A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: Dvi ...

A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (

)

RLP Vimal

Most recent update: Sunday, October 30, 2016, 12:35 AM

A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal Vision Research Institute, 25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA [email protected] Copyright © 2016 (except quotes and responses from other authors, i.e., those texts which are not written by the author of this article) by Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal and Vision Research Institute. Author’s permission is needed for re-producing and/or quoting any portion except the text quoted from other authors. For referring, the following content should be included: Vimal, R. L. P. (2016). A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2016-Vimal-eDAM-DPA-LVCR-8-4.pdf]. This is updated version of the original 2014 article: [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2464.2009], 8(4), 1-336. [Latest update: Sunday, October 30, 2016, 12:35 AM].

Abstract We propose a dual-aspect framework for consciousness, which is an extended version of dual-aspect monism metaphysics (eDAM) framework based on the robust and reproducible two sources of scientific empirical data: (i) The data from the 1st person perspective (1pp) such as our subjective experiences and (ii) The data from the 3rd person perspective (3pp) such as their respective neural bases. In this article, the term ‘consciousness’ is defined as the mental aspect of a state of brainsystem or brain-process, which has two sub-aspects: conscious experience and conscious function from first person perspective (1pp); the terms ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ are used in the sense of the eDAM framework (not dualism). The eDAM framework has five components: (I) Dual-Aspect Monism framework, where (a) each entity-state has inseparable physical and mental aspects, (b) the potentiality of primary irreducible subjective experiences (SEs) co-exists with its inseparable physical aspect in Nature, and (c) SEs are the excitations of Universal Potential Consciousness (UPC), in analogy to the ripples of an ocean; (II) Dual-mode (conjugate matching between stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signalsrelated-mode and cognitive-feedback-signals-related-mode and then the selection of a specific subjective experience by the self); and (III) The degree of manifestation of aspects depends on a state of an entity. The mental aspect is from 1pp and the physical aspect is from the objective third person perspective (3pp). (IV) The fourth component is the segregation and integration of dual-aspect information and (V) The fifth component is the necessary conditions of consciousness, which are developed here. The necessary conditions for access (reportable) consciousness are the formation of neural networks, wakefulness, reentry, attention, information 1


)

RLP Vimal

integration, working memory, stimulus contrast at or above a threshold, and potential experiences embedded in neural network. Attention is not necessary for phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness. This framework is parsimonious and has the least number of problems compared to all other frameworks, and it addresses the objections raised in Biological Naturalism by traditional views (dualism and materialism). The eDAM framework (a) is consistent with psychophysical, biological, and physical laws; (b) it attempts to address the ‘hard’ problem of consciousness (how to explain subjective experiences), and (c) it can be tested scientifically: if the doctrine of inseparability between the 1pp-mental and 3pp-physical aspects of a conscious brain-mind state is somehow rejected then the eDAM framework needs major modification. We have followed the least problematic ‘bottom-up’ approach, which starts from the robust and reproducible two sources of empirical data and then extrapolates carefully backward in time. This process eventually entails the manifestation of an entity is from its potentiality in the primal entity (Brahman) to its realization thru the process of co-evolution. This approach concludes that the degree of manifestation of the unmanifested state of Brahman is highest in us presumably at Nirvikalpa Samādhi state, which entails that ‘God’ is inside us because we attain ‘godly’ virtues at this state, such as compassion, humility, bliss/Ānanda, love for all, inner light perception, and the unification of subject and objects.

Keywords Easy and hard problems of consciousness; functional and experiential aspects of consciousness; materialism; Biological Naturalism; ;dual-aspect monism; segregation and integration of information; emergence; supervenience; functional integration; access and phenomenal consciousness; necessary conditions of consciousness; arousal system; reentry; attention; memory; neural correlates of consciousness; potentiality; realization; Brahman; Nirvikalpa Samādhi; Ānanda.

Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 1 Keywords ............................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 2 List of Abbreviations............................................................................................................... 6 Transliterations, Transcription, Sanskrit/Tamil words, English translation, and References ... 6 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 8 1.1. The four major metaphysics, definition of consciousness, and hard problem ................... 8 1.2. The first component of the eDAM framework: Dual-Aspect Monism .............................11 1.3. The second component of the eDAM framework: the dual mode and the conjugate matching and selection mechanisms .............................................................................12 1.4. The third component of the eDAM framework: the concept of the varying degrees of the manifestation of aspects depending on the states of entities ....................................13 2. The fourth and fifth components of the eDAM framework: Segregation and integration of information and necessary conditions of consciousness in the eDAM Framework, solution of hard problem, and conscious artifacts ..........................................................................14 A. Dual-aspect information ................................................................................................14 2


)

RLP Vimal

B. Steps for unified experience ..........................................................................................14 C. Towards dual-aspect theory ..........................................................................................15 D. Towards segregation, differentiation, integration, hard problem, and the eDAM framework ....................................................................................................................15 2.1. Segregation and Differentiation of Information ............................................................16 2.1.1. Segregation: .........................................................................................................16 2.1.2. Differentiation ......................................................................................................16 2.2. Integration of Information ...........................................................................................17 2.3. Necessary Conditions of consciousness .......................................................................25 2.3.1. Formation of neural networks ..............................................................................25 2.3.2. Wakefulness and Arousal system .........................................................................26 2.3.3. Reentry process ...................................................................................................27 2.3.4. Attention ..............................................................................................................27 2.3.5. Memory ...............................................................................................................28 2.3.6. Reentry, attention, memory, and consciousness ...................................................29 2.3.7. Stimulus level ......................................................................................................29 2.3.8. Neural network proto-experiences ........................................................................29 2.3.9. Executive functions ..............................................................................................29 2.3.10 Investigation of necessary and sufficient conditions of consciousness ..................30 2.3.11. Summary ...........................................................................................................30 2.4. An attempt to solve the Hard Problem of Consciousness .............................................30 2.5. Conscious Artifacts .....................................................................................................33 3. Discussion ........................................................................................................................34 3.1. Biology: structure, function, experience, and the doctrine of inseparability between 3pp-physical aspect and 1pp-mental aspect ..................................................................34 3.2. Conceptual Analysis of 1pp and 3pp ...........................................................................37 Remarks ........................................................................................................................38 3.3. Conceptual (Qualia) space in the eDAM framework .....................................................38 3.4. Comparison between the eDAM and the TAM frameworks ...........................................41 3.5. Functional integration ................................................................................................46 3.6. Non-conscious and conscious processing ....................................................................48 3.7. Framework selection: Occam Razor parsimony and model selection criterion (MSC) from Akaike information statistics ................................................................................49 3.8. A critical test for the eDAM framework ........................................................................51 3.8.1. Critical discussion ...............................................................................................53 3.9. Materialism, idealism, interactive substance dualism and other versions of dual-aspect monism vs. the eDAM framework ...............................................................66 3.10. Biological Naturalism vs. the eDAM framework .........................................................68 3.11. Information Integration vs. the eDAM framework ......................................................73 3.12. Integration between structure, function, and experience ...........................................75 3.13. Quantum mechanics (QM) and consciousness ..........................................................76 3.14. Bottom-up vs. top-down metaphysical approach: discussion with Online Sadhu Sanga group .................................................................................................................77 3.14.1. Vimal .................................................................................................................77 3.14.2. Bhakti Niskama Shanta (August 21, 2016) .........................................................77 3.14.3. Vimal .................................................................................................................79 3.14.4. Shanta (August 22, 2016) ..................................................................................79 3.14.5. Vimal .................................................................................................................80 3.14.6. Shanta (August 22, 2016) ..................................................................................80 3


)

RLP Vimal

3.14.7. Vimal .................................................................................................................80 3.14.8. Shanta (August 23, 2016) ..................................................................................81 3.14.9. Vimal .................................................................................................................82 3.14.10. Vinod Sehgal (8/30/16) ...................................................................................82 3.14.11. Vimal ...............................................................................................................83 3.14.12. Vinod Sehgal (Sept. 1, 2016) ............................................................................84 3.14.13. Vimal ...............................................................................................................84 3.14.14. Phil Goldberg (Sept. 3, 2016) ............................................................................85 3.14.15. Vimal ...............................................................................................................85 3.14.16. Arvydas Tamulis (Sept. 4, 2016) .......................................................................85 3.14.17. Vimal ...............................................................................................................86 3.14.18. Rich Norman (Sept. 4, 2016) ............................................................................86 3.14.19. Vimal ...............................................................................................................86 3.14.20. Arvydas Tamulis (Sept. 5, 2016) .......................................................................86 3.14.21. Arvydas Tamulis (Sept. 5, 2016) .......................................................................86 3.14.22. Achinta Yajnik (Sept. 5, 2016) ..........................................................................87 3.14.23. Vimal ...............................................................................................................88 3.14.24. Dilip Das (Sept. 5, 2016) ..................................................................................88 3.14.25. Leslie S. Kaufman (Sept. 5, 2016) .....................................................................89 3.14.26. Vimal ...............................................................................................................89 3.14.27. Arvydas Tamulis (Sept. 6, 2016) .......................................................................89 3.14.28. Vimal ...............................................................................................................90 3.14.29. BVK Sastry (Sept. 6, 2016) ..............................................................................90 3.14.30. Vinod Sehgal (Sept. 6, 2016) ............................................................................91 3.14.31. Vimal ...............................................................................................................91 3.14.32. BVK Sastry (Sept. 6, 2016) ..............................................................................92 3.14.33. Achinta Yajnik (Sept. 6, 2016) ..........................................................................93 3.14.34. Rich Norman (Sept. 7, 2016) ............................................................................94 3.14.35. Srinivasan , G.(Sept. 7, 2016) ...........................................................................96 3.14.36. BVK Sastry (Sept. 7, 2016) ..............................................................................96 3.14.37 Vimal ................................................................................................................97 3.14.39. Guy A Hoelzer (Sept. 7, 2016) ...........................................................................97 3.14.39. Vinod Sehgal (Sept. 7, 2016) ............................................................................97 3.14.40. Vimal ...............................................................................................................99 3.14.41. Deepak Chopra ..............................................................................................100 3.14.42. Vimal .............................................................................................................100 3.14.43. Janet Jeya Paul (Sept. 8, 2016) ......................................................................100 3.14.44. Vimal .............................................................................................................100 3.14.45. Srinivasan, G.(Sept. 8, 2016) ..........................................................................100 3.14.46. Sastry, BVK (Sept. 8, 2016) ...........................................................................101 3.14.47. Yajnik, Achinta (Sept. 8, 2016) .......................................................................105 3.14.48. Swami BV Avadhoota (Sept. 8, 2016) ..............................................................106 3.14.49. Hari, Syamala (Sept. 8, 2016) ........................................................................106 3.14.50. Vimal .............................................................................................................106 3.14.51. Singh, Avatar (Sept. 8, 2016) .........................................................................107 3.14.52. Hoelzer, Guy A. (Sept. 9, 2016) .......................................................................107 3.14.53. Srinivasan, G (Sept. 9, 2016) ..........................................................................108 3.14.54. Yajnik, Achinta (Sept. 9, 2016) .......................................................................109 3.14.55. Hankey, Alex (Sept. 9, 2016) ..........................................................................109 4


)

RLP Vimal

3.14.56. Sehgal, Vinod (Sept. 10, 2016) .......................................................................110 3.14.57. Vimal .............................................................................................................110 3.14.58. Sehgal, Vinod (Sept. 10, 2016) .......................................................................110 3.14.59. Vimal .............................................................................................................111 3.14.60. Sehgal, Vinod (Sept. 10, 2016) .......................................................................111 3.14.61. Vimal .............................................................................................................111 3.14.62. Yajnik, Achinta (Sept.9, 2016) ........................................................................111 3.14.63. Tim Lee (Sept.9, 2016)....................................................................................114 3.14.64. Sehgal, Vinod (Sept. 10, 2016) .......................................................................115 3.14.65. Vimal .............................................................................................................116 3.14.66. Sehgal, Vinod (Sept. 10, 2016) .......................................................................117 3.14.67. Ganesh L S (Sept. 11, 2016) ...........................................................................117 3.14.68. Vimal .............................................................................................................118 3.14.69. Srinivasan, G. (Sept. 11-12, 2016) ..................................................................118 3.14.70. Vimal .............................................................................................................121 3.14.71. Sehgal, Vinod (Sept. 12, 2016) .......................................................................121 3.14.72. Vimal .............................................................................................................122 3.14.73. Srinivasan, G. (Sept. 13, 2016) .......................................................................122 3.14.74. Vimal .............................................................................................................126 3.14.75. Sehgal, Vinod (Sept. 13, 2016) .......................................................................127 3.14.76. Srinivasan, G. (Sept. 14, 2016) .......................................................................128 3.14.77. Sastry, BVK (Sept. 8, 2016) ...........................................................................131 3.14.78. Sehgal, Vinod (Sept. 14, 2016) .......................................................................134 3.14.79. Vimal .............................................................................................................138 3.14.80. Srinivasan, G. (GS) and Vimal (Sept. 15, 2016) ...............................................140 3.14.81. Sehgal-Vimal: (Sept. 15, 2016) .......................................................................158 3.14.82. Srinivasan, G. (GS) and Vimal (Sept. 16, 2016) ...............................................160 3.14.83. Vimal .............................................................................................................161 3.14.84. Srinivasan, G. (GS) and Vimal (Sept. 16, 2016) ...............................................162 3.14.85. GS-Vimal (Sept. 19-20, 2016) Defintion of Axiomatic ......................................163 3.14.86. Sehgal-Vimal: (Sept. 20, 2016) .......................................................................165 3.14.87. Srinivasan, G. (GS) and Vimal (Sept. 21, 2016) ...............................................166 3.14.88. Vimal .............................................................................................................171 3.14.89. Sehgal (Sept. 22, 2016) ..................................................................................172 3.14.90. Srinivasan, G. (GS) (Sept. 23, 2016) ...............................................................173 3.14.91. Vimal-Sehgal-GS ............................................................................................178 3.14.92 Sastry BVK –Vimal (Sept. 24, 2016) .................................................................181 3.14.92 Sehgal-Vimal ...................................................................................................186 3.14.94 Sehgal (Sept. 27, 2016) ...................................................................................190 3.14.95. Vimal .............................................................................................................191 3.14.96. Sehgal-Vimal (Sept. 28-Oct. 1, 2016) ..............................................................192 3.14.97. Sehgal-Vimal (Sept. 29, 2016) ........................................................................201 3.14.98. Vimal .............................................................................................................225 3.14.99. Sehgal-Vimal (Oct. 2, 2016) ............................................................................225 3.14.100. Sehgal-Vimal (Oct. 3. 2016) ..........................................................................228 3.14.101. Sehgal-Vimal (Oct. 5-14, 2016) .....................................................................231 3.14.102. Sehgal-Vimal (Oct. 11, 2016) ........................................................................285 3.15. The bottom-up approach for the co-evolution of physical and mental aspects and the origin of life in the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM) framework .....................289 5


RLP Vimal

)

3.15.1. Co-evolution of physical and mental aspects in the eDAM framework ...............289 3.15.2. The Origin of life in the eDAM ..........................................................................298 3.15.3. Discussion with Online Sadhu Sanga group .....................................................301 4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................308 Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................................309 Conflict of interest ...............................................................................................................310 References ..........................................................................................................................311 Endnotes ............................................................................................................................320

List of Abbreviations 1pp: 1st person perspective 3pp: 3rd person perspective cMDR: Conventional Mind Dependent Reality đm: The degree of manifestation of 1pp-mental aspect of a state of an entity, where the manifestation is from the 1pp-mental aspect of unmanifested/latent state of primal entity (Brahman) đp: The degree of manifestation of 3pp-physical aspect of a state of an entity, where the manifestation is from the 3pp-physical aspect of unmanifested/latent state of primal entity (Brahman) eDAM: extended Dual-Aspect Monism FF: feed-forward FB: feedback IIT: integrated information theory or information integration theory IAST: International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration MDR: Mind-Dependent Reality MIR: Mind-Independent Reality NCC: neural correlate(s) of consciousness NN: neural network Paramātman = Ishawar = God PEs: proto-experiences that are precursors of SEs Q: Qualia SEs: subjective experiences V4/V8/VO: ‘visual area V8’/‘visual area V4’/‘ventral-occipital cortex’

Transliterations, Transcription, translation, and References

Sanskrit/Tamil

Transliteration (IAST) Advaita

Accent/pronunciation/ Sanskrit/ Tamil English translation transcription words Advaita Non-duality, similar to Idealism

Ahaṃkāra Ānanda Ātman

AhaMkAra Ananda Atman

False ego, state of subjective illusion Bliss Soul

words,

English

References (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016; Vimal, 2012b) Wikipedia (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016; Vimal, 2012b)

6

A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita ( bhūtavādin Brahman Buddhi

bhUtavAdin Brahman Buddhi

Cārvāka/Lokāyata ChArvAka/LokAyata cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita chit-achit Vishishtadvaita

/ -

RLP Vimal

)

Telling the real fact or truth Substrate of the universe, primal entity Intellect, the power to “form and retain concepts, reason, discern, judge, comprehend, understand”, organ of understanding Materialism Qualified Advaita, close to theist dual-aspect monism

(Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) Wikipedia,

Memory, one's mindset, state of mind, the quality of mental processes as a whole, the organ where saṃskāras are stored, and from where all the vikāras of mind originate Witness, observer, experiencer, the Seer, extended Dual-Aspect Monism

(Spokensanskrit.de, 2016), Wikipedia

(Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016; Vimal, 2012b)

Citta

Chitta

Dristā Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Vedānta gandha Guṇa

DrishtA Dvi-Paksha Advaita VedAnta gandha GuNa

Smell Quality, tendency, attribute

jñānendriya

jJAnendriya

Organs of sensation: eye, ear, nose, tongue, skin

jīvātman

jIvAtman

Individual soul/Self

kāraṇ jagat

kAraN jagat

Causal world

karmendriya

karmendriya

Kashmīr Śaivism

KashmIr Shaivism

Manas

Manas

Maņimēkalai

MaNimEkalai

Organs of action: mouth, feet, hands, anus, genitals Nondual philosophy, seems close to cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita selectively reflects on sensory-information and determines its character; the organ of thought Tamil epic

Parmātman

ParmAtman

God

Prakṛti

Prakriti

Puruṣa

Purusha

Nature with Causal, Astral, and Physical (matter) bodies Experiencer, Self, soul, self

rajas

rajas

rasa rūpa śabda Sākshi Sāṃkhya

rasa rUpa shabad SAkshi SAnkhya

saṃskāra

sanskAra

Sattva

Sattva

sparśa

sparsha

Touch

(Spokensanskrit.de, 2016)

Sthūla

SthUla

Gross


Sūkṣma

SUkshma

Subtle


Tamas

Tamas

Quality of imbalance, inactive, violent, destructive, chaos, darkness

Wikipedia

Tanmātra

TanmAtra

rudimentary or subtle element, mere essence, potential

Wikipedia

/

Quality of passion, activity, dynamic, self centeredness Taste Visual form, appearance Sound eye-witness, observer, experiencer Similar to substance dualism, but with Prakṛti and Prakṛti as two substances

(Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016; Vimal, 2012b) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016), Wikipedia (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016), Wikipedia (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016; Vimal, 2012b) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016), Wikipedia (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016), Wikipedia Wikipedia, (Vimal, 2012b) Wikipedia (Rao, 1998; Spokensanskrit.de, 2016). (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016), Wikipedia (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016; Vimal, 2012b) (Wikipedia, 2016a) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016; Vimal, 2012b) Wikipedia (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) (Wikipedia, 2016b) and (Vimal, 2012b)

dispositions, character or behavioral traits; mental Wikipedia impression Quality of balance, goodness, purity, constructive, Wikipedia harmonious

7

A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita ( Vedānta

VedAnta

vikāra

vikAra

RLP Vimal

)

complete knowledge of the Veda [end-of-thevedas] Modification, change, change of form, change of mind, disease

(Spokensanskrit.de, 2016) Wikipedia

1. Introduction This article is based on the premise that we should follow the evidence wherever it may lead. I argue that one of the robust and reproducible scientific evidence we have is the two sources of data in our conscious state: (1) 1pp-experience and (2) its 3pp-neural basis. [1pp: 1st person perspective and 3pp: 3rd pp]. A 1pp-experience can be an experience of subject (self) and/or objects. Thus, at our conscious state, we have evidence of ‘self’ from 1pp and its neural basis, such as cortical and sub-cortical midline structures (Northoff, 2014; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004) from 3pp. We propose an extended version of the dual-aspect monism metaphysics (eDAM) framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010b, 2013, 2015e, 2015f) as a dual-aspect framework for consciousness based on the above scientific evidence such dual-source robust and reproducible data. 1.1. The four major metaphysics, definition of consciousness, and hard problem This section is adapted from (Vimal, 2013). One could categorize all the entities of our universe into two categories: physical and mental entities. The physical entities are, for example, fermions, bosons, and their composites including classical inert entities and neural networks (NNs). A physical entity is represented by P. The mental entities are, for example, subjective experiences (SEs), self, thoughts, attention, intention, and other nonphysical entities. A mental entity is represented by M. This categorization entails four major philosophical positions: (I) M from P (P is primitive/fundamental), which includes materialistic frameworks, such as the naturalistic/physicalistic/materialistic nondual monism, physicalism, materialism, reductionism, non-reductive physicalism, naturalism, or Cārvāka/Lokāyata (800-500 BCE: (Bhattacharya, 2013; Raju, 1985; Singh, 2002; Vimal, 2012b)).1 (II) P from M (M is primitive), which includes idealistic frameworks, such as the idealism, mentalistic nondual monism, or Advaita (788-820 AD: (Radhakrishnan, 1960; Vimal, 2012b)). (III) P and M are independent but can interact (both P and M are equally primitive), which includes dualistic frameworks, such as the interactive substance dualism and Prakṛti and Puruṣa of Sāṃkhya (1000–600 BCE or even before Gīta that is about 3000 BCE; (Radhakrishnan, 1960; Vimal, 2012b)).2 (IV) P and M are two inseparable aspects of a state of an entity, which includes dualaspect monistic frameworks, such as: the extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM, DviPakṣa Advaita/ , or Ubhayādvaita/ ), Triple Aspect Monism, neutralism, Kashmir Shaivism (860–925 AD) and cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (Ramānujāchārya: 10178


