'Hard problem' - In consciousness studies and Advaita

[Guest guest]

In message #39635 of Feb 19, Shri Madathil asked Dennis: " If you are

taking everything like this to the very fundamental, then please tell

me where do you get this ignorant person from who spots the clay and

names it? "

 

In what modern academics are calling 'consciousness studies', they

speak of a 'hard problem' which they find to be currently unsolvable.

This problem arises because they take the world of objects to be

fundamental, and they consciousness to be a phenomenon that arises in

this world. They then consider life and consciousness to

be 'emergent' properties of objective structures like our bodies and

our brains and nervous systems. The idea is that because these

objective structures are complex, their complexity is somehow able to

produce the appearances of life and of subjective consciousness in

the objective world.

 

But how then can we relate our mental experiences of passing

perception, thought and feeling with the objective structures of our

bodies, nerves and brains? How can any complexity of objective

structure be related to our passing states of mind?

 

There is a logical problem here. Objective structures, no matter how

complex, depend upon the co-existence of different objective parts

which relate to each other from their different locations in space.

But mental states don't ever co-exist and thus they cannot actually

form structures, in the way that objects do in external space. Our

experience of mental states is one of process, not structure.

 

Mental states are not related objectively, as co-existing objects.

Instead, they are related subjectively, by reflecting back to a

knowing consciousness that stays present, while they replace each

other in the process of our minds. Each mental state must co-exist

with consciousness, but never with any other mental state in the

passing process of any of our minds.

 

Our experience of mental process is thus subjectively based, upon a

knowing consciousness that continues always present underneath each

changing state of mind. But how then can this subjectively based

experience be derived from any objective structure, no matter how

complex? How can any degree of complexity pass from objective

structure (which is formed by co-existing parts) to mental process

(which is carried on subjectively, by a repeated reflection back to

continued consciousness)?

 

In fact, our experiences of objective structure are conceived to be

made up in a world where objects co-exist in different parts of

outside space. And our experiences of mental process occur in quite a

different way, through passing states which never co-exist with each

other. Each of them co-exists with consciousness alone, which carries

on subjectively, as each appears in passing time.

 

Mental process is thus quite a different kind of experience from

objective structure; and no amount of complexity can logically bridge

the difference, so as to derive one from the other. All that

complexity can do is to confuse a basic difference that must

logically be found, when the confusion is removed.

 

This is the 'hard problem' of consciousness studies in modern

academia. Briefly stated, the problem is how to account for our

subjective experiences of mental process, on the basis of objective

structures that are formed through the nerves and the chemical

pathways we describe in our brains and bodies. Or we may state this

problem even more briefly in the form of a question. How do life and

consciousness arise, from a world that is made up of objects?

 

But in Advaita philosophy, there is a 'hard problem' which is just

the reverse. How is it that a world of objects could arise, from a

subjective consciousness that is found always present at each moment

when any perception, thought or feeling appears or disappears?

 

As I see it, this is the question which Shri Madathil is asking

Dennis. And both are forced to concede that the world and its objects

do not in truth arise, at least not in the way that they appear

through our bodies and our senses and our minds.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

Not that I understood so well, but, even getting a glimpse of what is stated

here

makes my mind so happy. So beautifully explained and real food for thought.

 

thanks a lot Anandaji.

 

 

 

Ananda Wood <awood wrote: In message

#39635 of Feb 19, Shri Madathil asked Dennis: " If you are

taking everything like this to the very fundamental, then please tell

me where do you get this ignorant person from who spots the clay and

names it? "

 

In what modern academics are calling 'consciousness studies', they

speak of a 'hard problem' which they find to be currently unsolvable.

This problem arises because they take the world of objects to be

fundamental, and they consciousness to be a phenomenon that arises in

this world. They then consider life and consciousness to

be 'emergent' properties of objective structures like our bodies and

our brains and nervous systems. The idea is that because these

objective structures are complex, their complexity is somehow able to

produce the appearances of life and of subjective consciousness in

the objective world.

 

But how then can we relate our mental experiences of passing

perception, thought and feeling with the objective structures of our

bodies, nerves and brains? How can any complexity of objective

structure be related to our passing states of mind?

 

There is a logical problem here. Objective structures, no matter how

complex, depend upon the co-existence of different objective parts

which relate to each other from their different locations in space.

But mental states don't ever co-exist and thus they cannot actually

form structures, in the way that objects do in external space. Our

experience of mental states is one of process, not structure.

 

Mental states are not related objectively, as co-existing objects.

Instead, they are related subjectively, by reflecting back to a

knowing consciousness that stays present, while they replace each

other in the process of our minds. Each mental state must co-exist

with consciousness, but never with any other mental state in the

passing process of any of our minds.

 

Our experience of mental process is thus subjectively based, upon a

knowing consciousness that continues always present underneath each

changing state of mind. But how then can this subjectively based

experience be derived from any objective structure, no matter how

complex? How can any degree of complexity pass from objective

structure (which is formed by co-existing parts) to mental process

(which is carried on subjectively, by a repeated reflection back to

continued consciousness)?

 

In fact, our experiences of objective structure are conceived to be

made up in a world where objects co-exist in different parts of

outside space. And our experiences of mental process occur in quite a

different way, through passing states which never co-exist with each

other. Each of them co-exists with consciousness alone, which carries

on subjectively, as each appears in passing time.

 

Mental process is thus quite a different kind of experience from

objective structure; and no amount of complexity can logically bridge

the difference, so as to derive one from the other. All that

complexity can do is to confuse a basic difference that must

logically be found, when the confusion is removed.

 

This is the 'hard problem' of consciousness studies in modern

academia. Briefly stated, the problem is how to account for our

subjective experiences of mental process, on the basis of objective

structures that are formed through the nerves and the chemical

pathways we describe in our brains and bodies. Or we may state this

problem even more briefly in the form of a question. How do life and

consciousness arise, from a world that is made up of objects?

 

But in Advaita philosophy, there is a 'hard problem' which is just

the reverse. How is it that a world of objects could arise, from a

subjective consciousness that is found always present at each moment

when any perception, thought or feeling appears or disappears?

 

As I see it, this is the question which Shri Madathil is asking

Dennis. And both are forced to concede that the world and its objects

do not in truth arise, at least not in the way that they appear

through our bodies and our senses and our minds.

 

Ananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get the freedom to save as many mails as you wish. Click here to know how.