Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Re: Wasiq (33)(31)

Wasiq,

Don`t worry:) Abolutely no offense taken! I agree with SR`s characterization of the fundamental difference in the underlying basis of our respective arguments. I understood that from the very beginning and tried to work with that limitation. The fundamental centrality of matter or object from which emerges everything else, is at the core of your worldview. The fundamental centrality of `spirit` or subject from which emerges everything else, is at the core of my view.

`` I have not been able to see any reason why one would have to postulate a `ghost in the machine`. ``

It would be a postulate only when there is no direct observation. When there is testimony from authoritative sources, we can do one of two things. We can ignore it or we can setup the necessary experiments to prove it for ourselves. Any scientific theory that has been proved by a small group of scientists remains a postulate to the rest of the laypeople, until they are willing and able to prove it for themselves. In the realm of the born-blind, if a person with vision were to arrive and describe the different colors, two different people can differ in their responses. One person can say it is all mumbo-jumbo and carry-on, while the other can say, maybe it is true and work towards gaining vision, to be able to see the colors for oneself.

``But beyond that, I see no reason or evidence, and until one is available, why complicate? There`re enough mysteries already, and one`s days are always numbered.``

As I said, the evidence is present, if only one is willing to look for it. That willingness can only come from within oneself. So I can perfectly understand your above standpoint.

``It seems that it is very hard to get to objectivity, to a point where one can step out of the confines of one mind`s imaginations and biases. Perhaps, that is where Venki, myself and others want to go anyway, but have different ways of expressing it.``

The difference is not in the way of expression but the path to it. You are trying to get to perfect objectivity with the hope that, that`s what holds all the answers. Whereas what I am advocating is getting to the source, to the absolute subject. And then harmonising and merging the object and the subject into a unity that transcends this duality of our existence.

Re: SR (32)

`` The trouble is that the human imagination is far more powerful than the neo-cortex based `intellect`. (Thus the rampant pervasiveness of what you call `pseudo-intellect`.) Thought, itself being an ethereal entity, easily succumbs to the temptation of the ethereal. Matter and logic easily get demoted to a lower tier of acceptability. ``

In light of the above and Wasiq`s question (Re:20) on the soul-intellect-mind-body connection, let me elucidate where I am coming from. Soul is the seed of conscience. Conscience is the source of consciousness. Consciousness is an aggregate of intellect, mind and ego. Normally it exists in 3 states, the `waking state`, `dream state` (REM- Rapid Eye movement sleep) and `deep sleep`. The fourth state `the super-conscious state` is what we strive for. The mind has the power to imagine, think, attend to, aim, feel and will. The mind`s continual fluctuations affects the inner sheaths namely the ego and intellect and hence consciousness. It is the faculty that can see within and without, though its natural tendency is to involve itself with objects of the visible. In collaboration with the senses, the mind perceives things for the individual to see, observe, feel and experience. These experiences leave impressions. Thought is a mental vibration based on past experiences. Memory is an unmodified recollection of words and experiences. These imprints generate fluctuations, modifications and modulations of the consciousness. The seer identifies with this fluctuating consciousness and gets drawn to the object seen and identifies with it. Then the seer becomes engrossed in the object. This becomes the seed for the diversification of the intelligence, and makes the seer forget its own radiant awareness. When the waves of consciousness are stilled and silenced, the true expression of the seer is revealed. The mind thus needs to be restrained, disciplined and stilled to reduce and eventually stop the fluctuations of the consciousness in the `waking state` to reach the `super-conscious state`. Mind is the most subtle form of matter. `Deep sleep state` is the non-deliberate absence of thought waves and knowledge, and the mind and consciousness are at rest. Deep sleep gives one a glimpse of the seer, but only indistinctly because the light of discrimination is clouded. Simulation of this state of sleep when one is awake and aware can give the glimpse of the seer. Intellect is concerned with the knowledge of facts and the reasoning faculty and is closest to the seer but non-manifest in it. So the microcosm can be visualized as the soul as the core, with the intellectual, mental, physiological and anatomical as the external sheaths in that order. I hope I have given a glimpse of the inner worldview as I see it, even though it is somewhat long-winded and cumbersome.

Re: Kafir (31)

``I would have liked to participate in this debate...``

You are still welcome to.

