PDA

View Full Version : The I-consciousness and science



saidevo
22 June 2011, 09:22 AM
BhagavAn DAs, in his book The Science of Peace writes:

न हि जातु कश्चिदत्र संदिग्धे 'अहम् वा नाहम् वा' इति ।

na hi jAtu kashchidatra saMdigdhe 'aham vA nAham vA' iti |
says VAchaspati's bhAmatI (p.2) about the nature and existence of the Self.

"This (self) is known through indubitable, non-erroneous and immediate experience of the nature of "I," as distinct from the body, the organs, the mind, the intellect, their objects, (in short) from whatever may be designated by the term "this"; (this experience exists) in all living beings from the worm and the moth to gods and sages; hence the self cannot be the object of a desire to know. No one indeed doubts "Is this I or not-1?" or makes the mistake "this is not I at all". (Translation from The bhAmati chatussUtri by S.S.Suryanarya Sastry and C.Kunhan Raja. This book can be downloaded at: http://www.archive.org/details/bhamaticatussutr029636mbp [25 MB]--sd)

Descartes' famous maxim, Cogito, ergo sum, 'I think, therefore I am,' reverses cause and effect. It would be truer to say, Sum, ergo cogito, 'I am, therefore I think'.

About the nature of this self, he quotes from VAchaspati:
"That which varies not, nor changes, in the midst of things that change and vary, is different from them";

तस्माद्वेषु व्यावर्त-मानेषु यद अनुवर्तते तत् तेभ्यो भिन्नम् यथा कुसुमेभ्यः ।

tasmAdveShu vyAvarta-mAneShu yada anuvartate tat tebhyo bhinnam yathA kusumebhyaH |

"Hence, that which is constant in whatever is variable, that is different from the latter, as a string from the flowers (strung thereon)."
--VAchaspati's bhAmatI (p.3)

*****

Findings of science

How does science seek to explain this indubitable, non-erroneous and immediate experience of the nature of 'I', as distinct from the body, the organs, the mind, the intellect, their objects, in terms of the brain or otherwise?

01. Since science seeks answers only in the physical reality and dismisses the possibility of the metaphysical, most scientific research about consciousness is related to the human brain, which is considered to be finality of human existence.

02. Mapping the various parts of the brain to their functions, it is said that science has decided that consciousness cannot exist in the cerebellum at the back of the brain, because science has found out that surgical removal of the cerbellum does not cause a man to lose his consciousness.

03. It is said that science has narrowed its search to the cerebral cortex. Various kinds of scans of this area indicate quite intense brain activity in certain areas even while the subject is under deep sleep. Since consciousness is absent in a person in deep sleep, scientists speculate that its origin may not be in the area of brain that remains active during deep sleep.

04. Followers of science ('sci-fol', henceforth) quote the case of Terri Schiavo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case): She was in coma for over two months and then her diagnosis was elevated to vegetative state, but still with no consciousness.

• So they say that consciousness cannot be independent of the brain and so, all talk about the self, jIvAtman, etc. is nonsense.

• Stretching their arguments further, the 'sci-fol' who are against religion and spirituality say that the Brahman of the upaniShads is only a premise which cannot be proved (even the three great AchAryas said so), and has to be taken on the belief in the inerrancy and apauruSheyatvam of the Vedas.

• They say that the Vedas were made to be apauruSheya, in order to avoid the logical conundrum of circular logic, by claiming that the sounds of the Vedas exist for ever, so they are not authored even by God.

• Abrahmamic religions say that their scriptures were authored or inspired by God, which would be pauruSheya--of human origin. This statement suffers from the logical conundrum of circular logic thus: suppose I author a root-text, and in it I say I am god. I collect enough number of followers to vouchsafe and accept the text. In course of time, then, this would change into a belief that the text is a revealed one because god says right in the text that he authored it. Thus, I will become god because the root-text says so, and the root-text is believable because I (as the only true god) wrote it.

*****

The fallacies in the premises and researches of physical science

What we are interested to discuss here is in these questions, with our answers to them and how, if at all, a sci-fol could counter them.

01. Is the scientific research into the brain as the source of consciousness, free from the fallacy of circular logic?

Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises.

• To say that the brain is all there is to the origin, sustenance and end of human consciousness is the equivalent of saying, "I am my brain".

