Papers by Tennyson Samraj
We can explain consciousness as a neural process, an emergent property, or a transduced phenomeno... more We can explain consciousness as a neural process, an emergent property, or a transduced phenomenon in the universe (Robert Forman, 2011). Either the brain generates (Emergent Theory,1992) or transduces consciousness. (Transduction theory, 2011). Brains are transducers of consciousness. In a narrow sense, cosmology and consciousness can be understood as the relationship between the mind and matter. In a broad sense, the relationship between consciousness and cosmology can be understood as an ontic entanglement, correlated with the manifestation of local Consciousness (the self) and nonlocal Consciousness (the global consciousness). Non-local consciousness must be understood as a global conceiver and creator, before nonlocal consciousness can be understood as an observer or perceiver. After Schrödinger's thought experiment, the need for an observer is understood as being fundamental/foundational if one is to understand anything about the universe. But the big question is whether the universe has a beginning, for most scientists think so. If so, was the universe conceived and created before it could be observed or perceived? There is a need for a conceiver and creator, without which there would be nothing to observe or perceive. Defining the universe demands the existence of consciousness as a conceiver/creator/observer. (Schrödinger,1935; Stephen Priest, 2024). Two brute facts are a given: we are conscious and we are conscious of the universe. There is more and more evidence pointing to the necessity that consciousness is nonlocal. Understanding the relationship between local and non-local consciousness is more important than explaining the correlation between the mind and brain. Can we equate the existence of God with nonlocal consciousness? Can the manifestation of divine consciousness be equated as the basis for the nonlocality of consciousness? If freedom and intentionality are part of local consciousness, we can extrapolate that non-local consciousness is intentional and free, and much more. What is fundamental to local and nonlocal consciousness is intelligence and freedom.
Athens Journal of Philosophy 2, 2025
The epistemic nature of truth provides the basis of understanding the relationship
between the n... more The epistemic nature of truth provides the basis of understanding the relationship
between the naming/meaning distinction and the existence/essence distinction.
Every word denotes a reductive reference and connotes a non-reductive
meaning. Every word is associated with both intension/meaning and extension/
reference (Putnam). A noun is a naming word; like all words, it denotes a
reference and connotes meaning. The distinction between naming and meaning
with reference to nouns is necessary because nouns like all words, deal with both
extension and intension. The essence/existence distinction defines why it is
essential to separate naming from meaning. For naming and existence is an
ontological matter; meaning and essence is an epistemic matter. What does a
word or specifically a noun entail? It can ascribe (1) the identity of a person,
place, or principle; (2) it can affirm the existence of something (material/concrete
world); the subsistence of something (mathematical/abstract world), or the
absistence of something (mental world, F.N. Findlay); or (3) it can define the
essence of something as being an essential, accidental, or emergent property.
The central thrust of my paper is to discuss why words/ nouns can be understood
as either defining the identity and existence of something or defining the meaning
and essence of something. There are no nouns/words without reference or
meaning. When we see something, what conjures in our mind is either the
existence of that thing or the essence of that thing. Naming deals with the
specificity and existence of something, while meaning deals with the universality
and essence of something. Naming puts emphasis on what is reductive, and
meaning puts emphasis on what is non-reductive. Naming and meaning like
existence and essence are intertwined because the truth of existence (including
subsistence and assistance) and the truth of essence are inseparable, if truth is
an epistemic matter. Essence/ existence distinction is fundamental to what exists,
subsists or absists in understanding the relationship of the naming/meaning
distinction.
