Hehe, I would not say I dislike you, because I don't know you man, why would I dislike you? It says a lot that you would dislike someobody you don't agree with However, what I have come to the conclusion of after giving you a chance and assuming sincere, open and receptive mind despite the initial sarcasm and condescending reply you made, that I was right to be skeptical of you You have not produced anything beyond rheotric in this thread, you've not engaged with or acknowledged any argument or evidence I have provided - you still have not engaged with the best evidence I have given for PSI several posts back. So I feel like I am discussing with a blind and closed mind - I would be the bigger fool to waste my time trying to enlighten you on this subject lol
So having said all that, lets look at some of the rheotric, err I mean replies:
Hmm, sort of. I have thought about this kind of philosophy all my life, and have always found it less than thoroughly convincing. It is probably about 35 years, maybe a little less, since I read Yoga by Earnest Wood - I was about 16 or so - and it was mostly in reference to what I now realise is Samkhya that I thought about the problems of philosophy. I wonder if you'll recognise it. You wrote eloquently of the task of the philosopher of science, to stand outside science and look at what it's based on. Similarly, I believe, philosophical arguments like the one you post above have a semantic basis, and this is what makes it unconvincing to me. Words (like "sound" or "produced" or even "eternal") are ultimately defined with other words (usually) or they can perhaps rely instead on physical demontrations, actions, illustrations, pointing to something in the world, etc..
Absolutely, this is indeed a valid position to take. All arguments are statements and all statements have a degree of ambiguity on how a word is defined. The Nyaya arguments work with one who has a common understanding of the word "sound" and "eternal" Most people would have no problem comprehending the argument because we know what sound and eternal generally mean. However, the chief objectors to the Nyaya argument of sound not being eternal was the Mimassas who held the doctrine that sound was eternal, offering the argument "sound is eternal, because it is heard" This presupposes hearing as an eternal faculty - because what is heard presupposes hearing. Yet, the Nyaya argument also makes sense: One "hears" no sound, until it is produced by a cause(either from conjunction; a stick and a drum coming together; disjunction: The breaking of glass or by other sound originating another sound like an echo) Taking stock of this, the later Navya Nyaya thinkers(neo-logicians) devised a highly technical language which expressed statements in formal symbolic form to make the semantical meaning of the statement specific. This is similar to symbolic logic and propositional calculus developed in modern analytical philosophy after Wittgenstein - the thing is I have studied both - and Navya boy is tough! I still need to read more on it to totally understand it - but if you can understand Navya Nyaya you will become a master of logic!
What Navya Nyaya logic does is express a statement in a formal symbolic form using qualifiers and qualificands and defining the locus of the statement - so for example a statement like "The monkey is on the tree" will generally be interpreted as a monkey sitting on a tree, but the statement technically is false at the same time, because monkey is not on the entire tree, the monkey is only sitting on a part of the tree thus a qualifier needs to be inserted into the statement which makes it specific which part. Similarly in the case of the statement "sound is eternal, because it is produced" which is the old Nyaya way of expressing the argument, the Navya Nyaya qualify that sound which has hearingness has producidness. I do not hear sounds all the time, but if all of a sudden I hear a loud crash, I infer something caused it. Hence all sound that I hear has a cause which produced it.
In the case of the Mimasakas of an "eternal sound" If this sound exists it does not have the same property of "hearingness" because I cannot hear it. If it can only be "heard" in meditation, then it is the not the same sound which has hearingness, because it is not being apprehended by the ear, but by the mind.
Independent of whether sound is produced or not, it may be eternal, if something eternally produces sound. Sound may, for all we know, be THE eternal substance (for want of a better word) in the universe, as is hinted in the Christian doctrine of the Word. I believe that's also Aum in Hinduism IIRC.
Haha, are you serious!? I thought said you don't believe in all this mystical mumbo jumbo stuff, and now you are saying it might be possible? In that case I will frame a similar argument for PSI, Kundalini, prana, chakras etc: The fact that you do not perceive them does not mean they do not exit, they may exist after all (Told you, there is no such thing as a consistent skeptic)
You see, I'm sorry to disappoint you on this, but I see what you're doing - what the Samkhya philosophers were doing - as making up stories. You may be familiar with the postmodern idea that all we have in the way of knowledge is ultimately stories. This also points to my view of the dependent nature of science and technology, where you see them as separate. The test of what is real, as opposed to what makes linguistic sense, is that it works.
I am very familiar with it, and you know the postmodern idea also applies to modern science - it's all just narratives, stories, social constructions! But why on Earth would you be arguing that now all of a sudden, because throughout this thread you've been arguing about science, how stuff has been verified, how one system of thought has more truth-value than another(modern science vs Indian science; Yoga vs modern physics) So now you are being inconsistent - backing up my idea all skeptics are inconsistent lol
Exactly. I would say the contrast is very strong.
The contrast is methodological - The West prefers empirical methods; the Indians prefer rational methods. However, they both are valid epistemologies. If I say the statement "Paul is not in the house" you infer automatically "Paul is outside of the house" you have not obtained this knowledge through your senses, but through a priori deduction. Another way of knowing whether Paul is outside the house is to directly see Paul outside the house.
