'Life' is undoubtedly one of the biggest puzzles facing modern science. From physicists to philosophers, people from almost all walks of life have been trying to make sense of this insanely complex problem. The idea of 'life' is intricately linked with the idea of 'evolution'. If something does not evolve, it is very unlikely to be called living. Some philosophers and scientists have suggested that the distinction between living and non-living is quite artificial (eg. viruses) and this does make sense to some extent. But biological evolution is something that still enables us to draw a distinction between these two worlds. Lot of research has been done on various aspects of evolution and we do understand many details of the process, thought lot still remains to be understood. But what is still very far from being clear is this question: what is evolution really trying to do?
One of the answers that is proposed and perhaps also the most popular one is survival. Put it simply, evolution is trying to increase the chances of survival of the entity that is trying to evolve. Again, there is lot of evidence to support this argument. But if survival was the key, there was no need for evolution in the first place since the atoms and molecules that make up the cell have a much longer life than the cell itself. And the electrons and protons live even longer than atoms and molecules. And another problem with this idea of survival is that its not clear what is it thats trying to survive in a cell. Is it the cell itself or the individual genes or something else? A key aspect of evolution is that it constantly keeps changing things. So, a gene that exists in a species today may become totally different after a few thousand/million years. Now, if it was the gene that was trying to survive, it should not have changed in the first place. This is because a change of nucleotides directly implies that the original gene is lost and perhaps will never be recovered.
Evolution of complex organisms seems to be opposed to the second law of thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) which is believed to be a fundamental law of nature. But there are many other non-living organised phenomenon that naturally come into existence (eg. water cycle). In Physics also it is becoming clear that order can spontaneously appear out of seeming randomness (self-organisation). So, biological evolution is not the only process thats opposed to the law of increasing entropy. Hence, this explanation also cannot distinguish between biological evolution and other such processes that take place in non-living matter.
Where biological entities seem fundamentally different from other physical objects is in the nature of interactions. All physical objects interact through the four fundamental forces of nature (as per our current understanding), but biological entities seem to have much more complex rules of interaction that cannot always be reduced to the constituent forces of nature. The concept of emergence is often used to explain this phenomenon and in common parlance, it implies that the whole can be larger than the sum of its parts. So, what evolution seems to be trying to do is to allow more and more rules of interaction to emerge.
The laws of physics as we know them today were not necessarily the same when the universe came into existence just after the big bang. In the first few billion years, the universe went through rapid physical evolution and eventually the four fundamental forces seem to have emerged in a stable manner. But biological evolution does not seem to be showing any signs of stabilising into any such basic rules. Even the central dogma of biology is not followed by several species. Understanding biology requires a complete paradigm shift. The way we think of physical systems does not help much in understanding biological systems, simply due to the fact that biological interactions are infinitely more complex and cannot be reduced to a finite set of simple rules (at least as of now).
Will biological evolution eventually slow down to a basic set of rules that all organisms follow? There does not seem to be any evidence or even an abstract reason to support this. Evolution of humans seems to have even further spoilt any chances of this happening. Consciousness is the ultimate tool to create new forms of interaction out of almost nothingness. The way a person interacts with his/her family, friends, colleagues or even other animals/plants can perhaps never be reduced to a set of basic rules or to the four fundamental forces. The human instinct for interaction is also much stronger than the instinct for survival. It is quite well known in modern psychology that a lack of healthy interactions with fellow humans can easily lead to depression and suicidal tendencies. So, in my view, biological evolution is the ultimate creator! And its purpose is to create new rules of interaction.
Kushalji, I find your poser: “what is evolution really trying to do?” and your conclusion that biological evolution is the ultimate creator, the purpose of which is to create new rules of interaction, quite interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe poser presupposes that there is a purpose behind evolution of man and you are trying to explore the said purpose. The word ‘purpose’ presupposes the existence of a conscious entity (or non-entity in physical sense) that may be called ‘creator’ (irrespective of whether it is Nature or God). But I find it difficult to reconcile above underlying presumption with your conclusion that ‘biological evolution is the ultimate creator’. Thereby you appear to suggest that entire process of evolution is deterministic, without choice or purpose. But in the very next sentence, you identify the purpose as being to create new rules of interaction. Are you suggesting that biological evolution happens without any pre-existing purpose, as it creates itself without an external creator, but it has the purpose to create new rules of interaction, merely because man gets derailed without interaction with fellow beings? The above two propositions appear to be self-contradictory. However, let us examine your substantive proposition that the purpose of evolution of man is to create new rules of interaction.
In the first place, interaction is a natural phenomenon that happens even between and among sub-atomic particles. There may be serious objection if one describes such natural phenomenon as the purpose of evolution.
Secondly, it is more or less accepted that while we took several million years to evolve from the ape, our DNA has changed by only a few million bits during that period. But the fact remains that our major radical change has happened not because of genetic mutation, but because of the knowledge accumulated in our brain, say in last few hundred years, which cannot be explained by internal genetic transformation or mutation. Even human brain may have taken millions of years to evolve from the monkey-brain. But it seems that in last two centuries our brain has grown qualitatively in geometric proportion to a level that enables us to change or repair our own DNA. True that we are not yet able to manipulate our genes that control our intellect. But the day may not be far off when we succeed in doing so and create ourselves as superman, by replacing DNA with artificial chips/particles thus putting an end to natural evolution. That will mark the zenith of evolution beyond which there can be no evolution. And if there is any purpose of evolution, it is to reach the summit only, like for a mountaineer the aim is to climb to the top.
Asishji, thanks a lot for your insightful comments!
DeleteYes, I agree that the word 'purpose' can be quite confusing and tends to imply the presence of a conscious creator, but this is certainly not what I meant.
"Are you suggesting that biological evolution happens without any pre-existing purpose, as it creates itself without an external creator, but it has the purpose to create new rules of interaction"
Self-contradictory though it may sound, this is quite close to what I intended to say. But this is not merely because humans get derailed without interactions with fellow beings. In other life forms also, we find that interactions form a very basic instinct.
"But the day may not be far off when we succeed in doing so and create ourselves as superman, by replacing DNA with artificial chips/particles thus putting an end to natural evolution. That will mark the zenith of evolution beyond which there can be no evolution. And if there is any purpose of evolution, it is to reach the summit only, like for a mountaineer the aim is to climb to the top."