)

RLP Vimal

1137 AD: mind (cit) and matter (acit) are adjectives/aspects of Brahman), see (Radhakrishnan, 1960; Vimal, 2012b)). A fundamental entity can be a fermion, a boson, the ‘primitive’ quantum field/potential, and the unmanifested Brahman. In Triple Aspect Monism, M can be further divided into non-conscious M and conscious M. There are about forty meanings attributed to the term ‘consciousness’, which were identified and categorized according to whether they were principally about a function or about an experience (Vimal, 2009b). An immediate advantage of this categorization is that it makes clear what materialism can do and what it cannot do. Materialism may explain functions but cannot explain experiences. In other words, this categorization sets the clearcut limit for materialism. A general definition of consciousness (that

accommodates most views) may be: consciousness is the mental aspect of a beable ontological dual-aspect state of the mind-brain-system or a mind-brainprocess, which has two sub-aspects: a conscious experience, a conscious function, or both depending on the context from the 1st person perspective, where the term ‘context’ refers to metaphysical views, constraints, specific aims, and so on (Vimal, 2010c). The optimal definition (that has the least number of problems) of consciousness is: consciousness is the mental aspect of a beable ontological dual-aspect state of a mind-brain-system or a mind-brainprocess, which has two sub-aspects: a conscious experience and a conscious function from the 1st person perspective (Vimal, 2010c). In other words, consciousness has functional and experiential aspects and includes subjective experiences (SEs) including functions, thoughts, and experiences related to subject (self), objects, emotions, and Samādhi state. This special beable ontological dual-aspect state has specific consciousness (1pp-mental aspect) when ‘viewed’ from the 1st person perspective 1pp and has its inseparable physical aspect (a correlated specific NN and its activities) when the same information is ‘viewed’ from the 3rd person perspective (3pp). Furthermore, this state is selected after matching the stimulus-dependent feed forward (FF) signal with cognitive feedback (FB) signals from the related long-term memory when the following necessary conditions are satisfied: the formation of the related neural-network, wakefulness, reentry, attention for the access (reportable) consciousness, information integration, working memory, stimulus contrast at or above a threshold, potential experiences embedded in neural network and so on. Attention is not necessary for the phenomenal (nonreportable) consciousness. Here, a beable ontological dual-aspect state is defined as the dual-aspect state of a mind-brain-system or a mind-brainprocess that really exist and we can empirically measure it using psychophysical methods (for the 1pp-mental aspect) and neurophysiological methods such as fMRI/EEG (for the 3pp-physcal aspect). Interpreting dual-source theory in terms of the eDAM (from my discussion with Baars (November 19-22, 2015)3), my working hypothesis evolved to be as follows: The information 9


)

RLP Vimal

is the same in both two sources (1pp and 3pp) for the same conscious event within the critical spatiotemporal-spectral interval threshold at a conscious state of our mind-brain system. They appear different because perspectives (1pp and 3pp) are different (1pp: 1st person perspective; 3pp: 3rd person perspective). I assume that these two sources are two inseparable aspects of the same conscious state of the same mind-brain system to escape from the association problem of separability. The consciousness has functional and experiential sub-aspects (Vimal, 2009b), which attempts to address the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995). The eDAM is a monist framework and is different from interactive substance dualism (or simply dualism) and quantum interactive dualism. This framework is an alternative to a materialism based framework for consciousness (Crick & Koch, 2003a) that does not address the hard problem because the explanatory gap problem (Levine, 1983) still remains. As per Crick and Koch, the hard problem of consciousness is the most difficult problem; it is “fruitless to approach this problem head-on”; instead, it will be useful first to find “the neural correlate(s) of consciousness (NCC)” and then try to explain it in causal terms; this will hopefully tell us how to address the hard problem (Crick & Koch, 2003a). This strategy might have lead Koch towards dual-aspect monism in (Koch, 2012), but it certainly led me to the eDAM framework ((Vimal, 2008b, 2010b, 2013, 2015e, 2015f) and Sections 1.2-1.4, 2-2.4) that tries to solve the hard problem as shown in this article. The main new features of the current article are: (i) The interpretation of problematic materialism’s identity theory based Tononi’s information integration theory (IIT) in terms of the eDAM framework that has the least number of problems, and (ii) The necessary conditions of consciousness. These two features are considered as the fourth component of the eDAM framework, which were missing in previous publications (Vimal, 2008b, 2010b, 2013). These two features are very helpful in addressing the hard problem. Chalmers categorized the problems into tractable problems of science as ‘easy problems’ and non-tractable problems of consciousness as ‘hard problem’ (how to explain the experiential aspect of consciousness) (Chalmers, 1995). For addressing the hard problem, we need to start at foundational level (the root), which is metaphysics. There are four major metaphysics: materialism, idealism, interactive substance dualism, and dual-aspect monism. The first three of them have serious problems as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010c, 2013); the major problem of materialism is elaborated further in Section 3. The fourth metaphysics, the dual-aspect monism, has the least number of problems compared to other metaphysics, but not well developed. Therefore, an extended version of dual-aspect monism (eDAM) metaphysics is proposed to address the ‘hard’ problem. The eDAM framework has five components; the first three components of the eDAM are well-developed in (Vimal, 2008b, 2010b, 2013) and concisely elaborated in Section 1.2-1.4. The fourth and fifth components of the eDAM framework are, respectively, (a) the segregation and integration of information that are developed in Sections 2, 2.1 and 2.2, and (b) the necessary conditions of consciousness that are developed in Section 2.3. A solution of the hard problem, attempted by the eDAM framework, is discussed by an example in Section 2.4; for this, all five components of the eDAM are needed. We have argued for 10


)

RLP Vimal

conscious artifacts in Section 2.5. Critical discussion is given in Section 3 and conclusion in Section 4. 1.2. The first component of the eDAM framework: Dual-Aspect Monism This Dual-Aspect Monism component is well developed in (Vimal, 2008b). Briefly, it was hypothesized that a state of an entity (from an elementary particle to human brain to the whole universe) has two inseparable aspects: (i) objective physical aspect such as neural network (NN) of brain and its activities from the third person perspective (3pp), and (ii) mental aspect such as experiences from the first person perspective (1pp). The degree đp of the manifestation of the 3pp-physical aspect of a state of an entity is high in both living and non-living systems. The 1pp-mental aspect of a state of an entity is hypothesized to consist of the superposition of relevant potential experiential eigenstates; for example, a state related to the fundamental irreducible subjective experience redness (a primary color experience) is a basis or eigenstate. The (quantum) superposition of multiple possible experiential states is motivated by the hypothesis ‘the mental aspect of wave-state is wave-like and is a function of experiences’, which is based on the assumption that a state of matter (wave/particle) has inseparable mental and physical aspect. As per the principle of superposition in quantum mechanics (QM),  = i ai i, where  is a state of an entity and ai is the probability amplitude of ith basis or eigenstate i. In a living system (such as our brain-mind system), the degree of the manifestation of the 1pp-mental aspect of an awake conscious brain-mind state is obviously high because we surely have conscious subjective experiences. However, in non-living system (such as elementary particles), the degree of the manifestation of the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of an entity is latent (or unmanifested) to the extent that materialists assume matter is the only fundamental reality that leads to serious problems such as the well-known explanatory gap problem (Levine, 1983). If a non-living matter does not have 1pp-mental aspect even in latent/unmanifested form (not a single trace of it in proto-form or not even a potential for experiences), then it is unclear from where, how, and when living organisms will acquire the high degree of manifestation of the 1pp-mental aspect when they are awake and active. Furthermore, the development of specificity of a subjective experience in a specific neural network (such as color in V8/V4/VO area) is detailed in (Vimal, 2008b). My working hypothesis is as follows: The unmanifested/undifferentiated state of Nature had both inseparable aspects latent before Big Bang. At the moment of Big Bang, first, her physical aspect was manifested but her mental aspect was not yet manifested (meaning mental aspect was latent, i.e., the degree đm of the manifestation of the mental aspect was 0). Then physical aspect evolved and was manifested; at the same time, but extremely slowly, the mental aspect co-evolved with physical aspect (i.e., the degree đm of the manifestation of the 1pp-mental aspect slowly increased from 0) and eventually the mental aspect is manifested (đm close to 1) in us when we are conscious (see Section 1.4 for further detail for the varying degree of manifestation of mental aspect depending on the entity and its states).

11


)

RLP Vimal

1.3. The second component of the eDAM framework: the dual mode and the conjugate matching and selection mechanisms This is well developed in (Vimal, 2010b). Briefly, the potentialities (possibilities) of SEs are actualized when neural networks are formed via neural Darwinism, and a specific subjective experience is selected by the self via a matching process through the interactions of two modes. The two modes are as follows: (1) The non-tilde mode that is the physical and mental aspect of a state of cognition (such as memory and attention) (and the self) related feedback signals in a neural network (that includes self-related areas such as cortical midline structures) of the brain, which is the cognitive nearest past approaching towards present; and (2) The tilde mode that is the physical and mental aspect of a state of the feed-forward signals due to external environmental input and/or internal endogenous input, which is the nearest future approaching towards present and is an entropy/time reversed representation of the non-tilde mode. Furthermore, one could argue that there are quantum (such as dendritic-dendritic microtubule) sub-pathway and non-quantum (such as classical axonal-dendritic neural and astroglial) sub-pathway in the feed-forward pathway and the feedback pathway for information transfer in the brain dynamics. We propose that: (i) The quantum conjugate matching (between experiences in the mental aspect of the tilde mode and that of the non-tilde mode) is related more to the mental aspect of a state of the quantum sub-pathway and less to that of the non-quantum subpathways. And (ii) The classical matching between experiences in the mental aspect of a state of the tilde mode and that of the non-tilde mode is related to the mental aspect of a state of the non-quantum sub-pathways. In all cases, a specific SE is selected by the self (not by any homunculus) (a) when the tilde mode interacts with the non-tilde mode to match for a specific SE, and (b) when the necessary conditions of SEs (Section 2.3) are satisfied. The self is the mental aspect of a state of the self-related neural network (such as cortical midline structures (Northoff, 2014; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004)) and its activities that are a part of reentrant feedback signals. When the conjugate match is made between the two modes, the world-presence (Now) is disclosed; its content is the SE of a subject (self), the SE of objects, and the content of SEs. The physical aspects in the tilde mode and that in the non-tilde mode are matched to link structure with function, whereas the mental aspects in the tilde mode and that in the nontilde mode are matched to link experience with structure and function. In all cases, the inseparability between aspects and the 1-1-1 relationship among structure-functionexperience are maintained. In consciousness electromagnetic information field (Cemi field) theory, experiences are presumably from the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of dual-aspect electromagnetic (em) field: “what Chalmers terms experience [(Chalmers, 1995).p.201] … is what complex information encoded in em fields feels like from the inside” (McFadden, 2002). In (Cacha & Poznanski, 2014), the concept of functional field is used. These fields may have many potential states related to experiences in a superposed form embedded in the field. In that case, it would still be non-conscious processing and then the explanatory gap remains. However, if these frameworks use the essential matching and selection mechanisms of the eDAM framework 12


)

RLP Vimal

to select one specific experience after matching along with necessary conditions of consciousness to be satisfied (Section 2.3), then the gap will be closed. 1.4. The third component of the eDAM framework: the concept of the varying degrees of the manifestation of aspects depending on the states of entities This is well developed in (Vimal, 2013). Briefly, in inert (nonliving) entities at classical level, such as molecule, the degree of manifestation of the physical aspect of its state is high from the objective third person perspective; and the 1pp-mental aspect of its state appears latent to us; this does not mean that nonliving systems have consciousness like us that is hidden; rather, the mental aspect of a state of a nonliving entity carries potential proto-experiences (precursors of SEs) in superposed form as a Nature’s mechanism for the co-existence of potential SEs with their respective physical aspects; both aspects of the states of nonliving systems (such as elementary particles, atoms, molecules etc.) need to co-evolve to attain our brain-mind system. Biological organisms can be conscious if the organism’s evolutionary development is sufficiently developed or complex and necessary conditions of consciousness are satisfied (Section 2.3). In living systems, at the human level, when we are awake and conscious, both aspects are equally manifested. In other words, inert nonliving matter, proteins, neurotransmitters and neuromodulators including all those levels which do not satisfy the necessary conditions of consciousness will not be conscious. This does not mean that quantum consciousness is not supported. In the quantum dendritic-dendritic mechanism, quantum Orch OR is hypothesized to occur in microtubulenetwork (Hameroff & Penrose, 1998), where a specific SE say redness is selected from potential SEs embedded in brain’s spacetime geometry by objective reduction (collapse) of potential SEs superposed in the mental aspect of a state of a neural network. It is only at the neural network level (in living systems) when these necessary conditions (including biological laws, see Section 2.3 below) of SEs are satisfied and when a specific SE (such as redness) is selected by the self via the matching process then only a specific SE will occur in a specific neural network (such as redness will occur in the red-green V8/V4/VO-neural network). Even the retina is not privileged to have SEs because it does not satisfy the essential conditions of consciousness, although retina is essential for vision. The retinal opponent and non-opponent networks (such as red-green and yellow-blue opponent cells and luminance non-opponent cells and related visual channels), however, will have higher specificity than cones and rods, which in turn will have higher specificity than molecules, atoms, and electrons. Let us start examining aspects from humans to classical inert entities to quantum entities. If we assume that a state of ‘entity-in-itself’ has inseparable dual (mental and physical) aspects, then a state of ‘human-in-herself’ has a physical aspect (such as bodybrain system and its activities) and mental aspect (such as SEs, intentions, self, attention, functions, and other cognitions). The states of animals and birds have a high degree of manifestation of physical aspects (such as body-brain system and its activities) but the manifestation of their mental aspects seem to be of different degree compared to humans. The states of plants have physical aspects such as their roots to branches and activities, and their mental aspects in term of functions; it is unclear if they have experiences, self, attention, and other human-like cognitions; they may have plant-type proto-experiences, but they are latent to us. The states of dead bodies (of human, animals, birds, and plants), inert entities, and other classical macro and micro (such as elementary particles) entities have a high degree of the manifestation of physical aspects but mental aspects are latent. By the term ‘latent’, we mean that the aspect is hidden, unexpressed, ‘invisible’, recessive (in analogy to a recessive gene), or unmanifested. 13


)

RLP Vimal

When we march on to quantum entities, the manifestation of aspects needs further clarification: we are puzzled on a third person perspective as we are unable to visualize and we depend on our models and indirect effects. We will never know what quantum entities experience (if any!); so, the mental aspect of a state of a quantum entity is hidden for us. Therefore, we propose that a state of a quantum entity has a high degree of the manifestation of physical aspect but its mental aspect is latent, similar to classical inert objects. However, quantum mental aspect is not like human mind; rather, the quantum mindlike mental aspect has to co-evolve with its inseparable physical aspect over billions of years, and the end product is human mind (mental aspect) and inseparable human brain (physical aspect), respectively. The above clearly elaborates the difference between living and nonliving systems.

2. The fourth and fifth components of the eDAM framework: Segregation and integration of information and necessary conditions of consciousness in the eDAM Framework, solution of hard problem, and conscious artifacts The fourth component of the eDAM framework is adapted from (Vimal, 2015f) and the fifth component from (Vimal, 2015e). A. Dual-aspect information As per Chalmers, “information … has two basic aspects, a physical aspect and a phenomenal aspect” (Chalmers, 1995).(p.216). The physical aspect of information is embodied in physical processing, whereas experiences arise through the phenomenal (mental) aspect of information. In other words, information remains the same in both (i) objective 3pp-physcial aspect (such as anatomical structure and related activities) of a neural network of brain-mind state, and (ii) subjective 1pp-metal aspect (such as functional and experiential aspect of consciousness (Vimal, 2009b, 2010c); see also Sections 1.1 and 1.2). In this article, the information related to 3pp-physical aspect is called ‘physical information’ and that related to 1pp-mental aspect is called ‘mental information’. If information is not qualified by ‘physical’ or ‘mental’, then one of them or both are assumed appropriately depending on the context. B. Steps for unified experience In the eDAM framework, the following steps are necessary for unified experience E across space-time assuming the necessary conditions of consciousness (Section 2.3) are satisfied: (1) Segregation of information occurs in spatiotemporal stimulus dependent feedforward signals FF(x, y, z, t; i, j, k) related to a specific dimension (i: redness, greenness, blueness etc.) of a specific submode (j: visual color, motion, etc.) of a specific mode (k: vision, audition, pain, etc.) at a specific space-time for specific analysis in related brain areas (such as V8/V4/VO for color and V5/MT for motion). (2) During matching process, feed-forward signals FF(x, y, z, t; i, j, k) interact with cognitive feedback signals FB(x, y, z, t; i, j, k) and integration (binding, synthesis) of information takes place in a related neural network ‘complex’ over dimensions (i), submodes (j), modes (k), and space-time resolution (x,y,z,t).

14


)

RLP Vimal

(3) After matching and information integration, the selection of a specific experience E(x,y,z,t) related to a specific dimension of a specific submode of a specific mode for a specific space-time critical interval occurs for a unified consciousness/experience. (4) For the selection of specific experience, interaction with self-related signals (a part of feedback system) takes place, i.e., selected and experienced by the self. There is spatiotemporal critical grain size (x,y,z,t) for conscious experiences to occur/arise. Therefore, E(x,y,z,t) is more appropriate than point-wise instantaneous experiences E(x, y, z, t). In other words, in both space and time, there is ‘grain size’ at which information integration (Φ) reaches a maximum, which is related to consciousness, i.e., there is a spatiotemporal critical threshold (grain size) for conscious experiences to occur/arise (Tononi, 2004)). C. Towards dual-aspect theory Koch is sympathetic to a version of dual-aspect theory (Koch, 2012) that involves integrated information formulated by Tononi. However, as elaborated in (Vimal, 2013), Tononi (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012) is unclear on the following issues: (i) Where do experiences come from in ‘qualia space’? (ii) How is a specific experience matched and selected from innumerable experiences? (iii) Is the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) a version of dual-aspect theory or is it a version of the identity theory of materialism as the IIT claims that consciousness is integrated information? (iv) Is ‘information’ a neutral entity (neither physical not mental as Sayre proposed) or a dual-aspect entity (as Chalmers proposed) in IIT framework? (v) What is the relationship between the input and the output of the system, and what might be the relationship between the system and its surrounding environment? (vi) How does IIT account for memory and for planning? (vii) Are mental and physical aspects of a conscious state of a brain are inseparable? (viii) Is IIT an elaborate version of panpsychism’ (that has seven problems (Vimal, 2010c) which need to be addressed)? D. Towards segregation, differentiation, integration, hard problem, and the eDAM framework (Tononi, Sporns & Edelman, 1996) express “functional segregation within a neural system in terms of the relative statistical independence of small subsets of the system and functional integration in terms of significant deviations from the independence of large subsets”. Moreover, (Tononi, 2004) proposed an information integration theory of consciousness, where “consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information”. In addition, the experiential aspect of consciousness has two key properties (Tononi, 2004): (i) the differentiation, which is the availability of a very large number of conscious subjective experiences; and (ii) integration, which is the unity of such experiences. From above, it appears that, to address the hard problems of consciousness in more rigorous manner, we also need the fourth component of the eDAM framework that includes: (i) the segregation of information for the analysis of specific stimulus attribute (Section 2.1) and then (ii) the integration for synthesis of all attributes (related to dimension, sub-mode, and mode) for unified consciousness (Section 2.2). In other words, the first stage of processing is the segregation of information (such as physical attributes and conceptual 15


)

RLP Vimal

attributes) that are analyzed and processed for preciseness and specificity in different specialized neurons in brain areas. Then the second stage of processing is the integration of information (related to different functions, concepts, experiences and so on) in various neural network complexes for unified consciousness. In my view, the identity theory based IIT (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012) explains only the objective 3pp-physical aspect of a brain-mind state because explanatory gap problem still remains. Therefore, it is justified to develop IIT in the eDAM framework in such a way that it can also explain the 1pp-mental aspect of brain-mind states such as the functional and experiential aspect of consciousness (Vimal, 2009b, 2010c) (see also Section 1.1). 2.1. Segregation and Differentiation of Information 2.1.1. Segregation: In our daily lives, our receptors transduce signals related to external stimuli of various modalities such as visual, auditory, somatosensory, taste, and smell. Then each modal signal (such as visual) further segregates into sub-modal signals such as visual color and motion. Then each sub-modal signal (such as color) further segregates into different dimensions (such as red, green and blue) for more specific and precise analysis related to function and experience. This process is called segregation related to functions and experiences; the segregated areas are for functional and experiential specialization; for example, V8/V4/VO for color and V5/MT for motion. There are two contradictory appearing views on experiences and brain functions (Tononi, Sporns & Edelman, 1994): (i) Localizationist views stress the specificity and modularity of brain organization entailing experiential and functional segregation of different brain regions for different stimulus attributes such as color and motion at different levels such as V8 and V5, respectively. (ii) Holist views emphasize mass action, global functions and experiences, and Gestalt phenomena implying integration in perception and behavior. Furthermore, neural complexity is a measure of consciousness; it is low when “the components of a system are either completely independent (segregated) or completely dependent (integrated)”; it is high when “segregation coexists with integration” (Tononi, Sporns & Edelman, 1994). 2.1.2. Differentiation The term ‘differentiation’ means that there are a large number of possible functions and potential experiences, which leads to higher effective information; each of these is capable of realization (Tononi, 2004). Since photodiode has only two states (on or off), it corresponds to 1 bit of information; and hence its repertoire is minimally differentiated. We are able to differentiate among a very large number of states and we have innumerable brain-mind states, so we have a large number of bits of information and our repertoire is enormously differentiated (Tononi, 2004). In other words, we have the ability to differentiate a specific state out of a very large number of states, i.e., we can select one state out of many states, for example, to detect a light. We propose that this is done by the matching and selection mechanisms as elaborated in the second component (Section 1.3) of the eDAM framework.

