| Scientific Basis of Consciousness | |||
When you describe (2) and reference "brain-based" and "neuroscience" terms, is the approximate "explanation" for why the self is said to die due to the Neuron Theory in that once the neurons rot away there cannot possibly be any neural and synaptic activity and thus obvious end of self?
I raise this question/query sort of in light of the storyline I advocate where, in my model I have nested structural coding going on in stacks of ordered water forming internal representations of surroundings (and thus self) forming in the energy-related aerobic respiration reaction. This structural coding goes on within neurons and other cells and parallel with or perhaps cooperatively interactive with the neural networking and other structural coding.
Upon the death, the structural coding of the stacks of ordered water, as in the (1) option could just continue on, let's say, going through various re-orderings in the similarly structured and coordinated surroundings and regenerative cycles. If we are basically talking about continuations of particular natural structures or coordinations, then this sort of model could give some account for both (1) and (2).
I suppose, to get technical, various psychic phenomena (astral travel, remote viewing, OOBE could work along a similar "structural" or resonance pathway. The so-called "self" would be "in or related with ordered water structural coding" and not so much with the neural activity, although locally, both are related.
Thoughts?
Best regards,
--Ralph
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:07 PM 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via Scientific Basis of Consciousness wrote:
Namaste,
The major debate is between (1) independent eternal self/experiencer without a brain or brain-like systems (which claims self survives death as Sankhya and Vedanta and theist religions claim) and (2) self/experiencer is brain-based (which means when we die, self also dies as neuroscience claims). So far, all scientific data favor (2). However, how can we be sure about this conclusion based on neuroscience?
Health benefits can be derived from both views.
Cheers!
Kind regards,
Rām
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision Research Institute Inc, Physics, Neuroscience, & Consciousness Research Dept.
25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
Ph: +1 978 954 7522; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907
Researched at the University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools
On Friday, 22 November, 2019, 03:00:20 pm GMT-5, BVK Sastry <sastry.bvk@gmail.com> wrote:
Namaste
This precisely is the reason for seeking the dialogue between Modern Science (Consciousness researchers) and Yoga-Science Researchers !
Each has some thing special; and each team is not fully aware of the other side's strengths !
A unified effort will help for delivering the benefit: Health (Individual and Public).
The science teams are locked to their instruments and philosophies of preferred nature ! And on the top of it carry a preferential orientation of what 'Yoga/ yoga-science/ Yoga-state of Samadhi' means !
the Yoga-Science teams and practitioners have serious misunderstanding on ' Practice and Philosophy' of Science teams.
So
Regards
BVK Sastry
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment