Document Type: Email Thread (August 2016)
Original File: `DEEPAK/Evidence/PDF/EFTA00821510.pdf`
On August 8, 2016, Jeffrey Epstein engaged in a direct email discussion with Deepak Chopra and Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson regarding the "Hard Problem" of consciousness.
From: "Jeffrey E."
To: Deepak Chopra
Subject: Re: Josephson's confusion - the hard problem is a physics problem not a problem in biology.
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 10:04:04 +0000
its clear that for hundreds of years. many great minds have failed at even a basic understanding of the issue. so far- no theory supported by repeatable experiment. and evidence. - so- most of the thought on this are just that. thoughts _ great discoveries often were pulled , enabled encouraged by the tech of the time. . electric, microscopes. , telescopes. I am confident that the INtemet as a tech tool . MUST be part of the inquiry, the newest of tools. - otherwise its just some thinkers, most not as good as plato or aristotle. still doing the exact same thing.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:56 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:
Body/Mind/ Universe are all symbols for experience and the knowing of experience in awareness . Pure awareness is non symbolic
Deepak Chopra
Super Genes: Unlock the Astonishing Power of Your DNA for Optimum Health and Wellbeing
On Aug 8, 2016, at 5:21 AM, Brian Josephson wrote:
On 8 Aug 2016, at 04:41, Stanley A. KLEIN wrote:
Could Jack or Brian clarify what is the problem that you think you have solved. I presume it isn't anything measurable since I haven't heard what measurement needed a different solution than what standard methods give.
It depends what you mean by measurement. It is a well-established fact, I suggest, that experienced mathematicians regularly come up with solutions to difficult problems, even if we don't measure this in the way that we measure physical things. I don't accept Penrose's view that the brain can't do this because of limitations what algorithms can do, since physical processes are not necessarily reducible to an explicit algorithm, but on the grounds that learning from experience doesn't seem adequate as an explanation, higher maths being way beyond ordinary experience. You could argue instead (cf. http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1813962) that nature has had infinite time to learn what works and what doesn't, and this knowledge is what we can connect with to do maths. Yardley's point that symbols are what we use to connect with mind is relevant here:
EFTA00821510
We invented [symbols] so we could have some way of articulating the hidden reality we know as mind. The concepts involved go beyond back-action, which in Peirce's terminology is Secondness, and include his Thirdness, which corresponds to Yardley's `pi'. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_elements_and_classes_of_signs#Semiotic_elements for details about these concepts.
This, I argue, makes possible a kind of ordering process unknown in regular physics, but is manifested in phenomena such as the emergence and development of language, whose existence shows that this is in principle a valid concept rather than just an idea. The challenge is to describe all this more rigorously.
Brian
Brian D. Josephson
This email thread establishes a high-level, intellectually engaged relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Deepak Chopra.