if you are against him.

 

Regards.

Doesn't the Vedas also say that it should only be taught to worthy and deserving people. Let God turn his Rajo gunas into satwa guna (characteristic qualities) then it would have been the right time to remove his misconceptions.

 

The key point is immense selection pressure so what would the environment be like for this to occur?

According to Endosymbiont theory, organisms can undergo secondary endosymbiosis, i.e for example - a protist can engulf a whole algae which itself is in symbiosis with a cyanobacteria or some other symbiont organism. Some organisms depend on other organisms for glucose as long as they are independent but once they have engulfed an autotroph they lose their scavenging charactersistics and start acting as an autotroph by moving towards light. These organisms become so completely dependent on its symbiont that they no longer

can exist individually, so as energy requirements of the host increased it required more glucose molecules and it had to come from the symbiont since the host was completely dependent on it. So it is this kind of environment of immense selection pressure led to the development of complex photosynthetic components and cycles. Remember generation of glucose is not a spontaneous process, it requires free energy. Read the article on Endosymbiont theory in wikipedia for further reference.

I read somewhere that according to genetics eukaryotes (multi-celled organisms) begin with mitochondria while few later lost it.

Yes research indicates that both Eukaryotes and mitochondria had to evolve simultaneously and since it has been known that eukaryotes might have existed prior or at the time of origin of oxygenated photosyntesis I have gone with mitochondria evolving first before the choloroplasts.

I use MP3 Rocket software to download videos from youtube and also some music. This might be of help to you. Have fun!!!

MP3 Rocket

I personally see a very dark future ahead, what happens when we find cures/vaccines for HIV, Malaria and Cancer? The world will be completely full of hungry humans who have no use or purpose...

No problem, we will have enough genetically modified crops (GM food) to feed the whole world and we can introduce new gene products(protiens) into their diet in those cultures which lack these metabolites, for example- vitamin A etc . It is absurd to have a pessimistic view on medical cures just because the world will end up in more hungry humans. I'm an optimist.

According to Michio, the author of the book, 'Physics of the Impossible' , technologies like Teleportation, invisible cloaking devices, ray guns, perfect lens which might help us to look at DNA and protien molecules just through a microscope with out requiring any chemical action on them should be available with in a decade or so. The future looks bright in these areas. IMO they have to be inevitably appear with in a decade 'cause the technology is so promising.

Isolating Quantum computers from the environment to avoid decoherence and time travel are considered to be much harder to happen in the near future.

Not to forget bio synthethic trees planted in and around our houses and on streets to have a pollution free environment. Nano-robots which can replace erythrocytes would help us to provide oxygen and you could stay inside waters for more than 15min. The problem with nano-robots is that we have to find an effective way to establish communication between other nano-robots.

AFAIK, magnetic fields are capable of accelerating charged particles (bending them or driving them in a parabolic motion) but photons are not charged particles and magnets can not bend light beams.

I think what Michio Kaku might be talking about (in his book 'Physics of the Impossible') is 'magnetic metamaterials' which is used to bend light rays by electromagnets which interact with the magnetic field of the light. Remember it is not the magnets which is bending the light rays in the literally sense rather the incident light carrying a magentic field of its own induces an electric current in the materials and therefore kicks in a chain of interacting magnetic fields oscillating at different frequencies in the artificial material and there by we change the magnetic and electric field of light waves and we can control its flow or the direction of its momentum.

nano-magnets interacting through the magnetic field of light

Journey of Invisible cloaking devices