Advaita and the brain

[Guest guest]

Namaste to All,

 

 

It is generally believed that consciousness is an

emergent "phenomenon" arising out of certain processes in the brain,

and that the brain is some kind of computer-like processing mechanism

that transforms sensory signals from the world into our perceptions.

As a result, our perceptions are reduced to the status of qualia

belonging to the realm of a subjective world. There is a growing

claim in some scientific circles that mystical experience is a

subjective condition induced by certain electro-chemical-neural

states of the brain. The aim of this post is to critically analyse

the brain model and verify the basis of these claims.

 

 

THE PROBLEM WITH THE BRAIN MODEL

 

The brain-centric model of perception postulates the brain as the

cause of perception and ideation -- as the 'intelligent' centre where

the various input signals from the environment are processed

and 'displayed' as the manifold phenomena of the world. Thus,

logically, it follows that all the things I perceive, and have ever

perceived, are only forms 'displayed' by the brain, for it is no more

possible for me to perceive anything except through the machinations

of the brain. For whatever be the entity that I may point to, or

think about, it would necessarily be part of the manifold that is

presented to me, including the thing pointed to, the act of pointing,

and the comprehending of the thing. But this leads to a logical

circularity because the brain, which is supposed to be presenting

this manifold "from behind" phenomena, is also a perceived or ideated

thing that is part of the self-same phenomena, as are other objects

of the world. Thus, the brain that we know, in so far as it is a

perceived or ideated thing, would necessarily be a product of the

machinations of whatever 'processing mechanism' is presenting it. If

we are to avoid this circularity, the presenter of the manifold of

phenomena must lie outside the manifold. Therefore the brain is not

the transforming mechanism that we conceived it to be – it is the

output, so to say, and not the transforming mechanism that presents

the output. Thus the notion of the brain as the "central processing

mechanism" collapses.

 

When logic forces circularity it becomes imperative to look at the

premises of the theory. Here it becomes necessary to dispense with

the stimulus-response model of the brain altogether and say that we

reach objects directly without mediation.

 

 

THE PROBLEM OF SCIENTIFIC CAUSALITY

 

Everything appears quite logical in this hypothesis except for one

source of discomfort. The discomfort arises from the fact that the

brain has an observed correlation to perception. That is, the manner

of perception can be modified by human intervention in the workings

of the brain - by the administration of drugs, or the injection of

certain electrical signals. Experiments conducted on the brain show

that the electro-chemical-neural mechanism of the brain has a

correspondence to the manner in which we perceive. We are therefore

presented with an enigmatic problem. On the one hand, placing the

cause of perception in the brain creates a logical conundrum and

demands that the cause of perception be placed outside phenomena. On

the other hand, there is a definite causal relationship between the

brain and our perception of the world.

 

The roots of this seemingly intractable problem may be traced to a

certain unexamined conception of causality that science adheres to.

Science uses the word "cause" in a fairly loose sense, and believes

that an invariable correlation is a sufficient condition to posit a

causal-nexus. Therefore, the correlation between phenomena and brain-

activity becomes an adequate criterion to establish the brain as the

cause of perception. But science is not philosophy - it ignores the

fertile soil of our minds wherein meanings are given to words and

principles. There is more to causality than mere correlation, and one

cannot find better words to illustrate this fact than Socrates' words

in Phaedo:

 

Quote:

 