If there was one mountain with one summit, then I would totally agree with you. But its not clear if any such zenith actually exists. The evolutionary landscape seems to have infinite possibilities. For every mountain, there seems to be another one a little higher and another one a little lower. And even in current times, humans surely are perhaps the most complex organisms, but there are many other organisms which have capabilities that humans don't. So, I personally feel that evolution is an endless game and it will end only with the destruction of this world, which may surely be a result of man's actions.
"And even in current times, humans surely are perhaps the most complex organisms, but there are many other organisms which have capabilities that humans don't. So, I personally feel that evolution is an endless game and it will end only with the destruction of this world, which may surely be a result of man's actions."
DeleteLet's assume that by man's action human species have become extinct and a new species as intelligent as homo sapiens undertake research on the evolutionary growth of humans like we do with other species. They will surely be stuck by two strikingly different trends of growth, one natural, as coded in DNA structure of homo sapiens over a period of time, which may have changed a bit in a thousand year, and the other man-made, as evident from artificial substitution of DNA with other particles to bring about radical genetic change in humans, rendering a thousand years' natural evolution possible in just about a year. The latter trend can hardly be called evolutionary, as it is entirely man-made. We may not have reached that stage as yet, but once we do, we have surely reached the summit of evolution (for homo sapiens) after which our growth, if any, cannot be called evolutionary.
Interestingly, it's an unresolved puzzle that apes continue to be apes while some of them have evolved into homo sapiens with so much of brain power that enables them to artificially accelerate growth breaking through the natural evolutionary growth limits. The key to such power undoubtedly lies in brain which cannot be measured by any standard. In ultimate analysis, evolution is that of the brain and not physique, as body hardly counts. A species like cat or dog with higher brain power can surpass humans in intelligence & intellect and can achieve what we have not been able to. By the words 'summit' and 'zenith' I refer to brain power and not the body in the context of evolution.
No game can be endless, as it has a beginning and an end. If evolution is like mountaineering, the climb began with the throbbing of first life form in this world and will end when the mountaineer steps on the summit. Failed expeditions are like species that became extinct in the course of evolution.
Destruction of the world by man's actions has nothing to do with evolution, just as destruction of dinosaurs did not happen in the natural course of evolution.
"The latter trend can hardly be called evolutionary, as it is entirely man-made. We may not have reached that stage as yet, but once we do, we have surely reached the summit of evolution (for homo sapiens) after which our growth, if any, cannot be called evolutionary."
DeleteIt is certainly true that human tinkering can rapidly fasten up evolutionary growth. But powers of human imagination are just a tiny fragment of what insentient evolution can achieve. Human imagination itself is a product of this evolution and is deeply involved in the process of evolution too. So its not at all clear what a 'zenith' of evolution would imply. Stopping natural biological evolution through man made efforts (if its possible, which I don't agree with) would be much more damaging than the deforestation, ecosystem disturbance and climate change that humans are involved in. It certainly sounds good to be in absolute control of our own destiny but its just an illusion created by our own brain. I recently read a book "Unthink" by Chris Paley and he gives very interesting examples and evidence from psychological research to show that most of what we think are conscious decisions are actually taken by our unconscious mind. Consciousness is just an illusion created by our brain to help in interacting with other humans. So here again, 'interaction' is the key!
"No game can be endless, as it has a beginning and an end. If evolution is like mountaineering, the climb began with the throbbing of first life form in this world and will end when the mountaineer steps on the summit."
Games can surely be endless. Not every marriage ends in divorce and not every entrepreneur stops working at a certain stage. If there was only one mountain to be climbed by all species involved in this evolutionary process, we would never have so much diversity that we see all around us.
"Consciousness is just an illusion created by our brain to help in interacting with other humans. So here again, 'interaction' is the key!"
DeleteIf consciousness is an illusion (though I differ from such proposition), then interaction is also an illusion, inasmuch as product of illusion can only be illusion, logically speaking. Thus your whole thesis would look like this: the purpose of evolution is interaction which is an illusion produced by consciousness which also is an illusion. Obviously, it merits a re-look by you instead of relying upon the thesis of Chris Paley in an altogether different context.
"Games can surely be endless. Not every marriage ends in divorce and not every entrepreneur stops working at a certain stage."
If marriage is the game, it begins at a point and ends after the man & wife are declared as married. Divorce does not end marriage, but married life which is a separate game (marriage and married life are distinctive and, therefore, are different games). If married life is the game, it begins with marriage and ends with divorce, separation or death.
"If there was only one mountain to be climbed by all species involved in this evolutionary process, we would never have so much diversity that we see all around us."
Climbing of mountain was just an illustration without suggesting that there was only one mountain to be climbed by all species during their evolution. Let's assume that each species has a separate mountain to climb to reach the summit. Those who fail for whatever reason become extinct. For the species that finally reach the summit, there is no further climb left. Likewise, when man reaches the summit of evolution, and starts genetic engineering with brain to accelerate growth, we cannot logically call it natural evolution, unless you are of the view that brain and the thinking power are all illusory. In that event, even evolution becomes illusory. However, when we are talking about a natural phenomenon called evolution, we have to distinguish it from man-made experiments that bring about growth on fast forward mode.
I have no problem if you attribute even man-made experiments and genetic engineering to nature, but then we should use a different term for it, other than 'evolution', as evolution is commonly understood to connote natural genetic mutation within each species and has nothing to do with genetic engineering by man.
"If consciousness is an illusion (though I differ from such proposition), then interaction is also an illusion, inasmuch as product of illusion can only be illusion, logically speaking."
DeleteConsider a man who is infatuated with a woman, but thinks he is in love with her. He does everything possible to please her and to make her love him in return. But one day he realises that his feeling was actually just an infatuation and not real love. So in this context, the feeling of 'love' was an illusion but all the things he did for her were very much real. In the same way, consciousness is an illusion but the interaction certainly is not. Again, consciousness being an illusion does not make it non-existent. But just that it is not what we think it to be.
"If married life is the game, it begins with marriage and ends with divorce, separation or death."
Thats exactly the point. Certain things end only in death and destruction. Similarly, I think biological evolution will end only with the destruction of this world.
"Let's assume that each species has a separate mountain to climb to reach the summit."
The crucial point here is that each species does not have a separate mountain to climb. All life forms have evolved from the same basic single celled organism. This is what makes the evolutionary landscape so much complicated.
