[Advaita-l] Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Natural Realism & Contact theory of Perception

Bhaskar YR bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com
Mon Dec 9 23:41:29 EST 2019

Hare Krishna

Where the below discussions have taken place??  In some other group??  

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Advaita-l <advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> On Behalf Of Venkatesh Murthy via Advaita-l
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 8:56 AM
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fwd: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Natural Realism & Contact theory of Perception

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Great scholars may try to prove Reality of outside world but they all miserably fail without exceptions.

Why? Because if objects are Real it brings a Duality of Observer and Observed object.

Therefore we have to reject this and accept Jagan Mithyatva.

On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:50 AM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l < advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Chittaranjan Naik <chitnaik at gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 10:55 PM
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Natural Realism & Contact theory of 
> Perception
> To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvparishat at googlegroups.com>
> Namaste Sri Pattanayak-ji,
> I read Boyer’s article. I will have to read it again to get a full 
> grasp of the recent approaches in the philosophy of science that the 
> author is referring to, but I believe my first reading is sufficient 
> for me to make a broad comparison between the article and my book.
> 1.      While Boyer’s article and my book both draw from Vedic sources in
> our endeavors to provide viable explanatory accounts of Direct 
> Realism, the goals of the two are vastly different. The main goal of 
> Boyer’s article seems to be to justify Direct Realism as a valid 
> premise of science given that this premise has been challenged by both 
> philosophy and the counter-intuitive theories of science itself which 
> scientists have been compelled to build in the areas of Quantum and 
> Relativity physics. The aim of my book is different. It is to 
> establish Direct Realism as part of a larger enterprise aimed at 
> reinstating the Vedic worldview in the contemporary world.
> 2.      Boyer’s article does not attempt to remove the main hindrance that
> stands in the way of postulating a Direct Realism thesis in any 
> meaningful
> manner: the almost ubiquitously held belief that our perception is 
> occasioned by a stimulus-response process. For, as long as the 
> physicalist stimulus-response theory of perception is held to be 
> valid, it would logically result in a dualism of a *phenomenal world* 
> and a *non-linguistic world bereft of the datum of consciousness*. The 
> espousal of the stimulus-response model of perception would therefore 
> logically lead to Representationalism (or Indirect Realism) and not to 
> Direct Realism. This is not a problem with the Boyer article alone; I 
> find it characteristic of all Western attempts to postulate Direct 
> Realism, perhaps because the stimulus-response theory of perception is 
> deeply ingrained in the Western tradition from the time of Aristotle. 
> In consideration of this factor, my book makes the theory of 
> perception the main focus of the book, or of the endeavor to posit 
> Direct Realism. It addresses the very possibility of Direct Realism rather than focus on the ontological features of reality.
> 3.      Boyer’s article tries to introduce *Structural Realism / Ontic
> Structural Realism* as possible avenues for postulating a kind of 
> Direct Realism, the main argument for it being that even though 
> scientific theories may not be able to speak validly about the 
> descriptive aspects of reality, there is a structural continuity in 
> science and, in consideration of the fact that scientific theories do 
> work, it would be reasonable to assume that this structure represents a legitimate structure of reality.
> According to me, this argument does not hold because as long as the 
> stimulus-response theory of perception is held to be valid, the 
> reality that we can perceive, or form a conception of, would be a 
> reality presented within a *phenomenological enclosure* having the 
> brain as its physical substrate. The structure that Boyer talks about 
> would then not be a structure of reality but a structure of the 
> presentative field of the phenomenological enclosure correspondent to 
> a structure in the non-linguistic external world. In other words, it 
> would result in Indirect Realism and not Direct Realism.
> 4.      Again, Boyer’s article does not mention whether it accepts
> Cartesian dualism or rejects it. It may be noted that both 
> contemporary philosophy and science reject Cartesian dualism, so much 
> so that to even speak of the self as a distinct substance has become 
> anathema. It is for this reason that all speculations and explorations 
> in the field of both philosophy and science predominantly look towards 
> neuroscience for a solution to the ‘problem of consciousness’.  Even 
> Chalmers, who claims consciousness to be non-reductive, considers the 