"It was a wonderful hope, my friend, but it was quickly dashed. As I

read on I discovered that the fellow (Anaxagoras) made no use of Mind

and assigned to it no causality for the order of the world, but

adduced causes like air and ether and water and many other

absurdities. It seemed to me that he was just about as inconsistent

as if someone were to say 'The cause of everything that Socrates does

is Mind' and then, in trying to account for my several actions, said

first that the reason why I am lying here now is that my body is

composed of bones and sinews, and that the bones are rigid and

separated at the joints, but the sinews are capable of contraction

and relaxation, and form an envelope for the bones with the help of

the flesh and skin, the latter holding all together; and since the

bones move freely in their joints the sinews by relaxing and

contracting enable me somehow to bend my limbs; and that is the cause

of my sitting here in a bent position. Or again, if he tried to

account in the same way for my conversing with you, adducing causes

such as sound and air and hearing and a thousand others, and never

troubled to mention the real reasons; which are that since Athens has

thought it better to condemn me, therefore I for my part have thought

it better to sit here, and more right to stay and submit to whatever

penalty she orders - because, by Dog! I fancy that these sinews and

bones would have been in the neighbourhood of Megara or Boeitia long

ago if I did not think it was more right and honourable to submit to

whatever penalty my country orders rather than take to my heels and

run away. But to call things like that causes is too absurd. If it

were said that without such bones and sinews and all the rest of them

I should not be able to do what I think is right, it would be true;

but to say that it is because of them that I do what I am doing, and

not through choice of what is best would be a very lax and inaccurate

form of expression. Fancy being unable to distinguish between the

cause of a thing, and the condition without which it could not be a

cause! It is this latter, as it seems to me, that most people,

groping in the dark, call a cause – attaching to it a name to which

it has no right."

 

Unquote.

 

The agent of change must necessarily be a sentient being. The

necessity of a sentient efficient cause has been argued at length in

the Brahma Sutra Bhasya. Thus, the brain would have the logical

status of an instrument through which the cause acts, but not the

status of a cause.

 

 

THE BRAIN BOWS DOWN TO REVEAL ADVAITA

 

With the collapse of the brain model, there is no transforming

mechanism that stands between the perceiver and the perceived world.

Thus there is the seer and the seen, the sentient and the insensate,

the conscious and the unconscious. The seer sees the seen intimately

and directly. For the seer to be able to see objects, the sense of

seeing and the sense of the object must exist within the seer. It is

meaningless to speak of colour unless the sense of sight, and the

sense (or meaning) or colour is already constituted within the seer

as an apriori capacity of the seer. Thus, the entire world is seen

because the sense and meaning of the world is already constituted in

the nature of the seer. In other words, reality is consciousness, and

the world of forms is what consciousness is conscious of and has

bestowed with meaning. We have now arrived at the gates of Advaita!

It is strange how many roads lead to non-duality!

 

 

THE STATUS OF THE BRAIN AS A TRIVIAL CAUSE

 

The world is phenomena, and its objects are empty in themselves

without the ground of consciousness. That is, objects in themselves

are "nothingness"; they derive their being and meanings only by

virtue of consciousness. These "empty" objects cannot influence one

another. To assign causality to objects of the world would be as

naïve as assigning causes to the things we see on the screen when we

watch a cinema. The causes of events on the screen are not in those

events or screen-things, but in the transcending source from where

they derive their existence and meaning. Similarly, there are no

causes in the world, except by virtue of causality being bestowed

upon them by the bestowing consciousness. Thus, it would be true to

say that something in the world is a cause of another only in so far

as this is the manner of ordering of the world, and not because the

cause is something intrinsic in the object. Thus, in the physical

world, the brain is the cause of perception, not because of any

intrinsic capacity in the brain to influence or be influenced by the

world, but because the Transcending Cause that orders phenomena

manifests the brain as the seat of a certain causal-nexus within the

schema of the world. It is in this wise that the brain becomes

a "cause" of perception. To retain its status as a cause, the

causality of the brain must exist in hidden-ness and be masked of its

true character as being completely subservient to the conscious

controller. Thus, the perceived causal-nexus of the brain is not a

necessary condition of the world, but is contingent to

the "existence" of the veil of avidya. The perceiver is in truth

Brahman that shines through maya as the individual self. Thus,

strictly speaking, it should not be impossible – logically - for a

perceiving subject to dispense with the mediation of the brain

altogether. To venture further would be to enter into the realm of

the mystical.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

I believe the primary goal of this exercise has been achieved – it

has been demonstrated that the radiance of love is not on account of

testosterone, or that the ineffable expansiveness of religious

experience is not the result of electro-chemical-neural mechanisms in

the brain. But the arguments are open to criticism.