The intent of this paper is to establish a non-reductive neural base for the conscious self and f... more The intent of this paper is to establish a non-reductive neural base for the conscious self and freedom. Given (1) the dependency of consciousness or the conscious self on the neural brain (2) established correlates between mental (cognitive) and neural states, (3) the persistent claim for 'free will' exhibited in human praxis, an attempt is made to continue the debate on 'free will' in the light of Libet's claim that "readiness potential" precedes the "will to act"? Do we need to locate, detect or create consciousness or the conscious self before we can accept it? We know that conscious self is contingent or related to the physical brain, but until (or unless) we can establish what role non-neural elements (temperature, pressure, neural oscillations and sleep) play in making 'conscious self' possible we cannot detect, locate or create the conscious self. All we know is that conscious self or consciousness is related to the physical brain, but it could be a fundamental property of the physical universe-as such not only related to the physical but related to the laws of physics. Consciousness is contingent or related to the physical brain but we do not know whether it is purely physical (as Dennett claims), whether it is reductive (as Smart suggests), whether it is non-reductive (as Chalmers claims), whether it is irreducible (as Searle claims), or whether it is immaterial (as Sartre claims). Consciousness is an existential/emergent mode of being and so is 'free will', hence only existentially detectable. The emergence of consciousness from organic sentience gives rise to the phenomenal, intentional, functional, moral and the existential but non-reductive self. The detectable genetic and neural activity generates the non-reductive 'state consciousness' (Rosenthal), which I shall call existential sentience. It is existential sentience' (the awareness that we are conscious) that is responsible for the self, which is nonreductive though organic in its roots. All creatures exhibit levels of sentience but human sentience exhibits something unique -the awareness of being conscious. The awareness that we are conscious to begin with is selfawareness. So belief in the conscious existential self is basic if one is to accept the phenomenal, functional, moral, and volitional self.
What we believe about the essence of God does not provide any specificity for the identification ... more What we believe about the essence of God does not provide any specificity for the identification of God? Without specificity, we cannot identify God, should God encounter us. Necessity related to causality, a priority, or analyticity, cannot establish the identity of God. If what we know about God cannot identify God, then we can only establish what causality, apriority, and analyticity purports regarding the essence of God. Everything that is exists with specificity or identity (Kripke). If God exists God exists with an identity, but we do not have any information as to what that identity might be. In this paper, an attempt is made to show that if all the information about God cannot establish the identity of God, then the search for empirical proof amounts to nothing. If what we believe about God cannot provide an ontological identity then we must extrapolate the relevance of God from the relevance of the questions as to why we choose to believe in God. Sacred texts do not provide any tangible identifying marks of God for its believers. Calvin's Sensus Devinitatis does not give believers any specifics that can identify God as God. Descartes's logical necessity, Swinburne's factual necessity and Plantinga's metaphysical necessity of God does not establish any identifiable essence. As such, the essence of God derived from apriority, analyticity, and causality simply impinges on the significance of necessity that purports beliefs for ontological necessity. The ontological necessity of God can be best understood in the context of the Leibnitz's questionwhy is there something rather than nothing? It is argued that God is definable and believable but not identifiable.
Athens Journal of Philosophy, Feb 26, 2024
When we understand the ontological, political and legal underpinnings associated with the concept... more When we understand the ontological, political and legal underpinnings associated with the concept of freedom, liberty and rights, we understand the relationship between rights and laws. Rights can be understood as liberties or as laws. Liberties can be understood as de facto rights or as de jure rights. It is de jure rights that are recognized as laws that provide the basis for the rule of law. It is the rule of law that provides the basis for equal rights and equal justice in an ideal republic. Rights, laws and the rule of law are distinct. Rights are self-evident truths. Laws are imperatives backed by sanctions (John Austin). The rule of law is a principle that purports that the recognition de facto and de jure rights provide the basis for political, social and economic justice. People live by the rights recognized by law. As such, the rule of law advocates two fundamental underpinnings in a republic: (1) the recognition of rights as the basis for equal rights and equal justice, and ( ) the recognition of law as the basis for governance. (H.L.A. Hart). However, since the recognition of law is the recognition of rights, the recognition of rights precedes the governance by law principle. What is fundamental to the rule of law is that it recognizes rights, legitimizes political rule and administers equal/blind justice (Meyers, 1213). As such, no branch of government can weaponize laws to terminate recognized individual rights. The maxim of the republic should be -while anyone can be the ruler, everyone lives as free as the ruler. Majority rule and protection of self-evident individual rights is fundamental to an ideal republic.