> physical universe to be a closed system (displaying causal closure) 
> and says that we must look for the causal mechanisms of the subjective 
> features of the field of consciousness in the physical substrate of 
> the brain. According to me, it would be a futile exercise to attempt 
> to incorporate the *Three Levels of Vedic reality*, as Boyer’s article 
> attempts to do, into any theory of science without first addressing 
> the question of whether the self is a distinct substance or not. The 
> question of the unity of objects with a transcendental Consciousness 
> arises only at the fourth level – the level of Turiya or 
> linguistically at the level of Para-vak – whereas at the level of a 
> transactional reality, reality does appear as a duality of 
> conscious-self
> (purusha) and inert- matter (prakriti) and a theory that seeks to 
> explain reality must address this level of reality too. Otherwise, to 
> speak of incorporating Vedic conceptions of reality while remaining 
> silent on the modern proclivity to reject Cartesian dualism would 
> amount to a mere pretense. In my book (Chapter 4), I have explained 
> why it is necessary to consider the self as a separate substance; 
> while this may not constitute a formal proof of the existence of the 
> self (I hope to take up that topic in my next paper/book), I have 
> shown how by not considering the self as a distinct substance, it 
> leads to all kinds of logical conundrums, essentially of the kinds that beset Representationalism.
> 5.      My book does not attempt to delve into the ontological features of
> reality as Boyer’s article does. The main reason for it is that I find 
> the ontology already provided in the Indian tradition to be 
> comprehensive. For example, the twenty-four tattvas of Samkhya provide 
> the basic material constituents of the universe, the seven categories 
> (or padarthas) of Nyaya explain the irreducible logical compositions 
> of the complex objects that constitute the furniture of the world 
> formed through admixtures of the twenty-four tattvas of Samkhya, and 
> Vedanta provides the nature of a Transcendental Reality and its 
> relation to the universe and to the conscious beings that inhabit the 
> universe. I do not believe that the scientific model is anywhere close 
> to providing such a comprehensive view of reality.
> 6.      Boyer’s article tries to incorporate the Vedic conception of *Three
> Levels of Reality* without consideration of the praxis of the Vedic 
> logical tradition. For example, he refers to the problem of defining 
> what individual objects are, or of identifying what the thingness of a 
> thing is, but these kinds of problems are really self-inflicted 
> problems inasmuch as they arise from the Western tradition (i.e., 
> since the time of Descartes and British Empiricism) having rejected 
> the categories. Even though the categories of Aristotle – the 
> Predicamentia, as they were called – were not as well defined, or as 
> well argued for, as the padarthas of the Indian tradition were, they 
> had still provided a logical foundation to explain how ‘thingness’ may 
> be apprehended but the rejection of the categories has left the 
> Western tradition – and unfortunately the field of contemporary 
> discourse which follows in the footsteps of the Western tradition – 
> without a foothold to comprehend even basic things like object-hood, 
> etc. If we are to truly draw from the Indian Vedic tradition, we 
> cannot afford to ignore the padarthas which form the bedrock of the 
> Indian logical tradition. In my book, I have included a section (in 
> Chapter 4) on the categories (padarthas), and, in Chapter 8, I have argued from a logic based on the categories to counter the main objections raised against Direct Realism.
> 7.      While Boyer mentions *Logical Positivism* and *Kuhnian revolution*
> in his article, he doesn’t seem to consider the ramifications that the 
> work done by the Logical Positivists and Thomas Kuhn would have on the 
> attempts to incorporate Vedic conceptions in a unified theory of 
> science. Both the Logical Positivists and Kuhn held that the empirical 
> observations of science are theory-laden by the symbolic framework 
> within which scientists operate and that when the basic parameters of 
> the symbolic framework change, it would result in the rise of a new 
> paradigm that would be incommensurable with the old paradigm. 
> According to me, it is naïve to undertake a project to combine Vedic 
> conceptions of the universe with those of science without first 
> ascertaining whether the two paradigms are commensurate with each 
> other. Indeed, in my book (Part II of the book) , I have shown that 
> the scientific experiments conducted to measure the velocity of light 
> with respect to an observer are theory laden with the assumptions of 
> the physicalist framework of science, primarily with the assumption 
> that a measuring instrument is equivalent to an observer, and that the 
> velocity of light measured between an object and the observer is 
> false. The measured velocity of light is actually the velocity of 
> light between one object (the source of light) and another object (the 
> object illuminated by the source of light) and not between an object 