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji.

 

Congrats. What a flourish, clarity and lofty thinking! You said it

all with these two sentences:

 

"Thus, in the physical world, the brain is the cause of perception,

not because of any intrinsic capacity in the brain to influence or be

influenced by the world, but because the Transcending Cause that

orders phenomena manifests the brain as the seat of a certain causal-

nexus within the schema of the world. It is in this wise that the

brain becomes a "cause" of perception.".

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_

 

"advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> It is generally believed that consciousness is an

> emergent "phenomenon" arising out of certain processes in the

brain,

> and ................

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan,

>It is generally believed that consciousness is an

>emergent >phenomenon arising out of certain processes in the brain

 

It is absurd to suppose that mere complexity would somehow enable

insentient matter to generate awareness. Also, let us not confuse

mere 'information processing' with awareness. An abacus can process

information to some extent. And of course, at a higher level, there

is no matter distinct from consciousness and hence no material brain

(see below).

 

Unfortunately, you are not exaggerating by much when you say that it

is 'generally believed' that consciousness is an 'emergent

phenomenon' arising out of electro-chemical brain processes. This

shows that otherwise very intelligent scholars and researchers can be

poor philosophers. And today's academic philosophers are so obsessed

with prostrating themselves before the scientific gods that they have

swallowed the materialistic line without even comprehending classical

philosophical arguments that are devastating to materialism ... such

as how insentient matter could possibly give rise to awareness.

 

Of course, there is a close *correlation* between brain processes and

consciousness. Only a fool would deny this. But correlation is not

identity.

 

 

>There is a growing claim in some scientific circles that

>mystical experience is a subjective condition induced by

>certain electro-chemical-neural states of the brain.

 

It may be that stimulating certain neurons produces some kind of

ecstatic experience. So what? We already know that there is a

strong link (the correlations I just mentioned) between brain and

consciousness, and all consciousness is of the nature of the divine,

not just those special ecstatic experiences.

 

Actually, what we take to be the brain and body are only illusions

within consciousness, which encompasses any and every possible kind

of existence. The correlations between brain and experiences

(including 'mystical' experiences) are only correlations between one

part of consciousness and another. Nowhere is consciousness is

reduced to a 'material brain'.

 

>for it is no more possible for me to perceive anything

>except through the machinations of the brain

 

I am well aware of the harm done to Hinduism through exaggerated

claims of miracle workers, not to mention absurdities such as flying

machines or nuclear weapons in the ancient epics. However, there

*is* credible evidence for telepathy, out of body experiences, and so

forth. One may spend some time searching the web and then use one's

intelligence to form an opinion as to what is bogus and what might be

credible. By the way, an out-of-body experience had better be

possible if you don't want to disappear into oblivion forever when

you die!

 

>But this leads to a logical circularity because the brain...

 

Careful consideration of the correlations that I mention above

resolves all such paradoxes, which arise when the brain is considered

as a material object outside of consciousness. I'll leave this as a

homework exercise... By the way, I am not disagreeing with you.

 

 

>The discomfort arises from the fact that the brain has an

>observed correlation to perception. That is, the manner

>of perception can be modified by human intervention in the

>workings of the brain - by the administration of drugs, or

>the injection of certain electrical signals.

 

Yes, and if you wear purple eyeglasses, the world will look purple.

So what? The brain and nervous system are mere instruments used by

the consciousness. Faulty instruments produce faulty readings, as

one might expect.

 

Now, one might ask, could a great yogi be knocked out with some

chloroform? I don't know; you will have to perform the experiment.

But this does not mean that the yogi is any less wise or realized.

Even Ramana's body was subject to disease. It is childish to think

that 'saints' are impervious to the laws of nature ... which are not

laws of matter but of that illusion which we take to be matter. The

illusion follows iron laws, even if it has no external reality. And

perhaps sometimes those laws are bent and 'miracles' occur. So what?