International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review, 2023
The intent of this paper is to present a trifold solution to the tripartite concerns of Tibetans,... more The intent of this paper is to present a trifold solution to the tripartite concerns of Tibetans, namely: (1) the exile of His Holiness the Dalai Lama from Potala Palace on March 31, 1959 to India, (2) Tibetans' aspiration for a self-governing free civil state, and (3) China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet. Tibetans can achieve these aspirations by seeking the goodwill of the Chinese government and by promoting the following resolutions: (1) the creation of the Potala State modeled after the Vatican State, from the areas adjoining the Potala palace. Here the Dalai Lamalike the Pope, can be both the temporal head and spiritual leader. The Dalai Lama would be the temporal leader of the Potala palace and would be the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people who follow Lamaism; (2) granting Tibetan people a Hong Kong style government where self-government and self-legislative authority lies with the Tibetan people; (3) accepting China's sovereignty by consigning foreign policy of Tibet to the Chinese Government. This would appeal to the Chinese goodwill to let the Tibetan people have their values preserved by self-governance without bringing Chinese sovereignty into question. To create a religious enclave for the Tibetan people similar to the Vatican State within the confines of a secular state is to envision a secular Tibet which accepts the importance and significance of Lamaism to the international community at large.
Athens Journal of Philosophy, Nov 30, 2022
Metaphysics deals with the intelligible world of questions and the explicable world of intentiona... more Metaphysics deals with the intelligible world of questions and the explicable world of intentionality. Metaphysics is explicable, and its explicability is connected to questions related to what there is to know about the nature of reality. While physics deals with what is and what else there is, metaphysics deals with the nature of reality and what else there is to know about the nature of reality. If the content of metaphysics is considered as "answers" to questions related to cosmology and consciousness, then metaphysical claims must be understood in the context of the questions that necessitate such claims. For without understanding the relevance of the questions, we cannot establish the 'truth' or 'falsity' of metaphysical claims. The relevance of the questions is the basis for establishing the veracity of the metaphysical distinctions. Hence, all metaphysical distinctions are a non-reductive explanation of what is considered as being reductive. The content of consciousness or intentionality deals with the following metaphysical distinctions, namely, the matter/mind, the essence/ existence, the space/time, the concrete/abstract, the particular/universal, and the contingent/necessary distinctions. These distinctions are made possible because of the questions raised by the intelligent mind. Two questions that connect physics and metaphysics are-what is there and the nature of what is there. Two further questions that promote our interest in physics and metaphysics are: what else is there to know, and what else is there to know about the nature of reality. Reality and the nature of reality are the same. However, because the mind makes this distinction, we can state that what is physical is an empirical given, and what is metaphysical is a phenomenological or an existential given.
Epistemic Awareness of Doxastic Distinctions: Delineating Types of Beliefs in Belief-Formation
ATHENS JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY, 2022
Doxastic distinctions help us define the basis and biases in belief–formation. Empirical and extr... more Doxastic distinctions help us define the basis and biases in belief–formation. Empirical and extra-empirical justification play an important role in determining doxastic distinctions. When we distinguish the different types of beliefs, we understand (1) that there are basically three kinds of beliefs, namely, verifiable, falsifiable, and unfalsifiable beliefs. Empirical justification provides the basis for establishing the veracity of verifiable and falsifiable beliefs. Extra-empirical justification provides the basis for establishing the veracity of unfalsifiable or irrefutable beliefs. (2) Verifiable or falsifiable beliefs that are reductive require the mandatory acceptance of their truth. However, unfalsifiable beliefs which are non-reductive require the volitional acceptance of their truth. Because there is both empirical and extra-empirical justification in belief-formation, we can accept beliefs with or without, against, or regardless of empirical evidence. Unfalsifiable belie...
