PDA

View Full Version : Knowledge & Conciousness



devotee
22 December 2007, 07:12 AM
We think that conciousness is an attribute which is special to only living & mentally advanced things. Is it true ?

Let us take some amount of sodium chloride. It is solid. It dissolves in water. It has a peculier identifiable taste. Flame test gives a yellow flame. It doesn't readily react with most chemicals etc. So, we can say that Sodium Chloride is concious of being Sodium Chloride & it beahves accordingly as Sodium Chloride should.

Now, Sodium Chloride is a compound made up of two elements : Sodium & Chlorine. Now let's stop here & think. Though Sodium Chloride is made up of Sodium & Chlorine, it's properties are not a mixture of Sodium & Chlorine. So, we can see that there is no existence of Sodium Chloride beyond this point. Sodium knows how to behave as Sodium & Chlorine also knows how to behave like Chlorine but do they know how their own combination shall behave ? Where was the identity of sodium chloride when it was just a sodium atom & a chlorine atom ?

The properties of Sodium Chloride appear with the formation of Sodium Chloride & not before that. The signature of Sodium Chloride must be available somewhere even before Sodium Chloride is born ... otherwise, it appears that it is appearing from no-where suddenly as soon as Sodium Chloride comes into being. Is it in Sodium or in Chlorine or in Protons, Neutrons, Electrons or in quarks & anti-quarks ? If the conciousness of being of Sodium Chloride is finally held by quarks & anti-quarks, it must contain the conciousness of everything on this earth/universe because everything is finally made of these particles.

Does Sodium knows that it is Sodium ? If it doesn't, then why is it looking for elements (like Chlorine) with which it can share its extra Electron to achieve Inert-gas-configuration ? That means, the conciousness of being Sodium is somewhere which is compelling the Sodium Atom to attain Inert-Gas-configuration. It also means that awareness of the theory of trying to achieve Inert-gas-Configuration by atoms must also be present somewhere. If Sodium knows that it is Sodium, this conciousness must be somewhere inside Sodium. So, let's break Sodium ... we get Protons, Neutrons & Electrons ===> New conciousness of these particles have come into being but there is no trace of conciousness of Sodium. Going upto the last particles (quarks & anti-quarks) known to mankind till date, we come to find that the conciousness is attached with Form. As the Form changes so does the conciousness.

Are we going in the right direction ? We have only two options left : i) Either the last (?) form(s) must have conciousness of everything in this universe or ii) Conciousness comes suddenly with Form & dies with Form. If we select first option, we are saying that the tiny particles (of 10^-19 m size) are packed with infinite conciousness of everything in this universe ... which doesn't appear correct as quarks/anti-quarks are not necessarily the last form (we have not been able to go beyond them because of our own limitations) & also that we are trying to pack in infinitely large into something infinitesimally small which doesn't appear logical. The 2nd option, is obviously illogical because "something is coming out of nothing".

So, both the options lead us to nowhere. Are any other options that we have left ? Yes, we missed the option that Conciousness is everywhere .... that the conciousness is not in Sodium Chloride but Sodium Chloride is in Conciousness .... & similarly, Sodium & Chlorine were in Conciousness & like-wise the fundamental particles are in Conciousness & not the other way round. Once we postulate this theory, the entire zig-saw puzzle of conciousness appears solved. The conciousness of Laws of Nature, the signatures of Sodium Chloride, Sodium, Chlorine, fundamental particles are all the time present everywhere ... everything in this universe is completely soaked in conciousness ... we can't separate this infinite conciousness.

The understanding /knowledge of anything is based upon information collected by our sense organs & processed by our mind based upon matching/not-matching with our earlier experience. The knowledge so gained is only relative knowledge/transient knowledge/incomplete knowledge & conditioned knowledge. In fact, every such knowledge is a relative knowledge which refers to other relative knowledge. There is no absolute reference. So, whenever there is a perceiver & a perceived ... there cannot be absolute knowledge.