Who cares? What does this have to do with enlightenment?

 

 

>Science uses the word "cause" in a fairly loose sense,

>and believes that an invariable correlation is a sufficient

>condition to posit a causal-nexus.

 

A cause is merely the observation that certain events tend to follow

each other. A correlation is a similar thing. These events are all

experiences and do not exist separately from consciousness. Nothing

does.

 

As I said, there are correlations between perception and brain, but

this does not prove any kind of *identity*, much less an identity to

a hypothetical material brain. There are only correlations between

some perceptions called 'brain' and others called 'vision',

'hearing', 'taste', etc. In fact, the 'brain' is a subset of those

perceptions to which it is thus linked. All of this occurs in

consciousness. There is no basis for postulating a material brain

'external' to consciousness, nor for reducing our identity to it.

 

One thing is true about the illusion called matter. We are slaves to

it as long as we continue to believe in it and identify with it.

Matter and the body in particular should be seen as the manifestation

of ignorance. We acquired a body because of our ignorance, and it is

the expression of this ignorance, of that sense of finite,

independent self. All that we are aware of is real insofar as it is

mere awareness, even the body. But to identify with it is ignorance.

This identification is caused by the sense of self and in turn fuels

it, in a vicious feedback loop.

 

>That is, objects in themselves are "nothingness"; they derive

>their being and meanings only by virtue of consciousness.

 

Advaitins often see objects as existing by themselves in some vague

sense yet illuminated by consciousness, like the sun shining on a

pot. This is a provisional and lower level of knowledge. In fact,

the objects have no existence whatsoever by themselves and are mere

appearances in consciousness. There is not consciousness over here

illuminating objects over there, but it may seem like that at a lower

dualistic level of thought.

 

Just so you don't misunderstand me, I am basically agreeing with your

view of things, but I am trying to streamline the argument a bit.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

NAmaste All

Reference to Chittaranjanji's comment about the disconnect between

what the intellect/mind learns and how we see our life in reality.

I attempted some extreme negative thinking.. hope it is not very

degenerate.

 

Let my body senselessly run after sense pleasures

let my mind be ever muddled and confused tossed between the mundane

and sublime.

let me be impossibly attached to the objects of the world and all the

relationships that came along.

let me enjoy the ecstasy of union and extreme depression of

separation in my attachments.

Let my Intellect be forever confounded- ' Am I doing atleast my basic

Dharma or by inaction or negative non-harmonious action am I

constantly sinning.

Let me be alternately appreciated (by my near and dear, by the

society, by the learned), rubbished and disgraced

Let me be, Like Duryodhana or Ravana be forever drawn towards sinning

and only the vilest of sins.

Let me undergo countless more births living thus, eternally paying

for wrong actions.

'I' can still take comfort in the fact that my self is 'That' That is

Sacchidananda, unchanging, infinite love etc.

MAny MAny PRanams to all

Sridhar

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Thank you Nairji for the kind words. But all this is only armchair

> clarity - it doesn't percolate so much into my life which is

trapped

> by the ensnarement of ego with all its desires and attachments and

> intrigues.

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benji.

 

Your post 20933.

 

I have taken the liberty to say a few words in [ ] in response to

your reply to Chittranjanji.

 

Benji said:

 

"Unfortunately, you are not exaggerating by much when you say that it

is 'generally believed' that consciousness is an 'emergent

phenomenon' arising out of electro-chemical brain processes. This

shows that otherwise very intelligent scholars and researchers can be

poor philosophers. And today's academic philosophers are so obsessed

with prostrating themselves before the scientific gods that they have

swallowed the materialistic line without even comprehending classical

philosophical arguments that are devastating to materialism ... such

as how insentient matter could possibly give rise to awareness."

 

[MN: That there are such scholars is itself a pointer to the

Transcendence that has ordained things including the brain. No

wonder therefore that we normally find clues to it in cerebral

electro-chemical processes and shout Eureka! Eureka! not realizing

that we only planted those clues for us to discover!]