International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review, 2020
Most citizens would agree that we cannot entrust self-preservation and self-defense to anyone oth... more Most citizens would agree that we cannot entrust self-preservation and self-defense to anyone other than oneself. Therefore, many argue that it is necessary to bear arms, for bearing arms makes the weakest and the strongest equals in defending oneself. In 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States of America affirmed the individual's right to own arms for self-defense (District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4, 2008). There seems to be no alternative basis that can ensure equal defense in self-defense, except by the right to bear arms. One world view posits that to bear arms in self-defense is a human right (Newt Gingrich, 2012), another world view posits that that right to own guns for self-defense is not a human right (SE Smith, Guardian 2016). While the right to self-defense is a human right, the right to bear arms cannot be a human right -it is to be understood as a derivative legal option, right and privilege. In this paper, it is argued that though we cannot prevent the use of force to defend oneself, gun regulations can prevent gun violence. As such there needs to be gun regulation with de jure recognition that includes the following: (1) Gun legislations provide the basis and provision for who can bear arms to protect oneself, (2) Gun legislations define why one can have it, where it is to be held when it can be used to defend oneself and whether it can be used in defending other rights. (3) Gun legislation must ensure a trial when anyone uses arms to kill in self-defense, to ensure that it was indeed done in self-defense. This will ensure the right to self-defense cannot be a pretext to kill anyone. (4) Gun legislatures need to ensure the control of the size, strength and storage of arms for self-defense as a matter of public safety; (5) Gun legislatures must ensure that no individual has power over others in society due to a stockpile of weaponry in the name of self-defense. However, this paper is aware that gun control can only prevent gun violence; as such, it does not attempt to prevent the user from using arms to defend oneself. For no one can be convicted of murder if one kills when one cannot escape or retreat from threat to one's life.
What the Believer Should Know about Beliefs Associated With God
The International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society, 2018
International Journal of Social Sciences and Management Review
Sikhs' aspirations of the Khalsa Ideal and state 1 can be resolved in the context of India's good... more Sikhs' aspirations of the Khalsa Ideal and state 1 can be resolved in the context of India's goodwill.' 2 India is known as the land of religions; the story of India is the story of religions. 3 Here are some ideas that can achieve Sikhs' aspirations for gaining religious, social, and economic freedom within the framework of India. What the Sikhs want must be understood in the context of what needs to be done for the Sikhs. The Indian Government can solve the problem if the issue of sovereignty is not debated. The Indian Government and the expatriate 1 Hardev Singh Virk, The Khalsa Ideal-State and Democracy. (Sikhnet, 2015) 14. 2 India as a regional power is known for its religious tolerance. India has been a secular country allowing many religions to live side by side. In the lotus temple in Delhi people of all religions are allowed to come and worship. 3 India is birthplace, of Buddhism Jainism, Sikhism and is the home of Hinduism where also millions of Muslims dwell.
When Religion is Meaningful and When Religion is Detrimental
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2016
Consciousness, Conscience, Freedom, and Morality
The international journal of religion and spirituality in society, 2018
ATINER's Conference Paper Series PHI2014-0932
Central themes in sartre_ a conceptual analysis
Indian journal of applied research, 2016
This paper examines the nature of epistemic awareness, or cognitive states, in the context of the... more This paper examines the nature of epistemic awareness, or cognitive states, in the context of the KK thesis and defines the relationship between cognitive states and neural states. The paper begins with examining what this indubitable epistemic awareness entails and ends with understanding when and why beliefs can be held as ‘true’ with, without, against or regardless of empirical evidence. Cognition is an existential mode of being accompanied by epistemic content. As such, ‘to know’ entails the following: to knowis to know that we know; know what we know; know how we know (what we know); and know that what we know is either true or false. In addition, to know is to be cognizant of why beliefs are considered basic or non-basic; when epistemic justification for belief is considered internal or external; when we have control over beliefs and when we do not; when evidence can provide the basis for beliefs; and when evidence cannot guarantee beliefs. It is noted that we do not choose ...
