Friday, August 20, 2010

A Different Kind of Oneness

Upanishads talk about knowing the Self and being one with everything. They say that the ultimate goal in life is to attain that oneness. Now there is good evidence that the oneness has its origin in the physical and mutable brain. Apparently damage to certain regions of the brain causes one to lose the concept of one's own body and feel unity with everything.

A few people in ancient times might have achieved that state of oneness (I'm merely speculating here) by damaging parts of their brain. But it does look like Brahman, after all, has its origins in the mundane physical brain and not in some lofty all pervading infinite entity.

Does that mean one has to intentionally tamper with their brain to achieve moksha? No. There are better ways to do that, thanks to science. It involves not giving into the illusion that the real world is an illusion and an imaginary abstraction is reality.

Life has a sense of oneness at multiple levels. At the base level, all parts of the Universe appear to be subject to the same physics. At the next level, to use Carl Sagan's words, we are made of star stuff. As atoms heavier than hydrogen did not exist in the primeval Universe, they were forged inside the cores of stars. The next level is that all life on Earth is replicator based and had a common origin.

To actually appreciate the beauty of those multiple levels of oneness you need to know how the Universe works. Achieving that knowledge was no mean feat. It is the culmination of thousands of years of quest for knowledge with contributions from all civilizations on Earth.

Ignoring that achievement and clinging to a very narrow set of neurological phenomena as the ultimate truth is the ultimate form of parochialism. When the Universe is beckoning you, it is sheer ignorance to renounce it as mere maya. It is escapism in the face of immense complexity.

32 comments:

shajanm said...

Perceived reality as 'maya' may be the acceptance of our inability to know at a more fundamental level. Please take a look at this:

Knowledge and Ignorance

Lije said...

@shajanm,
To me you look like one those people who think science destroys wonder and prefer mysterious answers.So if you'd rather revel in religious ignorance, more power to you. But some of us don't like hiding behind "Oh! It's so mysterious!" and giving up on knowing the Universe.

shajanm said...

Lije, you got me wrong. I am not anti-science and prefer to stay away from mysterious answers as much as possible.

I was trying to work out what it means to 'know objectively' starting from the fact of biological evolution. What is unscientific or mysterious about that?

Lije said...

I think you already know what objectivity is and have decided that it can't explain consciousness. As I said, more power to you. I on the other hand, don't put consciousness on a pedestal and wonder how mysterious it is. I'd like to know more about it. It may turn out that science may not be able to answer it, but at least trying to beats making up a fake explanation like intelligent design to explain consciousness. As I noted in the article, when faced with complexity, turning to escapist views is very tempting.

shajanm said...

Lije, you are right. I am convinced that no objective explanation is possible for purely sujective experiences (such as the sense of harmony I experience looking at a beautiful landscape).

That leaves me with two options:

(1)purely subjective experiences are unreal.
(2)Every aspect of reality cannot be objectively explained.

My subjective experience is as real to me as the force of gravity. It is not the same as a record of electical signals or chemical reactions in my brain. At the same time I accept that its reality cannot be proven to another person. Therefore I am inclined to choose option (2) above.

I didn't turn to an intelligent designer to explain my sense of subjective reality. I don't think it necessary to imagine a 'designer'

Lije said...

Your subjective experience maybe as real as the force of gravity, but no matter how strongly you feel that you can levitate, you can't do it. Gravity doesn't lie. Subjective experience does. Hence the need for science. You can think yourself into believing that it is not the same as electrical signals or chemical reactions, but all evidence says that it is so. Any other explanation is a fake explanation. Call it whatever you want - god, unknown intelligence etc... The reason why it is fake is it has no explanatory power. You can substitute one fake explanation with another, like say The Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the fake explanation still explains what it says it can.

BTW, science does explain consciousness to an extent (which is orders of magnitude more than what other knowledges systems can do). The complexity series I linked to can take a while to read. This is less time intensive as far as getting a feel of the present state of our understanding of consciousness is concerned - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6958873142520847424#

shajanm said...