Therefore, if the conciousness is separate from a "thing" it can have only a relative knowledge of the thing. But Conciousness must "Know Everything" otherwise there would again be problem of having some knowldege which is not accessible to conciousness .... which cannot be.

Therefore, "thing" & conciousness cannot be two different things .... there can be only one solution to this puzzle ..... there is nothing but "Conciousness" which all Is.

yajvan
22 December 2007, 07:41 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
We think that consciousness is an attribute which is special to only living & mentally advanced things. Is it true ?


Does Sodium knows that it is Sodium ? If it doesn't, then why is it looking for elements (like Chlorine) with which it can share its extra Electron to achieve Inert-gas-configuration ? That means, the consciousness of being Sodium is somewhere which is compelling the Sodium Atom to attain Inert-Gas-configuration.

Namaste devotee,

A compelling POV. Yet let me ask...before identifying if sodium has consciousness, 'consciousness' has not yet been defined in your post.
What is your definition of this?


And just a sodium seeks chlorine, can this rule be aptly applied to every object in the Universe , as all is under the sway-and-influence of gravity?
Objects in attraction to other objects? Yet gravity is without mass ( as far as we know today, some think of gravity waves).

If we say 'oh yes, that is it, all things are attracted' - then the pickle will offered by one of our astute physicists on HDF, what of the object that is in perfect balance between the pull of two objects e.g. satellites, etc.
They are just outside the earth's pull a zero gravity. Doe this suggest then that these objects are without consciousness? Like the International Space Station, in its orbit, also includes people, as they are with or without consciousness, floating within a unit ( the space station) w/o consciousness?

What are your thoughts on this?


FYI I am not suggesting your POV is without merit, just poking around to see the boundry of the idea offered.


pranams

devotee
22 December 2007, 08:33 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste devotee,

A compelling POV. Yet let me ask...before identifying if sodium has consciousness, 'consciousness' has not yet been defined in your post.
What is your definition of this?


And just a sodium seeks chlorine, can this rule be aptly applied to every object in the Universe , as all is under the sway-and-influence of gravity?
Objects in attraction to other objects? Yet gravity is without mass ( as far as we know today, some think of gravity waves).

If we say 'oh yes, that is it, all things are attracted' - then the pickle will offered by one of our astute physicists on HDF, what of the object that is in perfect balance between the pull of two objects e.g. satellites, etc.
They are just outside the earth's pull a zero gravity. Doe this suggest then that these objects are without consciousness? Like the International Space Station, in its orbit, also includes people, as they are with or without consciousness, floating within a unit ( the space station) w/o consciousness?

What are your thoughts on this?


FYI I am not suggesting your POV is without merit, just poking around to see the boundry of the idea offered.


pranams

Namaste yajuvan,

Conciousness means having awareness (of something or self). According to wikipedia, " Consciousness is regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity), self-awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness), sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience), sapience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience), and the ability to perceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception) the relationship between oneself and one's environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment)".


And just a sodium seeks chlorine, can this rule be aptly applied to every object in the Universe , as all is under the sway-and-influence of gravity?
Objects in attraction to other objects? Yet gravity is without mass ( as far as we know today, some think of gravity waves).

Of course ! You take two objects A & B having masses m1 & m2 separated by a distance d. As per Law of universal Gravitation, a force F will act beween the two objects which would be directly proportional to the product of their masses & inversely propertional to the square of the distance between the two. Now, let's increase the distance to 2d between the two. The force gets reduced to 1/4. Now, let's answer these questions :

a) What is applying the force F ? The object A, B or anything other than the two ?
b) If the two are appying this force then that would mean that each of them is aware of the mass & also the distance of the other object. It must also track the change in the distance & the change in mass ( if there is any change). There is a concept of Gravitational Field & Gravitational field lines. Even if we assume that the field lines are real, there must be some concious centre in either of the objects or somewhere else to record the changes & adjust the Force accordingly.

===> Trying to go on these lines would lead to a plausible solution similar to given in the above post.


what of the object that is in perfect balance between the pull of two objects e.g. satellites, etc.
They are just outside the earth's pull a zero gravity. Doe this suggest then that these objects are without consciousness? Like the International Space Station, in its orbit, also includes people, as they are with or without consciousness, floating within a unit ( the space station) w/o consciousness?

