Consciousness: Some Criticisms

[Guest guest]

Namasta Shailendra-Ji

 

I think we are missing the point again. This is not what Vedanta

says. Here is the version as per Chalmers:

 

<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>

 

Chalmers is putting consciousness on the same footing as space and

time and mass. No! space, time and mass are mental concepts and are

there because consciousness is there. If there is no consciousness

there is no time , space or mass and not the other way around.

Consciousness is the first principle, out of which all mental

concepts flow. You can put each of the mental concepts into

Consciousness and not the other way around. For example:

 

1) Time : You can put time in Consciousness:

Example- I am conscious of the time

but not Consciousness in time:

Example : my consciousness is in time. In that case your

consciousness is somehow hooked to time and with each tick of the

clock it will change. As soon as you open your mouth to speak, you

will be in a different state of consciousness and thus can never make

sense.

 

2) Space: You can put space in consciousness. You can say that you

are conscious of this open space, the space in the sky. Now try

saying that your consciousness is in space (outer space? Might be a

valid statement by a person high on LSD) or maybe when I talk with

you, you say wait let me get my consciousness , I left it in the

adjoining room (space).

 

Unless we understand and accept that consciousness is the first

principle, out of which everything else flows, we will make

horrendous mistakes. Let us consider what would happen if we are able

to manufacture consciousness and hence life in the labs as the

chemically synthesized poliovirus as speculated by Shri Gopinath:

 

<quote>

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.

also

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?

</end quote>

 

To get the discussion going, try to answer the famous "Brain in a

vat" hypothesis :

 

"A mad scientist might remove a person's brain from their body to

suspension in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and connect its

neurons by wires to a supercomputer which would provide it with

electrical impulses identical to those the brain normally receives.

The computer would then be simulating a virtual reality (including

appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the person with

the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal

conscious experiences without these being related to objects or

events in the real world". Would you accept such a life?

 

The question runs on the following lines. Our primary goal is

satisfaction of desires and achievement of pleasent feelings like

happiness, love, lust etc. Now what if we are promised to be given

all these feelings without any effort on our part. Our brain is

disconnected from our body and put in this vat which is connected to

a computer and we can get any feeling that we desire by way of

electrical impulses from the computer. Would we want to live such a

life where all wants are satisfied but we are a brain in a vat?.

 

In the present discussion, we can substitute "brain" for artificially

created life (consciousness) in a lab like the chemically synthesized

poliovirus. Would we like to be such an artificially created

conscious being. We are promised that all our wants will be met ( for

if consciousness can be created in a lab, each and every human

feeling can be created. In that case whenever we want to get a

feeling or sensation, we just pop a pill or get an electrical impulse

from a computer). Would we want such a life?

 

To me the answer appears to be a resounding NO. This is because

though man is a product of evolution, evolution presupposes an

involution. Let me quote Vivakananda again:

 

<quote: Vivakananda - The Real Nature of Man>

 

Every evolution presupposes an involution. The modern scientific man

will tell you that you can only get the amount of energy out of a

machine which you have previously put into it. Something cannot be

produced out of nothing. If a man is an evolution of the mollusc,

then the perfect man — the Buddha-man, the Christ-man — was involved

in the mollusc. If it is not so, whence come these gigantic

personalities? Something cannot come out of nothing. Thus we are in

the position of reconciling the scriptures with modern light. That

energy which manifests itself slowly through various stages until it

becomes the perfect man, cannot come out of nothing. It existed

somewhere; and if the mollusc or the protoplasm is the first point to

which you can trace it, that protoplasm, somehow or other, must have

contained the energy.

<end quote>

 

 

<quote:Vivakananda- from Practical Vedanta III >

 

We are in reality that Infinite Being, and our personalities

represent so many channels through which this Infinite Reality is

manifesting Itself; and the whole mass of changes which we call

evolution is brought about by the soul trying to manifest more and

more of its infinite energy. We cannot stop anywhere on this side of

the Infinite; our power, and blessedness, and wisdom, cannot but grow

into the Infinite. Infinite power and existence and blessedness are

ours, and we have not to acquire them; they are our own, and we have

only to manifest them.

 

This is the central idea of monism, and one that is so hard to

understand. From my childhood everyone around me taught weakness; I

have been told ever since I was born that I was a weak thing. It is

very difficult for me now to realize my own strength, but by analysis

and reasoning I gain knowledge of my own strength, I realize it. All

the knowledge that we have in this world, where did it come from? It

was within us. What knowledge is outside? None. Knowledge was not in

matter; it was in man all the time. Nobody ever created knowledge;

man brings it from within. It is lying there. The whole of that big

banyan tree which covers acres of ground, was in the little seed

which was, perhaps, no bigger than one eighth of a mustard seed; all

that mass of energy was there confined. The gigantic intellect, we

know, lies coiled up in the protoplasmic cell, and why should not the

infinite energy? We know that it is so. It may seem like a paradox,

but is true. Each one of us has come out of one protoplasmic cell,

and all the powers we possess were coiled up there. You cannot say

they came from food; for if you heap up food mountains high, what

power comes out of it? The energy was there, potentially no doubt,

but still there. So is infinite power in the soul of man, whether he

knows it or not. Its manifestation is only a question of being

conscious of it. Slowly this infinite giant is, as it were, waking

up, becoming conscious of his power, and arousing himself; and with

his growing consciousness, more and more of his bonds are breaking,

chains are bursting asunder, and the day is sure to come when, with

the full consciousness of his infinite power and wisdom, the giant

will rise to his feet and stand erect. Let us all help to hasten that

glorious consummation.

 

<End Quote>

 

Evolution as per our Indian thinkers is not just the evolution of

Darwin but also an inner involution. Sri Aurobindo, along with

Vivakananda thinks that it will only stop when we become the Superman

or someone like Nietzsche's Ubermensch. We will achieve these heights

only after wrestling with nature, falling down, dusting ourselves and

fighting again. An artificially created being manufactured in a lab

would not struggle to achieve such a supremacy as all his wants will

already be met artificially.

 

Thank you

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Any re-search on consciousness by a conscious entity is tyring to

objectify the consciousness which cannot be objectified - unless one

'turns' inwords re-alizes what is one is seeking for, one is seeking

with. 'Dhyanena atmani pasyanti kechit aatmaanam aatmanaa' - one sees

oneself by onself in oneself through process of meditation. That is the

only available scientific enquiry we have. Everything else is looking

for consciouness in unconscious entities. What science will discover in

the end is the obvious that as long as one excludes the observer in the

observed, the analysis will be futile; and when one includes the

observer the observer pervades the observed.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

>

> 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.

> An excellent post.

>

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

> hypothesis is actually an old Charvaka theory.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Any re-search on consciousness by a conscious entity is tyring to

> objectify the consciousness which cannot be objectified - unless one

> 'turns' inwords re-alizes what is one is seeking for, one is seeking

> with. 'Dhyanena atmani pasyanti kechit aatmaanam aatmanaa' - one

sees

> oneself by onself in oneself through process of meditation. That is

the

> only available scientific enquiry we have. Everything else is

looking

> for consciouness in unconscious entities. What science will

discover in

> the end is the obvious that as long as one excludes the observer in

the

> observed, the analysis will be futile; and when one includes the

> observer the observer pervades the observed.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

>

 

Namaste,

 

thank you for this excellent post.

 

as long science "create" not to much trouble in search....there is

maybe a chance to continue nicely with meditation....

but maybe this depend on the meditation Itself.

 

 

Regards and love

 

Marc

 

>