Levitation is an extra-ordinary claim. It could very well be proven wrong through simple tests. But there are subjective experiences that are inherently true (like the sense of harmony experienced while looking at a beautiful landscape or the starlit sky).

I will completely agree with Susan Blackmore that Consciousness is an illusion (in the sense that it is not what it appears to be). This is a very good starting point if one wants to understand Life. We cannot talk about consciousness or mind meaningfully because we don't know what exactly these 'things' are.

There is only one certainty to begin with: biological evolution. Human beings today possess 'objective knowledge' but nothing like that existed a few hundred thousand years ago. So rather than speculating about nature of consciousness, we should ask 'How did human beings acquire objective knowledge?'

Lije said...

Levitation looks like an extra-ordinary claim only because you live in the year 2011 where science has raised the bar for what to believe and lowered it for what to suspect. Religious literature shows how things like levitation were taken to be true just based purely on subjective experience. You are just moving the goal posts of the nature of claims that arise from subjective experience.

One gets a better picture of the real world by objective knowledge. So, as the products of evolution, all life forms have some sort of objective knowledge. Because without that they wouldn't exist. An animal's body knows about gravity, otherwise how else would it know how much muscle power and bone strength is needed to survive the gravitational force constantly acting upon it's body? So you are wrong in making the claim that objective knowledge did not exist a few hundred thousand years ago. It was there since the dawn of life.

And your question should have been "How is it that we can ponder upon the nature of objective knowledge?" You can't put consciousness on a pedestal, not try to understand it and then expect to answer such questions. Current evidence points to "human brain = consciousness". But you seem to believe that there is something else to consciousness. That there is some "I" or "self" that can have profound experiences and is not tied to electrical and chemical activity of the brain. That is the illusion that Sue Blackmore was talking about. It seems to me that you completely missed the point of her talk.

shajanm said...

1)We need to recognize the evolution of human capacity to reason. Ancients had a flat earth theory because it was perfectly rational for their time. Descarets concluded human soul resides in the pineal gland and it was a reasonable conclusion in 17th century. We cannot look down from our 21st century vantage point and conclude they were wrong because they relied on subjective experience. I am not moving the goal posts, merely acknowledging that goal posts do evolve.

2)You say 'all life forms have some sort of objective knowledge'. I use the term to mean 'knowledge that can be represented independent of the observer'. Such knowledge can be written down using symbols and made sensible to other members of the species. Test for objectivity is the use of symbols. Some animals use sign language or sounds to communicate with other members of the species but they do not use written symbols with meaning. Man alone has this way of objectifying experience into knowledge for future use. We should understand the mechanism of acquiring 'objective knowledge' before approaching the question of consciousness.

Lije said...

1. So it is possible that even though your subjective experience tells you something, it may turn out to be wrong. I gave that example to show how unreliable subjective experience is. You haven't given any argument to say that it isn't and yet insist on trusting subjective experience.

2. An animal's sense of gravity is independent of the observer. But for you knowledge means language. And you want to understand language without understanding consciousness. I'm sorry, but you are doing it the wrong way. You have decided that consciousness cannot be explained and hence you are beating around the bush to trying to find out the origins of language ignoring the fact of how very closely language is tied to consciousness. Remove consciousness down from the pedestal and you'll begin to see some answers. I suggest you read books like "The Language Instinct" by Steven Pinker and "Consciousness Explained" by Dan Dennett.

shajanm said...

1) Of course. It would be unwise to rely on subjective experience to make predictions about the world. The link included in my very first comment has these words: 'Reason is the only path, even when the destination is its outer limits'

What I suggest is that subjective experience is not the same as its objective description. The sense of harmony I experience is not the same as its physical description in terms of electrical signals and chemical changes in the brain.

I am very well aware that it is impossible to 'prove' the above claim. Proof is possible only with objective descriptions. So I go on ask: How are we so sure every aspects of reality can be represented objectively? After all, Isn't objectivity a recent entry on evolutionary scene?


2) An animal's sense of gravity is independent of observer. That means human observers can acquire objective knowledge about an animal's sense of gravity. Isn't it different from saying animals have objective knowledge about gravity?

Knowledge doesn't mean language. (Objective) knowledge has to be representable using a symbol or collection of symbols as in a mathematical expression that makes sense to other observers. Isn't it uniquely human? Why do you think such knowledge existed from the dawn of life?

Lije said...

So I go on ask: How are we so sure every aspects of reality can be represented objectively? After all, Isn't objectivity a recent entry on evolutionary scene?

Reality exists independently of us. It is not dependent on someone's subjective experience. Is it possible that reality can be otherwise? Sure. But highly unlikely. So, the only answer for your question is a probabilistic one. If you want certitude, religion is the way to go and I don't subscribe to any religion.

An animal's sense of gravity is independent of observer. That means human observers can acquire objective knowledge about an animal's sense of gravity. Isn't it different from saying animals have objective knowledge about gravity?

It is different if and only if you add consciousness to the equation.

Knowledge doesn't mean language. (Objective) knowledge has to be representable using a symbol or collection of symbols as in a mathematical expression that makes sense to other observers.

To use collection of symbols and mathematical expressions, language is a precondition. And that language need not be written. The Vedas were transmitted vocally from one generation to the next. So you are wrong in saying that objective knowledge has to be represented using a collection of symbols.

No matter how hard you try not to understand consciousness, your question is intimately tied with it. As long as you put consciousness on a pedestal, keep it separate from the human brain, you will keep failing to see that connection.

shajanm said...

Reality exists independent of us..

We are part of reality. Human beings have acquired this unique ability to stand outside and look at 'reality'. This is how we acquire objective knowledge. It is a very useful and important tool, but I think it is a mistake to say our objective picture IS THE reality.

It is different if and only if you add consciousness to the equation..

I don't understand where consciousness come in. Animals don't use symbols to speak, write or theorize about gravity. So animals do not have objective knowledge of gravity. Humans use symbols to describe how animals respond to gravity, implying objective knowledge.

And that language need not be written..

You are right. The symbol could be a sound element. That doesn't change anything in my argument. Objective knowledge has to be represented using a collection of symbols, written or spoken (including sign language).

I am not putting consciousness on a pedestal or seeking religious certitude. The only certainty I accept is the fact of evolution.

Lije said...

It is a very useful and important tool, but I think it is a mistake to say our objective picture IS THE reality

Believe what you want. But the fact is, no matter how strongly you feel in your subjective experience, it doesn't always map to reality. If you want others to believe what you do, the burden of proof lies on you. Now don't say that proof means objective knowledge and you are questioning that very thing. If a person feels like they have a phantom limb, the simple explanation is that their brain constructed it for them. But if they are adamant that the limb is real and that everyone should see it either through direct or indirect means, the burden of proof lies on that person. Same goes for you.

I don't understand where consciousness come in. Animals don't use symbols to speak, write or theorize about gravity. So animals do not have objective knowledge of gravity. Humans use symbols to describe how animals respond to gravity, implying objective knowledge.

The difference between other animals and humans is consciousness. It is what allows us to "speak, write or theorize about gravity". That's where it comes in.

I am not putting consciousness on a pedestal or seeking religious certitude. The only certainty I accept is the fact of evolution.

Then do you agree that consciousness (which includes the deep experiences that you describe) is the human brain?

shajanm said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
shajanm said...

If you want others to believe what you do, the burden of proof lies on you...

I have already said purely subjective experience cannot be objectified. Human eyes 'see' only a small range of wavelengths. That doesn't mean UV rays are unreal. The ability to know objectively is a product of evolution and is unique to human beings. Isn't it irrational to insist that every aspect of reality should be objectively knowable?

The difference between other animals and humans is consciousness...

You bring in consciousness to explain objective knowledge, then go on to say that it is nothing but the brain. I suggest this is the wrong approach because we don't know what consciousness is (it may even be non-existent). Therefore we can't use it as an explanatory mechanism. Why not begin with what we are sure about?The difference between humans and other animals is that humans objectify knowledge while animals don't.

Then do you agree that consciousness (which includes the deep experiences that you describe) is the human brain...

No. That would be equating Reality with Objectively Knowable. It is anti-evolutionary and places human arrogance at the center of universe.

Lije said...

I have already said purely subjective experience cannot be objectified.

That's your assumption. Why should I agree with it? And I subjectively feel that you are talking nonsense. That should be the end of this discussion. You don't get it do you? You want to comment about your views and expect me to understand them and probably agree with you. On what basis have you made that assumption? Your subjective experience? Mine? Or on some other ground which both of us have implicitly agreed upon? Now what would that be called?

Isn't it irrational to insist that every aspect of reality should be objectively knowable?

I told you the only answer I can give is a probabilistic one. You assumed I was talking in absolutes.

You bring in consciousness to explain objective knowledge, then go on to say that it is nothing but the brain. I suggest this is the wrong approach because we don't know what consciousness is (it may even be non-existent).

Fine, define consciousness as you like. But don't expect me agree with your definition.

No. That would be equating Reality with Objectively Knowable. It is anti-evolutionary and places human arrogance at the center of universe.

Again, define evolution as you like. But in the world I live in, evolution means humans are the product of a completely natural process. Evolution I know of assigns no privileged position to humans. But they will have privileged position only if you posit a process that is not natural (i.e. cannot be known through objective means). Only by going beyond natural causes, can you say that consciousness is not the human brain.

shajanm said...

Got it. This is your space and you may do as you please. Delete this or the whole chain.

I didn't expect you to agree with me, but thought you will point out the logic behind your disagreement. Anyway, I got a taste of some free thinking!

Lije said...

My logic is simple. It derives from naturalism. And I'm quite sure you are using the word freethinking wrongly.

illopos said...

A Cricket game is perfectly real at one level. But at a higher level it is pointless and "unreal". A cricket player can handle the pressure better if he realizes that the match is ultimately "unreal" and he is there just to enjoy the challenge.

Similarly, the world and life (including our investigations into the nature of life) is a maya/illusion/game in the sense that it is ultimately unreal or pointless but at a lower level the world is perfectly real. I think this realization can help one whether he wants to continue to be immersed in maya or break out of it.

That is my interpretation of maya. I am not sure what Brahman is though.

Lije said...

@illopos,

There is a real world out there (or the lower level as you put it) and then there is what me make out of that real world (the non-lower level). So the concepts of maya and Brahman, which represent the understanding of reality of a people of an earlier age, too are just as pointless and ultimately "unreal" as a cricket game. So there can be no such thing as breaking out of maya. You are of course free to reinterpret maya in light of advances in science over the past few centuries. But I'm not talking about such interpretations, but about how some states of mind are interpreted to represent an oneness called Brahman.

ramesh said...

Dear Lije,

It seems that you have utterly misunderstood the concept. It is knowledge of oneness rather than physical oneness since physical things are never explained either by science or anywhere else in their entirety.

Lije said...

@Ramesh,

Everything is physical. An alternate domain of existence is untenable.

Also pertaining to the usual apologetic argument of "science cannot explain everything", the solution to that is not to indulge in fantasy, but to keep trying to find answers, which given the past evidence, are highly likely to be in science than any other field.

So, no I haven't "utterly misunderstood" anything.

ramesh said...

Indeed so. But till the time science finds and accounts for everything which will definately take much time are not we supposed to live in a fantacy as we are today?

Lije said...

@ramesh,

Sure, people can indulge in fantasies. But they need to know that they are fantasies and not "Ultimate Truth" or "Ultimate Reality". They also need to realize how nonsensical some fantasies are (ex: this "revealed truth") given what science already tells us.

ramesh said...

Great contradiction! Today Science doesn't know what the Truth is. It either cannot be SURE whether it could ever be known. Is it critical, rational and pragmatic to differentiate between the Fantasy and Truth given the fact that what science tells us is quite relative, subjective and limited by limitations of the definations of Mass, time, space etc? Who will break the truth science or human? No science without human,his concepts. can science go beyond science to decide the nature of human and find truth?

Please touch all the points/statements to do the justice.

Lije said...

I suggest that you read this in its entirety. Also, spare me the deepities.

ramesh said...

Thanks Lije,

Both the articles are quite interesting and informative. Liked them. Grateful for the same.


Deepity, I think is for insincere people. We should mean only business. The real issue has to be sorted out. If we get confused or misdirected let us ask it explicitly. So I wish deepity should not bother we people.


I will be grateful to you if you could point out me the satisfactory answer or link in your first reference 'Philosophy of Science' about the issues I raised in my last comment. May you help me to understand the things better please?

Lije said...

Ramesh,

If you had read the link on philosophy of science, you'd realize that science is not "quite relative, subjective and limited by limitations of the definations".

You'd also know the importance of Popper's falsifiability criterion. The so called "Truth" which you presume to exist, just because deepity laden religious texts profess to it, falls squarely outside of the falsifiability criterion and well within the realm of Not Even Wrong. You know what else exists in that realm? The FSM, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russel's teapot.

So, if you really are in search of the "Truth", you can't presuppose its existence based on subjective experiences. Our brains have some failure modes and the reason science exists is to work around those failure modes. Ignoring science and relying on the human brain will lead to nonsensical conclusions.

In short, it is science that will lead to the "Truth" and not any other knowledge system.

ramesh said...

Dear Lije,

I totally agree with your para 2 and 3.

It would be better if you provide the relevant link in r/o para 1. Your statement (1 para) is simple assertion without proof or reference or I fail to understand it.


Let us go the other way. Let us not assume any truth. We will arrive at it scientifically. Question arises whether science is capable of the same? Can we quantify the extent of its success so far? say 50% or 100%?


May you clarify my doubts about your para 1 and para 4? please.

Lije said...

Theory of gravitation says that I will fall down if I jump off a building from anywhere on Earth. That statement is not "quite relative, subjective and limited by limitations of the defination".

Metaphysical naturalism is based on the assumption that there is only the natural and science is the best way to understand it. It is "just" an assumption, but there is overwhelming evidence for the assumption to hold good. A good way to test it is to ask: "Do my beliefs pay rent?"

Anonymous said...

A sample program code in sanskrit language:


Yoga Yantram
Yoga Yantram.Vargham


Sutram parikshaa //** Class or Module ****
{
Sasthra Prana() //** Function Main *****
{
'Display datetime
Dhrsanam.Likham(samayam.Ghati)
Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(samayam.Kshanam)
Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(samayam.Maasam)
Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(samayam.Suukshmam)
Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(samayam.Varshham)

'Using month class and adding
'Display
Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam(maasam.divasa)

Dim x As New Yantram.Vargham.Argham 'integer
Dim y As New Yantram.Vargham.dashamikam 'decimal
Dim z As New Yantram.Vargham.dorakam 'string
Dim c As New Yantram.Vargham.Aksharam 'char

x.Argham = 12
y.dashamikam = 13.5
z.dorakam = "vijaya dhanyam"
c.Aksharam = "A"

Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam("Integer Value :" & x.Argham)
Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam("Decimal Value :" & y.dashamikam)
Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam("String Value :" & z.dorakam)
Dhrsanam.LikhamLekam("Char Value :" & c.Aksharam)

Dhrsanam.SwikramLekam()
}
}


well this was just a 'sample'. a group of people have already at the work.