07-13-2004, 05:58 AM
I am interested in Indian philosophical issues due to their exploration of the problem of consciousness. In particular it appears that vedanta has developed this to a significant level. I learned to appreciate one thing that much of the exploration of vedanta has been in the area of the "state of experience" which may also be termed consciousness. Literally this means that one cannot comment on some aspects of consciousness unless one has the experience in those planes. This does not mean it is unreal- it just means one needs to have those experiences to get full knowledge in these areas. Some people may achieve some level by using drugs and others due to psychiatric problems. Then there may be further levels beyond this. But one who has only only experienced or acquired some knowledge of the levels arising from drugs or pyschiatric disorders will not have first person knowledge of the planes beyond them.
But we can try to look at it from a different angle. Is this experience a reducible phenomenon. That is can we entirely explain consciousness based on what we known of molecules and constiuent particles.
I think in recent years there have been 2 major "scientific" attempts.
Consciouness as a quantum phenomenon- Penrose and others. Some discuss this in the context of the need of observer in quantum mechanics.
Second is consciousness as an emergent property of the subnets of neural interactions in the brains. Kristhof Koch and Crick have pioneered in this- they neural correlates of consciousness. Ramachandran belongs to this camp.
But Rene Descartes and more recently Chalmers takes a stance that consciousness is non-material. Descartes adopted the view that the seat of consciousness lay in the pineal gland. HH told me that part of this idea of Descartes may be ultimately traced back to the views of Hindus sages in the Taittiriya Upanishad.
So the bottom line is that this debate is live and active in contemporary philosophy. I t woul d be nice to see how the ancient Indian developments in this area can help out.
People should read the experiments the King Prasenajit did to "localize" consciousness described in the Payasi Suttanta. Interesting to see how much thought HIndus had put into that at time.
But we can try to look at it from a different angle. Is this experience a reducible phenomenon. That is can we entirely explain consciousness based on what we known of molecules and constiuent particles.
I think in recent years there have been 2 major "scientific" attempts.
Consciouness as a quantum phenomenon- Penrose and others. Some discuss this in the context of the need of observer in quantum mechanics.
Second is consciousness as an emergent property of the subnets of neural interactions in the brains. Kristhof Koch and Crick have pioneered in this- they neural correlates of consciousness. Ramachandran belongs to this camp.
But Rene Descartes and more recently Chalmers takes a stance that consciousness is non-material. Descartes adopted the view that the seat of consciousness lay in the pineal gland. HH told me that part of this idea of Descartes may be ultimately traced back to the views of Hindus sages in the Taittiriya Upanishad.
So the bottom line is that this debate is live and active in contemporary philosophy. I t woul d be nice to see how the ancient Indian developments in this area can help out.
People should read the experiments the King Prasenajit did to "localize" consciousness described in the Payasi Suttanta. Interesting to see how much thought HIndus had put into that at time.