Tattva-viveka
Science
Nitaisundara Das - April 3, 2009 3:15 am
Post scientific news and topics relevant for general spiritual practitioners and devotees.
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 4, 2009 3:59 am
There is a great emugence of alternative energy production such as those using Teslas electric production and many others. Might be a good topic. I just met with some one producing a wind machine that fuctions with 2 batteries and an inverter that produces 5kw that can be roof mounted. FEMA has ordered 1500 of them if it actually can be proven to work.
A lot of power companies are now installing these inverters which can be seen if you look up at the power grid. They are about 1 foot square little black boxes and are replacing the transformers filled with toxic chemicals.
They convert dc to ac.
Nitaisundara Das - April 4, 2009 4:21 am
I have onl heard about the Tesla thing briefly from a big conspiracy theory devotee, so I have never given it much thought. The new wind technology sounds interesting and article-worthy, do you have any links to info?
Vamsidhari Dasa - April 4, 2009 6:47 pm
Post scientific news and topics relevant for general spiritual practitioners and devotees.
Since I am a "scientist" I would like to have a clearer definition of what you mean by relevant. I think that many things could be relevant. For example, new anti-depressant might be relevant to those spiritual practitioners that are on medications. So I know that you have a very hard job of doing all of this but it would help me have more narrow definition. Thanks/
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 4, 2009 6:55 pm
I think book reviews can be also categorized according to different sections instead of having them as a separate category by themselves.
There is a lot of overlap between psychology/social issues, religion/philosophy and relevance of science to us. I guess, things which have overlap can be put into any of those categories.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 4, 2009 7:20 pm
There is a question which Audarya-Lila can address better.
Is mutation is mistake and how can it be incorporated into theistic philosophy.
For instance I was reading how they could identify genes which lead to lesser intellectual abilities. And scientists want to find a way to fix these problems. So people argue that the design of the designer was imperfect if at all there is any order at all. Hence, scientific research which can continue without interruptions from moral and religious concerns(eg stem cell research) can turn the tide.
This was not a great article, but a recent finding in India. Surely can get better articles than that. This is what I was reading.
IISc, Nimhans scientists identify gene causing braindisorder
5 Apr 2009, 0014 hrs IST, Prashanth G N, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
BANGALORE: In a breakthrough that could allow detection of brain defects in foetuses, researchers from the Indian Institute of Science (IISc)
and Nimhans have discovered a gene that causes microcephaly, a disorder in which the brain is of reduced size, affecting mental and intellectual faculties.
The finding will help thousands of expectant mothers in detecting the deformity (by identifying the gene) at the foetal stage, something that can prevent children with brain disorders
from being born.
This is the first time that the gene, named STIL, has been shown to cause microcephaly. The discovery comes after nine years of research collaboration between teams of Satish C Girimaji, department of psychiatry, Nimhans, and Arun Kumar, department of molecular reproduction, development and genetics, IISc. The findings have been published in the latest issue of the International Journal of Human Genetics.
Primary microcephaly is a congenital disorder characterized by asmaller-than-normal brain size and retardation, mostly affecting the cerebral cortex. Previously, mutations in four genes had been shown to cause this disorder.
``We have shown that mutations in a new, fifth gene called STIL too causes this brain disorder,'' a researcher said.
The gene, which is otherwise crucial for the normal development of the brain, sometimes behaves abnormally; a particular sequence and mutations of the gene lead to the disorder.
Nimhans identified people with microcephaly at its retardation clinic, and after securing their consent, decided to study them to understand factors causing the disorder. Girimaji and his team at Nimhans meticulously recorded clinical data from the afflicted people which was taken up by Arun Kumar and his team at IISc for genetic analysis. This revealed the role of the fifth gene and its mutations in microcephaly.
The discovery of the gene is expected to make diagnosis of the microcephaly brain disorder easier -- a screening tool can be developed to detect the presence of this gene at the foetal stage. The value of the research also lies in the fact that the detection of the very presence of the gene can help identify symptoms
of brain disorder.
Madan Gopal Das - April 4, 2009 10:39 pm
For example, new anti-depressant might be relevant to those spiritual practitioners that are on medications.
Because you are a psychological scientist, I would put this info into the psycho/social area... I would like to see something about medications for mental illness in there.
Nitaisundara Das - April 5, 2009 2:56 am
Since I am a "scientist" I would like to have a clearer definition of what you mean by relevant. I think that many things could be relevant. For example, new anti-depressant might be relevant to those spiritual practitioners that are on medications. So I know that you have a very hard job of doing all of this but it would help me have more narrow definition. Thanks/
I guess when I said relevant I meant to devotees and/or general contemporary spiritual discourse... I do not know how GM thinks but new anti-depressants for example seem a little too broad to me. If we go that route we could include tons of content that would just be like PSA's. Maybe we can do that more if we start to publish like every other day or something. Now if there was for example, new studies (or maybe even not so new) about depression and meditation, or depression amongst a certain demographic, like hindus, theists, or atheists, that would be more relevant I think. there will of course be lots of trial and error.
Nitaisundara Das - April 5, 2009 2:57 am
I think book reviews can be also categorized according to different sections instead of having them as a separate category by themselves.There is a lot of overlap between psychology/social issues, religion/philosophy and relevance of science to us. I guess, things which have overlap can be put into any of those categories.
yea that is a good idea about book reviews. When there is overlap I think we can just decide who takes upa project according to interest and background familiarity etc.
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 5, 2009 5:47 am
I have onl heard about the Tesla thing briefly from a big conspiracy theory devotee, so I have never given it much thought. The new wind technology sounds interesting and article-worthy, do you have any links to info?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Just one of many examples is in 1894 he developed wireless communitation and was stopped from implimenting it by Edison and others like Hertz and Faraday, but now we have it.
PBS has this http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/index.html this gives a history of some of his accomplishments
http://www.ntesla.org/index.php a history of a forgotten American Scientist.
Vamsidhari Dasa - April 5, 2009 4:51 pm
Because you are a psychological scientist, I would put this info into the psycho/social area... I would like to see something about medications for mental illness in there.
Actually, "scientist-practitioner", what is psychological scientist 
? Got it!
Vamsidhari Dasa - April 5, 2009 4:51 pm
I guess when I said relevant I meant to devotees and/or general contemporary spiritual discourse... I do not know how GM thinks but new anti-depressants for example seem a little too broad to me. If we go that route we could include tons of content that would just be like PSA's. Maybe we can do that more if we start to publish like every other day or something. Now if there was for example, new studies (or maybe even not so new) about depression and meditation, or depression amongst a certain demographic, like hindus, theists, or atheists, that would be more relevant I think. there will of course be lots of trial and error.
OK thats helpful.
Prahlad Das - April 5, 2009 5:22 pm
There was a posting (I forget which one it was) that addressed medical marijuana. I think a sub-category of science might be medical (or even biological) science in which the devotees might address issues such as anti-depressants, medical benefits or drawbacks of vegetarianism, medical marijuana etc...
Other sciences, such as technology can be under another sub-heading. Just a thought.
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 6, 2009 2:32 pm
There is a question which Audarya-Lila can address better.Is mutation is mistake and how can it be incorporated into theistic philosophy.
For instance I was reading how they could identify genes which lead to lesser intellectual abilities. And scientists want to find a way to fix these problems. So people argue that the design of the designer was imperfect if at all there is any order at all. Hence, scientific research which can continue without interruptions from moral and religious concerns(eg stem cell research) can turn the tide.
This was not a great article, but a recent finding in India. Surely can get better articles than that. This is what I was reading.
IISc, Nimhans scientists identify gene causing braindisorder
5 Apr 2009, 0014 hrs IST, Prashanth G N, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
BANGALORE: In a breakthrough that could allow detection of brain defects in foetuses, researchers from the Indian Institute of Science (IISc)
and Nimhans have discovered a gene that causes microcephaly, a disorder in which the brain is of reduced size, affecting mental and intellectual faculties.
The finding will help thousands of expectant mothers in detecting the deformity (by identifying the gene) at the foetal stage, something that can prevent children with brain disorders
from being born.
Gaura Vijaya I am not sure exactly what you wish me to comment on here. Genetic mutations and the mechanisms by which they happen are what makes biodiversity a reality. It is the reason we have variations in allelic frequencies in populations and why, over time, species adapt and/or evolve.
