Consciousness: Some Criticisms

[Guest guest]

The attention of the list has been directed to two posts regarding how

scientists think about consciousness. These are summarized below:

 

The Issue

~~~~~~~~~~

Shailendra-ji has provided a link to an article "Why Great Minds Can't Grasp

Consciousness"

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050808_human_consciousness.html. The

crux of this article is as below:

 

- Greenfield thinks that consciousness involves large groups of non

specialized neurons scattered throughout the brain.

 

- Greenfield believes that consciousness is an emergent property of the

brain, similar to the 'wetness' of water or the 'transparency' of glass,

both of which are properties that are the result of -- that is, they emerge

from -- the actions of individual molecules.

 

Gopinath-ji has recounted what Francis Crick said several years ago on

Consciousness:

 

"For instance, is there a soul? A scientist speculates that based on the

current work, Consciousness is

just an ability to integrate information and he could not see why if you

could generate an identical computational ability in a machine, it would not

be conscious. Or rather its consciousness wouldn't be

necessarily different from what we might term animal consciousness."

 

Age old debate

~~~~~~~~~~

Now let me point out that nothing new has been said here. This is

essentially the position of the Buddhists. In the aforementioned article,

Greenfield is providing an atomic theory of consciousness . The logic is

that there are certain "consciousness" neurons which come together like when

water molecules come together and give rise to wetness in water. Hence if

consciousness can arise thus, there is no requirement of an unchangeable

entity (the atman) which is the final intepreter of the things perceived or

felt. The Buddhists say the same thing- life and thereby consciousness arise

when the 5 aggregates or skandhas come together.The Five Skandhas, also

called Formations are:form (rupa),apperception or sensibility ,perception

,volition, will, consciousness .

 

Now this debate between phenomenon/noumenon or substance/quality or realist/

idealist has been going on since time out of memory. If you obscure the

words by using scientific terminology or big names, you still are not saying

nothing new. Vivakananda in his Complete Works/Vol 2/PRACTICAL VEDANTA

describes this debate.

 

-The realist(phenomenon) sees this phenomenal world, the universe of

continuous change. Quote " The Buddhist says, You have no ground for

maintaining the existence of such a substance; the qualities are all that

exist; you do not see beyond them."

 

-The noumenon (idealist) says that there is something behind which does not

change.

 

- The Advaitest theory is the third position. This is the "Snake and the

Rope" position described by

Vivakananda as follows:

 

"The Advaitist theory of the soul reconciles both these positions. The

position of the Advaitist is that it is true that we cannot think of the

substance as separate from the qualities, we cannot think of change and

not-change at the same time; it would be impossible. But the very thing

which is the substance is the quality; substance and quality are not two

things. It is the unchangeable that is appearing as the changeable. The

unchangeable substance of the universe is not something separate from it.

The noumenon is not something different from the phenomena, but it is the

very noumenon which has become the phenomena. There is a soul which is

unchanging, and what we call feelings and perceptions, nay, even the body,

are the very soul, seen from another point of view. We have got into the

habit of thinking that we have bodies and souls and so forth, but really

speaking, there is only one."

 

Criticisms of the atomic theory of Consciousness

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Now it is extremely easy to blow holes in the atomic theory of Consciousness

of Greenfield and Francis Crick. This is because they suffer from the same

logical fallacies as Buddhism. Here are some criticisms of this position:

 

1) If consciousness is like a wave or like flowing water (which changes from

minute to minute- i.e. if you put a foot in a river, the same water molecule

will never touch you again.), which arises when the consciousness neurons

come together, it will change in time as other consciousness neurons attach

or detach.

 

Thus: When you talk, you are conscious that you are talking (if not you

would be a mad man babbling nonsense). If that is the case, even as you talk

your consciousness is going to change as consciousness neurons attach or

detach. Thus you can never make sense because as soon as you talk, you will

be in a different state of consciousness. If you are going to be thus

babbling, why should I listen to the words of such a madman.

 

2) You say that you have a "local storage area" like a computer hard disk

where you store information as you are talking or hearing and thus keep

track of your states of consciousness. In this manner you can talk

coherently with me as you can always refer to your internal database. OK

tell me who does the storing and retrieving of information? Does it not have

to be a unchangeable entity?. Also what happens when you die. How do you

carry your hard-drive, which contains all the imprints of your present life

to your next life? The Buddhists say that like a candle lights another

candle, in the same manner the energy released from you sparks a new body.

The five aggregates come together and are "sparked" by this energy. Thus a

new "soul" takes existence, which is different from the one that died. No

atman is required in this scenario. If this is the case, why should the new

soul that has just taken birth suffer from the imprints /karma of the one

that has just dies (as both souls are different).

 

3) Aha! you say, I am a scientist/ agnostic/ atheist and do not believe in

reincarnation. OK than answer the question posed by my friend Socrates. Can

Virtue be taught? You either know virtue/justice/love or you do not. If you

already know virtue than you need not learn it and virtue cannot be taught

to you. If you do not, I will teach you. However you will than have to take

my word that what you have learnt from me is virtue and not something else.