Let me make it clear that Law of gravitation applies everywhere in the universe irrespective of its position in the universe. It is not peculiar to Earth. In the above argument, just change the distance & masses & try to figure out who/what is keeping the track of these changes & adjusting the force accurately with mathematical precision ?

yajvan
22 December 2007, 12:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste yajuvan,

Conciousness means having awareness (of something or self). According to wikipedia, " Consciousness is regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity), self-awareness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness), sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience), sapience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience), and the ability to perceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception) the relationship between oneself and one's environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment)".



Of course ! You take two objects A & B having masses m1 & m2 separated by a distance d. As per Law of universal Gravitation, a force F will act beween the two objects which would be directly proportional to the product of their masses & inversely propertional to the square of the distance between the two. Now, let's increase the distance to 2d between the two. The force gets reduced to 1/4. Now, let's answer these questions :

a) What is applying the force F ? The object A, B or anything other than the two ?
b) If the two are appying this force then that would mean that each of them is aware of the mass & also the distance of the other object. It must also track the change in the distance & the change in mass ( if there is any change). There is a concept of Gravitational Field & Gravitational field lines. Even if we assume that the field lines are real, there must be some concious centre in either of the objects or somewhere else to record the changes & adjust the Force accordingly.

===> Trying to go on these lines would lead to a plausible solution similar to given in the above post.

Let me make it clear that Law of gravitation applies everywhere in the universe irrespective of its position in the universe. It is not peculiar to Earth. In the above argument, just change the distance & masses & try to figure out who/what is keeping the track of these changes & adjusting the force accurately with mathematical precision ?

Namaste devotee,
a compelling argument....

Yes, I agree that gravity is a universal principle not constrained to earth ( I hope you did not think prior to this statement that my POV was gravity is a earth-centric force? ). And thank you for sharing the inverse square law with our HDF readers.

There are a few points I offered that were missed in terms of intent. That is the point of balance in gravity. That of a object being in a 'neutral zone' if you will. It still has intelligence would be my answer to my own question.
And, even if this 'satellite' is in balance between two objects, say the earth and the moon i.e. a local phenomenon, the total solar system not to mention the total galaxy is inexorably being pulled or pushed to another super group of galaxies. So , this 'intelligence' is at work on a macro scale.

Regarding Consciousness - I agree it has the nature of 'awareness'. Yet to find it on a physical level will be a daunting task indeed. The backdrop of this whole Universe is consciousness itself, so says Vasișțha muni.

Yet the way you described the notion of the chlorine seeking its counterpart, to me, and my POV, suggests intelligence. For me, this intelligence is all pervading, like consciousness.

I will leave it here and perhaps others will have an opinion on your posts.

As heat is to fire, whiteness is to a conch shell, firmness is to a mountain liquidity to water, sweetness to sugarcane, butter to milk, coolness to ice... the universe is to consciousness. On Creation III.14, Vasișțha's Yoga


pranams,

devotee
22 December 2007, 08:19 PM
Namaste yajvan,

Thanks for a good insight on this subject. :)
I think, I couldn't understand your point in the earlier post. Let me consider it again :


There are a few points I offered that were missed in terms of intent. That is the point of balance in gravity. That of a object being in a 'neutral zone' if you will. It still has intelligence would be my answer to my own question.
And, even if this 'satellite' is in balance between two objects, say the earth and the moon i.e. a local phenomenon, the total solar system not to mention the total galaxy is inexorably being pulled or pushed to another super group of galaxies. So , this 'intelligence' is at work on a macro scale.

I agree with you, there will be intelligence even in neutral zone ... only thing is that I would not like to use the word, "still" in your above sentence. :) In my opinion, why should the "intelligence" depend upon forces at work ? If you are pulling me from one side & Atanu pulls me from the other side with equal force, I would be perfectly balanced between both the pulling forces & it won't affect my intelligence at all. Yes, I would be aware (i.e. concious) of being pulled from both sides due to strain felt by my muscles ! :D


As heat is to fire, whiteness is to a conch shell, firmness is to a mountain liquidity to water, sweetness to sugarcane, butter to milk, coolness to ice... the universe is to consciousness.