I'm not sure about incorporating scientific facts regarding mechanisms of biodiversity into theistic philosophy other than to say that nature is endlessly mutable. I will say that the field of bioethics comes directly into play and the article you posted is at the foundation of such. Knowledge is one thing, but what you do with it is quite another. Being able to determine the sex of a fetus has led to killing of untold numbers of babies in utero because the sex was undesirable to the parents. Genetic testing can reveal all sorts of 'problems' with a fetus and then parents can make judgements as to the value of the life of such 'defective' babies. because abortion is legal - and some would argue desirable given certain information - this leads to many important ethical questions. By what measure will we judge if a life is worth living? It is obvious that as we gain more knowledge the ability to screen for traits we want or don't want becomes increasing possible and probable.
Gandiva Dasi - April 6, 2009 3:12 pm
This is an old New York Times article from 2005
'How India Reconciles Hindu Values and Biotech" pretty bizarre
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/weekinreview/21mishra.html
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 6, 2009 3:54 pm
Gaura Vijaya I am not sure exactly what you wish me to comment on here. Genetic mutations and the mechanisms by which they happen are what makes biodiversity a reality. It is the reason we have variations in allelic frequencies in populations and why, over time, species adapt and/or evolve.
I'm not sure about incorporating scientific facts regarding mechanisms of biodiversity into theistic philosophy other than to say that nature is endlessly mutable. I will say that the field of bioethics comes directly into play and the article you posted is at the foundation of such. Knowledge is one thing, but what you do with it is quite another. Being able to determine the sex of a fetus has led to killing of untold numbers of babies in utero because the sex was undesirable to the parents. Genetic testing can reveal all sorts of 'problems' with a fetus and then parents can make judgements as to the value of the life of such 'defective' babies. because abortion is legal - and some would argue desirable given certain information - this leads to many important ethical questions. By what measure will we judge if a life is worth living? It is obvious that as we gain more knowledge the ability to screen for traits we want or don't want becomes increasing possible and probable.
Yes that is what I was wanting you to comment. Where should we draw the line? After knowing the defects before a child's birth, is abortion alright seeing the anxiety the child and the parents will undergo? Or do we recommend just accepting all this as their karma?
The other thing is as most mutations are "harmful", this fact is used to deny the role of any directed force in nature. Basically saying that if there is any God, this is a very non-optimal attempt of an intelligent God. Hence a contradiction. hence complete randomness of nature is a logical conclusion. In fact that is the strongest evidence against any directed force in nature most people come up with. So I wanted you to comment on that.
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 6, 2009 6:18 pm
There is much to be said and debated about regarding how humans should use their value judgements to make decisions regarding the worth any partiuclar life. Where I personally draw the line is with genetic counseling prior to conception - I think that has it usefulness and does inform couples what their changes are regarding passing on heritable diseases. Some couples may choose not to have children but rather to adopt based on their genetics and the changes of have a child with, for instance, muscular dystrophy. I think that is perfectly fine. Where I have an issue is using testing on the fetus to make decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy. It's one thing to know possibilities and to not 'roll the dice' it's an entirely different affair when the dice are rolled and then someone decides to fix the numbers.
Regarding the randomness of point mutations - yes the process is random and it is obviously not a process that is controlled by divine intervention directing it for specific outcomes. So what? I don't find the arguments of athiests that go something like this: "If there is a God, He would not create in this fashion because it is flawed for this reason....." very compelling. Mutations happen - that is a scientific fact. They are random - another fact (although exposure to mutagens increases the frequency). Most are harmful, another fact. I don't see these facts as any particular challenge to theology.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 6, 2009 8:28 pm
There is much to be said and debated about regarding how humans should use their value judgements to make decisions regarding the worth any partiuclar life. Where I personally draw the line is with genetic counseling prior to conception - I think that has it usefulness and does inform couples what their changes are regarding passing on heritable diseases. Some couples may choose not to have children but rather to adopt based on their genetics and the changes of have a child with, for instance, muscular dystrophy. I think that is perfectly fine. Where I have an issue is using testing on the fetus to make decision whether or not to continue a pregnancy. It's one thing to know possibilities and to not 'roll the dice' it's an entirely different affair when the dice are rolled and then someone decides to fix the numbers.
Regarding the randomness of point mutations - yes the process is random and it is obviously not a process that is controlled by divine intervention directing it for specific outcomes. So what? I don't find the arguments of athiests that go something like this: "If there is a God, He would not create in this fashion because it is flawed for this reason....." very compelling. Mutations happen - that is a scientific fact. They are random - another fact (although exposure to mutagens increases the frequency). Most are harmful, another fact. I don't see these facts as any particular challenge to theology.
Testing randomness involves testing through statistical fitting. Obviously it is random according to human observation, whether it is inherently random cannot be said, right?
Basically the argument that most mutations are random and harmful and that there is no divine intervention is opposing Christian theology and many times even literal Vedic theories of creations. So if you could write on this topic and say how you feel that it doesn't challenge GV paradigm, it can be useful.
Vedanta opposes Vaisesikha and Nyaya for the reason that these schools feel that isvara is not really involved in material creation at all. We believe Isvara as Sambhu and then through his representative Brahma is actively involved in creation atleast to some extent
Complete randomness in mutations certainly can challenge any assumption of directionality in creation.
Maybe I will try to send you some papers which use randomness of mutation as an argument against most theological beliefs.
It would be good if you can address because I personally do feel that complete randomness is a challenge against theology which presupposes some order and direction in every process. Complete randomness can mean laws of karma are not really working in material nature and God has left nature completely free to do whatever it likes.
Prahlad Das - April 6, 2009 9:34 pm
Perhaps the bigger the picture, and the more finite the perspective...the more random things appear.
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 6, 2009 11:42 pm
I'd be interested as to how people who feel that mutations must be directed would propose that they are. The biology is well established. Without mutations the field of genetics wouldn't even exist because it is mutations that allowed for the study and characterization of genes. Point mutations are mutations in a single base pair. This leads to a change in the amino acid being encoded by whatever triplet the base is in. That leads to a change in protein primary, secondary and tertiary structure (maybe) That's the simple description.
There have been plenty of studies that prove that mutations are random and, yes, the studies are based on statistics. We are talking about the laws of physics and chemistry here, so don't expect any room for divine intervention. I suppose if you are looking for a divine mechanism that selects which mutations to pass on you could propose that natural selection is that very mechanism. At any rate what we are talking about here is the machine called the body. I suppose the reason Christians struggle with this is that they don't seem to be quite clear as to what is spirit and what is matter.
I know reductionists believe that matter at some point evolves to the point of consciousness but that is definitely in the realm of pure speculation and based on adherence to a particular world view that posits that everything can be explained through the pinciples of physics.
Nitaisundara Das - April 7, 2009 12:19 am
That's the simple description.
:Hypnotized: if you say so 
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 7, 2009 6:23 am
Well said in many ways Audaryra-lila das although the randomness is still controled. (the tetra helix is there but directed) Krsna enters every atom and the the individual prevades every atom in its body also (ksetrayuga). I do not know the exact verse.
Our daughter was asked to be aborted, 5 different visits were schedule and the insurance company had 5 seperate doctors try to convince Ksiro not to go through with this great gift.
I believe that His Divine Grace mentioned that children like ours are on their last birth if we can bring them to Krsna conciousness.
Deductive reasoning is the only way to understand any of this properly and that is relying on shastra, sadhu and sanga ( when Krsna plays his flute land becomes fluid and water solid etcetra (cant remember that verse either)). All other is speculation and inductive reasoning. Things may appear one way but are entirely out of our scope of actuall understanding, so we must look to authority, as it is and that is Krsna. A rain cloud in the sky is a nuclear reaction but when we get near nuclear radiation it is not good for the body in most instances. Randomness is controled although we may not know the mechanism.
Braja-sundari Dasi - April 7, 2009 12:44 pm
Randomness is controled although we may not know the mechanism.
I agree with you. How with our narrow vision can we determine that something is not under control only because we would like it to happen the other way? This is Christian influence- God is good therefore if there is anything in this world that we perceive as evil it is done by Devil. And atheists use the same to prove that God does not exist
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 7, 2009 3:29 pm
I'd be interested as to how people who feel that mutations must be directed would propose that they are. The biology is well established. Without mutations the field of genetics wouldn't even exist because it is mutations that allowed for the study and characterization of genes. Point mutations are mutations in a single base pair. This leads to a change in the amino acid being encoded by whatever triplet the base is in. That leads to a change in protein primary, secondary and tertiary structure (maybe) That's the simple description.