16


)

RLP Vimal

2.2. Integration of Information It seems that Information integration theory (IIT) of consciousness (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012) is based on the identity theory (consciousness is integrated information) of materialism. However, materialism has serious problems (Vimal, 2010c, 2013). Therefore, the IIT needs to be interpreted in terms of the eDAM framework (Section 1.2-1.4) that has the least number of problems, where information is a dual-aspect entity. In the eDAM framework, consciousness (subjective experiences including emotional and Samādhi state experiences, functions, and thoughts) is the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of the related neural network (neural network: such as thalamocortical main complex) with a high amount of integrated mental-information mental. The 3pp-physical aspect of this state is this neural network and its activity as its neural substrate with a high amount of integrated physical-information physical, which is close to the term ‘integrated information’ used in (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012). These aspects are inseparable; so ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ information related to the same brain-mind state are inseparable. The quantity of consciousness is related to the amount of information integrated through the matching mechanism (Section 1.3) (that involve interaction between feed-forward and feedback signals) in a complex of elements above and beyond its parts. The quality of consciousness is determined by the set of all the informational relationships generated by the matching and selection mechanisms of the eDAM framework. In the eDAM framework (Sections 1.21.4), the observer (self: (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007)) is the 1pp-mental aspect of the state of selfrelated integrated information and the observed (SE of a object) is the 1pp-mental aspect of the state of object-related integrated information. Information is defined as “reduction of uncertainty [or entropy] among a number of alternatives outcomes when one of them occurs” (Tononi, 2004). Subjectivists can argue that probabilities and uncertainties are because of our ignorance, so they are subjective; whereas, objectivists can argue for objective probability. In the eDAM framework, information is a dual-aspect entity. The following development (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012) is interpreted as the development of the physical information (the 3pp-physical aspect of the state of information); since 3pp-physical and 1pp-mental aspects are inseparable, the following development also holds for mental information. Entropy H is defined as: H = Σpilog2pi,

(1)

where pi is the probability of ith outcome; pi = 1/np (if outcomes are equally probable), where np is the number of possible alternatives; if n is the number of bits, then np = 2n. Let S is a subset of system X and divide S into parts A and B. Then entropy for A and AB can be written as: H(A) = ΣpiAlog2piA and that for AB is H(AB) = ΣpiAlog2piB.

(2)

Mutual information (MI) is a measure of the entropy or information shared between a source (A) and a target (B): MI(A;B) = H(A) + H(B)  H(AB). (3)

17


)

RLP Vimal

As per Tononi et al., for “a bipartition of the system X into a jth subset Xjk composed of k components and its complement XXjk ” (Tononi, Sporns & Edelman, 1994), the mutual information (MI) between Xjk and XXjk is: MI(X;XXjk) = H(Xjk) + H(XXjk)  H(X).

(4)

Integration I(X) is defined as the difference between the sum of the entropies of all individual components (xi) considered independently (i varies from 1 to N components) and the entropy of X considered as a whole (which can also be considered, a sort of, as the definition of information): I(X) = i H(xi)  H(X).

(5)

The effective information (EI) between A and B is defined as: EI(A→B) = MI(AHmax;B) = H(AHmax) + H(B) - H(AHmaxB),

(6)

where AHmax is maximum entropy to the outputs from source A, and B is the target (Tononi, 2004). The arrow → in A→B represents that the source is A and the target is B; all possible effects of A on B are measured by EI(A→B). If the connections between A and B are specialized and strong, EI(A→B) will be high. The value of EI(A→B) is bounded by AHmax and BHmax, whichever is less. In general, EI(A→B) and EI(B→A) are not symmetric. Maximum information capacity for each bipartition is: Hmax(A↔B) = min[Hmax(A); Hmax(B)].

(7)

The repertoire of possible causal effects of A on B and of B on A is measured as: EI(A↔B) = EI(A→B) + EI(B→A).

(8)

The minimum information bipartition MIBA↔B of subset S is its bipartition for which the normalized effective information reaches a minimum, corresponding to min[EI(A↔B)/Hmax(A↔B)]. As per Tononi, integrated information () is defined as “the amount of information generated by a complex of elements, above and beyond the information generated by its parts” (Tononi, 2008). The information integration for subset S, or Φ(S), is simply the (nonnormalized) value of EI(A↔B) for the minimum information bipartition: Φ(S) = EI(MIBA↔B),

(9)

where Φ(S) is the integrated information for subset S (i.e., the degree/amount of integrated information) and is the value of effective information for their minimum information bipartition. The effective information (EI) between A and B measures the repertoire of possible causal effects of A on B and of B on A. EI is the mutual information (MI) between AHmax and B. MI is a measure of the entropy or information shared between a source (A) and a target (B). We can rewrite Eq.(9) as: 18


)

RLP Vimal

Φ(S) = EI(MIBA↔B) = EI(MIBA→B) + EI(MIBB→A) = MI(AHmax;B) + MI(BHmax;A) = [H(AHmax) + H(B) - H(AHmaxB)] + [H(BHmax) + H(A) - H(BHmaxA)]. (10) For example: Φ(S) = Φ(A→B) = [1+1-1] + [1+1-2] = 1 bit and Φ(A↔B) = [1+1-1] + [1+1-1] = 2 bit.

(11)

As per Tononi, the relative entropy (Kullback-Leibler divergence) between two probability distributions p and q (Tononi, 2008) is: H[pq] =ipilog2(pi/qi);

(12)

and the effective information EI can be expressed as the entropy of the actual (x) ‘relative to’ (indicated by ) the potential distributions in the expression of integrated information Φ(S) with an example as: Φ(S) = Φ(A→B) = EI(X(mech,x)) = H[p(X0(mech:A→B, x))p(X0(maxH))] =H[(0,0,1/2,1/2)(1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4)] =0+0+(0.5)log2(0.5/.2 + (0.5)log2(0.5/.25) =1 bit.

(13) (14)

The followings are adapted from (Tononi, 2012): (1] Information: Let PHmax is the maximum uncertainty (entropy) distribution, in which all past state P outputs are equally likely a priori; and (P|s) is the distribution of P states that could have caused s given its present mechanism and its present state s. Then the effective information (EI) between P and s is given by: EI(P|s) = D[(P|s), PHmax] = H[p(X0(mech,x))p(X0(maxH))],

(15)

where D is the difference between its arguments (Tononi, 2008). Similarly, for future state F we can write: EI(F|s) = D[(F|s), FHmax].

(16)

The cause-effect information (CEI) is then written as: CEI(P,F|s) = min[EI(P|s), EI(F|s)]. (17) (2] Integration: “The integrated (irreducible) information  is a measure of the difference D between the repertoire specified by a whole and the product of the repertoires specified by its partition into causally independent components” (Tononi, 2012). MIP is  when the difference is taken over the partition that yields the least difference from the whole (the minimum information partition (MIP)). One can then measure the difference D between the unpartitioned cause repertoire (CR) and the partitioned CR, i.e., MIP(P|s) is the ‘past’ integrated (irreducible) information: MIP(P|s) = D[(P|s),∏(P|s/MIP)].

(18)

The same holds for difference D between the unpartitioned and partitioned effect repertoire (ER):MIP(F|s) is the ‘future’ integrated (irreducible) information: 19


RLP Vimal

)

MIP(F|s) = D[(F|s),∏(F|s/MIP)].

(19)

The ‘cause-effect’ integrated information is: MIP(P,F|s) = min[MIP(P|s), MIP(F|s)].

(20)

(3] Exclusion: As per the exclusion postulate, “integrated information is about one set of causes and effects only – those that are maximally irreducible – other causes and effects are excluded.” The ‘cause-effect’ maximally integrated information maxMIP(P,F|s) is the minimum of the past P and the future F as mediated by the mechanism S in its present state s” (Tononi, 2012). In other words, maxMIP(P,F|s)

= min[maxMIP(P|s),

maxMIP(F|s)]

(21)

(4] Concepts: A concept is defined as the “cause-effect repertoire of s that has maxMIP(P,F|s) within a system X” (Tononi, 2012). A concept or ‘core’ concept specifies a maximally integrated irreducible cause-effect information repertoire (maxMIP). (5] Complexes: According to the exclusion postulate, “out of many possible constellations of concepts generated by overlapping sets of elements only one exists: the one that is maximally irreducible” (Tononi, 2012). A complex is defined as “a set of elements generating a maximally irreducible constellation of concepts (a maximally integrated conceptual structure)” (Tononi, 2012). The main complex is the set of elements that generate the constellation within the overall system with the maximum value of ΦMIP (maxΦMIP), which is called maximally integrated conceptual information. The qualia space is the corresponding concept space (simplex). A quale Q is the maximally integrated conceptual (information) structure, which is the constellation of concepts generated by the set s (Tononi, 2012). In the eDAM framework, the above is interpreted as the development for the integration of 3pp physical information, which is automatically translated into inseparable 1pp mental information as information is conserved. The following views related to framework:

Tononi’s IIT (Tononi, 2012) are interpreted in the eDAM

(1] The differences in the past states of P is represented by EI(P|s), which “can be detected by mechanism S in its present state s” ((Tononi, 2012).p.298), i.e., EI(P|s) = D[(P|s), PHmax].

(22)

In the eDAM framework, a past state P is a 3pp-physical aspect of a state of cognitive feedback system related to the cognitive nearest past approaching towards present (nontilde mode) (Section 1.3). The effective information (EI) between P and s, EI(P|s), represents the differences in the past states of P represented by this cognitive feedback system that can be detected by a detection mechanism S in its present state s; the mental aspect of a state of cognitive feedback system is still non-conscious because potential SEs in feedback system are still in superposed form as the relevant matching and selection processes are not yet performed. 20


)

RLP Vimal

(2] Similarly, the differences in the future states of F are represented by EI(F|s), which can be detected by mechanism S in its present state s. In the eDAM framework, a future state F is the 3pp-physical aspect of a state of stimulus-dependent feed-forward system related to the nearest future approaching towards present (tilde mode) and is an entropy-reversed representation of non-tilde mode (Section 1.3), where entropy is related to time. The EI(F|s) represents the differences in the future states of F represented by this feed-forward system that can be detected by a detection mechanism S in its present state s; the mental aspect of a state of the feed-forward system is still non-conscious because potential SEs in feedback system are still in superposed form as the relevant matching and selection processes are not yet performed. (3] As per Tononi, “EI(P|s)  0 only if past states of P make a difference to s, and EI(F|s)  0 only if s makes a difference to F” (Tononi, 2012).(p.298). The cause-effect information (CEI) can be written as: CEI(P,F|s) = min[EI(P|s), EI(F|s)].

(23)

In the eDAM framework, Eq.(23) tries to investigate which is more sensitive: cognitive feedback signals representing past states of P making a difference to the present s or the present s making a difference to future F represented by feed-forward signals. (4] As per Tononi, a mechanism S in its present state s “generates integrated information only if it has both irreducible causes (MIP(P|s) 0) and irreducible effects (MIP(F|s)0)” (Tononi, 2012).(p.299). The ‘cause-effect’ integrated information is: MIP(P,F|s) = min[MIP(P|s), MIP(F|s)].

(24)

In the eDAM framework, MIP(P|s) represents the ‘past’ integrated (irreducible) information related to the 3pp-physical aspect of a state of cognitive feedback system, which is related to the non-tilde mode that is the cognitive nearest past (stored in memory) approaching towards present; the mental aspect of the state of the feedback system is still nonconscious. Whereas, MIP(F|s) is the ‘future’ integrated (irreducible) information related to the 3pp-physical aspect of a state of stimulus dependent feed-forward system, which is related the tilde mode that is the nearest future approaching towards present and is an entropy-reversed representation of non-tilde mode; the mental aspect of a state of feedforward system is still non-conscious. In both cases, information will be integrated only if a detection mechanism S in its present state s has both irreducible causes, i.e., MIP(P|s) 0 and irreducible effects i.e., MIP(F|s)0. (5] The exclusion (p.301), concepts (p.302), and complexes (p.303-4) sections of (Tononi, 2012) are interpreted as follows: In the eDAM framework, maxMIP(P|s) represents the maximum ‘past’ integrated (irreducible) information or maxΦMIP(P|s) represents the maximally integrated conceptual information for past related to the 3pp-physical aspect of a state of cognitive feedback system, which is related to the non-tilde mode that is the cognitive nearest past (cause) approaching towards present; here, the maximum is taken over all possible subsets P within the system; the mental aspect of a state of feedback system related to the maximum ‘past’ integrated (irreducible) information is still non-conscious because potential SEs in feedback system are still in superposed form. Whereas, 21


)

RLP Vimal

maxMIP(F|s) maxΦMIP(F|s)

represents the maximum ‘future’ integrated (irreducible) information or represents the maximally integrated conceptual information for future (effect) related to the 3pp-physical aspect of a state of stimulus-dependent feed-forward system, which is related to the tilde mode that is the nearest future approaching towards present; here, the maximum is taken over all possible subsets F within the system; the mental aspect of a state of feed-forward system related to the maximum ‘future’ integrated (irreducible) information is still non-conscious because potential SEs in feed-forward system are still in superposed form as the relevant matching with feedback system and selection processes are not yet performed. To accomplish the matching, we can have, maxMIP(F,P|s)matching

 D[MIP(F|s), MIP(P|s)],

(25)

where D indicates the difference between two maximum integrated (irreducible) information or maxMIP(F,P|s)matching

 D[MIP(F|s), MIP(P|s)],

(26)

where D indicates the difference between two maximally integrated conceptual information, namely, nearest future tilde and nearest past non-tilde modes. If maxMIP(F,P|s)matching  maxMIP(F,P|s)matching  0, then the matching is 100% and the selection of a specific experience related to stimulus is accomplished and we become conscious of related subjective experience. If this difference is  0, the stimulus has some novel information. Otherwise, if the difference is  0, the stimulus-related information is already in our memory and the matching is accomplished. In all cases, a specific experience related to stimulus is selected by the self accordingly from the repertoire (the mental aspect of the state related to feed-forward and/or feedback neural network) containing all superposed potential experiences; and then the self (the mental aspect of the self-related neural network state (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007), which is a part of cognitive feedback neural network) experiences it as a realized conscious experience assuming necessary conditions of consciousness (Section 2.3) are satisfied. Conscious subjective experience can be for a specific dimension, sub-mode, or mode or all combined (as in crowded market). (6] As per Tononi, the central identity is “an experience is a maximally integrated conceptual (information) structure or quale – that is, a maximally irreducible constellation of points in qualia space” (Tononi, 2012).(p.306). In other words, the identity theory of materialism suggests that a (3pp) brain-state is identical with the related (1pp) mental state (such as experience), (1pp) mental property is identical with the related (3pp) brain property, or (1pp) consciousness is identical with the related (3pp) integrated information. But, the identity theory has a serious problem of materialism and does not address the hard problem (see Section 2.4). In the eDAM framework, information is a dual-aspect entity with inseparable 1pp-mental aspect (mental information) and 3pp-physical aspect (physical information). We argue that (a) an experience is the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of a maximally integrated information structure, i.e., an experience is a maximally integrated conceptual mental-information structure; and (b) the neural correlates of the experience is the 3pp-physical aspect of the same state of the same maximally integrated information structure, i.e., NCC is a maximally integrated physical information structure. Here, the information is conserved across mental and physical aspects because of the doctrine of inseparability. 22


)

RLP Vimal

One could argue that both (identity theory and the doctrine of the inseparability of the eDAM framework) appears to imply effectively the same or similar suggestion that 3pp and 1pp views are the same or similar in their own metaphysical language. However, this may be misleading because materialism has serious problems (Vimal, 2010c, 2013) (such as matter is a non-experiential entity and does not even have a potential for experiences: see Section 2.4 below) and the eDAM framework does not have such problems. Furthermore, in the identity theory, even intention and the initiation of thoughts are identical with the related integrated information in their neural correlates (matter), which may not be true because conscious intention to act starts before cerebral activity (Libet, Gleason, Wright, & Pearl, 1983). This fact can be explained better in the eDAM framework because an intention and the initiation of a thought are 1pp-mental information in the mental aspect of our brain-mind state, which is then reflected in the physical aspect of our brain-mind state with integrated 3pp-physical information by the doctrine of inseparability. This 3pp-physical signal then becomes the cause of further 3pp-cerebral-activity without making a category mistake. There are psychosomatic effects, which can be similarly explained better in the eDAM framework. In materialism, it will be hard to explain because of category mistake. (7] As per Tononi, “the particular ‘content’ or quality of the experience is the shape of the maximally integrated conceptual structure in qualia space (the constellation of concepts)” (Tononi, 2012).(p.306). In the eDAM framework, the particular ‘content’ or quality of the experience is the particular ‘content’ or quality of the 1pp-mental aspect of a state related to the shape of the maximally integrated conceptual information-structure in qualia space (the constellation of concepts) that represents this state. (8] The matching section (p.306-8) of (Tononi, 2012) is interpreted as follows: In the eDAM framework, the feed-forward-neural network signals consist of endogenous information if a brain-mind system is isolated from its environment (as in dreams). However, in a brainmind system interacting with its environment, the feed-forward-neural network signals have exogenous stimulus-dependent information. A neural network complex with high maxΦMIP has a large number of concepts in ‘memories’ formed over a long time (Tononi, 2012). These qualia-concepts are embedded in cognitive feedback signals as potential SEs during development and neural Darwinism. In matching process, feed-forward information is matched with feedback information through interactions between feed-forward and feedback signals. Since information is a dual-aspect entity (Chalmers, 1995; Vimal, 2008b, 2010b, 2013), matching can be between physical (or mental) feed-forward information and physical (or mental) feedback information. Consistent with (Tononi, 2012), a high degree of matching requires high ; an increase in matching will be associated with an increase in integrated information and with an increase in consciousness. (9] The information and causation section (p.308-9) of (Tononi, 2012) is interpreted as follows: In the eDAM framework, past resides as a memory in feedback system; future is in feed-forward signals, but 3pp feed-forward signals are cause for its matching with 3pp feedback signals, which may appear to be inconsistent with Tononi’s hypothesis of 3pppast causes 3pp-future compatible with 3pp-present (Tononi, 2012), but there is no real inconsistency. This is because the maximally irreducible set of past causes are in the memory of past event that was in feed-forward signals in the past, which was then stored in 23


)

RLP Vimal

feedback system; then when a new event occurs, it is represented in feed-forward signals for becoming future. Both the feedback and feed-forward signals (as a cause) interact in the matching process for a future effect. In the example of finding the cause for the pulling of a trigger, all the 3pp-information in its past were maximally integrated in the related 3ppneural network-complex, which then caused to generate 3pp-signal for a 1pp-mental concept of 3pp-action of pulling the trigger above its threshold value. This was then selected and immediately available in 1pp-mental aspect the state of neural networkcomplex as a conscious decision to pull the trigger. If the integrated information were below threshold value then trigger will never be pulled. (10] In the concepts, questions, and qualia section (p.309-313), Tononi writes, “IIT suggests that a complex capable of generating a maximally integrated conceptual structure (a quale) should have some [substantial] advantages over a collection of independent modules” (Tononi, 2012).(p309-310); this and Fig. 6 of (Tononi, 2012) can be interpreted as follows: In the eDAM framework, the mental aspect of the state of neural network-complex containing case 1 [V2-A(left-on)+V3-A(segment)=‘left segment’] will be experienced as the segment is on the left side of visual field; similarly, that of case 2 [V3-A(segment), V3-B(notdot), V3-C (not-line)] will be understood as it is neither dot, not line, but just segment. One could ask: what would be the experience of V3-A (case 3): just a segment with no specific location? However, the mental aspect of the state of integrated neural network-complex containing case 4 [V2-A(left-on)+V3-A(segment)+V3-B(not-dot)+V3-C (not-line)] will be experienced as segment on the left side of visual field with the understanding that it is neither dot nor line by the self (mental aspect of the state of self-related-neural network) through the segregation and integration of information, and matching and selection mechanisms if the necessary conditions of consciousness (see Section 2.3 below) are satisfied. Thus, the maximally integrated-information conceptual structure in case 4 is more efficient than strictly modular structures in cases 1, 2, or 3 taken separately. Further discussion on Tononi’s IIT vs. the eDAM framework is given in Section 3.11. Temporal information integration: Temporal integration has three components (Faivre & Koch, 2014): (i) non-conscious temporal integration that is the representation of the duration of propagation of stimulus-dependent signals in feed-forward neural network, (ii) conscious temporal integration that is the representation of the duration of reentrant signals in cognitive feedback neural network (which enables temporal integration and persistent neural activity (Wang, 2002)) with the help of feed-forward signals, and (iii) temporal binding that synchronizes neural firings within millisecond-range-precision (Engel & Singer, 2001). In addition, attention can modulate temporal integration (Section 2.3.4). Mental information integration: Can we mentally integrate experiences such as segmentness, left-ness, redness, circular-ness to result in the experience of ‘circular red segment on left’? Integration of 1pp-mental information would be harder to understand than 3ppphysical information integration. However, information integration could be from physical aspect or mental aspect in the eDAM framework. For example, (i) try to mentally combine the individual experiences such as segment-ness, left-ness, redness, circular-ness to result the experience of whole ‘circular red segment on left’, and (ii) intention to move finger is initiated from mental aspect, in which first mental information integration in 1pp and then automatic translation into physical aspect in 3pp seems more logical.