Now science in the West is largely done by preference through empirical methods, largely because the West never actually developed scientific epistemological logic - in the West logic has always been deductive "All x's are y's, z is an x, therefore z is y" The classic example "All ravens are black, here is a raven, therefore it is black" This type of logic considers the truth of the statement irrelevant, the conclusion is always valid based on the premises. Your statement could be "All women are bad drivers, Paula is a woman, therefore she is a bad driver" The statement is logically valid! This has been the biggest downfall of Western logic - because this type logic does not discover anything about reality - it is not scientific. As one modern Indian philosopher of science(author of Indian philosophy and philosophy of science) shows the West never made the link between logic and epistemology and hence have always been plagued by the demarcation problem.
Indian logic, on the other hand is scientific, it is directly related to the empirical world(logic and epistemology link) So the classic example of the Indian 5 step syllogism:
- There is fire on the hill(Statement)
- Because there is smoke on the hill(Reason)
- Where there is smoke there is fire, such as in the kitchen(Observable example)
- Similarly, there is smoke on this hill(Application)
- Therefore, there is fire on the hill(Conclusion)
So this is a case of where you can gather scientific knowledge about your world through observing relationships you see around you in the world, such that if P is true, y must always be true! Here is an example of the same kind of similar logic later proposed in by Mills in the West:
- There is sodium in the Bunsen flame
- Because the Bunsen flame is orange
- When sodium interacts with the Bunsen flame it always turns orange, such as in previous experiments
- Similarly, the Bunsen flame here is orange
- Therefore, there is sodium in the Bunsen flame
It is surprising something so simple never occurred to the West till the bloody 19th century! They were using the useless logic of the Greeks. This is held back science because it was based on silly Aristolian physics up until Newton which declared a "universal" such as "Nature abhors a vacuum" based on Aristotle's theories. Then tried to apply it to the real world coming up with nonsense like "The arrow remains in the motion, because the arrow creates a vacuum in front of it, and the air quickly rushes to fill up the vacuum because nature abhors a vacuum" So when it was realized that Greek logic is invalid to use for science, rational methods were abandoned in the West and the empirical experimental methods was devised(the first to lay this foundation was Galileo, but ironically his experiment was not an actual experiment, it was a thought experiment!)
But the Greek logical fallacies have persisted in Western philosophy and science even up until today and hence why the problem of induction is still a massive problem in Western philosophy of science. Western science is still based on Greek way of hypothetica-deductive. A hypothesis is devised(like Nature abhors a vacuum" The hypothesis is applied to the real world to see if it confirms it(Aristotle observes the speed of an object is proportional to the density, as is seen when we compare an object falling in water and oil) If it is confirmed the hypothesis is kept(for bloody hundreds or thousands of years)
Then one day some guy comes along points out a contrary observation(like Galileo) the hypothesis falls into doubt, but the observations are explained away as statistically insignificant to justify the null hypothesis. Then the quantity of observations pile up and become statistically significant, the hypothesis is falsified. New one is created to account for the old observations and the new observations.
So this justifies Kuhn's objections that Western science proceeds through guesses which he points out are often ad-hoc intuitions and this is why paradigmatic shifts are sudden. Kuhn's objections are taken very seriously by philosophers of science, Kuhn revolutionized exactly how we perceive science and basically humbled us a bit! The problem is this hypothetica-deductive method which has its roots in clumsy Greek thinking is based on the epistemological assumption that "knowledge is justified belief" In other words whatever you know - as long as you can rationalize it is constitutes knowledge(!) The problem with this epistemological theory was pointed out only in the 20th century with the Gettier problem.
Indian epistemological method knew from the very start about the Getter problem so never took hypothesis seriously. It was ruled out as a valid means of knowledge because it was laden with theory and conjecture(what in philosophy of science is known as theory-ladeness) Rather, the Indian method was based on very keen observation of the world around them which they classified into sensory categories. They observed not only what there was, but the relationships between things(smoke and fire; movement and force etc) This happened in every Indian scientific field: Medicine, Engineering, Botany, Meteorology, Psychology, Biology, Metallurgy, Chemistry.
It is no fluke that they had so much scientific knowledge - they had valid methods of epistemology and classification. Let's look at Yoga for instance: Yoga very keenly observed the mind using phenomenology: One of those observations that breathing and thought activity were connected in the form of breath and thought activity were directly proportional: The slower, smoother and deeper your breath lesser the thought activity in the mind. Today, we take it for granted when they tell us to calm down by taking a deep breath. But bloody hell such an obvious observation was NEVER made in the West till they discovered Yoga lol
The reason why Western science, technology and philosophy lagged behind India right up to the 17th century by centuries to millenias was because they had bad logical methods. Famous Western Historians such as Will Durant have even admitted how behind Europe was up until the 17th century. Of course after the 17th century and with the development of modern technology the West leaped ahead of India in technology, mathematics and experimental methods(but it did require colonizing India to do that, bear in mind!) but the West have not leaped ahead of India when it comes to science. Indian logic, epistemology, psychology, and metaphysics is still eons ahead of the West. In fact pretty much anybody who has studied both Indian and Western philosophy will tell you that - famous Western philosophers who have and actually said "Western philosophers look like school children before Indian philosophers" One of the best Western logicians of the modern times Whitehead said "Vedanta is the most impressive metaphysics the human mind has ever conceived" Schopenhauer was convinced Indian philosophy would show the way for the future of the West(He himself was inspired by it to develop his his own philosophy of psychology, which went onto inspire future psychology)
Let's face it when it comes to philosophy, the West are like school children before the Indian-Eastern philosophers.