This is because you have no frame of reference to compare virtue against.

You do not have the concept of virtue stored in your hard-disk. This is the

first time you are hearing about it and hence you will have to take my word

for it. Thus Scocates says that you are already born with the concept of

virtue (and other ethics). You only recollect it.

 

This is incidentally is the proof Vivakananda gives in Complete Works/Vol

II/ A Study of the Sankhya Philosophy for the impossibility of ever knowing

Brahmin (universe as a whole):

 

"You understand what is meant by knowledge. Knowledge is pigeon-holing a new

 

impression with old ones, recognizing a new impression. What is meant by

recognition? Finding associations with similar impressions that one already

has.

Nothing further is meant by knowledge. If that is the case, if knowledge

means

finding the associations, then it must be that to know anything we have to

set

the whole series of its similars. Is it not so? Suppose you take a pebble;

to

find the association, you have to see the whole series of pebbles similer to

it.

But with our perception of the universe as a whole we cannot do that,

because in

the pigeon-hole of our mind there is only one single record of the

perception,

we have no other perception of the same nature or class, we cannot compare

it

with any other."

 

Final Word

~~~~~~~~

Finally the most convincing argument for the existence of an absolute

(atman) is Katha Upanishad 2.2.13- "*nityo nityanam cetanas cetanam*" and

Swami Chinmayanandas explanation thereof in his audio lecture on the

same(part of it available at http://www.chinmayasaaket.org/resources/audio/

).

 

ques: How do you see an object

ans: the sunlight (or some other source of light) bathes the object in light

and I see it.

ques: Can you see the object when there is no light shining on it.

ans: No sir that is not possible.

ques: OK then how do you see the Sun?

ans: I CAN ONLY SEE THE SUN IF THERE IS A SOURCE OF LIGHT WITHIN ME THAT

BATHES THE SUN IN LIGHT AND MAKES ME SEE IT.

 

Can you beat this logic? I cannot.

 

Regards

Hersh

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranaam Hershji and all advaitins:

 

I don't intend to be disrespectful in raising questions. If I had

the anubhava, I wouldn't be asking these questions. One of the ways

for me to do swadhyaya is to face challenges to a viewpoint, however

respected and accepted it is. I find this forum very helpful in

that regard.

 

Hershji's response was informative. Yes, I agree that there is

nothing new in what the implications of the scientists work, namely,

the phenomenon / substance argument.

 

However, suppose we learn enough about the computations underlying

the phenomenon and reproduce it in a machine that is manmade. If

this machine displays the same characteristics as consciousness,

then have we changed the outcome behind the phenomenon / substance

debate? Would such a demonstration prove that it is a phenomenon

and not a substantive?

 

Along similar lines, a chemically synthesized poliovirus in the

lab (accomplished last year) is indistinguishable from

the "isolated" polio virus in terms of its ability to infect,

multiply etc. This suggests that DNA which is matter, alone

sufficed and what we call life is merely information. Could the

propensity for this information to evolve be inherent in matter

itself.

 

This is why one conference participant was overstretching

himself and asking philosophers to get out of the way. I know that

is arrogance, especially when you see how little they have

accomplished. But this arrogance is based on the fact that when

Darwin made a hypothesis, its elegance lay bare and confirmed

through a lot of work. When the structure of DNA was revealed, the

implication of the demonstration done last year was inherent in the

demonstration of the mechanism of replication of DNA. To most

scientists the demonstration was almost a non-event, but it took a

lot of work to show that.

 

The Buddhist Shunya maybe just the computational property of

matter given the right conditions? When you say I cannot negate

myself, am I saying that without the computational property there is

no I?

 

I will try to strip all scientific jargon out and present it in a

manner to understand the implications and its impact on theories.

My purpose is to discover arguments so that I can better understand

the shashtra.

 

With Regards

 

Gopinath

[Guest guest]

Thanks Hersh-ji for your well reasoned exhaustive post. It seems there

are some really strong arguments against "atomic theory of

consciousnes". However I just wanted to add that even if the "atomic

theory of consciousness" were true, it would still not be any proof

against advaita. In fact any discussion of 'atomic or otherwise"

consciousness would be missing the basic point of vedanta.

 

As pointed out in an earlier post, the consciousness that vedanta is

talking about, has a first-person frame of reference. No discussion

can be started about this consciousness without shifting the frame of

reference to the third person. Any theory-- realist, buddhist or

otherwise-- cannot describe this first person consciousness without

objectifying it. Vedanta is not talking about that. Vedanta is talking

about the absolute subject that can never be objectified. If it can be

described, discussed, or theorized -- it is not the "consciousness" of

vedanta. In fact no discussion, description or philosophization is

possible about the consciousness in the first person frame of

reference. Even "thinking" about "consciousness" is not possible

unless it becomes an object of thinking. Vedanta is not about that.

When we try to think and discuss and describe this consciousness, the

frame of reference has already shifted to third person and what we are

left is something else as "consciousness"-- not the "consciousness"

