archive-com.com » COM » T » THULASIDAS.COM

Total: 429

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • What is Real? Discussions with Ranga. - Unreal Blog
    be a good thing I look at it as though it may actually be detrimental to original thought Taken to the extreme such blind assimilation may result in your opinions becoming mere regurgitation of these classical schools of thought Besides as Hermann Hesse implies in Siddhartha wisdom cannot be taught It has to be generated from within Ranga s words are colored Green or Blue when quoted for the second time Mine are in White or Purple when quoted for the second time Mon May 21 2007 at 8 07 PM I m to different extents familiar with the distinction philosophers and scientists make in terms of phenomenal and physical realities from the works of Upanishads to the Advaitas Dvaitas to the Noumenon Phenomenon of Schopenhauer and the block Universe of Special Relativity and even the recent theories in physics Kaluza and Klein The insight that what we perceive is not necessarily what is existed in a variety of ways from a long time However such insights were not readily embraced and incorporated in all sciences There is a enormous literature on this in neuroscience and social sciences So it is indeed very good that you have attempted to bring this in to physics by recollecting our previous discussion on this by reading through your introduction to the book in the website and understanding the tilt of your paper could not find it in the journal has it been accepted To suggest that there could be superluminal motion and to explain known phenomena such as GRBs through a quirk in our perception even in the physical instruments is bold and needs careful attention by others in the field One should always ask questions to cross perceived boundaries in this case of course the speed of light However it is quite inaccurate and superficial in my opinion to think that there is some absolute reality beyond the reality we encounter While it is important to know that there are multiple realities for different individuals in us and even different organisms depending on senses and intellect it is equally important to ask what reality is after all when there is no perception If it cannot be accessed by any means what is it anyway Is there such a thing at all Is Absolute Reality in the movement of planets stars and galaxies without organisms in them Who perceives them as such when there is nobody to perceive What form do they take Is there form In applying philosophy which I read just as deeper and bolder questions to science which I read as a serious attempt to answer those questions you cannot be half way in your methods drawing imaginary boundaries that some questions are too philosophical or too theological for now While your book the summary at least seems to bring home an important point at least to those who have not thought in this direction that the reality we perceive is dependent on the medium mode light in some cases

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/what-is-real/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive


  • What is Real? Discussions with Ranga. - Page 2 of 15 - Unreal Blog
    that our senses collect are presumably caused by Brahman but they represent only an incomplete aspect of it They are then relayed to our brains The brain creates a cognitive model a representation of the sensory inputs and presents it to our conscious awareness as reality Our visual reality consists of space precisely as our auditory world is made up of sounds Just as sounds are a perceptual experience rather than a fundamental property of physical reality space also is an experience or a cognitive representation of the visual inputs not a fundamental aspect of Brahman that our senses are vying to sense The phenomenal reality thus created is Maya This description of how Maya is created is not perfectly in line with Advaita Vedanta which emphasizes the unity and indivisibility of Brahman and does not accept any duality between our senses and what is sensed Our dualistic description ushers in a tricky philosophical question Who or what creates Maya and where It is not created by our senses brain and mind because these are all objects in Maya Maya cannot create itself It cannot be that Brahman itself creates a Maya because in that case Maya would be as real as Brahman This philosophical quandary can be addressed in the following way We assume that all events and objects in Maya have a cause or form in Brahman Thus we postulate that our senses mind and body all have some unknown forms in Brahman and these forms create Maya in our conscious awareness This may not be tight enough as arguments go but this is the best I could come up with Do let me know your thoughts cheers Manoj Share this Click to share on Reddit Opens in new window Click to share on Voat Opens in new

