Modern Science, Emotions,...

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Srinivasa Rao Kankipati <ksrao34g@gmail.com> wrote:

I am not able to follow much of the scholarly discussion that is going on. But I understand Dr Ramarao's statement that modern science has not yet found ways of dealing with emotion and volition in living beings by using mathematics.

In mathematics, symbols are used as a sort of shorthand for the notions that they represent. You must first be clear about the notion and then use the symbol to stand for that notion. Symbols do not bring out notions that do not exist in your mind and are not understood commonly among the community of scientists. Symbols are no substitute for clarity, they only enhance clarity because we  can manipulate them wonderfully in mathematical grammar. They may not have any direct association for any aspect of the notion they represent. For example, the circumference of a circle is pi times the diameter. Nobody knows what exactly is pi's value. You can obtain its value to as great a degree of accuracy as you want. But you can play with pi as though it has an exact value. Mathematical equations are not the less accurate because its value is not  known exactly.

As for consciousness, first of all people do not define what consciousness is. Then they want to use a symbol for it and manipulate it. I do not know how it can be done.

My idea of consciousness is that it is a feature of a living organism enabling it at will to recall information. This ability is not amenable to any symbolic representation. If a man knows something, that means he is able to recall that something at will. Now, that information must have been recorded in his brain by some means. It is the business of science to investigate and establish what that 'means' is. It is not for religionists to talk about consciousness. At the drop of a hat they bring in Divinity or God and pontificate about "Consciousness", as though consciousness were a material thing like matter or aspect like energy. Where God enters - particularly at the behest of people who think they have personal intimacy with Him - science quits. Knowing, or being conscious, or being aware, is just a process in the human brain. "Mr A has consciousness" just means that Mr A knows, which means that Mr A can recall some information in question at will. 

I confess I do not understand what is meant by saying that 'central to consciousness is awareness', as I am not aware how to separate these two. I am also at a total loss as to what is sought to be meant by the statement "Consciousness is a spiritual function", much less that it can be represented by the letter S.

All the books, CDs, DVDs, etc in a library constitute information, not knowledge. Any portion of information in them can become knowledge of any person if that person not only records that information in his brain but is also able to recall that information at will. A computer can also store and recall information, but the fundamental difference is that it cannot recall it on its own volition, it needs to be commanded or programmed for this task by somebody outside it.

A patient who has undergone surgery under anesthesia cannot recall the operation, because the details of the experience have not been recorded in his brain. But the human brain has the wonderful capacity to break down any data accessed by it through the senses and subject various selected bits thereof,  to various permutations even without the subsequent help of the senses, to form some totally new data. It is not concerned whether that resultant data has a corresponding reality in the outside world. It is this power of the human brain, this power of imagination, that is at the foundation of all path-breaking discoveries. Not that all imagination leads to a new discovery, but discovery is not generally possible unless aided by imagination first and validation next.

Only a living being is capable of knowing. Living is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for knowing. Not all living beings may be enjoying the faculty of knowing, I do not know. Also, cells are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition  for a living being to form. Not all cells, or the organs  which they comprise, constitute a living being. A man's eyes may be having the life-force in them for some time even though  their original owner may have been dead for a few hours, and can start being live again as before in a new, living person's body.

Similarly molecules are necessary for the formation of cells. Molecules are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for cells. Not all the molecules automatically form 

into cells.

If we take matter molecules again, atoms of elements are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for the formation of molecules. Not all elements have formed molecules. Atoms (or quarks, if you like, including the Higgs Boson) again are the original, primordial raw material which is also interconvertible into energy, as established by science in an incontrovertible manner. Who knows that even more fundamental constituents of matter may be discovered by science in times to come. 

Advaitists have theorised that there is a primordial material called Mahat underlying both Matter (Akasha) and Energy (Prana).

As matters stand now, we have a graded Existence (Sat) consisting of Mahat, Matter, Energy, Non-Living things, Living Cells, Beings with life, Living Beings with the faulty of Knowing, in that order. For the existence and functioning of  any component of Existence, the presence of the previous component is essential. But at each stage a new activity is entering to make that stage tick. How exactly a new faculty is entering at each stage is for science to probe and unravel. Religion can keep its hands off from this task and stop making weird assertions in an authoritarian manner, as if they were authoritative revelations from Divinity.

I also do not know, like Maj Rudra Narasimham, how Adi Sankara, after explaining the highest Advaita philosophy, got down in his later life to the concept of Dwaita by creating a separate Govinda and asking people to "bhaja" Him. This is an anomaly. Perhaps this was an attempt to reach the common men, who by and large have no original thinking. But Sankara could have left this task to other preachers. This sudden drop from his high pedestal is like the act of a man who leaves his father at home and chases another old man to 'see' his father in him.

- Dr K Srinivasa Rao, from Fremont, California.