vedAnta is "talking about". This difficulty is realized by shAstra in

"yato vAcho nivartante" etc.

 

Advaita Vedanta has adopted a unique method of adhyAropa-apavAda to

describe something that is by_definition_indescribable. I cannot

visualize any other method that can be used to point to something

which-- being the ultimate subject-- can infact never be pointed to.

 

Shruti has been taken a pramANa on this subject since no theory or

research can ever prove or disprove anything about it. You can either

'take it or leave it' what shruti says about consciousness-- but

cannot contradict it. What any theory can prove or disprove has to be

at least an object of thinking if not object of experimentation. But

what shruti is talking about is a different ball game. Shruti is

talking about the "subject" that is never an object of anything.

Therefore, if "atomic theory of consciousness" is proved wrong, that's

fine. If it is proved right, that's fine too.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namaste Gopinath-ji

 

I am as interested as you in understanding the implications of DNA

theory. That is why this group is so great. People from differing

backgrounds share their knowledge and all are made richer by this

interaction. I commented on only that much information as was

provided in the posts. Please do post more details on this topic.

By the way, I would like to point out that Kapila with his Sankhya

theory had developed the theory of evolution long before Darwin.

 

I was reading the Selfish Gene theory by Dawkins and the replicators

described by him seem to be lifted from Buddhist texts.

 

"The individual body, so familiar to us on our planet did not have to

exist. The only kind of entity that had to exist in order for life to

arise.. is the immortal replicators" . Immortal because although the

vehicles are designed built and eventually degrade, replicators march

through the generations albeit as copies"

 

Is this not again what the Buddhists say?

 

Vivakananda is very convincing. No new theory ever comes into

existence. That must be so as the mahat is the sum total of all

intelligence. We all take a little of the cosmic intelligence and try

to interpret it in our language. Philosophy has one way of saying it,

science another. But we as students have to try and understand the

truth in all languages.

 

Hari Om

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srivastava-ji,

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

 

> No discussion can be started about this consciousness without

> shifting the frame of reference to the third person. Any

> theory-- realist, buddhist or otherwise-- cannot describe

> this first person consciousness without objectifying it.

> Vedanta is not talking about that. Vedanta is talking about

> the absolute subject that can never be objectified.

> Shruti has been taken a pramANa on this subject since no

> theory or research can ever prove or disprove anything about

> it. You can either 'take it or leave it' what shruti says

> about consciousness-- but cannot contradict it. What any

> theory can prove or disprove has to be at least an object

> of thinking if not object of experimentation. But what

> shruti is talking about is a different ball game. Shruti

> is talking about the "subject" that is never an object of

> anything. Therefore, if "atomic theory of consciousness"

> is proved wrong, that's fine. If it is proved right, that's

> fine too.

 

 

 

An excellent post.

 

Science posits that the brain is the source of consciousness. This

hypothesis is actually an old Charvaka theory. In recent years, Roger

Penrose has shown (using a variant of the Godel proof) that

consciousness cannot be a computational process, but unfortunately he

continues to be enamoured with the idea that consciousness is some

kind of emergent phenomenon. He therefore says that consciousness

arises from the quantum processes in the neural networks of the

brain. In an earlier article (posted in this group in Feb 2004) I had

tried to show the fallacy involved in the proposition that the brain

is the seat of consciousness. The article titled 'Advaita and the

Brain' is available on Dennis' website at:

 

www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/chittaranjan/brain_chittaranjan.htm

 

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

>

>http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050808_human_consciousness.html.

> The

> crux of this article is as below:

>

> - Greenfield thinks that consciousness involves

> large groups of non

> specialized neurons scattered throughout the brain.

>

> - Greenfield believes that consciousness is an

> emergent property of the

> brain, similar to the 'wetness' of water or the

> 'transparency' of glass,

> both of which are properties that are the result of

> -- that is, they emerge

> from -- the actions of individual molecules.

>

>

 

 

Namaste, I don't think the crux of the article is

stated above. Here I am quoting a few lines from the

article.

 

<START SNIPPET>

According to Chalmers, the subjective nature of

consciousness prevents it from being explained in

terms of simpler components, a method used to great

success in other areas of science. He believes that

unlike most of the physical world, which can be broken

down into individual atoms, or organisms, which can be

understood in terms of cells, consciousness is an

irreducible aspect of the universe, like space and

time and mass.

 

"Those things in a way didn't need to evolve," said

Chalmers. "They were part of the fundamental furniture

of the world all along."

<END SNIPPET>

 

So there is nothing conclusive about the article. What

I quoted above actually matches what Advaita says.

 

regards,

Shailendra

 

 

 

 

Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005