There have been plenty of studies that prove that mutations are random and, yes, the studies are based on statistics. We are talking about the laws of physics and chemistry here, so don't expect any room for divine intervention. I suppose if you are looking for a divine mechanism that selects which mutations to pass on you could propose that natural selection is that very mechanism. At any rate what we are talking about here is the machine called the body. I suppose the reason Christians struggle with this is that they don't seem to be quite clear as to what is spirit and what is matter.
I know reductionists believe that matter at some point evolves to the point of consciousness but that is definitely in the realm of pure speculation and based on adherence to a particular world view that posits that everything can be explained through the pinciples of physics.
I never was trying to prove God through science. But I wanted to write convincingly that the empirical evidence people use as a case against God is not so. And we can discuss about bioethics etc and some parallels between some issues in science and spirituality. I never had a proposal to prove God through science. Evolution has complexities like epigenetic mechanisms which can point to some kind of Lamarckian component in evolution and so many others things like punctuated periods in evolutions are there to add to more complexities. Obviously you know better than that and you gave a nice simplistic explanation of all things.
Going back to history, first empirical evidence started overturning all accounts in the Bible( 7 day creation theory etc). Hence intellectual Christians had to look for other proofs of God and make an allegorical presentation of the Bible. So theologians conceived of three proofs of God: two ontological proofs( logical ones first by Anselm and then by Descartes) and the argument by design. In course of time, the ontological proofs were dismantled because people like Hume and Russell could easily find contradictions in the logic. It is agreed now, logic is inconclusive in proving or disproving God and there is no reason for things in nature to follow human logic. So human logical/mathematical models/statistical models have to tested with empirical data for their verification.
There was only one evidence remaining to be dismantled conclusively: argument by design. After pushing all the literal stories of the Bible to the background,Christian intellectuals accepted allegorical explanations of the Bible. Atleast there was a belief that the whole creation is an idea in the mind of God( Hegel, Emerson etc also concurred with this view). But through the quest to interpret mutations as completely random and nature as completely random, people from Russell to Dawkins to Hitchens argued that it is highly improbable that there is any idea in creations. Creation is all about copying errors and mutations are mistakes. These mutations somehow through so many billions of years of evolution in one corner of the universe gave rise to structures like humans, reptiles etc. Certainly the probability of this event is very remote but the event occurred in this tiny fragment of the universe, that structure was realized. These are their views. So all these views dismantle the theory that the idea of human or any species can exist from beginning. As these are product of just error propagation in genes. And hence argument by design has been dismantled too and so has any other theory like laws of karma etc. yes there is as much probability of these things as there is of fire not burning my finger tomorrow, according to Russell. So I don;t really understand what you mean when you say science is not a problem for theology at all.
There are some scientists, few in number, who have opposed that view. And no, I am not talking about Christian ID proponents.
I suggest you can read, Werner Arber who was a Nobel Prize Winner and Professor of biology. Thankfully he is not a Christian or practitioner of any faith so you can rely on him more. He says, " Evolution does not occur on the basis of errors, accidents or action of selfish genetic elements. Rather, the evolution genes must have been fine-tuned for their functions to provide and to replenish a wide diversity of life forms."
He adds," According to me, the populations of living beings occasionally produce genetic variants by using three qualitatively different strategies. One is gene acquisition strategy . Second is a reshuffling of DNA segments within the genome. This process is mediated by specific recombination enzymes. The third strategy is to generate genetic variants which bring about small local changes in the DNA sequences, such as substitution of a nucleotide or deletion or insertion of one or a few nucleotides. These latter changes can occur upon DNA replication because of limited stability of nucleotides. In literature, such local changes are often described as error or mistakes. However, I consider this to be unfair interpretation of the observations. From my point of view, such local changes in DNA sequences are a direct consequence of the slight structural and chemical instability of the nucleotides. As a scientist I have learnt not to believe too much in dogmatic theories given in textbooks".
So these are the kinds of things I was looking for, that there are multiple interpretations of the same data possible. Obviously one of the interpretations may dominate but that can be for reasons other than objectivity. More to do with comfort level of researchers and funding direction etc.
And then the other thing, how do you test something is random? On this account a famous physicist Wolfgang Pauli opposed the complete randomness conclusion of the biologist. Obviously the biologist with very less knowledge of math compared to him could not understand his arguments well. The defintion of randomness comes from mathematical statistics. And it is seen that complete randomness in a smaller sample space can be actually randomness with a directed distribution in a larger sample space. Similarly randomness in the human observation space could be actually directed randomness in a bigger space which is beyond human observation. This is the gist of the arguments of Pauli in my words, though his paper is very complex to understand. If you want, I can send you the paper.
So I understand your response is lukewarm about all these ideas and you are free to reject this direction of thought. So you can write on bioethics issue etc for harmonist. I wish I could have a face to face talk with you to discuss these ideas in detail.
I am sorry to put such a long story for all those who are not interested.
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 9, 2009 7:51 am
Going back to history, first empirical evidence started overturning all accounts in the Bible( 7 day creation theory etc).
Whos' 7 days? yours, bhramas, vivishvans, demo gods, vikuntaloka residence. So it can and is true as a matter of relevance and reference.
The bible began in and the old testament was written during the previous Yuga where men lived to be 1,000 years old relevant to our current life span.
God can be proven scientificly and has been when the amino acid in a bottle reaction took place when a current was put through the container. A soul had to make it happen. Assembled the necessary ingrediants and turned on the switch for the current.
Audarya-lila Dasa - April 9, 2009 2:56 pm
Whos' 7 days? yours, bhramas, vivishvans, demo gods, vikuntaloka residence. So it can and is true as a matter of relevance and reference.
The bible began in and the old testament was written during the previous Yuga where men lived to be 1,000 years old relevant to our current life span.
God can be proven scientificly and has been when the amino acid in a bottle reaction took place when a current was put through the container. A soul had to make it happen. Assembled the necessary ingrediants and turned on the switch for the current.
Best to leave these kinds of ideas out of the Harmonist. The existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. The experiment you are referring to was a very early experiment to see what might have happened naturally in earths early environment. No one was there in the earths early environment to turn on the switch - the electrical storms were part of the environment. At any rate ideas about the early environment have evolved since that experiemnt. Most scientists think the first organizing and self replicating molecules were RNA molecules, not proteins. I know that devotees used to like to present the process of devotional service as a kind of science - but it doesn't meet the actual criteria because of the subjectivity of consciousness.
You'd also have a hard time trying to convince most people that the life span of a human was 1000 years. The average life span has gone up in recent times due to advances medicine, so most people will not believe in such stories just because they are written in books that some people believe are 'revealed' knowledge. Chromosomes has ends that are telomeres and with each mitotic event the telomere is shortened and eventually the cells can no longer divide. Most cell types can go about 50 generations and then they can no longer survive. Human cells have a sort of built in obsolescense.
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 9, 2009 3:13 pm
Best to leave these kinds of ideas out of the Harmonist. The existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. The experiment you are referring to was a very early experiment to see what might have happened naturally in earths early environment. No one was there in the earths early environment to turn on the switch - the electrical storms were part of the environment. At any rate ideas about the early environment have evolved since that experiemnt. Most scientists think the first organizing and self replicating molecules were RNA molecules, not proteins. I know that devotees used to like to present the process of devotional service as a kind of science - but it doesn't meet the actual criteria because of the subjectivity of consciousness.
You'd also have a hard time trying to convince most people that the life span of a human was 1000 years. The average life span has gone up in recent times due to advances medicine, so most people will not believe in such stories just because they are written in books that some people believe are 'revealed' knowledge. Chromosomes has ends that are telomeres and with each mitotic event the telomere is shortened and eventually the cells can no longer divide. Most cell types can go about 50 generations and then they can no longer survive. Human cells have a sort of built in obsolescense.
That is nonsense. Someone had to throw the switch or the experiment would not work. You can not prove that things just happen without someone behind them. It all starts with Krsna as the Gita and the Bible and any other doctrine has stated. God says and it is, as it is, deductive reasoning is the only thing that works. You are hear because of your parents etcetra and it is world as it is now and forever ( controled by the divine) as Maha Vishnu breaths in and out.