``However, having read the replies from you and Wasiq, it`s quite clear that Wasiq has won his arguments. He has backed up his statements with logic and reason, whereas you have repeatedly obfuscated the issues with ill-defined terms, unsupported assumptions, and circumlocution. Be a dear and admit defeat!``

It`s not about winning or losing the argument, for they are two different worldviews and the proof of it will lie with the experience of the `practitioner` as opposed to us windbags!

``As for your philosophy of the `seer,` sorry friend, but it holds about as much water as bucket riddled with holes.`` ``...Likewise, I have confidence that we will one day understand the physical basis of consciousness and cognition. The `seer`, as poetic as the concept is, will one day be regarded in the same light at the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Boogey man, i.e., a simplistic explanation of the world meant for a child`s understanding.``

That is just your viewpoint and you are welcome to hold it. Viewpoints, may I remind you, by nature are subject to change and further change and further change and....

``I suggest you direct your sentiments into poetry or fiction and leave rational discourse to others on this matter.``

Hmmm, poetry and fiction, now that`s one area where I would really be hooted out of!!! As for rational discourse on this matter, we don`t want certain ideas to putrefy into group-think and then dogma, now do we?:) The least that a true scientist can do is stay agnostic and be willing to test any theories sincerely. Perhaps on the above ideas, it will take someone or some circumstance more persuasive than me, for you to test.

Best Regards,

Venki

Venki (28):

Dear Venki,

I apologize for the harshness of my last message. SR is right, we will have to learn to disagree. On my side, I push myself to try to get to the core of issues, at least as I see them, and to the best of my ability, I have not been able to see any reason why one would have to postulate a `ghost in the machine`.

If I were to describe the `seer` as a higher emergent property of our present human mind, then it would be an acceptable hypothesis. Something akin to what a chimpanzee must sense, our remote ancestors must have sensed or a child senses long before she is an adult.

But beyond that, I see no reason or evidence, and until one is available, why complicate? There`re enough mysteries already, and one`s days are always numbered.

regards
Wasiq

Kafir (31):

Dear Kafir,

Thanks for the message. Your illustration of the mythology associated with natural phenomena is very apt. As SR wrote, the power of our imagination is truly phenomenal and marvellous ... it can create whole new worlds. Yet, if one looks deep into the structure of a myth, one possibly sees an Intellect at work which is trying to connect the observed world around it into an understandable set of relationships.

It seems that it is very hard to get to objectivity, to a point where one can step out of the confines of one mind`s imaginations and biases. Perhaps, that is where Venki, myself and others want to go anyway, but have different ways of expressing it.

regards
Wasiq

SR (32):

Rabbani sahib,

You have observed very well. You are right, our imaginations are indeed very powerful and very basic. (Is it a mere coincidence that language and story-telling are associated with us since the dawn of humans?)

I think Dawkins made a very interesting point, about the cumulative nature of ``scientific`` knowledge. Definability, communicability and verifiability make it possible for a person like myself today to surpass towering minds of yesterday. This also implicitly defines an ``objective`` nature of this pursuit, though at times it may be slow in its realization. Hence a knowledge not possessing those three attributes is perhaps not cumulative and bound to be subjective.

Continuing on your very nice comparison of the imagination and intellect, I would like to share something that I read a long time ago, and have never forgotten. A preface to a proof in real analysis contained the following verses concerning the nature of mathematics:

Fire of imagination,
Frozen in rigor.

The original was in French, and I have forgotten the name of the mathematician who wrote this.

regards,
...Wasiq

Wasiq,

This was a great debate, but unfortunately, it was doomed from the start. I`m sorry you got as flustered, but didn`t we see that coming?

Your two views have two very different underlying paradigms. Even Russell and Bishop Berkley could never convey their points to one another. The trouble is that the human imagination is far more powerful than the neo-cortex based `intellect`. (Thus the rampant pervasiveness of what you call `pseudo-intellect`.) Thought, itself being an ethereal entiry, easily succumbs to the temptation of the ethereal. Matter and logic easily get demoted to a lower tier of acceptability. Give the neo-cortex another million years and it may change. In the mean time you just have to agre to disagree.

...SR

Venki,

I would have liked to participate in this debate, but I`ve been out of town. However, having read the replies from you and Wasiq, it`s quite clear that Wasiq has won his arguments. He has backed up his statements with logic and reason, whereas you have repeatedly obfuscated the issues with ill-defined terms, unsupported assumptions, and circumlocution. Be a dear and admit defeat!