"So in this context, the feeling of 'love' was an illusion but all the things he did for her were very much real. In the same way, consciousness is an illusion but the interaction certainly is not. Again, consciousness being an illusion does not make it non-existent. But just that it is not what we think it to be."
Delete'Illusion' by dictionary meaning is unreal, false perception, or a deceptive appearance, such as mirage taken for water, or rope taken for snake. Consciousness is the root cause of mind, intellect & ego. It's a generic time while thinking faculty of man is a species to consciousness. Thus if consciousness is unreal, all its derivatives will necessarily be unreal.
Let's now come to your illustration that suggests that love being an infatuation is an illusion and action from that illusion can still be real. In the first place, if a man thinks he is in love with a woman and later realizes that his love was just an infatuation, his said infatuation cannot be called an illusion. To stretch it a bit farther, out of his so-called love, he may tell the woman that he loves her deeply, and presents her with nice gifts to prove that he really loves her. Thus all his action is a vindication of his love at the material time even though it is later perceived to be just an infatuation. Now the question is, does his action vindicate his love or infatuation? If his action is real and it vindicates his love, how can his love be called illusion or unreal? In any case there is a difference between infatuation and illusion. The former is real while the latter is not. Besides, consciousness cannot be termed as an illusion, as it lies at the core of our thinking faculty, and, therefore, is self-evident.
"Thats exactly the point. Certain things end only in death and destruction. Similarly, I think biological evolution will end only with the destruction of this world."
There is no dispute as to the fact that destruction of the world will put an end to the biological evolution. However, the moot question here is whether genetic engineering or replacement / substitution of genes / DNA by man to accelerate his growth will put an end to biological or natural evolution of man. The word 'evolution' means the process of gradual development of living organisms by natural selection (refer Oxford Dictionary). When natural selection is missing and gradual development gives way to rapid development by genetic engineering or substitution of DNA by some other particles, obviously the consequential development cannot be called evolution. Thus, apart from destruction of the world, evolution of man can come to an end also when man substitutes his own DNA / genes so as to accelerate the process of his development.
"The crucial point here is that each species does not have a separate mountain to climb. All life forms have evolved from the same basic single celled organism. This is what makes the evolutionary landscape so much complicated."
When we talk of evolution of multiple species, we are not referring to the amoeba from which said multiple species may have evolved. Evolution of each species is conventionally studied with reference to changes in its DNA structure over a period of time. When we say, man has evolved from the apes, we obviously treat species like fish, birds, cat families etc. as distinctive from hominids. Thus there is nothing wrong in our illustration, suggesting separate mountain for each species instead of suggesting a single mountain for all species.
"Consciousness is the root cause of mind, intellect & ego. It's a generic time while thinking faculty of man is a species to consciousness. Thus if consciousness is unreal, all its derivatives will necessarily be unreal."
DeleteThe mind is usually thought of as having two interacting parts : conscious and unconscious. So, consciousness cannot be the root cause of the whole mind.
And most of our thinking and decision making is done by our unconscious mind. So, consciousness is certainly not the root cause of our intellect and thinking faculty. As for the ego, one could surely say that this is caused by consciousness. And then it follows that the ego is as illusory as consciousness. Its important to note here that the word 'consciousness' as used in psychology and neuroscience does not necessarily have the same meaning as in Indian philosophy. In this context, I am using this word in the former sense. Its not at all clear to me how to draw a connection between the concepts of consciousness in these two domains of knowledge.
"Thus, apart from destruction of the world, evolution of man can come to an end also when man substitutes his own DNA / genes so as to accelerate the process of his development."
The power of biological organisms comes from their inherent stochasticity and plasticity. So, if we substitute our DNA/genes with some man-made material, we will still have to give room for at least the same amount of stochasticity if we wish to retain the same level of functioning. In that case, evolution will again take its due course. We may surely not like to call it 'biological evolution' though.
"Evolution of each species is conventionally studied with reference to changes in its DNA structure over a period of time."
It is true that mutations in DNA were earlier thought to be the main driver of evolution but nowadays the role of epigenetics is becoming more and more important. Also, bacteria and other single-celled organisms have been found to play a very important role in the behaviour of humans and other higher organisms. Our evolution also depends a lot on what we eat and so plants and other animals start playing an indirect role too. And human activities in turn effects the evolution of many other species. So, its a very complex evolutionary jungle that exists!
Comments received from Asishji (part 1):
Delete“It’s important to note here that the word 'consciousness' as used in psychology and neuroscience does not necessarily have the same meaning as in Indian philosophy. In this context, I am using this word in the former sense. It’s not at all clear to me how to draw a connection between the concepts of consciousness in these two domains of knowledge.”
Since you distinguish psychology and philosophy from science, I was under impression that you were using the term ‘consciousness’ and ‘unconsciousness’ from perspective of neuroscience only. According to neuroscience (which does not deal with mind, but brain), as you should be aware, unconscious or comatose patients are not able to react to any command and, therefore, are unable to interact. Since you have put psychology and neuroscience in the same category, in your above observation, our obvious inference is that unconsciousness does not help interaction.
However, from Freudian psychoanalytical perspective (which deals with mind and not brain), unconscious mind is understood to be repository of forgotten memory, mostly disturbing and traumatic. The ‘forgotten memory’ here refers to past experiences of conscious mind only. Therefore, your assumption that consciousness cannot be the root cause of mind or thinking faculty according to psychology does not appear to be valid. Secondly, there is opposition to Freudian concept of unconscious mind among some modern psychoanalysts who hold that mind can never be unconscious. Thirdly, even assuming that unconscious mind exists, disturbing and traumatic experiences stored in unconscious mind can neither govern nor control conscious mind so as to help interaction. Let’s use an illustration to understand Freudian psychoanalysis. A woman, who suffered traumatic experience of sexual molestation in early childhood, may not carry that memory in her conscious mind. Now the question is whether that forgotten experience would influence or govern her interaction with her loving parents and husband. The answer is ‘no’ so far as interaction is concerned. But admittedly there is a possibility of that apparently forgotten experience disturbing her sexual relationship with her husband, where she may need help from a psychotherapist. The cure, according to Freudian therapy, will happen by bringing out that traumatic experience from the unconscious mind of the woman, by taking her back to the time of the incidence. Freud has never suggested that unconscious mind controls the conscious mind or conscious mind is an illusion.