As to part 2 Mathusala and Elijah and others are discribe as being over 700 years old and gives us a glimpes into what the Gita says. And the bible talks of this change when it says now you will now live 4 score and 7 years and the bhagavatam speaks of the yuga changes, you are right God has put in a built in obsolescense. I do not know the exact verses but it is there. As the bhagavatam says we are given so many breaths and that is it. Only Guru and grace can extend it.
Sorry it does not work for you and it does not matter what others think, it is, as it is. The sun will be there for us tomorrow whether we like it or not and Krsna decides when it will stop.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 9, 2009 4:17 pm
Best to leave these kinds of ideas out of the Harmonist. The existence of God cannot be proven scientifically. The experiment you are referring to was a very early experiment to see what might have happened naturally in earths early environment. No one was there in the earths early environment to turn on the switch - the electrical storms were part of the environment. At any rate ideas about the early environment have evolved since that experiemnt. Most scientists think the first organizing and self replicating molecules were RNA molecules, not proteins. I know that devotees used to like to present the process of devotional service as a kind of science - but it doesn't meet the actual criteria because of the subjectivity of consciousness.
You'd also have a hard time trying to convince most people that the life span of a human was 1000 years. The average life span has gone up in recent times due to advances medicine, so most people will not believe in such stories just because they are written in books that some people believe are 'revealed' knowledge. Chromosomes has ends that are telomeres and with each mitotic event the telomere is shortened and eventually the cells can no longer divide. Most cell types can go about 50 generations and then they can no longer survive. Human cells have a sort of built in obsolescense.
I agree with you Audarya Lila. It is best to say that science is inconclusive in proving or disproving God. So my main attempt is to to thwart the arguments of science to support atheism. And try to see the other side of arguments to balance things out so that people have to rely on revelation for conclusive knowledge and they can start earnest spiritual practice to make themselves eligible for revelation.
Nitaisundara Das - April 9, 2009 4:50 pm
If this conversation is going to continue can I humbly suggest we move it elsewhere?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 9, 2009 4:54 pm
If this conversation is going to continue can I humbly suggest we move it elsewhere?
It is over by me. I am sorry to have extended it.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 17, 2009 4:39 pm
From whatever I have seen this is the most concise explanation of the scientific method possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_model
I think it is important for devotees preaching to know something about it. In addressing the limitations of science there are two things to be addressed:
1) The limitations of the scientific method itself which are addressed by many people now.
2) The fact that in practical science the scientific method is not followed. A fact addressed very well by Thomas Kuhn and co.
Something related is confirmation holism and Occam's razor.
Gauravani Dasa - May 22, 2009 12:37 pm
NPR produced a series entitled "The Science of Spirituality," available here: http://www.npr.org/news/specials/2009/brain/
Gaura-Vijaya Das - August 27, 2009 12:23 pm
This blog has a letter by Darwin that is very interesting, showing that he is moved to see the suffering of the world and finds it hard to reconcile that an omnipotent and benevolent lord could design a wasp for humans to suffer.
http://gaurangakishore.blogspot.com/2009/0...o-asa-gray.html
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 15, 2010 2:54 pm
Such a painful and naive research on religion.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/sp...how/5448188.cms
Atmananda Dasa - February 23, 2010 1:08 am
New website by Madhavendra Puri prabhu (ISKCON devotee) regarding evolutionary theory.
Madan Gopal Das - February 23, 2010 9:09 am
I started reading this from the beginning, realizing that I needed a PhD just to get through all the scientific terminology. At first I was unusually intrigued; wow, a devotee who really knows his stuff... and he didn't seem to be making drastic jumps to faith based arguments. Peptides, acids, helices, you name it - sounds good to me! So I started scrolling, intrigued by the thought of hearing a good scientific argument from a devotee who seems to be working within the scientific framework to establish some kind of "design" argument... Then he makes a pretty drastic jump to Dr. Stevenson's work (recently showcased on Harmonist) which kept my attention because it's so very cool. But I started thinking that this is the part where the more serious scientific minds start feeling uncomfortable with his presentation. But hey, maybe we'll stick around to see where he's going with this. I hold down the scroll key and a couple phrases pop out at me so I stop. He's making arguments for design, and I want to see how he does it. Hold on now, this is brilliant:
Objective verification of Krishna’s existenceOne of the main principles of bhakti yoga is compassion for conditioned selves who are infatuated with their physical bodies and therefore repeatedly suffer old age, disease, death and rebirth, not to mention the psychological suffering resulting from ahankara (envy, greed, lust, anger, illusion, frustration, etc). Thus practitioners of bhakti yoga make great sacrifices to inform conditioned selves of the benefits of bhakti yoga. One of the most effective ways to do this is to distribute books such as Bhagavad-gita As It Is (Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, 2007), Srimad-Bhagavatam (Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, 2006) and Caitanya Caritamrta (Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, 2006) through the internet or in public places. I have personally gone out thousands of times in the last thirty years to distribute these books in public places all over America and Europe.
This activity provides, in a striking way, objective verification of Krishna’s existence and His control of physical phenomena. The number of books distributed and the amount of donations collected are significantly influenced by the performance of activities unrelated to book distribution but pleasing to Krishna. Dozens of practitioners of bhakti yoga I have known over the last thirty years can easily attest to this phenomenon. A professor of psychology or sociology could apply professional techniques (such as control groups) and thus quantify this phenomenon and publish it in a peer-reviewed, professional journal.
A good example of this is the following routine that is very pleasing to Krishna and hence is performed every morning by serious practitioners of bhakti yoga all over the world: Mangala-arotika (a group meditation from 4:30 to 5:00), Tulasi Puja (worship of an exalted devotee of Krishna named Tulasi from 5:00 to 5:15), Japa (individual chanting of the Hare Krishna mantra from 5:15 to 7:15), Guru Puja (worship of the spiritual master until 7:45), Srimad-Bhagavatam class until 8:30, and Prasadam (eating a breakfast consisting exclusively of vegetarian food offered first to Krishna). During the last thirty years I have regularly attended this morning routine and have experienced many times that whenever I miss any part of this routine I distribute significantly less books and get less of a donation per book than on days in which I have attended this entire morning routine.
What can I say, he's convinced me! Where do I sign up? The great thing about this article is it spans the whole universe of scientific method to absolute faith in one fell swoop! Yay! So easy...
Bijaya Kumara Das - February 23, 2010 8:15 pm
I have onl heard about the Tesla thing briefly from a big conspiracy theory devotee, so I have never given it much thought. The new wind technology sounds interesting and article-worthy, do you have any links to info?
sorry for such a late reply, the company has gone with another group of people because they would not listen to my contact and I have not heard anything more
Atmananda Dasa - February 23, 2010 9:28 pm
I started reading this from the beginning, realizing that I needed a PhD just to get through all the scientific terminology. At first I was unusually intrigued; wow, a devotee who really knows his stuff... and he didn't seem to be making drastic jumps to faith based arguments. Peptides, acids, helices, you name it - sounds good to me! So I started scrolling, intrigued by the thought of hearing a good scientific argument from a devotee who seems to be working within the scientific framework to establish some kind of "design" argument... Then he makes a pretty drastic jump to Dr. Stevenson's work (recently showcased on Harmonist) which kept my attention because it's so very cool. But I started thinking that this is the part where the more serious scientific minds start feeling uncomfortable with his presentation. But hey, maybe we'll stick around to see where he's going with this. I hold down the scroll key and a couple phrases pop out at me so I stop. He's making arguments for design, and I want to see how he does it. Hold on now, this is brilliant:
What can I say, he's convinced me! Where do I sign up? The great thing about this article is it spans the whole universe of scientific method to absolute faith in one fell swoop! Yay! So easy...
I think it's a good article too. It just moves me. I would like to hear the impressions of someone who understands the scientific stuff well if there is anyone here on TV who has anything to say about that, let's here it please.