As for your philosophy of the `seer,` sorry friend, but it holds about as much water as bucket riddled with holes. As Wasiq explained, our consciousness is an emergent property of our highly developed nervous system. That we don`t have a sophisticated vocabulary yet to describe this phenomenon doesn`t justify a belief in a metaphysical `seer` or `soul`. In ancient times (and still among many peoples around the world), natural forces like rain, lightning, thunder, earthquakes, etc., were thought to have spiritual causes. Now we know the physical reasons for these phenomena. We also made up imaginative and fantastic stories about the nature of the cosmos and the creation of mankind. Now we understand the physical origins of the universe and of the human species. Likewise, I have confidence that we will one day understand the physical basis of consciousness and cognition. The `seer`, as poetic as the concept is, will one day be regarded in the same light at the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Boogey man, i.e., a simplistic explanation of the world meant for a child`s understanding.

I suggest you direct your sentiments into poetry or fiction and leave rational discourse to others on this matter.

Regards,

K

Re: Venki (29)

The issue of the existence of underlying reality is an important topic of 20th century. I mentioned it assuming you were aware of it. I was wrong.

The example that you have given has been answered in my previous message. You continue on to say:

``Surely by the law of entrophy this `life-force` cannot be destroyed. Perhaps transmuted, but not destroyed....``

This is a joke! I am sorry but you have NO idea what you are talking about! I really dislike pseudo-intellectual babble. No wonder we are going nowhere.

cheers

Re: Wasiq (28)

``How do you know that there IS an underlying reality of nature? ``

From the testimony of the wise ones and from inference. Just as, say a layman in a remote village, relies on the scientist and from inference to know that the earth is a sphere. Of course, he can be adamant and maintain that the earth is flat even after listening to all the arguments that are proferred to him. The only option left then is to say, that he has to see for himself (perhaps by launching himself on a spaceship and seeing the earth). We all know how difficult that would be for him to put his efforts towards that end, if he even chooses to do so. Only if we accept the idea of the presence of the `seer` would we be willing to seek. If we deny its existence then there will be no effort to seek.



``It is the physiological ability of a complex system called the body to sustain the critical functions required for its persistence.``

Consider the following case: X is a person in top physical condition. Now Y holds X`s breath long enough for X to suffocate to death. What is the difference between X as a `live person` and X as a `dead person`? Note: X is still in top physical condition. What is it that can revive X? What is missing from X? What happened to the `life-force` in X? Surely by the law of entrophy this `life-force` cannot be destroyed. Perhaps transmuted, but not destroyed. But even if you don`t accept the `life-force`, which seems obvious, where is the mind, where is the intellect? Clearly if X were a car, a replacement part would bring the car back into driving condition. Why do I get the feeling that we are going round and round on a merry-go-round:)

`` Therefore to say ``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...`` is at the very least an inappropriate use of terms. ``

In light of the above example, I don`t see how. But if one wants to bury ones head in the sand like an ostrich, then I say more power to you or should I say more matter to you:)

Regards.

Re: Venki (25)

This is an interesting discussion -I must commend you on presenting your point of view very well. And (un?)fortunately it is turning towards really interesting issues!

``I concede that the confusion ...``

Thank you, but I want to persist. How do you know that there IS an underlying reality of nature?

``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...``

This way of phrasing needlessly complicates the issue, and leads to confusion. If I were to give a one-line answer to it, it would probably be: ``It is the physiological ability of a complex system called the body to sustain the critical functions required for its persistence.``

The human body is a complex system, held together by inter-dependencies of different sub-systems (respiratory, digestive, transport, immunity etc). It is a case of extreme specialization and therefore absolute interdependency. On top of that, it is a biological system, which means that a living body exists in a dynamic state of equilibrium with the external world which is the source of nourishment and threat for it.

If (a) the body were not supported by complicated set of inter-dependencies and (b) was not amenable to degenerative and irreversible decay and hence loss of functionality of its constituents once the body ceases to act as a system, it might be possible to reverse the state of death. Case in point, people can be brought back to ``life`` by restarting the heart provided certain conditions apply.

Many non-living examples around you of this scenario: Complicated machinery (Challenger disaster, minute fatigue in an O-ring leads to a large scale catastrophic and irreversible failure), large scale computer networks (corruption of system files or loss of critical routers lead to a large scale failure), market economies (withdrawal of investment capital from a fledgling economy leads to a complicated set of inter-dependent events), turbulence in fluids (local non-uniformity can spread into a large area change in fluid flow) ... there is nothing ``miraculous`` in all of this, at least not in the conventional term of the word, there are simple deterministic rules that can lead to extremely complicated situations, some of them quite irreversible.