‣ Let us take this statement, "I am my brain". Here, the proposition, "I am"--that is, "I exist"--is sought to be proved by the premise of "my brain", that is, "a physical organ that I possess." The fallacy is the confusion of the subject and object, 'I with my' or knower with the object known, and say, "I with my brain shall prove the I in me."

‣ Both science and Vedanta admit to the self, 'I' as the extential experience of the individual consciousness. In addition, they admit 'my/mine' as the possessive attributes of the 'I'.

‣ The difference between 'I' and 'my/mine' is very crucial, which needs to be addressed at the outset, for any meaningful and holistic knowledge about the universe, its life-forms and what drives them.

‣ If the same, individual brain can think of itself as the knower, known and the knowledge obtained thereby, it becomes Brahman!

*****

• The usual rejoinder that a follower of science gives to this argument is, "Using the brain to ascertain the nature of brain is not circular logic."

‣ But then, "using the brain to ascertain the nature of brain" is an assumption that an object can get to know itself by itself, which would be like saying, "The robot will eventually know its self by itself", whereas even in science fiction a robot's 'I-ness' comes from a source outside it.
*****

• Another line of argument that a 'sci-fol' takes is, "If what this consciousness is can be figured out precisely by humans--and this is a big IF--it can only come through the scientific process. Otherwise, it has to remain a mystery."

‣ Is it a big IF because science can never hope to find an ultimate answer in the brain? If not in brain, from where else could it be?
*****

• If a Vedantin says "All knowledge and proof are only of the human mind, by the mind and for the mind", a 'sci-fol' calls it obfuscating. Clarity can never be achieved through obfuscation.

‣ Suppose the Vedantin's statement is changed as, "All knowledge and proof are only of the human brain, by the brain and for the brain", would it be scientifically admissible?

‣ In normal, healthy conditions, it seems ironical to me that what other brains think and know about the working of my brain gains precedence over what I think and know of my brain!

*****

02. How much of metaphysical assumption is there in the premises and researches of physical science?

• A scientist or a 'sci-fol' usually thinks that belief in metaphysical reality and its religious significance is blind faith as against the empirical and scientific studies. Science corrects itself when new discoveries are made. Scientific knowledge is realiable because of the corpus of its publications that are constanly validated and updated by professionals in the field.

‣ That science corrects itself when new discoveries are made, is not significant in itself, because science addresses only the physical reality, which keeps changing, so new discoveries are bound to come when this reality is addressed at deeper micro levels. This also explains why the published corpus of science needs validation and updation.

‣ Unlike science, Vedanta broadly agrees on Brahman as the absolute truth and that its nature is sat-chit-Ananda. The vedantic traditions only differ in the seeker's approach to the truth, not in its certainty or nature.

• 'sci-fol': There is nothing like Indian Science and Western Science.

‣ This is like saying, "There is no Indian cow or the Western cow" because cow is a physical entity, human anatomy and faculties are universal, specially with regard to the five senses, so the view of the objective, physical world in the waking state remains fairly uniform and identical.

‣ Religion and spirituality are a mental process beyond the five senses, which is the reason for the saying, 'Indian mind, Indian thinking' and 'Western mind, Western thinking'. When human mind tries to have an idea about the metaphysical reality, it should not be surprising or delimiting that there should be as many ideas as there are minds.

Check this interesting interview for the metaphysical foundations in science:
Thinking allowed: Conversations On The Leading Edge Of Knowledge and Discovery
With Dr.Jeffrey Mishlove ( http://twm.co.nz/harm_consc1.htm )

Further thoughts and views, for and against, are welcome.

*****

Jainarayan
22 June 2011, 10:02 AM
All is not lost in the realm of science v. faith. There is a neuroscientist and neurosurgeon (and a westerner at that! :D ) who believes that the mind and the soul are the same thing. He believes that near-death experiences are the soul leaving the body for a short time, and returning for whatever reason.

Moreover, and most importantly, he posits that the soul is part of the universe. He was very close to saying the soul is part of God. I wish I could remember the man's name. His thoughts were very intriguing.

In the Terry Schiavo case, I believe that her soul/consciousness/jivatman left her body, leaving an empty shell behind. For what reason, who knows? Other than medical science keeping her organic body alive artificially.