Seeker's Questions

[saidevo]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

namaste smt.ReNukA.

I think I have a better idea with your input in post #21. Here is an article that deals with the 'internal pathway' of vision. For a layman like me, the details are too much, but you might understand them better.
The Primary Visual Cortex – Webvision

• I am more interested in beyond-the-physical ramifications of the mechanisms of open-eyed and close-eyed visions and dreams. I was puzzled if visual memories and dreams behind closed eyes are due to the visual cortex at the back of the head, how that could make the eyes move in what is called REM sleep. Here I found an article titled 'Proposed Mechanisms of Dreaming', that explains it:
Proposed Mechanisms of Dreaming

• I appreciate (though understand very little) all the phenomenal details of physical and neuro sciences involved in the brain activities, but all of them only help to explain what happens and how. As to whom it happens, it seems, even science is clueless as of now as this quote in the above article on dream says (italics added):

It is this series of activation and synthesis which creates the imagery we experience in the dream state. The forebrain receives the random signals from the brain stem and begins to assimilate the information into a coherent pattern. Presumably, the information received by the forebrain is spatially specific (hence the occurrence of 'rapid eye movement') and genetically programmed.

Who is this 'we', who experience the dream state? If it is just a part of the brain, why not say 'the brain experiences in the dream state' and add that 'there is no 'we' or 'I' as subjective consciousness, beyond the brain'?

Here is another paper on dreams:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.132.3642&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The felicity of creation and movement in our dream world is awesome. It would be difficult to believe, even for scientists, that all that happens only with the head.

 

[Nara]

....The felicity of creation and movement in our dream world is awesome. It would be difficult to believe, even for scientists, that all that happens only with the head.

Yes Saidevo, truth is more awesome than the plethora of fantastic stories. It is like magic, as long as we don't know the answer, it feels quite unsatisfactory that it is just a trick and the magician really did not cut the woman. Once we see how it was done, then we move on the next one, we just can't accept that the tiger did not really vanish, and that it was only a trick.

The list of tricks nature offers is not finite. There will always be another trick or two that people will refuse to accept as explainable natural phenomenon. Answers will be made up and challenge sent out, disprove it if you can, until the trick is explained, and then we move on to the next ......

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

I have just two questions for you:

01. What is truth? Is it something that always has the scope of changing and being disproved, or is it something that already exists, awaiting discovery?

If the answer is in the latter case, philosophy and metaphysics are as much valid as physical science.

02. Do you think that science would be eventually capable of designing a robot that dreams and explains its dreams? Assuming this could happen, would the robot be able to explain without using subjective pronouns that have no validity in the strictest scientific sense?

 

[renuka]

namaste smt.ReNukA.

I think I have a better idea with your input in post #21. Here is an article that deals with the 'internal pathway' of vision. For a layman like me, the details are too much, but you might understand them better.
The Primary Visual Cortex – Webvision

• I am more interested in beyond-the-physical ramifications of the mechanisms of open-eyed and close-eyed visions and dreams. I was puzzled if visual memories and dreams behind closed eyes are due to the visual cortex at the back of the head, how that could make the eyes move in what is called REM sleep. Here I found an article titled 'Proposed Mechanisms of Dreaming', that explains it:
Proposed Mechanisms of Dreaming

• I appreciate (though understand very little) all the phenomenal details of physical and neuro sciences involved in the brain activities, but all of them only help to explain what happens and how. As to whom it happens, it seems, even science is clueless as of now as this quote in the above article on dream says (italics added):

It is this series of activation and synthesis which creates the imagery we experience in the dream state. The forebrain receives the random signals from the brain stem and begins to assimilate the information into a coherent pattern. Presumably, the information received by the forebrain is spatially specific (hence the occurrence of 'rapid eye movement') and genetically programmed.

Who is this 'we', who experience the dream state? If it is just a part of the brain, why not say 'the brain experiences in the dream state' and add that 'there is no 'we' or 'I' as subjective consciousness, beyond the brain'?

Here is another paper on dreams:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.132.3642&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The felicity of creation and movement in our dream world is awesome. It would be difficult to believe, even for scientists, that all that happens only with the head.

I will get back to you on this cos right now i am busy getting ready for my trip to India.
Will need to read up more also.

 

[saidevo]

Take your time smt.ReNukA, no hurry. And all the best.

 

[Nara]

....01. What is truth? Is it something that always has the scope of changing and being disproved, or is it something that already exists, awaiting discovery?

If the answer is in the latter case, philosophy and metaphysics are as much valid as physical science.

02. Do you think that science would be eventually capable of designing a robot that dreams and explains its dreams? Assuming this could happen, would the robot be able to explain without using subjective pronouns that have no validity in the strictest scientific sense?

Dear Saidevo, we have our set ways, whatever answer I give is not going to change your views.

So why did I poke my nose into it?

The simple answer is the title of this thread, and the fact this thread is in General Section.

To me, to even figure out what the relevant questions are, a seeker must be prepared to go outside the box of handed down wisdom. I think the seeker is more likely to find the "truth" he/she is after if the starting point is not the conviction that answers have already been found in some scripture or some godman and all we have to do is develop an unwavering conviction, shradda if you will, that the "truth" will emerge from these religious scriptures and godmen.

IMO, an important prerequisite for this journey of discovery is to have a clean break with handed down wisdom and godmen. Until this is done one is doomed to circle around the cul-de-sac of superstitious beliefs.

Q1 - to me, truth is whatever we have to deal with everyday, the pain, the pleasure, the grief and all that makes life interesting and worth living.

Q2, honestly, I don't understand what it means. I don't know the answer. But, one thing I know, if such a robot becomes a reality someday, it would have been due to painstaking research and effort of scientists, not scriptures, not some slight of hand trick that can produce gold figurines out of thin air.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

Alright Nara, by way of some serious participation to my last question,--other than by your dismissive taunts at the metaphysical possibility--just answer me this:

• In the quote of science text I have given in post #26, specially in the sentence, "It is this series of activation and synthesis which creates the imagery we experience in the dream state", what is the meaning and business of the common pronoun 'we' and the layman's phrase 'experience' in that article that seeks to give a scientific mechanism of the state and world of dreaming.

• Do you have any other answer except that science as yet does not have a scientific explanation of the subjective pronouns (which no scientist can desist from using in his speech) and other subjective references such as feelings, emotions and experiences?

• I am not taking a shot at science or scientists. Only saying that these subjective references are the key to the metaphysical reality.

• As to my question about a possible dreaming robot, although it would be a pure physical design of AI, with a fully capable, simulated, learning brain, it would still be impossible (at least IMO) to make it describe its dream state without using subjective references.

The objective of my last question is to explore the connection between the physical and the metaphysical, in a common experience. If you can convincingly describe it--even hypothetically--purely in physical terms of science instead of just dismissing the metaphysical with contempt, I can welcome it. But if you cannot, I think you should desist from justing voicing your disagreements as taunts and (your) subjective dismissals.

 

[Yamaka]

"As to whom it happens, it seems, even science is clueless as of now as this quote in the above article on dream says (italics added):

It is this series of activation and synthesis which creates the imagery we experience in the dream state. The forebrain receives the random signals from the brain stem and begins to assimilate the information into a coherent pattern. Presumably, the information received by the forebrain is spatially specific (hence the occurrence of 'rapid eye movement') and genetically programmed.

Who is this 'we', who experience the dream state? If it is just a part of the brain, why not say 'the brain experiences in the dream state' and add that 'there is no 'we' or 'I' as subjective consciousness, beyond the brain'?" -saidevo

Please remember:

1. Neuroscience is fast progressing.. still there are billion things we don't understand.. Here "we" means the Scientists who are engaged in daily research as their Profession.

My current interest and expertise is to understand HOW Memories are formed and preserved? What distinguishes between Short Term Memory and Long Term Memory... the long term potential of my research in our Lab is to how to make ALL students "learn" materials at the same rate... and to turn on and turn off memories selectively for Military Intelligence.... our research is funded by DARPA - which started this Internet and Broadband some 40 years ago.

2. People who believe in God and Religion NEED not rely on Science to come and save them! Science moves in a slow methodical way asking simple questions like "why" "why not" "how" etc etc?

God and Religion are for people entrenched in TRADITION and/or FEARFUL of unknown things and/or SUPERSTITIOUS, IMO.

Most Experimental Scientists do not belong to this sub-sect of Homo sapiens.

3. There are very many hypothesis to explain REM... none of the explanations will come to the rescue of GOD, believe me.

"To Whome it Happens?" could be some philosophical question with a metaphysical and supernatural overtone... for Scientists it means nothing... they observe a phenomenon or a process,,, and they venture to understand it with carefully planned Experiments, and then they explain it to the laymen in simple language as much as possible.

4. Neuroscientists hypothesize that there is constant information transfer between cortical neurons and neurons in other parts of brain like Hippocampus and visual cortex etc in primates... this information transfer is going on even during sleep... and REM is part of that process.

Now, tell me where does your metaphysical and/or supernatural power come into play?

Please RETIRE your Gods and Ghosts!

Stay tuned.

 

[nachi naga]

senses are required essentially for any memory to exist.transcending the senses is what is called saadhana for a vyakthi.when ppl are abusive of god men/women i feel sympathy for them,because in a ignorant stage nothing will make sense about about god,as god is beyond sense.essentially " நான் "sense.this நான் is the self.realise it,sarvam brahman mayam.

 

[Nara]

Alright Nara, by way of some serious participation to my last question,--other than by your dismissive taunts at the metaphysical possibility--just answer me this:

Saidevo, my response to your Q2 was quite serious and factual. I did not mean any taunt. If you saw some taunt then it is up to you explain why.

• Do you have any other answer except that science as yet does not have a scientific explanation of the subjective pronouns (which no scientist can desist from using in his speech) and other subjective references such as feelings, emotions and experiences?

I still don't understand what the significance of this is. Language is a wonderful tool that humans have used in a myraid of ways to communicate. At the same time we must also acknowledge language can sometimes be vague. This is why lawyers argue endlessly what the true meaning of a law is, even when the law is finely crafted to avoid any confusion.

If I understand your point about robots and subjective pronouns, which I am not entirely sure, it is a frivolous one. This is a case of exploiting a created ambiguity, one that will vanish when put in context.

For example, in one of the Azhvar pasurams we see the phrase "எனது ஆவி ஆவி நீ" addressed to Sriman Narayana. If one is to take this literally, then, we need to posit three entities here, namely, Azhvar, his jeeva, and the jeeva's jeeva Iswara. This of course is nonsense. In proper context, எனது ஆவி does not mean "my athma". To be precise one has to use an awkward phrase நானாகிய ஆவி. Bahavat Ramanuja himself discusses these subtle logical inaccuracies that arise in the use of pronouns, such as my athma or his athma.

So, I am still not sure whether there is anything more to this, or, whether you are making an argument based on the actual meaning of a pronoun really is, like Clinton's famous argument, "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

About robots -- in the speculative world of humans and robots, with robots indistinguishable from "real" humans, the robots using subjective pronouns to express feelings is quite unremarkable. The rest of us, with no way of knowing whether it is a robot speaking to us or "real" humans, will just react as if they were humans. In other words, in a practical level there would be no difference.

Let alone the case of human-looking non-human robots speaking like us, we often treat inanimate objects, looking nothing like us and not saying a word back to us, as though they can hear us and react to what we say to it, like other humans. How many of us have never pleaded with our I/C machines for transport to start, using these very subjective pronouns, sometimes with affection, and other times with anger?

IMO, all this is not about the robot, but us, it teaches about who we are and who we are not. So, IMO, a proper understanding of these interactions can only lead us to reject anything metaphysical. But that is just me, I don't expect you to agree with me.

....If you can convincingly describe it--even hypothetically--purely in physical terms of science instead of just dismissing the metaphysical with contempt, I can welcome it.

Saidevo, I know that we cannot convince each other no matter what. All I can say is, I did not just dismiss anything, that too with contempt. My point was to say, to be true seeker, one must be prepared to cast aside all the handed down wisdom, the validity of which is based on the assumption of inerrantness of religious scripture and one's own Acharyas by accident of birth.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

In my limited opinion, the one thing which Man does not know as yet is about what makes "Life" as we know it, from the smallest to the biggest/highest or, as the scriptures describe it "aṇoraṇīyān mahato mahīyān (अणॊरणीयान् महतो महीयान्)". The theists went on proposing a GOD and then proposed "विश्वं विष्णुः (viśvaṃ viṣṇuḥ)". This sort of conjecture is very old, the earliest being perhaps sa bhūmiṃ viśvato vṛtvā (स भूमिं विश्वतॊ वृत्वा) in the Purusha sukta. My conclusion is that it is this very life-producing entity or energy or power (in whatever way we may choose to call IT) that has been the conundrum which has been sought to be unravelled and 'exposed' by the philosophers and the stock-in-trade for the religions. Suppose science tomorrow unravels this force somehow; there will be no god but the theists may like to choose the line "who created this force? Our God, none else." But then they may not and surely will not, allow the next logical question "Who created the God?".

To me it looks as though the advaita philosophy of Sankara with the notion of a nirguna brahman as the supreme truth, is (was) only referring to this Life Power.

 

[nachi naga]

"Who created the God?".

= swayambhu

 

[Yamaka]

= swayambhu

"Who created the God"....

MAN and his EGO.....

Who created MAN?:

Biological Evolution, as it did create billion other living beings....

Who created EGO?...

Ego is created by the enlarged brain of the human species....

What else's new here?

Nothing..... Laugh out loud.

 

[nachi naga]

"Who created the God"....

MAN and his EGO.....

who created man and his ego?

Who created MAN?:

Biological Evolution, as it did create billion other living beings....

how did it occur?who made it occur?

Who created EGO?...

Ego is created by the enlarged brain of the human species....

ego is a feeling,brain just acts as a device.animals have ego too.plants have ego too..etc.

What else's new here?

Nothing..... Laugh out loud.

instead of lol i would rofl

 

[Yamaka]

"ego is a feeling,brain just acts as a device.animals have ego too.plants have ego too..etc."

If EGO means "importance of self image and self feeling" then plants don't have it.. perhaps all primates have it, I am not sure, though.

If EGO included self preservation AND species propagation, then I suppose all living beings including plants have it...

If EGO is just a feeling and feelings are generated by change in the Action Potential of Sensory Neurons, where do you have them in plants?

Mimosa leaves droop on human touch! Does that mean they don't like human touches?!!

I am laughing out aloud...

 

[nachi naga]

"ego is a feeling,brain just acts as a device.animals have ego too.plants have ego too..etc."

If EGO means "importance of self image and self feeling" then plants don't have it.. perhaps all primates have it, I am not sure, though.

hmm

If EGO included self preservation AND species propagation, then I suppose all living beings including plants have it...

If EGO is just a feeling and feelings are generated by change in the Action Potential of Sensory Neurons, where do you have them in plants?

as long as you accept plants are filled with life sustaining elements,that they have life,is by itself ego.

Mimosa leaves droop on human touch! Does that mean they don't like human touches?!!

I am laughing out aloud...

try going to brazilian jungles where humans are gorged by plants,now do plants hate homo-sapiens?

now i am truly rofl

 

[Yamaka]

"as long as you accept plants are filled with life sustaining elements,that they have life,is by itself ego."

I don't have any problem here... please tell this to the Vegetarians here!

I consider "virions" (the ribonucleoproteins without cytoplasm) and "prions" (the beta sheet proteins without RNA, DNA or cytoplasm) as "living" or life sustaining elements created and sustained by Nature!

I thought we talk here about "feelings" and "EGO"... whether virions and prions have feelings and EGO!

I don't think so! Lol.

 

[nachi naga]

"as long as you accept plants are filled with life sustaining elements,that they have life,is by itself ego."

I don't have any problem here... please tell this to the Vegetarians here!

I consider "virions" (the ribonucleoproteins without cytoplasm) and "prions" (the beta sheet proteins without RNA, DNA or cytoplasm) as "living" or life sustaining elements created and sustained by Nature!

I thought we talk here about "feelings" and "EGO"... whether virions and prions have feelings and EGO!

I don't think so! Lol.

yamaka,ppl think only with their intuitive perceptions.plants do the same.there is the same athma pervading within them just like in us.of course mine is philosohical perception not scientific peception.virions prions ectoplasm etc are life sustaining.everything has feelings and emotions in ther respective domains.i have seen my guru talk to plants,play music for them,his entire surroundings used to be filled with harmony and peace.as far lol ing is concerned its really a good thing to be happy.i am happy you are laughing my friend.peace.

 

[saidevo]

How can we forget the experimental proof of the great Indian scientist Jagadish Chandra Bose as regards the life force of consciousness in plants and even inert materials like a sheet of tin, so fascinatingly narrated by YogAnanda in his 'Autobiography', published here?
Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramhansa Yogananda - Crystal Clarity Publishers

It was JC Bose who invented the telephone prior to Marconi.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sangom. You said in post #36: My conclusion is that it is this very life-producing entity or energy or power (in whatever way we may choose to call IT) that has been the conundrum which has been sought to be unravelled and 'exposed' by the philosophers and the stock-in-trade for the religions. Suppose science tomorrow unravels this force somehow; there will be no god but the theists may like to choose the line "who created this force? Our God, none else." But then they may not and surely will not, allow the next logical question "Who created the God?".

• The presence of the word 'somehow' in "Suppose science tomorrow unravels this force somehow..." indicates the uncertainty and the probable impossibility of the task for science, which can at best unravel only the what--nature, of the force and how it works doing what it does by way of its material manifestations and their interactions.

• The question "Who created the God" is not logical at all, because there are now further inquiries with Absolutes. We don't ask what is beyond the Absolute Zero, the lowest degree of temperature which is -273.15 degrees Celsius. All inquiries stop at their absolute levels. Since consciousness is agreed to be the substratum of animate beings in science, and philosophy extends its scope to inanimate beings too, all science has to do is to unravel if this consciousness is unversal and identical in all cases, or individual and discrete, although in the latter case, there would arise the logical question of what unites the individual, discrete manifestations of consciousness.

Since a bird in hand is worth (m)any in the bush, the philosophical/religous view of the world, man and God can very well serve as stepping stones in sAdhana for the common man, until--and if at all--science arrives at a conclusion.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Yamaka.

You said in post #33:
1. Neuroscience is fast progressing.. still there are billion things we don't understand.. Here "we" means the Scientists who are engaged in daily research as their Profession.

Did the scientists of neuroscience inqure into what makes them feel as 'we' or 'I' as individuals? If it is only a lingual convention for communication (as Nara implies in post #35), why should it generate a feeling and awareness of oneness (by those terms), beyond the physical and mental differences? For conventions of language and etiquette a judge might be addressed as 'your excellency', but there never is a feeling of the unity of consciousness in such addresses?

how to make ALL students "learn" materials at the same rate... and to turn on and turn off memories selectively for Military Intelligence.... our research is funded by DARPA - which started this Internet and Broadband some 40 years ago.

I am reminded of the film 'Suspect Zero' starring Ben Kingsley in the lead role:
Suspect Zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. People who believe in God and Religion NEED not rely on Science to come and save them! Science moves in a slow methodical way asking simple questions like "why" "why not" "how" etc etc?

Would this mean that people who believe in science can recklessly criticise the people who believe in God and Religion, although their own position is not any better--entrenched and uncertain?

"To Whome it Happens?" could be some philosophical question with a metaphysical and supernatural overtone... for Scientists it means nothing... they observe a phenomenon or a process,,, and they venture to understand it with carefully planned Experiments, and then they explain it to the laymen in simple language as much as possible.

I can understand the use of subjective pronouns and references by neuro scientists when dealing with laymen. But why use them in their own speech and writings? This is like a medical doctor preaching that smoking is injurious to health but himself doing it privately. My point is that neuro science either ignores or is clueless about this fundamental, subjective assertion of consciousness.

4. Neuroscientists hypothesize that there is constant information transfer between cortical neurons and neurons in other parts of brain like Hippocampus and visual cortex etc in primates... this information transfer is going on even during sleep... and REM is part of that process.

Now, tell me where does your metaphysical and/or supernatural power come into play?

What you have explained above is what happens when a thought arises. It is not an explanation of why or how that specific thought should arpse in the first palce, causing those neural ramifications of dream. This is where the metaphysical model of the mind and karma and past impressions hold their values.

The article titled 'Proposed Mechanisms of Dreaming' from which you have quoted has this piece of explanation for REM in dreams:

The forebrain receives the random signals from the brain stem and begins to assimilate the information into a coherent pattern. Presumably, the information received by the forebrain is spatially specific (hence the occurrence of 'rapid eye movement') and genetically programmed (1).

How does the term 'spatially specific' in the above quote, account for the simulation of the real world with phenomenal space and ease of movement of the focus of consciousness in dreams? Where exactly is this space located? How can it be located within the narrow confines of the brain? If it is like a movie screen, how can it be located in the zigzag pathways inside the components of the visual cortex or the forebrain? Is there a possibility of that dream world being projected in real space like a hologram outside the dreaming man? If not, why not?

In the metaphysical model, this trans-physical space is known as the astral plane or astral world where the world of the dreams is projected and the dreamer's consciousness is active.

 

[Yamaka]

"People who believe in God and Religion NEED not rely on Science to come and save them! Science moves in a slow methodical way asking simple questions like "why" "why not" "how" etc etc?

Would this mean that people who believe in science can recklessly criticise the people who believe in God and Religion, although their own position is not any better--entrenched and uncertain?"

Yes, people engaged in scientific thinking can criticize the People of God and Religion (as prescribed by their "Holy Books" of Vedas, Purarna, Koran, Bible etc) because the latter believe in Supernational forces and the so-called Poorva Janma Karma all with the intent to control, to regulate and potentially exploit the unsuspecting innocent people.

Here, I believe, most Scientists come to the rescue of the innocent people.

Where's the problem?

 

[Yamaka]

How can we forget the experimental proof of the great Indian scientist Jagadish Chandra Bose as regards the life force of consciousness in plants and even inert materials like a sheet of tin, so fascinatingly narrated by YogAnanda in his 'Autobiography', published here?
Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramhansa Yogananda - Crystal Clarity Publishers

It was JC Bose who invented the telephone prior to Marconi.

In the mainstream Plant Scientist Community there is very low enthusiasm for "the life force of consciousness in plants" or plants responding to music etc...they reject it as some sort of NOISE!

"The life force of consciousness in even inert materials like a sheet of tin" is a FANTASY, as GOD is, IMO.

 

[Yamaka]

I used to ask in our Lab Meetings, "What's death per se, biochemically speaking?"

One MD PhD student says, "It's simple.. when there is no electron flow in the oxidative electron transport of mitochondria of heart tissue and/or brain, death has occurred!"