____________________

 

Benji:

 

"Of course, there is a close *correlation* between brain processes and

consciousness. Only a fool would deny this. But correlation is not

identity."

 

[What I mentioned in parentheses above is the only correlation there

that I can see!]

_______________________

 

 

Benji:

 

"I am well aware of the harm done to Hinduism through exaggerated

claims of miracle workers, not to mention absurdities such as flying

machines or nuclear weapons in the ancient epics."

 

[i would request you not to equate miracle workers and scientific

claims. If you listen to Dr. Gopalakrishnan, Hon. Director of Indian

Institute of Scientific Heritage, Trivandrum, Kerala, India, you will

be overwehelmed by the compelling documented evidence he has for

scientific claims. Among many things, he has ancient Indian

equations for aircraft design, velocity of light, mathematical

theorems, etc., which have reportedly been endorsed by modern

scientific institutions in the West. His claims are quite unlike

those contrived by others on unintelligble ancient blabberings.

Despite his overenthusiasm, which of course is defensive, I believe

he has a good case for his homeland and culture. Do visit the

Institute's site, if you haven't already - the restless browser that

you are!]

 

[Coming to miracle-workers, why do you reject them with all your

penchant for Consciousness? If everything is Consciousness, then

aren't miracles on the cards? Can't we be the makers of miracles and

miracle-workers! Elsewhere in your comments, I know, you have hinted

at the possibility of `bending' illusion. I don't think miracles are

made. Miracles spontaneously materialize in the presence of certain

personages. The audience are the ones who contribute to a large

measure to the making of a miracle.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

Thank you for your comments - they help to tweak the arguments and

reinforce them. What I have written is in essence the same thing that

you had written in reply to Prof vk's question some time ago. You

could say that I've only rearranged it, and prefixed it with the

circularity argument.

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

> And today's academic philosophers are so obsessed

> with prostrating themselves before the scientific gods that

> they have swallowed the materialistic line without even

> comprehending classical philosophical arguments that are

> devastating to materialism ... such as how insentient matter

> could possibly give rise to awareness.

 

 

I couldn't agree with you more here.

 

> Of course, there is a close *correlation* between brain

> processes and consciousness. Only a fool would deny this.

> But correlation is not identity.

 

 

I think you have pinned down the main problem that affects modern

thinking -- it equates correlation and identity and violates the

first and the most fundamental law of logic. This equation also goes

by the scholarly name of "scientific reduction" whereby colour

is "reduced" to electro-magnetic radiation, and mind is "reduced" to

the brain. The question of what a thing is must return us back to

itself. Otherwise it becomes impure with contrary attributes, and in

Indian logic this mixing is called viparya. It is the same message

that is carried in the dialogues of Plato, as these words of Socrates

(from the Meno) show:

 

"It seems to me that whatever else is beautiful apart from absolute

Beauty is beautiful because it partakes of that absolute Beauty, and

for no other reason. .... Well, now, that is as far as my mind goes;

I cannot understand these other ingenious theories of causation. If

someone tells me that the reason why a given object is beautiful is

that it has a gorgeous colour or shape or any other such attribute, I

disregard all these other explanations - I find them all confusing -

and I cling simply and straightforwardly and no doubt foolishly to

the explanation that the one thing that makes that object beautiful

is the presence in it or association with it of absolute Beauty."

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

Dr. Gopalakrishnanji is currently in Muscat for a 4-day lecture series and

he is sharing his insights on various topics such as 'chAtur-varNyam',

'shiva-mahAtmyam', 'India and the World' etc. As you rightly said, he is

very patriotic.