Madan Gopal Das - February 24, 2010 1:41 am
Sorry my sarcasm wasn't portrayed well Atmaji. I thought the article was very poor. I was pleasantly surprised to see a devotee making a presentation like he does in the first unlimited pages of biological discussion. He followed through with my normal expectation of such a presentation by his incredibly simplistic, non-scientific, and intellectually unimpressive direction for the argument and subsequent conclusion. To have the whole gamut present in one person, in one article just seems strange and I can't see it appealing to either serious devotees or serious scientists. After all, these two ideas are naturally opposed - science and faith. Because I'm not a man of science, I'm easily impressed. But I don't know if his arguments are good. Because I'm a man of faith in his same tradition, I'm not easily impressed with his philosophical arguments and let me tell you - trying to establish faith in the existence of Krsna based on sadhana practice correlating with book distribution results is a very poor argument and one that is a joke to think could be researched and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Atmananda Dasa - February 24, 2010 4:26 am
Sorry my sarcasm wasn't portrayed well Atmaji. I thought the article was very poor. I'm was pleasantly surprised to see a devotee making a presentation like he does in the first unlimited pages of biological discussion. He followed through with my normal expectation of such a presentation by his incredibly simplistic, non-scientific, and intellectually unimpressive direction for the argument and subsequent conclusion. To have the whole gamut present in one person, in one article just seems strange and I can't see it appealing to either serious devotees or serious scientists. After all, these two ideas are naturally opposed - science and faith. Because I'm not a man of science, I'm easily impressed. But I don't know if his arguments are good. Because I'm a man of faith in his same tradition, I'm not easily impressed with his philosophical arguments and let me tell you - trying to establish faith in the existence of Krsna based on sadhana practice correlating with book distribution results is a very poor argument and one that is a joke to think could be researched and published in peer-reviewed journals.
:Just Kidding: .... I thought it was kind of charming. Maybe that is because I know the author and he is a really sweet fellow whom I admire a lot. But I see your point. 
Madan Gopal Das - February 24, 2010 12:19 pm
:Just Kidding: .... I thought it was kind of charming. Maybe that is because I know the author and he is a really sweet fellow whom I admire a lot. But I see your point.
Personal relationship is everything. If I met him I'd hope to like him too, just thought his logic was really bad, filled as it was with good intention.
Babhru Das - February 24, 2010 8:44 pm
I"ve also known Madhavenra Puri for a long time. He a nice guy, very likeable, and sincere in his efforts to serve. His faith seems simple, which is not to say it has not been tested (it certainly has), but that it seems uncluttered. He's not cool in the sense of being hip, but he is cool in the sense that he's authentic. I guess some may say that he's geeky. But whatever life throws t him, he persists in his sadhana and in what he sees as his service.
When I read this piece (or, more accurately, tried to read it) I wasn't sure he has much sense of who his audience is. He buries us in a lot of scientific jargon, then suddely switches to proving Krishna's existence with book distrbution scores. Rather odd. I have a definition of a writer that I've shared with my 6200+ students over the years: aan individual who uses lagnuage to discover meaning in experience and communicate it. Madhavandra missed the communication boat here.
Atmananda Dasa - February 25, 2010 2:10 am
I"ve also known Madhavenra Puri for a long time. He a nice guy, very likeable, and sincere in his efforts to serve. His faith seems simple, which is not to say it has not been tested (it certainly has), but that it seems uncluttered. He's not cool in the sense of being hip, but he is cool in the sense that he's authentic. I guess some may say that he's geeky. But whatever life throws t him, he persists in his sadhana and in what he sees as his service.
When I read this piece (or, more accurately, tried to read it) I wasn't sure he has much sense of who his audience is. He buries us in a lot of scientific jargon, then suddely switches to proving Krishna's existence with book distrbution scores. Rather odd. I have a definition of a writer that I've shared with my 6200+ students over the years: aan individual who uses lagnuage to discover meaning in experience and communicate it. Madhavandra missed the communication boat here.
Yeah, I geuss he could use some guidance in his presentation. He's certainly not lacking in the technical knowledge.
Bijaya Kumara Das - February 26, 2010 7:34 am
:Just Kidding: .... I thought it was kind of charming. Maybe that is because I know the author and he is a really sweet fellow whom I admire a lot. But I see your point.
agreed.
The main thing is that it works for him as proof.
Our conciousness does have and effect and there are people like George Noory of coast to coast am covering the results. He had an individual on that has proof of how conciousness on a world basis exist, although they can only see the results after the fact. They used the data from the sensors placed world wide that actually shows spikes such as 911, the sunami off of India, the Thailand ocean surge etcetra. He even thinks that his audience helped move the huricane away from Florida a few years ago.
There is a serious group of indiviuals now working on singulartiy and group conciousness world wide.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 2, 2010 6:05 pm
Depression can be good sometimes according to this article, which also speaks about Darwin's depression.
Gauravani Dasa - March 24, 2010 12:08 pm
I don't have time to watch all these but I'm sure some of the same arguments would come up in the context of preaching:
Actually, now that I think about it, that title is pretty funny: no one in the "Face-Off" has a future from the material point-of-view 
Swami - March 24, 2010 11:21 pm
I don't have time to watch all these but I'm sure some of the same arguments would come up in the context of preaching:
Actually, now that I think about it, that title is pretty funny: no one in the "Face-Off" has a future from the material point-of-view
As to the final question of the discussion, I think that we cannot objectively prove that we even exist. Meanwhile few would question the value of the subjective experience that we do. Thus third person methods of arriving at truth may not be comprehensive and relying exclusively on them is impractical, while first person methods are not without practical value and may very well be more comprehensive than third party methodologies.
I thought Deepak missed a good opportunity to make the case that naturalism is as much a metaphysical position as his spiritual worldview is.
Harris was the most impressive, but he left me itching to reply to some of his points.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - March 25, 2010 2:29 am
As to the final question of the discussion, I think that we cannot objectively prove that we even exist. Meanwhile few would question the value of the subjective experience that we do. Thus third person methods of arriving at truth may not be comprehensive and relying exclusively on them is impractical, while first person methods are not without practical value and may very well be more comprehensive than third party methodologies.
I thought Deepak missed a good opportunity to make the case that naturalism is as much a metaphysical position as his spiritual worldview is.
Harris was the most impressive, but he left me itching to reply to some of his points.
I think that it is also good to hear the words of Richard Feynman who is better authority in science than these guys. Atleast he is being honest of sciences's limitations etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0 he says it is better to be uncertain than believe in a wrong thing and he talks about how science impacts his belief. I would like someone to comment on the video above.
I don't understand the argument that because all beliefs are brain experiences, they can be bunk. How do you believe that the belief in naturalism and empirical way of testing things is not bunk? I feel that spiritual people are not well represented with regards to the scientific community where people expect that you don't make super authoritative statements. In Jung's word there is some predisposition to atheistic or theistic belief system in every individual.
My hypotheses is that there is a prior belief system that is a combination of one's environment and genetics and this belief system cannot be overturned by logic. This can be uprooted only if there is an experience that is completely at odds with one's belief system and is overwhelming at the same time. But you have to be open to such experience atleast I guess.
There is a lot of work to be done for sure.
Bijaya Kumara Das - March 27, 2010 1:29 pm
I think that it is also good to hear the words of Richard Feynman who is better authority in science than these guys. Atleast he is being honest of sciences's limitations etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0 he says it is better to be uncertain than believe in a wrong thing and he talks about how science impacts his belief. I would like someone to comment on the video above.
yes but he is still not willing to accept authority
In Jung's word there is some predisposition to atheistic or theistic belief system in every individual.
This is also mentioned in the Gita as the various stages of development of the souls transmigration to Krsna, we have free will and once we come to realize Him and accept His words we are there. It may take life times but we by grace are given a huge opportunity to for go the long journey by Gurudeva
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 3, 2010 5:43 am
this is a new video by Richard Dawkins.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - April 4, 2010 5:08 am
Hitchens and Mcgrath has a good debate
Madan Gopal Das - October 5, 2010 2:47 pm
evolutionary psychologist on intelligence variables between men and women.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - October 5, 2010 3:54 pm
evolutionary psychologist on intelligence variables between men and women.
I do not whether these studies are just to publish papers or are really good, but they do try to use a sample to arrive at their result. Sampling is so important here and the different in Iq points is not so great. There was another study that said men tend to take more extreme IQ values than men, i.e there are many more "less" intelligent men than women with IQ less than 90 and more men with IQ greater than 160. But again sample is pretty small and we have to see that the IQ of women is increasing every year at least in India with more education afforded to them
Gauravani Dasa - October 7, 2010 12:26 pm
I think trends in technological advancement are going to bring up existential questions that Western culture will have to deal with.
For example, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt states, "With your permission, you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches. We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."
With all the amount of information that we generate about ourselves, we become predictable with the right algorithms. "We create as much information in two days now as we did from the dawn of man through 2003." Perhaps within a generation or two, this will bring up big questions about free will and determinism.
And our Internet activities are not the only data that can be captured: The quantified self
Gauravani Dasa - October 12, 2010 6:40 pm
Interesting conclusions about free will from neuroscientists (original article):
Prof Haggard is demonstrating "transcranial magnetic stimulation", a technique that uses magnetic coils to affect one's brain, and then to control the body. One of his research assistants, Christina Fuentes, is holding a loop-shaped paddle next to his head, moving it fractionally. "If we get it right, it might cause something." She presses a switch, and the coil activates with a click. Prof Haggard's hand twitches. "It's not me doing that," he assures me, "it's her."
...
"As a neuroscientist, you've got to be a determinist. There are physical laws, which the electrical and chemical events in the brain obey. Under identical circumstances, you couldn't have done otherwise; there's no 'I' which can say 'I want to do otherwise'. It's richness of the action that you do make, acting smart rather than acting dumb, which is free will."
Nitaisundara Das - October 12, 2010 11:15 pm
Interesting indeed. I think I will pop it up onthe Harmonist.
Bijaya Kumara Das - October 14, 2010 12:34 am
I think trends in technological advancement are going to bring up existential questions that Western culture will have to deal with.
For example, Google's CEO, Eric Schmidt states, "With your permission, you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches. We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."
With all the amount of information that we generate about ourselves, we become predictable with the right algorithms. "We create as much information in two days now as we did from the dawn of man through 2003." Perhaps within a generation or two, this will bring up big questions about free will and determinism.
And our Internet activities are not the only data that can be captured: The quantified self
This is very true.
Since the 60's they have been developing machines to read low magnetic brain waves of us and now have it quite perfected. Pilots have been flying and giving directions with these machines for years. I believe it is the goal of blue tooth tech to try and control with it.
This topic was just discussed on Coast to Coast AM
Gauravani Dasa - November 13, 2010 9:48 pm
From the Science still can't explain the colour red:
Has the Western world succumbed to the disease of scientism--a misguided belief in the infallibility of science? So says philosopher Peter Hacker, emeritus research fellow at Oxford's St. John's College. In a recent interview with TPM Online, the website of The Philosophers' Magazine, Mr. Hacker--a leading authority on Ludwig Wittgenstein--says scientism "pervades our mentality and our culture..."
Mr. Hacker's remarks form part of a larger critique of how neuroscience is grappling with human consciousness, the great divide for philosophers and scientists.
Indeed, many cognitive scientists, including Tufts University professor Daniel Dennett, challenge the notion of the hard problem and deny the very existence of so-called "qualia," or of any ineffable internal life. Prof. Dennett contends that our notion of Self is simply "a cobbled-together collection of specialist brain circuits … that conspire to produce a virtual machine."
Swami - November 14, 2010 12:05 am
What is true for Dennet is not true for everyone else.
Jason - November 14, 2010 10:50 pm
I'm taking a class right now called "Being & Knowing". It's an advanced introduction to metaphysics and epistemology. We're working on a section/segment of readings dealing with these questions that intersect philosophy and neuroscience with significant implications in religious thought. If these sorts of concerns are interesting to anyone here, I recommend reading stuff by Armstrong, Ryle, Nagel, Searle, and other Philosophers of Mind and consciousness studies.
I think this dialogue stems from the whole mind/body problem that Descartes dealt with. As a dualist, Descartes posited the existence of body and mind. For him, mental states ARE states of the mind and the mind is something very different from the physical body.
Then behaviorism comes around (Ryle) and he says, "um...what is this weird stuff called 'mind'...that sounds pretty fishy and spooky to me." Behaviorism is reductionistic and says, forget this ghost in the machine stuff, we don't need to commit to the existence of non-physical minds to explain our mental states. We can just say that mental states ARE our dispositions to behave in a certain manner; they are synonymous.
The major objection to the behaviorist view was this: What about when one doesn't actually act? Surely there are still mental states happening, right?
Then, along come the causal-materialists. They say: Wait. Mental states are not synonymous/identical with our dispositions. They are the causes of our behavior. So, mental states = causes of our behavior.
Then D.M. Armstrong chimes in and says: This is still too mysterious and if these causes can still be attributed to a non-physical mind then he's not interested. Armstrong still wants a materialist account. Instead, he offers this: if mental states = causes of ranges of behavior, and if causes of ranges of behavior = physio-chemical states of our central nervous system, then, mental states = physical states of our central nervous system (a=b, b=c, then a=c).
Most Philosophers of Mind are materialists like Armstrong and espouse the idea of epiphenomenalism--the idea that "consciousness" is just some waste or byproduct of this material reduction process.
But here's where it gets good...Thomas Nagel attempts to save Philosophy of Mind from rampant materialism:
Nagel says to try and reduce mental states as identical to physical states is crazy! Why? Because the reduction process leaves something very important unanalyzed and unaccounted for. If the reduction process doesn't address EVERY component then it fails. The process, he argues, fails to give an account for "the subjective nature of individual experience", i.e. consciousness. Nagel says the idea of consciousness--our ability to perceive and be aware of the semantic content of our mind; the "aboutness"--makes it very problematic to reduce mental states to mere physical states. His famous example is given in his essay, What it is like to be a bat. As humans, the absolute best we can know is what it is like for a human, with human faculties to pretend to be a bat. Nagel says there is a subjective element that we will NEVER have, which would allow us to fully know what it is like to be a bat. He extends this example and says, there must be something it is like to be a human--to be me. That is completely subjective and can't be reduced to some physical cause.
Of course we can see that as soon as the idea of "consciousness" enters the debate, it becomes much more interesting, and plenty of other philosophers have picked up where Nagel left off and tried to explore this idea. It's pretty fascinating actually....dry, but fascinating. It has HUGE implications in Philosophy of Religion as well.
OK...lesson over. This probably helped me more than anyone here. That's ok. 
Gauravani Dasa - December 1, 2010 8:41 pm
This might be a bit speculative but several news outlets are reporting that NASA will announce tomorrow the discovery of arsenic-based lifeforms:
Original: http://www.geekosystem.com/nasa-press-conference-arsenic/One of the four participants in NASA’s press conference tomorrow is NASA astrobiology research fellow Felisa Wolfe-Simon, who has spent two years researching Yosemite Park's Mono Lake, which has one of the highest natural concentrations of arsenic of any site in the world. Skymania spoke to astrobiologist Lewis Dartnell, who said, "I'm 90 per cent certain that Felisa has found something in Mona Lake and they have been able to demonstrate in some way that it uses arsenic in its metabolism rather than be poisoned by it."
Dr Dartnell went on: "There is no reason to expect that life arose just once on Earth. It could have arisen any number of times. The only reason that all life we have found so far has all descended from the same progenitor – the same mother of life – is because we’ve been looking for life in the same way."
Dr Wolfe-Simon has previously said of her research: "It may prove that there are other possibilities that are beyond our imagination. It opens the door for us to think about biology in ways we have never thought."
Original: http://skymania.com/wp/2010/11/alien-life-...-on-earth.html/
Perhaps this discovery would introduce new philosophical questions about the definition of life and consciousness.
Gauravani Dasa - December 11, 2010 4:59 pm
A series of articles on the "decline effect":
The Truth Wears Off (abstract): "The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research. It’s a safeguard for the creep of subjectivity. But now all sorts of well-established, multiply confirmed findings have started to look increasingly uncertain. It’s as if our facts are losing their truth."
Making Peace With the Decline Effect: "... the positive results of an experiment are less and less able to be replicated over time, and he paints a picture of the scientific community as a self-reenforcing echo chamber. ... Not because they’re terrible people, scientists ... but just because they are people. And people like to be proven right, not wrong."
Gauravani Dasa - February 9, 2011 11:57 pm
Strange valentines: Some customers literally 'in love' with possessions
The phenomenon is called “material possession love,” and the researchers found these customers are typically lonely and easily can spend a whopping six times more money lavishing their love on beloved possessions than others spend on similar products.