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/what-is-real/2/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • What is Real? Discussions with Ranga. - Page 3 of 15 - Unreal Blog
    further an explanation for absolute reality all such explanations are at best illusions or Mayas in themselves By removing or pealing away the so called perceptual errors one cannot reach absolute reality because every process pealing away involves using the same senses and intellect other products of which we are trying to peal away This is at once a humbling yet rejuvenating insight This does not mean we should stop trying to explain the world around us or we will be able to we are as living beings compelled to do as is our wont We don t know any other way Every organism tries to explain its phenomenal world in someway by simply reacting to it and behaving in it We feel that our behavior is our theory of the universe We hope that we can live better by explaining our surroundings better Anyway this is how I feel The causal relationship between Brahman and Maya is not necessarily linear even by any stretch of theorizing Brahman does not have to be seen as an agent with a purpose to cause the signals to fall on our senses which in turn create a model of the surroundings that in turn are presented to our conscious awareness etc leading to Maya or illusion One cannot hope to circumvent the problem of who creates Maya by explaining away by a certain purpose or form As much as Brahman cannot be reached by pealing away all the perceptual errors Brahman or noumenon cannot also be reached by summating all beings phenomenal world You may imagine a being having all possible senses and intellect of bats echolocation of elephants infrasensing etc But that means you would then embody the whole noumena itself in that being Here I may be incoherent to you as I m just typing away very fast as thoughts occur to me What this means to me is that Brahman and Maya are one and the same To make this more understandable to ourselves at the cost of fouling it up it can be seen as the constant flux in the Brahman constant interaction of the universe the objects and beings in it as manifestation of the phenomenon This interaction begets a certain differentiation the identification of objects and beings as individuals and the need for the survival of these individuals The birth of this differentiation is the beginning of the phenomenal world I m not talking in terms of evolution or emergence of life here The critical insight that we are actually part of a whole is the death of this differentiation and the resubmission to the Brahman the realization of this is called Atman This does not happen in us allegedly except in extreme circumstances so called Nirvana or Samadhi and certainly not in a sustained way And hence our constant need to be individualist and different and to prove our difference and make theories about the world we see around us So to sum it up the

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/what-is-real/3/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • What is Real? Discussions with Ranga. - Page 4 of 15 - Unreal Blog
    agent with a purpose to cause the signals to fall on our senses which in turn create a model of the surroundings that in turn are presented to our conscious awareness etc leading to Maya or illusion Well if Brahman doesn t cause Maya who what does What this means to me is that Brahman and Maya are one and the same As all statements in Hinduism this one also is mystical They are the same but they are also distinct from each other as you point out below To make this more understandable to ourselves at the cost of fouling it up it can be seen as the constant flux in the Brahman constant interaction of the universe the objects and beings in it as manifestation of the phenomenon This interaction begets a certain differentiation the identification of objects and beings as individuals and the need for the survival of these individuals The birth of this differentiation is the beginning of the phenomenal world I m not talking in terms of evolution or emergence of life here The critical insight that we are actually part of a whole is the death of this differentiation and the resubmission to the Brahman the realization of this is called Atman This does not happen in us allegedly except in extreme circumstances so called Nirvana or Samadhi and certainly not in a sustained way And hence our constant need to be individualist and different and to prove our difference and make theories about the world we see around us I think normal death not Nirvana or Samadhi is the end of the individual differentiation knowledge etc To the extent that we remember nothing and know first hand nothing from before our birth we come from nothing And our death has to be a merging with nothingness or everythingness that is Brahman So to sum it up the point I would like to make is that the notion of Absolute Reality separate from Reality is flawed This point I m not sure I agree with To the extent that Maya is a manifestation or projection of Brahman they are the same But they are also distinct as sound is different from air pressure waves or smell is different from chemicals Or as a Njana yoga book put it heat is different from fire The notion that one can reach the AR through better analysis of R is even more flawed This I agree with But we may not have to get to AR to understand our perceived R better So what does that leave us with That if you explain something such as GRBs you are explaining both the AR and R because they are intertwined Further the beauty of this that any theory conceivable proven or disproved falsifiable or not in a scientific method explains both AR and R because the explanations are products of our senses and intellect which are parts of our world If we have perceived it it should be