Comments received from Asishji (part 2):
DeleteLet’s now dwell upon Indian philosophical concept of Advaita Vedanta, which alone terms our phenomenal consciousness as unreal or illusory. This is because all phenomenal existence is transitory or impermanent, and whatever is transitory is unreal, according to this school of thought. Advaita philosophy explains that the consciousness that is real lies deep within us as part of cosmic or pure consciousness. Advaita Vedanta does not term that cosmic consciousness as unconsciousness. It is only when that cosmic or pure consciousness is awakened in a being, it controls or governs his mind and life; otherwise not. Your concept of unconscious mind unfortunately does not get support from Advaita Vedanta either, let alone other schools of Indian philosophy.
“The power of biological organisms comes from their inherent stochasticity and plasticity. So, if we substitute our DNA/genes with some man-made material, we will still have to give room for at least the same amount of stochasticity if we wish to retain the same level of functioning. In that case, evolution will again take its due course. We may surely not like to call it 'biological evolution' though.”
Biological organism or evolution appears to be stochastic as we are unable to read or decipher interaction of more than two or three particles at present, as against trillions and trillions of particles interacting with one another to carry forward biological evolution. Our study is essentially based on fossilized samples of several extinct creatures, which were treading the earth millions of years ago, as also samples of other non-extinct creatures, which lived till recently. While changes in DNA structure of the species broadly indicate the changes in their features, size, height etc. element of stochasticity and plasticity in the mutation of their genes continues to limit our capability of placing biological evolution on a time scale. This is more because science is not yet that advanced. It would thus be logical to conclude that stochasticity appears to be the essential feature of evolution owing to our knowledge-deficiency.
As to the question whether stochasticity would continue even when we are able to carry out genetic engineering to perfection, the answer obviously is ‘no’. Imperfect knowledge would no doubt leave a room for stochasticity; but when we reach perfection in the sense that we can predict genetic cure and the effect of our genetic intervention on a human body and brain, stochasticity and plasticity will no longer trouble us. Whenever we reach that stage, we are out of the jungle of biological evolution.
"However, from Freudian psychoanalytical perspective (which deals with mind and not brain), unconscious mind is understood to be repository of forgotten memory, mostly disturbing and traumatic."
DeleteYes, but the current description seems to be (from wiki): unconscious mind (or the unconscious) consists of the processes in the mind that occur automatically and are not available to introspection, and include thought processes, memory, affect, and motivation. So, the unconscious mind is very well capable of carrying out the process of thinking. For example, many times the best solutions come to our mind when we are not consciously thinking about the problem. Dreams are also a clear example of thought processes going on in the unconscious mind.
"It would thus be logical to conclude that stochasticity appears to be the essential feature of evolution owing to our knowledge-deficiency."
Thats the standard assumption that Einstein and others made at the advent of quantum mechanics. But modern science (specially physics) is pretty convinced that randomness is an inherent property of nature and is not due to any deficiency of knowledge. Though this is much harder to prove in biology, but since biological processes must respect physical laws, the same idea applies here too. And many biological experiments have also shown good evidence in this regard.
Our differences boil down to following two issues:
Delete1) Whether unconscious mind exists, and if so, whether it is capable of interacting?
2) Whether evolution of man would last ad infinitum unless the world is destroyed?
On the first issue, I am of the view that the concept of unconscious mind is relevant only for the purpose of psycho-analysis or psychotherapy, for treatment of patients who are troubled by disturbing or traumatic memories trashed by their conscious mind long ago, but affecting them like under-currents. Otherwise, existence of unconscious mind is not recognized either by neuroscience or by Indian and western philosophy. Even some modern psychologists question the existence of unconscious mind, inasmuch according to them, mind is always conscious, whether or not memory retains all information or not. You appear to be of the view that unconscious mind is repository not only of forgotten disturbing & traumatic memories but also of other memories long forgotten, which continue to influence thought process of conscious mind. I am open to conviction provided I find sufficient material in support of your view that unconscious mind exists as repository of all forgotten memory, and helps in interaction.
As for evolution of man, I am of the view that it is a natural process of genetic mutation that happens in every species, biologically, and will continue to happen in man as well, till man is able to bring about such mutation artificially to beat the nature, or till the world is destroyed. You are of the view that the process of evolution will continue till the world is destroyed, irrespective of man's ability to repair, replace or substitute genes with some other particles to accelerate growth. In my view, said accelerated man-made growth cannot be called evolution, while you differ on the ground that since man as also particles are products of nature, whatever man does is also within the scheme of natural evolution. Our difference is conceptual and not fundamental. Hence, let's part with this minor conceptual difference, but profound satisfaction of having substantive interaction on issues that are unlikely to engage even learned scholars to this extent.
"Our difference is conceptual and not fundamental. Hence, let's part with this minor conceptual difference, but profound satisfaction of having substantive interaction on issues that are unlikely to engage even learned scholars to this extent."
DeleteVery well said and I totally agree! :)
As regards the conscious/unconscious mind debate, I am of the view that the whole 'mind' is just an emergent property of the brain and does not have any independent existence of its own. The part of the 'mind' that we are not consciously aware of at a given point of time is what I call 'unconscious'. Now, why invent the word 'mind' if its all just a 'brain state'? As they say, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Similarly, I think that not all aspects of the mind can be understood by just talking of brain states. So, my view is not really in opposition to yours or to that or neuroscience/psychology. We are perhaps using words that don't have a very precise definition.
As I mentioned earlier, the main problem is here is regarding the connection between the idea of 'conscious mind' described above and the idea of 'consciousness' in Indian philosophy. As of now, I truly have no clue about this!
Mind-brain nexus remains one of the unresolved puzzles. Questions are as follows:
Delete1) Does mind exist independently of brain?
2) Does a brain-dead person have mind?
3) Can brain of present life retain past life memory as is claimed and contended by past life regression therapists like Dr. Brian Weiss or Avataras like Sri Krishna and Buddha? Or is it mind that retains those memories?
4) Is mind distinctive from brain?
[Pertinently, Vedanta and Samkhya speak of manas (mind), Buddhi (intellect) and Ahamkara (ego), thereby suggesting that above three derivatives of Prakriti evolved in that order from Prakriti (nature). While intellect & ego are undisputed attributes of brain, it is doubtful whether mind and brain were treated as synonymous.]