“Until now, when we’ve thought about attachment to objects, most consumer researchers have thought of it in terms of self-identity, such as whether owning and driving an expensive sports car helps you tell others you have a higher social status or makes you seem sportier,” said John Lastovicka, the study’s primary author and marketing professor at ASU. “We tend to get attached to things that help us convey our sense of self. However, here we found that, in some cases, consumers became emotionally attached to possessions as real substitutes in what resembled human relationships.”
Gauravani Dasa - April 12, 2011 4:06 pm
Future farm: a sunless, rainless room indoors
"Farming is moving indoors, where the sun never shines, where rainfall is irrelevant and where the climate is always right. The perfect crop field could be inside a windowless building with meticulously controlled light, temperature, humidity, air quality and nutrition. It could be in a New York high-rise, a Siberian bunker, or a sprawling complex in the Saudi desert. Advocates say this, or something like it, may be an answer to the world's food problems."
Not sure what I think about this...
Gauravani Dasa - April 20, 2011 1:59 pm
Interesting article from Robert Lanza, M.D.:
Do We Have a Soul? A Scientific Answer
"Recently, biocentrism and other scientific theories have also started to challenge the traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, the old scientific paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But our worldview is catching up with the facts, and the old physico-chemical paradigm is rapidly being replaced with one that can address some of the core questions asked in every religion. Is there a soul? Does anything endure the ravages of time?
Life and consciousness are central to this new view of being, reality, and the cosmos. Although the current scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence, real experiments have shown just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a while and then dissipate into nothingness like a dust funnel. But if we add life to the equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science, including Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the double-slit experiment, entanglement, and the fine-tuning of the laws that shape the universe as we perceive it."
Gauravani Dasa - May 7, 2011 11:29 pm
"Scholars have measured faith among scientists only in comparison to their adherence to religious traditions common among the general population (Larson and Witham 1998; Leuba 1916), not investigating the spirituality of scientists, particularly the form and content that spirituality might take in their lives. In this paper, we ask how scientists understand spirituality in their own terms. Our results show unexpectedly that the majority of scientists at top research universities consider themselves “spiritual.” We argue that scientists’ understandings of spirituality are, on the one hand, often qualitatively different from what scholars say about the general population (although our findings also reveal the need for re-conceptualization of the way that spirituality is measured in the general population), which some scholars have called diluted (Bellah et al. 1985). In addition, these findings are important, as scientists are often seen as being in conflict with religion, and yet, scholars see spirituality as a substitute for religion, so it is important for us to understand ways that scientists are negotiating their relationship with religion through spirituality."
Gauravani Dasa - July 1, 2011 12:54 pm
Interesting article from NPR on a book about the biological basis of pleasure and addiction: 'Compass Of Pleasure': Why Some Things Feel So Good
"Any one of us could be an addict at any time," Linden says. "Addiction is not fundamentally a moral failing — it's not a disease of weak-willed losers. When you look at the biology, the only model of addiction that makes sense is a disease-based model, and the only attitude towards addicts that makes sense is one of compassion."
Our accumulating understanding of neural function, coupled with enabling technologies that allow us to measure and manipulate the brain with unprecedented precision, has given us new and often counterintuitive insights into behavioral and cognitive phenomena at the levels of biological processes. Nowhere is this more evident than in the neurobiology of pleasure.
Gauravani Dasa - July 4, 2011 8:27 pm
Sam Harris dismisses subjective experience as an "illusion" based on his experience with Buddhist meditation:
Gauravani Dasa - July 16, 2011 2:28 pm
A similar article about the possible biological basis for illegal behavior: The Brain on Trial
"The lesson from all these stories is the same: human behavior cannot be separated from human biology. If we like to believe that people make free choices about their behavior (as in, “I don’t gamble, because I’m strong-willed”), cases like Alex the pedophile, the frontotemporal shoplifters, and the gambling Parkinson’s patients may encourage us to examine our views more carefully. Perhaps not everyone is equally “free” to make socially appropriate choices."
Interesting article from NPR on a book about the biological basis of pleasure and addiction: 'Compass Of Pleasure': Why Some Things Feel So Good
Gauravani Dasa - November 14, 2011 1:49 pm
Excerpts below, original article here: Bodies in Motion: An Exchange
In separate posts at The Stone in recent weeks, Alex Rosenberg and William Egginton set out their views on, among other things, naturalism, literature and the types of knowledge derived from science and from the arts. In the following exchange, they further stake out their positions on the relationship between the humanities and the sciences.
Can neurophilosophy save the humanities from hard science? Do the humanities need to be defended from hard science?
Natural science deals only in momentum and force, elements and compounds, genes and fitness, neurotransmitters and synapses. These things are not enough to give us what introspection tells us we have: meaningful thoughts about ourselves and the world that bring about our actions. Philosophers since Descartes have agreed with introspection, and they have provided fiendishly clever arguments for the same conclusion. These arguments ruled science out of the business of explaining our actions because it cannot take thoughts seriously as causes of anything.
Descartes and Leibniz showed that thinking about one’s self, or for that matter anything else, is something no purely physical thing, no matter how big or how complicated, can do. What is most obvious to introspection is that thoughts are about something. When I think of Paris, there is a place 3000 miles away from my brain, and my thoughts are about it. The trouble is, as Leibniz specifically showed, no chunk of physical matter could be “about” anything. The size, shape, composition or any other physical fact about neural circuits is not enough to make them be about anything. Therefore, thought can’t be physical, and that goes for emotions and sensations too. Some influential philosophers still argue that way.
Neuroscientists and neurophilosophers have to figure out what is wrong with this and similar arguments. Or they have to conclude that interpretation, the stock in trade of the humanities, does not after all really explain much of anything at all. What science can’t accept is some “off-limits” sign at the boundary of the interpretative disciplines.
Citta Hari Dasa - November 23, 2011 6:48 pm
Future farm: a sunless, rainless room indoors
"Farming is moving indoors, where the sun never shines, where rainfall is irrelevant and where the climate is always right. The perfect crop field could be inside a windowless building with meticulously controlled light, temperature, humidity, air quality and nutrition. It could be in a New York high-rise, a Siberian bunker, or a sprawling complex in the Saudi desert. Advocates say this, or something like it, may be an answer to the world's food problems."
Not sure what I think about this...
It sounds promising, but to do it on a global scale will still require lots of electricity. Do they think they'll get it all from photovoltaic panels? I kinda doubt that, but it would be interesting to see some numbers on it.
Gauravani Dasa - April 20, 2012 12:07 pm
Neil Tyson may be an early scientific mystic:
A fascinatingly disturbing thought by Neil Tyson.
In this brief talk, he uses reasoning (biology and astrophysics) to demonstrate that humans must have limited reasoning capabilities.
Gauravani Dasa - April 20, 2012 12:36 pm
Some interesting thoughts from an externalist (Riccardo Manzotti):
If, as I believe, the orthodox, internalist vision of consciousness is false and even naive, then we have to ask why so many intelligent people hold it. It’s not hard to understand. By locating consciousness exclusively within the brain we can imagine that the subject, me, at some very deep level, is not subject to the same law of constant change that evidently governs the phenomena around me. The subject accrues and sheds attributes, but remains in essence him or herself. This allows for the notion of someone’s being responsible, even for actions carried out years ago, and hence gives rise to a particular moral universe; it also creates the comforting illusion that perhaps the self could survive separate from the world. Behind it all there is the desire to deny change in ourselves, perhaps to survive death. Anyway, to be an entity outside the world.
(From The Mind Outside My Head)
Here he is playing out the internalist's (neuroscientist's) reasoning that consciousnesses is local to the brain and basically concludes that consciousness must be eternal.
Here is his explanation of externalism:
His favorite example is the rainbow. For the rainbow experience to happen we need sunshine, raindrops, and a spectator. It is not that the sun and the raindrops cease to exist if there is no one there to see them. Manzotti is not a Bishop Berkeley. But unless someone is present at a particular point no colored arch can appear. The rainbow is hence a process requiring various elements, one of which happens to be an instrument of sense perception. It doesn’t exist whole and separate in the world nor does it exist as an acquired image in the head separated from what is perceived (the view held by the “internalists” who account for the majority of neuroscientists); rather, consciousness is spread between sunlight, raindrops, and visual cortex, creating a unique, transitory new whole, the rainbow experience. Or again: the viewer doesn’t see the world; he is part of a world process.
Which sounds like Buddhism, as the author of the article states. Still, the article and Manzotti equate mind with consciousness.