But that does not follow. You've mentioned two different methods, and these, we can assume, will naturally lead to different physics. You contend that they are the same physics. I dispute that. It seems such a manifestly obvious point I'm stumped as to how to explain it any better than I have. I still consider your 5 sensory-based categories of worldly stuff to be untenable, as just one point of "physics" that is different from that of modern science. I see your appeal that it's obvious - since we have five senses, there ought to be five basic building blocks of stuff. At one time in life's evolution (which I'm guessing - the Samkhya texts don't specifically tell us about) there were fewer senses. There are many people who say we have other senses, considering the pain receptors in the skin as distinct from pressure sensors, or including the autokinetic sense of internal 'touch' as distinct from the external, or positing a sense of magnetism, although weak, known to exist in certain animals. This, to me - and I mean no disrespect - suggests strongly an unnecessary anthropocentricity and simple-mindedness in philosophical construction. I hasten to add this is no particular judgement of Indian philosophy, which I have always considered remarkable, but a natural result of circumstances. Any ancient world view is likely to tell human-centred stories, from Africa to Australia. You said on the other thread that you're not nationalistic, so be careful how you dispute this point. I cannot be nationalistic. Not only are my ancestors (as yours also are, very likely) from many different cultures, I (like you, probably) have no idea which, except that we all probably can trace our ancestry back to Africa, where they almost certainly shared a religion, which probably informed Hinduism in some way. It may have had - probably did - air and water and earth and fire, and it may have had invisible stuff that is the cause of all the rest.
No, your objection is valid - just because there are 5 senses does not mean there are 5 building blocks of matter. This is actually the arguments posed by other schools against Nyaya-Vaiseshika realist school, who also brought up the argument there maybe other senses like the sense of balance. The other senses you mentioned like internal sense of magnetism is included in the feeling category. The entire reality that we perceive is made up sensory data: visuals, sounds, tastes, smells, feelings. The mind is included as the 6th sense because through that we get cognition, knowledge, thoughts, imagination, ideas that are not apprehended by the 5 basic senses. This is why Nyaya-Vaiseshika system classifies the substances of reality as only 9: 5 basic sensory elements, space, time and consciousness(later a controversial 10th substance is added after arguments with Buddhists: Negation/absence!)
BUT, and this is a big but the Samkhya challenge the Nyaya-Vaiseshika ontology that because we perceive a plurality of 9 substances, this does not mean there are 9 substances - because if there are 9 separate substances how can we perceive their relations, in what are they contained? How do we explain their interactions with one another? Therefore, there can only be once ultimate substance of which the 9 substances are products which have evolved and transformed. This is why Samkhya are called "evolutionists" for they say all substances we perceive are actually evolutes of the same continuous substance i.e., the quantum field. Hence they reject the atomic thesis.
The argument equally applies to GTR modern physics which is based on the Standard model that reality is made up of 50+ different particles(!) which is a pluralist realism like the NV. There cannot be 50 distinct particles, because if they are truly distinct then they are isolated from one another and cannot combine or interact with one another. The problem is resolved by quantum theory there are no particles, it is all one single continuous quantum field made out of superpositions of wavefunctions. That there are particles, space, time(i.e, locality and realism) has been falsified by the Bell and Legget experiment - but still we preciously hold onto GTR? Why? Because it's bloody useful!
You see Indian philosophy applies very neatly to modern philosophical problems. In fact, Indian philosophy has in the past few decades experienced a huge resurgence in the West - it is being taken increasing seriously in all areas of philosophy: science, mind, ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics to deal with modern problems like AI, demarcation, ethical problems with cloning and stem cell research. As Schopenhauer predicted Indian philosophy will be the future of Western philosophy (That's a round about way of saying we Indians are ahead lol) But like I said I am no nationalist - I do not think Indian arse holes smell of roses lol I recognize that Indian philosophy though has made huge strides in other areas, has failed to make strides in material technology(due to its obvious idealist bias) India has been learning technology and experimental methods from the West and is now actually making innovations in the field itself. For example: Do you know "Bosons" are named after an Indian scientist called Bose, who worked with Einstein in predicting their existence? Did you know radiowaves were discovered by the Indian scientist Bose and not Marconi(different bose!)) Bose who did not believe in patenting science did not patent his discovery, and later Marconi in Europe took credit for it!) So as an Indian, I do not feel any shame in admitting the superiority of Western technology and experimental methods! Why do the West feel shame in admitting the superiority of Indian philosophy, Sanskrit, Yoga and Ayurveda? Whose the real nationalist here? lol
Humans evolved from dumb critters, you see. At some point we were making up silly stories, then better ones as we learned to bang the rocks together and think and dispute with logic, then better ones as we smashed atoms together and measured the results and discussed the results with recourse to advanced mathematics. Now, I am very proud to say, despite having absolutely nothing to do with it, we are not so anthropocentric, and we are more wary of our definitions.