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/what-is-real/4/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • What is Real? Discussions with Ranga. - Page 5 of 15 - Unreal Blog
    we have yet to fathom some of these concepts What this means to me is that Brahman and Maya are one and the same As all statements in Hinduism this one also is mystical They are the same but they are also distinct from each other as you point out below Our scientific attitude makes us hypocritical about other ideas concepts and fields of knowledge More importantly it has forced us to take positions It has to be either this or that if not it is mystical When one cannot relate to or understand simultaneity of seemingly contradictory ideas one relegates them to the mystical This is a malady with science that one has to get away from A certain humility and perplexity at things that one does not understand is very necessary Many things that science is coming to grips with now was previously thought to be mysterious Many conclusions arrived in Hinduism or any other older methods of enquiry were based on subjective reflection perhaps not on the so called objective analysis but it was just another method and it had its merits The notion of something being different at the same time being same is one of these difficult concepts Science has to learn to accept contradictions and stay with contradictions without taking position but that is questioning the very method of science itself To make this more understandable to ourselves at the cost of fouling it up it can be seen as the constant flux in the Brahman constant interaction of the universe the objects and beings in it as manifestation of the phenomenon This interaction begets a certain differentiation the identification of objects and beings as individuals and the need for the survival of these individuals The birth of this differentiation is the beginning of the phenomenal world I m not talking in terms of evolution or emergence of life here The critical insight that we are actually part of a whole is the death of this differentiation and the resubmission to the Brahman the realization of this is called Atman This does not happen in us allegedly except in extreme circumstances so called Nirvana or Samadhi and certainly not in a sustained way And hence our constant need to be individualist and different and to prove our difference and make theories about the world we see around us I think normal death not Nirvana or Samadhi is the end of the individual differentiation knowledge etc To the extent that we remember nothing and know first hand nothing from before our birth we come from nothing And our death has to be a merging with nothingness or everythingness that is Brahman One can say that too The reason I mentioned Samadhi is that it is considered to be a state of being with awareness and yet a sublimation into the Brahman However I have not experienced Samadhi or death oxymoron a state of non being so I cannot say But it is anybody s guess

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/what-is-real/5/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • What is Real? Discussions with Ranga. - Page 6 of 15 - Unreal Blog
    and the bat come up with the same angle doesn t mean that the space as you both see the PR is the same Space can be very different in different sense modalities The bat s space obeys relativity while yours obeys classical mechanics But your explanations of the phenomenal world for example GRBs are not based on any aspect of AR at all as it is not accessible to us by our own definition So starting off with a framework of AR as in your block diagram of AR Perception Cognition Perceived Reality Measurements Science is 1 misleading 2 not necessary as it is not used at all in the explanation of GRB I m afraid I don t agree with you here either The GRB explanation is based on the assumption that AR obeys classical mechanics CM not special relativity SR while PR obeys SR In my block diagram goes like this AR CM Perception Cognition Perceived Reality SR Measurements Science The critical point in the explanation of GRB is the questioning of the light barrier which was created by a previous theory and not by any aspect of this framework Not quite The critical point is that it is the PR that obeys SR We don t know anything about the mechanics obeyed by AR But we can certainly work out what kind of PR we would get if AR obeyed CM It turns out that we would get something similar to SR indicating that CM is a good candidate for the mechanics of AR Thus the light barrier exists only in PR not in AR This new theory has to be explained in terms of how to falsify and test it With more perceptual observations one can then prove or disprove this theory If one does not recognize this one gets into conceptual confusion My notion I don t know if it is profound enough to be called a theory is merely that AR doesn t have to obey SR It doesn t have to obey CM either but if it did we would get a PR much like the space we perceive with the strange properties in sensing motion It looks so obvious to me but I m having such a hard time communicating it much less convincing anybody Further one may mislead people into believing that science by rigorous analysis can help to see absolute reality even if one intends not to perpetuate this notion I think you should especially avoid this notion in your book In my book I state it repeatedly that AR is beyond our grasp comprehension it is unknowable etc Even when I state that CM is a possible candidate for AR I take some trouble to explain that it is only ONE possible candidate there may be others PR to AR mapping is one to many very many in fact This question is based on the assumption of a traditional notion of causation that something has to cause something

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/what-is-real/6/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • What is Real? Discussions with Ranga. - Page 7 of 15 - Unreal Blog
    a little bit to assume you are not very different from me and others so what you decide for yourself may also apply to me My question was about this what is the perceptual reality that you are trying to explain with light as being the most important entity Are you explaining it for yourself a for all human race b or for all beings in the universe c This is important to be clarified upfront I m afraid I don t agree with you here either The GRB explanation is based on the assumption that AR obeys classical mechanics CM not special relativity SR while PR obeys SR In my block diagram goes like this AR CM Perception Cognition Perceived Reality SR Measurements Science Now now we have to go at this carefully First I m no longer sure what you hold AR for although you also say it is not accessible I thought it was the Absolute Reality akin to Brahman or Noumenon that we will never know of The more important point is even if we guessed it right we will never be able to test it If it is so one can assume it as obeying whatever one wants even as a pot of boiling water Mind you I understand the elegance of taking AR as CM so that you arrive at PR as SR This is an attractive proposition that has not missed me But it is a proposition that shoots itself in the foot albeit boldly Not quite The critical point is that it is the PR that obeys SR We don t know anything about the mechanics obeyed by AR But we can certainly work out what kind of PR we would get if AR obeyed CM It turns out that we would get something similar to SR indicating that CM is a good candidate for the mechanics of AR Thus the light barrier exists only in PR not in AR As I have said I can understand the temptation of this proposition It is too attractive to pass even Schopenhauer fell for it read Brian Magee s Confessions of a Philosopher I understood your tilt already from your paper But how can you test that the light barrier exists only in the PR You will have to show that the light barrier does not exist in the AR Or do I miss something I hope that in arriving at a complicated solution we have not forgotten the simple premises we started with that AR is not reachable and testable My notion I don t know if it is profound enough to be called a theory is merely that AR doesn t have to obey SR It doesn t have to obey CM either but if it did we would get a PR much like the space we perceive with the strange properties in sensing motion It looks so obvious to me but I m having such a hard time communicating it much

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/what-is-real/7/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive

  • What is Real? Discussions with Ranga. - Page 8 of 15 - Unreal Blog
    am talking about it is the PR that is created by light Specifically the perception of motion as measured using light About the presence of other senses that don t seem to rely on light all the interactions that we are capable of sensing are of electromagnetic variety And photon is the mediating boson for EM interactions in QED So it can be argued that we sense only EM matter using photon I have quite a bit more about it in my book About the blind man s sense of space the answer lies in the role of language in creating our reality Language serves to normalize our separate perceptual realities In order to appreciate its role fully we have to find someone who didn t have a language for sometime and then acquired it Like Helen Keller I went into it in some detail in the book My point is if you had a bunch of isolated blind people as a blind civilization with its own language I don t think they will have a cognitive representation of space Again another assertion that cannot be tested or verified Coming back to the need to validate my model for AR we have a pretty good idea of how our senses work at a macro level I mean when we look at a star a million light years away we know that what we are seeing is what happened a million years ago This time delay is a first order effect of the finite speed of light A second order effect is the manifestation of the finite speed of light in our perception of motion We cannot deconvolute out this manifestation from our perception of motion one reason why the PR AR mapping is one to many However given a model we can certainly verify whether it is consistent with our PR Just like verifiability falsifiability is also a required feature of a theory I do list a couple of features of GRBs and radio jets that if observed would prove that my theory is wrong The reason for light to be special in my explanation is not my physicist s preference in terms of mass energy equation the validity of which I m slightly skeptical of right now It is just because space is the representation of our sight sense Much like sound is a product of hearing an analogy I go into in some length in the book When we see things moving in our space representation our brain s assumption is that the speed of light is infinite The deconvolution I was talking about modeling AR from PR is an effort to imagine a space where the speed of light is really infinity You then apply the finite speed and work out how our perception will be distorted due to this finite speed SR the coordinate transformation part is really a mapping of the speed of light to infinity Again a notion I illustrate in the book I

    Original URL path: http://www.thulasidas.com/what-is-real/8/ (2016-02-16)
    Open archived version from archive



  •