The body, with its hundereds of billions of constituent cells, is another example. Despite the resiliency conferred to it due to redundancy, it is after all an inter-dependent system.

Therefore to say ``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...`` is at the very least an inappropriate use of terms.

regards

Re: Godot (21)

Actually I tried to answer your question in as few words as possible (for obvious reasons).

For a materialist (of any flavor) the answer is completely definable and verifiable. For a believer in life after death, there are two possibilities: he is right or wrong. If he is right, then the answer is completely definable and verifiable. If he isn`t then my example applies.

You haven`t convinced me of your assertion of there being things which are neither definable or verifiable.

best

Re: Godot, #24

``However, if the ``intellect`` is not the ``seer`` than this whole discussion is, as Weinberg says, pointless.``

I agree, the discussion would be pointless if there is no progression. But if the discussion leads to right understanding by the intellect, and to further quest for the `seer` then it would have achieved something. What`s that saying, `Every journey of a million miles starts with a single step....`

Hi Wasiq, (Re: 22)

I understand. We all have to earn our daily bread:)

``How can it not? The very definitions of `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and the known derive from an underlying model of knowledge.``

I concede that the confusion is clearly due to lack of understanding. The very definitions of the `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and `the knower` derive from the underlying REALITY of `the knower` (subject-changeless) rather than from an underlying MODEL of knowledge (object-everchanging). Do we want to build on a rock or shifting sands, that is the crucial difference!

``I understood exactly what you said...``



Apparently not. Although we cannot push your computer analogy too far, let me persist. Your question would have been, `What is the difference between a computer with its power on vs one with its power off and completely unplugged`. And the answer would have been, `without a source of power and a channel to flow the power to the computer, it is merely a funny looking box`. Now a person can give power to the computer and voila it can function. Extending that further, what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body`. Can we trace it and connect it back to the `dead body`? Not yet, at least not by most people, but perhaps in the future. But this still implies the presence of a power. What is that power? As to your example of the market, let`s get the cause and effect, subject and object straight. There can be NO market (effect) without people (cause- to first create and then trade in the market).

`` The proof is in the pudding, as they say, so why don`t you provide me with some knowledge that you can only get through the `seer` but not through the `intellect`? Once you tell me something, which no other Intellect has discovered, and I verify it to be true, then I will say that there is substance to what you are saying.``

Unfortunately, I can`t venture there yet. It would truly be the blind leading the blind:) We still have to rely on the testimony of the ones with vision, until we gain our own vision. Exactly like the layman who has to rely on the scientists` testimony on `Quantum Mechanics` until and unless he prepares himself with the tools for comprehension, like the necessary maths, Schrodinger`s equations etc. If you want to know what no intellect has discovered but only inferred it is the `seer`. Only the `seer` can discover the

`seer` (Note: the subject and object are one and the same). I welcome you to discover for yourself.

But, it needs preparation.

Honesty is the virtue of buddhi (intellect). The restless mind (manas or man) leads us astray and the ego (ahamkara- root `hum` in hindi, the `I` consciousness) is the one that stands in the way. A still, calm, peaceful, serene and focused mind, that is detached from the object is an essential tool for all endeavors, especially the pursuit of the spirit. The dissolution of the ego would be the next step and so on...

Best Regards.

Re: Venki, Replies 19 & 21

Your distinction between ``seer`` and ``intellect`` is impressive and well put. However, if the ``intellect`` is not the ``seer`` than this whole discussion is, as Weinberg says, pointless.

Re: Wasiq, Reply 23

I said ``There are ``Things`` or ``Non-things`` ... that cannot be demonstrated, defined, validated, or verified.``

``Can you give me an example?`` is the question you asked me.

``What happens to us after we die?`` is an example I gave, which I believe cannot be demonstrated, defined, validated, or verified.

Your answer: ``Depends on who is looking.`` You give an example: ``A lunatic in an asylum believes he is the king of the land. Is he actually the king?``

Well, I’m lost, man. I’ve no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Re: Godot (re 18)

``What happens to us after we die?``

Depends on who is looking.

An example: A lunatic in an asylum believes he is the king of the land. Is he actually the king?

best

Dear Venki,

I am sorry for the delay ... I have to rely on my Intellect to solve the mundane problems, therefore can`t do everything at once :)

``I don`t see how lack of understanding of the connection between the different levels negates the discimination between `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and `the known`.``

How can it not? The very definitions of `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and the known derive from an underlying model of knowledge.

``...What is the difference between a `live body` and a `dead body`? Where is the `emergent complex state` of the `dead body` assuming materialistic origins?``

I understood exactly what you said. Perhaps you did not appreciate what I said. Let me ask you a very simple question: What is the difference between a computer with its power on vs. one with its power off? And what happens to the programs running on the computer when you switch off its power? What happens to the system programs which monitor the computer when you turn off the power? You are unnecessarily complicating the issue without providing any reason for doing so. My example of the market illustrates just how a complicated state arises from simple and deterministic rules. Why shouldn`t that be true of the mind without pulling a metaphysical monster out of the hat?

``As I mentioned, the realization will come at the level of the `seer` not at the level of the intellect, which is where we are operating.``

I am sorry for being direct: This is pure intellectual waffle-making until you substantiate it. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, so why don`t you provide me with some knowledge that you can only get through the `seer` but not through the `intellect`? Once you tell me something, which no other Intellect has discovered, and I verify it to be true, then I will say that there is substance to what you are saying.

As I said earlier, its easy to say anything if (a) you cannot define your terms and (b) you cannot verify anything.

best regards
Wasiq

Re: Wasiq

``I think, however, that this argument is an extended version of Cartesian Dualism. The problem with this argument therefore remains in explaining the connection between the different levels from body to seer.``

I don`t see how lack of understanding of the connection between the different levels negates the discimination between `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and `the known`.

``Even if the mechanism is very subtle, it must be decipherable and communicable, otherwise how does a human being realize its existence in the first place? Ironically, in an

attempt to provide a unified view, this approach leads to a hopeless situation of incompatibility and division.``

As I mentioned, the realization will come at the level of the `seer` not at the level of the intellect, which is where we are operating. We operate in a dual world constrained by space and time of subject/object, up/down, pleasure/pain, joys/sorrows, immanence/nature (purusha/prakrthi) etc. Unless we transcend this duality where the intellect operates, we will NOT `see` the unity. For this to happen, there needs to be an involution from nature (represented by our body-anatomy/physiology), through the mind and the intellect by controlling and harmonising them until they are folded back into the seer. When this happens the veil covering the `seer` is removed and it shines forth with full brilliance of its own effulgence and wisdom dawns. The knower and the known become one. We see a spark of this brilliance from time to time in what I call the `Eureka! phenomenon` when answers come to all of us in a flash, as opposed to the methodical working of the discriminative faculty - the intellect.

``The `seer` could be interpreted as an emergent complex state that relies upon the body and the brain`s potential to give rise to the mind.``

Let me rephrase what I said earlier. What is the difference between a `live body` and a `dead body`? Where is the `emergent complex state` of the `dead body` assuming materialistic origins?

Re: Venki

``Lets take the case of a subject and object.``

I enjoyed reading this nice argument, and I think you presented it well. I think, however, that this argument is an extended version of Cartesian Dualism. The problem with this argument therefore remains in explaining the connection between the different levels from body to seer.

To say that ``The `seer` is the seed. The intellect is the root. The mind is the stem and branches and the body the leaves`` is admittedly very poetic, however it sheds no light on how this actually happens. Even if the mechanism is very subtle, it must be decipherable and communicable, otherwise how does a human being realize its existence in the first place? Ironically, in an attempt to provide a unified view, this approach leads to a hopeless situation of incompatibility and division.

I think it is far more probable that an explanation of the mind, for example, will derive from purely physical arguments. Physical arguments are by definition connected to the world around them, and thus carry the possibility of a unified view, if it exists.

If I were to take a direct analogy with a plant, then I would say that the genetic code of a human being includes in itself the potential to develop an organ called a brain, which by its sheer existence, would necessarily give rise to mind, intellect and the `seer`. The `seer` could be interpreted as an emergent complex state that relies upon the body and the brain`s potential to give rise to the mind.

One example of such a complex state is the market. It starts from the mundane business of people buying and selling, supply and demand. Yet, at every point, it can be made arbitrarily complex depending on the sheer number of possibilities related to buying and selling. In a manner of speaking it bootstraps itself, to give rise to an extremely complicated entity. The behavior of the market is essentially unpredictable right now, however, no one makes the claim that it arises from a completely separate category of entities that is not related to the physical world and the clients around it.

regards

Re: Wasiq

`` First of all, metaphysical philosophy, sounds very good in theory. But it suffers from the apparent flaw that many of its concepts are neither demonstrable nor even properly definable.``

I am not advocating philosophy as theory developed by the intellect (namely by observation, inference or testimony from authoritative sources). Philososphy will remain mere mental gymnastics as long as there is no direct `experience` of the `seer`. For this to happen you have to observe directly or just have to rely on inference and testimony. There is a methodical approach to have a direct experience open to all. But we have prepare for it. Just like the preparartion required to be able understand say `Quantum Mechanics`.



``It is always easy to say something when (a) you/others do not know what the terms mean and (b) no one can verify your/others assertions.``

Try explaining `Quantum Mechanics` or the `General Theory of Relativity` to a well educated college student let alone a lay person. The above argument you make will sound valid to them, even though you as a physicist may be able to see the inherent truths in them.

``Second, taken as a tool for practical knowledge, I am sorry to say that metaphysics has been a failure. Metaphysical thought in India, for example, is several millenia old, yet India had to wait for modern science to bring in its benefits. Despite lofty ideals, metaphysics cannot deliver the simple things that result in man`s control over the nature around him.``

I am not saying that the search for the spirit is mutually exclusive from science or its practical aspect technology. Just as only a minority are going to be engaged in science, so also only a minority is going to be engaged in the full pursuit of the spirit. Just as the impact of science and technology can be good or bad depending on how society chooses to use or abuse it, so too the precepts congealed from the pursuit of the spirit can be used for benefit or abused for profit. But ultimately the drive to know the truth will only come from within. You talk about benefits from a utilitarian standpoint. Dharma, ones duty is good and necessary, so is Artha, the pursuit of material pleasures (wealth, power etc), so is Kama (the sense pleasures). But a necessary evolution in the human cycle is Moksha (spiritual enlightenment). This can ONLY happen when the pursuit of the above three ceases to be a motivating force for an individual. When one comes to a stage where one can say `Is that all there is to life?` with an intense driving force from within and not just as a passing fancy, only then will one embark on the spiritual journey. Otherwise spirituality will remain merely one aspect of human life, as it is for the majority of the people.

`` Third, what of the incredible variety of metaphysical thought? Are they all consistent, are they all valid or can there be only one? If they are all valid, then unfortunately their information content is zero (since two mutually

contradictory ones could be valid). If only a few are valid, then metaphysical reasoning is not error free.``

It is just what you said `thought`. Thought is very ephemeral that changes with time. That which is bound up in space and time is condemened to change. Metaphysics is hence constarined too. Only when one transcends space and time can one see the changeless UNITY of the whole. To that end whatever tools can be directed, only the practitioner can say whether is valid or not. Everything else would be mere conjecture.

`` While one cannot deny the existence of something that one has not seen, it would be instructive to explain why one needs to postulate the existence of a soul, what would be the properties of the soul and indeed how would one go about verifying that it is indeed so.``

Lets take the case of a subject and object. Can YOU observe your body? Yes. Then the observer is not the body although the body is part of you. Next, can YOU observe your mind? Yes. You can see your thought process jumping from one topic to another constantly vibrating. Then the observer is not the mind. Can YOU observe the intellect as it reasons and weighs and discriminates? Yes. So the intellect is not the observer. So WHO is the observer, the seer, the subject. Now if you do not want to use the word soul that is fine with me. But don`t you see that `the seer` is not any of the above but only sheathed as it were in a progression of coarser and coarser entities that come in direct contact with the external world. As you can see, we can use the intellect to discriminate and postulate the existence of `the seer` who is present in someone who is live but not in one who is dead. `The seer` is not only present in the `waking state` but also in the `dream state` and the `deep sleep` state. Our endeavor is to go beyond these three states of normal existence to the state of `supreme bliss` if you please.

`` Wherein does the mind-soul connection arise from? And is it absolutely necessary that it should not be explainable by some physical laws and hence lie in the domain of metaphysics? If not, then it is not beyond the ken of a crude method like science. It may take some time, but it will inevitably get there. ``

The `seer` is the seed. The intellect is the root. The mind is the stem and branches and the body the leaves. Without the seed there is nothing. Trying to understand the soul by physical laws is like to use a loose analogy trying to measure the intellect using weights and measures, barometers, thermocouples etc. It is inadequate. The part cannot know the whole, only the whole can the know the part. Science since it depends on the intellect cannot know the `seer` although it can infer some. The `seer` with a full vision can with the light of wisdom see it `all`.

Regards.