Indian philosophy is definitely not anthropocentric - it is cosmic. For example Indian time cycles do not just deal with the human time cycles, they deal with cosmic time cycles from expansion and contraction of the universe to the constant cycle of atomic regeneration and degeneration - which has symbolically been depicted as the dance of Shiva!(Hence, why there is a Shiva statue in front of CERN) The human is considered no special to an animal, this is why Indian philosophy teaches ahima or non violence to all living beings and prefers vegetarianism. Western philosophy, on the other hand has been highly anthropocentric - man has been held to the center of the universe for thousands of years; he has been considered to be the master of this Earth and overlord over all animals which he can use as he wants. Even today, anthropocentric(as well as Eurocentric) views are found in the West such as the denial among some that aliens may exist - heck isn't ufology another woo-woo subject for you skeptics?
So you keep saying. Yes. It's a stage. Cavemen could knap flint. Now we can fuse hydrogen atoms.
Yeah but cavemen could not prepare an assortments of acids and alkalis, chemically produce sulphates and chlorides, and salts, extract and smelt zinc and steel from their ores, perform plastic and eye surgery, innoculate against small pox, treat diabetes and arthritis, alloy iron to produce corrosion-resistance The reason I have accused you off being dismissive and chauvanistic of Indian science and technology is exactly that you keep on comparing it to cavemen stuff, but constantly overlook the fact that none of this stuff was achieved in the West till the bloody 17th century.
I am sorry but this is the problem I have with the West in how it treats non-Western cultures and traditions. The west are arrogant, not humble, dismissive, disparaging, disrespectful self-congratulating and pretend they are the the only civilization that had science, technology, democracy etc.
Unfortunately, what this does is it breeds resentment to the West from non-Western cultures. I often hear Western people say "Why do they hate us so much"? --- This is exactly the reason why - get of your bloody high horses, there are other civilizations in this world too that have done a lot of stuff wayyyy before you did, and in fact a lot of their stuff you stole lol
In any case I am not nationalist, I am globalist. I would like to see a multicultural and globalized world based on all cultures and traditions in the world, and as long as the West continues to undermine other cultures and traditions this is not going to happen. In fact what is more likely to happen is a massive third world war
Is this rhetorical? I'm not sure. Does Hindu scripture guide you? Humanist values would say you should try to understand, try to forgive, perhaps educate where you see ignorance, and resist further abuse anywhere you see it (towards yourself or others). But who are you talking about? "The West"? I'm a westerner, and I hope I don't appropriate whatever I like from your tradition - or do I? Maybe I do. I intend to start another thread on this very question, which was already forming in my mind when I arrived here: should I call what I do yoga? I probably should not. After this, I don't want to.
You already appropriate Yoga by divorcing it from its epistemology, metaphysics and its tradition. You may perform a million headstands, but you ain't no yogi to me for it lol Yoga comes from the Indian culture and tradition, we are qualified in telling you whether you doing Yoga or not You have no right to tell us what Yoga is - wee have doing it for thousands of years lol
But I am in two minds about all this. At the other end is the question of who is having stuff appropriated? The Indians? What, all of you/them? Who are they anyway? Why should you have any more right to consider yoga yours than I do, or anyone? Did you come up with it? No. So it's "Indian", you reckon, but you're only connected to India by descent (if I've got that right). And yet your claim that it is somehow yours is not "nationalist" or "racist". Would that be a fair description of your feelings?
Yoga comes from India.
Steam engine comes from Europe.
No brainer really. I am a second generation Indian. I was born in the UK, but my parents are both Indians who emigrated to the UK. Technically, I am British Indian, because I have two cultural upbringings: Western and Indian. I have aligned myself more to the Indian side of it in forming my ethnic identity, but my wider identity is human and even wider than that identity is I am existence(but perhaps too wide for ya lol)
Is it? Surely it must at least be lots of philosophies, epistemologies and sciences? Is it not allowed that it should evolve? Although it did in the past. It was, I think you said, improved upon. but now it's perfect, complete? don't mess with it. Or just Indians can devise new Yogas?
There are no new Yogas? Yoga is a system of Indian philosophy. All types of Yoga whether they be Jnana Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, Karma Yoga, Mantra Yoga, Kundalini and Hatha Yoga, Kriya or Tantra Yoga, as well modern vinyasa systems follow the basic framework of the system. If you get rid of the basic framework then it is no longer Yoga. As B.K.S Iyengar says, one of founders of modern Vinyasa Yoga if Yoga just becomes bout only postures and physical exercise, it is "un-yoga"
It is hard for someone as lucky as me to comprehend how that must feel, and I do try to understand and sympathise. But then, Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, Africans, they're not happy either. I have some Jewish ancestry. Sod all these damned categories. I hate all the abuses humans do to humans and the rest of the environment. And you only add to the mess by keeping on banging on about who did what to whom. If someone is abusing you or someone you want to defend, defend them. Satan's Socks, you've got enough role models for this kind of thing. Ask what Gandhi would do. He shamed "us brits" (sod all to do with me!) into leaving India. What needs to be done, do it.
The abuse still carries on and that is why we are fighting it. Fortunately, it is not physical abuse as it was in the past were we flogged, tortured, deliberately impoverished and left to die in famines(As Will Durant points out, the British were inhumane to the Indians and drained India of all her wealth and prosperity and left Indians in abject poverty) Today, the abuse is more subtle and intellectual - in representations of our history, culture, philosophy and civilization(some have coined the hinduphobia is a new form of academic anti-semiticism) Our gods are made fun of(such as in the Simpsons spoof of Apu) Our achievements hardly acknowledged. We are depicted as a superstitious, backwards, poor curry-guzzling people. Films like "Slumdog millionaire" which are still made today, like the older films like "Gunga-din" or "Indiana Jones and the temple of doom" depict us in the most negative light.
I have faced a lot of racism myself living here in UK - and before you deny that racism against the Indians does not exist in the UK - recall what happened in Big Brother, Shilpagate - she was ganged up on and bullied by the "whites" and made fun up based on racial stereotypes "Do you live in a shack or a house" they ask, "She undercooked the chicken, no wonder Indians are so unhealthy and unhygenic" "Shilpa Poppaddum"
I recently was in the pub and some white people started talking to me "Are you a taxi driver" they asked me! One person once said to me, who could hardly speak English themselves, "Your English is different to our English" When I can English better than half of the country lol
My philosophy teacher in no uncertain terms said to me "Only the Greeks did philosophy"
Seriously, if this is not abuse, then what is?
Yeah. Power to that my friend. There's a discussion on BBC Radio 3 about examining history in a fairer light - next Tuesday evening, I think.
See that's the other thing - changes are happening. I've watched lots of science documentaries where India and the Middle East are put in their proper context (as far as I know). And there's this - the net. Just educate. Don't worry. Don't whine.
Yes, but still improvement has to happen, because what is acknowledged is very selective - for example India's zero and decimal system has now widely been acknowledged(begrudgingly!) but they don't acknowledge Indian developments of Calculus or Arybhattas heliocentric theories. In fact regarding Indian physical theories such as laws of motion, atomic and chemical reactions this is barely known to anybody, even very few specialists! Even when they report about Indian atomic theory, they do it in a very dismissive way - "Indian and the Greeks proposed the existence of atoms in ancient times, but it was based on speculation" They clump them both together, when Indian atomic theories are vastly more advanced than the Greeks. At the very least they are comparable to Dalton - but these are bridges too far for a Western civilization that believes it discovered all science lol
I humbly disagree. India WAS stronger in those things (again, really, why keep banging on about these divisions?), now it is a global world. Indian scientists are doing genetic research and building spaceships and Italians are breaking grounds in ... what shall I make up? ... mathematics...who gives a bloody rat's ass who your damn parents were when you put your white coat on and go into the lab? You really should examine this non-nationalism of yours.
No, India is STILL stronger in these areas Like I said, of course India is no longer stronger in technology, old technology is now defunct - even Ayurveda now uses modern diagnostic tools! However, in terms of philosophy, epistemology, psychology, linguistics etc India still trumps the West. This has been admitted by many philosophers - all the problems I studied in modern 20th century contemporary philosophy, including both analytical and continental philosophy have been covered way back in the past in the Indian tradition of philosophy. Heck, a lot of modern philosophy is Indian derivative anyway. Heidigger considered one of the greatest philosophers that lived in the 20th century spawned the continental tradition and existentialism and postmodernism, got this philosophy from the Kyoto school of Buddhism in Japan! Indian logic played a big part in influencing modern logic such as Boolean logic and symbolic logic.
No offense, but a lot of the Western philosophical tradition is plagiarized from Indians, Arabs, Babylonians and Chinese lol An ancient Greek historian Clement of Alexadria even admitted to this he said "We learned all our philosophy from the barbarians Indian, Egyptians, Babylonians etc" Some were honourable even to admit their inspirations(Schopenhauer, Schrodinger, Emerson, Bohm etc ) while others were thieves - Ferdinand Sassuere for instance who founded structuralism, which lead on to critical theory and semiotics who was an out and out thief. He stole his theories of signs and signifers from Indian logicians! How do we know this? Because he was a professor of Sanskrit for gods sake - he had read all the popular and technical literature of India studiously!
As you are fond of Wikipedia, here see for yourself:
The Ashtadhyayi is one of the earliest known grammars of Sanskrit, although Pāṇini refers to previous texts like the Unadisutra, Dhatupatha, and Ganapatha. It is the earliest known work on descriptive linguistics, and together with the work of his immediate predecessors (Nirukta, Nighantu, Pratishakyas) stands at the beginning of the history of linguistics itself. His theory of morphological analysis was more advanced than any equivalent Western theory before the mid 20th century, and his analysis of noun compounds still forms the basis of modern linguistic theories of compounding, which have borrowed Sanskrit terms such as bahuvrihi and dvandva.
Pāṇini's work became known in 19th-century Europe, where it influenced modern linguistics initially through Franz Bopp, who mainly looked at Pāṇini. Subsequently, a wider body of work influenced Sanskrit scholars such as Ferdinand de Saussure, Leonard Bloomfield, and Roman Jakobson. Frits Staal (1930-2012) discussed the impact of Indian ideas on language in Europe. After outlining the various aspects of the contact, Staal notes that the idea of formal rules in language – proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure in 1894 and developed by Noam Chomsky in 1957 – has origins in the European exposure to the formal rules of Pāṇinian grammar. In particular, de Saussure, who lectured on Sanskrit for three decades, may have been influenced by Pāṇini and Bhartrihari; his idea of the unity of signifier-signified in the sign somewhat resembles the notion of Sphoṭa. More importantly, the very idea that formal rules can be applied to areas outside of logic or mathematics may itself have been catalyzed by Europe's contact with the work of Sanskrit grammarians.
Pāṇini, and the later Indian linguist Bhartrihari, had a significant influence on many of the foundational ideas proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure, professor of Sanskrit, who is widely considered the father of modern structural linguistics. Saussure himself cited Indian grammar as an influence on some of his ideas. In his Memoire sur le systeme primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-europennes (Memoir on the Original System of Vowels in the Indo-European Languages) published in 1879, he mentions Indian grammar as an influence on his idea that "reduplicated aorists represent imperfects of a verbal class." In his De l'emploi du genitif absolu en sanscrit (On the Use of the Genitive Absolute in Sanskrit) published in 1881, a monograph on the genitive absolute, he specifically mentions Pāṇini as an influence on the work.
Comparison with modern formal systems
Pāṇini's grammar is the world's first formal system, developed well before the 19th century innovations of Gottlob Frege and the subsequent development of mathematical logic. In designing his grammar, Pāṇini used the method of "auxiliary symbols", in which new affixes are designated to mark syntactic categories and the control of grammatical derivations. This technique, rediscovered by the logician Emil Post, became a standard method in the design of computer programming languages. Sanskritists now accept that Pāṇini's linguistic apparatus is well-described as an "applied" Post system. Considerable evidence shows ancient mastery of context-sensitive grammars, and a general ability to solve many complex problems.
So there you have it, straight from one of the sources you trust, along with skeptic.dic Indian logic, linguistics(related to the fields of epistemology) is more advanced than anything in the entire history of Western science and philosophy right past the mid-20th century! The irony here is Panini is 500BCE!!!! It means we Indians were 3500 years ahead of the West in our systems of logic(According to Fritz Staal, we may still be several centuries ahead of the West)
So listen to what I am saying: Indian philosophy because it is ahead, has tackled modern problems today already thousands of years ago, providing many sophisticated solutions is a in position to inform modern science discourse.
At one time, the only human thought was in Africa. I hardly EVER hear Africans complain that the Indians stole everything they ever thought...and you did, my friend, pretty well every scrap. If you're going to use the same stupid logic you're using above, you took African art and science and technology and epistemology and religion and everything and APPROPRIATED IT and corrupted it, you ignored their sacred chants and forgot all the dances, you all but pissed on the graves of their sacred ancestors' bones. Figuratively speaking. We all did. Or we just lived our lives the best we could with what was handed down to us. Or some messy mixture.
By that logic the steam engine belongs to Africa - great logic - must be Greek The Africans did not have science and epistemology, they did not even have writing lol These fields of study started in India and Greece in the axial age - they represent post-neolithic thought. While the Indus people, Babylonians and the Egyptians made early developments in mathematics and engineering - philosophy appears much later on the scene. Philosophy appears in the first millennium BCE in India, Greece and China simultaneously(known as the axial age) China, though did not study science and epistemological issues, China's area was political philosophy(Confucianism, Mohism, legalism) Although it had a school of logic(school of names) which has left us with the famous "white horse" problem, logic did not take off in China.
Dude, I know my philosophy pretty darn well, they don't just give first class hons to everybody
But this last shows that there is development, not just renaissance. Unless you consider the Samkhya the be all and end all of knowledge.
Nope, the West has not developed on any of these problems - they are giving similar answers to the ones given back in ancient India, but the answers are clearly not as developed and rigorous as the Indian solutions. First, we need to situate when were these problems first raised in respective cultures to show how long it has been going in the respective cultures. The problem of induction and the problem of self was first raised by the Buddhists and the Charvakas in 500BCE; in the West it was first raised by Hume in 1739CE lol
Many cite Hume as one the great philosophers to have lived, but his work is trivial compared to the Buddhists! The Buddhists argued for the existence of the non-self way before him and even gave a theory of its momentary construction.
The Charvaka were well ahead of Hume, they even anticipated Derridas deconstructionism by arguing that an infinite regression of sign and signfier exists hence testimonial knowledge was dubious because the etymology of the word is dubious as there is no guarantee that its meaning is the same in all locations.
Even more stark difference here, I would imagine, if we compared On The Origin of Species with whichever mantra it is you reckon tells us about evolution.
You see, here you go with your dismissive, chauvanistic attitude again - the Indian method cannot possibly be a valid scientific one - it must be some vague mantra they are wishfully and liberally interpreting. I am really sick of this Eurocentric white supremist attitudes that denigrate the knowledge of others cultures. No, the Indian theory of evolution is not the same as the Darwinan theory and it is not based on the same methods of meticulous observations and the characteristics of species. The Indian theory of evolution, known as the Samkhya theory of evolution and involution is based on like a lot of Indian theories are rational methods.
If you want to learn then read the scholarly literature on Samkhya and what it has to say. This will give you a basic summary: http://www.hinduonline.co/Scriptures/SankhyaDarshana.html
The Samkhya theory of evolution and involution is based its theoretical concepts of the quantum field/quantum matter and observers. The conscious observer collapses quantum matter. This collapse breaks the symmetry or equilibrium of the fundamental forces/drives/constituents known as the gunas. This sets the gunas into vibration(this is where the Hindu concept of AUM is the primordial vibration comes from) The first guna to become predominant is the expansive/active force or rajas and causes the manifest creation/universe to come into being and the universe expands suddenly and dramatically(this idea is further expanded on in spanda theory of tantra) Then the guna of tamas the inertial/contractive force resolves against rajas slowing down it expansion and sattva the balacing force. The gunas are constantly mutually acting against each other, but when they finally resolve back the universe will contract back to its unmanifest state(In the Hindu time cycles we are told this is a 311 trillion year cycle)
During the course of the evolution of the universe all phenomena comes into existence beginning from a state of pure potentiality to a state of gross objects. In other reality does not begin as initially massive, it acquires mass gradually. Samkhya divides the evolutes of matter into 24 elements: Intellect(Mahat) Ego(Ahamkara) Mind(Manas) 5 Sense organs(Jnanaindriyas) Motor organs(Karmaindriyas) 5 primary and subtle elements(tanmatras) and 5 secondary and gross elements(bhutas)
This process does not happen instantly, but over trillions of years. All matter gradually evolves over the course of time(the gunas are the driving forces) from the subtle level of manifestation to the most gross consisting of living and non-living matter. Non-living matter is made out of 5 physical sense elements(like the NV) and living matter is made out of the 5 physical elements + sensory + motor + ego + intellect organ. Some organisms only have 1 sensory or 1 motor organ while more developed organisms have 2 or 3 sensory and motor organs + ego+mind. Human are considered special because they have all 5 sensory organs + ego + mind + intellect. It is the mind+intellect(buddhi) faculty which differentiates the the human from other animals.
The Samkhya consider all matter in the universe from the blade of grass Brahma(cosmic mind) to all be all evolutes of quantum matter. In terms of living matter the least most complex living matter is a germ(a single celled organism) which in the Manusmriti is said to be made from heat and water. The next most complex form is a plant, it has some sensory organs but lacks mind. In between the least complex term to the most complex human there are said to be 8.4 million lower organisms before the human organism is achieved.
Why does this evolution happen? Unlike Darwinian natural selection, nature is impelled by an inherent teleology, that it that is predisposed to complexity due to the presence of the conscious observer. The bondage of the conscious observer by the material principle(i.e, quantum matter) which leads to the false consciousness of "me" and "mine" "my body" embodies the conscious observer compelling it transmigrate through the 8.4 lower organisms before taking on the human form - when for the first time due to its acquiring the faculty of intellect it is capable of recognizing "There is no me, mine, I am not the body" This forms the praxis of Yoga.
Now you may understand why we Hindus believe in reincarnation Not only is this not similar to Darwin's theory of evolution - it a trillion times more superior? Why?
- It explains not just evolution of biological matter, but non-biological matter and abiogensis
- It explains the cause of the creation of the universe and also explains how the universe will end
- It explains the process that drives evolution(the interaction between observer and quantum matter)
There are many modern theories that are similar to Samkhya theory of evolution and involution: Big bang and cyclic theory(regarding expansion and contraction of the universe), supersymmetry(regarding the breakage of fundamental balance), consciousness-based measurement theory in QM(regarding collapse of quantum state by conscious observer)
I don't know why I am telling you all of this, because you're just going to say it's another intuitive guess --- or that I am making it all up I will just reply to that here - none of this is guess work - it's a highly well developed logical theory using rational epistemology. That is why they are so damn right everything lol
I dispute that. Your mistake is to underestimate empiricism and overestimate rationalism, discourse and "logical inference" (with its linguistic problem as I mentioned) as routes to valid knowledge. Did the ancient Indians have the foggiest notion how to do a chi square test? Did they know what a confidence measure is? And yet you yourself admit that many such sciences depend on mathematics of this kind. I'm sorry, SD, but you have not yet given me one iota of reason to believe that sitting about contemplating your navel, seeing if you can guess what someone is thinking, discussing this with your peers, and concluding that the guru is psychic stands up to any sensible measure of scientific scrutiny.
Strawman of my argument. I am neither downgrading empiricism or overgrading rationalism. As yourself have said you can't have one without the other anyway. Rationalism has its strengths because it can give you knowledge of that which is unobservable(like a thought experiment can test something when a physical experiment is not possible) but its weakness it does not give you the details. So Nyaya-Vaieshika cannot give you details about the charge or spin of the atoms because they don't have particle accelerators to measure that. Empiricism's strengths are it gives you minute details like classifying the elements using the periodic and standard model and without empiricism you cannot create technology. It's weakness is that it subject to constant falsification because it cannot account for all possible variables in one experiment.
So what I am arguing here is not at all Indian superior is superior to Western science, but rather I am saying Indian science is behind Western science in terms of experimental methods and technology and Western science is behind Indian science in terms of rational methods and epistemology. I would like to see the marriage of the two - not for the sake of India or for the sake of the West - but for the sake of science and the sake of humanity. But like I said this is not going to happen till the West drops its disgusting eurocentric attitudes - likewise I extend the same criticism to Indian nationalists who want to go back to "Vedic times" lol
I also dispute this. There are various contemporary theories of mind. We don't insist they're absolutely right, but that's not our problem, it's actually yours. I'm sad you still can't see it.
Yes I am aware of most of the theories of modern Western philosophy of mind from the property dualists Nagel, Searl and Chalmers on one side, to the cybernetic, type-type identity and functionalists like Dennet and Metzinger. Their theories are all underdeveloped, flawed compared to the Indian philosophies of mind, particularly the Nyaya, Yoga and Buddhists.
I know, the Indian version is that matter and mind are all one thing. Yes, that does make the problem go away, doesn't it? Neat. Like charming a snake out of a basket kind of neat.
Yes, it dissolves the problem of mind-matter interaction. It is no longer surprising or shocking that mind and matter interactions should take place. If there is no self or ego as a locus as Hume has already indicated himself(though the Buddhists beat him to by yonks!) then there is no divider or Cartesian split between extended matter and the non-extended mind
Instead what there is as the Buddhists have stated is a complex network of causal activity as a part of a single field of flux. It is complex, because no single cause is isolated from other causes, but it is dependently originated. So mind and matter feed back to one another. It is not a one way process as materialist philosophers of mind in the West think that the mind is produced by the brain because every neural correlate has a phenomenological state; because it also true that phenomenological states have a neural correlate(lol) We know the mind affects matter as much as matter affects the mind - such as in psychosomatic phenomena.
The Indian yogis have long understand the mind-matter feedback loop and this is why they exploited it by devising Yoga techniques. So one way of exploiting it is through matter to mind: control the breath and control the mind such as pranayama. Another way is control the mind and control the body. In the Tibetan Buddhist technique of "Tumo" the yogi is able to generate in their body intense heat to warm their body, intense enough to dry a wet towel on their back - despite being naked in sub-zero heats in the mountain. Magic? No, the yogi visualizes the element fire pouring into every body cell of his body and then it actually physically manifests in the body. It exploits the mind-matter feedback loop.
My dear friend, I wish you could understand psi or mind-matter interaction is a very natural phenomena that is happening all the time unconsciously without you being aware of it. This phenomena can be controlled - you can literally with the power of your mind control every single function of your body even bone formation - in fact the power of your mind extends well beyond your body to encompass the entire material field.
Not for many modern scientists. Many scientists are monists, as you'll know from your degree course. Whereupon the problem is even simpler than having mind-matter and some purusha witnessing it (you didn't mention Samkhya was radically dualist, did you?). We just have to figure out how the hell matter actually becomes conscious. I give it less than 5 years. The same scientists dispute that there is anything of a separate kind called consciousness (whether you equate this with "mind" prkriti or "consciousness" purusa). Modern understanding from computing sciences demonstrate this in principle. We confidently expect that conscious robots will happily tell us they're conscious, and dispute with us when we tell them they're just processing bits. Which is pretty much what humans do now.:eek:
No I have not actually left out that Samkhya is radically dualist - I've already tell you it has ultimate substances: conscious observers(which are plural) which you could also call souls, consciousness units or whatever, but I prefer conscious observers because the function of the purusha is to observe(hence all this yogic talk about becoming a detached observer) and quantum matter, which can also be translated as fundamental matter, unmanifest matter, primordial matter or more loosely as nature.
Like modern philosophy of mind encounters the problem of consciousness the inability to reduce qualia to quantity, Samkhya explains around the same principles a property dualism, except this is not a qualia and quantity dualism proposed by Chalmers at al - this is in fact a flawed dualism and hence why it is unconvincing. Qualia in the Samkhya belong to the tanmatras or subtle elements and they merely subtle properties of matter! Samkhya dualism is between that which is possessed of the gunas and that which is not possessed of the gunas. The gunas are the modes of changes which cause matter to change and transform constantly, their quality is to change constantly. HOWEVER, in order to know that something has changed something has to remain changeless. The conscious observer is changeless and the knower of that which is changing. You know you are the same person as you were 10 years ago because you have endured - while your body has changed, your mind, ideas, opinions have changed, your circumstances have changed - you yourself have not changed.
This is why Krishna says in the Gita(which is based on Samkhya philosophy) The self is never born, so it never dies. The self merely moves from one body to the other, as one would discard a set of clothes for another.
The other reason you know you are not matter is because you are aware of matter. There is ALWAYS an ontological distinction between the knower and what is known. You are not the chair you are sitting on. You are not the table you are eating it. You are not your body either, because every cell of your body is changing and is replaced completely every few years. If I performed plastic surgery on you and changed your entire body you would still be "you" You are neither your thoughts, emotions or habits. Why? Because you are the knower of your thoughts, emotions and habits. You can observe them and you can ignore them(detached observer)
So who are you? You are the conscious observer, the pure consciousness. Sit in meditation, become the detached observer, allow all sensations, thoughts, emotions to rise and fall without reacting to them. Remain like this indefinitely(Buddha did it for 40 days and 40 nights) and you will know enlightenment and realize who or what you really are
I will respond to the rest of your post later