5. While brain cannot survive death, does mind survive death?
[Upanishadas and other ancient texts of almost all religions contend that mind survives death]
There is scope for scientific research on all those questions, if not by physicists, by neuro-scientists, most certainly.
Thanks for stating the questions so succinctly!
DeleteI think veracity of the Indian philosophical concepts about mind can be probed through meditation alone. Science deals only with physical objects and phenomenon which can be probed using physical measurement devices. Thats why even practically relevant areas like psychology are still not within the domain of hard sciences. Science is certainly a great tool that humans have discovered but it has its own limitations. I really don't understand why some sociologists like to call themselves 'social scientists'. And the problem with techniques like meditation is that those experiences are highly subjective. Even if Krishna or Vivekananda say that there is a state of existence thats independent of the material world, how does one believe that without having experienced it? The problem becomes more intricate since Upanishads say that one has to first believe in order to experience. But even if one believes, the chances of success are extremely low. And even if one succeeds, the proof is limited to one's own self. Certain questions will perhaps always remain unanswered!
The questions you have raised are quite pertinent. However, you may find following facts scientifically relevant:
Delete1) Vedanta treats mind, intellect & ego as derivatives of prakriti & made up of particles. Except for pure consciousness called Brahman all the rest are parts & attributes of prakriti only & belong to the domain of particle science. This apparently agrees with the views of neuro scientists that electrons as constituent of neurons not only govern brain power, but outlast brain, even after the man dies, exactly what Gita says in verse 15.8. Sir John Eccles, a bio scientist, contends that it is not unlikely that those particles re-enter another foetus after moving like wave out of a dead brain. I understand that researches on brain particles have been continuing and am hopeful that in near future we are likely to crack the secret code of the yoga cum meditation with scientific evidence.
2) Contrary to popular belief, neither Krishna nor Vivekananda posits that there is existence independent of material world. On the contrary, their contention is that except Brahman (described as Para Prakriti in verse 7.5), all existence is part of matter or apara prakriti. This includes beings and non-beings, the three Gunas and all relative attributes and senses in all spheres of existence conceivable by man.
3) It is true that above cosmic reality was perceived by sages through meditation which enabled them to drive the particles constituting their individual consciousness in a wave-like movement out of their body to the cosmos, the thing that usually happens when a man dies as per neuro findings. The only difference is that in the event of death, the link of those particles to body consciousness gets permanently snapped while a yogi is trained to keep the said link intact and alive.
4) As to the question how the experience of a yogi can be scientifically proved, the answer is pretty much simple: proof of yogic experience is in empirical evidence as also is open to direct experiment following the methods prescribed. Empirical evidence comes through the experience of the yogis who have accessed the truth and in the process have also acquired supernatural power or yogic vision not available with a commoner. Experiment can be undertaken by an interested student of yoga following the prescribed methods under guidance a yoga master (like a research guide). All experiments may not necessarily lead to success, as success depends upon seriousness and the level of dedication of the student. According to the prevailing view, there is a fundamental difference between physical sciences and yoga in the matter of experimentation and research, inasmuch physical sciences have nothing to do with consciousness, while yoga is entirely about consciousness. But once it is agreed that individual consciousness also belongs to the domain of matter or prakriti, there is no good reason to think that consciousness ought to remain outside the purview of science.
"Vedanta treats mind, intellect & ego as derivatives of prakriti & made up of particles. Except for pure consciousness called Brahman all the rest are parts & attributes of prakriti only & belong to the domain of particle science."
DeleteAs per my understanding, Vedanta says that mind, intellect and ego are formed as a result of the manifestation of pure consciousness in the physical body (prakriti). So, without this manifestation, prakriti would not be able to form any mind on its own.
"Sir John Eccles, a bio scientist, contends that it is not unlikely that those particles re-enter another foetus after moving like wave out of a dead brain."
Thats just his personal view and is not backed by any evidence. As per wiki, John was a dualist (and at times a trialist) and believed that the mind was an independent entity.
"Contrary to popular belief, neither Krishna nor Vivekananda posits that there is existence independent of material world. On the contrary, their contention is that except Brahman (described as Para Prakriti in verse 7.5), all existence is part of matter or apara prakriti."
But individual consciousness is considered by them to be the same as Brahman.
Kushalji, your implicit poser how a matter can evolve from non-matter cannot be resolved by science as of now. However, it is a Vedantic postulate that Brahman or Pure Consciousness has evolved into Prakriti (matter) & Purusha (soul or Atman) by choice and that Pure Consciousness is creative / self-evolving, and a non-matter. Mind, intellect & ego have evolved from Prakriti or matter. Hence the same being sourced to matter are necessarily matters. The Atman or Purusha mingles or unites with Prakriti for purposes of creation / evolution of the world of matter. Sense of individuality or ego that binds Atman is a derivative of Prakriti. When Atman is freed from that bind or yoke of Prakriti in form of ego & the three Gunas, viz, Sattva, Rajas & Tamas, the Atman is established in Brahman. Keeping this perspective in view, Vivekananda posited that mind, intellect & ego are made of particles or matter only. Krishna implied the same in Gita.
DeleteNow reverting to your moot question whether individual consciousness can be treated as pure consciousness or Brahman, the answer is yes and no. It's yes if you remove the word 'individual' and no, if you do not. In the context of evolution, core identity of all creatures or species will be the same, while at the gross level they may widely differ. Undisputedly, all species at gross level can be sourced to amoeba, but to say that there is no difference between amoeba and human beings would amount to oversimplification in our present context.
"The Atman or Purusha mingles or unites with Prakriti for purposes of creation / evolution of the world of matter."
DeleteAsishji, here's the primary question: How is it possible for Atman to interact with Prakriti since Atman is supposed to be beyond space-time-causation? But if it is Brahman itself which has evolved into prakriti, there is no question or requirement of any further mingling/interaction since prakriti by definition has Brahman as its base/substrate. In either case, Brahman is not a useful/interesting concept from the scientific viewpoint. Its certainly of great value in philosophy though.