24


)

RLP Vimal

2.3. Necessary Conditions of consciousness Consciousness can be either access (reportable) or phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness (Block, 2005; Lamme, 2003). For access consciousness, the interactions are between feed-forward stimulus dependent signals and fronto-parietal feedback attentional signals. The necessary conditions for access (reportable) consciousness are (i) formation of neural networks, (ii) wakefulness, (iii) reentrant interactions among neural populations, (iv) fronto-parietal and thalamic-reticular-nucleus attentional signals that modulate consciousness, (v) information integration in ‘complex’ of neural network, such as thalamocortical complexes with critical spatiotemporal ‘grain-size’ (Tononi, 2004, 2008, 2012) as elaborated in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, (vi) working memory that retains information for consciousness, (vii) stimulus contrast at or above threshold level, and (viii) neural network proto-experiences (PEs) that are superposed subjective experiences (SEs) embedded in a neural network. Attention and the ability to report are not necessary for phenomenal consciousness. The criterion for the selection of necessary conditions is that if any of them is missing, we will not have consciousness. Certain neural network or brain complex, such as thalamocortical ‘complex’, comparatively has very high integrated information (), so it is a privileged area for consciousness. 2.3.1. Formation of neural networks The formation of neural networks during development is necessary for consciousness. Neural networks are necessary physical structures for neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) (Crick & Koch, 2003b; Tononi & Koch, 2008). Otherwise, consciousness cannot occur because there would not be a proper physical infrastructure where consciousness (subjective experiences, functions, and thoughts) can be supported. For the formation of neural networks and for consciousness, living organisms (that are complex adaptive systems) follow biological laws of organization and functioning. The eDAM framework (Sections 1.1-1.4, 2-2.2) is consistent with biological laws (Nurse, 2008), such as: (i) life is based on cells; (ii) all life has genes; (ii) “the evolution of the species by natural selection and mutation, the doctrines of molecular biology, the principle of physiology, and so on” ((Chauvet, 2004).p.36); (iv) all life occurs through biochemistry, (v) biology as an organized system, (vi) self-replication and self-organization, (vii) Mendelian inheritance laws (such as law of segregation and law of independent assortment: (Stern & Sherwood, 1966)). In addition, the two fundamental properties of the elementary functional interaction between two biological entities (such as two neurons) are: (i) “the non-symmetry of the action from source to sink, which implies a local transformation in the sink” and (ii) “the non-locality of the action in space, which arises from the hierarchical structure” ((Chauvet, 2004).p.262). Here, the term ‘non-locality’ does not mean that the speed of information transfer is more than the speed of light c or an entity is present simultaneously at many places. Rather, ‘non-locality’ is used in the sense of long-range interaction within a brain (speed of information transfer 103 of this interval is consumed in step 1. Hence inseparability of physical and mental aspects thru the said critical test can't be established. That is why to say that critical test of eDAM is semi-empirical since out of its two legs (3pp and 1pp), one test of psychophysical testing for 1pp cannot be made as objective in the real sense of physical objectivity whose sensitivity has its own limitations. 6. Vimal You have misunderstood here. “…both aspects are inseparable for a conscious brain-mind state once this state is created at that particular temporal moment or within the temporal grain-size, which could be in milliseconds range (such as 50 msec-500 msec)”. In other words, the temporal interval of a few hundred msec is for the duration of a conscious state; it takes processing time to build up a conscious state; usually, the smaller duration for phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness and the larger duration msec is for access (reportable) consciousness. As per (Tononi, 2012), “consciousness appears to flow at a longer time scale, from tens of milliseconds to 2-3 seconds, usually reaching maximum vividness and distinctness at a few hundred milliseconds”. During this interval, the inseparability is usually maintained. After that the conscious state is changed because of many factors such as rapid eye movements (saccades). As per Wikipedia, “Saccades to an unexpected stimulus normally take about 200 milliseconds (ms) to initiate, and then last from about 20–200 ms, depending on their amplitude (20–30 ms is typical in language reading).” The Planck time is about 5.39 x 10-44 sec, which is the smallest time; therefore, it is not a problem; once a conscious state is built, the inseparability can be held easily up to 20-30 msec because a conscious state should not change within a saccade such as in typical in language reading. The problem is what is the longest duration a conscious state (and hence inseparability) is maintained. After a change, a new conscious state with its own inseparability between its aspects enters into the scene. However, the question is that if 1pp-mental aspect and its 3pp-physical aspect can be separated within the duration of a specific conscious state. The answer is NO because otherwise the specific function and the related specific experience will be disrupted. I might agree that it may not reject the separability of the Puruṣa from the Prakṛti of Sāṅkhya because one could always justifiably argue that Puruṣa embedded in Prakṛti (such as a brain) is a ‘false ego’/self/experiencer (1pp-mental aspect) has to be inseparable from its 3pp-physical aspect (NN and its activities) to complete the experiencing process. As per Sāṅkhya Kārikā, the Puruṣa is freed from the Prakṛti only after liberation and after death; 60


)

RLP Vimal

there is no way to test this hypothesis scientifically. However, the proposed experimental design certainly tests the inseparability of the 1pp-mental aspect with the related 3ppaspect. If this is rejected, the Sāṅkhya will also be in trouble because self/‘false ego’ has to be inseparable with its 3pp-aspect to experience. In other words, if the doctrine of inseparability is rejected, both the eDAM and the Sāṅkhya will be rejected. It is unclear if in the Interactive Substance Dualism (ISD) also honors the doctrine of inseparability because mind and brain must interact in ISD within the duration of conscious state; perhaps they are also inseparable; otherwise, the specific function and the related specific experience will be disrupted. Thus, it is unclear if we can reject ISD and Sāṅkhya if the doctrine of inseparability is not rejected. However, the ISD and Sāṅkhya are certainly rejected because of their 8 problems as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010c) and (Vimal, 2012b). I am assuming that the proposed two independent entities in the ISD and the Sāṅkhya are separable in this experiment if they are valid metaphysics. 7. Sehgal (a) In the first place, let me clarify that most of the scientists including you are considering conscious state and attention as synonymous. That is why you are using the words conscious state which is built for some specified duration and also bifurcating it under two categories viz. reportable and non-reportable. No, this is not consciousness. This is distinctive state of consciousness for some specified purpose which last for an interval from a few milliseconds to a few sec and this what we call attention. Consciousness will continue to exist whether attention is there. (b) Yes, I agree that during the state of conscious attention ranging from a few msec to a few sec, both 1pp and 3pp shall persist. But the persistence of both 1pp and 3pp during a small interval does not per se establish that consciousness and 3pp are inseparable to the extent that consciousness is the 1pp-mental aspect and NN and its activities are the 3ppphysical aspect of a conscious state of a mind-brain system and that too sourced out of from primal stage. (c) This does not preclude the possibility that consciousness is sourced out from some source other than 3pp. Under the present discussion, I am discussing eDAM only, as such, would not like to comment on Sāṅkhya or any other source of consciousness. But the fact has been that persistence of 1pp and 3pp during an interval of conscious attention does not prove in any manner that consciousness is a manifestation of 3pp. (d) However, as already indicated in my comments before, if it is proved that zero time interval does exist between built of NN (3pp) and its manifestation as 1pp (only manifestation, not time involved in built up of conscious state of attention or having its experience or judgment), this will prove that consciousness and NN are inseparable and simultaneous. Till this is proved, the inseparability of 1pp and 3pp to the extent that 1pp (consciousness) is a dual aspect of NNs under a cloud. Actually, you have interpreted persistence of both NN (3pp) and SE (1pp) during a small interval lasting for a 50-100 msec to 2-3 sec as inseparability. This is a wrong interpretation. (e) The critical test of eDAM rests upon the persistence of NN (3pp) and SE (1pp) during short interval of conscious attention for an interval of attention is the dual aspect manifestation of NN. This is because (i) Before the built up of NN, physical and mental aspects of the states of entities were inseparable aspects of the states of matter particles of 61


)

RLP Vimal

brain constituting NN. (ii) Before the birth of brain, physical and mental aspects of the states of matter have remained inseparable dual aspects in matter/energy throughout the age of universe. 8. Vimal (a) NO. In the eDAM, attention is defined in Section 2.3.4 and is one of the necessary conditions of consciousness (Section 2.3). Consciousness is defined in Section 1.1. When all necessary conditions of consciousness are satisfied and the matching between the stimulus-dependent FF signals and cognitive FB signals is completed, then a dual-aspect ontological conscious state is selected from the dual-aspect ontological states stored in the LTM during co-evolution and sensori-motor co-tuning. The experiential and functional subaspects of consciousness are the parts of mental aspect of the conscious state from the first person perspective (1pp) and its neural correlates are parts of its 3pp-physical aspect. (b) The inseparability of aspects of the conscious state does not depend on the persistence of both 1pp-consciousness and 3pp-NN during a small interval. Instead, the inseparability depends on if any change in the information of one aspect leads to corresponding change in the information of the other aspect because information is the same in both aspects; the information is ‘viewed’ from one perspective certainly looks different from that viewed from the other perspective. (c) In the eDAM, the source of 1pp-consciousness is not 3pp-NN and its activities and viceversa. Instead, the source of consciousness is the UPC; SEs are the excitations of UPC. The claim “consciousness is a manifestation of 3pp” is NOT of the eDAM, rather, it seems the claim of materialism that 3pp-NN is the cause of 1pp-cosnciousness. (d) Your view, “if it is proved that zero time interval does exist between built of NN (3pp) and its manifestation as 1pp (only manifestation, not time involved in built up of conscious state of attention or having its experience or judgment), this will prove that consciousness and NN are inseparable and simultaneous” is untenable because inseparability does not depend of that interval as argued above in (b). (e) I agree. Instead, the inseparability depends on the factors such as elaborated in (b) above. 3.8.1.5. The conclusion of inseparability within critical spatiotemporal interval Sehgal In view of above, it is safe to conclude that so-called the critical test of eDAM does not establish its central doctrine of 'inseparability" of physical and mental aspects, however, it establish a relation of matching correspondence between 1pp and 3pp. But the established relation of correspondence is also one way from 1pp to 3pp due to following reasons: (a) It can be empirically established that every 1pp will lead to matching 3pp. (b) It can't be established empirically that every 3pp will lead to 1pp. For example, if thru clinical intervention, NN (3pp) for an emotion say fear or love is stimulated, it is not necessary that the SE of fear or love may be experienced. 62


)

RLP Vimal

Had above been possible, by simulating any NN (3pp) thru clinical intervention, people of high wisdom, intelligence, peace, love could be prepared and all sort of anger, hate, revenge, enmity would have been over. Actually, initiation for any cognitive feeling arises from 1pp and not from 3pp. In view of this, it is safe to conclude that 1pp and 3pp correspondence relation is a one-way 1pp-3pp relation. Thus, I have elaborated the problem of the experimental design related to the critical testing of the inseparability of aspect in the eDAM framework. Vimal If a brain stimulation or clinical intervention does not satisfy all the necessary conditions of consciousness (discussed in (Vimal, 2015e)), then the conscious state will not be created and hence the degree of manifestation of 3pp-physical-neural-correlates and 1pp-mentalexperience will not be above critical threshold contrast level. For the inseparability between the aspects, a conscious state is pre-requisite. You may like to read my psychophysical articles: (Vimal, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 2000, 2002a, 2002b; Vimal et al., 1989; Vimal, Pokorny & Smith, 1987; Vimal & Shevell, 1987) for how experiments are designed to find the critical threshold contrast level depending on the stimulus conditions. It is always twoway 1pp↔3pp relationships as long as 3pp-activations are ethically allowed (Internal Review Board needs to approve the experiments). Dr. Penfield and other neurosurgeons and researchers have done electrical brain stimulations that verify this claim. This experimental design elaborated in Section 3.8 is a two-way design, i.e., both positive and negative results are interesting. This kind of design is very difficult to propose and is considered better than a one-way design, where a negative result is not interesting. The positive result implies that the doctrine of inseparability holds within the critical spatiotemporal interval, which can be from 0 sec to Planck time (5.39 x 10-44 sec) to the maximum duration for a specific conscious state (such as 500 msec). Let us tentatively assume that the proposed two independent entities in the ISD and the Sāṅkhya are separable in this experiment if they are valid metaphysics. Then the positive result (a) rejects the ISD and the Sāṅkhya, and (b) supports the eDAM. The negative result entails that the separability between mental and physical holds and rejects (a) the eDAM and (b) supports the Sāṅkhya and the ISD. Thus, the proposed experiment for testing the inseparability of aspects in the eDAM is tenable. Sehgal (a) The proposed necessary conditions of consciousness are a construct of eDAM, and the consciousness need not remain dependent upon these conditions. As elaborated before, the conditions of the presence of conscious mind/brain to enable a stimulated brain thru clinical intervention to produce an NN or SE is a mockery of the very central doctrine of eDAM. You are starting with the same "thing" whose existence requires to be predicted which is quite illogical as well as against universally recognized and long held protocol of science. (b) Just by stating that 1pp and 3pp are two-way will not make them two-way unless empirically approved. Empirical tests could be: Whether a stimulated NN for fear or love, creates the SE of fear or love? Whether stimulating the NN for the imagination of a river, 63


)

RLP Vimal

produces SE of a river? Whether stimulating the NN of a crime say theft/murder/rape produces such feelings in the mind of the subject? Whether the stimulation of the NNs of some personality traits creates permanent change in the personality? Vimal (Oct. 27, 2016) (a) The mockery is your misconstruction of the eDAM and not understanding the related neuroscience; there is no such problem as discussed before. The eDAM does not start with consciousness to predict the consciousness because it would be circular. It is unclear what you mean by “the conditions of the presence of conscious mind/brain to enable a stimulated brain thru clinical intervention to produce an NN or SE”. Let us consider an example: The electrical brain stimulation at color area activates color-related NN, which leads to the selection of a color-related conscious state when the necessary conditions of consciousness are satisfied and the neural signal in FF pathways because of the stimulation matches with cognitive FB signals related to memory traces. A specific color experience is the 1pp-mental aspect of this conscious state and its 3pp-physical aspect is the activated color-related NN and its neural activities. The 3pp color NN does not cause color SE and vice-versa; otherwise, it would be materialism and idealism, respectively. (b) The answer is Yes; in principle, they can be done, but the explanation is neither thru materialism nor thru idealism; it has to be thru the eDAM as explained in (a). However, further researches are needed; it is not so simple. Furthermore, if you are interested, first do literature search and publish a review relevant articles. 3.8.1.6. The inseparability hypothesis, two types spatiotemporal intervals, and the changes in one aspect should be reflected correspondingly in other aspect and viceversa 1. Sehgal (Oct. 23 2016) You have presumed occurrence of 1pp and 3pp within the critical spatiotemporal interval as evidence of simultaneity. I have also raised the issue of break up of SE in various steps so that spatiotemporal interval may be apportioned in each of the steps to find that no time interval exists between built up of a neural network and manifestation of SE. If it is established that time interval between built up of the neural network and manifestation of SE is zero/Planck scale, then only the inseparability is empirically approved. Till then it is a postulation But I think, thru Psychophysical testing such apportionment is not possible. 2. Vimal You have misconstrued the hypothesis. You need to distinguish two types of intervals: (I) critical spatiotemporal interval because of variations and (II) the interval in which conscious state is maintained. (III) In addition, you need to understand that if the inseparability is true, the changes in one aspect should be reflected correspondingly in other aspect and vice-versa: if changes are within 1-JND in the 1pp-mental aspect then the corresponding changes in the 3pp-physical aspect should also be within its 1 JND and vice-versa. Similarly, if changes are more than 1 JND in 1pp-mental aspect then the corresponding changes in 3pp-physical aspect should also be more than its 1 JND and vice-versa.

64


)

RLP Vimal

The inseparability hypothesis is related to the premise (III). The premise (II) implies that the interval in which a dual-aspect conscious state of our mind-brain system is maintained, which means after the conscious state is generated and during the conscious state, not before; it is not valid before the built of the conscious state or after its demise; it is not for unconscious state because we do not experience when we are unconscious. The critical spatiotemporal interval (Type-(I)) is because of the variation of results in many measurement-trials for a specific subject. This includes our daily variations because of many factors; for example, one day experiment was performed when the subject was very happy and on the other day very sad or many other variations as you detailed in (a)-(f) and also many more unknown factors. 3. Sehgal I have already elaborated on above aspects in proceeding Para (B), (D) and (E) and need not repeat here. 4. Vimal Please see the update in 2 above for premise (III) for the inseparability hypothesis. 3.8.1.7. Is temporal interval related to the critical test of inseparability? 1. Sehgal You state that no contradiction has been observed in inseparability. But where is the valid test for testing inseparability in the sensitivity scale in the range of 10-26-10-31 sec? That is why I state that the critical test for testing the framework of eDAM, as given in 3.8, is not a valid test for checking the inseparability. Similarly, unless 3pp to 1pp test for cognitive functions say of emotions and imagination are not empirically tested, how can we say that there is no contradiction? 2. Vimal The problem is not at the lower end, the problem is at higher end: what is the maximum duration a specific conscious state is maintained. If empirical data indicates that it is inseparable between T1 and T2 msec, then it means the aspects are inseparable below T1 and T2 msec including zero msec duration of conscious state (i.e., for a specific moment theoretically) by the logical counterfactual argument. If this is not valid then Sāṅkhya and Interactive Substance Dualism will also be invalid because their two independent entities also interact during a conscious experience. We need to understand the technical difficulties to reach to the lowest end of Planck time, but this does not reject the inseparability. How is it possible that the inseparability is maintained at the higher level (say T1-T2 msec) and will not be maintained lower than T1-T2 msec including Planck time (5.39 x 10-41 msec)? As per (Tononi, 2012), “consciousness appears to flow at a longer time scale, from tens of milliseconds to 2-3 seconds, usually reaching maximum vividness and distinctness at a few hundred milliseconds”. 3. Sehgal 65


)

RLP Vimal

Actually what the critical test is not the establishment of the inseparability of 3pp-NN (3ppphysical aspect) and consciousness (1pp-mental aspect) in the strict sense of the eDAM that both are inseparable aspects of any state of any entity and as sourced out from the primal stage. Test establishes that during a small interval of conscious attention, (i) both 1pp and 3pp do persist, and (ii) matching relation exists between 1pp and 3pp. However, what the mistake is being made is that establishment of (i) and (ii) above are being interpreted as the establishment of the universal inseparability of 3pp and consciousness at the ground level of brain and right from beginning of primal stage since creation of universal. If 3pp and consciousness are really inseparable at ground level at brain, this inseparability need not be contingent and definable during the small interval of built up of conscious attention. There is the need to define inseparability of 3pp and consciousness away from interval of conscious attention and de-link it with attention. As already indicated, our discussion is focused on eDAM and we need not discuss Sāṅkhya or ISD. Any limitations of Sāṅkhya or ISD do not help in ignoring or overlooking limitations or flaws of eDAM. From the above critical analysis of the whole situation and various facts, it is safe to conclude that said critical test of Section 3.8 fails to provide an empirical evidence for the universal inseparability of physical and mental aspects at any of the stage of the universe. Further the test is against the universally recognized protocol of science. In view of this, this problem of eDAM continue to persist. 4. Vimal The critical test as elaborated in Section 3.8 is indeed the test of the inseparability; this is further explained in Section 3.8.1.6.2 thru premise (III), namely, “if the inseparability is true, the changes in one aspect should be reflected correspondingly in other aspect and vice-versa”. It is then extrapolated to the states of inert entities back to pre-BB unmanifested state of the primal entity. You are misconstruing the inseparability thru premise (II), namely, the interval type II related to the duration of conscious state. Thus, it is your misconstruction of the eDAM that misleads you that the eDAM has problem. In fact, there is no such problem in the eDAM.

3.9. Materialism, idealism, interactive substance dualism and other versions of dual-aspect monism vs. the eDAM framework One could argue that materialism is more parsimonious than dualism as per Occam razor because it has just one parameter (matter is the only fundamental reality), whereas dualism has two parameters (mind and matter). Some materialists (such as Papineau (Papineau, 2006)) can argue that the explanatory gap (Levine, 1983) is simply an artifact of an intuitive conviction that dualism is true, i.e., ‘dualism has us all in its strong intuitive grip’. To justify the eDAM framework, one has to reject all materialism based frameworks, such as emergentism, non-reductive physicalism/functionalism, supervenience, identity theory that includes IIT, phenomenal concept strategy, Rosen’s modeling relation in a complex system (Rosen, 1998),7 reductive materialism, eliminativism, and so on. In addition, one has to reject idealism and interactive substance dualism (or simply dualism).