Excellent quote .... aptly describes the universality of conciousness ! :)

sarabhanga
23 December 2007, 12:08 AM
Namaste Devotee,




Quarks and anti-quarks are not necessarily the last form (we have not been able to go beyond them because of our own limitations) and also we are trying to pack in infinitely large into something infinitesimally small which doesn’t appear logical.

When a quark meets an anti-quark, what remains? Their particular manifestation is annihilated and only pure Electromagnetic Radiation (Light) remains.

In relativity, the one absolute is Light. All matter is ultimately created from photons (in various combinations), and these photons define space and time by their own existence. But from the perspective of free photons (electromagnetic radiation) or anything that moves at the same speed as light, there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And attaining the speed of light is only possible by shedding all material nature and becoming one with light itself.

In absolute singularity (or advaita) there is no reference for any normal relations or reactions, and empirical evidence or even the idea of observation is impossible, because such things (by their nature) require a framework of duality.

And God said “Let there be Light”.

In dharma, the one absolute is Atman. All beings are ultimately created from Atman, and that Atman defines space and time by its own existence. But from the perspective of Atman there is no time and no space, and all possibilities are open. And realizing the Atman is only possible by shedding all material attachment and becoming one with the Atman itself.

And that shining Atman is Brahman.

Photons (just as Brahman) both create and illuminate their creation.




The 2nd option is obviously illogical because “something is coming out of nothing”.

Whenever matter is created (not merely recombined), it appears as an opposite twin of positive and negative reality (matter and anti-matter). So that, in truth, NOTHING has happened, and the sum remains always the same.

The addition of plus one and minus one remains always zero, so that all things may be manifested from absolutely no thing at all, without causing any accounting problem. :)

devotee
23 December 2007, 06:51 AM
Namaste sarabhanga ji !

A very good post ! Thanks !! :)

yajvan
24 December 2007, 10:53 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


In my opinion, why should the "intelligence" depend upon forces at work ?

Namaste devotee,

Your assessment makes sense... This ingelligence is not dependent upon the forces at work because the forces are also the Intelligence. Just as you discussed regarding the chemical attraction , or the balance concept or gravity. This intelligence is doing it all with no effort.


Pranams

devotee
24 December 2007, 04:49 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
This ingelligence is not dependent upon the forces at work becuase the forces also is the Intelligence. Just as you discussed regarding the chemical attraction , or th balance conpet or gravity. This intelligence is doing it all with no effort.


Namaskar yajvan,

I see your point correctly. You are absolutely right ! :)

yajvan
25 December 2007, 01:32 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Devotee,

if you find this intelligence interesting, perhaps you will find this post worth the read:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1489


pranams,

devotee
25 December 2007, 09:47 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Devotee,

if you find this intelligence interesting, perhaps you will find this post worth the read:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1489


pranams,

So, you knew it already ? That is very unfair ! ... and I thought it was my proprietary article !! You dented my stupid ego, sir ! Hey, ... but you had the unfair advantage of having a good teacher & here, I had to slog myself all along !! :D

To be fair, it was a good article, worth the read. Thanks ! :)

yajvan
26 December 2007, 06:06 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


So, you knew it already ? That is very unfair ! ... and I thought it was my proprietary article !! You dented my stupid ego, sir ! Hey, ... but you had the unfair advantage of having a good teacher & here, I had to slog myself all along !! :D

To be fair, it was a good article, worth the read. Thanks ! :)

Namaste devotee,
It is good to get as many people thinking about this dhi shakti as possible. Your thoughts were well rounded and penetrated the subject matter well.


Yes, I am blessed to have had a most excellent teacher that lived the wisdom and was not a by-stander. A fully realized Being , an exponent of Reality. For this , I am blessed, As he talked often of this Intelligence.


pranams,