Kushalji, you are well aware that quantum physicists have not been able to explain as yet how quantum entanglement or quantum interaction happens. But that it happens is beyond doubt. Similarly, how atman comes under the yoke of prakriti and gets shrouded by ego and the Gunas in this phenomenal world, and how such additives are removed by virtue of self-realization are something that great yogis have seen as happening. How and why does it happen is stated to be beyond the reach of our three dimensional perception or mind. Science is yet to explain quite a few phenomena that belong to its domain. Obviously, it would be difficult to understand and explain the phenomena that belong to the domain of consciousness which has not received any worthwhile attention so far from physicists. It's only a question of time when quantum science would dwell upon the phenomenon called consciousness for extensive & intensive research to find answer to the questions you have raised.
Delete"Similarly, how atman comes under the yoke of prakriti and gets shrouded by ego and the Gunas in this phenomenal world, and how such additives are removed by virtue of self-realization are something that great yogis have seen as happening. How and why does it happen is stated to be beyond the reach of our three dimensional perception or mind."
DeleteIts precisely because this experience cannot be expressed in 'words' or 'thoughts', there is no possibility of any scientific explanation.
"It's only a question of time when quantum science would dwell upon the phenomenon called consciousness..."
There is surely lot of research going on in the area of 'consciousness' but the scientific meaning of this term is very different from its Vedantic meaning.
Ambit of science is ever-expanding, Science today is quite different from science yesterday. Science tomorrow in all likelihood will discover particles that constitute mind, ego & individual consciousness. Any attempt to define science is only to limit it. Let's leave the scope of science undefined.
DeleteIts certainly true that science has evolved a lot over the centuries, but one aspect of science has not changed and will perhaps never change. Even though modern physics talks of esoteric objects like 'quantum wave packets' and 'quantum fields', it finally deals with only 'observables' which are quantities that can be measured using a physical device. Its very much possible that there are multiple theories which lead to the same 'observables'. But we can never be sure which of these theories is right. What cannot be measured will always be a subject of philosophy. Its true that certain scientists do become philosophers as they grow older, but thats very different from science itself merging into philosophy.
DeleteDoesn't science believe that 95% matters (or dark matters) are not observable, and yet these exist?
DeleteBesides, it is stated in Gita (15.10-11): what is usually not observable (atman) can be observed by yogis with their eyes of wisdom (or yogic vision). If we compare individual atman with dark matter, there is a distinct possibility that researches would enable us in future to render non-observable atman as observable, unless we have a pre-conceived notion that atman is an abstraction and non-matter, and hence, no research is necessary to explore it scientifically.
"Doesn't science believe that 95% matters (or dark matters) are not observable, and yet these exist?"
DeleteThe concepts of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' only signify that the experimental observations do not match with our current theoretical models of cosmology if we take into account only the visible mass of the universe. So, here also, the stress is only on things which are observable/measurable.
"unless we have a pre-conceived notion that atman is an abstraction and non-matter, and hence, no research is necessary to explore it scientifically."
Vedanta says Atman is non-matter. What science finds about prakriti/matter can never prove/refute what Vedanta says about Atman.
The concept of atman is very complex. It's non-matter when it's pure consciousness or para prakriti. But it becomes matter & observable when it's shrouded with aham or ego as also 3 gunas with all its derivatives. This is precisely why it is said in verse 15.10 & 15.11 that a yogi with his vision (associated with Third Eye) can see how an atman (Jivatma) enters a body & exits from it. In case atman is non-matter & non-observable, the question of a yogi seeing its movement would not have obviously arisen. In Mahabharata also, it's mentioned that when Drona left his mortal body, the exit of his Jivaatma was envisioned by Vedavyasa and a few others. Thus it's not correct that individual atman or Jivatma is non-matter. In all likelihood, it's made of such particles that are not visible by naked eyes or known instruments. But when it is visible & distinguishable / identifiable through yogic vision, logically it can be inferred that it has a mass & existence just like a dark matter. However, as I said, Vedantic concept of atman is complex & only after in-depth study one may perceive its true characteristic (even without a yogic vision).
DeleteWhat the yogis see and experience is certainly very complex! But there are three characteristics of these experiences that pose big hindrances for a scientific analysis:
Delete1. How do we objectively ascertain whether a person is a yogi or not? Scriptures say that only one yogi can identify another yogi! So, a scientist has to first become a yogi to be able to make sense of these ideas. But in that case, why and how can other scientists make sense of what s/he says?
2. There are too many differences of opinions about 'Atman' among the yogis themselves. And some yogis themselves make contradictory statements in this regard. Either the Atman is immutable or it can interact with the world. It can't be both.
3. The yogis themselves say that these experiences cannot be expressed in 'words' and 'thoughts'.
"How do we objectively ascertain whether a person is a yogi or not? Scriptures say that only one yogi can identify another yogi! "
DeleteWe are not on identification parade of yogis, but on the acclaimed & non-controversial yogic findings as available in Yoga Vashistha, Upanishadas, Gita, Patanjali's Yoga Sutra etc.
"There are too many differences of opinions about 'Atman' among the yogis themselves."
Differences are in the interpretation of the available texts on yoga, and not in findings that contradict available texts. Difference of opinion as to which yogic path is superior or proper does not change the fundamental or the essence of the yoga which suggests union of the individual atman with the cosmic atman as the ultimate goal.
"Either the Atman is immutable or it can interact with the world. It can't be both."
Your proposition that the immutable cannot interact with the world contradicts the hypothesis of quite a few physicists that the mutable can originate from immutable as otherwise origin of the matter shall remain unexplained for ever. The view of quantum scientists that matter has simultaneous wave function also blurs the distinction between matter (mutable) and non-matter (immutable).
"The yogis themselves say that these experiences cannot be expressed in 'words' and 'thoughts'."
What yogis convey is that no words are adequate to capture or express the cosmic experience of a yogi. We are not on yogic experiences of macrocosm & microcosm but on certain fundamentals relating to Jivatma and Paramatma, as per yogic perception / realization, and whether or not such perception can be put under scrutiny of science, if not today, some time in the future.
"Differences are in the interpretation of the available texts on yoga, and not in findings that contradict available texts."
DeletePlease state even one finding about Atman that is accepted by all the three major schools of Indian philosophy. As per my understanding, everyone agrees that Atman exists. But nothing more.
" the fundamental or the essence of the yoga which suggests union of the individual atman with the cosmic atman as the ultimate goal."
Yogis from Bhakti/Vaishnava traditions won't agree with this.
"as otherwise origin of the matter shall remain unexplained for ever."