> and the observer as is believed by scientists. I have proposed a new 
> experiment in (Part II of) my book to actually verify whether the observation of an event in space is instantaneous or whether it occurs after a time-lapse.
> 8.      The entire phenomenon of paradigms and the incommensurability
> problem is, according to me, a result of the Western tradition not 
> having a culture of pramanas. I believe there is a good opportunity 
> here for the scholars of the Indian vidyas, especially Nayyayikas, to 
> put the entire framework of science under the lens of scrutiny of a 
> philosophical investigation based on the principles and methods of 
> Nyaya Shastra. I am convinced that if this is done, it will not only 
> give rise to a new discipline – which we may call the Nyaya Philosophy 
> of Science – but also demonstrate that the Indian logical tradition is 
> not dead, that it has the potential to forge new frontiers of knowledge.
> I would have been more comfortable if someone else had provided the 
> comparison between my book and that article, but yours was a 
> reasonable request all the same as it allows me to let the members of 
> this forum know where I am coming from in writing the book. Thank you 
> for showing interest in my book.
> Regards,
> Chittaranjan
> On Saturday, November 30, 2019 at 8:01:46 AM UTC+5:30, Deva Pattanayak
> wrote:
> >
> >  The direct realism may be  related to the sixth sense. A tiger is
> lurking
> > around before one actually spots it in a forest.
> > Here is a quote from an article by R.W. Boyer, that I came across 
> > which I have attached for your reference.
> >
> >   "Again, in completely holistic Vedanta all objects and observers 
> > are nothing other than the universal Self. That ultimate reality is 
> > said to
> be
> > directly verifiable in unity consciousness as the simultaneity of 
> > part/whole, reductivism/holism, individual/universal. It is 
> > expressed simply and fully in the Vedic statement: “Aham Brahmasmi 
> > (Brihad-Aranyak Upanishad, 1.4.10)  "
> >
> > How do you view your work in relation with this paper by Boyer? A 
> > brief one page reply will be much appreciated and open up for furthe
> discussions.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 1:32 PM Chittaranjan Naik 
> > <chit... at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> "It would also mean that the finite time taken for light to travel 
> >> from
> a
> >> distant star to our physical eyes is not part of the perceptual 
> >> process
> and
> >> that the physical bodies we possess somehow do not interfere in the 
> >> perceptual process."  This is from Naik_ji 's writing.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would like to clarify here that this statement was made in the 
> >> context of Direct Realism and what it entails. For the thesis of 
> >> Direct Realism
> to
> >> stand, we would need to posit a theory of perception in which the 
> >> world would be transparently revealed to the percipient, that is, 
> >> without the transforming mechanisms of the gross body interfering 
> >> in the perceptual process.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It may be noted that the Indian theory of perception offers such a
> model.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Chittaranjan
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 10:57:12 PM UTC+5:30, Deva 
> >> Pattanayak
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "It would also mean that the finite time taken for light to travel 
> >>> from a distant star to our physical eyes is not part of the 
> >>> perceptual
> process
> >>> and that the physical bodies we possess somehow do not interfere 
> >>> in the perceptual process."
> >>> This is from Naik_ji 's writing. This example of delayed 
> >>> perception of star light is not only based on science, but the 
> >>> part that is left out
> that
> >>> the star knew that so many light years later some one will be
> observing the
> >>> light.
> >>> Actually the net perception is a shuttle combination of what has 
> >>> happened in the past as well as what is there to come.
> >>>
> >>> While comparing western philosophy with that of Indian philosophy, 
> >>> it
> is
> >>> perhaps important to bear in mind that in the west  the reigning
> mentality
> >>> is to make a new beginning rather than stay pinned to  many ideas 
> >>> of
> the
> >>> past that are not relevant today  or even true. The winning 
> >>> mentality
> for
> >>> mankind should be that  it is ok  to try new things without 
> >>> invisible strings of the past.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 7:46 PM Hari Kiran <kiran.v... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Pranaams to all,
> >>>>
> >>>> We are happy to announce the 8th book published by Indic Academy 
> >>>> written by Chittaranjan Naik..
> >>>>
> >>>> Members of the list interested in reviewing the book for 
> >>>> publication
> on
> >>>> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=www.indictoda
> >>>> y.com&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=SNi7gYxtE4TKu2%2F3VwSZyRtqAPuVikhB4AT8fHS28DE%3D&reserved=0 may please write to us at nam... at indica.org.in and we will send you a review copy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Hari
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i
