[Advaita-l] Reconciling current research with Advaitic theory of mind

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams Shyamji:

Thanks for your detailed reply. I agree with your viewpoints to a large
extent - including the difference you point out between 'cit of Vedanta' and
'consciousness of science'. However, based on my understanding of the
article posted vis-a-vis Advaitic concepts, it seems that the Advaitic *theory
of mind* is undermined. I am not sure if  you have addressed that question
in enough detail to help me reconcile the scientific findings with Advaita.

Pranams, Mahesh


On 2/23/07, Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Pranams Mahesh-ji
> Advaita is not a theory.
> It is simply the truth about a unitary nondual entity which is eternal and
> of the nature of consciousness.
> The term consciousness in advaita refers to this vastu.
> It is the support of all of this manifest universe - including animate and
> inanimate objects.
>
> Whereas in relation to medical science, consciousness is a property of any
> sentient entity where it is able to indicate an awareness and an ability to
> independently interact with the environment.
>
> So a tiny virus or ameba which is nothing other than a protein strand - as
> long as it is able to demonstrate these properties - is said to be conscious
> or possess consciousness.
>
> So you can see that we are talking about two different things here, even
> though we are using the same word.
>
> Vedanta says the chit in sat-chit-ananda is the only satyam; everything
> else is name and form. Matter and the absence of matter are both "in"
> consciousness. This is not theory - this is fact.
>
> Science wants to believe that matter when aligned in a peculiar way will
> "produce" consciousness. or "consciousness is in matter"
>
> Science by its very definition has to be objective - it has to rely on an
> objective process - it has to formulate theories and these need to get
> proven or disproven and this is the way it prgogresses or proceeds - all
> this involves working in a subject-object construct. Science can never claim
> absolute knowledge of anything. It by default can never have the "last
> word". One Nobel laureate mathematician once said in an interview "No one
> can never prove anything;one can only put up hypothesis which as yet cannot
> be disproven" - this is the so-called scientific method.
>
> Vedanta is not science. It is simply a statement of fact. This needs an
> understanding and an elucidation because it seems contrary to deeply-rooted
> notions that we entertain about ourselves. Hence it needs an unfoldment and
> a teaching.
>
> A unifying approach to science and vedanta is perhaps best avoided. They
> both work in different realms.
>
> With regards to your well thought-out posers, what vedanta says is that
> how consciousness manifests is dependent on the manifesting medium much like
> how electiricity manifests depends on the medium. Changes to the medium in
> any way do not cause any change to the underlying consciousness. In fact the
> very change is predicated on the changeless underlying substratum.
>
> Hari OM
> Shyam
>
>
>
> Mahesh Ursekar <mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Pranams to all:
>
> In a recent issue (Jan 19, 2007) of TIME magazine, the following article
> appeared entitled 'The Mystery of Consciousness':
> http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1580394,00.html
>
> While the author categorically claims that currently they *do not* have
> answers to what consciousness actually is, he does say:
>
> "neuroscientists agree ...[that the feature they] ... find least
> controversial is the one that many people outside the field find the most
> shocking. Francis Crick called it "the astonishing hypothesis"--the idea
> that our thoughts, sensations, joys and aches consist entirely of
> physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. *Consciousness does
> not
> reside in an ethereal soul that uses the brain like a PDA; consciousness
> is
> the activity of the brain*."
>
> To support his claim, he makes the three following points:
>
> "Using functional MRI, cognitive neuroscientists can almost *read people's
> thoughts from the blood flow in their brains. They can tell, for instance,
> whether a person is thinking about a face or a place or whether a picture
> the person is looking at is of a bottle or a shoe *."
>
> and
>
> "*And consciousness can be pushed around by physical manipulations*.
> Electrical stimulation of the brain during surgery can cause a person to
> have hallucinations that are indistinguishable from reality, such as a
> song
> playing in the room or a childhood birthday party. Chemicals that affect
> the
> brain, from caffeine and alcohol to Prozac and LSD, can profoundly alter
> how
> people think, feel and see. *Surgery that severs the corpus callosum,
> separating the two hemispheres (a treatment for epilepsy), spawns two
> consciousnesses within the same skull, as if the soul could be cleaved in
> two with a knife*."
>
> and
>
> "*And when the physiological activity of the brain ceases, as far as
> anyone
> can tell the person's consciousness goes out of existence*. Attempts to
> contact the souls of the dead (a pursuit of serious scientists a century
> ago) turned up only cheap magic tricks, and near death experiences are not
> the eyewitness reports of a soul parting company from the body but
> symptoms
> of oxygen starvation in the eyes and brain. *In September, a team of Swiss
> neuroscientists reported that they could turn out-of-body experiences on
> and
> off by stimulating the part of the brain in which vision and bodily
> sensations converge*."
>
> While I was able to think of counter arguments to the first and third
> arguments keeping Advaitic theory intact, I could not find any such
> argument
> against the second.
>
> According to my understanding of Advaita, the mind is manifest due to the
> power of Brahman behind it, just as the moon shines due to the power of
> the
> sun. In other words, it is not an epiphenomenon of the gross body (as the
> Charvaks would have it) but has an independent existence.
>
> However, in relation to the second point of the author (in bold above) how
> does one explain the 'splitting of the mind' when the brain is split? For
> more details, on split-brain patients see the below link:
> http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web1/Vasiliadis.html
>
> Can any of the more knowledgeable readers on this list share their
> thoughts
> on how one can explain the second point of the author keeping the Advaitic
> theory of mind intact? Or if my understanding is in some way flawed, I
> would
> be grateful for due correction.
>
> Many thanks in advance,
>
> Pranams, Mahesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a PS3 game guru.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo!
> Games.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>