Every question doesn't necessarily have an answer.
"The view of quantum scientists that matter has simultaneous wave function also blurs the distinction between matter (mutable) and non-matter (immutable)."
As per physics, there is nothing immutable in this universe, not even space&time!
“Please state even one finding about Atman that is accepted by all the three major schools of Indian philosophy.”
DeleteYou may please refer to extensive discussion on Atman, Jivatma & Paramatma in Katha Upanishada, which is non-controversial. Besides, Gita dwells upon nature of Atman succinctly in several verses. By way of illustration only reference is made to verses 15.16-18 and 14.5, and there is no difference in interpretation of those verses.
“Yogis from Bhakti/Vaishnava traditions won't agree with this.”
‘Yoga’ suggests union and yogis are those who yearn for union with the divine. There is no controversy in this regard, even though opinions differ as to whether union means merger or just togetherness.
“As per physics, there is nothing immutable in this universe, not even space & time!”
It’s presumed that matters are mutable even though there is disagreement among scientists on such presumption, having regard to convertibility of matter into energy and vice versa, thus suggesting its potential immutability.
As to the question what matter is, traditional view is: whatever has mass & occupies space is matter. Logically, the questions that follow are: 1) Are life and consciousness matters by the above definition? 2) If yes, are their sources or causes also matters? 3) If non-matters, are these immutable? As to the first question, it would be reasonable to mention that life and consciousness are not subjects of physics but biology and neuro science, and researches into the both have been continuing without any conclusive finding. However, life is yet to be identified as a matter, the concept of abiogenesis notwithstanding. Same applies to consciousness, even though there is hypothesis linking electrons in the brain to consciousness. When material identity of life and consciousness is not yet established, we need not go into the second poser and instead let’s take up the third poser.
The question whether non-matters are immutable per se cannot be answered definitively in the absence of a clear identification of the non-matters. Let’s assume that life and consciousness are non-matters going by the traditional definition of matter. Let’s term these as energy of sorts. Now the question is whether energy is immutable. As per my limited understanding, some physicists are of the view that energy is potentially indestructible. It only changes form, somewhat like mutation in evolution. Some physicists, however, are of the view that all natural laws and forces are mutable.
As against above confusion and uncertainty among scientists on the material identity and immutability of life and consciousness, Vedanta is quite categorical about the nature of atman (Jivatma and Paramatma) and consciousness.
"By way of illustration only reference is made to verses 15.16-18 and 14.5, and there is no difference in interpretation of those verses."
DeleteAgreed! But these verses clearly denote that neither is Atman a part of prakriti nor does it ever mutate into matter. All that these verses say is that Atman falsely identifies itself with the three gunas and that it can be freed from this false association.
"It’s presumed that matters are mutable even though there is disagreement among scientists on such presumption, having regard to convertibility of matter into energy and vice versa, thus suggesting its potential immutability."
Thats hard to accept. Please let me know the reference/source.
" Let’s assume that life and consciousness are non-matters going by the traditional definition of matter. Let’s term these as energy of sorts."
Life and consciousness are viewed as 'properties' of matter. Like redness of a rose. If the rose is destroyed, its redness also goes away. And the redness also depends on a particular configuration of the molecules of a rose. Similarly, life and consciousness emerge only when matter is arranged in a certain way. Disturbing this arrangement can destroy these properties. So, 'properties' should not be viewed as 'energy'.
As for the definition of matter, there is currently a dichotomy between quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR). In GR, the traditional idea of 'mass' and 'occupies space' holds good. But in QM, all that exists are 'quanta' (or particles). Even energy is seen only as quanta and on the same footing as electrons/protons. And these two theories individually have so many unresolved problems that an attempt at rigorously merging them (string theory) seems all the more an impossible task.
"That’s hard to accept. Please let me know the reference/source."
DeleteMatter taken as 'energy transformed' is considered as immutable in consideration of the fact that energy is immutable, as energy cannot be created or destroyed. Matter-energy relationship in science is like body-soul relationship in yoga.
Reg. indestructibility of energy, I am reproducing extract from an interesting article on Entropy below (www.rationality.net/entropy.htm):
“Let us back up a little: This whole subject of Thermodynamics sounds like a very complicated affair. Indeed, it is both very simple and extremely complex. There are three Laws of Thermodynamics, but we need to concern ourselves only with the first two laws because they are closely interwoven and can actually be expressed in one sentence: The total energy content of the universe is constant and the total entropy, the non-usable energy, is constantly increasing. There you have it: The combination of the first and second law of thermodynamics.
Very interesting, but what does it mean? It means that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can be transformed into mass, chemical energy, heat energy, latent energy and work, but it cannot be created and it cannot disappear.”
"Life and consciousness are viewed as 'properties' of matter. Like redness of a rose. If the rose is destroyed, its redness also goes away."
Analogy of rose and its redness does not fit the case. Redness can be created & super-imposed on a white rose while life or consciousness cannot be created in a dead body. Besides, redness persists even when the rose is not alive, while life & consciousness do not exist in the body when it is not alive. Then the question is whether life & consciousness are co-terminus with body. Yoga says 'no', while science has no clue about it as yet.
"Matter taken as 'energy transformed' is considered as immutable in consideration of the fact that energy is immutable, as energy cannot be created or destroyed."
Delete'Immutable' means unchangeable. Energy and matter are surely indestructible but they are 'mutable' as they can be changed into each other
"Matter-energy relationship in science is like body-soul relationship in yoga."
The body never mutates into the soul and the soul never mutates to become the body. But matter and energy can easily mutate into each other.
"Analogy of rose and its redness does not fit the case. Redness can be created & super-imposed on a white rose while life or consciousness cannot be created in a dead body."
The analogy is certainly not perfect. When a new baby is born, where does it get its consciousness from? Aurobindo says in his book "The Psychic Being" that the soul can enter the body at various stages of its development. So, before this, was the body dead? And does the body become 'dead' immediately after it looses consciousness?
"'Immutable' means unchangeable. Energy and matter are surely indestructible but they are 'mutable' as they can be changed into each other"
DeleteI agree 'immutable' is not the right word for energy & matter, nor for Brahman & soul in Vedantic sense. The pertinent question is whether matter can emanate from non-matter. And the answer as per my understanding is 'yes'.