> ndictoday.com%2Fannouncements%2Fnatural-realism-contact-theory-of-perc
> eption%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d454
> 2ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C6371154
> 51938391802&sdata=XrpUJUTcoUkPW83ciqDvNWZ0SiA6Y62L%2FJjD0FaFA38%3D
> &reserved=0
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.i
> ndictoday.com%2Finterviews%2Findian-philosophys-challenge-to-contempor
> ary-worldview-interview-with-chittaranjan-naik%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cb
> haskar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09c
> e04033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=c9vw868d
> 5Zp0mqRBxZ%2Bqm35iIXUeEOp2cTtDuHXlrZQ%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> >>>> Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> >>>> send an email to bvpar... at googlegroups.com.
> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >>>>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrou
> ps.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Fbvparishat%2FCA%252B1yZc6L60D%252BDknmjurJ
> U07cpoSfC%252BwHN0QMoPU19LOdYXx1Hw%2540mail.gmail.com&data=02%7C01
> %7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9
> e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=BjyL
> roji3Jt%2BFm6P30URHJ0vOcdHgtl45RzAfefNK2k%3D&reserved=0
> >>>> <
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrou
> ps.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Fbvparishat%2FCA%252B1yZc6L60D%252BDknmjurJ
> U07cpoSfC%252BwHN0QMoPU19LOdYXx1Hw%2540mail.gmail.com%3Futm_medium%3De
> mail%26utm_source%3Dfooter&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.com%
> 7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ecd%
> 7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=hK7Fq63V6NaxcD%2BMruiWlecXZfKya
> %2F%2FQZ4%2FHh5p4OWk%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups
> >> "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> >> send
> an
> >> email to bvpar... at googlegroups.com.
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >>
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrou
> ps.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Fbvparishat%2Fdaf3d84c-d9d2-4c60-892d-1b7fe
> e632993%2540googlegroups.com&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.co
> m%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ec
> d%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=5rzEqA8DUwKFSORZ5e9rh0hQUFrwQ
> uhN1F7YLdRWQ18%3D&reserved=0
> >> <
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrou
> ps.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Fbvparishat%2Fdaf3d84c-d9d2-4c60-892d-1b7fe
> e632993%2540googlegroups.com%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dfoote
> r&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d
> 77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391
> 802&sdata=2Sf%2BO2WNfhILN%2B%2Frjgl7qVInNwZNS5kHLScFYI2iSPk%3D&amp
> ;reserved=0
> >
> >> .
> >>
> > --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrou
> ps.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Fbvparishat%2F6326c3bd-d3af-48be-bc40-631c5
> 88d03b8%2540googlegroups.com&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.co
> m%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ec
> d%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=cuOqhiI3rfpJ6Jm8XEgYBr4tlZJ1m
> 6EK12feDPg3EZQ%3D&reserved=0
> <
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrou
> ps.google.com%2Fd%2Fmsgid%2Fbvparishat%2F6326c3bd-d3af-48be-bc40-631c5
> 88d03b8%2540googlegroups.com%3Futm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dfoote
> r&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d
> 77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391
> 802&sdata=qOX0YaFRRSw7eWx8QWH8Qn42ZzppUrt1iENvSN%2BK7hU%3D&res
> erved=0
> >
> .
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: 
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists
> .advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbhas
> kar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04
> 033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=hUcUT5BM9To
> HEKr0e3desC4uOu%2B54ABOU5FuahOyCeg%3D&reserved=0
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.
> gmane.org%2Fgmane.culture.religion.advaita&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.
> yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a
> 64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=Hsj0G6mak6o4y7Y
> Yx%2BJvk1tYdM4D%2Fh70Wh8O7ji3e5s%3D&reserved=0
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flist
> s.advaita-vedanta.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Flistinfo%2Fadvaita-l&data=02%7C0
> 1%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee
> 9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=sAF
> 7BnUZ%2F1XR1p5afLEotENvxNyEZIyKvx8q794CrsM%3D&reserved=0
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


Archives: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.advaita-vedanta.org%2Farchives%2Fadvaita-l%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cbhaskar.yr%40in.abb.com%7C168bbd364a8d4542ac4508d77d20bfdc%7C372ee9e09ce04033a64ac07073a91ecd%7C0%7C0%7C637115451938391802&sdata=hUcUT5BM9ToHEKr0e3desC4uOu%2B54ABOU5FuahOyCeg%3D&reserved=0

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list