66


)

RLP Vimal

In my view, materialism, idealism, and the dual-aspect monism (different from interactive substance dualism) metaphysics are monistic frameworks; therefore, they are more parsimonious compared to interactive substance dualism from Occam razor’s point of view. Moreover, dualism itself has serious problems (Vimal, 2010c, 2013), which can certainly free us from its strong intuitive grip. The major objection to materialism is its fundamental assumption: matter is the fundamental reality and it is inherently and fundamentally non-experiential and does not even have potential for generating experiences. Then we try to create experiences out of such non-experiential matter. This is the gross violation of its own fundamental assumption. If we assume that seeds of orange cannot create apple and then we keep on trying and trying making various models over 6000 years (since RigVedic period (Vimal & Pandey-Vimal, 2007)) to create apple out of orange seeds, is indeed an impossible task. The explanatory gap problem (Levine, 1983) (how experiences can be created out of nonexperiential matter/brain) is just a side effect of this gross violation. Thus, all those various models for alleviating the explanatory gap and other problems of materialism (Vimal, 2010c, 2013) cannot address the explanatory gap problem. How can subjective experiences be created from non-experiential matter that does not even have a potential for experiences? Idealism also has an explanatory gap problem of the second kind, which is just opposite to materialism: how can matter-in-itself (not its appearance) be created from the non-material mental entities such as consciousness? Further details are given in (Vimal, 2010c, 2012b, 2013). If we assume that matter has a potential for having subjective experiences then it is no more materialism, it would then be dual-aspect monism with a matter as the physical aspect and experiences as the mental aspect of a state of an entity. If we look at closely, one can argue that some frameworks that assume materialism but accept the existence of experiences have an implicit trace of dual-aspect monism (brain’s neural networks and neural activities as the physical aspect and experiences as the mental aspect of brain-mind states). For example, in emergentism, we assume that experiences somehow emerge from a brain. In supervenience, we assume that experiences supervene on the physical or functional integration. In identity theory, we assume that experiences are identical with brain processes. In phenomenal concepts strategy (Carruthers & Veillet, 2007; Levin, 2006; Papineau, 2006) (Type-B materialism), subjective experiences are recognition concepts that apply to physical properties, and we pick out demonstratively physical properties in our subjective experiences, which must potentially co-exist in the mental aspect of a state of an entity with its inseparable physical aspect. This means that Type-B materialists accept the existence of subjective experiences. In all these frameworks, the existence of experiences is acceptable, which seems brain’s neural networks and activities can be considered as the physical aspect and experiences as the mental aspect of brain-mind states. As per (Libet et al., 1983), “The onset of cerebral activity clearly preceded by at least several hundred milliseconds [minimum 150 ms; average 350 ms] the reported time of conscious intention to act”. One could argue that it is possible to initiate subjective intention (subjective experience of ‘wanting’ or intending to act) in first person perspective (1pp) as a cause for an objective action (endogenous motor act) in 1pp and/or third person perspective (3pp). This appears as if ‘mind causes brain activity’ (close to idealism or interactive substance dualism); however, it makes category mistake because mind and 67


)

RLP Vimal

matter are two different categories and hence one cannot cause other; which means materialism, idealism and interactive substance dualism need to address the problem. Rather, we need to consider both (mental and physical) are inseparable aspects of the same brain-mind state as in dual-aspect monism (Sections 1.1-1.4, 2-2.3). As per (Libet et al., 1983), “cerebral initiation of a spontaneous, freely voluntary act can begin unconsciously, that is, before there is any (at least recallable) subjective awareness that a ‘decision’ to act has already been initiated cerebrally”. This can imply that unconscious process has to be from 3pp because it is latent to 1pp-consciousness. However, they cannot imply that brainactivities cause mental entities (such as intention); otherwise category mistake will be made. In the eDAM framework, 1pp and 3pp are inseparable aspects of the same brain-mind state; sometimes 1pp is easier to access (as in intention) and sometimes 3pp (as in unconscious processing, motor action etc.) is easier to understand. In any case, if 1pp entity (such as intention) is known, then 3pp (the neural-correlate of 1pp-intention) can be understood simultaneously and vice-versa because of the doctrine of the inseparability of mental and physics aspects. In other words, same-can-cause-same: a 3pp-physical entity can cause another 3pp-physical entity without making category mistake; for example, the neural-correlates of intention (related brain-activities) can cause a physical motor action (related motor-activities); but, the 1pp-mental entity such as intention cannot cause 3ppmotor action otherwise category mistake will be made. Similarly, a mental entity can cause another mental entity, without making a category mistake. The eDAM framework is consistent, to a certain extent, with other dual-aspect views such as (a) reflexive monism (“experiences are anywhere, they are roughly where they seem to be … representations in the mind/brain have two [inseparable] (mental and physical) aspects, whose apparent form is dependent on the perspective from which they are viewed”) (Velmans, 2008) and also (b) triple-aspect monism (physical, non-conscious mental, and conscious mental aspects) (Pereira Jr., 2013). 3.10. Biological Naturalism vs. the eDAM framework This section is adapted from (Vimal, 2015b). Searle renamed the mind-body problem of traditional views (dualism and materialism) as ‘Biological Naturalism’ (BN), where consciousness has four empirical essential features (Searle, 2007): qualitative feel (what-itfeels-like), subjective ontology, single unified conscious field, and intentionality (see Table). Furthermore, conscious states are real and irreducible, caused by lower-level brain processes, realized as higher-level (or system) features, and function causally. This is certainly a new way of thinking and rejects traditional views but seems somewhat consistent with the non-traditional eDAM framework (Sections 1.2-1.4, 2-2.3). I interpret BN in terms of the eDAM framework to unpack some of the concepts of BN that have objections from traditional views and address those objections: [I] The brain processes in the BN are the matching and selection processes in the eDAM: As per Searle, “Conscious states ... cannot be eliminated or reduced to something else. All conscious states are caused by lower level brain processes. … brain processes cause consciousness” (Searle, 2007). This hypothesis needs unpacking in the eDAM framework: it is not that irreducible primary experiences are created by brain processes; rather, consciousness related brain processes are correlated with 68


)

RLP Vimal

experiences as NCC (see Table) and they can cause conscious states and functional aspect of consciousness. In Nature, primary irreducible experiences, however, potentially co-exists in the mental aspect of a state of an entity with its inseparable physical aspect and are potentially superposed in the mental aspect of a state of an entity. A specific subjective experience is realized through the matching and selection processes as elaborated in Section 1.3 and (Vimal, 2010b), which entails the irreducibility of experiences. [II] Experiences influence brain processes through inseparability of aspects: The hypothesis that conscious states function causally (Searle, 2007), i.e., experiences influence brain processes can be unpacked by using the doctrine of the inseparability of the eDAM framework without making a category mistake: First, the mental information (such as in intention) in the mental aspect of a state of an entity (such as the related neural network) is translated faithfully, immediately, and automatically into the physical information in the physical aspect of the entity because information is conserved; this implies that “conscious states are realized simultaneously with the neuron firings”. Then, the physical signal related to this entity causes/influences the correlated brain process (physical signal) without making a category mistake. [III] Unpacking ‘consciousness is irreducible ontologically, but reducible causally’: As per (Searle, 2007), “brain processes cause consciousness […] In the case of consciousness the causal reduction does not lead to an ontological reduction”. The brain processes, as unpacked above in the interpretation [I] of BN, are the matching and selection mechanisms, which entails that consciousness is irreducible ontologically, but the brain processes can lead to the selection of a specific conscious experience through the matching and selection mechanisms as elaborated in Section 1.3. Table: The features of the 3pp-physical aspect of a state of an entity-state, the 1pp-mental aspect of a conscious brain-mind state, and the 1pp-mental aspect of a non-conscious entity-state are compared. Here, an entity-state means a state of any entity including conscious and non-conscious brain-mind system and inert system. Adapted with some modification from (Searle, 2007) and its chart with respect to the eDAM framework: The features 1-8 of the 3pp-physical aspect is the same as that of ‘Physical’, and the features 14 of the 1pp-mental aspect of a conscious brain-mind state is the same as that of ‘Mental’, and its features 5-6 is the same as that of ‘Physical’ in (Searle, 2007)’s chart. The rest of features of columns 2 and 3 are from (Searle, 2007), but modified for the eDAM framework. The features of the 1pp-mental aspect of a non-conscious entity-state in Column 4 are speculative and based on the eDAM framework. The features of Table are not based on traditional views (dualism and materialism); rather, they are based on the eDAM framework. Features 1

3pp-physical aspect of entitystate Objective

2

Third person ontology

3

Quantitative

1pp-mental aspect of conscious brain-mind state

1pp-mental aspect of non-conscious entity-state

Subjective, the degree of manifestation đm of 1pp-mental aspect is close to 1 (see Sections 1.2, 3.4, and 3.6) First person ontology

Subjective, but the degree of manifestation đm of 1pp-mental aspect varies with the levels of entity-states; 0≤đ... the first living beings, such as single-celled life (3.8–4 ba) appeared, >in a step-by-step manner. [S.P.] Hi, Ram. A weak point in your reasoning is that the first living being COULD NOT appear in a step-by-step manner in principle. The case is that for a living organism, to be living, it must be as complex as it is -- it must be irreducibly complex. If being less complex, it could not stay living. The appearance of the first living organism had definitely to be a transition from one whole complex system to another whole complex system without any transitional forms. Such a transition from one whole complex system (with given complexity) to another whole complex system (with complexity required for there to be living organism) is being well formalized using my model I call the integrated information system (or IIS for short). Hope, you still remember what I'm talking about. 12. Vimal The definition of life is given 3.15.2.1 of (Vimal, 2016a) and that of consciousness is elaborated in (Vimal, 2009a) and (Vimal, 2010c). In the eDAM, a state of any entity (including life) is a dual-aspect entity. Once the necessary infrastructure (physical aspect) is in place and the necessary conditions of life and that of consciousness (Vimal, 2015e) are satisfied, its mental aspect will also appear from the 1pp (1st person perspective). It is simply ‘viewing’ the same information from the 1pp or 3rd pp (3pp). If we ‘look’ at it from the 1pp, it appears as consciousness (mental/non-physical) and if we ‘look’ at it from the 3pp, it appears as physical. The information is the same in both aspects. The mysterious terms such as irreducible, nonreductive, and emergence of a complex system need further unpacking in analogy to (Vimal, 2013). 13. Ádám Kun (Oct. 12, 2016) Q. If man came from apes, why are there still apes? If I wanted to be clinical I would say: "Don't worry, we are working on it." - Unfortunately there are fewer and fewer of the great apes. On a more serious note, when lines diverge it is because of new ecological opportunity. Humans (and our forebearers) lived in a different environment than the line leading to chimps, bonobos, orangutans and gorillas. These great apes still live in the jungle heavily wooded savannas. We ventured forth into the more open savannas (or ever changing environment of east Africa and some nowadays claim). Different organism fill different ecological niche. While we might claim that vertebrates or mammals are more advanced than bacteria, worms, whatever. An organism needs to be good at what it does. And bacteria are just great at what they do. And no advanced animals can replace them. In similar veins humans would not replace great apes. We can destroy their habitat, but that is our short sightedness and a sad proof that we are not as advanced as we claim to be. 305


)

RLP Vimal

Q. Any clinching evidence that organic structures necessary for life (I am not naming that organic structure as life for reasons as given in previous mail) initiated in water. Now create water of required pH and salinity in the lab and see if amino acids, proteins, DNA, RNA can be produced via the route of inorganic chemistry? Then produce a unicellular organism. Mimic all the conditions of Darwinism and keep subject this unicellular organism under all such conditions and see if multicellular organism evolves. By extrapolating forward, see if human beings can be evolved thru the route of inorganic chemistry. Sure. Any time! Give me enough funding and the required few millions of years (now that we guide the experiment it will be a bit quicker than originally). Q. Any clinching empirical evidence that man really evolved from apes? Don't speak of similarity of genetic structure. What would you accept as empirical evidence? The line of fossils linking anatomically modern humans to extinct great apes is not enough? Why do you not accept genomic, anatomical and behavioural similarity as evidence of common ancestry? 14. Sehgal (Oct. 13, 2016) At present also, 7.5 billion human beings on earth live in quite different natural and man created environment. Do you think, over the period, modern human beings will divide into different lines -- with some lines existing and others becoming extinct and evolving into new species? In modern period, due to variation in technological and economic levels, diversity in environment may be even more than in the past Create quite different and extreme environment in a lab and place some members of a lower species in such environments and observe for a few years and see if they diverge in different lines and any line becoming extinct and evolving into other species. There may be species whose life may be a few hours or a few days. In a period of 5-10 years, which can be observed in lab, a no of their generation can pass. If evolution is correct, in 5-10 years, some new species should evolve from some members of the species -- It may take million of years and enormous funds to have human beings evolved from the water of required pH and salinity. and may not be feasible. But for the production of amino acids and lipids from the water having requisite pH and salinity, time and funds may not be the constraint. With the advent of technology, it may be possible to accelerate the process thru some catalytic agents— In the context of origin and end of life here, reference is to physical bodies of species and not immutable souls.

306


)

RLP Vimal

15. Sungchul Ji, Associate Professor at Rutgers University (Oct. 13, 2016) Whit Blauvelt (Oct. 5, 2016): There has been much discussion on this list in months past about DNA, which many scientists have taken to be the real center of the cell. As recent discoveries in epigenetics show, there is much about the cell which is more peripheral, which is not at the very center, yet which is of incredible importance, even to inheritance. Ji: One way to represent the current state of our knowledge of cell biology may be in terms of the ITR diagram, which states that the living cell (and hence life itself) cannot be reduced to lower levels than the irreducible triadic relation among three structures and associated processes denoted as X-glyphs, where X is Nucleo-, Proteo- and Chemo- and "glyphs" indicate "written messages". f g Nucleoglyphs --------> Proteoglyphs ---------> Chemoglyphs (DNA/RNA) (proteins) (Chemical gradients)  ↑ ______________________________________________ | h Figure 1. The postulate that the living cell cannot be reduced below the three levels of the indicated structures (i.e., DNA glyphs/RNA glyphs, proteoglyphs, and chemoglyphs) and processes (i.e., f = transcription/translation; g = enzyme catalysis; h = genetic information flow). We may refer to the suggested mechanism as the ITR model of the living cell. The well-known epigenetic effects in cell biology are explained by the fact that the triadic physicochemical processes in the living cell are all affected by the environmental factors such as temperature, electromagnetic radiations, mechanical sounds, and nutritional conditions. 16. Shilpi Saxsena MRSC, PhD, FICCE, Women Scientist at Delhi University (Oct. 19, 2016) As we have developed a natural tendency to accepted scientific procedures without any doubt, similarly, before questioning the Vedic wisdom, we have to also use our proper scientific temperament and also we must implement the wisdom in our life via the practice of the Vedic teachings under the guidance of some realized soul. Dr. Ram mentions that “God theory also has some problem”. But why as scientists we have developed so much anti feeling against God and religion? What is the scientific basis for this strange stand? The argument Life Comes from Life has been repeatedly circulated in this forum and I find that it is the valid argument to justify the fact that there is need of life for life and biodiversity to manifest in this planet or elsewhere. 17. Vimal When we use scientific methodology, we get reproducible results and understand the mechanism(s) underlying them; however, God theory does NOT reveal the mechanisms for how God created us and the universe. For example, if its claim is that God is the first life (say unicellular cell), then what is the mechanism(s) for reproducing it. What is the 307


)

RLP Vimal

mechanism of creating non-experiential matter-in-itself from the non-material entity God in a reproducible manner? Let us discuss just these two problems first. 18. Eric Reyes (Oct. 20, 2016) I find it interesting that you regard our inability to dissect and reproduce the mechanisms by which God creates life as a "problem". I mean that some things we can just accept from God and not challenge, right? Is it actually a problem that we cannot dissect all the workings of God, which we cannot replicate the creation of the universe, cannot create a living elephant from chemicals in a factory? The universe exists, elephants, humans, planets exist, why can't we accept that without challenging it? I think this indicates a problem in itself myself. And I do think that understanding comes naturally to the wise sage for instance, but not to the challenger. 19. Vimal Yes, we all accept ontological states because, by definition, they really exist. However, some of us would like to know more than this for the advancement of knowledge, which is natural. So we make models. One such model is the extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM). You may like to look at (Vimal, 2016a), especially Section 3.15, for further details. 4. Conclusion (1) Consciousness is defined as the mental aspect of a state of brain-system or brainprocess, which has two sub-aspects: conscious experience and conscious function from the first person perspective. (2) A materialism based framework for consciousness (Crick & Koch, 2003a) does not solve the hard problem but makes the problem clearer. (3) An alternative to this is the eDAM based framework for a subjective conscious experience. The eDAM framework is an extended version of dual-aspect monism; it has 5 components: (i) Dual-Aspect Monism: subjective 1pp-mental and the objective 3pp-physical aspect of a state of any entity (elementary particle to neural network to the whole universe) are inseparable in dual-aspect monism (Section 1.2 and (Vimal, 2008b)). Moreover, the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of an entity carries the potential primary irreducible subjective experiences in superposed form as a medium for the indispensable coexistence of the potentiality of experiences with its inseparable physical aspect; (ii) Dual-mode (stimulus-dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-mode and cognitivefeedback-signals-related-mode) for conjugate matching and then the selection of a specific subjective experience by the self) (Section 1.3 and (Vimal, 2010b)); (iii) Varying degrees of manifestation đ of aspects depending on entities and their states (from human living system to nonliving inert entities) (Section 1.4 and (Vimal, 2013)); (iv) Segregation, differentiation, and integration of information for consciousness (Sections 2, 2.1, and 2.2 and (Vimal, 2015f)) and (v) Necessary conditions of (access, reportable) consciousness, which include the formation of neural networks, wakefulness, reentry, attention, information integration, working memory, stimulus contrast at or above threshold, and potential 308


)

RLP Vimal

experiences embedded in neural network. Attention and reentry are not necessary for phenomenal (non-reportable) consciousness (Section 2.3 and (Vimal, 2015e)). (4) The eDAM framework is parsimonious and has the least number of problems compared to all other frameworks. (5) It is consistent with psychophysical, biological, and physical laws and (6) It attempts to address the ‘hard’ problem of consciousness (how to explain subjective experiences). (7) The eDAM framework can unpack Biological Naturalism’s claims (such as brain processes cause irreducible experiences and consciousness can influence brain processes) using the matching and selection mechanisms and the doctrine of inseparability. Therefore, it can address the objections raised in Biological Naturalism by traditional views (dualism and materialism) without making a category mistake. (8) The eDAM framework can scientifically be tested: if we are empirically able to separate the mental aspect (such as an experience) of a conscious brain-mind state and the related physical aspect (its neural correlates) of the same conscious brain-mind state at a specific moment of time or within critical temporal integration grain-size, then the doctrine of the inseparability will be rejected. In that case, the eDAM framework needs major modification (Section 3.8). (9) There are two metaphysical approaches (Section 3.14): (i) The bottom-up metaphysical approach starts with the robust and reproducible (1pp and 3pp) data and extrapolates backward in time for the potentiality of all manifestations of the primal entity. The eDAM framework is a bottom-up metaphysical approach. It concludes that the Nirvikalpa Samādhi in us is the highest manifestation of the primal entity (Brahman) through the co-evolution of physical and mental aspects. (ii) The top-down metaphysical approach assumes that Bhagavān Sri Krishna is the eternal ādi-purush or First Life whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated/unmanifested Brahman. This is a brute fact (that is the way it is!). This approach has the infinite regress, which is a major problem; this is because one could ask where the First Life comes from. This has also an explanatory gap problems because the mechanisms for creating life and matter-in-itself are unclear.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Bhakti Niskama Shanta for the discussion on the bottomup and top-down metaphysical approaches, Bernard Baars for the email discussion on Dual-Source Theory, Vinod Kumar Sehgal for the information related to Sāṃkhya, all Sadhu Sanga group participants as mentioned in Section 3.14 and 3.15, John R. Searle for the email discussion on Biological Naturalism and traditional views, Nathan Faivre for reviewing his and Koch’s related information, Alfredo Pereira Jr., Roman R. Poznanski, Max Velmans, and Pankhuri Singhal for critical comments, discussion, and suggestions. The author is also affiliated with Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, A-60 Umed Park, Sola Road, Ahmedabad-61, Gujrat, India; Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana, c/o NiceTech Computer Education Institute, Pendra, Bilaspur, C.G. 495119, India; and Dristi Anusandhana 309


)

RLP Vimal

Sansthana, Sai Niwas, East of Hanuman Mandir, Betiahata, Gorakhpur, U.P. 273001 India. URL: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home.

Conflict of interest None declared.

310


)

RLP Vimal

References 't Hooft, G. (2001). How does God play dice? (Pre-)determinism at the Planck scale. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/0104219v1. 't Hooft, G. (2009). Entangled quantum states in a local deterministic theory. 2nd Vienna Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics (June), ITP-UU-09/77, SPIN-09/30; http://arXiv:0908.3408v1 [quantph]. http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3408. 't Hooft, G. (2012). How a wave function can collapse without violating Schrödinger’s equation, and how to understand Born’s rule. ITP-UU-11/43, SPIN-11/34, arXiv:1112.1811[quant-ph]: . 't Hooft, G. (2015). The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1548v3. Baars, B. J. (1997). In the Theater of Consciousness: The Workspace of the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press. Baars, B. J. (2005). Global workspace theory of consciousness: toward a cognitive neuroscience of human experience. Prog Brain Res, 150, 45-53. Bhakti Niskama Shanta. (2015). Life and consciousness - The Vedāntic view. Communicative & Integrative Biology. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138, 8(5), e1085138. Bhattacharya, R. (2013). Development of Materialism in India: the pre- Cārvākas and the Cārvākas. Esercizi Filosofici < http://www2.units.it/eserfilo/art813/bhattacharya813.pdf >, 8, 1-12. Block, N. (2005). Two neural correlates of consciousness. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 47-52. Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I and II. Phys. Rev., 85, 166–179 and 180–193. Bojowald, M. (2007). What happened before the Big Bang? Nature Physics, 3, 523-525. Bojowald, M. (2008). Harmonic cosmology: How much can we know about a universe before the big bang? Proc. Roy. Soc. A (Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4919), 464, 2135-2150. Bracher, P. J. (2015). Origin of life: Primordial soup that cooks itself. Nat Chem, 7(4), 273-274. Bruzzo, A. A., & Vimal, R. L. P. (2007). Self: An adaptive pressure arising from self-organization, chaotic dynamics, and neural Darwinism. J Integr Neurosci , 6(4), 541566. Cacha, L. A., & Poznanski, R. R. (2014). Genomic instantiation of consciousness in neurons through a biophoton field theory. J Integr Neurosci, 13 (3), 1-40. Carruthers, P., & Veillet, B. (2007). The Phenomenal Concept Strategy. Journal of Consciousness Studies , 14(9-10), 212-236. Cerullo, M. A. (2011). Integrated Information Theory: A Promising but Ultimately Incomplete Theory of Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18(11-12), 45–58. Cerullo, M. A. (2015). The Problem with Phi: A Critique of Integrated Information Theory. PLoS Comput Biol, 11(9), e1004286.

311


)

RLP Vimal

Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J Consciousness Stud , 2, 200–219. Chauvet, G. A. (2002). On the mathematical integration of the nervous tissue based on the S-propagator formalism. J Integr Neurosci, 1(1), 31-68. Chauvet, G. A. (2004). The Mathematical Nature of the Living World. The Power of Integration. Singapore: World Scientific Publishers. Cleaver, G. B. (2006). Before the Big Bang: String Theory, God, and the Origin of the Universe. Available: http://www.metanexus.net/conferences/pdf/conference2006/Cleaver.pdf. Cottam, R., & Ranson, W. (2013). A biosemiotic view on consciousness derived from system hierarchy. In A. Pereira Jr. & D. Lehmann (Eds.), The Unity of Mind, Brain and World: Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness (pp. 77-112). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Crick, F., & Koch, C. (2003a). A framework for consciousness. Nat Neurosci., 6(2), 119-126. Crick, F., & Koch, C. (2003b). What are the neural correlates of consciousness? In L. van Hemmen & t. J. Sejnowski (Eds.), Problems in System Neuroscience. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Damasio, A. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain (Kindle ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. de la Peña, L., & Cetto, A. M. (1985). Origin and Nature of the Statistical Properties of Quantum Mechanics. Hadronic J. Suppl., 1(2), 413-439. de la Pena, L., Cetto, Ana Maria, Valdes-Hernandez, Andreade la Pena, Luis, Cetto, A. M., & ValdesHernandez, A. (2015). The Emerging Quantum: The Physics Behind Quantum Mechanics. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Dehaene, S., Kerszberg, M., & Changeux, J. P. (1998). A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. P Natl Acad Sci USA, 95(24), 14529-14534. Dennett, D. C. (1978). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Edelman, G. M. (1993). Neural Darwinism: selection and reentrant signaling in higher brain function. Neuron, 10(2), 115-125. Edelman, G. M. (2003). Naturalizing consciousness: a theoretical framework. P Natl Acad Sci USA, 100(9), 5520-5524. Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. Lett. , 47, 777-780. Engel, A. K., & Singer, W. (2001). Temporal binding and the neural correlates of sensory awareness. Trends Cogn Sci, 5(1), 16-25. Faivre, N., & Koch, C. (2014). Temporal structure coding with and without awareness. Cognition, 131(3), 404414. Feigl, H. (1967). The `Mental' and the `Physical', The Essay and a Postscript [Available: ]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. See also, Feigl, H. (1958) The ‘mental’ and the ‘physical’, in Feigl, H., Maxwell, G. & Scriven, M. (eds.) Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, pp. 370-497, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

312


)

RLP Vimal

Fernando, C., Szathmary, E., & Husbands, P. (2012). Selectionist and evolutionary approaches to brain function: a critical appraisal. Front Comput Neurosci, 6, 24. Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gasperini, M., & Veneziano, G. (2007). String Theory and Pre-big bang Cosmology. In Ruediger Vaas (Ed.), Beyond the Big Bang (Frontier Collection Series). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. . Ghosh, A., Pollifrone, G., & Veneziano, G. (1998). Quantum Fluctuations in Open Pre-Big Bang Cosmology. . Ghosh, A., Pollifrone, G., & Veneziano, G. (2000). Pre-Big Bang Cosmology and Quantum Fluctuations. . Greene, B. (1999). The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. < http://www.sciencelib.net/files/The%20Elegant%20Universe%20-%20Brian%20Green.pdf >(see also video: ). Hadjikhani, N., Liu, A. K., Dale, A. M., Cavanagh, P., & Tootell, R. B. (1998). Retinotopy and color sensitivity in human visual cortical area V8. Nat Neurosci, 1(3), 235-224; Comment in: Nat Neurosci 1998 Jul;1991(1993):1171-1993. Comment in: Nat Neurosci 1998 Sep;1991(1995):1335-1996. Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (1998). Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model of consciousness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 356, 1869–1896. Hamker, F. H. (2005). The Reentry Hypothesis: The Putative Interaction of the Frontal Eye Field, Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex, and Areas V4, IT for Attention and Eye Movement. Cereb Cortex., 15(4), 431-447. Han, S. (2016). Chapter 2 Culture, Self, and Brain: Sociocultural Influences on Neurocogntive Processes of the Self. In M. J. Gelfand & C.-Y. Chiu & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), Handbook of Advances in Culture and Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 77-112). Johnson, K. O., Hsiao, S. S., & Yoshioka, T. (2002). Neural coding and the basic law of psychophysics. Neuroscientist , 8(2), 111-121. Kastrup, B. (2016, January 17). On why Idealism is superior to Physicalism and Micropsychism. Available: http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/01/on-why-idealism-is-superiorto.html?q=On+why+Idealism+is+superior+to+Physicalism+and+Micropsychism [2016, February 2]. Keller, M. A., Turchyn, A. V., & Ralser, M. (2014). Non-enzymatic glycolysis and pentose phosphate pathwaylike reactions in a plausible Archean ocean. Mol Syst Biol , 10, 725. Koch, C. (2012). Consciousness: Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press. Koch, C., & Tononi, G. (2008). Can machines be conscious? Spectrum IEEE Trans Image Process, 45, 55-59. Lachaux, J. P., Pezard, L., Garnero, L., Pelte, C., Renault, B., Varela, F. J., & Martinerie, J. (1997). Spatial extension of brain activity fools the single-channel reconstruction of EEG dynamics. Hum Brain Mapp, 5(1), 26-47. Lamme, V. A. (2003). Why visual attention and awareness are different. Trends Cogn Sci, 7(1), 12-18.

313


)

RLP Vimal

LaRock, E. (2013). From Biological Naturalism to Emergent Subject Dualism. Philosophia Christi, 15(1), 97118. Levin, J. (2006). What is a Phenomenal Concept? In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. New essays on Consciousness and Physicalism (pp. 87-110). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and qualia: The explanatory gap. Pac Philos Quart, 64, 354–361. Libet, B., Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106 (Pt 3), 623-642. MacGregor, R. J., & Vimal, R. L. P. (2008). Consciousness and the Structure of Matter. J Integr Neurosci , 7(1), 75116. McFadden, J. (2002). The Conscious Electromagnetic Information (Cemi) Field Theory: The Hard Problem Made Easy? J Consciousness Stud, 9(8), 45-60. Meisenzahl, E. M., Koutsouleris, N., Bottlender, R., Scheuerecker, J., Jager, M., Teipel, S. J., Holzinger, S., Frodl, T., Preuss, U., Schmitt, G., Burgermeister, B., Reiser, M., Born, C., & Moller, H. J. (2008). Structural brain alterations at different stages of schizophrenia: a voxel-based morphometric study. Schizophr Res, 104(1-3), 44-60. Merker, B. (2007). Consciousness without a cerebral cortex: a challenge for neuroscience and medicine. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30(1), 63-81; discussion 81-134. Namiki, M. (2002). Chapter 18: Possible Origins of Quantum Fluctuation Given by Alternative Quantization Rules. In I. Antoniou & I. Prigogine & S. A. Rice (Eds.), Dynamical Systems and Irreversibility: A Special Volume of Advances in Chemical Physics (Vol. 122, pp. 321–329). NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Nelson, E. (1966). Derivation of the Schrödinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics. Phys. Rev., 150, 10791085. Nelson, E. (1985). Quantum Fluctuations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Northoff, G. (2014). Unlocking the Brain: Volume 2: Consciousness. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Northoff, G., & Bermpohl, F. (2004). Cortical midline structures and the self. Trends Cogn Sci , 8(3), 102-107. Northoff, G., & Duncan, N. W. (2016). How do abnormalities in the brain's spontaneous activity translate into symptoms in schizophrenia? From an overview of resting state activity findings to a proposed spatiotemporal psychopathology. Prog Neurobiol. Nurse, P. (2008). Life, logic and information. Nature, 454(7203), 424-426. Pandit Sitaram Shastri. (1973). Hindi Sankhya Darshan. Meerut, India: P. Magni Rama S. Dhram's Press . Papineau, D. (2006). Phenomenal and Perceptual Concepts. In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism (pp. 111-144): Oxford University Press. Patel, B. H., Percivalle, C., Ritson, D. J., Duffy, C. D., & Sutherland, J. D. (2015). Common origins of RNA, protein and lipid precursors in a cyanosulfidic protometabolism. Nat Chem, 7(4), 301-307.

314


)

RLP Vimal

Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pereira Jr., A. (2013). Triple-Aspect Monism: A Conceptual Framework for the Science of Human Consciousness. In A. Pereira Jr. & D. Lehmann (Eds.), The Unity of Mind, Brain and World: Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness (pp. 299-337). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pereira Jr., A., & Almada, L. F. (2011). Conceptual Spaces and Consciousness: Integrating Cognitive and Affective Processes. International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 3(1), 127-143. Pereira Jr., A., Vimal, R. L. P., & Pregnolato, M. (2015). Can Qualitative Biophysics Solve the Hard Problem? In R. R. Poznanski & J. A. Tuszynski & T. Feinberg, E. (Eds.), Biophysics of Consciousness: A Foundational Approach. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd (in preparation). Pereira Jr., A., Vimal, R. L. P., & Pregnolato, M. (2016). Ch. 5: Can Qualitative Biophysics Solve the Hard Problem? In R. R. Poznanski & J. A. Tuszynski & T. Feinberg, E. (Eds.), Biophysics of Consciousness: A Foundational Approach. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co Pte Ltd (in Press) . Peressini, A. (2013). Consciousness as Integrated Information: A Provisional Philosophical Critique. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20(1-2), 180-206. Pessoa Jr., O. (2001). What is an Essentially Quantum Mechanical Effect? . Revista Eletrônica Informação e Cognição, 3(1), 1-14. Powner, M. W., Gerland, B., & Sutherland, J. D. (2009). Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions. Nature, 459(7244), 239-242. Radhakrishnan, S. (1960). Brahma Sutra: The Philosophy of Spiritual Life. London: Ruskin House, George Allen & Unwin Ltd. . Raju, P. T. (1985). Structural Depths of Indian Thought (S U N Y Series in Philosophy). New York and New Delhi: State Univ of New York and South Asian Publishers Pvt. Ltd. . Ramachandran, V. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1998). Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind. New York: HarperCollins Publisher, Inc. Rao, K. R. (1998). TWO FACES OF CONSCIOUSNESS: A Look at Eastern and Western Perspectives. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5(3), 309-327. Rosen, R. (1991). Life Itself. New York: Columbia University Press. Rosen, R. (1998). Essays on Life Itself. New York: Columbia University Press. Rowlatt, P. (2009). Consciousness and Memory. Journal of Consciousness Studies: Special Issue on Defining consciousness (Ed. Chris Nunn), 16(5), 68-78. Roy, S. (1992). Stochastic geometry, random zero point field and quantum correction to the metric, Acta Applicandae Mathematicae (Vol. 26, pp. 209-218). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Searle, J. R. (2002). Why I Am Not a Property Dualist. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 9(12), 57-64.

315


)

RLP Vimal

Searle, J. R. (2007). Biological naturalism. In M. Velmans & S. Schneider (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness (pp. 325-334). Oxford: Blackwell. Singh, P. H. (2002). A History of the Carvakas. http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/Singh01.htm. Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs , 74(11, Whole No. 498), 1-29. Spokensanskrit.de. (2016). Spoken Sanskrit Dictionary (editable). Available: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=Lok%C4%81yata+&trans=Translate [2016, JUly 31]. Srinivasan, G. (2015a). SANKHYA KARIKA: Sutras. Available: http://www.kapillavastu.com/uploads/SANKHYA_FINAL.pdf [2016, Sept. 14]. Srinivasan, G. (2015b). Secret of Sankhya: Acme of Scientific Unification (Part 1). http://www.kapillavastu.com/. Available: http://www.kapillavastu.com/uploads/SecretofSankhyaAcmeofAxiomaticUnification.pdf [2016, Sept. 16]. Srinivasan, G. (2015c). Secret of Sankhya: Acme of Scientific Unification (Part 2). http://www.kapillavastu.com/. Available: http://sankhyakarika.webstarts.com/uploads/Secret_Sanhya_Part_2.pdf [2016, Sept. 16]. Srinivasan, G. (2015d). Secrets of Sankhya: COMPARISON OF SANKHYAKARIKA TRANSLATIONS. Available: http://www.kapillavastu.com/uploads/comparisona.pdf [2016, Sept. 16]. Stanley, R. P. (1999). Qualia space. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(1), 49-60. Stern, C., & Sherwood, E. R. (Eds.). (1966). The origin of genetics: a Mendel source book. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Swami Krishnananda. (1983). The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Rishikesh, Himalayas, India: The Divine Life Society . Swami Virupakshananda. (1995). Sāṁkhya kārikā of Iśvarakṛṣṇa with the Tattva Kaumudi of Sri Vācaspati Miśra. Mylapore, Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math . Tamulis, A., & Grigalavicius, M. (2011). The emergence and evolution of life in a "fatty acid world" based on quantum mechanics. Orig Life Evol Biosph, 41(1), 51-71. Tamulis, A., Grigalavicius, M., & Baltrusaitis, J. (2012). Phenomenon of quantum entanglement in a system composed of two minimal protocells. Orig Life Evol Biosph, 43(1), 49-66. Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neurosci, 5(1), 42. Tononi, G. (2008). Consciousness as integrated information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull, 215(3), 216242. Tononi, G. (2012). Integrated information theory of consciousness: an updated account. Arch Ital Biol , 150(4), 293-329. Tononi, G., & Koch, C. (2008). The neural correlates of consciousness: an update. Ann N Y Acad Sci , 1124, 239-261.

316


)

RLP Vimal

Tononi, G., Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M. (1994). A measure for brain complexity: Relating functional segregation and integration in the nervous system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 91(11), 5033–5037. Tononi, G., Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M. (1996). A complexity measure for selective matching of signals by the brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.USA, 93(8), 3422–3427. Vandenbroucke, A. R., Sligte, I. G., & Lamme, V. A. (2011). Manipulations of attention dissociate fragile visual short-term memory from visual working memory. Neuropsychologia, 49(6), 1559-1568. Velmans, M. (2008). Reflexive Monism. J Consciousness Stud, 15(2), 5-50. Vimal, R. L. P. (1997). Orientation tuning of the spatial-frequency-tuned mechanisms of the Red-Green channel. Journal of the Optical Society of America A , 14, 12622-12632; Errata, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12615, 12758. Vimal, R. L. P. (1998a). Color-luminance interaction: data produced by oblique cross masking. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/1998-Vimal-color-luminance-interactionjosa.pdf], 15(7), 1756-1766; Errata, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 1715, 2931. Vimal, R. L. P. (1998b). Spatial-frequency tuning of sustained nonoriented units of the Red-Green channel. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/1998-Vimal-non-orientedJOSA-1998.pdf], 15(1), 1-15. Vimal, R. L. P. (2000). Spatial color contrast matching: broad-bandpass functions and the flattening effect. Vision Research [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2000-Vimal-spatial-CMF-VR.pdf], 40(23), 3231-3243. Vimal, R. L. P. (2002a). Spatial frequency discrimination: a comparison of achromatic and chromatic conditions. Vision Research [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2002-Vimal-SFD-ach-chVR.pdf], 42(5), 599-611. Vimal, R. L. P. (2002b). Spatial frequency tuned mechanisms of the Red-Green channel estimated by oblique masking. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A Opt Image Sci Vis [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2002Vimal-R-G-oblique-masking-JOSA.pdf], 19(2), 276-288. Vimal, R. L. P. (2008a). Attention and Emotion. The Annual Review of Biomedical Sciences (ARBS) [Available: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2008-Vimal-Attention-and-Emotion-ARBS-139.pdf; updated and extended version is available at http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-Attentionand-Emotion-LVCR-3-8.pdf], 10, 84-104. Vimal, R. L. P. (2008b). Proto-experiences and Subjective Experiences: Classical and Quantum Concepts. J Integr Neurosci [Available at ; Latest update: ], 7(1), 49-73. Vimal, R. L. P. (2009a). Dependent Co-origination and Inherent Existence: Dual-Aspect Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: updated version: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Vimal-Coorigination-LVCR-7-2.pdf] [old version: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-Coorigination-LVCR-2-7.pdf][DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4421.5768], 7(2), 1-34. Vimal, R. L. P. (2009b). Meanings attributed to the term 'consciousness': an overview. J Consciousness Stud , 16(5), 9-27. Vimal, R. L. P. (2009c). Towards a Theory of Everything: Unification of Consciousness with Fundamental Forces in Theories of Physics. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research

317


)

RLP Vimal

[Available: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-TOE-LVCR-1-11.pdf] [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4845.3841], 1(11), 1-56. Vimal, R. L. P. (2010a). Consciousness, Non-conscious Experiences and Functions, Proto-experiences and Proto-functions, and Subjective Experiences. J Consciousness Exploration & Res [Available: ; ], 1(3), 383-389. Vimal, R. L. P. (2010b). Matching and selection of a specific subjective experience: conjugate matching and subjective experience. J Integr Neurosci [], 9(2), 193-251. Vimal, R. L. P. (2010c). On the Quest of Defining Consciousness. Mind Matter (Available: < http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010-Vimal-DefineC-LVCR-3-2.pdf >), 8(1), 93-121. Vimal, R. L. P. (2010d). Towards a Theory of Everything Part I - Introduction of Consciousness in Electromagnetic Theory, Special and General Theory of Relativity. NeuroQuantology [Available: ], 8(2), 206230. Vimal, R. L. P. (2010e). Towards a Theory of Everything Part II - Introduction of Consciousness in Schrödinger equation and Standard Model using Quantum Physics. NeuroQuantology [Available: ], 8(3), 304313. Vimal, R. L. P. (2010f). Towards a Theory of Everything Part III - Introduction of Consciousness in Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory and Unification of Experiences with Fundamental Forces. NeuroQuantology [Available: ; for longer version see ], 8(4), 571-599. Vimal, R. L. P. (2010g). Variable Concept of Free Will: Semi-Free Will in the extended Dual-Aspect Monism Framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2207.6884; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2010Vimal-FreeWill-LVCR-3-10.pdf], 3(10), 1-93. Vimal, R. L. P. (2012a). PRIMAL ENTITY and SCIENTIFIC RELIGIONS: Science-Religion Unification through Extended Dual-Aspect Monism and its Novel Critiques. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ] [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1471.5847], 5(3). Vimal, R. L. P. (2012b). Scientific Hinduism: Bringing Science and Hinduism Closer through Extended DualAspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ] [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1982.0485], 5(4). Vimal, R. L. P. (2013). Emergence in Dual-Aspect Monism. In A. Pereira Jr. & D. Lehmann (Eds.), The Unity of Mind, Brain and World: Current Perspectives on a Science of Consciousness (pp. 149-181). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. [Longer version is available for comments: ]. Vimal, R. L. P. (2015a). Attention, Self, Saliency Map, and Extended Dual-Aspect Monism. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: updated version: ] [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3847.8809], 7(7), 1-12. Vimal, R. L. P. (2015b). Biological Naturalism in Extended Dual-Aspect Monism and Conscious Robots. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available:

318


)

RLP Vimal

]DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2326.6008, 7(3), 1-23. Vimal, R. L. P. (2015c). Extended Dual-Aspect Monism framework: Criticisms addressed. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ] [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4292.6806], 7(4), 1-26. Vimal, R. L. P. (2015d). Meanings attributed to the term ‘Spirituality’ and Science underlying it: extended Dual-Aspect Monism. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: updated version: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Vimal-Spirituality-Meanings-LVCR7-5.pdf] Added to Research Gate: 2015-10-04. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3689.0326; added to Loop: http://www.frontiersin.org/profile/publications/43420429, 7(5), 1-36. Vimal, R. L. P. (2015e). Necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness: Extended Dual-Aspect Monism framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ] [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1587.9124], 7(1), 1-28. Vimal, R. L. P. (2015f). Segregation and integration of information: extended Dual-Aspect Monism framework. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ] [DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1974.3445], 7(2), 1-39. Vimal, R. L. P. (2016a). A dual-aspect framework for consciousness: Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ] This is updated version of the original 2014 article:[DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2464.2009], 8(4), 1-271. Vimal, R. L. P. (2016b). The extended Dual-Aspect Monism Metaphysics for Consciousness and Physics. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ], 8(2), 168. Vimal, R. L. P. (2016c). Interpretation of Death in the extended Dual-Aspect Monism. Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: ], 8(3), 1-90. Vimal, R. L. P., & Bhardwaj, S. (2015). Metaphysics, Science, Religion, and Spirituality: Bringing them Closer via Extended Dual-Aspect Monism (Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita). Vision Research Institute: Living Vision and Consciousness Research [Available: updated version: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2015-Vimal-Spirituality-Science-Closer-LVCR-7-6.pdf] Added to Academia and Research Gate: 2015-10-04. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1198.6642, 7(6), 1-14. Vimal, R. L. P., & Davia, C. J. (2008). How Long is a Piece of Time? - Phenomenal Time and Quantum Coherence - Toward a Solution. Quantum Biosystems , 2, 102-151. Vimal, R. L. P., & Davia, C. J. (2010). Phenomenal Time and its Biological Correlates. J Consciousness Exploration & Res , 1(5), 560-572. Vimal, R. L. P., & Pandey-Vimal, M.-U. C. (2007). Ancient Historical Scripture and Color Vision. Color Research and Application [Pre-print is available: http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2007Vimal-Pandey-Vimal-AncientHistScriptColVis-CRA.pdf], 32(4), 332-333.

319


)

RLP Vimal

Vimal, R. L. P., Pandey-Vimal, M.-U. C., Vimal, L.-S. P., Stopa, E. G., Renshaw, P. F., Vimal, S. P., & Harper, D. G. (2009). Activation of suprachiasmatic nuclei and primary visual cortex depends upon time of day. European Journal of Neuroscience [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/2009-Vimal-et-alSCN-EJN.pdf], 29, 399-410. Vimal, R. L. P., Pokorny, J., Smith, V. C., & Shevell, S. K. (1989). Foveal cone thresholds. Vision Res [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/1989-Vimal-foveal-cone-ratio-VR.pdf], 29(1), 61-78. Vimal, R. L. P., Pokorny, J. M., & Smith, V. C. (1987). Appearance of steadily viewed light. Vision Res. [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/1987-Vimal-steadily-viewed-light-VR.pdf], 27(8), 13091318. Vimal, R. L. P., & Shevell, S. K. (1987). A central binocular mechanism affects chromatic adaptation. Vision Res. [http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home/1987-VIMAL-SHEVELLcentral_binocular_mechanism.pdf], 27(3), 429-439. Visser, T. A., & Enns, J. T. (2001). The role of attention in temporal integration. Perception, 30(2), 135-145. Wang, X. J. (2002). Probabilistic decision making by slow reverberation in cortical circuits. Neuron, 36(5), 955-968. Weinberg, S. (1987). Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant. Physical Review Letters , 59(22), 2607-2610. Wikipedia. (2016a, July 11). Prakṛti. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prak%E1%B9%9Bti [2016, July 31]. Wikipedia. (2016b, June 6). Samkhya. Available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya [2016, July 31]. Yeshurun, Y., & Hein, E. (2011). Transient attention degrades perceived apparent motion. Perception, 40(8), 905-918.

Endnotes As per bhūtavādins in Maņimēkalai (Tamil epic), “Life originates from living matter, the body from the lifeless.” This is also consistent with the eDAM and perhaps Substance Dualism. However, Cārvākas follow materialism (life from matter). As per Stuart Hameroff (email communication on 2 March 2016), “I distinguish physicalist from materialist. Physicalism can include quantum superpositions which are not material.” 1

There are two kinds of substance dualism: (i) The eastern substance dualism metaphysics is called Sāṃkhya, where Prakṛti and Puruṣa two independent substances; Puruṣa simply is an eye-witness; it does not actively interact with Prakṛti; it ‘shines’ the processes of Prakṛti (that has causal and astral bodies like a mind/cognition and physical bodies like the matter) to experience it but does not interfere the process; thus, one could argue it passively interact. (ii) The western Cartesian substance dualism, where the mind and matter actively interact until death; this can be called the ‘interactive substance dualism’ (ISD) or simply ‘substance dualism’; they will be interchangeably used in this article. In the Sāṃkhya philosophy (E-mail communications from 28-Apr-2016 to 15-July-2016 with Vinod Kumar Sehgal), Puruṣa is only an experiencer/witness/Dristā/Sākshi and Prakṛti consists of: 2

320


(i)

)

RLP Vimal

Causal world (kāraṇ jagat) is composed of 3 Guṇas (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas), Citta/Chitta (memory), and Ahaṃkāras (false ego);

(ii)

Astral world (Sūkṣma jagat) consists of five Tanmātras (rūpa/visual form, śabda/sound, sparśa/touch, rasa/taste, and gandha/smell), Buddhi/intellect, Manas, and ten senses (5 of action/karmendriya and 5 of perception/jñānendriya); and

(iii)

Physical world (sthūla jagat) containing fermions, bosons, and four fundamental forces.

The Puruṣa has two components, namely, Ātman (self/soul) and Parmātman (fully manifested eternal Brahman, universal consciousness, or omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God). Thoughts are not fundamental; they are aggregates and are created by causal and astral bodies. As per (Rao, 1998), “The manas is the central processor which selectively reflects on the material provided by the senses and determines its character by assimilation and discrimination” (p.319). In the eDAM, the categorization of entities is based on perspectives: the 1pp-mental aspect is from first person perspective and is private. The 3pp is for public. The causal and astral bodies of Sāṃkhya are parts of the functional sub-aspect of consciousness, and conscious subjective experiences and the self (the experiencer) are parts of the experiential sub-aspect of consciousness. Each of these entities has a neural basis, is from 1pp and is private. Therefore, grouping them in the 1pp-mental aspect is justified. As per Baars (personal communication with Bernard Baars on November 20, 2015), “At this time I’m convinced by the brain imaging evidence that conscious cognition is a biological phenomenon with two sources of information - our own experiences, and our shared experiences via public phenomena. I would not call that dual-aspect theory, but rather dual-source ‘theory.’ It is a useful working frame for sensible science”. 3

What is the difference between dual-aspect and dual-source theories? My understanding is as follows: [1] The extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM) framework (Vimal, 2008b, 2010b, 2013, 2015e, 2015f): This is an extended version of dual-aspect monism that has addressed the shortcomings and problems of dual-aspect theories. An entity may have many states. A state of an entity has two inseparable aspects. The inseparability links these two sources of empirical data tightly; information is the same and is interpreted in two different perspectives. An entity could be a living or non-living system. For a living system such as our system, a conscious state of a brain-mind system has two inseparable aspects: mental aspect from first person perspective (such as our subjective experiences) and physical aspect from third person perspective (such as the related neural network and its intrinsic and extrinsic activities). Both aspects have precisely the same information; they ‘look’ different because the perspectives of ‘looking’ are different. 321


)

RLP Vimal

For a non-living system, the two inseparable aspects are qualitative aspect (such as spatiotemporal structures/patterns/forms) and physical aspect (Pereira Jr., Vimal & Pregnolato, 2016). The degree of manifestation of the mental aspect of a state of living unconscious/non-conscious system is lower than that of the conscious system. The eDAM framework has the least number of problems compared to other frameworks such as materialism, interactive substance dualism, and idealism. As per (Northoff, 2014).p.414), “qualia [what it is like], being purely subjective, cannot be observed in the rather objective neuronal activity of the brain. The search for the neuronal mechanism of qualia is therefore regarded as one of the hardest nuts to crack.” The eDAM has attempted to address this ‘hard problem’ of consciousness in (Vimal, 2015f). The eDAM is a foundational metaphysical framework; it does not contradict your GWT, Northoff’s relational ontology, Tononi’s IIT, Searle’s biological naturalism (BN), triple aspect monism (TAM), HOT, biosemiotics, etc. and is complementary to all of them as long as they are properly interpreted in terms of the eDAM. The criticisms of the eDAM are addressed in (Vimal, 2015c). If I can get more criticisms, I will try my best to address them. So far, the IIT has been interpreted in the eDAM in (Vimal, 2015f), BN that in (Vimal, 2015b), TAM that in Section 3.4, and biosemiotics in (Cottam & Ranson, 2013). The eDAM brings science & religions closer in (Vimal, 2012a, 2012b) and science, religions, & spirituality closer in (Vimal, 2015d; Vimal & Bhardwaj, 2015). [2] Dual-Source Theory (DST): As Baars wrote (personal communication), in DST, there are two sources of information: (i) our own experiences from first person perspective, and (ii) our shared experiences via public phenomena from third person perspective. In the DST, these two sources can be separated (which causes association problem), but in the eDAM, the two aspects are inseparable and are the aspects of the same state of the same entity (such as a brain-mind system). In the DST, our shared experiences may or may not include information related to the physical aspect of the same state of the same brainmind system; it could be just the consent of public about their own experiences. For example: (i) when trichromats look at the ripe tomato, they may have a consent that the color related experience is redness. (ii) We have consent on Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory in classical physics. Furthermore, it is unclear if the DST can address the above hard problem of consciousness. 4

There are two concepts of matter:

(i) First, the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, where matter has rūpa/form and has the potentiality for experiences (Pereira Jr., 2013; Radhakrishnan, 1960; Swami Krishnananda, 1983); it is used in our frameworks (Pereira Jr., 2013; Pereira Jr., Vimal & Pregnolato, 2015; Vimal, 2013). (ii) Second, the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter (who identifies matter with atoms/particles), which implies that matter is non-experiential (Vimal, 2015f); it is used in science (such as physics, chemistry, and biology). The second concept misleads materialistic biologists who make the grave mistake of following non-experiential materialism that has serious unsolvable problems and hence 322


)

RLP Vimal

cannot address the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) because it does not explain about life, especially how experiences arise from non-experiential matter. Biologists who follow Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter should not have such problems. If we want to create an experience from a brain, the brain as matter must have a potential for creating experiences; otherwise, how can brain create experiences out of ‘nothing’. For example, apple seeds have a potential to create apple tree; that is why apples can be created from apple seeds. To sum up, let us make sure that we cannot create experiences from non-experiential nonmental matter that does not even have a single trace of the potentiality of experiences. We cannot create apple out of orange seeds. Once we accept Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, then we are no more materialists; we are dual-aspect monists. The frameworks, such as the extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM), that follow the first concept of matter do not face such problems (Vimal, 2015f). In the Sāṃkhya philosophy (E-mail communications from 28-Apr-2016 to 15-July-2016 with Vinod Kumar Sehgal), Puruṣa is only an experiencer/witness/Dristā/Sākshi and Prakṛti consists of: 5

(iv) Causal world (kāraṇ jagat) is composed of 3 Guṇas (Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas), Citta/Chitta (memory), and Ahaṃkāras (false ego);

(v)

Astral world (Sūkṣma jagat) consists of five Tanmātras (rūpa/visual form, śabda/sound, sparśa/touch, rasa/taste, and gandha/smell), Buddhi/intellect, Manas, and ten senses (5 of action/karmendriya and 5 of perception/jñānendriya; they all are components of the internal 1pp-mental aspect; external karmendriya and jñānendriya are the parts of 3pp-physical aspect or physical bodies); and

(vi)

Physical world (sthūla jagat) containing fermions, bosons, and four fundamental forces.

The Puruṣa has two components, namely, Ātman (self/soul) and Parmātman (fully manifested eternal Brahman, universal consciousness, or omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God). Thoughts are not fundamental; they are aggregates and are created by causal and astral bodies. As per (Rao, 1998), “The manas is the central processor which selectively reflects on the material provided by the senses and determines its character by assimilation and discrimination” (p.319). In the eDAM, the categorization of entities is based on perspectives: the 1pp-mental aspect is from first person perspective and is private. The 3pp is for public. The causal and astral bodies of Sāṃkhya are parts of the functional sub-aspect of consciousness, and conscious 323


)

RLP Vimal

subjective experiences and the self (the experiencer) are parts of the experiential sub-aspect of consciousness. Each of these entities has a neural basis, is from 1pp and is private. Therefore, grouping them in the 1pp-mental aspect is justified. 6

Parmenides is a 5th century BC, Greek philosopher, born in Italy. He held that the universe is single and unchanging and denied the existence of change and motion. As per (Rosen, 1991), “On the formal side, we shall see that the inferential structure characteristic of relational biology is much richer than, and at the same time very different from, the formalisms we have considered heretofore. Our systems are assigned no states, no environments, and there is no recursion. [p109 …] In the relational approach, on the other hand, the situation is quite different. As I have developed it so far, there is no time parameter, no states, no state transition sequences. There are only components (mappings), and the organizations, the abstract block diagrams, which can be built from them. [p134…] In a sense, it is the thrust of this entire work that this hypothesis of analysis = synthesis must be dropped. Above all, it must be dropped if we are to do biology, and hence a fortiori, it must be dropped if we are to do physics. By dropping it, we enter a new realm of system, which I call complex, and which in certain sense needs to have no synthetic models at all. The distinction between relational and Newtonian models of natural systems will become crucial here, because as we shall see, the former extend to the realm of complex systems, while the latter cannot. [p154]”. 7

As per (Rosen, 1998), “I call a material system with only computable models a simple system or mechanism. A system that is not simple in this sense, I call complex. A complex system must thus have noncomputable models [p325].” The extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Vedānta) is a middle way (between materialism and idealism) framework. The eDAM is elaborated in (Vimal, 2008b, 2010b, 2013, 2015e, 2015f), an e-book (Vimal, 2012b) for Hinduism and another e-book (Vimal, 2012a) for other religions. 8

In the (eDAM), a state of our mind-brain system has the inseparable 1pp-mental aspect (such as subjective experience redness when a trichromat looks at a ripe tomato) and 3ppphysical aspects (such as brain’s visual area V8-neural-network and its activities related to redness). The degree of the manifestation of aspects from the primal entity (Brahman) varies with the level of states of our mind-brain system. [1pp: 1st person perspective and 3pp: 3rd pp]. We have assumed that, in Nature, the subjective experiences potentially co-exist with its inseparable physical aspect. Here, the 1pp-mental aspect consists of superposed potential basis-states related to the potential primary irreducible subjective experiences (SEs) representing the co-existence of the potentiality of experiences for us. A specific SE is realized by the matching and selection mechanism (see below). In other words, there are two robust reproducible sources of information 1pp and 3pp in our wakeful conscious life; this is empirical data that we need to explain how are they linked. In the eDAM, the doctrine of the inseparability of aspects tightly links these two sources of data. The eDAM uses dual-mode and the matching and selection mechanisms to connect qualia/subjective experience (SE, such as redness when a trichromat views a ripe tomato) to neurons: this is discussed in (Vimal, 2010b). Briefly, there are two modes: stimulus324


)

RLP Vimal

dependent-feed-forward-signals-related-extrinsic-mode and cognitive-feedback-signalsrelated-intrinsic-mode. They interact for conjugate matching and then the selection of a specific subjective experience occurs and experienced by the self (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007). For experiencing a specific SE, there are three major interacting signals: (i) stimulusdependent feed forward (FF) signals, (ii) stimuli-related-memory-dependent cognitive feedback (FB) signals, and (iii) self-related signal that is a part of reentrant FB signals. The potential SEs are embedded as memory traces in FB signals during the developmental period. The self (a) is the subjective experience of subject (Bruzzo & Vimal, 2007), (b) consists of proto-self, core-self, and autobiographical-self (Damasio, 2010), and (c) is the 1pp-mental aspect of a state of ‘self-related neural network (such as cortical and subcortical brain-stem midline structures: (Northoff, 2014; Northoff & Bermpohl, 2004)) and its activities (intrinsic activities). The matching/interaction is between FF and FB signals (or mode if we use QED); then the self-related signals/modes interact with the resultant signal/mode representing the matching between stimulus-related FF signal/mode and cognitive FB signals/mode; thus, there are interactions between the three major signals/modes; this interactive process can be called as ‘the specific SE is selected and experienced by the self’. The eDAM (extended dual-aspect monism) is NOT interactive substance dualism that has many problems. The physical aspect of a state of an entity includes both its appearance and its intrinsic nature (entity-in-itself). The 3pp-appearance of matter (such as color related V8-NN and its activities) and matterin-itself (such as V8-NN-in-itself) are inseparable and are parts of the physical aspect of a state of an entity (such as V8-NN for color). This physical aspect is inseparable with 1ppmental aspect (such as the experience redness when a trichromat views a ripetomato) of the same state of the same entity (such as V8-NN for color). Therefore, the eDAM is a monist framework because of the doctrine of inseparability. In dualism, aspects and/or subaspects are separable, for example, mind and matter can exist independently but they can interact; this metaphysics has serious problems. In any case, we cannot ignore 99.99… % of our universe that we cannot ‘see’ or we do not know; they are also the manifestation of the primal entity. I completely agree with idealists that all sciences and philosophy and everything we do in daily lives is in wakeful consciousness in mind-dependent reality (MDR). We, as physicists, usually make models (such as relativity, QM, string theory, Standard Model such as mass, charge, and the spins of 17 elementary particles, QFT and so on) in MDR and assume that they are for mind-independent reality (MIR) once we have some consensus. We do not know the intrinsic nature of matter-in-itself (although we have postulated mass, charge, and the spins of 17 elementary particles as their intrinsic nature) and consciousness-in-itself (Universal potential Consciousness: UpC), but we try our best in MDR to assume they might be for MIR. We have hypothesized that experiences (such as redness, greenness, blueness, and so on) are quantized (Hameroff, email communication on 325


)

RLP Vimal

3/6/16) as excitations of UpC, in analogy to elementary particles are quantized modes of excitations of the quantum field. In my view, the fundamental reality is the dual-aspect potential field from which both physical and mental aspects co-arise, co-evolve and co-develop and they co-exist and are inseparable; same reality but with two inseparable aspects: mental and physical. One could argue that what ways the doctrine of inseparability different from the identity theory, eliminativism, emergentism of materialism. Materialists want to either eliminate experiences or try to create experiences from nonexperiential matter (such as a brain). Thus, they have a serious problem: how can they eliminate experiences when they are the main source of empirically reproducible 1pp-data? Or how can they create experiences from non-experiential matter that does not have a single trace of experience? The identity theory and emergentism of materialism have a serious problem simply because their matter is non-experiential. An analogy: there is no way we can create oranges from apple seeds that do not have a single trace of orange. In the eDAM, we use an alternative definition of matter that has the potentiality of experiences and framed it in dual-aspect language to avoid category mistake. We postulate that a state of an entity has inseparable mental and physical aspect. The degree of manifestation of aspects varies with an entity. There are two concepts of matter: (i) First, the Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, where matter has rūpa/form and has the potentiality for experiences (Pereira Jr., 2013; Radhakrishnan, 1960; Swami Krishnananda, 1983); it is used in our frameworks (Pereira Jr., 2013; Pereira Jr., Vimal & Pregnolato, 2015; Vimal, 2013). (ii) Second, the Kaṇāda-Democritus’ concept of matter (who identifies matter with atoms/particles), which implies that matter is non-experiential (Vimal, 2015f); it is used in science (such as physics, chemistry, and biology). The second concept misleads materialistic biologists who make the grave mistake of following non-experiential materialism that has serious unsolvable problems and hence cannot address the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) because it does not explain about life, especially how experiences arise from non-experiential matter. Biologists who follow Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter should not have such problems. It is very simple if you want to create an experience from a brain, the brain as matter must have a potential for creating experiences; otherwise, how can brain create experiences out of ‘nothing’. For example, apple seeds have a potential to create apple tree; that is why apples can be created from apple seeds.

326


)

RLP Vimal

To sum up, let us make sure that we cannot create experiences from non-experiential nonmental matter that does not even have a single trace of the potentiality of experiences. We cannot create apple out of orange seeds. By the way, once you accept Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept of matter, then you are no more materialist; you are dual-aspect. The frameworks, such as the extended Dual-Aspect Monism (eDAM), that follow the first concept of matter do not face such problems (Vimal, 2015). As per (Swami Virupakshananda, 1995), “We salute the Great Muni Kapila, his disciple, the Muni Āsuri, as also Pañcaśikha and Iśvarakṛṣṇa.” 9

From Sankhya Karika as translated and interpreted by G. Srinivasan (GS). मूल प्रक्रभतर् अभवकृभतर् महद् अद्ाुः प्रक्रभत भवक्रतय: सप्त | षोडश कस् त भवकारो न प्रक्रभतर् भन भवकृभतुः परुष: ||३|| GS: Meaning: Fundamental or root resonant oscillatory [Moola Prakṛti] state is synchronised, coherent and stable; the first interactive oscillatory state is of maximum intensity; then there are seven levels of the harmonic oscillatory interactive stages followed by an expanding radiation above a sixteenth order of the fundamental value; the nuclear core [] is neither oscillatory nor harmonically interactive. Notes: The most magnificent theorem in Vedic science that defines and identifies the critical states that create the spectrum of manifest phenomena through an axiomatic interactive formulation. The unique process of intellectual verification by axioms has not been attempted in Physics. संघात पर अर्ािात् भत्रगण आभद भवपयायाद् अभधष्ठानात् | परुषो अद्धस्त िोक्तृ िावात् कैवल्य अर्ं प्रवृिेश्च || १७ || GS: Meaning: Aggregation, superposition, coherence or synchronizing, is the background motivation for initiating the three modes of interaction from the central or core location. The restful and coherent state thus created causes the reversal of the initiating states thereby causing the unhindered and continuing oscillatory state. Note: The most extraordinary definition of the core or nuclear state, which though in the apparently solid state it is only the coherent or merged or sychronised phase that makes it appear so. In this phase the freedom along all three axis is restricted because all act simultaneously which causes merging a superposing to create the coherent unified singular state. A solid state too is an oscillatory state but because the oscillations occur so close together it looks solid. जनन मरण कारणानां प्रभतभनयमाद् अयगपत् प्रवृिेश्व | परुष बहिं भसिं त्रैगण्य भवपयाया चैव || १८ || 327


)

RLP Vimal

GS: Meaning: Since the causative action leading to aggregation and dissolution or creation and destruction are not simultaneous or instantaneous at the nuclear interface, the holistic logical conclusion is that there must be many nuclei or individual core components (purusha) and also because the reversal of interactions of the triad of forces (gunas) produce multiple types of phenomenon (whereas it should have been singular otherwise.) Note: In a later theorem the principle of holographic manifestation is derived. This theorem leads up to that concept by confirming that the nucleus is not a single entity but is based on the super positioning of interactive states that creates a dense coherent singular form .