"When a new baby is born, where does it get its consciousness from? Aurobindo says in his book "The Psychic Being" that the soul can enter the body at various stages of its development. So, before this, was the body dead? And does the body become 'dead' immediately after it looses consciousness?"
Life & consciousness are two distinct features of a living being, medically as also spiritually. Science sources consciousness to all-pervasive energy. Vedanta sources it to all-pervasive Brahman. Logically if energy is the cause of consciousness, energy is to be taken as inherently conscious, just as Brahman is taken to be Pure Consciousness. Here also, you may say that entropy, the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, may apply to Pure Consciousness as it is not at the same level or proportion in all living beings. It visibly weakens or dilutes when it expands to cover all creations. Thus consciousness in man is not the same as consciousness in plants.
When a new baby is born, he is endowed with consciousness, proportionate to his capacity to absorb it. In the world of matter aslo, this principle of proportionality for energy-absorption works in like manner. Vedanta says that the core consciousness in every man is Pure Consciousness (Brahman) which is shrouded by attributes of Prakriti or Maya, viz. 3 Gunas, mind, intellect & ego with all derivatives. And the Prakriti also, just as the Purusha (atma) is the evolved form of Brahman. According to science, the essence of every matter is energy, as energy evolves into matter. When matter is destroyed, it gets involved into energy just as Jivatma getting involved into Brahman when all Gunas of Prakriti are shed off. The only differentia between 'energy' and 'Brahman' is the factor of Pure Consciousness. And that difference can also be eliminated once it is agreed that energy is the ultimate source of consciousness in living beings, or in other words, 'Pure Consciousness'.
As for your question whether the foetus minus soul can be considered as dead, the correct word for it would be non-living and not dead, as 'death' presupposes life before someone is declared dead. Secondly, consciousness is not synonymous with life. Thus when a person is brain-dead or in coma, he is not dead in medical as also spiritual parlance. In the course of battle of Kurukshetra, almost all warriors fell unconscious at some point of time, and it is patently clear that the contemporaries understood the difference between unconsciousness and death.
Very profound thoughts!! Absolute beauty!
Delete"The only differentia between 'energy' and 'Brahman' is the factor of Pure Consciousness. And that difference can also be eliminated once it is agreed that energy is the ultimate source of consciousness in living beings, or in other words, 'Pure Consciousness'."
That's a very interesting proposition! But how do we account for the fact that many objects possess high energy but are not conscious?
"In the course of battle of Kurukshetra, almost all warriors fell unconscious at some point of time, and it is patently clear that the contemporaries understood the difference between unconsciousness and death."
But in the unconscious state, the Atman didn't still leave the body since the person was not dead. So, is it correct to call the person unconscious? I think this is exactly where the difference in concept of consciousness in medicine and Vedanta comes in.
"But how do we account for the fact that many objects possess high energy but are not conscious?"
DeleteA pertinent poser indeed! Degree of consciousness depends upon intensity of energy, not its expanse. What we call Jivatma is nothing but energy in highly concentrated form which may occupy millionth of an inch (just a guesswork). Incidentally, our ancient texts tell us that Brahman is in every particle and, therefore, every particle is conscious. Only the degree of consciousness varies. Perhaps the law of entropy may provide an explanation for that variance among creatures and also so-called inanimate objects.
"But in the unconscious state, the Atman didn't still leave the body since the person was not dead. So, is it correct to call the person unconscious?"
Your above poser has two parts: 1) Does the atman decide whether or not to leave the body? 2) Is the atman conscious when the man is medically unconscious?
As to the first question, Vedanta says that it is the laws of destiny and not the Jivatma that determine whether it's time to depart from the body, whether or not the man is unconscious.
As to the 2nd question, Vedanta posits that Jivatma remains conscious even while the man is outwardly unconscious. My persona inquiries find support in favour of above finding. Besides, you may read 'Life after Life' by Dr. Raymond Moody, a noted heart surgeon, who has documented enough material to support his finding that his patients who had undergone open heart surgery in unconscious state were internally conscious and could describe the entire procedure as also things to which Dr. Moody alone was privy. Most of theme described their out of body experiences as well.
"Jivatma is nothing but energy in highly concentrated form which may occupy millionth of an inch (just a guesswork)."
DeleteEnergy density in the sun is much larger than in the human brain. But the sun is certainly not conscious.
" Incidentally, our ancient texts tell us that Brahman is in every particle and, therefore, every particle is conscious. Only the degree of consciousness varies. "
What does it mean to say that an electron is conscious? And if Brahman is in every particle, what does it mean for Atman to enter/leave the body during birth/death?
"Energy density in the sun is much larger than in the human brain. But the sun is certainly not conscious."
DeleteComparison should not be with human brain but with Atman the size of which is stated to be fraction of a centimeter, but concentration of energy is supposed to be enormous.
"What does it mean to say that an electron is conscious? And if Brahman is in every particle, what does it mean for Atman to enter/leave the body during birth/death?"
Don't electrons interact with one another? What then is the difficulty in accepting that electrons are also conscious, though not at the same level as human beings.
Let's substitute Brahman with energy. In that case there is no difficulty in accepting that the cause of every particle is energy, meaning thereby that energy is subsumed in every particle. It's also a fact that energy is driving every particle. Thus I don't find any difficulty in accepting that energy is both within and without every matter. If we replace energy with Brahman, the proposition that Brahman is everywhere, in every form, within and without every living being / particle, there is nothing unscientific about it. As I said earlier, the only differentia between 'energy' as physicists understand it and 'Brahman' as Vedantists perceive it, is consciousness. If we source our consciousness to 'energy', the difference between it & Brahman will melt away.
I feel quite drawn to this idea and am willing to buy into it, though it perhaps needs lot of refinement. May be we should take each verse of the Gita and try to reinterpret it in the light of this idea.
DeleteMeditation can be thought of as a process of increasing the concentration of that energy. And when the concentration crosses a certain threshold, its called enlightenment!
Real enlightenment is openness of mind to receive inputs from all sources for an objective processing. I have no hesitation in admitting that I am a beneficiary of the lengthy interaction with you. Look forward to more such interaction.
Delete"Real enlightenment is openness of mind to receive inputs from all sources for an objective processing."
DeleteVery well said! I too thoroughly enjoyed our discussion which has given me a few very interesting ideas worth pursuing deeper. Yeh karvaan yuhin chalta rahe. :)