The epistemic awareness of being and non-being and the existential choice to live or die poses an... more The epistemic awareness of being and non-being and the existential choice to live or die poses an existential question-is death, like birth, an imposition? This in turn raises the ethical question as to whether the choice to live or die is an either/or matter. It is argued that the right to exist must be understood in the context of the right to exit. Without the choice to exit, impending death would be an imposition, like birth. While we cannot choose to be born or escape death, we are aware that we can choose to die. If we can choose to die rather than live, then life cannot be considered an imposition, and if we can choose to die before natural death then death cannot be considered an imposition. When we become aware of death or aware that we can choose to die, "waiting to die" is just as much a choice as "wanting to die." It is in the "face of death," not the "fear of death," that life has meaning. The choice to die is the freedom to exit from life, without which life would be an imposition or trap-like being in a room without a door or an exit. Using Sartre's understanding of the facticity of choice as the basis for the moral autonomy principle, this paper will seek to understand why the right to die should be considered a human right and when the right to die should be considered a legal right. It is concluded that the sacredness of life is tied up with the sacredness of choice. To live is to choose to live, and we do so, not because we cannot or would not choose to die but because we do not cho ose to die. Choosing to live does not exclude the choice, or right, to die.
The International Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Society
This paper defines the either/or query of existential beliefs as justified belief-decisions. Alth... more This paper defines the either/or query of existential beliefs as justified belief-decisions. Although every belief is either true or false, every belief cannot be verified as true or false. While verification is the basis for sense-evident beliefs and comprehension is the basis for self-evident beliefs, volition is the basis for the acceptance or rejection of existential truth. What is existential is an either/or matter. While the end-process of knowing is the birth of knowledge, the endprocess when what is comprehended is purely noetic. It is argued here that regardless of whether beliefs are basic or non-basic, beliefs related to God requires a decision. This paper revisits Kierkegaard, Buber, Pojman, William James, Sartre and Plantinga in understanding the nature of existential beliefs.
White Wing Publication, 2020
Most citizens would agree that we cannot entrust self-preservation and self-defense to anyone oth... more Most citizens would agree that we cannot entrust self-preservation and self-defense to anyone other than oneself. Therefore, many argue that it is necessary to bear arms, for bearing arms makes the weakest and the strongest equals in defending oneself. In 2008 the Supreme
Theism and Atheism:Justified Belief-Decisions for or Against the Concept of God
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
Uploads
Papers by Tennyson Samraj
between the naming/meaning distinction and the existence/essence distinction.
Every word denotes a reductive reference and connotes a non-reductive
meaning. Every word is associated with both intension/meaning and extension/
reference (Putnam). A noun is a naming word; like all words, it denotes a
reference and connotes meaning. The distinction between naming and meaning
with reference to nouns is necessary because nouns like all words, deal with both
extension and intension. The essence/existence distinction defines why it is
essential to separate naming from meaning. For naming and existence is an
ontological matter; meaning and essence is an epistemic matter. What does a
word or specifically a noun entail? It can ascribe (1) the identity of a person,
place, or principle; (2) it can affirm the existence of something (material/concrete
world); the subsistence of something (mathematical/abstract world), or the
absistence of something (mental world, F.N. Findlay); or (3) it can define the
essence of something as being an essential, accidental, or emergent property.
The central thrust of my paper is to discuss why words/ nouns can be understood
as either defining the identity and existence of something or defining the meaning
and essence of something. There are no nouns/words without reference or
meaning. When we see something, what conjures in our mind is either the
existence of that thing or the essence of that thing. Naming deals with the
specificity and existence of something, while meaning deals with the universality
and essence of something. Naming puts emphasis on what is reductive, and
meaning puts emphasis on what is non-reductive. Naming and meaning like
existence and essence are intertwined because the truth of existence (including
subsistence and assistance) and the truth of essence are inseparable, if truth is
an epistemic matter. Essence/ existence distinction is fundamental to what exists,
subsists or absists in understanding the relationship of the naming/meaning
distinction.