Subjective experiences of space and time

[ark]

Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal, Professor (Research) at Vision Research Institute (VRI) and Dristi Anusandhana Sansthana (DAS) and Vision Research Institute, 428 Great Road, Suite 11, Acton, MA 01720, USA has sent me today one of his new papers, asking for my opinion as a physicist.

The paper is a mixture of neurophysiology, philosophy and physics. But there is a large part of the papers of R. L. P. Vimal that should be understandable for non-specialists in any of these domains. I would like to know what all of you interested in "subjective experiences" and the problems of counsciousness think about these issues. The web site, from which some of the papers can be downloaded is:

http://www.geocities.com/rlpvimal/

ark

 

[SeekingtheTruth]

I tried the link you provided and it was unavailable.

 

[GRiM]

"Sorry, this GeoCities site is currently unavailable."

edit: works now. (4h later)

 

[Nawd]

Hmmm it worked fine for me.

I know what I'll be reading this evening.

"Sorry, this GeoCities site is currently unavailable."

 

[GRiM]

Hmmm it worked fine for me.

I know what I'll be reading this evening.

"Sorry, this GeoCities site is currently unavailable."

odd, now it works for me too, did exactly the same thing aka. clicked the link.

 

[John G]

Back in 2003 I saw Hameroff, Penrose and Chalmers give a talk. Chalmers seemed to enjoy bringing up a little disagreement between Penrose and Hameroff where Hameroff the medical doctor felt consciousness (SEs) was built in at the "single string" level while Penrose the physicist figured it was something emergent at a higher level. I personally like the Hameroff (at least in 2003) view which means I agree with that part of Vimal's work. At that same 2003 conference I saw Henry Stapp have a nice chat with a poster presentator from India. Stapp seemed to very much enjoy the discussion and the presentor from India was clearly awed to have Stapp taking such an interest in her work. The Indians have kind of nice way of having philosophy and science mixed much like 4th Way cosmology. For the first two papers I kind of quickly read through, I didn't overly like Shiva being related to Big-Bang and Big Crunch and left over SEs I think? mainly cause I don't like the Big Crunch but if you exchange Big Crunch with vacuum/zero point field maybe the idea might work if I read it a little more carefully? Relating Brahma and Vishnu to physical and mental didn't work for me at all, it actually would fit better the other way around I think. The PEs/biology and Chalmersish technical philosophy stuff I skimmed over mostly cause its not something I'm overly familiar with though I'll read the papers again more carefully later plus read the ones I didn't read at all yet. I do in general like the Penrose-Hameroff quantum consciousness model mainly cause it fits (with slight modification) with Tony Smith's physics model.