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 20, 2012 2:34 pm
He is a dualist for sure. But it seems that he can not take the next step to admit that the soul exists and is seperate form the material as he discribed (mind, intelegence, and ego as we are taught by Krsna with the atma and paramatma above these). We answer this with acinta beda abeda, the marginal energy of the lord still under the lords control with our own independant will, still the subject submissive to the will of the lord yet free to act in defiance to the lord, as he seems to be suggesting here. We rise above the Buddist perspective of merging into the void and act in spritual conciousness trying to get back to our original statis as the subject following the will of the lord properly directed by guru (sadhu,sanga, shastra).
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 20, 2012 2:51 pm
It sounds promising, but to do it on a global scale will still require lots of electricity. Do they think they'll get it all from photovoltaic panels? I kinda doubt that, but it would be interesting to see some numbers on it.
That was Marshall Meclueans (spelling ?) idea that we would just build enclosures around the cities and control those atmospheres.
We are in an enclosure now created by the devine Krsna, earth. This perfect creation was done by Krsna and since we all have his qualities they are just trying to become the creator living with and manipulating what Krsna has provided. Their own little green houses. I met with an 84 year old a few days ago and he sees himself as ascending and going back to Christ and helping him create new planets.
Mathura-natha Das - April 22, 2012 7:18 pm
Neil Tyson may be an early scientific mystic:
A fascinatingly disturbing thought by Neil Tyson.
In this brief talk, he uses reasoning (biology and astrophysics) to demonstrate that humans must have limited reasoning capabilities.
Heard about this guy? Has some interesting thoughts;
www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com
Braja-sundari Dasi - April 24, 2013 9:39 pm
Syamasundar has found this video about light, colours and darkness and we watched it yesterday. Excellent! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiCI1HVLgBI I don`t know if such long movies can be put on Harmonist but it is worth acknoledging it in some way.
Mathura-natha Das - April 29, 2013 8:24 am
A nice little article i liked and wanted to share.
The Skepticism of Believers
by Rupert Sheldrake
I used to think of skepticism as a primary intellectual virtue, whose goal was truth. I have changed my mind. I now see it as a weapon.
Creationists opened my eyes. They use the techniques of critical thinking to expose weaknesses in the evidence for natural selection, gaps in the fossil record, and problems with evolutionary theory. Is this because they are seeking truth? No. They believe they already know the truth. Skepticism is a weapon to defend their beliefs by attacking their opponents.
Skepticism is also an important weapon in the defense of commercial self-interest. According to David Michaels, who was assistant secretary for environment, safety, and health in the U.S. Department of Energy in the 1990s, the strategy used by the tobacco industry to create doubt about inconvenient evidence has now been adopted by corporations making toxic products such as lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, and benzene. When confronted with evidence that their activities are causing harm, the standard response is to hire researchers to muddy the waters, branding findings that go against the industry’s interests as “junk science.” As Michaels noted, “Their conclusions are almost always the same: the evidence is ambiguous, so regulatory action is unwarranted.” Climate change skeptics use similar techniques.
In a penetrating essay called “The Skepticism of Believers,” Sir Leslie Stephen, a pioneering agnostic (and the father of Virginia Woolf), argued that skepticism is inevitably partial. “In regard to the great bulk of ordinary beliefs, the so-called skeptics are just as much believers as their opponents.” Then as now, those who proclaim themselves skeptics had strong beliefs of their own. As Stephen put it in 1893, “The thinkers generally charged with skepticism are equally charged with an excessive belief in the constancy and certainty of the so-called ‘laws of nature.’ They assign a natural cause to certain phenomena as confidently as their opponents assign a supernatural cause.”
Skepticism has even deeper roots in religion than in science. The Old Testament prophets were withering in their scorn for the rival religions of the Holy Land. Psalm 115 mocks those who make idols of silver and gold: “They have mouths, and speak not: eyes have they, and see not.” At the Reformation, the Protestants deployed the full force of biblical scholarship and critical thinking against the veneration of relics, cults of saints, and other “superstitions” of the Catholic Church. Atheists take religious skepticism to its ultimate limits; but they are defending another faith, a faith in science.
In practice, the goal of skepticism is not the discovery of truth, but the exposure of other people’s errors. It plays a useful role in science, religion, scholarship, and common sense. But we need to remember that it is a weapon serving belief or self-interest; we need to be skeptical of skeptics. The more militant the skeptic, the stronger the belief.
Bijaya Kumara Das - April 30, 2013 3:15 pm
A nice little article i liked and wanted to share.
The Skepticism of Believers
by Rupert Sheldrake
I used to think of skepticism as a primary intellectual virtue, whose goal was truth. I have changed my mind. I now see it as a weapon.
Creationists opened my eyes. They use the techniques of critical thinking to expose weaknesses in the evidence for natural selection, gaps in the fossil record, and problems with evolutionary theory. Is this because they are seeking truth? No. They believe they already know the truth. Skepticism is a weapon to defend their beliefs by attacking their opponents.
Skepticism is also an important weapon in the defense of commercial self-interest. According to David Michaels, who was assistant secretary for environment, safety, and health in the U.S. Department of Energy in the 1990s, the strategy used by the tobacco industry to create doubt about inconvenient evidence has now been adopted by corporations making toxic products such as lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, and benzene. When confronted with evidence that their activities are causing harm, the standard response is to hire researchers to muddy the waters, branding findings that go against the industry’s interests as “junk science.” As Michaels noted, “Their conclusions are almost always the same: the evidence is ambiguous, so regulatory action is unwarranted.” Climate change skeptics use similar techniques.
In a penetrating essay called “The Skepticism of Believers,” Sir Leslie Stephen, a pioneering agnostic (and the father of Virginia Woolf), argued that skepticism is inevitably partial. “In regard to the great bulk of ordinary beliefs, the so-called skeptics are just as much believers as their opponents.” Then as now, those who proclaim themselves skeptics had strong beliefs of their own. As Stephen put it in 1893, “The thinkers generally charged with skepticism are equally charged with an excessive belief in the constancy and certainty of the so-called ‘laws of nature.’ They assign a natural cause to certain phenomena as confidently as their opponents assign a supernatural cause.”
Skepticism has even deeper roots in religion than in science. The Old Testament prophets were withering in their scorn for the rival religions of the Holy Land. Psalm 115 mocks those who make idols of silver and gold: “They have mouths, and speak not: eyes have they, and see not.” At the Reformation, the Protestants deployed the full force of biblical scholarship and critical thinking against the veneration of relics, cults of saints, and other “superstitions” of the Catholic Church. Atheists take religious skepticism to its ultimate limits; but they are defending another faith, a faith in science.
In practice, the goal of skepticism is not the discovery of truth, but the exposure of other people’s errors. It plays a useful role in science, religion, scholarship, and common sense. But we need to remember that it is a weapon serving belief or self-interest; we need to be skeptical of skeptics. The more militant the skeptic, the stronger the belief.
But we are saved from such because Krsna speaks and we take if for the fact that it is. No skepticism or superstitions.
Gauravani Dasa - August 7, 2013 2:05 pm
This paper from 2007 makes the case that modern agriculture kills more small animals (field mice, etc.) that cow slaughter:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00382.x/full
Although I think this ends up being a good argument against modern agri-business, it does present a dilemma for vegetarians/vegans who do not draw a distinctions between animals and only consider the number of animals killed rather than the important role a particular speicies plays (like cows).
Braja-sundari Dasi - August 8, 2013 11:20 pm
This paper from 2007 makes the case that modern agriculture kills more small animals (field mice, etc.) that cow slaughter:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00382.x/full
Although I think this ends up being a good argument against modern agri-business, it does present a dilemma for vegetarians/vegans who do not draw a distinctions between animals and only consider the number of animals killed rather than the important role a particular speicies plays (like cows).
I can`t read it because one has to pay 
But I kinda don`t understand why is modern agriculture highlighted there. Ancient agriculture caused small animals to die as well. That`s why farming was not recomended occupation for brahmanas. Jivo jivasya jivanam... even if you don`t eat animals you killl them by ploughing and hoeing, by spraying (yes, even organic sprays do it), stepping on them and taking away their habitat
Guru-nistha Das - November 5, 2013 7:38 pm
Here's an article that might be interesting for the Harmonist readers about how the brain is hardwired for kindness. Quite the opposite idea from that of Darwin, Freud and the rest: