I'll see you on the dark side of the Mind

Spirituality
#101

[QUOTE=Awwware;46802]OK, I’ll try to backup my theories with some experimental evidence. I wrote something about consciousness states of people who have been judged brain-dead and still were able to relate about their own surgery. Have a look at http://awwware.wordpress.com/2011/01/05/quasi-pictorial-correlates-of-consciousness/ and see if there is anything which makes my hypotheses more plausible. I’m always interested in counter arguments.[/QUOTE]

Interesting article, Awwware. I didn’t really find anything to change my mind about the things we disagree on. But there is a lot there that I do agree with. I particularly like your idea of linking image and sound information and feeding it to an evaluation device. It’s not right though, to take Samkhya philosophy and claim that it is your hypothesis. I’m referring to this quote:

In fact the fact that the retina do not capture a picture and yet we observe one only pleads in favour of my hypothesis that the brain somehow composes a 3D image of the outside world and presents this to the faculty of consciousness.

This corresponds exactly to the Samkhya concept of how cognition takes place. Buddhi takes the form of the object it observes (composes a 3d image) and presents it to the purusa. In terms of having any credibility though, you’re probably better off presenting your hypothesis as you did.

#102

[QUOTE=Asuri;46835]It’s not right though, to take Samkhya philosophy and claim that it is your hypothesis. I’m referring to this quote:

This corresponds exactly to the Samkhya concept of how cognition takes place. Buddhi takes the form of the object it observes (composes a 3d image) and presents it to the purusa. In terms of having any credibility though, you’re probably better off presenting your hypothesis as you did.[/QUOTE]
I’m glad to hear that Samkhya presents this same point of view; I did not know that! Can you indicate me in which text this is said? I’d be glad to add it in a comment to my article. Apparently I hypothesised sth which was already since long known. I claimed it as my own, because I did not know samkhya had presented the same view. My intention was therefore not “wrong”. You know, Sometimes different people come to same conclusions (e.g. Newton vs. Leibniz);).

#103

[QUOTE=Asuri;46833]Having thought about this a little, I realize that this teaching is similar to the Christian teaching of the Vine and the Branches. In the past I have drawn similarities between Christian and Samkhya cosmology, in which I said that Ahamkara in Samkhya is the equivalent of the Christ in Christianity. The difference is that Christ is not an abstract principle, he is a person. There is another person above him, the Father, which is equivalent to Isvara, who in Samkhya philosophy lives at the level of Mahat ( Buddhi ). In Samkhya philosophy, an Isvara is an individual who had merged with prakriti in a previous cycle of existence. So in both systems, individuality exists all the way to the level of prakriti and beyond. Neither system characterizes existence in the world as illusory. In my view, doing so renders life devoid of meaning.[/QUOTE]
The idea that the father resides at Buddhi sounds rather peculiar to me. Buddhi is associated with the intellect and the vijnanamayakosha. Above that is the level of atma and the anandamayakosha. That’s seems like a more appropriate place for the father to me, whereas I’d put the “Holy spirit” at the vijnanamayakosha.

For me realising my individuality and the world as illusory is very soothing; I know one day the essence of my being will be released of that burden or prakrti. In the meantime I enjoy the labyrinth of existence and the game of finding the way out. The advantage is that I don’t take things too seriously, after all it’s just a game…Lila as the indian scriptures call it. It does not make my life meaningless; I do want to help others to release them from their sufferings. Once they realise it’s all just a game, the pain will become bearable. The pain was also an illusion after all.

#104

Asuri stop trying to fuse Christianity with Samkhya. They are two completely opposite systems of thought. There is absolutely no place in Samkhya for Christian theology. It is a scientific system that looks at the relationship between the observer and the observed and the mediating structures that faciliate that process(senses, mind, intellect, ego etc). There is nothing even remotely theological about it.

#105

Asuri is correct, although I think the accusation of plagiarism was harsh. It is still proper though, that you mention something about Samkhya because it is the original school of thought that proposed this concept. Simply to increase awareness of Samkhya.

If you read the Samkhyakarika, Samkhya sutras and the Samkhya section of the Srimad Bhagvatam you will find what you are mentioning. The Samkhya description of the process of perception is both a unconscious and unconscious one:

Unconscious:

  1. There is an interaction between purusha and prakriti causing guna movement
  2. The buddhi registers the guna movement processes it in relation to everything else
  3. The ahamkara receives this interaction as something happening to “it” and personalises it
  4. The manas then organizes this into a sensible whole
  5. the tanmatras then measure out perception
  6. Perception of the empirical world takes place

Conscious

  1. Initially there is indeterminate perception of just sense data
  2. Then the perception becomes determinate when we isolate sense data by becoming aware of it
  3. Then we consider the sense impression and organize them by the manas
  4. Then we personalize the sense data through our personality filter
  5. Then we make a judgement on the sense data

The unconscious process is a cosmological process of apperception. The conscious process is a cognitive process of perception.

#106

@awwware

I thought maybe you came up with that independently, just testing. I’ll look for it but it might take some time because I don’t remember where it’s located.

The idea that the father resides at Buddhi sounds rather peculiar to me. Buddhi is associated with the intellect and the vijnanamayakosha. Above that is the level of atma and the anandamayakosha. That’s seems like a more appropriate place for the father to me, whereas I’d put the “Holy spirit” at the vijnanamayakosha.

First of all, I’d like to leave out the discussion of koshas, as they are not contained in the authoritative Samkhya texts, and to my way of thinking, they just add an unnecessary level of organization to 25 principles, and I’m not well versed in the terminology. You need to understand that there are two terms used to refer to the first evolute of the root prakriti: Mahat, which means ‘great’, and Buddhi. The difference is that Mahat refers to the macro level, where buddhi refers to the individual level. In the texts that discuss Isvara, he is said to ‘rise’ (reincarnate) from prakriti like someone who has dived into a pool of water. His ‘investment’ or body is Mahat. From Mahat springs Ahamkara. This is the exact relation of Father and Son in Christian theology. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that, in the Samkhya system, both the observable world and the instruments that observe arise from Ahamkara. This is consistent with the teaching of Christ as the creator. In my view, the equivalent of the Holy Spirit is vayu (prana), which is defined as the common modifications of the internal instruments.

One further point, the description of buddhi as intellect is not really very accurate. It’s often used in introductory texts for people with no prior knowledge. The real definition of buddhi is the power of discrimination or discernment, the ability to determine the nature of a thing. This is at the micro level. At the macro level, it is something a little different.

#107

One other observation, in Hindu texts, Ahamkara is almost always described in a negative way, which is self-seeking. But the concept of Christ is not self-seeking at all, so how can the two be the same? The primary guna associated with Ahamkara is rajas: activity, will, self-assumption, desire, striving, growth. But the gunas are never found in isolation, they are always found in combination, having a relation of more or less. So the self-seeking ahamkara is associated with a greater abundance of tamas, and the selfless Christ is the more sattvic ahamkara.

#108

[QUOTE=Asuri;46907]One other observation, in Hindu texts, Ahamkara is almost always described in a negative way, which is self-seeking. But the concept of Christ is not self-seeking at all, so how can the two be the same? The primary guna associated with Ahamkara is rajas: activity, will, self-assumption, desire, striving, growth. But the gunas are never found in isolation, they are always found in combination, having a relation of more or less. So the self-seeking ahamkara is associated with a greater abundance of tamas, and the selfless Christ is the more sattvic ahamkara.[/QUOTE]
So in fact you admit that the parallel is not 1:1; you have to go to subdivisions etc. Without wanting to be condescending, for me this is a bit too far fetched. What is true is that in almost all indo-european religions we see a recurrent theme of trinities. But the constituents do not always have the same characteristics.
It is interesting to see how the differences in language and concepts between samkhya and other vedantic texts lead to confusion in this thread. Whereas you have more affinity with terminologies such as mahat, tanmatras etc. (the exact nature of which I still have not captured), I have more affinity with the koshas etc. Perhaps I should invest more time to grasp the meaning of those concepts of samkhya and see where the differences and correspondences are.

#109

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;46880]
The Samkhya description of the process of perception is both a unconscious and unconscious one:

Unconscious:

  1. There is an interaction between purusha and prakriti causing guna movement
  2. The buddhi registers the guna movement processes it in relation to everything else
  3. The ahamkara receives this interaction as something happening to “it” and personalises it
  4. The manas then organizes this into a sensible whole
  5. the tanmatras then measure out perception
  6. Perception of the empirical world takes place

Conscious

  1. Initially there is indeterminate perception of just sense data
  2. Then the perception becomes determinate when we isolate sense data by becoming aware of it
  3. Then we consider the sense impression and organize them by the manas
  4. Then we personalize the sense data through our personality filter
  5. Then we make a judgement on the sense data

The unconscious process is a cosmological process of apperception. The conscious process is a cognitive process of perception.[/QUOTE]
I’ll see if I kind find the appropriate passage in the samkhyakarika. What is still missing in this resum? (unless it is implicit) is the construction of a 2D or 3D image.

#110

[QUOTE=Awwware;46917]So in fact you admit that the parallel is not 1:1; you have to go to subdivisions etc. Without wanting to be condescending, for me this is a bit too far fetched. What is true is that in almost all indo-european religions we see a recurrent theme of trinities. But the constituents do not always have the same characteristics.
[/QUOTE]

In reference to the comparison between Christian and Samkhya cosmology, at the macro level, I do think the correspondence is 1:1, and there is a good explanation for different characterizations of Ahamkara. In terms of the kosha system and the Samkhya metaphysics, the correspondence is not 1:1. The kosha system follows samkhya fairly closely until you get to the highest levels, where it diverges into something different. In my view this is evidence of the assimilation that happened in ancient India between two different cultures.

In Indian religions and philosophies the Samkhya concept of gunas was very influential. When they are taken into account, the concept of Ahamkara becomes more like a continuum or a spectrum, like light or sound. It can be seen as a particular kind of substrate or matrix into which the gunas are embedded. In that view, Mahat would be seen as a different kind of substratum.

#111

I cannot give you a direct quote from the text. Vijnana Bhiksu discusses the subject in excruciating detail in his commentary on SPS Book 1, sutras 87 and 99.

The image that is used to explain is the color of a rose reflected in an otherwise transparent crystal. The reflection in the crystal illustrates the modification of Buddhi that takes the form of the object. Because we have the perception of space, I think there is an assumption that the reflection is 3D. And also because the reflection occurs in a 3D crystal instead of a mirror or the surface of a lake.

Also there is the concept of samapatti in Yoga Sutras 1.41, in which clarity and ‘coincidence’ occurs only when the vrttis of the mind have slowed down.

#112

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;46877]Asuri stop trying to fuse Christianity with Samkhya. They are two completely opposite systems of thought. There is absolutely no place in Samkhya for Christian theology. It is a scientific system that looks at the relationship between the observer and the observed and the mediating structures that faciliate that process(senses, mind, intellect, ego etc). There is nothing even remotely theological about it.[/QUOTE]

They are not completely opposite.

Infact, if viewed from the proper perspective they are just fine with each other. It is your lack of insight that sees them as in opposition.

#113

[QUOTE=The Scales;47004]They are not completely opposite.

Infact, if viewed from the proper perspective they are just fine with each other. It is your lack of insight that sees them as in opposition.[/QUOTE]

yes. He has a lack of insight of a great many things… :???:

#114

What I described above is the substance of Ahamkara, but what about the instrument? The instrument is not defined separately from the substance, but we can take a clue from the description of manas as having characteristics of both cognition and action. In other words, the instrument is both receiver and transmitter.

#115

[QUOTE=Asuri;46951]I cannot give you a direct quote from the text. Vijnana Bhiksu discusses the subject in excruciating detail in his commentary on SPS Book 1, sutras 87 and 99.
…

Also there is the concept of samapatti in Yoga Sutras 1.41, in which clarity and ‘coincidence’ occurs only when the vrttis of the mind have slowed down.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I’ll investigate this matter further.

#116

[QUOTE=Asuri;47062]What I described above is the substance of Ahamkara, but what about the instrument? The instrument is not defined separately from the substance, but we can take a clue from the description of manas as having characteristics of both cognition and action. In other words, the instrument is both receiver and transmitter.[/QUOTE]

I have always considered the manas as mostly a set of data and faculties such as ahamkara and buddhi as executive programs. It is possible however to attribute also some functionality to manas as indeed it is called and instrument. The interesting question that arises now is which programs are part of the manas and which of the other two? To make an analogy, the programs of manas are perhaps the more hard wired automatised programs (which can already be coded in the genome), part of the subconscious, whereas buddhi and ahamkara operate at a more conscious level. Personality and individuality in the ahamkara are a mix of the three gunas, which in combinations with the samskaras lead to patterns of behaviour. Emotions are monitors of our energy level, degree of compliance with our moral standards and the necessity of an action to be taken. I wrote some ideas on this in an article already quite a while ago:http://tuynmix.blogspot.com/2010/10/brainstorming.html. I’d appreciate your input.

#117

Ok, I read your article. It seems like a good analysis of human decision making,except that we humans are often not quite so rational. Or maybe the process is not so deliberate. We often make wrong judgments which can lead to emotions that confuse our decision making. I think that not having emotions is a distinct advantage of machines, as is their lack of individual will.

#118

[QUOTE=Asuri;47202]Ok, I read your article. It seems like a good analysis of human decision making,except that we humans are often not quite so rational. Or maybe the process is not so deliberate. We often make wrong judgments which can lead to emotions that confuse our decision making. I think that not having emotions is a distinct advantage of machines, as is their lack of individual will.[/QUOTE] Thanks for yr valuable comment Asuri.
Sometimes our irrational decisions have a subconscious reasoning as foundation, which after analysis was after all not so irrational. We’re just blurred with to many choice possibilities so that we make a kind of educated guess, which often is not optimal. Modern AI is also not attempting to find necessarily the best condition, but a working one, an educated guess.
Many AI developers do take human intelligence as a kind of golden standard to reach. This is probably the wrong approach. Von Neumann machines have other advantages and are suitable for developing a different kind of intelligence. If we’re going to simulate emotions in order to use them as monitors with the purpose of mimicking conscious behaviour, we’ll probably end-up with highly schizophrenic machines, which will turn out to be of little use. That put aside, I still wonder if it is possible to describe all different emotions as linear combinations of the three gunas and/or of energy, necessity and morality; emotion i = alpha * tamas + beta * rajas + gamma * sattva. The utility being that you can recognise your emotions as a manifestation of a temporal shift in the gunas in yr mind.
Finally I started a thread on Samkhya vs. Yoga ;), to accomodate our discussions on purusha vs. prakrti; I hope we can deepen that discussion further.

#119

Criticism on the mind before matter

The reasoning that consciousness is the underlying principle of being and not a product of existence as outlined above has a number of flaws, which need to be discussed further.

  1. Something never comes out of nothing. This is a hypothesis, challenged both by modern science (Maxwell’s demon) and also by Buddhism: Samsara or the illusory world comes from the great Void, shunyata.
  2. Gross and massive aggregates are gradually built from ever more subtle and minute sub-substances. This appears irrefutable.
  3. Mind and matter are transformations of the same substance because they are able to contact each other. This is also a hypothesis: Purusha is apparently also capable of contacting Prakrti because it can observe Prakrti. Yet Purusha and Prakrti are said to be totally different substances. So the fact that substances can contact each other is no proof of their similarity. A priori it would appear that mind and matter/energy are fundamentally different unless transformation of one into the other can be proven. Here again there is the experiment of Maxwell’s demon, implying that information could be transformed into energy. Without wanting to comment on that experiment in detail, there is also a flaw in the conclusion of that experiment, namely the conclusion that information is transformable into energy: It is only by intervention from the outside world that the typical information leading to a decrease in entropy is achieved. The whole system increases its entropy if the action of feeding the information to the device is taken into account. Mind is eventually information in the form of woven ontological concepts and functional algorithms. It is a system of information patterns wherein complexity reduction takes place. In fact it is just as right or unproven as the point of view that mind and matter are of equal substance to uphold the view that Mind is the platonic separate world of ideas, which can but need not use a material substrate to exist. Whereas Mind can enable a meaningful interaction with the material world, technically it does not need the material world to exist if the Platonic view is right.
  4. As mind is ever more subtle than any form of apparent material aggregate, mind is the origin of matter, not vice versa. If as argued above mind and matter belong to different dimensions, there is no way to prove this hypothesis. Because we cannot compare apples and pears. Subtlety as regards which characteristic? Both mind and matter build aggregates true, both have degrees of complexity, but in a different dimension. The one in the form of information which can exist independent of the substrate, the other in patterns which are formed by the substrate.

There is a great deal of similarity between the way mental information consists of patterns and the way matter is organised. But similarity does not mean identity. If one does consider the patterns in the material world to be information as well, then one can also state that matter is a form of Mind and thus arrive at the notion of panpsychism via the backdoor.

Now for all clarity: I do not deny the theory of panpsychism, I even adhere to that view, but that is rather a belief. I do not find the above reasoning of points 1-5 completely convincing or completely watertight. So I’ll continue to probe this topic until I am convinced of one or the other. I’ll also post this on the threads on the Soul and on Samkhya.

#120

[QUOTE=charliedharma;46653]Findigtheway thanks for the link looks interesting[/QUOTE]

huffington post actually just did an article about the project.

the latest video features super model Liya Kebede

here’s the article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/liya-kebede-acts-in-spook_n_810624.html