 

Hari Om

 

 

-

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

>

> [i would request you not to equate miracle workers and scientific

> claims. If you listen to Dr. Gopalakrishnan, Hon. Director of Indian

> Institute of Scientific Heritage, Trivandrum, Kerala, India, you will

> be overwehelmed by the compelling documented evidence he has for

> scientific claims. Among many things, he has ancient Indian

> equations for aircraft design, velocity of light, mathematical

> theorems, etc., which have reportedly been endorsed by modern

> scientific institutions in the West. His claims are quite unlike

> those contrived by others on unintelligble ancient blabberings.

> Despite his overenthusiasm, which of course is defensive, I believe

> he has a good case for his homeland and culture.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>What I have written is in essence the same thing that you

>had written in reply to Prof vk's question some time ago.

 

Thank you for paying attention. It is very gratifying when someone

reads your message carefully enough to remember something like this.

At the same time, I encourage sincere and well-intentioned criticism.

 

It's funny. If you read Ramana, or Nisargadatta or the Yoga

Vasistha, then everything I have said has been said much better. But

ideas such as the illusory nature of matter still seem too radical to

be completely accepted in academic circles. Even most academics

interested in Advaita will only go so far and still retain some

residual belief in an objective world, for the sake of their academic

respectability. That is why I often get on my soap box about this.

(I wonder if that expression makes any sense to Indians!)

 

Anyhow, the really interesting thing is that such a reduction of

consciousness to reality is entirely consistent with science, which

is supposed to be based on observations. Where are observations

except in consciousness! That is why those aforementioned academics

who wish to remain a bit 'scientific' by clinging to some residual

objectivity are actually contradicting themselves.

 

And this approach to science, which reduces it all to observations in

consciousness, can be applied to the brain too, which leads to some

interesting conclusions, as we have seen!

 

Yes, you are right that materialistic reductionism is the great

delusion of modern science. Now this in no way invalidates science

within its own domain. It has correctly described correlations

between observations, which is what it is supposed to do. But most

scientists wrongly place these observations on an imaginary and

unobserved substratum of 'matter', when they should place it on a

real and immediately observed substratum of consciousness. It is the

substratum that is wrong, not the details.

 

I'm impressed by your ability to quote both Indian and European

philosophy. It is an excellent practice to give us some carefully

selected passages from Plato or Shankara, to refresh our memories and

give us a direct taste of their mind and language. (However, I can

only accept some of the things Plato said if they are interpreted in

a rather unorthodox way. There are no 'ideas' floating around

somehow. Plato had a mystical vision, but he lacked the word

'consciousness'. My unorthodox interpretation is that his 'ideas'

were an imperfect attempt in this direction. He was still too

'conceptual', if you know what I mean. Give him a break ... he was

European!)

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

Thank you for your comments to what I have said on this topic.

 

Speaking of eloquent Indians, you're another one. I don't want you

to feel left out, so I sent yet another message today. Of course,

you are far beyond the petty state of ego that would even care about

such trivialities.

 

Now regarding one thing you said,

>I would request you not to equate miracle workers and

>scientific claims.

 

I will check out the Honorable Dr. Gopalakrishnan, but at this moment

I still retain doubts about Vedic flying machines! It seems to me

you need an immense technology base, built up over generations, which

starts with screwdrivers.

 

However, my position on 'miracles' is complex, as I tried to convey.

For example, I am inclined to believe in mental powers such as

telepathy. Have we not all felt that we have read somebody's mind on

some occasion? Of course, such subjective impressions are fraught

with danger, but my basic feeling is that if Consciousness is the

fundamental principle of reality, then we must not underestimate the

potential of Consciousness, based on our own limited experience.

This is quite different from Vedic airplanes, which would only be

junk metal anyway, compared to consciousness itself.

 

So I do agree with you on the unlimited potential of Consciousness.

I never said otherwise!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

 

> And about ego, by being able to understand life's ensnarement

> in its clutches, you have already gone a long way on the road

> to subduing it. The rest is a matter of time, for which here

> is wishing all the best.

>

 

Dear Nairji, you are a Devi Bhakta. Allow me to distribute the prasad

of your wishes to all in this group for without Her Grace none can

cross over to the other shore.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan