Ultimate Reality and Nonmaterial Origin Of Universe by Prem Nath Tiwari

Dear Mr. Franco,

The thought experiment has proved that UC is independent of five senses and brain. Therefore UC would exist irrespective of the state of the brain including death. This is what the findings of the experiment asserts.

All the experiments are done in the waking state. But the findings are valid even when we are in coma or in deep sleep.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I agreed with you that in order to know that we are (or even to think that we know that we are), we don't need to think whether we are or we are not, because I misinterpreted your question "Or do you think whether you are or you are not to know that you are?" as "Or do you wonder whether you are or you are not to think that you know that you are?". However, you may be right. Maybe I only think that I think that I know that I am, and in fact I just know that I am. I cannot exclude this possibility, and I never pretended. Anyway, I find interesting your idea.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

In response to questions regarding Essay Contest voting:

Thanks for giving some thought to some general voting issues in this Essay Contest, which as you can imagine are tricky. In answer to the issues raised, which concern ALL ESSAYS, we would advise all entrants that the provenance of all votes is being recorded. These records for potential essay contest winners will, after voting closes, be carefully examined for consistency with the stated rules that (a) one should not vote for oneself, (b) members or authors can vote for three essays as a restricted voter, and (c) a given author can only submit one essay. Non-adherence to these rules may be grounds for disqualifying votes and/or essays from consideration.

Best,

K Rajanna

FQXi

Dear Kavita Rajanna,

I am a bit disturbed by your post. I know the rules of voting. Has some one voted against the rules for me? If so, I would be glad if such votes are delited from my name.

With my best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Dear Prem,

I have edited my above post to make clear that this message was intended for all essay contest voters, not just those voting for your essay.

At this point we have not looked into any possible voting inconsistencies; we will do so after voting finishes on December 15. Until then we encourage everyone to vote for their favorite essays if they haven't already done so. A refresher on the voting guidelines is available at http://www.fqxi.org/community/vote.

Best,

K Rajanna

Dear Cristi,

It seems you are still not fully convinced that you know that you are without thinking though; the answer which you have given to my questions proves otherwise. Now you are saying that you misinterpreted my questions. I am reproducing the questions.

"Others know that you are by seeing your face (your main physical identity), but you can not see you own face, then how you know that you are? You can see your face in the mirror; do you see a mirror to know that you are? Or do you see or touch your body or hear your voice or use other two other sense organs to know that you are? Or do you think of your body to know that you are? Or do you think whether you are or you are not to know that you are? The answer to all these questions is no. Is it not?"

Your answer was "I agree" Which means that you know that you are even without thinking (without using brain).

What is there in the questions to be misinterpreted? My questions are quite simple which almost any one can reply. I may add that you are not the only person who has difficulty in accepting this rational conclusion. Most of the persons have the same problem because of their bias that nothing is known without the use of mind (brain). This has been the main problem in discovering the independent existence of undifferentiated consciousness (UC). The above simple questions and their answer have removed this problem that lead to the discovery of UC which is invariant against time and condition, and most probably universe originated from it, if the universe has an origin and that was a singularity.

Prem N. Tiwari

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I never said that "nothing is known without the use of mind (brain)". Also, I never rejected your conclusion that there is an UC, nor that we can know about it. I explain this misunderstanding by my improper choice of words (I have the nasty habit to keep open both possibilities until one is proved to be invalid).

Is there a clear way to differentiate between the following two possible situations?

1. I know that I am. (without using my brain)

2. I think that I know that I am. (by using my brain, but not necessarily by thinking in words)

I think that a practical way to distinguish between them will help me to fully understand your proof. Moreover, I suspect that this solution will help even some of the persons having the bias you mentioned.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Flowing with a Frozen River

Dear Cristi,

It is good to be critical in accepting any new discovery or development. But let me tell you that I have asked the four questions (given in my previous post) to more than 100 persons; all of them gave the same answer as yours, which means that one knows that he is without using his five and thinking (without using the brain). My last question in short is; do you think to know that you are? All of them including you said no. This invalidates No.2. What else proof do you need?

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

after some posts in the second week of Dec., on this essay, i felt like saying a few things.

1. Philosophy and science are sisters, infact the former as subject came first and it included physics within it.

2.consciousness is a term that is strictly not confirmable as a scientific quantity/parameter! Human experiences cover this parameter pretty well. It is one's experience that it ' consciousness ' exists.

3. The awareness about oneself exists with us all through what mechanism? Person in a comma or deep sleep, continues to be aware that he/she exists. That is the consciousness associated with him. No thinking is involved.

4. Brain is a physical part of the human body, but human mind is something that includes both self awareness and brain together.

5.Where does the human soul exists, is it confined to the limits of the human body? To me, the soul is not confined as it remains connected inj varying degrees with the pure/cosmic/undiffrentaited consciousness. To that extent, a human being is considered to be 'enlightened'?

6.The problems /misunderstandings arise o/c words used by different individuals, as our comprehension of the same words do vary in a subtle way from one another.

i am not sure if i have helped the matters being raised on this essay or not!The author and the commentators are the best judge on my comments.

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

Since, as you say, my own answer confirmed your theory, I see no point for me to be critical.

Respectfully,

Cristi Stoica

Dear Dr. Narendra Nath,

Wonderful coments!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Dear Cristi,

I thank you for asking several very good questions on my paper. It has helped me to know the difficulty that a reader may face in understanding the paper.

I feel, I have not been able to fully convince you about the independent existence of UC, especially when the unanimous answer to my four questions leads to the conclusion that one knows that he is without thinking (without using brain). Many persons have the same problem in accepting that they know some thing without the use of the brain.

In summer of 2007, while living in White Plains, New York I met a friendly young bright man in my evening walk. After some general talk I talked to him about my paper. We discussed it for four consecutive days in our walk. He agreed that he is aware of his existence without use of his five senses and thinking. But he was not certain if he is aware of it without use of his brain. When I asked why? He said, some thing other than thinking must be happening in the brain. You have said the same thing "(using my brain, but not necessarily by thinking in words)." I asked him, are you not biased? He said may be. He added that your paper is through and through rational but very strange.

I again thank you for asking very good questions and wish you good luck.

Prem N. Tiwari

I thank you again for asking very good questions.

With my best wishes,

Prem Nath Tiwari

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

"I thank you for asking several very good questions on my paper. It has helped me to know the difficulty that a reader may face in understanding the paper."

You are right; my purpose was to ask good questions, and not to criticize your theory. Thank you for your appreciation.

By trying to understand how my mind works, I observed long time ago that one of its ways is to proceed by successive adjustments. This implies that my mind is always biased. If I make the assumption that everybody's mind works similar to mine, I can presume that many of us are biased in one way or the other. The one biased to the left will consider the one less biased to the left as being biased to the right.

When I realized that my mind is biased, I started to think that maybe the opinions which are different from mine may be equally justified. So I realized that I might not know as much as I supposed. Instead of having a clear opinion for each thing, I started to admit that I don't know. When somebody asks me something and I respond that I don't know, it is because I know that I may answer influenced by my own bias. When I remember that I am biased, in most of the cases I have to admit that I don't know much. The person who asks me usually replies that I reject his idea because I am biased. But I don't reject the idea when I say "I don't know", I just account for my bias, which may make me believe that I know something when in fact I don't know. If I would consider my subjective opinions as absolute, I may have a definite answer, yes or no, for every question. The person asking me the question may be happy to agree with him, even if my agreement may come from the biased mind. Instead, if I say that I don't know, I am, in almost all cases, perceived as rejecting or criticizing.

Because I try to avoid as much as I can my own biases when taking a decision, I usually request more proves than the majority. This accentuates the impression others have about me, that I try to criticize or contradict them.

One other thing that I learned about bias is that, if I say to somebody that he doesn't understand my argument because he is biased, I should expect that he says back to me that I am the one who is biased. The argument "you don't agree with me because you are biased" always works both ways. If I really believe that he is biased, I should avoid telling him, because his bias contains a protection mechanism that makes him believing that the others are in fact the biased ones, and closes his mind against any argument. Conversely, when somebody tries to convince me that I should listen to him, since he is not biased, while I am, I ask for very difficult proofs. I am not trying to escape from my own biased mind, just to be entrapped by his biased mind.

Now you understand why I answered "I don't know" when for many others the answer is obvious. You also understand that I do not reject easily an idea, but the price is that I also do not accept it easily. You understand why I told you that my opinion is not important - it is because I know that I am biased.

Knowing that I am biased, it is important for me to know how to distinguish in an objective way between "I know" and "I think that I know". In particular between "I know that I am" and "I think that I know that I am".

Thank you for providing such an interesting discussion subject, and for the patience with which you answered my questions, good or bad.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

Flowing with a Frozen River

Dear Ctristi,

The kind of bias I am talking is a very genuine one. The friend in White Plains, New York and you both, in response to my four questions said that you know that you are without using your five senses and thinking. But when I said, it means you know that you are without using your brain, you both found it difficult to accept. This is because so far all that we have known has been known by using our five senses and brain. Because of this we are not prepared to treat our knowledge of self existence as an exception to it though; there is unquestionable reason for treating it as exception; and that reason is, there is nothing else other than the knowledge of self existence that we knows without using five senses and thinking.

When I pointed it out to the friend in White Plain, he agreed. I do not know about you because you say that you may be using your brain, but not necessarily by thinking in words to know that I am. I hope, you know that the knowledge of self existence is the doubtless knowledge that remains unchanged under all conditions through out the entire life of every person. You also know, how much concrete thinking, checking and rechecking is needed to acquire doubtless knowledge. Despite this, you think that you have this doubtless (knowledge of self existence) by using your brain but not necessarily by thinking in words. How do you thing if not by words or symbols?

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Dear Dr. Tiwari,

I wish to thank again you very much for your beautiful essay, and for the patience with which you answered my questions. I enjoyed discussing with you, and also I enjoyed the interventions of Dr. Narendra Nath.

I wish you all the best,

Cristi

Dear DR. Prem

You say: Ultimate reality is an entity that is invariant against time and condition.

I would say: Ulitimate reality is ATEMPOTRAL UNIVERSE itself. We humans experience ATEMPORAL UNIVERSE into model of time and so we are unaware of its godliness.Attachment #1: 1_INTERACTION_BETWEEN_SPACETIME_GRAVITY_AND_CONSCIOUSNESS__SORLI__2008.pdfAttachment #2: 3_Relation_Between_Time_Mind_and_Consciousness.pdf

Dear Mr Amrit,

Ultimate Reality is an entity that is changeless. I have said with respect to time and condition because that is how the change is perceived. You may remove time from the definition if you wish. The entity to be termed as ultimate reality should be changeless under any condition. Do the universe or its constituents, matter and energy meet this requirement?

According to the General Theory of Relativity the universe has a beginning. So it may have an end also.

.

With best wishes,

Prem N. Tiwari

Prem N. Tiwari,

Can you imagine someone who does not feel question like Big Bang and before not at all pressing.

Look into my essay and the attachments below.Attachment #1: 10_Microsoft_Word__How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdfAttachment #2: 11_Microsoft_Word__How_do_part_2.pdf

Dear Echard Blumschein

I can very well imagine someone (especially an engineer) for whom the question like Big Bang and before are not at all pressing. But I can not imagine a scientist (especially a physicist and cosmologist) saying that it is not a foundational question.

With my best wishes, , Prem N. Tiwari