तस्मात् च भवपयाा सात् भसिं साभक्षिमस्य परुषस्य | कैवल्यम् माध्यस्त्यं द्रष्टृ िम् अकतृािावात् || १९ || GS: Meaning: From previous sutras, the conversely inferential holistic conclusion is that the nuclear state forms the passive background with particulate or inertial mass, which forms a detectable state of reference in a neutral, unhindered and un-manifest state. Note: The nuclear state forms the core to sustain the other two forms of manifest states axiomatically it is necessary to have a stable, passive and dense state to support phenomena that change its forms in one or two ways. परुषस्य दशान अर्ा कैवल्य अर्ा तर्ा प्रधानस्य | पङ्गव् अन्धवद् उियोर् अभप संयोगस् ततुः कृतुः सगाुः || २१ || GS: Meaning: Fundamental measurement of phenomenon references nucleus in an unhindered and synchronised state. Therefore the synchronised nuclear state provides the basic background to detect or measure the first, (primary or fundamental) active (manifested) state as a comparative or relative difference. Manifestation of phenomena proceeds on the principle of fulfilling the need to maintain a balance, like when a blind man and lame man team up, to behave normally and effectively. From this combination all manifested phenomena proceeds. Note: Relativistic principle is involved in the detection process. Unless a comparison is made with reference to a stable or static state the observation would not convey any meaningful conclusion. Hence the nuclear Purusha state is the eternal stable frame of reference for all detection or measurement processes. स्वां स्वाम् प्रभत पद्न्ते परस्पर अकूत हे तकं वृभिम् | परुषार्ा एव हे तर् न केनभचत कायाते करणम् || ३१ || GS: Meaning: The cyclic vortex or spherical oscillator is kept in continuous interactive exchange up to the very end (limit) only by the nuclear or core potential developed by the mutual exchange of internally motivated and triggered self similar and self organized impulse or force and there is no other external potential cause.

328


)

RLP Vimal

Notes: The oscillatory state remains in perpetual interactive state by a process of exchange of time in two modes. Self similar is a simultaneous state and self organized is a harmonic state. But the key reason by which a self potential is created is the reduction in oscillatory count at the core by merging into a dense state of simultaneous activity when all the oscillations act at the same time within a cycle. The nuclear core in the merged simultaneous state presents a negative potential of oscillatory counts reduced to single cyclic count towards which higher counts migrate. That is the only reason for an inward acceleration. This is the gravitational in ward acceleration that occurs in all bodies with a density greater than 2. There is no other cause एते प्रदीप कल्पाुः परस्पर भवलक्षणा गणभवशेषाुः | कृत्स्नं परुषस्यार्ं प्रकाश्य बिौ प्रय् अच्छ् अद्धन्त || ३६ || GS: Meaning: Spectrum of light radiation transmission process is a complex and mutually interactive guna interactive exchange sequence and it is totally controlled by the Purusha potential at the core and it is the only coherent motivating factor clearly till the end of its transmigration limit Note: Landmark theorem on the radiation of light. The potential of the nuclear core or Purasha potential is the motivating cause of the interactive Guna exchange sequence which initiates the transmigration of Light radiation and the same potential sustains the transmigration process till the end of its limit. The logic here is that the interaction in the medium continues to create the light radiation process from point to point till it reaches the end and is unlike the concept in Physics. सवं प्रत्यपिोग यस्मात् परुषस्य साधयभत बद्धिुः | सैव च भवभशन् इभष्ट पनुः प्रधान परुषान्तरं सूक्ष्मं || ३७ || GS: Meaning: A comprehensive and extraordinary use can be made in the following way. The potential of the Purusha can be attained from the minute coherent state hidden inside the Purusha by repeated precisely triggered inputs to initiate the primary interactions. Notes: This theorem is an extraordinary derivation that describes the process of extracting energy from space by triggering input of energy to create primary or large scale interactions that would yield a large amount of energy that could be used. It is a process that is similar to nuclear fission but this is applies to unrestrained space.(The Rigveda first sloka contains this theorem with 25 digit numerical proof) तन्मात्राभण अभवशेषास्तेभ्यो िूताभन पञ्च पञ्चभ्युः | एते स्मृता भवशेषाुः शान्ता घोरास् च मूढाश्च || ३८ || GS: Meaning: The self-generated vortex or vrithi or perpetual harmonic oscillator has a non synchronised or sequential level of activity up to the eight powers. While elemental matter, with mass, are formed at five levels up to the fifth power. The spectrum of activities as logically derived establishes the formulation covering all interactive states, defined as synchronised, non synchronised and superposed or coherent. 329


)

RLP Vimal

Notes: This is an axiomatic numerical derivation giving range of values in powers and is derived by an extraordinary stretch of logic based on self similarity from the previous theorems. Ten cycles being the basic unit simultaneous interactions rise by powers and the eight orders is from that derivation. The half of eight being four creates equal states. Then on initiating interactive transmigration the 4 -1 =3 and the 4+1=5 as two polarized groups as third order interactions and 5th order interactions form the five levels of matter density or mass. As Vrithi is basic it changes to higher density levels as Vikharo as photons, Vikrithi as Leptons, Prakrithi as Hadrons, Mahad as Quarks and Purusha as the central core of the blackhole state. तत्र जरा मरण कृतं दुःखम् प्राप्नोभत चेतनुः परुषुः | भलङ्गस्य भवभन वृिेुः तस्माद् दुःखं स्विावेन || ५५ || GS: Meaning: Therefore the interactive process of decaying and dying interactive stresses creates the dynamic state of the Purusha at the nuclear core through absorption of stresses. The diminishing vorticular interactive activity by the process of super positioning continues until the minimized interactions is absorbed to form the coherent state through the self similar interactive mode of action. Note: The principle of the formation of the nuclear core is a self similar process of merging by absorption. As the interactive stresses diminish, decay and die out, the dwindling counts are absorbed at the boundary of the nuclear core to form a coherent state by super-positioning of the decaying quanta through an absorption process following the rules of self similar merging of stresses. The decreasing interactive stress count increases in turn the inflow or gravitational acceleration towards the “static” core. Hence gravitation is ubiquitous. इभत एष प्रकृभत कृतो महद् आभद भवशेषिूत पयान्तुः | प्रभत परुष भवमोक्षान् अर्ा स्वार्ा इव परार्ा आरम्भुः || ५६ || GS: Meaning: Interactive oscillatory activity is initiated and perpetuated from the intense fundamental activity at the source to the final coherent superposed massive state at the isolated the nuclear boundary where the self potential balances with the reactive potential to initiate the cyclic activity. Notes: Referring to theorem 55 the process of how the nuclear region is isolated and yet the interactions continue as an oscillatory interaction. The intense force from the boundary is directed towards the nuclear core and its reaction initiates the cyclic process from the start again. The oscillation starting from the boundary as an intense inward going action towards the nucleus is drawn towards it by its self potential which isolates it but the rebounding reaction initiates the cycle from the starting point again. वत्स भववृद् भि भनभमिं क्षीरस्य यर्ा प्रवृभिर् अज्ञस्य | परुष भवमोक्ष भनभमिं तर्ा प्रवृभिुः प्रधानस्य || ५७ || GS: Meaning: The growth of a calf is due to both, milk as its food and its commencement without any apparent cause or specific instruction. In a similar way the goal of the nuclear 330


)

RLP Vimal

state to attain a state of restful balance, isolation or freedom from action-potential, is both the cause of initiating and maintaining a fundamental oscillatory state of continuous activity of the substratum. Note: An extraordinary theorem that allegorically compares two functions initiated by a single cause. By isolating the nucleus its reaction attains a balanced state and only the inward activity is detectable but not the outward reaction. It gives the impression that the oscillation is sustained by another reaction. The theorem highlights the nature of self similar activity that occurs simultaneously and proportionately that seems to hide the real cause. औत्सक्य भनवृभि अर्ं लोकुः यर्ा भक्रयास प्रवताते | परुषस्य भवमोक्षार्ं प्रवताते तिद् अव्यक्तम् || ५८ || GS: Meaning: People are motivated into maintaining a state of activity to reduce their zeal for action; similarly the unmanifest state maintains the Purusha in an isolated state free of stresses by absorbing the activity of the continuous static and kinetic balancing interactions. Notes: Another allegorical comparison is given here to show that hidden need or desire also create the motivation to act. The need to release or eliminate activity around the nuclear boundary results in an unmanifest state or the need to maintain an unmanifest state creates the motivation to eliminate activity by absorbing it into the nucleus by merging that becomes coherent prevents a detectable action. प्रकृतेुः सकमार् अत् अरं न भकभञ्चत् अस्तीभत | मे मभत्ुः िवभत या दृष्टा अस्मीभत पनना दशानम् उपैभत परुषस्य || ६१ || GS: Meaning: At the nuclear boundary the oscillatory displacement reduces to a minute angular oscillatory movement such that its very existence seems doubtful. The consequent reduction in the interactive self potential does not ever allow it to radiate detectable information again on the state of interaction of the nuclear region. Note: Cardinal theorem that defines how and why the balanced potential at the nuclear interface is not ever detectable. The angular moments of the interactions that merge at the boundary decrease the counts and thereby increase the reaction response time. As the merged count density increases the ever increasing response time is hidden by the external activity such that the nuclear boundary becomes undetectable. This is reason the nuclear region is defined as a dark and dense state unobservable from the outer boundary yet provides the potential as a ground state of the lowest count to allow higher count interactions to get absorbed. रुपैुः सप्तभिर् एव बध्नाभत आमानं आत्मना प्रकृभतुः | सैव च परुषार्ाम् प्रभत भवमोचयत्य एक रुपेण || ६३ || GS: Meaning: The oscillatory waveforms merge or superposition itself by its own inward going potential, to form the nuclear density by compressing the seven volumetric waveforms 331


)

RLP Vimal

till it equals the coherent nuclear potential. When it expands it releases all the seven volumes as one waveform simultaneously. Notes: The extraordinary principle of stress radiation through its own inner potential is explained here. The holographic mode of radiation is defined and derived in numerical terms as a ratio. Inward going interactive stresses compress seven volumetric wave forms when the radial distance is halved or density rises by 8 times and it stops when the nuclear potential is reached. On the outward expansive phase of the interaction it releases all the seven volumes simultaneously as the process radiating outward is against diminishing pressure and hence acceleration takes place. This mechanism of the compressive and expanding interaction is not derived in Physics as the space in which it occurs is considered vacuous and void of substantial qualities. तेन भनवृि प्रसवं अर्ा वशात् सप्त रुप भवभन वृिाम् | प्रकृभतं पश्यभत परुषुः प्रेक्षकवद् अवद्धस्र्तुः स्वस्र्ुः || ६५ || GS: Meaning: When the oscillatory interactions are minimised because of the reduction in activity between the boundary and nuclear core, the interactive current becomes neutral and the activities at the seven radial levels becomes insignificant, and the nuclear core as Purusha attains a dense superposed background state. Notes: The derivation in this theorem confirms the process and logic by which the nuclear surface is firm and forms the substantial background location that is precise and permanent. The oscillatory waveforms created by the interactive state reduces its count rate per cycle through merging into a coherent state whereby the surface density of interactive counts reaches a maximum while the count rate minimises to the lowest value. परुष अर्ा ज्ञानं इदं गह्यम् परमभषाणा समाख्यातम् | स्र्भर् उपभि प्रलयाुः भचन्त्यन्ते यत्र िूतानाम् || ६९ || GS: Meaning: The knowledge of the nuclear potential is encoded in this work by the great Maharishi where-in the method of intellectually ascertaining the process of manifestation of phenomenon from its origin, through its growth and till the completion of its cycle in the existing reality , is explained here. Notes: This is a confirmation that Maharishi Kapilla was the author of the theorems presented here, which are encoded and hence secret . The theory is complete for it can be intellectually verified, from its origin, development and finally to the completion of its cyclic action in reality. 10

As per (de la Pena, Cetto & Valdes-Hernandez, 2015), “The blackbody problem, the one that gave birth to quantum mechanics … The mere existence of this [SZPRF] nonthermal field is shown to have far-reaching consequences. In particular, by performing a thermodynamic and statistical analysis of an ensemble of harmonic oscillators of frequency  representing the modes of the radiation field of the respective frequency, we find that Planck’s law, as well as irreducible (quantum) fluctuations, arise as necessary consequences of allowing for the presence of the pervasive ZPF, without any assumption of discreteness.” 332


)

RLP Vimal

As per Wikipedia, “End or purpose: a change or movement's final "cause", is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom. […]Aristotle defines the end, purpose, telos, or final "cause" as that for the sake of which a thing is done.[14] Like the form, this is a controversial type of explanation in science (some of its aspects are used for instance in evolutionary biology, chaos theory, attractor and cybernetics. It is commonly claimed that Aristotle's conception of nature is teleological in the sense that Nature has goals apart from those that humans have. On the other hand, as will be discussed further below, it has also been claimed that Aristotle thought that a telos can be present without any form of deliberation, consciousness or intelligence. An example of a passage which is discussed in this context is from PhysicsII.8, where he writes 11

This is most obvious in the animals other than man: they make things neither by art nor after inquiry or deliberation. That is why people wonder whether it is by intelligence or by some other faculty that these creatures work, – spiders, ants, and the like... It is absurd to suppose that purpose is not present because we do not observe the agent deliberating. Art does not deliberate. If the ship-building art were in the wood, it would produce the same results by nature. If, therefore, purpose is present in art, it is present also in nature.[15] For example, according to Aristotle, a seed has the eventual adult plant as its end (i.e., as its telos) if and only if the seed would become the adult plant under normal circumstances.[16] In Physics II.9, Aristotle hazards a few arguments that a determination of the end (cause) of a phenomenon is more important than the others. He argues that the end is that which brings it about, so for example "if one defines the operation of sawing as being a certain kind of dividing, then this cannot come about unless the saw has teeth of a certain kind; and these cannot be unless it is of iron."[17] According to Aristotle, once a final "cause" is in place, the material, efficient and formal "causes" follow by necessity. However, he recommends that the student of nature determine the other "causes" as well,[18] and notes that not all phenomena have an end, e.g., chance events.[19] The absence of chance and the serving of ends are found in the works of nature especially. And the end, for the sake of which a thing has been constructed or has come to be belongs to what is beautiful. — Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals 645a 23, Book I, Part 5.[20] George Holmes Howison, in The Limits of Evolution, highlights "final causation" in presenting his theory of metaphysics, which he terms "personal idealism", and to which he invites not only man, but all (ideal) life; at p. 39: Here, in seeing that Final Cause – causation at the call of self-posited aim or end – is the only full and genuine cause, we further see that Nature, the cosmic aggregate of phenomena and the cosmic bond of their law which in the mood of vague and inaccurate abstraction we call Force, is after all only an effect... Thus teleology, or the Reign of Final Cause, the reign of ideality, is not only an element in the notion of Evolution, but is the very vital cord in the notion. The conception of evolution is founded at last and essentially in the conception of Progress: but this conception has no meaning at all except in the light of a goal; there can be no goal unless there is a Beyond for everything actual; and there is no such Beyond except through a spontaneous ideal. The presupposition of Nature, as a system undergoing evolution, 333


)

RLP Vimal

is therefore the causal activity of our Pure Ideals. These are our three organic and organizing conceptions called the True, the Beautiful, and the Good. However, Edward Feser argues, in line with the Aristotelian and Thomistic tradition, that finality has been greatly misunderstood. Indeed, without finality, efficient causality becomes inexplicable. Finality thus understood is not purpose but that end towards which a thing is ordered. When a match is rubbed against the side of a matchbox, the effect is not the appearance of an elephant or the sounding of a drum, but fire. The effect is not arbitrary because the match is ordered towards the end of fire which is realized through efficient causes.[21] In their theoretical study of organism, more specifically propagating organisation of process, Kauffman et al. remark (p30) Our language is teleological. We believe that autonomous agents constitute the minimal physical system to which teleological language rightly applies.[22] Perceptual control theory, developed by William Powers, offers a consistent and rigorous explanation of human behaviour in terms of intentional purpose with the control of sensory experience focused and controlled towards the attainment of a hierarchy of goals. 12

Bhagavad Gita Chapter II - Verse 23 & Verse 24: नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राछि नैनं दहछि पावक: | न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयछि मारुि: || 23|| nainaṁ chhindanti śhastrāṇi nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ na chainaṁ kledayantyāpo na śhoṣhayati mārutaḥ Weapons cannot shred the soul, nor can fire burn it. Water cannot wet it, nor can the wind dry it. (BG 2.23). अच्छे द्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एव च | छनत्य: सववगि: स्थािुरचलोऽयं सनािन: || 24|| achchhedyo ’yam adāhyo ’yam akledyo ’śhoṣhya eva cha nityaḥ sarva-gataḥ sthāṇur achalo ’yaṁ sanātanaḥ The soul is unbreakable and incombustible; it can neither be dampened nor dried. It is everlasting, in all places, unalterable, immutable, and primordial. (BG 2.23).

As per (Service, 2015), “The origin of life on Earth is a set of paradoxes. In order for life to have gotten started, there must have been a genetic molecule—something like DNA or RNA—capable of passing along blueprints for making proteins, the workhorse molecules of life. But modern cells can’t copy DNA and RNA without the help of proteins themselves. To make matters more vexing, none of these molecules can do their jobs without fatty lipids, which provide the membranes that cells need to hold their contents inside. And in yet another chicken-and-egg complication, protein-based enzymes (encoded by genetic molecules) are needed to synthesize lipids. 13

334


)

RLP Vimal

Now, researchers say they may have solved these paradoxes. Chemists report today that a pair of simple compounds, which would have been abundant on early Earth, can give rise to a network of simple reactions that produce the three major classes of biomolecules— nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids—needed for the earliest form of life to get its start. Although the new work does not prove that this is how life started, it may eventually help explain one of the deepest mysteries in modern science. “This is a very important paper,” says Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist and origin-of-life researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who was not affiliated with the current research. “It proposes for the first time a scenario by which almost all of the essential building blocks for life could be assembled in one geological setting.” Scientists have long touted their own favorite scenarios for which set of biomolecules formed first. “RNA World” proponents, for example suggest RNA may have been the pioneer; not only is it able to carry genetic information, but it can also serve as a proteinlike chemical catalyst, speeding up certain reactions. Metabolism-first proponents, meanwhile, have argued that simple metal catalysts, as opposed to advanced protein-based enzymes, may have created a soup of organic building blocks that could have given rise to the other biomolecules. The RNA World hypothesis got a big boost in 2009. Chemists led by John Sutherland at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom reported that they had discovered that relatively simple precursor compounds called acetylene and formaldehyde could undergo a sequence of reactions to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotide building blocks, showing a plausible route to how RNA could have formed on its own—without the need for enzymes—in the primordial soup. Critics, though, pointed out that acetylene and formaldehyde are still somewhat complex molecules themselves. That begged the question of where they came from. For their current study, Sutherland and his colleagues set out to work backward from those chemicals to see if they could find a route to RNA from even simpler starting materials. They succeeded. In the current issue of Nature Chemistry, Sutherland’s team reports that it created nucleic acid precursors starting with just hydrogen cyanide (HCN), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and ultraviolet (UV) light. What is more, Sutherland says, the conditions that produce nucleic acid precursors also create the starting materials needed to make natural amino acids and lipids. That suggests a single set of reactions could have given rise to most of life’s building blocks simultaneously. Sutherland’s team argues that early Earth was a favorable setting for those reactions. HCN is abundant in comets, which rained down steadily for nearly the first several hundred million years of Earth’s history. The impacts would also have produced enough energy to synthesize HCN from hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen. Likewise, Sutherland says, H2S was thought to have been common on early Earth, as was the UV radiation that could drive the reactions and metal-containing minerals that could have catalyzed them. That said, Sutherland cautions that the reactions that would have made each of the sets of building blocks are different enough from one another—requiring different metal catalysts, for example—that they likely would not have all occurred in the same location. Rather, he 335


)

RLP Vimal

says, slight variations in chemistry and energy could have favored the creation of one set of building blocks over another, such as amino acids or lipids, in different places. “Rainwater would then wash these compounds into a common pool,” says Dave Deamer, an origin-oflife researcher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who wasn’t affiliated with the research. Could life have kindled in that common pool? That detail is almost certainly forever lost to history. But the idea and the “plausible chemistry” behind it is worth careful thought, Deamer says. Szostak agrees. “This general scenario raises many questions,” he says, ‘and I am sure that it will be debated for some time to come.’ ” As per (Powner, Gerland & Sutherland, 2009), “At some stage in the origin of life, an informational polymer must have arisen by purely chemical means. According to one version of the 'RNA world' hypothesis this polymer was RNA, but attempts to provide experimental support for this have failed. In particular, although there has been some success demonstrating that 'activated' ribonucleotides can polymerize to form RNA, it is far from obvious how such ribonucleotides could have formed from their constituent parts (ribose and nucleobases). Ribose is difficult to form selectively, and the addition of nucleobases to ribose is inefficient in the case of purines and does not occur at all in the case of the canonical pyrimidines. Here we show that activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides can be formed in a short sequence that bypasses free ribose and the nucleobases, and instead proceeds through arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates. The starting materials for the synthesis-cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycolaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate-are plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules, and the conditions of the synthesis are consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models. Although inorganic phosphate is only incorporated into the nucleotides at a late stage of the sequence, its presence from the start is essential as it controls three reactions in the earlier stages by acting as a general acid/base catalyst, a nucleophilic catalyst, a pH buffer and a chemical buffer. For prebiotic reaction sequences, our results highlight the importance of working with mixed chemical systems in which reactants for a particular reaction step can also control other steps.” As per (Bracher, 2015), “The spontaneous syntheses of some of life's building blocks from simple precursors have previously been demonstrated in isolation. Now it has been shown that they might all emerge from just one set of ingredients.”

336