"God has spoken, the person is dead" says a Godman nearby.

I say, "Fine.. do this.. once that death has occurred, pick up a few cells from this dead body from the mouth/cheek or wherever possible, culture it in petri dishes in vitro... then convert this fully differentiated cells into totipotent embryonic stems cells following established procedures... remove the nucleus of this cell and put it inside the egg cell taken from a fertile woman (after carefully removing its own nucleus).. activate the egg to divide in vitro... look for cell division and morulla and gastrulla formation... then implant it in the uterus of a surrogate mother.... a baby is grown from the dead person!"

"That's against God" screams a Godman!

I say, "Who cares?!"

Let God's warriors fight over the metaphysics and supernaturality of their Ultimate Power!

I conclude, "Man has too much EGO.."

Stay tuned.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Yamaka.

You said in post #47:
Yes, people engaged in scientific thinking can criticize the People of God and Religion (as prescribed by their "Holy Books" of Vedas, Purarna, Koran, Bible etc) because the latter believe in Supernational forces and the so-called Poorva Janma Karma all with the intent to control, to regulate and potentially exploit the unsuspecting innocent people.

• A naive and simplistic opinion, as it seems/would seem to me/many of us here. The blind belief in science being all hunky-dory (judging by its applications and technology) and would solve all problems for man, is in iteself a superstition, IMO, specially when it comes to criticising the belief of religious and spiritual people.

• Supernatural forces? About what physical force has science come to a final conclusion as to its nature and ramifications? Electricity? Magneticism? Sound, heat, light? Gravity? Are they all distinctly different types of forces or more in the nature of all in one and one in all? Let us add the mysterious force of consciousness to this list.

• If science has investigated only the tip of this iceberg of this samsAra--world-process, Vedanta has a holistic view of it and gives a man a life of dharma to progress and unfold his true nature.

• If there are no religions in the world, people would be like those portrayed in the TV serial 'Two and Half Men': despicably promiscuous, with absolutely no values of dharma in life (although the series does have some sparkling humour at rare times).

• The ultimate analysis about science could well be that the many facets of the technology it has spawned (although not pure science per se) has only nurtured the assertion of the base insticts of man: kAma, krodha, lobha, moha, mada, mAtcharya, exactly which the religious and spiritual pursuits seek to regulate and diminish.

You said in post #48:
In the mainstream Plant Scientist Community there is very low enthusiasm for "the life force of consciousness in plants" or plants responding to music etc...they reject it as some sort of NOISE!

"The life force of consciousness in even inert materials like a sheet of tin" is a FANTASY, as GOD is, IMO.

I am not surprised at the complacency of science at anything that has beyond-the-physical implications, but there is perhaps another side, as links such as the following show:
Plant Consciousness
Plant Consciousness - Peace and Loveism - Experience the Consciousness Shift

The Secret Life of Plants
The Secret Life of Plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Randall Fontes - From the Secret Life of Plants to The Play of Light

As regards your fantasy (in post #49) of science resurrecting men from their dead bodies, well, everyone has a right to dream and fantasize, but one thing: by the time--and if at all--such technology becomes practical and prevalent, you and I would have long gone and possibly reincarnated umpteen times, so why bother?

I raised some issues about my query in post #16 (regarding the world behind closed eyes):
What explains--or how does science explain in purely physical concepts--

• the consciousness behind the subjective pronouns and other references;
• where the space simulated in the visions behind closed eyes is located;
• why should not this space be trans-physical/metaphysical/transcendental, if science cannot explain it as of now with purely physical concepts.

Notice that such space is simulated even when I play a video game like 'The Doom' in the first person perspective. All that space is seemingly on the 2D computer screen, but is mapped to a virtual world in my mind as I play the game. Now, where is this space located?

Even if science has no answers to these issues as of now, if you can speculate scientifically on them, we can have some meaningful discussion, instead of us trashing science and religion.